Visit Jenny's channe! th-cam.com/channels/C_sp9B1jwesbC5-T04Tt9w.html Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millennium-7-history-technology Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7
The YF17 Cobra was interesting to the Navy because it had 2 engines for higher probability of getting your plane back (some early F16s were lost due to engine failure in fact at least 1 F15 was lost due to dual engine failure). The Navy did not trust Northrop to build a carrier plane after GD's F111 Naval variant had too many problems. So McDonnell got the prime contract. The fuselage structure was made on giant mills at Hawthorn (the biggest milling machines I ever observed and fun to watch). The F18 A was a small light weight compliment to the F14 air superiority fighter. Phasing out the A6 after cancellation of the futuristic A12 led to proposals for modified existing aircraft. As one of the designers told me, Northrop stuck a plug in the fuselage to make it longer. The Grumman F14 bomb cat required less redesign work as all that was needed was add bomb racks and bombing electronics. The F14 Bomb Cat also had significantly longer range. The F/A18 E/F has much shorter range than the A6 and lower bomb carrying capability. I was convinced that the Bomb Cat would beat out our plane because it was a better choice for long range missions. For Northrop the Navy's cost saving and hate for the high maintenance F14 led to the F18 being chosen. This ment no more F14 production and allowed us to buy Grumman. The 2 big prizes was Grumman avionics which led to the EF18G to replace the EA6 and a pile of money the Navy had to pay us for the close out of the F14 program. Because we at Northrop had gone through close out processes, we understood better than anyone else about what the pay off would be. With a bridge loan from Carlyle we did a hostile take over Grumann. After a few years when we got the F14 closeout money we paid off Carlyle had the Grumman assets and a lot of cash. It meant Northrop survived to keep pushing new variants and new aircraft and do other business. During the F17 F18 lifetime I was a student, worked at Northrop and am now old enough to retire. The aircraft went from being designed with slide rules and blue prints to computer design without paper. The most obvious external change are the air inlets which are beautiful curves in the beginning to rectangular now. To me the development of the Blisk (one piece disc and blades) for the engine shows the fabrication and design advances. The F18 is no longer a light and inexpensive aircraft. It is a lot less expensive than an f35 and probably more reliable.
As one who knows the Northrop Aircraft Division is similar to the Marine Corp. "The are no ex NAD employees" and we will take Jack Northrop's YB49 Flying Wing BS and the F-17/F-20 BS to the grave. NAD knew how to design a fighter, the F5E is the evidence. The Navy bought a bunch of them as Top Gun Adversary fighters from Switzerland (with modified wings that gave you two more Gs) that were housed since the late 1970s in caves and rarely flown. To this day if two of those impossible to see Swiss F5Es with L snakes mounted on their wing tips get on your F-18 six the general conclusion is that your dead meat.
Correction, "another USEFUL aviation channel" meaning one that's not just a video farm that essentially sources from wikipedia in the best of circumstances..... I'm so tired of fake videos that use 3 min of computer generated voice over and 7 minutes of random footage... Thanks to both of you!
@@CaptainDangeax that’s unfair. If even half the the ET used on the F-35 had worked it would’ve been an excellent aircraft. Sadly it’s over hyped, over priced, and the maintenance hours to flying hours ratio is outrageous. The F-35 is a great idea but poorly executed.
@@CaptainDangeax The Rafale is not a great Aircraft. It would lose against the Super Hornet in any conflict, and a squadron of F-35’s would eradicate the entire French Air Force, rather like how Nelson destroyed the entire French Navy. You obviously have no clear understanding how the JSF program was ran and have an ultra nationalist view on the Rafale. The F+35 though a disappointment is still a highly capable multi role platform with only the F-22 as an equal.
Back in my college days I use to hangout in the archive section of the college library. This was in the early 1980s. One of the things I use to do was to go through old Aviation Week magazines. I do remember reading that the US Navy was supposed to adapt the winner of the LWF competition. The USN did an evaluation of the YF-16, where, if I remember correctly, Vought was the Primary subcontractor. The short story is that the Navy found other deficiencies in the performance of navalized F-16 which led to them looking at the YF-17.
@@ObsydianShade And yet they enthusiastically adopted the A-7 against other dual-engined options. Something says to me that having 2 engines wasn't really what attracted the USN to the YF-17.
@@vickydroid According with the people involved with the restoration of the second YF-16 unity in a museum, the landing gear itself is unique, not sourced from the A-7 (looks like it but isn't). What was taken off the shelf, were the wheels/tires of the nose gear of the B-58, that was put on the main gear of the YF-16. th-cam.com/video/MeM0K2ODUz8/w-d-xo.html
@@magoid thanks, I probably misremembered, had to pull out a 1975 copy of an aviation book which described the YF16 and subsequent F16A\B and I recall LTVs involvement in the navalised proposal, couldn't find more but not sure if that's where I got my association with the A7 landing gear, LTV being the manufacturer and all, but thanks for pointing this out.
Yes sir please, make the video about material fatigue and structural stress in military airplanes... or plataforms ;) Thanks for your videos and lessosn!
Also interesting to note that model d tomcat had IRST BACK IN 2000! and even a couple years before that actually. It worked so well in that aircraft due to the advanced data link and sensor fusion capabilities of the APG 71 radar. The size of the Tomcats knows aloud for the largest radars at all times, and it was capable of being slaved to the IRST and the RIO could change search and track parameters in a multitude of different arrays and formats as a result of the increased sensor. The situational awareness in that aircraft was well ahead of its time, with the capability to be a quarterback in the sky, running, active, sending, and receiving sensor information from passive assets that were data linked. It was really an early iteration of what you have today with the F 35.
nice video as always, just to conclude: No f-18 E/F block3 is NOT a 5th gen fighter, it's 4.5 or 4++ if you wish. Only 5th gen fighters in service now are F-22, F-35 and J-20 (supposedly). Maybe F-18X would join them too but most probably she will end up at 4.5
That IRST placement on centerline drop tank is the best solution for every matters considered. Integrating internal IRST to Super Hornet requires heavy modification to the jet's nose section as the nose is already occupied by radar and cannon. The Navy also don't want to lose the centerline drop tank, because if they do that, they need to put the tank(s) anywhere in the other weapon stations, reducing the payload available.
The USNavy didn't upgrade the F-17 into the F-18. Mainly, McDonnell Douglas did. Which at that point in time, was by far the preeminent fighter aircraft design & manufacturing hub of the US. Adding considerable improvements to reliability, ease of maintenance, all weather capability, adding extensive naval & land surface-attack capability, upgrading it's engine package (with GE) for considerably better thrust to weight ratio, adding payload capacity, significantly improving AoA performance, increasing it's resistance to damage, on-board power generation (to make flame-outs far less threatening), More fuel capacity, greater wing area, more aggressive wing control surfaces, and making it's structure and landing gears robust enough to be able to handle carrier operations (and then some). The original YF-17 was sort of a "Super F-5", after being worked over by McDonell Douglass, it was more of an "F-15-light", including a number of features which McD wished they had put on the F-15 in hindsight. The engineers at Northrup felt they had created a massive upgrade over the old F-5 as it's starting point, and they had. McD engineers viewed the YF-17 as a starting point for changes though, which I think helped to raise the ambition bar for the design rework. When you've already made something much better than what you started with, it can make you reluctant to scrap ideas and redo elements of it. Nobody wants to take a hacksaw to their own artwork. Also Grumman was in a position to not feel strongly interested in threatening the F-14's job, McD did not share this consideration. The F/A-18A was such a massive upgrade over the YF-17, that it essentially inspired the USAF to seek out an upgraded F-16C, to replace the F-16A, to technologically catch up with the Navy's new plane. Unfortunately for the F-16C, this didn't include a thrust upgrade until the 1990's, so for quite a while, the added weight of the technological upgrades undercut it's dogfighting performance vs. the A model. The Thunderbirds didn't just fly the A model to save money, it's more agile than the C. At least until the new F110 GE engines became available in the 90's, at which point in time I think the F-16C finally caught up with the F/A-18C in overall capability. And then came the F/A-18E/F... essentially the US's only "production" gen 4.5 plane. Not to just gush over the F-18 or McD. I really liked the F-14D SuperTomcat prototype. And I think the F-35 is great as well, not to mention the F-22 (although, I think the F-23 could have been the better choice). The Rafale is fantastic. The Archangel series are my favorite (SR-71 being the best known of that lot). I think the Fulcrum and Flanker are truly inspired designs from an aerodynamics & maneuverability standpoint. Hell I even like the Saab Draken and the F-106. But McDonnell Douglas is generally grossly under-credited for the US's mid to late cold war, and post cold war, air power advantage. To be fair, that's partly that's due to "under-publishing of capability" though. The F-15 for example, wouldn't have a 104:0 win/loss ratio in air combat based purely on what you can read in Jane's. Domestic versions of gen 4/4.5 Russian fighters also have undisclosed premium features.
The F-16C systems development for Block 25 was largely driven by the open nature of the F-16 MSIP program and tons of pilot requests for certain things. The F-16A cockpit has the issue of the Radar display down between your legs, so they were constantly looking down-up-down-up-down-up with the HUD, getting repetitive motion problems. Display technology had matured by that point to have MFDs, so that’s what drove the cockpit configuration on the C Model. The APG-68 was a pretty large jump over the APG-66, and one of the main things opened up with the C model was BVR missile integration, IFF, and more ground attack modes. I was very close to F-16C avionics development in the 1980s, and never got the impression that it was driven by the Hornet. There was a large gap between USAF and USN multirole cultures and communities that were just emerging in those days. The Navy was looking for F-18s and A-18s to replace the F-4N, A-7E, and A-4M. As computer processing and data storage increased, they were able to combine the F-18 and A-18 into one aircraft where the pilot could swing-role mid-mission if necessary, with the flip of a switch. It had very good human interface with most of its systems, with a lot of leveraging of computing power over individual manual inputs. The impetus for a lot of that software and hardware architecture came from the F-15 and its HOTAS with integrated weapons cueing, radar mode selection, and HUD mode all working together when the pilot selected one weapon from another. The F/A-18 was definitely the beneficiary of many lessons-learned and technological maturity being the last of the teen fighters, as well as concurrent development of the F-15E Strike Eagle once the Strike Eagle was awarded with the win by the USAF. The F/A-18A had all kinds of problems though, aerodynamic, structural, and avionics that all needed to be addressed with retrofits and the new F/A-18C at the time. They lost 100 airframes and had 20 fatalities within its first 10 years of service.
"The F/A-18A was such a massive upgrade over the YF-17, that it essentially inspired the USAF to seek out an upgraded F-16C, to replace the F-16A" The F-16C was introduced for the new radar and avionics required to support the Sparrow missile and the upcoming AMRAAM, not because of anything the F/A-18 had or didn't have. "And then came the F/A-18E/F... essentially the US's only "production" gen 4.5 plane." I don't know where you get off calling the Super Hornet 4.5 gen. By that definition, almost every American 4th gen fighter flying today is 4.5 gen because they have similar capabilities to the Super Hornet and are also still in production. "But McDonnell Douglas is generally grossly under-credited for the US's mid to late cold war, and post cold war, air power advantage." I'm not sure why they're under-credited. A2A, compare the F-15C kill record to the F/A-18s. A2G, compare F-16 sorties to the F/A-18. Neither are even close. The F/A-18 has been a relatively minor participant in every significant air campaign since it's introduction. That's not a knock against the design, but they aren't around in significant enough numbers or present at the right bases and times to be a primary contributor. "The F-15 for example, wouldn't have a 104:0 win/loss ratio in air combat based purely on what you can read in Jane's." Not sure what you mean. The F-15C's (assuming you mean the C, since that's what the ratio is associated with) kill:death ratio is widely acknowledged as fact by every major military history, not just Jane's, and widely credited to a combination of extremely-good training and the NCTR capability. [Edit: just realized you might have been including the F-15 with the F/A-18 in your reference to McD, might have misread the last few sentences]
@@Jester-uh9xg Sparrows existed long before the F-16, so I'm not sure of your angle there. The F-18 illustrated for the USAF the limitations of the F-16A's scope of design ambition. An anemic radar may save money, but it's very costly in terms of an aircraft's capability. So the C got all weather, improved radar, more hard points, BVR capability, expanded ground attack capability... making it much more like the 18... Arguably the very strong performance of the AMRAAM was a significant factor in dictating the need for BVR capability though, so it's not just F-18 envy. But it is pretty clear the USAF came to decide they went slightly "too cheap" with the F-16A's. Thus the C's were designed with more capability (with more price), rather than just say seeking to make them cheaper or more reliable. The F-18E/F is the only 4.5 gen US production plane. I'll stick with that. Which is to say it is the only "major" overhaul in design to adopt modern/21st century features/tech. Sure there's block updates for a variety of aircraft. And many aircraft have or are seeing advanced avionics & sensor upgrades. But the F-18E is the only one which went through an extensive airframe redesign to reduce it's radar signature, and had many significant airframe changes to re-purpose it's capabilities. I wouldn't call it a stealth plane, but much like the Rafale, it "leans that way". There were other planes proposed, and in some cases flown as prototypes, which could be called 4.5 gen. But the F-18E is the only one which went into production. This is largely due to the US Navy being dubious of whether a carrier capable F-22 would actually materialize (they were correct). The other strong option was the F-14D "Super Tomcat". Frankly, both designs had some great benefits. Other notable examples (not in production) are the "Silent Eagle" and possibly the "STOL/MTD". One could argue that the F-15X / EX might be called 4.5gen, but I don't think the design changes are really quite extensive enough to call gen 4.5. It's more a major block revision on the F-15, and the modifications are backward compatible to existing legacy aircraft without doing major surgery to the airframe. The USAF shunned 4.5gen because they (probably rightly) feared congressional defunding of gen 5 programs if other options were on the table. The US Navy on the other hand was facing a serious deployment gap for modern tech, so they had a 4.5gen plane competition, and picked the 18E. Russia on the other hand embraced gen 4.5, they have quite a few models which I think qualify as 4.5. I think the Rafale, J-20, and a few others probably also qualify. Really the whole "generation" thing is woefully arbitrary and ill defined though. I wouldn't compare the F-18E to the F-16C in K:D ratio, one simply hasn't seen a lot of combat. Same vs the F-15. I mean, the F-22 has a 0:0 KD, but we wouldn't say it's a weaker performing plane because of it. Even the F-15C's K:D ratio isn't a clear picture of aircraft performance, since a fair number of those were against rather under-trained pilots in countries which flew planes from Russia without the "premium goodies" under the hood. And other variables like the AWACS can really factor heavily as well. It may have been a poor choice to use KD ratio as an example to make a point. I think all the F-18's K:D stats show is that the Navy is tepid about putting carriers near combat arenas unless it's really necessary. You completely misunderstand my comment on the F-15 and Jane's. I'm saying that the capabilities of US aircraft are "understated" (to no small degree) in official publications. And that based on the published numbers, one wouldn't expect a 104:0 K:D for the F-15, I mean, if Jane's stats on it's turn rate, etc. are accurate, that seems implausible. But... I cited that figure as evidence that the published numbers are watered down. That's really all I was saying there. This applies to aerodynamic capability, airframe tolerances, range stats, max G-loads, electronic capabilities, etc. Generally the better the hardware, the more watered down the public stats are. Also the less likely they are to be used in hot-spot firefights (which is most air combat in the time frame we're looking at). It's not too surprising that the best aircraft see the least fighting when all of the conflicts are lower priority, which tends to beg for more expendable planes. I mean, just one example of 'official stats' being pretty far off the mark, which I'll point out only because it's too sloppy and careless to take seriously, is the B-2's range. Officially it's 6,000nm unrefueled, and 10,000nm with in flight refueling. But if you stop to weigh the validity of that assertion, it falls apart. It takes some fuel to climb to operational altitude, and after that it can go 6,000nm... So why then when it's topped off when already at altitude, can it go only 10,000nm, instead of 12,000nm or greater? Is a fully fueled B-2 on the runway able to go 6,000nm, but a fully fueled B-2 at 35,000ft only able to travel 4,000nm? Somebody failed badly at making their watered down official publications plausibly consistent there. I get that you can't wait to in-flight refuel when the tanks are exactly empty, but that's half again the range missing (4000 vs 6000). The F-16's claim to fame in AA engagement is it's very sharp turn rate. However, F-15/F-18/F-14 can all turn at a rate which is sufficient to black out the pilot. I know of an F-15 which pulled over 12G's (without blackout surprisingly, it's hard to account for adrenaline), with a 12,000lb bomb load still on it. Granted the rate of speed is a factor in this, the G force of a turn is relative to the speed of the aircraft. Being able to maintain a very high AoA at a lower speed could give a turning advantage, even if G force limitations are equal. But I wouldn't take too seriously the idea that the F-18, a carrier capable plane (a mission profile requiring very high AoA and lift at low speed), and an airframe which must be more robust to handle carrier impac...i mean 'landings', has less turn rate potential than the F-16. Officially? yeah, sure, that's the published numbers. In reality though? All the "good" modern fighter planes out there can squish the pilot, so they need to look to other capability metrics to manifest a competitive edge. I think perhaps I was taking a jab at DCS as much as anything else. Anyway, the F-16 is an excellent fighter. No shade there. But it was a bit of an underdog in capability until it got the C/D upgrades, and then later the F-110 engine update which negated the weight gain of the C/D upgrades, with some thrust left over. In all of it's forms though, the F-16 has always been a very cost effective fighter which punches above it's price point.
Without stealth, the super hornet share the same functions as the F 35C, radar, battle information management. Super hornet is expected to serve at least another 15 years time till the Navy the next gen F/A-XX enters the service. The super hornet is a cost-effective fighter, capable of delivering most of the need in Navy combat expectation.
Stealth is not the threat now. It is a lot cheaper to condition the F/A 18 SuperHornet to be able to do hyper-sonic intercepts which is needed now. That is because Russia who is supplied by China has and will use drones, ballistic missiles, cruise missile and hyper-sonic missile against their enemies like in Ukraine. Dog fighting is highly unlikely but the protecting cities is a big deal. There is no doubt. There is also no doubt that the F18 air frame can be engineered to fly MACH 2.0 and even MACH 2 ++. Look at all the knocks off jets like MiG 29, J17, and etc...We needed the NGAD and F/A-XX with realistic requirements like the "NEED FOR SPEED" as well as Stealth.
Another nice video! 👍 One thing I’d like to add though. @12:48 there is no need to jettison a centreline fuel tank in combat: not even the MiG-21 needs to do that, and we all know how draggy that delta is 😉 Wing tanks are an entirely different matter obviously: jettisoning those in combat is quite sensible in certain situations.
Glad to hear the audio back to its usual quality. Much appreciated! The Rhino always struck me as having a “that’ll do” mentality. Despite this (or because) it’s became an incredible workhorse.
I'm always a bit skeptical whenever someone says that CFTs free up wing stations for additional weapons. When you look e.g. at Vipers (and even Strike Eagles) carrying CFTs, they almost inevitably always carry wing tanks as well. There is hardly any picture available of a Viper with CFTs and stations 4 and 6 carrying weapons for example, even the Block 52+ and 70. Considering that the history of the Hornet as always been one of needing extra range/loiter time (which is why the Super Hornet is a thing in the first place), and that it's always compared negatively to the Tomcat and Intruder in that sense, I expect the same will hold for the Block 3 Super Hornet.
Given that the relative size of combat aircraft is a known quantity, it should be relatively easy to find an approximate range for an aircraft shown on an irst. Also you can use laser rangefinding, which shouldn't be detectable as long as the pulse is short and relatively inconsistent.
Bravo sir, For i have seen thousands and thousands of videos on internet, youtube or on any other platform you name it... But the kind of detailed info your vids provide man i had to say' hats-off !
The explanation of how the Super Hornet came to replace the F-14 failed to mention the various proposed "Advanced Super Tomcat" concepts Grumman were offering. Concepts which, had the US Navy been left to its own devices might have become a reality. And it wasn't as simple as the Navy wanting a smaller and cheaper replacement (they actually wanted more F-14Ds in service than they ended up with) - much of the decision making was entirely political (Dick Cheney in particular seems to have been hell-bent on scrapping the Tomcat)
The Navy had its own complaints about Tomcats due to the insane MMHPFH it required, and failure-prone systems almost everywhere you looked. It had a cockpit design based on early 1960s technology limits that wasn’t really ideal in the 1970s and 1980s, and was the most difficult aircraft to bring aboard the carrier after the RF-8C was retired. One of the main systems that failed regularly on the F-14 was its primary sensor and fire control, the AWG-9. Further investment into the No Really We Mean it this time Super Duper Tomcat was a very risky consideration, with even more unit and maintenance costs for a fleet of aircraft that was already sucking a huge chunk of the total Navy’s annual operational costs.
@@LRRPFco52 The Navy literally asked the SecDef not to cancel the F-14D. The SecNav made an appeal to the SecDef for at least 132 new build F-14Ds when the SecDef said he wanted to cancel it (he also wanted to cancel the F-15E, V-22, and a few other programs at the time but they had a powerful enough lobby to keep them alive). The previous SecNav during Reagan, who saved the Hornet program when it was almost cancelled, literally said he regretted not cancelling it in his autobiography. So, yes, there's a lot of nuance that is left out, and the reasons given here for why the Super Hornet program went forward is, like a lot of things, oversimplified because it takes too damn long to explain the full context.
@@okisoba The ATF program was very aware of the political atmosphere to program success at the time. Every encounter with the contractors was focused on risk management to the program, which is why they cut the AIRST and supersonic ejection seat from the F-22. F-14D and any Super Duper Tomcat represented significant operational cost risks that had to be factored into the budgetary considerations. Unit cost is not the big deal outside of procurement years. Very seldom do you see that argument being made in these discussions.
@@LRRPFco52 What risk management are you talking about? All the stuff you're talking about in your original response to Solidboat is addressed in the F-14D (digital avionics/radar/flight control system, upgraded engines, etc.) . It's like if I limited the conversation, when comparing the Eagle and Hornet to other aircraft, to the avionics, engines, weapons, flight performance, etc of the original F-15A and F/A-18A. The cost of bringing the Tomcat to the desired level of capability we've been trying to give the Hornet would likely have been less compared to what we have and will spend on the Hornet over time as we transition to real next gen aircraft. One of the things some analysts in the 70s, 80s, and 90s complained about WRT the Hornet is that people keep saying the Hornet is a low risk/low cost alternative to the F-14, but in reality it's not. We had to completely overhaul the Hornet for it to overcome some of its weaknesses. And it wasn't "low risk" when you consider it was taking over virtually every mission for the carrier airwing. It had problems with its wing design (wing drop issues that, without a lot of aid from software, would still be a significant issue), issues with pylon angles and others. And we continue to keep pumping money into it to make up for its short comings. The spiel about MMH and complexity was originally used for both the F-14 and F-15 by the "fighter mafia", but that narrative continued to be used and stuck onto the F-14 because the Navy wasn't completely sold on what was being pushed on them (the F/A-18). Our legacy Hornets have similar availability and MMHs that Tomcats were having with airframes reaching 20 years of age, and that's with a program that got way more political and financial support. Some of the other reasons, other than maintenance, for why the Hornet is one of the best things since sliced bread keep morphing from, "oh, fleet defense isn't important anymore cuz no more USSR; oh, we're only going to fight littoral conflicts against non-peer threats so we don't need long range fighters or stealth planes; oh, flight performance isn't as important because networking will make us nearly unstoppable." There is/was some truth in all of those points , but flight performance such as speed and endurance is still important as the host of this channel sort of indicated when he mentioned that last point, as is long range air defense thanks to China. Defense contracting/procurement is complex and annoying, and if I had to guess, the prospect of overseas sales of the Hornet/Super Hornet was a huge factor as to why some people in the Pentagon went with it over other options. It's a lot easier to sell than a "Super Duper Tomcat" or some high tech stealth Navy tactical jet. So, in that respect, I guess it was a good decision for the U.S. economy.
@@okisoba Fleet Defense was also provided with ship-launched missiles, not just thrown out because of the collapse of the Soviets. The variable risk factor with F-14D and MMHPFH was also driven by it not having DFLCS, and the same complicated and maintenance-heavy flight control system as the original 1969 birds. Bringing the Tomcat back to the carrier was very difficult and not a natural evolution in training from the T-2 or T-45A, so loss rates were high. The Hornet and especially the Super Bug are some of the easiest fighters ever to bring back. My initial reaction to the Tomcat retirement and shredding was the same as every other Tomcat fan, until I separated emotion and started looking at the big picture to understand why. After looking at FMC rates over its life, I was kinda shocked how low it was year-to-year. The Navy was paying way more than they bargained for and getting very low availability with unsustainable mx efforts, while often being humiliated by the performance of the other teen fighters.
Hey I just wanted to say I enjoy your videos a lot and please make a video on the Arramacci MB-339 Italian trainer jet. It has seen combat as part of the Eritrean Airforce in the war with Ethiopia.
I think she grossly oversimplified the way/reasons that the Tomcat was canceled and the politics over capabilities story. The ST-21/SF-14 are super interesting and would still be top of the line!
IR technology is not as expensive as you might think. The only thing making it more expensive here is the prefix "Military". Even a rotary or linear cooled IR head with megapixel class (above currently mounted technologies) class would be less than $100k. The modern IRSTs look like IR heli-gimbals inside. They are inherently gyro stabilized and fast. And they use a lot of e-stabilizer to get things really rock steady. Their balanced weight mean that forces on the head is actually pretty small compared to what they could have been, although all the mountings do feel the sum of the force. But this is essentially the same technology for Helis, Tanks, Fighters. Not any rocket science. I would say the disadvantages would be cooldown time (5-15 minutes), know spectra, rather easily fooled, countermeasures are pretty effective, atleast in close combat. Also. A lot of IRST do have rangefinders. So while the single IRST cannot triangulate, it sure can fire a rangefinder. I'd be surprised if the modern IRST don't have rangefinders. Actually. I'd expect all modern IRST to know the range to locked target at all times.
yeah laser rangefinders are mounted on most IRST devices I Believe. Some planes also have laser warning receivers mounted. So you lose the ambush element if you use the rangefinder.
Now ruggedize it for high G, high altitude, impacts, extremely wide operating temp range, NBC environment, EMP shielded electronics, high salt, high humidity, high dust/sand, and limit parts manufacture to the US/UK/NATO for raw materials, subcomponents, final assembly. If you ever look at what a military contract entails from a compliance perspective, you start to see why it costs what it does. Some of it really is rocket science, and most companies don’t want to deal with all the hassle of submitting for a contract, just to lose out.
@@LRRPFco52 : There is little difference between an IRST for a tanks, helis and jet fighters. Jet fighters have extremely low G requirements. Their hardware requirements are similar to those in helicopters. Temp range is not more than anything else military. Tanks have several hundred Gs as shock. Jet fighters seldom experience more than a dozen G. Temp range usually exceed those in jet fighters because jets have access to active temperature management directly as air-mass to the equipment. Tanks usually don't. By comparision, jet fighters have no special hardware requirements. If you've ever been near the cooling system for a modern jet fighter you'll know.
@@adambratt9902: Exactly. Also, new techniques are used to blind the IRST passive sensor by lighting it up. Since the sensor is so sensitive, you'll require very little power to completely blind it.
@@christianm1533 Oh so it works by burning the "camera eye"? Like how staring into the sun is damaging to our eyes? Sounds close to radar jamming only that passive IRST don't have ranging information to jam so you are just marking your direction unless you damage the sensor by burning it. But if you have that capebility, why not just aim for the pilots eyes instead? Surely a blind pilot is pretty detrimental to the planes combat ability?
3 ปีที่แล้ว +7
Wait, what?!? A cute girl that is super into aviation and technology... I’m in love.
I see in the FAQ slide that Linux is mentioned apparently as a "primary" operating system. I think (I'm an IT/Linux guy) could be interesting also some history/analysis about usage of operating systems in military hardware and environments. I can remember that many, many years ago the US Navy tried to control a ship via a windows NT system. The ship stopped as a sitting duck in the middle of the Ocean.. ;-) In case, if needed please consider me available also for some sort of cooperation. And, apologies for my English, it is not my mother tongue (Italian is). Apparently, also Space X rockets are somehow Linux based (at least for the non strict-real-time part).
No aircraft currently integrates Linux as a hard flight-control operating environment. Most modern fighter architectures split the system between critical ones and less critical ones. Less critical could be something like RADAR, IRST, EW-system etc. If you have a failure there it won't mean the bird will drop out of the sky. You can restart that system or get back to base without much issue. So no. You won't find happy hacking inside avionics control. :)
@@christianm1533 So much mission critical real time runs on Linux, since 2010 60% of mobile networks for example. Defence is following suit ie Zumwalt-class destroyer is full of IBM blades running Linux
@@phoneticau : Nope. It does not. Linux handles 3GPP MoMs and configuration. Realtime is handled by ASICs. The small requirements that are configuration changes at a pace can be more than adequately handled by a soft-rt configuration like a pretty vanilla Linux.
They need super cruise ability to be considered gen 5 I've heard of alot of tech upgrades made to it JUST not new engines that gave it SC Capability....
Ha what a surprise , Jenny Ma made a great appearance =] I do how ever hove to say that, I love the uncut, slower tone of your videos. Definitely an untapped way of presenting here on TH-cam, and especially on the military aircraft topics. P.s. Also not getting a voice actor to narrate , because of accent concerns or what ever, really makes it that much more personal, as a viewer.
Well its past 5 in the morning for me, I should be asleep. But a new informative video on a in my opinion boring plane, but informative none the less. The info about the data linking IRST is interesting, makes me wonder what progress the Russians and Chinese are holding close to their chest in this area. Payloads over platforms will be the way forward for 4.5 gen fighters as we have seen. Fantastic video, makes up for the string of failures I just had in Escape from Tarkov.
You would think by Block 3 they would have figured out a way to mount the ordinance parallel with the centerline of the airframe instead of continuing to drag it through the air canted sideways. Anyone who has stuck their bladed hand out of the window on the freeway knows what this does for parasitic drag.
Imagine claiming that the fighter plane mafia had anything to do with the F-16 if they would have gotten their way it would not have: Radar, Radio, Drop Tanks,
We had secure information sharing plane plane to ship and vis versa in the 80s. but it has gotten Much more intense. The problem is battlefield interpretation mental construction of a 4 D changing environment.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech ok I think I mixed it up with super hornets advanced version but can u make a short video on weapon pods and thier usefulness, demerits and merits
Well if you are very kind you can say so but I would say it it is a gen 4+++ aircraft since the RCS is large and it can not supercruise while for example Jas 39 E is a 4, 5 generation plane due to low RCS, supercruise capacity.
One problem I seem to be alone in having with the Netcentric Warfare Doctrine (NCW-D) is that it is very attractive for an opponent to try to disturb or even eliminate the network. People I spoke to about this said: wel yes, but because it's so widely distributed, the chance of crashing the entire network is virtually zero. OK, but how about an atmospheric nucleaur explosion? That is known for the discharge of a powerful electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) and residual radiation captured by particles in the air, effectively shutting down all bandwiths (ranging from ULF tot UHF) for communication in a certain area. After that remark the conversation was over... maybe a too sensitive topic? The other thing I am worried about are the so-called AWACS-killer weapons. Air forces rely on a host of enablers like AWACS, JSTARSS, all kinds of SIGINT aircraft, drones and battlefield air communications nodes (BACN). Not to mention satellites. It seems very seductive to go after these platforms, since most are large, non-stealthy aircraft with little means of self defence. Satellites can be reached by ASAT missiles, etc. Though I agree distribution is key here to maintain the network and its sensors, the latter may become very vulnerable. The next step probably will be distributed low cost/disposable sensing and enabling platforms. But for now, enablers possibly may find themselve in the front line in a large, peer-peer conflict, right? Final observation. Looking at my son, he seems to be overreliant on his phone. Outside his known surroundings he has to use Google Maps to find his way. OK, his phone is a convenient tool, but he has only a fraction of the ready to use knowledge and understanding my generation had when we left school. And that bugs him when his phone is broken. How does that work for pilots with such a big screen in front of them? Are they still able to synthesize the data by themselves and navigate, fight and return home safely when that breaks down? And to what extent is it detrimental to a pilots warfighting intelligence? Is (s)he still able to make decisions for her/himself when the situation demands so, or do the net and the screen become as convenient and to some degree mind numbing as a smart phone? In other words, do pilots need to have the same level of training in tactics, decision making under high levels of stress and knowledge of hostile platforms they can instantenously use, or do they become so called 'switch button warriors' that happen to be in a fast flying office?
3:40 I wouldn't say the failure of the YF-17 mattered at all in the F-18. Even if the F-17 had won the Air Force fly-off, we'd still have an F/A-18 based on it, I think. I also haven't heard the F-16 was too fragile for carrier operations; its frame is good for 9.4G and the landing gear was recycled from a heavier aircraft, I believe. Instead I think the single engine was the sole reason to reject the F-16. I'm not saying this based on facts, specifically, rather just reasoning as an engineer from first principles. Also I'm curious why the Navy didn't weigh in on the fly-off. If the Navy had said, before the Air Force had made a decision, that they'd hop on board an F-17 order sharing the eventual R&D spend 50/50, would have swayed that decision? Sure there'd be differences in the models but the various F-35's share a huge number of the actual components.
I erased this comment. Realized I had left out too much information and it was misleading in someways. I’ll take time to elaborate when I have time later.
@@operator0 This is also a funny statement. In a real config none of the 4th gen plane can SC: 1.SC term was used by LM about M1.5+ speed. 2. If you have real range for any 4th gen plane you need drop tanks. 3. But you can't drop them every time if you just suspect possibility of air combat. 2+3 = even considering AA config + drop tank the funny PR statement about the M1.5 speed of EF Ty. is just a tale or rather a lie. You can't dismiss + larger cross section and what is important the wave drag. Just check the shape of F-102 and F-5 how important is the area rule... No check the shape and cross section of drop tank. 1 - Even with full AA config without drop tank is maybe possible the M1.2 at 30k feet for EF Ty. but that is all. In practice none of the 4th gen plane can sustain M1.0+ speed with real config. BTW the avionics provides the 4+, 4++, 4.5 or whatever labels not the flight performance.
@@molnibalage83 If the avionics provides the designation, then that would mean that a MIG-21 could potentially be a 4.5 gen if someone were to perform the upgrades....theoretically Is the HAL Tejas a 4.5 gen aircraft? What kind of avionics are needed to designate an aircraft as 4.5 gen? Also, it's my understanding that the Block 3 Super Hornet, nor any previous versions, can achieve SC even in a clean configuration. It seems to me that the Typhoon, Rafale and Grippen certainly beat it in that department, even if the load out is anemic.
@@operator0 You approach is quite strange but I rather call it funny. You are the first person that I have ever met that couples the speed with gen. classification. Which is 100% pointless and even the planes what you think in practice can't do SC or just even M1.0+ In fact the classification for many planes cannot be applied. * A MiG-21 can have partially 4th gen avionics as the MiG-21 LancerR get a new cockpit, new radar, data ling, PGM and even digital flight control. But regardless of the changes it aerodynamics design and absolute flight performance did not change. In a close dogfight, the horizontal accel and in other parameters is almost identical with its original form. How you would call a plane with INS, 2xMFD, digital FCS and everything which was true for F-16A Blk1 and even partialyl for Blk 25-40? * What about the AMRAAM capable US Harriers? They are subsonic what they have glass cockpit BVR capability. * What about the F-4E Terminator? PGM + AIM-120 in a 3rd gen airframe. * What about the F-4ICE/KWS? * The F-111F could break the speed of sound at SEA LEVEL in case did not carry any stores externally. While nobody called SC capable plane. Because the funny marketing of European manufacturers did not act. And so one. The 4+ and other designation can be applied ONLY for planes which are designed using similar aspects as happened with F-15/16 and partially F-14. These are the multirole fighters following the teenager fighters. Gripen is not able to break the M1.0 not even with 2xAIM-9 on wingtip. I know because I know personally Gripen pilot. With REAL config they are also not capable. And no 4. gen plane in practice can fly supersonically with full REASONABLE AG armament but for such a high fuel cost and for such a short time following a long accel which means it is just theory. Check their flight performance data. The Gripen E is even worse because the F414 could not keep up even with the size and weight increase of the plane not mentioning the drag in case of stores which is needed to have combat potential. Pls. do not fed me with BS marketing of Eurojets. The law of physics are the same for them. You can't avoid the wave drag. Ty. is the most powerful from the listed planes and Gripen is the weakest. Have you ever have seen any demo from them...? I spoke with a Gripen pilot and I quite him: "It was painful to fly dogfight even against an F-16 Blk. 32". The only merit of the Gripen is good horizontal accel in AA config but the plane simply lacks the power. The original A/C Gripen need the F414 instead F404 and the Gripen E needs the F414 EPE instead the F414. But these never going to happen. As I can judge you do not have even the basic knowledge about aerodynamics and performance of the planes at all. I can recommend flight manuals and books if you wish to understand the reality instead believing the PR/marketing steamroll of the Eurojets.
@@molnibalage83 The Grippen A/C/D cannot SC, but the E/F model can. I base my info on what Saab and the Swedish AF say. In 2006 the Gripen A participated in a Red Flag exercise and it's performance was exceptional. It "shot down" ten aircraft, including a typhoon on the first day. The Grippen E/F is, obviously, much better than the A/C/D. Later on, in that same exercise, one Grippen beat the F-16 block 50 five times in close air combat. In another exercise against the Norwegian airforce, three Gripens faced off against five F-16s. The result was 5-0 in favor of the Grippens. I'll take published results over anecdotal evidence to draw my conclusions. Maybe your pilot friend is a bad fighter pilot. Maybe he needs to fly C-130s. There's only one plane in the world that can SC with a reasonable AG load out, and it's 5th gen. Again, if we just go off avionics, then a whole bunch of aircraft that will get smoked by the the Typhoon, Grippen, Rafale, Mig-35, and SU-35 would be considered 4.5 gen. The Tejas is a terrible aircraft with great avionics. It is not comparable to the above mentioned aircraft in overall capabilities. I certainly wouldn't consider it a 4.5 gen aircraft.
If Australia was going to stay American then we should have continued using the F-18 platform. We need an all rounder and not a expensive specialist like the F-35 and we need two engines not one. And that's just for starters, pilots need to gain experience in the air, the running costs of the F-35 alone make it unacceptable. But we had to get on the bandwagon didn't we.
Cannot tolerate videos that have music playing over the top of or in the background of people narrating/talking. Turn up the music then and let me listen to the tunes, what you have to say must not be that important.
This plane came from the YF-17 Cobra which was much faster and more manoverable... And the F-16 kicked its ass.. Its a modernised legacy Hornet which in turn is a what the Navy developed from the YF-17 dating from the 1970s.. So its no more 5th Gen than a fuckin F-5..
yeah it's tough when you spend a fortune on creating weapons to fight a certain foe and that foe suddenly disappears, you end up wasting a huge amount of money and end up with powerful and specials weapons that you can still partly use ineffectively, but all common foe's need to be forced to sign a contract committing them for 50 year blocks so special weapons designed for certain foes are still usable, i mean countries go to great lengths cooking up powerful weapons for certain foes and if that foe goes bankrupt and leaves the game then everybody is stuck with brilliant powerful weapons and no body to use them on, russia is a bad culprit, it just quit the qame in the 90's and at least 10 to 20 different weapons platforms became useless, you cant kill Iraqis or iranians with weapons built to kill russians, thats not how the game works, you can use any old generic weapons to kill Iraqis or irainians, but you need very costly, specially designed weapons to kill russians, it would be an insult to kill a russian with the same weapons you kill Iraqis or iranians with, the kremlin would have a fit, after all they themselves go to some lengths to design special high tech weapons to kill americans with, because the know that when the americans find out how the did it, they will appreciate being killed top notch, space age russian weapons that were made to kill americans and only americans, it's a form of mutual admiration, nobody wants to be killed with an old rusty gun, a secret russian lazer gun is an honorable way to go, i mean what russian wants to be shot down with a common chinese replica missle, even americans demand that they get shoot down by no less than a russian hyper missile, a real one, not one stolen and copied by the chinese, dam chinese, they came to the game late and dont know how the game is played, they hope to go to war with a bag of reverse engineered weapons, mostly stolen from the russians, they dont have a single specially designed american only killing weapon at all, they just want to kill everybody with nock off weapons, nor do they appreciate when the americans started makeing special chinese killing weapons, al they wonted to do was steal it and copy it, why steal a chinese killing special weapon and copy it, it was designed to kill chinese, the Americans would never use a chinese killing missile on a russian fighter jet, that would be an insult, well maybe the russians can sort the chinese out and get them to play be the rules and stop trying to kill americans with generic weapons and quit coping everthing, your allowed to steal but make it look your own, dont steal a russian missile design and copy it exactly, even withthe sames manufacturing errors on the missle, why steal a faulty russian missile and copy it exactly faults and all and make a thousand faulty russian missile copies and try to kill everybody with the same missiles, you need special american killing missiles only to be used on americans and you make but hid the special russian killing weapons until it's time to stab moscow in the back, dam chinese they just dont understand the game at all
America : Rafale is not a 5th gen fighter. Also America : F 18 block 3 is a 5th gen fighter. France : ARE YOU KIDDING ME !?? America : French bashing... France : you known that what the F18 block 3 does the RAFALE did it for 20 years? America : yes we know, why do you think we did it...
I liked Jenny very much but her goofy high pitched music made it almost impossible to focus on her words. Please get rid of the music or give me a way to turn it off. Please
A navalized Raptor.. Ahhhhhhh, can we dream just a little bit? US Navy completely botched last 30 years of naval aviation development.. I know that the times were such that a true replacement for the F-14 wasn't needed, but as we can see, the geo political situation can change dramatically in a decade or two. Their last major mistake was the cancellation of USLASS program where Northrop's X-47B promised to change the naval aviation paradigm and make the Navy's super carriers relevant once again. But instead of pursuing autonomous strike UAV, Navy decided to shut the program down and develop a half ass stealthy tanker UAV. Pathetic. Hopefully their FA/XX program that tries to develop a true long range fleet defense aircraft will end up with something meaningful and advanced..
The question is not whether the F/A-18E/F Blk.III is 'Gen-5' but whether that metric is itself a useful measure of mission performance metrics. It is not. Stealth which costs double the CPFH of a twin engine jet a dozen years older in design baselines is not going to be purchased in numbers sufficient to grant sensor coverage of large operational areas. Stealth which is 'so good' that the enemy is forced to go after the basing mode (killing all stealths at the Carrier or MOB vs. one or two over the target area) is no good insofar as it forces the CSG to standoff in the 1,000-1,500nm radius category which makes any minor improvements to fuel fraction pointless because, at these distances, pilot endurance as persistent presence becomes a dominant driver on 'the other 50% of the mission' simply spent to or home from the mission area. Stealth which is too poor to exclusively (hot side) protect the 'platform' from detection and shoot down, thereby compromising 10-20 years of design investment in VLO is not useful. Stealth which is lacking in mass video memory or a (MADL) ability to rapid-transfer targeting quality data back to whatever rebro node takes it out of MA or theater is useless. Having said all these things, the F/A-18E/F is not a success story in it's own right or as an improvement on the F-35 in these areas because it's altitude performance is, in fact, worse (PS0 = Mach 1 at FL200). It's drag is enormous, thanks to external carriage of stores from toed out weapons stations which do not suddenly 'straighten up and fly right' by removing the inboard station SUU-79, thanks to upper fuselage CFT. It's signature reduction is highly dependent on viewed aspect. It's 550 vs. 700+ nautical mile radius differential compared to the F-35, effectively robs the latter of the support jamming and air to air missile cabinet the Hornet is supposed to provide while making the utility of the MQ-25 questionable as both fighters carry in excess of 18,000lbs of fuel. It's use of the enormous AGM-158D JASSM-XR, while theoretically allowing the Blk.III to be 'on call' for the ISR only F-35 to cue targets for, does not account for either the enormous 'fighter' systems waste in what has become a missile truck. Nor the flyout lag of the subsonic weapon. Nor the added carrier magazine penalty of the much larger standoff missile (see: B-1B from Andersen or Darwin for what an ALCM carrier looks like...). Even as a straight up fighter, the jet is compromised by the asymmetry of an AIM-260 vs. PL-15 comparison in which the Super Hornet needs the better missile to match the lesser PL-12 and when matched against an as-equals weapon like the PL-15, is once again outclassed by the J-11D or J-16's ability to sprint-boost the missile to a higher launch Mach from as much as 20,000ft (less dense air) greater altitude. Even the IRST is on the wrong side of the airframe to provide look-up tracking against superior kinematic threats while placing it on the fuel tank ensures both vibration induced tracking instabilities and the potential of dirt-mud-water kickup from the nose gear, damaging the sensor window as the not-hard-locked-t-airframe sensor bounces up and down in the tank shell. The Sixth Generation will be defined by cheapness and the ability to rapidly get to targets as much as 2,000nm downrange (F-104 like drag indices, supercruise transits) before loitering, persistently, for 10-15hrs, 'taking pictures' and then coming home. This is, by definition, a UCAV mission and it will need all the things a manned recce asset does /without/ being vulnerable to loss of stealth tech or a pilot when a megawatt class ground laser cuts the fuselage in half. It will likely use a laser of it's own to defend against missiles or hunting drones and rather than carry heavy strike weapons, instead send data that calls in a hypersonic strikes from many hundreds of miles up/crossrange, off of stealthy Arsenal SSGN subs. Because submarines cannot be sunk by BASM. The Navy is not interested in acknowledging this, despite having recently (2016) begun running 'Fleet Problems' again, which show, repeatedly, how rapidly present day (Cold War Legacy) systems LOSE WARS to Chinese level Peer threats. The last such HQ exercise, hosted by the Marines, only began to approach a neutral draw, with extreme attrition, when multiple forces were prepositioned on bases across the 2nd Island Chain, Australia and Alaska. While keeping the carriers firmly to the east of Guam to defend it's key theater entry position for USAF heavy bombers. Even then, losses approached 50% of committed forces. Ironically, this is an exact replication of the ~1929 'Fleet Problem IX' which showed, in attacks on Panama, that carriers could get in one good, solid, blow but then were inevitably caught out by the predictability of being in a given sea space (to recover the raids they had launched) when longer ranging bombers from multiple airfields ashore, wiped them out in retaliatory raids. So it's not even like we're learning from our own anachronisms.
Do I have money to except ' Universal exports of 5th generation jets' for sacrificing our climate change intelligence data to Colorado servers or SVR servers? 'Small world project' for the artists.
Hey Jenny, I am not trying to be a professional pronunciation fascist... @2:40 "Northrop" is pronounced this way:"North-R-UP" (th-cam.com/video/nfnlrPzXogo/w-d-xo.html), at least that's how we pronounce it in Maryland USA. I was so impressed with your knowledge skills and abilities did I just had to share that with you, hope it helps!
Do you mean that a mediocre 4th gen fighter has been given a makeover because less than 2 out of 3 F22's made are still serviceable and the USAF is starting to realise that their other 5th gen aircraft, the F35 is now trackable at such long range that BVR may be ovetaken by the one thing the F35 cannot win. Namely a dogfight. In other words the Phantom lesson all over again.
Americans are really funny with their definitions of generations. USA: F-22 is a fifth generation warplane, it has stealth, supermaneuvrability, supercruise. Eurofighter and Rafale do not have stealth so they are 4 gen fighters. EU: OK. USA: F-35 is 5TH gen! EU: But it has way worse stealth then F-22, it flies like a brick and can't supercruise. USA: Yeah but it has cool electronics and shit. EU: So do Eurofighter and Rafale. USA: No they don't. EU: OK, whatever. USA: F-18 is a 5th gen fighter! EU: Just fuck off.
Short answer: no. Long answer: NOOOO! Longer Answer: If Flankers and Eurofighters and Rafales are 4th or 4++ gen, so is this plane. It has none of the distinguishing features of 5th gen. Anti-radar shaping? not even close. Supercruise? not to my knowledge. IR signature minimization and IR seeker jamming? no. All-internal or stealthy conformal weapons and fuel? not even close. Thrust Vector Control and post-stall supermaneuverability? No.
The whole "5th generation" is just Lockheed marketing to begin with, taking specific attribute unique to their product(s) and listing them as requirements, *without* any proof of those features will be regarded as standard functions of the era. IN comparison, here are some actual generational stuff: * transition from biplanes with external supports to monoplanes with internal wing support. * going from propeller propulsion to reaction engines. * shifting from analogue to digital avionics.
Visit Jenny's channe! th-cam.com/channels/C_sp9B1jwesbC5-T04Tt9w.html
Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millennium-7-history-technology
Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7
WANT TO SEE YOU NOT HER.
@@henrikg1388 thanks. high praised
Thought you you might like this video! Very recent!
th-cam.com/video/YlibbaInW9I/w-d-xo.html
The YF17 Cobra was interesting to the Navy because it had 2 engines for higher probability of getting your plane back (some early F16s were lost due to engine failure in fact at least 1 F15 was lost due to dual engine failure). The Navy did not trust Northrop to build a carrier plane after GD's F111 Naval variant had too many problems. So McDonnell got the prime contract. The fuselage structure was made on giant mills at Hawthorn (the biggest milling machines I ever observed and fun to watch). The F18 A was a small light weight compliment to the F14 air superiority fighter. Phasing out the A6 after cancellation of the futuristic A12 led to proposals for modified existing aircraft. As one of the designers told me, Northrop stuck a plug in the fuselage to make it longer. The Grumman F14 bomb cat required less redesign work as all that was needed was add bomb racks and bombing electronics. The F14 Bomb Cat also had significantly longer range. The F/A18 E/F has much shorter range than the A6 and lower bomb carrying capability. I was convinced that the Bomb Cat would beat out our plane because it was a better choice for long range missions. For Northrop the Navy's cost saving and hate for the high maintenance F14 led to the F18 being chosen. This ment no more F14 production and allowed us to buy Grumman. The 2 big prizes was Grumman avionics which led to the EF18G to replace the EA6 and a pile of money the Navy had to pay us for the close out of the F14 program. Because we at Northrop had gone through close out processes, we understood better than anyone else about what the pay off would be. With a bridge loan from Carlyle we did a hostile take over Grumann. After a few years when we got the F14 closeout money we paid off Carlyle had the Grumman assets and a lot of cash. It meant Northrop survived to keep pushing new variants and new aircraft and do other business. During the F17 F18 lifetime I was a student, worked at Northrop and am now old enough to retire. The aircraft went from being designed with slide rules and blue prints to computer design without paper. The most obvious external change are the air inlets which are beautiful curves in the beginning to rectangular now. To me the development of the Blisk (one piece disc and blades) for the engine shows the fabrication and design advances. The F18 is no longer a light and inexpensive aircraft. It is a lot less expensive than an f35 and probably more reliable.
As one who knows the Northrop Aircraft Division is similar to the Marine Corp. "The are no ex NAD employees" and we will take Jack Northrop's YB49 Flying Wing BS and the F-17/F-20 BS to the grave. NAD knew how to design a fighter, the F5E is the evidence. The Navy bought a bunch of them as Top Gun Adversary fighters from Switzerland (with modified wings that gave you two more Gs) that were housed since the late 1970s in caves and rarely flown. To this day if two of those impossible to see Swiss F5Es with L snakes mounted on their wing tips get on your F-18 six the general conclusion is that your dead meat.
Northrop is run by engineers, Lockheed is run by lobbyists. That's why they always get screwed.
I feel Lockeed Martin are not that good, a lot of problem for every project they made. US should give important project to other.
@@sushilover1356 I have worked at Northrop and have known many Lockheed engineers. Jack Northrop got his start with Lockheed.
Glad to discover another aviation channel. Nice of you to host Jenny in your channel.
Welcome aboard!
Correction, "another USEFUL aviation channel" meaning one that's not just a video farm that essentially sources from wikipedia in the best of circumstances..... I'm so tired of fake videos that use 3 min of computer generated voice over and 7 minutes of random footage... Thanks to both of you!
Fun fact. The full-scale mock-up of the A-12 Avenger can be found at the Fort Worth Aviation Museum in Fort Worth, Texas.
It's there but not the entire plane.
US Navy to Congress: The Super Hornet is really just an upgrade of the legacy Hornet, we promise.
They learned a trick from the Russians
@@JakusJacobsen It was used all around the world. After all, politicians are a universal plague.
Yeah, and the f35 is just 1 airframe🤣
@@CaptainDangeax that’s unfair. If even half the the ET used on the F-35 had worked it would’ve been an excellent aircraft. Sadly it’s over hyped, over priced, and the maintenance hours to flying hours ratio is outrageous.
The F-35 is a great idea but poorly executed.
@@CaptainDangeax The Rafale is not a great Aircraft. It would lose against the Super Hornet in any conflict, and a squadron of F-35’s would eradicate the entire French Air Force, rather like how Nelson destroyed the entire French Navy.
You obviously have no clear understanding how the JSF program was ran and have an ultra nationalist view on the Rafale. The F+35 though a disappointment is still a highly capable multi role platform with only the F-22 as an equal.
Back in my college days I use to hangout in the archive section of the college library. This was in the early 1980s. One of the things I use to do was to go through old Aviation Week magazines. I do remember reading that the US Navy was supposed to adapt the winner of the LWF competition. The USN did an evaluation of the YF-16, where, if I remember correctly, Vought was the Primary subcontractor.
The short story is that the Navy found other deficiencies in the performance of navalized F-16 which led to them looking at the YF-17.
@@ObsydianShade And yet they enthusiastically adopted the A-7 against other dual-engined options. Something says to me that having 2 engines wasn't really what attracted the USN to the YF-17.
Interesting, that Vought was involved, I recall that the YF16 landing gear, to save development costs, was sourced from the A-7.
@@vickydroid According with the people involved with the restoration of the second YF-16 unity in a museum, the landing gear itself is unique, not sourced from the A-7 (looks like it but isn't). What was taken off the shelf, were the wheels/tires of the nose gear of the B-58, that was put on the main gear of the YF-16.
th-cam.com/video/MeM0K2ODUz8/w-d-xo.html
@@magoid thanks, I probably misremembered, had to pull out a 1975 copy of an aviation book which described the YF16 and subsequent F16A\B and I recall LTVs involvement in the navalised proposal, couldn't find more but not sure if that's where I got my association with the A7 landing gear, LTV being the manufacturer and all, but thanks for pointing this out.
Cruising into your vid like 1:07 😎 Great stuff! :D
Subscribed. 👋
Awesome job! Subbed.
You are Fantastic. Gonna subscribe for sure.
Always cool to find a new aviation channel by someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
Subbed. I missed when the F16 went from Falcon to Viper, I stopped reading about fighter jets sometime in the 2000s
Yes sir please, make the video about material fatigue and structural stress in military airplanes... or plataforms ;) Thanks for your videos and lessosn!
Also interesting to note that model d tomcat had IRST BACK IN 2000! and even a couple years before that actually. It worked so well in that aircraft due to the advanced data link and sensor fusion capabilities of the APG 71 radar. The size of the Tomcats knows aloud for the largest radars at all times, and it was capable of being slaved to the IRST and the RIO could change search and track parameters in a multitude of different arrays and formats as a result of the increased sensor.
The situational awareness in that aircraft was well ahead of its time, with the capability to be a quarterback in the sky, running, active, sending, and receiving sensor information from passive assets that were data linked. It was really an early iteration of what you have today with the F 35.
Brilliant! Jenny's channel hasn't taken off but I'm still looking forward to watching what she published. ❤
nice video as always, just to conclude: No f-18 E/F block3 is NOT a 5th gen fighter, it's 4.5 or 4++ if you wish. Only 5th gen fighters in service now are F-22, F-35 and J-20 (supposedly). Maybe F-18X would join them too but most probably she will end up at 4.5
That IRST placement on centerline drop tank is the best solution for every matters considered. Integrating internal IRST to Super Hornet requires heavy modification to the jet's nose section as the nose is already occupied by radar and cannon. The Navy also don't want to lose the centerline drop tank, because if they do that, they need to put the tank(s) anywhere in the other weapon stations, reducing the payload available.
The USNavy didn't upgrade the F-17 into the F-18. Mainly, McDonnell Douglas did. Which at that point in time, was by far the preeminent fighter aircraft design & manufacturing hub of the US. Adding considerable improvements to reliability, ease of maintenance, all weather capability, adding extensive naval & land surface-attack capability, upgrading it's engine package (with GE) for considerably better thrust to weight ratio, adding payload capacity, significantly improving AoA performance, increasing it's resistance to damage, on-board power generation (to make flame-outs far less threatening), More fuel capacity, greater wing area, more aggressive wing control surfaces, and making it's structure and landing gears robust enough to be able to handle carrier operations (and then some). The original YF-17 was sort of a "Super F-5", after being worked over by McDonell Douglass, it was more of an "F-15-light", including a number of features which McD wished they had put on the F-15 in hindsight.
The engineers at Northrup felt they had created a massive upgrade over the old F-5 as it's starting point, and they had. McD engineers viewed the YF-17 as a starting point for changes though, which I think helped to raise the ambition bar for the design rework. When you've already made something much better than what you started with, it can make you reluctant to scrap ideas and redo elements of it. Nobody wants to take a hacksaw to their own artwork. Also Grumman was in a position to not feel strongly interested in threatening the F-14's job, McD did not share this consideration.
The F/A-18A was such a massive upgrade over the YF-17, that it essentially inspired the USAF to seek out an upgraded F-16C, to replace the F-16A, to technologically catch up with the Navy's new plane. Unfortunately for the F-16C, this didn't include a thrust upgrade until the 1990's, so for quite a while, the added weight of the technological upgrades undercut it's dogfighting performance vs. the A model. The Thunderbirds didn't just fly the A model to save money, it's more agile than the C. At least until the new F110 GE engines became available in the 90's, at which point in time I think the F-16C finally caught up with the F/A-18C in overall capability. And then came the F/A-18E/F... essentially the US's only "production" gen 4.5 plane.
Not to just gush over the F-18 or McD. I really liked the F-14D SuperTomcat prototype. And I think the F-35 is great as well, not to mention the F-22 (although, I think the F-23 could have been the better choice). The Rafale is fantastic. The Archangel series are my favorite (SR-71 being the best known of that lot). I think the Fulcrum and Flanker are truly inspired designs from an aerodynamics & maneuverability standpoint. Hell I even like the Saab Draken and the F-106. But McDonnell Douglas is generally grossly under-credited for the US's mid to late cold war, and post cold war, air power advantage. To be fair, that's partly that's due to "under-publishing of capability" though. The F-15 for example, wouldn't have a 104:0 win/loss ratio in air combat based purely on what you can read in Jane's. Domestic versions of gen 4/4.5 Russian fighters also have undisclosed premium features.
The F-16C systems development for Block 25 was largely driven by the open nature of the F-16 MSIP program and tons of pilot requests for certain things. The F-16A cockpit has the issue of the Radar display down between your legs, so they were constantly looking down-up-down-up-down-up with the HUD, getting repetitive motion problems. Display technology had matured by that point to have MFDs, so that’s what drove the cockpit configuration on the C Model. The APG-68 was a pretty large jump over the APG-66, and one of the main things opened up with the C model was BVR missile integration, IFF, and more ground attack modes. I was very close to F-16C avionics development in the 1980s, and never got the impression that it was driven by the Hornet. There was a large gap between USAF and USN multirole cultures and communities that were just emerging in those days.
The Navy was looking for F-18s and A-18s to replace the F-4N, A-7E, and A-4M. As computer processing and data storage increased, they were able to combine the F-18 and A-18 into one aircraft where the pilot could swing-role mid-mission if necessary, with the flip of a switch. It had very good human interface with most of its systems, with a lot of leveraging of computing power over individual manual inputs. The impetus for a lot of that software and hardware architecture came from the F-15 and its HOTAS with integrated weapons cueing, radar mode selection, and HUD mode all working together when the pilot selected one weapon from another.
The F/A-18 was definitely the beneficiary of many lessons-learned and technological maturity being the last of the teen fighters, as well as concurrent development of the F-15E Strike Eagle once the Strike Eagle was awarded with the win by the USAF. The F/A-18A had all kinds of problems though, aerodynamic, structural, and avionics that all needed to be addressed with retrofits and the new F/A-18C at the time. They lost 100 airframes and had 20 fatalities within its first 10 years of service.
"The F/A-18A was such a massive upgrade over the YF-17, that it essentially inspired the USAF to seek out an upgraded F-16C, to replace the F-16A"
The F-16C was introduced for the new radar and avionics required to support the Sparrow missile and the upcoming AMRAAM, not because of anything the F/A-18 had or didn't have.
"And then came the F/A-18E/F... essentially the US's only "production" gen 4.5 plane."
I don't know where you get off calling the Super Hornet 4.5 gen. By that definition, almost every American 4th gen fighter flying today is 4.5 gen because they have similar capabilities to the Super Hornet and are also still in production.
"But McDonnell Douglas is generally grossly under-credited for the US's mid to late cold war, and post cold war, air power advantage."
I'm not sure why they're under-credited. A2A, compare the F-15C kill record to the F/A-18s. A2G, compare F-16 sorties to the F/A-18. Neither are even close. The F/A-18 has been a relatively minor participant in every significant air campaign since it's introduction. That's not a knock against the design, but they aren't around in significant enough numbers or present at the right bases and times to be a primary contributor.
"The F-15 for example, wouldn't have a 104:0 win/loss ratio in air combat based purely on what you can read in Jane's."
Not sure what you mean. The F-15C's (assuming you mean the C, since that's what the ratio is associated with) kill:death ratio is widely acknowledged as fact by every major military history, not just Jane's, and widely credited to a combination of extremely-good training and the NCTR capability. [Edit: just realized you might have been including the F-15 with the F/A-18 in your reference to McD, might have misread the last few sentences]
@@Jester-uh9xg Sparrows existed long before the F-16, so I'm not sure of your angle there. The F-18 illustrated for the USAF the limitations of the F-16A's scope of design ambition. An anemic radar may save money, but it's very costly in terms of an aircraft's capability. So the C got all weather, improved radar, more hard points, BVR capability, expanded ground attack capability... making it much more like the 18... Arguably the very strong performance of the AMRAAM was a significant factor in dictating the need for BVR capability though, so it's not just F-18 envy. But it is pretty clear the USAF came to decide they went slightly "too cheap" with the F-16A's. Thus the C's were designed with more capability (with more price), rather than just say seeking to make them cheaper or more reliable.
The F-18E/F is the only 4.5 gen US production plane. I'll stick with that. Which is to say it is the only "major" overhaul in design to adopt modern/21st century features/tech. Sure there's block updates for a variety of aircraft. And many aircraft have or are seeing advanced avionics & sensor upgrades. But the F-18E is the only one which went through an extensive airframe redesign to reduce it's radar signature, and had many significant airframe changes to re-purpose it's capabilities. I wouldn't call it a stealth plane, but much like the Rafale, it "leans that way". There were other planes proposed, and in some cases flown as prototypes, which could be called 4.5 gen. But the F-18E is the only one which went into production. This is largely due to the US Navy being dubious of whether a carrier capable F-22 would actually materialize (they were correct). The other strong option was the F-14D "Super Tomcat". Frankly, both designs had some great benefits. Other notable examples (not in production) are the "Silent Eagle" and possibly the "STOL/MTD". One could argue that the F-15X / EX might be called 4.5gen, but I don't think the design changes are really quite extensive enough to call gen 4.5. It's more a major block revision on the F-15, and the modifications are backward compatible to existing legacy aircraft without doing major surgery to the airframe. The USAF shunned 4.5gen because they (probably rightly) feared congressional defunding of gen 5 programs if other options were on the table. The US Navy on the other hand was facing a serious deployment gap for modern tech, so they had a 4.5gen plane competition, and picked the 18E. Russia on the other hand embraced gen 4.5, they have quite a few models which I think qualify as 4.5. I think the Rafale, J-20, and a few others probably also qualify. Really the whole "generation" thing is woefully arbitrary and ill defined though.
I wouldn't compare the F-18E to the F-16C in K:D ratio, one simply hasn't seen a lot of combat. Same vs the F-15. I mean, the F-22 has a 0:0 KD, but we wouldn't say it's a weaker performing plane because of it. Even the F-15C's K:D ratio isn't a clear picture of aircraft performance, since a fair number of those were against rather under-trained pilots in countries which flew planes from Russia without the "premium goodies" under the hood. And other variables like the AWACS can really factor heavily as well. It may have been a poor choice to use KD ratio as an example to make a point. I think all the F-18's K:D stats show is that the Navy is tepid about putting carriers near combat arenas unless it's really necessary.
You completely misunderstand my comment on the F-15 and Jane's. I'm saying that the capabilities of US aircraft are "understated" (to no small degree) in official publications. And that based on the published numbers, one wouldn't expect a 104:0 K:D for the F-15, I mean, if Jane's stats on it's turn rate, etc. are accurate, that seems implausible. But... I cited that figure as evidence that the published numbers are watered down. That's really all I was saying there. This applies to aerodynamic capability, airframe tolerances, range stats, max G-loads, electronic capabilities, etc. Generally the better the hardware, the more watered down the public stats are. Also the less likely they are to be used in hot-spot firefights (which is most air combat in the time frame we're looking at). It's not too surprising that the best aircraft see the least fighting when all of the conflicts are lower priority, which tends to beg for more expendable planes.
I mean, just one example of 'official stats' being pretty far off the mark, which I'll point out only because it's too sloppy and careless to take seriously, is the B-2's range. Officially it's 6,000nm unrefueled, and 10,000nm with in flight refueling. But if you stop to weigh the validity of that assertion, it falls apart. It takes some fuel to climb to operational altitude, and after that it can go 6,000nm... So why then when it's topped off when already at altitude, can it go only 10,000nm, instead of 12,000nm or greater? Is a fully fueled B-2 on the runway able to go 6,000nm, but a fully fueled B-2 at 35,000ft only able to travel 4,000nm? Somebody failed badly at making their watered down official publications plausibly consistent there. I get that you can't wait to in-flight refuel when the tanks are exactly empty, but that's half again the range missing (4000 vs 6000).
The F-16's claim to fame in AA engagement is it's very sharp turn rate. However, F-15/F-18/F-14 can all turn at a rate which is sufficient to black out the pilot. I know of an F-15 which pulled over 12G's (without blackout surprisingly, it's hard to account for adrenaline), with a 12,000lb bomb load still on it. Granted the rate of speed is a factor in this, the G force of a turn is relative to the speed of the aircraft. Being able to maintain a very high AoA at a lower speed could give a turning advantage, even if G force limitations are equal. But I wouldn't take too seriously the idea that the F-18, a carrier capable plane (a mission profile requiring very high AoA and lift at low speed), and an airframe which must be more robust to handle carrier impac...i mean 'landings', has less turn rate potential than the F-16. Officially? yeah, sure, that's the published numbers. In reality though? All the "good" modern fighter planes out there can squish the pilot, so they need to look to other capability metrics to manifest a competitive edge.
I think perhaps I was taking a jab at DCS as much as anything else.
Anyway, the F-16 is an excellent fighter. No shade there. But it was a bit of an underdog in capability until it got the C/D upgrades, and then later the F-110 engine update which negated the weight gain of the C/D upgrades, with some thrust left over. In all of it's forms though, the F-16 has always been a very cost effective fighter which punches above it's price point.
Great video. I really hope that India selects Super Hornet for carrier-based operations.
Without stealth, the super hornet share the same functions as the F 35C, radar, battle information management. Super hornet is expected to serve at least another 15 years time till the Navy the next gen F/A-XX enters the service. The super hornet is a cost-effective fighter, capable of delivering most of the need in Navy combat expectation.
Stealth is not the threat now. It is a lot cheaper to condition the F/A 18 SuperHornet to be able to do hyper-sonic intercepts which is needed now. That is because Russia who is supplied by China has and will use drones, ballistic missiles, cruise missile and hyper-sonic missile against their enemies like in Ukraine. Dog fighting is highly unlikely but the protecting cities is a big deal. There is no doubt. There is also no doubt that the F18 air frame can be engineered to fly MACH 2.0 and even MACH 2 ++. Look at all the knocks off jets like MiG 29, J17, and etc...We needed the NGAD and F/A-XX with realistic requirements like the "NEED FOR SPEED" as well as Stealth.
What I heard F-18 can beat any 5th Gen planes of the world, not just 1-on-1, but 1-on-2, so it must really be 6th Gen. Awesome!
Another nice video! 👍
One thing I’d like to add though.
@12:48 there is no need to jettison a centreline fuel tank in combat: not even the MiG-21 needs to do that, and we all know how draggy that delta is 😉
Wing tanks are an entirely different matter obviously: jettisoning those in combat is quite sensible in certain situations.
Glad to hear the audio back to its usual quality. Much appreciated!
The Rhino always struck me as having a “that’ll do” mentality. Despite this (or because) it’s became an incredible workhorse.
Jenny Ma is the Vintage Space of combat airplanes👍
I'm always a bit skeptical whenever someone says that CFTs free up wing stations for additional weapons. When you look e.g. at Vipers (and even Strike Eagles) carrying CFTs, they almost inevitably always carry wing tanks as well. There is hardly any picture available of a Viper with CFTs and stations 4 and 6 carrying weapons for example, even the Block 52+ and 70. Considering that the history of the Hornet as always been one of needing extra range/loiter time (which is why the Super Hornet is a thing in the first place), and that it's always compared negatively to the Tomcat and Intruder in that sense, I expect the same will hold for the Block 3 Super Hornet.
Yea, cuz testing pictures = reality.... >
Excellent content! Welcome, Jenny! 🇨🇦
Given that the relative size of combat aircraft is a known quantity, it should be relatively easy to find an approximate range for an aircraft shown on an irst. Also you can use laser rangefinding, which shouldn't be detectable as long as the pulse is short and relatively inconsistent.
Yours is my favourite military channel on TH-cam
Bravo sir,
For i have seen thousands and thousands of videos on internet, youtube or on any other platform you name it...
But the kind of detailed info your vids provide man i had to say' hats-off !
The explanation of how the Super Hornet came to replace the F-14 failed to mention the various proposed "Advanced Super Tomcat" concepts Grumman were offering. Concepts which, had the US Navy been left to its own devices might have become a reality. And it wasn't as simple as the Navy wanting a smaller and cheaper replacement (they actually wanted more F-14Ds in service than they ended up with) - much of the decision making was entirely political (Dick Cheney in particular seems to have been hell-bent on scrapping the Tomcat)
The Navy had its own complaints about Tomcats due to the insane MMHPFH it required, and failure-prone systems almost everywhere you looked. It had a cockpit design based on early 1960s technology limits that wasn’t really ideal in the 1970s and 1980s, and was the most difficult aircraft to bring aboard the carrier after the RF-8C was retired. One of the main systems that failed regularly on the F-14 was its primary sensor and fire control, the AWG-9. Further investment into the No Really We Mean it this time Super Duper Tomcat was a very risky consideration, with even more unit and maintenance costs for a fleet of aircraft that was already sucking a huge chunk of the total Navy’s annual operational costs.
@@LRRPFco52 The Navy literally asked the SecDef not to cancel the F-14D. The SecNav made an appeal to the SecDef for at least 132 new build F-14Ds when the SecDef said he wanted to cancel it (he also wanted to cancel the F-15E, V-22, and a few other programs at the time but they had a powerful enough lobby to keep them alive). The previous SecNav during Reagan, who saved the Hornet program when it was almost cancelled, literally said he regretted not cancelling it in his autobiography. So, yes, there's a lot of nuance that is left out, and the reasons given here for why the Super Hornet program went forward is, like a lot of things, oversimplified because it takes too damn long to explain the full context.
@@okisoba The ATF program was very aware of the political atmosphere to program success at the time. Every encounter with the contractors was focused on risk management to the program, which is why they cut the AIRST and supersonic ejection seat from the F-22.
F-14D and any Super Duper Tomcat represented significant operational cost risks that had to be factored into the budgetary considerations. Unit cost is not the big deal outside of procurement years.
Very seldom do you see that argument being made in these discussions.
@@LRRPFco52 What risk management are you talking about? All the stuff you're talking about in your original response to Solidboat is addressed in the F-14D (digital avionics/radar/flight control system, upgraded engines, etc.) . It's like if I limited the conversation, when comparing the Eagle and Hornet to other aircraft, to the avionics, engines, weapons, flight performance, etc of the original F-15A and F/A-18A. The cost of bringing the Tomcat to the desired level of capability we've been trying to give the Hornet would likely have been less compared to what we have and will spend on the Hornet over time as we transition to real next gen aircraft. One of the things some analysts in the 70s, 80s, and 90s complained about WRT the Hornet is that people keep saying the Hornet is a low risk/low cost alternative to the F-14, but in reality it's not. We had to completely overhaul the Hornet for it to overcome some of its weaknesses. And it wasn't "low risk" when you consider it was taking over virtually every mission for the carrier airwing. It had problems with its wing design (wing drop issues that, without a lot of aid from software, would still be a significant issue), issues with pylon angles and others. And we continue to keep pumping money into it to make up for its short comings. The spiel about MMH and complexity was originally used for both the F-14 and F-15 by the "fighter mafia", but that narrative continued to be used and stuck onto the F-14 because the Navy wasn't completely sold on what was being pushed on them (the F/A-18). Our legacy Hornets have similar availability and MMHs that Tomcats were having with airframes reaching 20 years of age, and that's with a program that got way more political and financial support. Some of the other reasons, other than maintenance, for why the Hornet is one of the best things since sliced bread keep morphing from, "oh, fleet defense isn't important anymore cuz no more USSR; oh, we're only going to fight littoral conflicts against non-peer threats so we don't need long range fighters or stealth planes; oh, flight performance isn't as important because networking will make us nearly unstoppable." There is/was some truth in all of those points , but flight performance such as speed and endurance is still important as the host of this channel sort of indicated when he mentioned that last point, as is long range air defense thanks to China. Defense contracting/procurement is complex and annoying, and if I had to guess, the prospect of overseas sales of the Hornet/Super Hornet was a huge factor as to why some people in the Pentagon went with it over other options. It's a lot easier to sell than a "Super Duper Tomcat" or some high tech stealth Navy tactical jet. So, in that respect, I guess it was a good decision for the U.S. economy.
@@okisoba Fleet Defense was also provided with ship-launched missiles, not just thrown out because of the collapse of the Soviets.
The variable risk factor with F-14D and MMHPFH was also driven by it not having DFLCS, and the same complicated and maintenance-heavy flight control system as the original 1969 birds.
Bringing the Tomcat back to the carrier was very difficult and not a natural evolution in training from the T-2 or T-45A, so loss rates were high.
The Hornet and especially the Super Bug are some of the easiest fighters ever to bring back.
My initial reaction to the Tomcat retirement and shredding was the same as every other Tomcat fan, until I separated emotion and started looking at the big picture to understand why. After looking at FMC rates over its life, I was kinda shocked how low it was year-to-year.
The Navy was paying way more than they bargained for and getting very low availability with unsustainable mx efforts, while often being humiliated by the performance of the other teen fighters.
This guy knows his shit, a very good channel, I'm hooked!!! Thank you sir...
Hey I just wanted to say I enjoy your videos a lot and please make a video on the Arramacci MB-339 Italian trainer jet. It has seen combat as part of the Eritrean Airforce in the war with Ethiopia.
Aermacchi MB-339... I'll see what I can do! 👍
@@Millennium7HistoryTech thank you 😊
12:55-The late-F-14D Tomcat had a dual TCS/IRSTD permanently installed under the nose
The Gripen E with the new composite sections has the smallest RCS and carries 4200 liters internally
Jenny Ma! Thank for all the details. BTW have you heard of Ma Baker? She is from Chicago town. 😉
Excellent video, sir! It piques my interest to know more about OMS. Please keep it up!
I think she grossly oversimplified the way/reasons that the Tomcat was canceled and the politics over capabilities story. The ST-21/SF-14 are super interesting and would still be top of the line!
Would it be a good idea that NATO in general adopt the OMS standard? making air planes and weapons easier to swap and use etc?
Any standard with similar features
4.5 the Avionics are super hot but the airframe is still quite similar to the 1983 Hornet
Calling the F18 Superhornet a heavily modified F18 is like calling a C17 a heavily modified C141...
Or calling an Apache Helicopter a heavily modified Toyota Prius.
IR technology is not as expensive as you might think. The only thing making it more expensive here is the prefix "Military".
Even a rotary or linear cooled IR head with megapixel class (above currently mounted technologies) class would be less than $100k.
The modern IRSTs look like IR heli-gimbals inside. They are inherently gyro stabilized and fast.
And they use a lot of e-stabilizer to get things really rock steady.
Their balanced weight mean that forces on the head is actually pretty small compared to what they could have been,
although all the mountings do feel the sum of the force.
But this is essentially the same technology for Helis, Tanks, Fighters. Not any rocket science.
I would say the disadvantages would be cooldown time (5-15 minutes), know spectra, rather easily fooled, countermeasures are pretty effective, atleast in close combat.
Also. A lot of IRST do have rangefinders. So while the single IRST cannot triangulate, it sure can fire a rangefinder.
I'd be surprised if the modern IRST don't have rangefinders. Actually. I'd expect all modern IRST to know the range to locked target at all times.
yeah laser rangefinders are mounted on most IRST devices I Believe. Some planes also have laser warning receivers mounted. So you lose the ambush element if you use the rangefinder.
Now ruggedize it for high G, high altitude, impacts, extremely wide operating temp range, NBC environment, EMP shielded electronics, high salt, high humidity, high dust/sand, and limit parts manufacture to the US/UK/NATO for raw materials, subcomponents, final assembly.
If you ever look at what a military contract entails from a compliance perspective, you start to see why it costs what it does. Some of it really is rocket science, and most companies don’t want to deal with all the hassle of submitting for a contract, just to lose out.
@@LRRPFco52 : There is little difference between an IRST for a tanks, helis and jet fighters. Jet fighters have extremely low G requirements. Their hardware requirements are similar to those in helicopters. Temp range is not more than anything else military. Tanks have several hundred Gs as shock. Jet fighters seldom experience more than a dozen G. Temp range usually exceed those in jet fighters because jets have access to active temperature management directly as air-mass to the equipment. Tanks usually don't. By comparision, jet fighters have no special hardware requirements.
If you've ever been near the cooling system for a modern jet fighter you'll know.
@@adambratt9902: Exactly. Also, new techniques are used to blind the IRST passive sensor by lighting it up. Since the sensor is so sensitive, you'll require very little power to completely blind it.
@@christianm1533 Oh so it works by burning the "camera eye"? Like how staring into the sun is damaging to our eyes? Sounds close to radar jamming only that passive IRST don't have ranging information to jam so you are just marking your direction unless you damage the sensor by burning it. But if you have that capebility, why not just aim for the pilots eyes instead? Surely a blind pilot is pretty detrimental to the planes combat ability?
Wait, what?!?
A cute girl that is super into aviation and technology... I’m in love.
The Rhino/Growler/Unmanned wingman are a 6th Generation combo pack.
I see in the FAQ slide that Linux is mentioned apparently as a "primary" operating system. I think (I'm an IT/Linux guy) could be interesting also some history/analysis about usage of operating systems in military hardware and environments. I can remember that many, many years ago the US Navy tried to control a ship via a windows NT system. The ship stopped as a sitting duck in the middle of the Ocean.. ;-) In case, if needed please consider me available also for some sort of cooperation. And, apologies for my English, it is not my mother tongue (Italian is). Apparently, also Space X rockets are somehow Linux based (at least for the non strict-real-time part).
Grazie. Contattami in privato. Vai alla home del canale, click su "About", in fondo spiega come accedere all'e-mail.
No aircraft currently integrates Linux as a hard flight-control operating environment.
Most modern fighter architectures split the system between critical ones and less critical ones.
Less critical could be something like RADAR, IRST, EW-system etc.
If you have a failure there it won't mean the bird will drop out of the sky.
You can restart that system or get back to base without much issue.
So no. You won't find happy hacking inside avionics control. :)
Yes more avionics and software infos would be great.
@@christianm1533 So much mission critical real time runs on Linux, since 2010 60% of mobile networks for example. Defence is following suit ie Zumwalt-class destroyer is full of IBM blades running Linux
@@phoneticau : Nope. It does not. Linux handles 3GPP MoMs and configuration. Realtime is handled by ASICs. The small requirements that are configuration changes at a pace can be more than adequately handled by a soft-rt configuration like a pretty vanilla Linux.
They need super cruise ability to be considered gen 5 I've heard of alot of tech upgrades made to it JUST not new engines that gave it SC Capability....
Ha what a surprise , Jenny Ma made a great appearance =]
I do how ever hove to say that, I love the uncut, slower tone of your videos. Definitely an untapped way of presenting here on TH-cam, and especially on the military aircraft topics.
P.s. Also not getting a voice actor to narrate , because of accent concerns or what ever, really makes it that much more personal, as a viewer.
Well its past 5 in the morning for me, I should be asleep. But a new informative video on a in my opinion boring plane, but informative none the less. The info about the data linking IRST is interesting, makes me wonder what progress the Russians and Chinese are holding close to their chest in this area.
Payloads over platforms will be the way forward for 4.5 gen fighters as we have seen.
Fantastic video, makes up for the string of failures I just had in Escape from Tarkov.
You would think by Block 3 they would have figured out a way to mount the ordinance parallel with the centerline of the airframe instead of continuing to drag it through the air canted sideways. Anyone who has stuck their bladed hand out of the window on the freeway knows what this does for parasitic drag.
Imagine claiming that the fighter plane mafia had anything to do with the F-16 if they would have gotten their way it would not have: Radar, Radio, Drop Tanks,
The F 16 is actually called the falcon
We had secure information sharing plane plane to ship and vis versa in the 80s. but it has gotten Much more intense. The problem is battlefield interpretation mental construction of a 4 D changing environment.
couple of things... the irst of soviet planes are also found in the mig-25p (pd i think... TP-26Sh1... and in the mig-23 the TP-23 family
can u elaborate more about utility of enclosed weapon pods?? and you forgot stealth improvements??
Enclosed weapon pods are not included in Block 3
@@Millennium7HistoryTech ok I think I mixed it up with super hornets advanced version but can u make a short video on weapon pods and thier usefulness, demerits and merits
Answer: it's 4++ generation!
12:28-the F-14D had the dual TCS (Television Camera System)/IRSTD pod under its nose
Well if you are very kind you can say so but I would say it it is a gen 4+++ aircraft since the RCS is large and it can not supercruise while for example Jas 39 E is a 4, 5 generation plane due to low RCS, supercruise capacity.
@@sorennilsson9742 one thing it can’t do Mach-2+ speed.
Can you do the EA-18G and how jamming works?
It's either 4.875 Gen or 5.125 Gen. I'm not quite sure, yet.
One problem I seem to be alone in having with the Netcentric Warfare Doctrine (NCW-D) is that it is very attractive for an opponent to try to disturb or even eliminate the network. People I spoke to about this said: wel yes, but because it's so widely distributed, the chance of crashing the entire network is virtually zero. OK, but how about an atmospheric nucleaur explosion? That is known for the discharge of a powerful electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) and residual radiation captured by particles in the air, effectively shutting down all bandwiths (ranging from ULF tot UHF) for communication in a certain area. After that remark the conversation was over... maybe a too sensitive topic?
The other thing I am worried about are the so-called AWACS-killer weapons. Air forces rely on a host of enablers like AWACS, JSTARSS, all kinds of SIGINT aircraft, drones and battlefield air communications nodes (BACN). Not to mention satellites. It seems very seductive to go after these platforms, since most are large, non-stealthy aircraft with little means of self defence. Satellites can be reached by ASAT missiles, etc. Though I agree distribution is key here to maintain the network and its sensors, the latter may become very vulnerable. The next step probably will be distributed low cost/disposable sensing and enabling platforms. But for now, enablers possibly may find themselve in the front line in a large, peer-peer conflict, right?
Final observation. Looking at my son, he seems to be overreliant on his phone. Outside his known surroundings he has to use Google Maps to find his way. OK, his phone is a convenient tool, but he has only a fraction of the ready to use knowledge and understanding my generation had when we left school. And that bugs him when his phone is broken. How does that work for pilots with such a big screen in front of them? Are they still able to synthesize the data by themselves and navigate, fight and return home safely when that breaks down? And to what extent is it detrimental to a pilots warfighting intelligence? Is (s)he still able to make decisions for her/himself when the situation demands so, or do the net and the screen become as convenient and to some degree mind numbing as a smart phone? In other words, do pilots need to have the same level of training in tactics, decision making under high levels of stress and knowledge of hostile platforms they can instantenously use, or do they become so called 'switch button warriors' that happen to be in a fast flying office?
3 very sensible points that I share.
Is it possible the IRST was placed in the centerline fuel tank to cool the sensor thus increasing it's sensitivity?
Unlikely, I believe
Navy decided to not use the conformal fuel tanks
3:40 I wouldn't say the failure of the YF-17 mattered at all in the F-18. Even if the F-17 had won the Air Force fly-off, we'd still have an F/A-18 based on it, I think. I also haven't heard the F-16 was too fragile for carrier operations; its frame is good for 9.4G and the landing gear was recycled from a heavier aircraft, I believe. Instead I think the single engine was the sole reason to reject the F-16. I'm not saying this based on facts, specifically, rather just reasoning as an engineer from first principles.
Also I'm curious why the Navy didn't weigh in on the fly-off. If the Navy had said, before the Air Force had made a decision, that they'd hop on board an F-17 order sharing the eventual R&D spend 50/50, would have swayed that decision? Sure there'd be differences in the models but the various F-35's share a huge number of the actual components.
F35 is a single engined aircraft
@@mmmssbb23 yeah, and? Jet reliability came a long way in the several decades between their designs.
15:16 for those confused by the "Dambusters" marking, this video might be the answer: th-cam.com/video/NDCMaOzlH2Y/w-d-xo.html
Superb content
No…that doesn’t mean that it’s 5th gen.
Hi what is the intro music?
Skyscrapers by Kevin Malson
@@Millennium7HistoryTech where can i find the full song? could seems to find it
F 18 is an excellent fighter but i want indian navy to go with Rafel because US millitary tech comes with too much restrictions.....🙏
Please be sure to wear a hornet when cooking , don’t want any flaming hair in my food 🤣
I erased this comment. Realized I had left out too much information and it was misleading in someways. I’ll take time to elaborate when I have time later.
the pilot who controls the canard or canard is automatically controlled ??
The F/A-18 E/F Block 3: is it 5th Generation? Nope, it is obviously not. Without stealth it is funny to speak about this.
I don't even think you could consider it a 4.5 gen aircraft if It doesn't have super cruise. Hell, it barley breaks the sound barrier.
@@operator0 This is also a funny statement. In a real config none of the 4th gen plane can SC:
1.SC term was used by LM about M1.5+ speed.
2. If you have real range for any 4th gen plane you need drop tanks.
3. But you can't drop them every time if you just suspect possibility of air combat.
2+3 = even considering AA config + drop tank the funny PR statement about the M1.5 speed of EF Ty. is just a tale or rather a lie. You can't dismiss + larger cross section and what is important the wave drag. Just check the shape of F-102 and F-5 how important is the area rule... No check the shape and cross section of drop tank.
1 - Even with full AA config without drop tank is maybe possible the M1.2 at 30k feet for EF Ty. but that is all.
In practice none of the 4th gen plane can sustain M1.0+ speed with real config.
BTW the avionics provides the 4+, 4++, 4.5 or whatever labels not the flight performance.
@@molnibalage83 If the avionics provides the designation, then that would mean that a MIG-21 could potentially be a 4.5 gen if someone were to perform the upgrades....theoretically
Is the HAL Tejas a 4.5 gen aircraft?
What kind of avionics are needed to designate an aircraft as 4.5 gen?
Also, it's my understanding that the Block 3 Super Hornet, nor any previous versions, can achieve SC even in a clean configuration. It seems to me that the Typhoon, Rafale and Grippen certainly beat it in that department, even if the load out is anemic.
@@operator0 You approach is quite strange but I rather call it funny.
You are the first person that I have ever met that couples the speed with gen. classification.
Which is 100% pointless and even the planes what you think in practice can't do SC or just even M1.0+
In fact the classification for many planes cannot be applied.
* A MiG-21 can have partially 4th gen avionics as the MiG-21 LancerR get a new cockpit, new radar, data ling, PGM and even digital flight control. But regardless of the changes it aerodynamics design and absolute flight performance did not change. In a close dogfight, the horizontal accel and in other parameters is almost identical with its original form. How you would call a plane with INS, 2xMFD, digital FCS and everything which was true for F-16A Blk1 and even partialyl for Blk 25-40?
* What about the AMRAAM capable US Harriers? They are subsonic what they have glass cockpit BVR capability.
* What about the F-4E Terminator? PGM + AIM-120 in a 3rd gen airframe.
* What about the F-4ICE/KWS?
* The F-111F could break the speed of sound at SEA LEVEL in case did not carry any stores externally. While nobody called SC capable plane. Because the funny marketing of European manufacturers did not act.
And so one.
The 4+ and other designation can be applied ONLY for planes which are designed using similar aspects as happened with F-15/16 and partially F-14. These are the multirole fighters following the teenager fighters.
Gripen is not able to break the M1.0 not even with 2xAIM-9 on wingtip. I know because I know personally Gripen pilot. With REAL config they are also not capable. And no 4. gen plane in practice can fly supersonically with full REASONABLE AG armament but for such a high fuel cost and for such a short time following a long accel which means it is just theory. Check their flight performance data. The Gripen E is even worse because the F414 could not keep up even with the size and weight increase of the plane not mentioning the drag in case of stores which is needed to have combat potential.
Pls. do not fed me with BS marketing of Eurojets. The law of physics are the same for them.
You can't avoid the wave drag. Ty. is the most powerful from the listed planes and Gripen is the weakest. Have you ever have seen any demo from them...?
I spoke with a Gripen pilot and I quite him:
"It was painful to fly dogfight even against an F-16 Blk. 32".
The only merit of the Gripen is good horizontal accel in AA config but the plane simply lacks the power. The original A/C Gripen need the F414 instead F404 and the Gripen E needs the F414 EPE instead the F414. But these never going to happen.
As I can judge you do not have even the basic knowledge about aerodynamics and performance of the planes at all.
I can recommend flight manuals and books if you wish to understand the reality instead believing the PR/marketing steamroll of the Eurojets.
@@molnibalage83 The Grippen A/C/D cannot SC, but the E/F model can. I base my info on what Saab and the Swedish AF say.
In 2006 the Gripen A participated in a Red Flag exercise and it's performance was exceptional. It "shot down" ten aircraft, including a typhoon on the first day. The Grippen E/F is, obviously, much better than the A/C/D. Later on, in that same exercise, one Grippen beat the F-16 block 50 five times in close air combat. In another exercise against the Norwegian airforce, three Gripens faced off against five F-16s. The result was 5-0 in favor of the Grippens. I'll take published results over anecdotal evidence to draw my conclusions. Maybe your pilot friend is a bad fighter pilot. Maybe he needs to fly C-130s.
There's only one plane in the world that can SC with a reasonable AG load out, and it's 5th gen.
Again, if we just go off avionics, then a whole bunch of aircraft that will get smoked by the the Typhoon, Grippen, Rafale, Mig-35, and SU-35 would be considered 4.5 gen. The Tejas is a terrible aircraft with great avionics. It is not comparable to the above mentioned aircraft in overall capabilities. I certainly wouldn't consider it a 4.5 gen aircraft.
There is not that officially designates a plane’s generation.
I didn't know deciding to cancel a program is considered failing. Woah.
Is this how your new kitchen looks like?
It's a 4.5 GENERATION.
If Australia was going to stay American then we should have continued using the F-18 platform. We need an all rounder and not a expensive specialist like the F-35 and we need two engines not one. And that's just for starters, pilots need to gain experience in the air, the running costs of the F-35 alone make it unacceptable. But we had to get on the bandwagon didn't we.
Cannot tolerate videos that have music playing over the top of or in the background of people narrating/talking. Turn up the music then and let me listen to the tunes, what you have to say must not be that important.
This plane came from the YF-17 Cobra which was much faster and more manoverable... And the F-16 kicked its ass..
Its a modernised legacy Hornet which in turn is a what the Navy developed from the YF-17 dating from the 1970s.. So its no more 5th Gen than a fuckin F-5..
No.
yeah it's tough when you spend a fortune on creating weapons to fight a certain foe and that foe suddenly disappears, you end up wasting a huge amount of money and end up with powerful and specials weapons that you can still partly use ineffectively, but all common foe's need to be forced to sign a contract committing them for 50 year blocks so special weapons designed for certain foes are still usable, i mean countries go to great lengths cooking up powerful weapons for certain foes and if that foe goes bankrupt and leaves the game then everybody is stuck with brilliant powerful weapons and no body to use them on, russia is a bad culprit, it just quit the qame in the 90's and at least 10 to 20 different weapons platforms became useless, you cant kill Iraqis or iranians with weapons built to kill russians, thats not how the game works, you can use any old generic weapons to kill Iraqis or irainians, but you need very costly, specially designed weapons to kill russians, it would be an insult to kill a russian with the same weapons you kill Iraqis or iranians with, the kremlin would have a fit, after all they themselves go to some lengths to design special high tech weapons to kill americans with, because the know that when the americans find out how the did it, they will appreciate being killed top notch, space age russian weapons that were made to kill americans and only americans, it's a form of mutual admiration, nobody wants to be killed with an old rusty gun, a secret russian lazer gun is an honorable way to go, i mean what russian wants to be shot down with a common chinese replica missle, even americans demand that they get shoot down by no less than a russian hyper missile, a real one, not one stolen and copied by the chinese, dam chinese, they came to the game late and dont know how the game is played, they hope to go to war with a bag of reverse engineered weapons, mostly stolen from the russians, they dont have a single specially designed american only killing weapon at all, they just want to kill everybody with nock off weapons, nor do they appreciate when the americans started makeing special chinese killing weapons, al they wonted to do was steal it and copy it, why steal a chinese killing special weapon and copy it, it was designed to kill chinese, the Americans would never use a chinese killing missile on a russian fighter jet, that would be an insult, well maybe the russians can sort the chinese out and get them to play be the rules and stop trying to kill americans with generic weapons and quit coping everthing, your allowed to steal but make it look your own, dont steal a russian missile design and copy it exactly, even withthe sames manufacturing errors on the missle, why steal a faulty russian missile and copy it exactly faults and all and make a thousand faulty russian missile copies and try to kill everybody with the same missiles, you need special american killing missiles only to be used on americans and you make but hid the special russian killing weapons until it's time to stab moscow in the back, dam chinese they just dont understand the game at all
America : Rafale is not a 5th gen fighter.
Also America : F 18 block 3 is a 5th gen fighter.
France : ARE YOU KIDDING ME !??
America : French bashing...
France : you known that what the F18 block 3 does the RAFALE did it for 20 years?
America : yes we know, why do you think we did it...
What has Rafael done for 20 years?
No. Next video.
No it’s 5- gen
Algorithm
I liked Jenny very much but her goofy high pitched music made it almost impossible to focus on her words. Please get rid of the music or give me a way to turn it off. Please
A navalized Raptor.. Ahhhhhhh, can we dream just a little bit? US Navy completely botched last 30 years of naval aviation development.. I know that the times were such that a true replacement for the F-14 wasn't needed, but as we can see, the geo political situation can change dramatically in a decade or two.
Their last major mistake was the cancellation of USLASS program where Northrop's X-47B promised to change the naval aviation paradigm and make the Navy's super carriers relevant once again. But instead of pursuing autonomous strike UAV, Navy decided to shut the program down and develop a half ass stealthy tanker UAV. Pathetic.
Hopefully their FA/XX program that tries to develop a true long range fleet defense aircraft will end up with something meaningful and advanced..
The question is not whether the F/A-18E/F Blk.III is 'Gen-5' but whether that metric is itself a useful measure of mission performance metrics.
It is not.
Stealth which costs double the CPFH of a twin engine jet a dozen years older in design baselines is not going to be purchased in numbers sufficient to grant sensor coverage of large operational areas.
Stealth which is 'so good' that the enemy is forced to go after the basing mode (killing all stealths at the Carrier or MOB vs. one or two over the target area) is no good insofar as it forces the CSG to standoff in the 1,000-1,500nm radius category which makes any minor improvements to fuel fraction pointless because, at these distances, pilot endurance as persistent presence becomes a dominant driver on 'the other 50% of the mission' simply spent to or home from the mission area.
Stealth which is too poor to exclusively (hot side) protect the 'platform' from detection and shoot down, thereby compromising 10-20 years of design investment in VLO is not useful.
Stealth which is lacking in mass video memory or a (MADL) ability to rapid-transfer targeting quality data back to whatever rebro node takes it out of MA or theater is useless.
Having said all these things, the F/A-18E/F is not a success story in it's own right or as an improvement on the F-35 in these areas because it's altitude performance is, in fact, worse (PS0 = Mach 1 at FL200). It's drag is enormous, thanks to external carriage of stores from toed out weapons stations which do not suddenly 'straighten up and fly right' by removing the inboard station SUU-79, thanks to upper fuselage CFT.
It's signature reduction is highly dependent on viewed aspect.
It's 550 vs. 700+ nautical mile radius differential compared to the F-35, effectively robs the latter of the support jamming and air to air missile cabinet the Hornet is supposed to provide while making the utility of the MQ-25 questionable as both fighters carry in excess of 18,000lbs of fuel.
It's use of the enormous AGM-158D JASSM-XR, while theoretically allowing the Blk.III to be 'on call' for the ISR only F-35 to cue targets for, does not account for either the enormous 'fighter' systems waste in what has become a missile truck. Nor the flyout lag of the subsonic weapon. Nor the added carrier magazine penalty of the much larger standoff missile (see: B-1B from Andersen or Darwin for what an ALCM carrier looks like...).
Even as a straight up fighter, the jet is compromised by the asymmetry of an AIM-260 vs. PL-15 comparison in which the Super Hornet needs the better missile to match the lesser PL-12 and when matched against an as-equals weapon like the PL-15, is once again outclassed by the J-11D or J-16's ability to sprint-boost the missile to a higher launch Mach from as much as 20,000ft (less dense air) greater altitude.
Even the IRST is on the wrong side of the airframe to provide look-up tracking against superior kinematic threats while placing it on the fuel tank ensures both vibration induced tracking instabilities and the potential of dirt-mud-water kickup from the nose gear, damaging the sensor window as the not-hard-locked-t-airframe sensor bounces up and down in the tank shell.
The Sixth Generation will be defined by cheapness and the ability to rapidly get to targets as much as 2,000nm downrange (F-104 like drag indices, supercruise transits) before loitering, persistently, for 10-15hrs, 'taking pictures' and then coming home. This is, by definition, a UCAV mission and it will need all the things a manned recce asset does /without/ being vulnerable to loss of stealth tech or a pilot when a megawatt class ground laser cuts the fuselage in half.
It will likely use a laser of it's own to defend against missiles or hunting drones and rather than carry heavy strike weapons, instead send data that calls in a hypersonic strikes from many hundreds of miles up/crossrange, off of stealthy Arsenal SSGN subs. Because submarines cannot be sunk by BASM.
The Navy is not interested in acknowledging this, despite having recently (2016) begun running 'Fleet Problems' again, which show, repeatedly, how rapidly present day (Cold War Legacy) systems LOSE WARS to Chinese level Peer threats. The last such HQ exercise, hosted by the Marines, only began to approach a neutral draw, with extreme attrition, when multiple forces were prepositioned on bases across the 2nd Island Chain, Australia and Alaska. While keeping the carriers firmly to the east of Guam to defend it's key theater entry position for USAF heavy bombers.
Even then, losses approached 50% of committed forces.
Ironically, this is an exact replication of the ~1929 'Fleet Problem IX' which showed, in attacks on Panama, that carriers could get in one good, solid, blow but then were inevitably caught out by the predictability of being in a given sea space (to recover the raids they had launched) when longer ranging bombers from multiple airfields ashore, wiped them out in retaliatory raids.
So it's not even like we're learning from our own anachronisms.
There are f-35 fans?
It is NOT 5th gen :)
The music in the BG was way to busy. made it hard to follow
5th gen f18 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Do I have money to except ' Universal exports of 5th generation jets' for sacrificing our climate change intelligence data to Colorado servers or SVR servers? 'Small world project' for the artists.
please skip the "music" when somebody is talking. It does not make the video better. It is just annoying and distracting.
Hey Jenny, I am not trying to be a professional pronunciation fascist... @2:40 "Northrop" is pronounced this way:"North-R-UP" (th-cam.com/video/nfnlrPzXogo/w-d-xo.html), at least that's how we pronounce it in Maryland USA. I was so impressed with your knowledge skills and abilities did I just had to share that with you, hope it helps!
Do you mean that a mediocre 4th gen fighter has been given a makeover because less than 2 out of 3 F22's made are still serviceable and the USAF is starting to realise that their other 5th gen aircraft, the F35 is now trackable at such long range that BVR may be ovetaken by the one thing the F35 cannot win. Namely a dogfight. In other words the Phantom lesson all over again.
Clearly you are running out of topics...
Hmm, Pretty Girl or Pudgy Guy?
That chick sound like a news caster reading of a teleprompter. Dont like it
Please turn off the stupid canned music
Americans are really funny with their definitions of generations.
USA: F-22 is a fifth generation warplane, it has stealth, supermaneuvrability, supercruise. Eurofighter and Rafale do not have stealth so they are 4 gen fighters.
EU: OK.
USA: F-35 is 5TH gen!
EU: But it has way worse stealth then F-22, it flies like a brick and can't supercruise.
USA: Yeah but it has cool electronics and shit.
EU: So do Eurofighter and Rafale.
USA: No they don't.
EU: OK, whatever.
USA: F-18 is a 5th gen fighter!
EU: Just fuck off.
No old airframe can become 5th gen, just with upgrades and retro-fits.
why is this weird girl blinking her eyes so much lol 😂
The F/A18 replaced the aging Prowler too. The replacement model Growler is a Hornet airframe filled up with advanced electronics.
The F-14D did have IRST.
Hi. Please make a video on E/A 18 Growler too. 🙏
Love from 🇮🇳
Short answer: no.
Long answer: NOOOO!
Longer Answer: If Flankers and Eurofighters and Rafales are 4th or 4++ gen, so is this plane. It has none of the distinguishing features of 5th gen.
Anti-radar shaping? not even close.
Supercruise? not to my knowledge.
IR signature minimization and IR seeker jamming? no.
All-internal or stealthy conformal weapons and fuel? not even close.
Thrust Vector Control and post-stall supermaneuverability? No.
The whole "5th generation" is just Lockheed marketing to begin with, taking specific attribute unique to their product(s) and listing them as requirements, *without* any proof of those features will be regarded as standard functions of the era.
IN comparison, here are some actual generational stuff:
* transition from biplanes with external supports to monoplanes with internal wing support.
* going from propeller propulsion to reaction engines.
* shifting from analogue to digital avionics.
Thanks for Jenny's introduction, she is certainly worth my subscription.