THIS Was Unexpected...
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- The USAF NGAD program is facing unexpected difficulties.
Are the NGAD, and the FA-XX, going to happen?
Join this channel to support it:
/ @millennium7historytech
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com...
Join the Discord server / discord
AFFILIATE LINK:
Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/...
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.c...
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the TH-cam Partner Program, Community guidelines & TH-cam terms of service.
Or, they are playing politics.
By saying they cannot prioritize the NGAD, they are shifting the onus to Congress to give them more money to fund ALL the things the Air Force thinks are more important AND also the NGAD.
This is not the first time a US service branch has done this. The Navy is somewhat famous for it. They cut down, for example, Arleigh Burke procurement, to prioritize on other things, knowing that the Congress shipbuilding lobby will greenlight a few more Burkes in a budget supplemental. It is quite common for Congress to force the DoD to buy more of certain types of equipment than they would prefer, or to keep certain platforms in service longer than they would prefer.
Unfortunately, in this case, the increased risk profiles in Europe and around Taiwan, along with the cost of arming Ukraine, the amount of money that we HAVE been spending is robably not enough.
I don't like it, but the only way around it is building cheap, disposable, less effective equipment off COTS technology. Which is something we should probably be doing, anyway, considering weapons expenditure rates in Ukraine are blowing the estimates by orders of magnitude.
You are correct. Also; That question was purposely planted to purposely give that statement to misdirect certain enemies. Also to get more funding from politicians. The AF NGAD is already mostly if not fully operational but the AF is looking for a final power-boost to pump numbers as high as possible.
Remember they want you to know about Area-51 on purpose so you won’t go looking for the real secret bases/test facilities. Truth is stranger than fiction.
@@chrisrautmann8936you cannot beat China buying many cheap stuff. They are the kings of many cheap stuffs. US military putting its bet on replicator drones. China had them for a decade now already. One China yard builds more ships than all US yards. Real problem is US has no industry anymore.
@@TheBoobanthere is that admiral who just said in the case of Taiwan conflict the navy will send in drones lol. What kind of day dreaming is that trying to out drone China? Who has endless land based drones, and building drone carriers and amphibs with emls. China is way ahead in the drone warfare preparations
The sooner people realize this the better. It’s like how Cope India was “evidence the F15 couldn’t hang with Flankers so we need F22s” meanwhile the F15s had their arms tied behind their back
Somehow the walls weren't enough of a hint, but the glove was :) Nice to see an artist in his natural habitat ;)
Interest on the national debt is crowding out all other budget items
Pentagon payrise priority?
I think hypersonic glide vehicles are the queen on the chess board. All of these slow, overly complex systems that can't be maintained but are just rabbits pulled out of a hat need to go. Give us some hypersonic glide vehicles as the Chinese have thousands and thousands.
Why would we spend so much money on a new aircraft when Snoopy and his Sopwith Camel is still ruling the sky's
To simplify, Air Force doesn’t know that exactly they want. When project requirements isn’t clear the program is doomed for disaster.
In fact they are probably doubting whether they need a next generation fighter at all. If the future is drone combat, b21 would work much better as a drone hive ship.
Look at the Zumwalt cruiser for a great example of that.
I don't care if the brass calls it a destroyer in order to get it past congress, it meets all definitions of a cruiser.
I think it has more to do with unmanned platforms advancing as quickly as they are. If the F-35 can be the quaterback for a small quiver of UAVs and a couple of F-15EXs as missle trucks then does it make sense to try to design a platform that won't be operational for 15-20 years if you don''t know what is going to be available in the next 5 years? The F-35 is here right now and it's limited by capacity. Off load much of that capacity to other platforms that the 35 can guide and control. Imagine an F-35 operating undetected 20 miles in front of some F-15EXs carrying a bunch of AIM-260s. The 35 detects the targets and the EXs start spamming them is missiles.
@@longshot7601 THANK YOU, your comment is on the money and the most cogent from ALL the comments which completely missed the Taiwan conflict kicking off inside of 5 years.
Many of the major systems for the NGAD program aren't complete, so they can't finalize anything. Right now the engines they will probably be very large, but the Chimera engine is considerably smaller and a few years away.
They don't know what kind of sensor suite they have, they won't be reusing the F-35 system, too many countries are operating 35s so it should be considered compromised.
Will it get its stealth from radar defective shapes or RAM?
Their may have been a major breakthrough in something important and everyone is scrambling to partially redesign their proposals.
Be not afraid, we don't even have any Gen 5 near-peers so there is no great reason to rush the NGAD.
@@jasonrhodes9726 China has a 5th generation fighter.
I mean NGAD system was described initially as "taking smaller steps with less time in between generations" or something like that. They might have issues with that.
Yes, I'm commenting before watching entire video, because Algorithm.
Yeah but roper got fired
Yeah. Supposed to build just a handful of them and then onto the next platform. This makes a lot of sense. But everyone cries about all the R&D costs attached to a few platforms. Don’t care about that.
The cost study is part of the development. Remember the F-22 came out too expensive to build? So they built only 187. B-2 was built at only 20. Yet from the F-22 came the more affordable F-35s, the next upgrades of F-16 Block 70/72, F-15 EX and from the B-2 came the B-20. No fighters and bombers in the world can match the technological prowess of the above-mentioned platforms. Now the US Military is upping the ante.
Because that „digital Century Series“ with a new replacement jet every 5 to 10 years just does not work 🙄
@@TheBoobanNo it makes absolutely no sense, because it does not work. It takes years to operationally field a jet after it is delivered and ready to go. That is the human factor, we are not even talking about, that it usually takes 10 years from service entry until a platform is more or less technically reliable.
It certainly also means "we want planes today"
They can't fly the planes they are getting. Lockheed has 150 planes on the tarmac that the Air Force won't accept because the software for the updates is not expected to be finished until late summer. The plants are still producing them, but they are running out of places to park them until the software update is done.
@@shenmisheshou7002 Lockheed has a massive facility in ft worth (over a mile long just for the building alone), they won't run out of place to park any jets for a long while
Thank you for your video. I would not be surprised that with technology evolving so quickly, NGAD could be a manufacturing system.
Hence no definable aircraft will be produced as we know it.
I think you are right on in your analysis. I would include the fact that evolving cheap drone technology has changed the paradigm of air superiority in a way that has not been fully understood.
Maybe. But we can't know because usa air doctrine hasn't been tested on a near peer. Iraq round one and 2 showed us the usa strategy but with older platforms. Assuming the strategy is the same just modernized it could be the difference. Russia is king of artillery. If you try to fight and win a ground fight without air support or a artillery advantage you will be defeated by the side with superior fire support. The only piece on the board that beats artillery is air power. Russia has very formidable air defense but we have to remember that is exactly the first wave of air dominance strategy. First a combination of cruise missiles, drones, air strikes, and special forces raids attacks radar, communications, and air defense located by a series of recon capabilities from satellite, spy planes, spies, and recon units. Also recon by fire missions. Once located the overwhelming saturation in the initial wave to take out all known facilities. Once it's mostly cleared up you can begin with air superiority mission to draw out more air defense, enemy fighters. Once air superiority is established you can begin ground operations with ground strike capability. The next question is will weapons such as manpads be as effective against us ac and with such a sizable air capability would it be as effective in detering us airpower from operating. My bet is no. As us ac are far more numerical and flight ready. Ac will operate in groups and have follow on strike ac to complete missions. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a serious conflict at all or one we should ever want. What I'm saying is it's likely the idea that the usa who is the only one with the air capability that it has in the whole world would likely see very different results in a conflict like Ukraine. It would lose ac for sure but it has the ac to lose. The question is would the losses amount to operational failure and inability to implement us air doctrine. I don't think it would. I think it would take longer than say Iraq but in the end with a month the USA would be operating in the air without a serious challenge. And once that occurs the ground war would turn in its favor.like I said I could be wrong but we have no way to know for sure. The Americans have a extremely robust air capability that is unlike any other country on earth because it is layered with capabilities that are all networked together. We can't compare doctrine and strategy of a conflict with countries that completely lack that capability to one that does. We just don't know.
Cheap drones aren’t traversing the pacific theater
@@adamtedder1012
We do know that air crafts need to lift off somewhere and ballistic and cruise missiles are not going to be taken out by special forces - it's a fantasy.
Around Yom Kippur the calculation was *two weeks* before NATO air assets were depleted due to guided missile air defenses - that was before the current Russian capability to strike airbases from mere corvettes, traversing the Moscow Canal.
@@christophmahler again your operating off past assumptions instead of current capabilities. As I said it wouldn't be without losses but no conflict is comparable when those resources are not being applied to the example conflict. The overwhelming quantity of air platforms that can be brought to bear alone changes the dynamics. Even the Russians believe in a philosophy of quantity. There is no example of that in the Ukraine conflict. Or any modern conflict. The best example is also dated and that would be the first and second wars with Iraq. And I by no means am saying it would be that cake walk but the resources brought to bear will be tremendous and the saturation will effect both air defenses and supplies. Each air defense successfully targeted will slowly unravel the defensive capability. I'm not pro anyone but I actually have worked with and around these capabilities. I'm fully aware of both the us capabilities and the abilities of Russia. I don't know what people get out of downplaying either. If it gives you warm comforting feeling I guess go with that. I operate on logic and reason and see these things as one sees a boardgame. I have also been one of the people from day one who said outside US direct involvement this is Russias war. They will win it. All that is being done is drawing a deeper price for them to win. F16s will not make a difference because they alone are no different than the ac Ukraine already lost. It's how a nation builds its air doctrine and the integrated resources that are in use with that air doctrine. Ukraine does not have those resources to use that type of doctrine. The US is the only country in the world that does. Same way Abrams made no difference because alone it's just a weapon but integrated into the overall us military doctrine and systems it's an effective and devastating weapon. Weapons are as good as they way they are employed. The us has the capability to have a layered strategy because of its vast assets in the realm of intelligence, logistics, and support.
@adamtedder1012 If it makes you sleep better. Current Gaza and Ukraine conflict already refutes your scenario.
I think Ukraine is showing the importance of drones and the huge attrition rate to be expected in a near peer battle.
One of the reasons for trying to FastTrack NGAD. NGAD, by documents that are out, is effectively a command and control platform for a squadron of drone fighters, with increased survivability via improved stealth over 5th gen and laser based APS. So.. yeah.
@@SCComega I would say the opposite. I think ngad is going to be another 20 effort like the f35. We need weapons delivered now, not in 20 years.
@@SCComegawhy fast track the drone controller when you don’t have drones yet, lol. You don’t need NGAD to control drones.
@@kennethng8346 building no fighters of future is bad idea what will be there after 20 years if you dont start now?
@TheBooban no, but it's intended to be a more survivable platform, and while the F35 can manage 2-4 drones, depending on type, NGAD is intended to increase that to full flights of 20 drones per NGAD. One NGAD should still be cheaper than 5-10 F35's and reduce the scale of risk for pilot loss, and mean in terms of total war industrial mobilization, being able to better utilize the current pool of available trained pilots.
Or he was just saying "we're not making any announcements today, here's a boring answer so you can't get any information out of us."
Could this be a ploy to confuse Russians/Chinese or Millennium 7? lol
@@AdamosDad Otis definitely organized the prank :D
Another possible problem could be that the Air Force was going to go with Boeing to design or build thr NGAD but all the Boeing mishaps have caused them to rethink that possible selection.
@House_of_Schmidt
I had not thought of this, and no one else is talking about it, but it strikes me as quite plausible.
Boeing is in _deeep_ shit on the commercial airliner side of their business. Their jets are suffering door-falling-off problems; engines-falling-
off problems; avionics problems; gear collapse problems, and just in general _prob-U-lems._
The F-15EX seems to be doing well, but the new trainer is falling way behind schedule. So yeah, the USAF could be having Boeing Trust Issues, although that does not explain why they didn't go with the LM proposal. Maybe they are dollar-shocked from the tremendous cost overruns in the F-35 program? _But,_ that argument can be countered with the fact that F-35 costs are way down now just like LM said they'd be. You can grab a F-35A for around $78 mil now; that is less expensive than a new Rafale or Typhoon.
So who knows? Still, at the least I think the 'Boeing Trust Issues' idea is as viable as most others.
The USA should subcontract SAAB for any 6 generation project. Swedes combat aircrafts are far more efficient
Stick to a modular common core architecture and iterate on improvements, much like how Audi/Porsche builds cars. The F-35 may not be sexy, but the platform has legs and newer manned/unmanned aircraft can be derived from it to reduce costs. Software is evolving fast, and while I'm fatigued on everything "A.I.", we know where things are headed: future airshows will be robotic and boring ;). I know I'm going to hell for saying this, but I think the future of attack aircraft should be unmanned, low-G, plump designs that can accommodate LOTS of fuel; i.e., nothing you would want on a bedroom wall poster.
USAF seems stuck in the same "loop" as USN !
USN struggles to find a definitive design for its new "back bone" frigate, take a look at Constellation program, it's the same mess
if you allow USAF and USN to choose what to build, they can do so easily. the issue is congress keep forcing strange armchair general requirement on them.
@@lagrangewei the case is different with the navy’s Constellation frigates, unfortunately. This time the fault lies with the navy brass, their horrible procurement procedures, lack of transparency and oversight is hampering the program, not the congress.
@@lagrangewei
"congress keep forcing strange armchair general requirement on them"
Like what ?
@@christophmahler The navy is forced to use Tico cruiser instead of more flight 3 arleigh burke.
@@mjabb02
"The navy is forced to use Tico cruiser (...)"
Alright.
But from a budgetary perspective their AEGIS capability seems a better investment than fewer Arleigh Burke cruisers for the same role.
Seems likely to me that the US is preparing for a near-peer confrontation with Russia and potentially China, and scaling up and scaling out existing assets like F35 and enhancing navy had to be priority over spending another 10-20 years getting a 6th gen into service at scale.
Look at how fast China’s military is advancing in both quantity and quality. And in less than 10 years the pivot to semi autonomous drones in air in sea on ground gives China an overwhelming advantage. Sadly, next time around, war will unleash uncontrollable biologicals that trump every other weapon
I see a tamed down version for gen 6. No loyal wingman now ( maybe in the future ) , no directed energy weapons. Just improved stealth, maintenance, range, and the ability to produce quickly ( Looking at Russian Ukraine war ). Take what works off the shelf where you can to help with the process.
I'd see it as only loyal wingman and an upgrade to run it
loyal wingman are coming way too soon for them to leave it out
Talked to a Northrup enginer before the b 21 was unveiled about ngad. He was telling me that the requirements for the program where quite insaine dude to range requirements and that they may end up just using the b 21 with missiles... It has the range and the stealth and it already is being built. Seems like this is increasingly a more likely option.
The b21could become the next b52 if this platform has to be retired because it is too vulnerable to modern counter air assets.
Awww, I'm just an average nerd 😛
There's another possible explanation, though it's not necessarily the most likely. He could have been pushing contractors to sweeten their bids.
The thing that, for some analysts*, Boeing management is a nightmare and Lockeed Martin is milking the cow, constantly failing to deliver what was agreed.
So, you may be right, but the reason for the threat may not be about the price only.
*defenseone published an article about that.
@@chefchaudard3580 Boeing management is kind of a nightmare, true.
And the fact that the JASSM & LRASM missiles (made by Lockheed as well) are just a few inches too long to fit inside the F-35's internal weapons bay... really speaks volumes about the amount of milk they try to squeeze. "Oh, you need a new plane for that..." (wink-nudge)
@@kathrynck No doubt that the big 3 absolutely milk the DOD, but the JASSM/LRASM is not a good example. The JASSM, [the LRASM is dimensionally identical] was developed 1995 to 1998, for use by aircraft in service at the time/to provide a "here and now" capability since the AGM-137, which basically should have been the AGM 158, was canceled due to poor program management.
The tech demonstrator for the F-35, the X-35, didn't even fly until 2000, and its development tender was signed in late 1996, so there's just no way that an air-launched cruise missile that's halfway complete into its 3-year development is going to take into account the possible weapon Bay dimensions of a tech demonstrator for a future fighter that doesn't even have parameters established.
@@ArizonaAstraLLC Well, that's kind of a chicken/egg thing. The fitment is soooo close... and they're the same generational product grouping... It begs the question, why doesn't plane from lockheed, and important missile from Lockheed, fit together?
Alternative idea to FA-XX... just shorten the JASSM/LRASM by several inches, so that the F-35 can carry 2 of them internally along with external drop tanks. The F-35 has superb range really, moreso with external fuel added. Or alternatively, switch that around and create internal removable fuel tanks which conform to the dimensions of the internal weapons bay. That'd probably be simpler.
The F-35C is already the Navy's longest range combat aircraft by a good margin. It really wouldn't be all that hard to get it to a point that it could go boop someone's nose from further away than a DF-21 reaches (unrefueled). Which I think is one of two things the USN wants out of the FA-XX (the other being addressed by F-35's carrying AIM-260's).
I expect the NGAD to be a product entirely based on the digital era. What I mean is, we might look at it like a smartphone. Something would come out but that something will not be the final thing. It will be an operation jet, very capable and menacing for its enemy but some features would be missing. With regular updates and investment, it will become what they needed it to be. Just like the DDG(X). Initially, the ship will have regular VLS and more or less things we see on the Burke today. Yet, the platform would be made to be easily upgradable for the future
@@ulikemyname6744what “platform” is that? The platform is a computer. Doesn’t matter what plane or machine you put it on.
That’s how all 4th gen fighters were developed. First they were rather primitive air to air jets with very rudimentary air to ground capability and they then grew into multirole platforms over the next 10-15 years. ALL of them, from F-15 to Eurofighter with the exception of the Hornet and especially the Super Horner, these 2 jets were ready from day one.
@@xyzaero This time, it should be easier, faster and upgrades should be more substantial
There won't be an NGAD. Drones are the future and China is already working on that tech. If they get it before us, it will be very serious. The US can buy the Q-58 for $2 million each, so for the cost of 16 F-35s, they could buy 640 XQ-58s. AI capabilities are advancing fast and if we get to the point where an F/35 drone mother can operate 16 drones, then 500 F-35s could put 6000 combat airplanes in the sky. Even if China had 500 J-20s, the drones would simply overwhelm them and that is what will happen to use if China pursues drone cluster programming quicker than we do.
@@xyzaero I don't agree with the primitive statement. They had very revolutionary designs, especially the F-16. The 4th gen proved its worth in the 80s.
Look at SandBoxx’s episode. They’re now thinking they should switch to the modular constantly upgraded platform they rejected at first.
Hum, so you mean that you design a really great engine, a really incredible software and avionics system (15 years of development for the F35 software), and then design in a new stealth system?
Well, wonders of wonders, is that not exactly what they did with the F35 program?
They took that base technology, and shared it across 3 platforms.
This explains why the R&D cost for the F35A, F35B, and F35C model in total was 80 billion, but the R&D cost for the ONE F16 program was 83 billion dollars.
So, yes, it is a good idea. While the 3 F35 models only share 20% common, that common part is engine, software and stealth systems - thus keeping the cost rather low, and each fighter is far better then if they had attempted 3 separate programs. I mean, there is no way that the Marines would ever get stealth, advanced software for their Harrier replacement, let alone the amazing F135 engine program.
So, yes, I do believe the future is building base technology, and then using that across multiple airframes - exactly what they did with the F35 program. The result was 3 fighter jets for less development cost then the one F16 program.
American here: Most people don't realize most of our military budget actually goes into the creation of acronyms for the military - Acronym Creation Research and Overbudget New Yankee Military Systems, or "A.C.R.O.N.Y.M.", is itself a 800 billion dollar a year industry, and no doubt the NGAD system is overshadowed by it.
They are leveraging cutting-edge think tank-derived parameters to synergistically create an industry paradigm shift away from Three Letter Acronyms (TLAs)
2022-2024
USA : NGAD Future alien-tech Fighter-jet with 120-200 million usd price tag.
Mr DIY Russian : Enjoy using Su34 2 seater fighter jet with toilet and microwave installed with Cheap Dumb Bomb , flying suicide drone with 2 stroke engine navigated by refrigerator chip.
Low cost but very effective .😂😂😂😂😂😂
Concerned about your left hand, and forearm.
It is slowly getting better, thanks
A third possible explanation:
The USAF 🇺🇸 is utilising an asset, that has been left dormant since the late 1940s!
Taking advantage of possibly synergistic investments by its ALLIES 😮
Mind boggling right?!? But just consider what a certain US-technology infusion into the Tempest 6th gen program could create! 😅😉
A win-win for 🇺🇸 🇬🇧 🇯🇵 🇮🇹 ….
Let's consider the 4th generation warplanes as an aviation school at the peak of the industrial age and the beginning of the transition to the information age. F-16 Block 70 with a hull life of 12000 hours and F-15EX with a hull life of 20000 hours represent the mature products of this era. These aircraft are super programs that emerged from a very wide industrial infrastructure with the cooperation of more than a thousand defense and aerospace subcontractor companies.
Now, let's imagine the air war of the future. In a global network-centered warfare and electronic warfare environment intertwined with A2AD fields, with the surprise developments that will come with new technologies, with the existence of very advanced missiles, a warplane's life expectancy (if it is lucky) is 15-20 sorties. How logical could it be to prepare for future wars with the production order and products of the industrial age?
A radical change is coming that will include not only the 6th generation but also the 5th generation warplanes. Could it be logical to make large investments without analyzing this process correctly and adapting the ecosystem and production infrastructure accordingly? For this reason, we see that the main responsibility in the CCA initiative is given not to defense and aerospace giants, but to more dynamic and smaller new generation exponential organizations. We know that giants are given the task of gaining experience and analyzing the future as their subcontractors and production partners.
This process of change will not happen suddenly. Various projects such as CCA will be experienced step by step and the future will be built on these experiences with a combination of scientific and practical approaches.
It would make much more sense for countries like the USA to have other countries and their defense ecosystems clean up all the residue brought by the habits of the industrial age. Let the United Kingdom and Japan realize the Tempest project. In any case, all the technologies that will be developed in this process will be available to the USA in every dimension. Let the Turks work for the manned KAAN and the unmanned KIZILELMA. The ecosystem created for this business will have to feed the US and European defense industry in order to feed itself.
Comprehensive look into military procurement - but optimistic in regard to geopolitical realities: Turkey is a member of NATO as much as Hungary is a part of the EU, culturally it is drifting away from all things West.
The Soviet Mig-31 already reflected the Information Age with it's sensor and data linking, yet it may mean little if not brought up to scale - the main problem of Soviet procurement of the 1980s, leaving e.g. Tu-22Ms and Mig-29s arguably as unfit for their missions beyond suicide attacks on US carrier groups.
It shouldn't surprise when the arms race between guided missile technology and air craft comes out again in favour of 'cheap' support weapon system, despite the 50 years development cycle of RADAR cross section reduction that should have broken the Cold War European Theater stalemate.
The serial rapid collapse of the F-117 and F-22 procurement - comparatively to the F-16 - appears to hint at that.
The F-35 is operational, but it maybe more so due to data links and advanced micro-computing than to stealth - and theses features point rather to unmanned aviation than to any 'Next Generation' of air frames.
@@christophmahler During the time of the Soviet Union, their air force reached this conclusion by evaluating the opportunities at its disposal. In modern electronic warfare, any weapon that reaches and hits remotely would be unreliable. For this reason, they eventually predicted war, that is, dogfight, seeing it as the most reliable way to destroy the enemy and separate the friend and foe. Then, they prioritized maneuverability in their aircraft. Russia also accepted this legacy without changing it. But time showed that no matter how well they implemented electronic warfare, there would always be something out of their reach to use. Just like today's digital domain...
A Turkish proverb says: "The path of the mind is one." The approaches you mentioned from the Soviet period are initiatives brought by this type of mind. But just because they thought about it and tried to implement it does not mean that they succeeded. In fact, they could not do justice to their attempts for various reasons. The USA, on the other hand, gave more credit for the work it tried and did. Even though it was slow and problematic, they all followed the classical path they had drawn before.
Attention was drawn to the weapons from the Cold War period, especially the tanks, used by the Russians in the Ukrainian war. But let's be honest, the US also still uses M1 tanks and M2 armored vehicles from the cold war era. They still have them in stock and it is much cheaper to overhaul and use them than to produce new ones. The situation is not much different in the field of military aviation. In an age that dictates systemic change, every country is pushing its habits and capabilities to the limit. The production continuity and success of the F-16 should be sought here.
I believe that we will see many developments in the field of unmanned aviation. But I do not think that manned and modern platforms have reached the end of their life. Because both the laws of nature and the nature of the new countermeasures that new areas will offer have the potential to make robots more unsafe than humans. In fact, I have very destructive thoughts on this matter. For this reason, I think that the transition to completely unmanned systems will be divided into more than one phease and will come step by step and a little later than expected...
@@aybarsmeric
"In modern electronic warfare, any weapon that reaches and hits remotely would be unreliable. For this reason, they eventually predicted war, that is, dogfight, seeing it as the most reliable way to destroy the enemy and separate the friend and foe."
NATO pilots consistently denied any electronic warfare effect and the use of super-maneuverability - e.g. West German officers who had inherited Mig-29s from Eastern Germany and who exercised REDFOR agressor tactics (neither Fulcrums nor Flankers had electronic warfare pods, however and ground based systems - though systematically integrated - were probably not as high-powered and versatile as today)...
...and I'm waiting for Augusto to animate a 3D model of that entire scenario in order to illustrate it's plausibility as electronic warfare is usually completely ignored when talking about air combat...
I largely agree about a continuity of doctrine and weapon systems. Not sure if I get the proverb, but e.g. in political science within the school of 'constructivism', continuity derives from culture and historical identity - military traditions are then to be expected as being persistent as geography, only modified by technological advances...
"I believe that we will see many developments in the field of unmanned aviation."
For aviation, I said the same when looking e.g. even at the allegedly manned Russian light fighter Su-75 - and I agree that over-reliance on unmanned technologies is an invitation to cyber-warfare - or systemic malfunction with unforeseen catastrophic implications.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if the recent technological progress - e.g. in regard to shortened reaction timings - triggers another Dark Age.
It may even be a blessing in regard to psychological and cultural development, ending an alienation that originates from an ever more extreme division of labour and loss of agency.
It's downright retarded to make an aircraft that won't last. You can't throw away an aircraft after 20 uses. Maybe if you were in WW3. But if you don't account for peace time. Then you just have high tech junk.
¡Gracias!
Thank you very much!
With the rapid advance of pilotless vehicles/ aircraft you need to keep a closer eye on Otis or he will be presenting and you will be cleaning the floor.
So I better buy you a coffee to help you stay alert!
If you ever go in a shooting confrontation, machines are liable assets, while pilots are emotional ones. Each loss weights differently as public tends to reacts unfavorabley to pilots dying compared to numbers of lost equipments.
The Vietnam War taught some lesson and you cannot expect the next confrontation bring like the Iraqi wars.
So as an American and one whos steeped in this very industry and knows the DoD, the issue is simply 'we dont know anymore. Never enough money, i need more bribing'.
The USAF is generally speaking? Rather incompetent. Dominated at the brass and officer core by politically motivated ideologies, its woefully underperformed as awhole with things like recruitment, managing budgets and poor hiring practices.
At this point in time, theres literally no options anymore that seem viable. In a general sense, your talent pool for pilots, engineers and program directors has shrunk and those you keep getting are under qualified. This is leading to a trickle down effect as the lacking competency at the leadership level is influencing your labor pool and you get buyers that dont know what the hell it is theyre even buying, accountants who fudge numbers because theres such poor record keeping, and a bloated budget thst makes it hard to justify laying off all your crrw cheifs even though your current fleet of aircraft has an average age of 30 years...
The NGAD is meant to be a spear head that looks into two seporate ideas for the future platform - and it still mingles the Hi-Lo mix idea.
One angle tbe NGAD is looking at is the top end, easily reconfigurable, small batch produced, speed is the top priority type Dominance aircraft. The other angel is that NGAD is the mass priduce, excessively cheap, highly advanced fiest ever air dominance capable drone - basically a top gun version of Loyal Wingman.
HOWEVER we cant afford any of it.
We are soending so much money on Ukraine and Palestine and Israel right now, whilst also dealing with inflation which the DoD itself counts at 19.7% hence the raise request on the NDAA 2025 bill that unfortunately for service memebers, was rejected, as well as rampant contractor costs that equal gouging rates of 90,000 USD for a bag of washers...
The DoD and as such; the USAF, has no idea how to do anything anymore. Theres no coherent vision, sense of direction or anything because much of what it happening in the US right is forcing a huge state of flux.
The originaly plan was for us to come up with an NGAD system that harkoned back the era of the century series fighters where multiple contractors could priduce their own qualifying platforms, making new airframes faster and thus cheaper.
You real cost in the USAF isnt new airframes, the the SQM and sustainment of the old ones. Lockheed for example makes the VAST majority of its Aerospace divisions profits on Sustainment, not the selling and subsequent DD250ing of every new asset delivered.
The problem is, its Congress itself that caused that conundrum by allowing such massive mergers in the Defense Aerospace field. We used to have multiple airforce plants operation, popping out aircraft and keeping airframe ages on average of 10 years. Now its common place to see and aircraft thats 35 years old and counting and we are producing only 1 brand new figher, and that fighter is at half the rate of production as the one its replacing - the F-35 is magnificent but the logistics of the program are debilitating. It was CONGRESS ITSELF that forced LM to outsource to so mant suppliers in exchange for votes with politicians promising to support the program only if it garunteed them jobs in their respective voting districts or states. Now, unlike the F-16 which was well over 90% produced in house in AF Plant 4, the F-35 is only 60% produced in house with much of supply being from the wreckfest that is California, but jobs were required to be in nearly EVERY state, making aquisition of supplier provided parts an absolute nightmare? And also a massive money pit, driving up costs.
The USAF is now in the worst positon it can be in. Its lead by incompetent diversity hires, its manned by abstenstees as it faces shortages and lack of recruitment, budget shortfall after budget shortfall, and contractor corruption, logistical failures and lack of true innovation.
Theres no going back until we hit a reset.
Dji entered the chat
When speaking of new weapons systems for the US military and the monies required, it is virtually never mentioned that the US dollar's power and influence around the World is steadily decreasing. The $ hegemony in its role as global reserve currency has for 75+ years related the ironical situation where America's enemies participate in funding America's war machine, the World having no choice but to purchase $ to have a means of trading. This use of the $ in international trade is steadily declining, and at an accelerating rate. When enough countries manage to bypass the US$ to trade amongst themselves, it won't be possible for the US to just print money and spend like the proverbial drunken sailor on shore leave...and the game of global hegemony Wil likely come to an end.
The October BRICS+ meeting, where it is reported a trade currency immune to the US$ influence will be announced, and at which some 59 more countries may be welcomed into the organization' does not bode well for America's future ambitions regarding new weapons, maintaining 800+ foreign bases and most importantly, the use of sanctions (currently 49 countries representing more than half the World's population under US sanctions) as the major threat which keeps many/most countries obeying the US-led "rules based order", often against their own interests.
All of that, and more, may soon have major effects on America's ability to keep its obscenely bloated military expenditures going. This, of course, will severely impact the potential for new programs, keeping bases open and even maintaining the current arsenals.
Thanks for the video, i think the war in Ukraine is changing a lot of acquisition decision. Seeing how UAVs and UUVs have rapidly changed the wargame, it must be playing a big factor in the AirForce's mind.
USAF invented the combat drone.
Think about the title: "Next Generation Air Dominance". This implies that they already have dominance (over what?), but that it will be lost. Either through ageing, or because of what defending militaries will do. But you can't tell the opponent/s how exactly not to outgame you. "I forbid you to play smart!". So you have an a priory undefinable task. The very name "Next" shows they don't know the purpose of the instrument. And a weapons system is an instrument. What will it do? If a tool is absolutely universal, it is useless. If it's a good screwdriver - it's a very bad knife. If it's a good knife, it is a bad screwdriver. They can't think philosophically, They are just hunting for Moby Dick, while the excess of energy continues to nag them. Until they lose the second leg and settle down.
Sooner or later the realization that should we get into a shooting war with peer or near-peer adversaries we're going to lose aircraft at a rapid rate. It would likely be a better move to build 30 F-16's or F-15's than ONE NGAD. The old Russian model of 'Quantity has a quality all it's own' makes a LOT of sense once the initial contact of your super Hi-Tech machines results in both sides being ground down to a much lower level where sustainablilty is more important than having all the newest bells and whistles. I pray this doesn't happen...but also hope that the people in charge of our military services take this scenario into consideration when new projects are pending.
F16 may not have the legs for the Pacific. And we need 100 (?) Shin-Meiwa US-2 seaplanes for SAR.
Well said, I agree.
What about pilots? We already struggle to train and retain enough. If you put them out there in volume to fail, what are you going to do. Resurrect them ?
when it comes to numbers, atritable ucav's could be a short term solution with minimal upfront cost compared to a new advanced fighter. pair those ucav's with 4th++ fighters could be effective for a fight against Cina within this decade.
@@MichaelBarnes-ey7sjDrones
What this troll is not comprehending is, the US Military does not build for the sake of building. Having to step back and pause for a time doesn’t not mean major failures. It simply means adjustments mid stream due new information and how to address issues if any are perceived. Those cheap drones being used in Ukraine are not of major concern considering NGAD’s higher level stealth, Electronic Warfare Suite and new engine technology. In fact, the NGAD will be flying with much more advanced drones that we have yet to be introduced to. Hold on to your seats and be ready to be mesmerized, troll.
Another option: there's classified tech that makes these designs obsolete, and they don't want to waste money on them.
In a sense. I’m glad this is ambiguous. The military as a whole (not just the Air Force) should be in absolute turmoil having seen the activities in Ukraine and the Middle East where low cost delivery vehicles are making a nonsense of the high cost and limited supply in the means to shoot them down; and of course the tension rising in Asia in both rhetoric and the advancing state of development of the Chinese military are indeed extremely worrying. New doctrines are needed which must surely define new operational capabilities which are affordable in the face of the low cost targets they have to counter, so they can be plentiful. As you’ve pointed out before the West has far, far too few combat aircraft. The Air Force and Navy cannot be shy about reducing or eliminating the role of pilots, this has long been predicted. Combat aircraft can be produced more cheaply when systems supporting the pilot can be eliminated, and the long tail of training pilots can be reduced dramatically by building their knowledge into AI systems. The global threat profiles and advancing technologies must surely be forcing serious re-imagination over the design of defense. I hope this is not just optimistic thinking; the risks are more real now than any time I can remember.
Thanks!
Thank you so much!
Rich people flaunting
Whatever happened to Boyd’s high-low mix?
That was a fun video, the new camera angles were cool.
People are drawing way too many questions from such a short comment holy shit
Thank you Gus. No surprise in your conclusion.
Both reasons are good and I think Ukraine reminds decision-makers how easy it is to put down a many billions program with low cost engines.
Maybe they are looking at where adversaries’ next gen technology is headed and reconsidering design and systems solutions! Committing to a long term and very expensive technology that may be rendered obsolete or ineffective by adversaries technology and/or war fighting concepts may not be the best path going forward. So what may seem like a regression may actually be a wise decision!
Possibly.
One could even make sure that the tech security is lax, and seed the 'ripe' tech with intentional flaws which would prove seriously harmful if copied. Kinda like they did to sabotage the russian space shuttle through russia's own spy network.
But that would be very competent. My faith in alphabet agencies to be clever enough to run a ploy like that today is very low.
But yeah, you never want to spend big on something which is likely to get hit with the technological nerf-hammer in the forseeable future.
They could also be looking at the J-20 and not see an effective challenge to their current aircraft and trying to solve different issues with the next gen aircraft since they now believe that they have another 10 years of lead time in a peer conflict. The fact that the urgency seems to be gone, is telling. If the J-20 isn't as effective as has been shown, then there is no real aircraft program in the world to challenge the F35. Air defense improvements and advances in drone technology seem to be driving a lot of the rework to what the air force thinks they want.
@@edwxx20001For one, to my knowledge the J20 has never "been shown" to be effective. China seems to be keeping a tight lid on its capabilites. Secondly we've already publicly acknowledged that the J20 is superior to the F22 and even the F35 may not be up to par. (If you want the source for that go see the F22 upgrade video from about a week ago). OP is right, we don't even know fully the extent of our geopolitical rivals' capabilities, so planning to leapfrog them makes no sense. You can't counter a technology or strategy you don't know/understand, so building a platform to do so would be foolhardy, especially at the expense of investment of proven systems we already use.
@@92HazelMocha "superior" is not the word I'd use. It has longer ranged missiles, and that's about it. And of course that doesn't account for the AIM-260, which will be hitting production any day now.
It's an interesting plane though. People seem to either think it's garbage, or it's the greatest plane ever, and neither is really true. It's stealthy enough, "payloady" enough, and "rangey" enough, to cause problems.
You _never_ see it really maneuvering aggressively. And it's not _super_ stealthy either. But it doesn't have to be "superior" really, to be a quantum leap forward for China, and a strong asset in an asymmetric theater.
@@kathrynckPersonally I don't know enough about the J20's systems or specs to make any kind of judgement. The pentagon however seems to think it's more capable than the F22 and frankly that says quite a bit as they've probably seen much more about the aircraft than any of us.
The U.S. military first has to digest the lessons of the Ukraine war before doing anything.
US has very different style of warfare. In Ukraine conflict both sides have weak air forces what cause heavy use of artillery and reliance on tanks, etc.
@@Rehunauris And powerful air defense that destroys enemy planes and missiles
Too expensive. The USAF needs over 1500 new fighters soon. So build more F-35A and F-15EX. Possibly buy some new design semi stealthy twin engine fighter bombers to supersede the F-15EX and legacy F-15s.
War is also coming and building much more of the best available military assets in the 2020s is prudent.
Autonomous weapons and AI are finally at the stage where they look viable to a wide audience?
I guess a general or a senator that used some ChatGPT poweted tool is much more of a believer. And who knows how many tech demonstrators they've seen too
It's being regarded as more viable based mainly on the tech & results being used in Ukraine.
Although most of the drones being used there are not highly autonomous.
@@kathrynck yeah but some are. In fact, autonomy turns out is just an add-on over your existing FPV or a Lancet. And a relatively cheap add-on too, apparently.
Task is significantly more difficult with a jet powered loyal wingman, but it should be doable, and soon. And after that come autonomous fighters.
@@aleksandrs1422 *nod* I agree.
It's trickier to have the drone do the "fighting part" though. That's a lot more complex than the ferry out to target area.
I don't envision F-35 pilots taking active control over a drone for it's final approach to strike coordinates ...while also flying his own plane. So it'll require considerably more refined autonomy.
Mind you, i'm just kinda spit-balling.
The AF knows we need to move away from these 50+ year platforms. Why, because of the TRILLIONS of $ in sustainment (which every1 knows is the majority of life cost) NGAD is supposed to b a “system of systems” but I guarantee the company that wins wants a massive 50+ year commitment as that has been the norm for all of our jets after the F100s series (which pumped out MANY GOOD JETS FAST). I think AF is looking to spread things out and have rapid innovation between MANY COMPANIES. I imagine the supposed “Prime Contractor” assumed they would get the whole package like f-35 did. *What we’re seeing here is in essence SIMPLE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS* The prime is stomping their feet so we have a lower tier official say some off the cuff crap to shake em up a bit and remind them who it is that calls the shots.
Why are you assuming that USAF and contractors are separate entities?
erm... what the sigma?
Are you by any means a mogger?
I have to laugh.I've Heard those sentiments years before the F-117 was ever seen by the public. The same can be said about the F-22. And in every case the next generation of air combat was already not only underway but in service.
P.S.never show your hand
I guess we could always sell them FCAS if NGAD is no more
Well, for once, the German and French projections on when a 6th gen fighter will realistically be ready seem to have proven true.
Based on that I think what might be marketed as the next 6th Gen fighter for American use might turn out to be some upgraded variant of the F-35, thus the F-35D.
The USAF is procuring a thousand F-35’s and a number of B-21’s. While it’s fleet of F-16, F-15, and A-10 are all aging out. The USAF has painted itself into a corner for not procuring attrition replacements.
during the golf war f15s got more tank kills then a10s
And the upgrades for them to be usefull at all would be too pricey
Why upgrade a f16/f15 to the newest standart when for just a little bit more you can get a new plane thats better in every way?
And on top of that f15/f16 airframes are getting old
They have only soo many hours left
Love your vids.
china top test pilot said last week. china next gen fight jet coming soon.
china in talk to export j20. so likely it is true.
they choose gender neutral drons
Skyborg (They/Them) 😅
Could also just be smoke. Turn the project black (or more black than it currently is) so adversaries don't get wind of it.
Danke!
Thank you!
Hi Gus. How is your arm? Also please show us a picture of you in uniform.
My arm is slowly getting better. I think my mother in Italy may have couple of photos somewhere. My service was before the time smartphones were ubiquitous and the ITAF doesn't take the "Hero picture" like the US. I think the uniform is still in one of the cupboards in italy.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech it would be great to see
Also, all that very expensive high-tech is very easily countered by cheaper methods which are faster developed than the weapons we are talking about.
"all that very expensive high-tech is very easily countered by cheaper methods"
I suspect to agree, but an example would help the argument...
@@christophmahler 'High-tech' tanks vs. cheap commercial drones comes immediately to mind.
@@thomas_jay
"(...) commercial drones comes immidiately to mind."
Fair enough.
@@thomas_jaywasnt the only example the hit on the su57 ?
If your talking about that then ofcorse it doesnt matte which plane it was
A b17 ,b52 and a f35 would have beared the same
Why?
Becose its the fail of the AD not the plane
The us and europe have enough sams to defend their airfields
Russia cant
An Archer cutaway!!...just when I thought this channel couldn't get any cooler 😀
Yep, loved it 😂
forget ngad. just buy 1000x more drones as planned and let the f35 block 4 manage them in the sky.
F-35 block 4 is a beast. And with attritable drones, even moreso.
Bombers & boats will be especially important in the pacific though.
It can’t manage drones. That’s the story they’re trying to sell us to make it relevant in the age of drones. Plus you don’t need the F35 to manage drones, there’s a billion other ways.
The USAF is in trouble.
Maybe the 6th gen capabilities (perhaps without the energy weapons) will be rolled in the current 5th gen platforms.
Depends on exactly what those technologies are. But surely, to some extent, that would happen whether NGAD goes forward or not. Some of the tech would definitely leak into block upgrades on existing aircraft.
@@kathrynck The question is whether the 6th gen would have been a leap enough forward that it would warrant the investment at the moment given current level of tech. Like does the USAF need a slightly better 5th gen doing the same thing like the F-35 would be able to do rather than having more F-35s if the loyal wingmen come into play?
@@vojtechpribyl7386 Definitely true!
I know that "range" has become a priority, as well as likely "increased internal payload capacity". Which by & large means a bigger, or at least "chunkier" plane.
F-35 can do more than they're letting on though (don't wanna elaborate). So yeah...
One big thing which could happen, is to NON-retire the Nimitz, bumping supercarrier groups from 11 to 12. Not to mention it'd be helpful to stop poking the bear in europe, and instigating hostilities with iran on behalf of our "greatest ally in the middle east". It would be genuinely feasible to get 5 battle groups to the pacific. Though you'd still have to fire someone in the navy to get them to actually put F-35's on all their boats.
I'm unsure of the range of the wingman. If they're going with a derivative of the Boeing Wingman (aka ghostbat), then it could have pretty long legs. I'm a bit surprised that other options are being looked at so much.
Another interesting idea, would be to put long range missiles on external hardpoints on the MQ-25... It's not fit to get into the thick of a conflict, but it has LONG legs, if it doesn't refuel other aircraft. And it's carrier capable, reasonably low observable, and already in production.
Rapid Dragon, of course, would be something you'd want stacks and stacks of, ready to go.
Well, the United States does not have a fifth generation yet, and the effectiveness of the su57 is still being hidden, so it's too early for you to talk about it
@@kathrynck The problem with the bear in Europe is that the bear decided to chew on something that it definitely should not be and that USA did make commitments to protect that from being chewd on. Not to mention that it allows the US to see that there are quite a few possibilities in warfare that might have not been seen before.
The range itself is not that much of a problem when one consider automated tankers. And as far as bigger and chonkier is concerned the main boon of the 6th gen would have been extra energy generation from having two engines which might play a role later, but F-35 definitely didn't say it's last word in that regard. One thing that might also play a role that I didn't see mentioned is the B-21 though. That thing is far stealthier, has far bigger weapon capacity and though it itsn't built like a fighter it might be a nice coordinator for a swarm of drones on it's own. The Raider might be far more than meets the eye.
To go with the F35s and upgraded F22s, they could buy many more F15EXs. Give these aircraft the capability to control 2 or 4 CCAs each (more for the F15EXs?) and develop another much cheaper autonomous AI controlled 'Suicide Drone' that would sacrifice itself to Sams or AtoA missiles from enemy fighters. This would keep the Eagle twos safe (if needed) and would allow freedom of navigation in enemy airspace. Heck, make the suicide drones have a secondary function as a cruise missile and you've got a banger package.
These suicide drones could also fly with bombers, cargo planes, refueling aircraft, and even AWACS to protect them from harm.
but a F15 costs more then a F35 - and by quite a bit.
They will deliver what, 12 F15's this year?
They built 138 F35's during covid lockdown, and production will reach 156 per year.
So, a F15 costs about 125 million each, compared to the F35 at 80 million.
The whole idea of the F35 was a lower cost single engine fighter.
So, most nations can't afford a high priced F15 or Eurofighter at 120 million each, so they go with a lower cost F35 at 80 million.
So, just like most nations in the past went with lower cost F16's, and it sold in record numbers?
Now, the top selling fighter by huge margins is the F35, and once again this is due to nations not being able to afford those higher priced dual engine fighters.
And I fail to see how a F15 is of any more use then a lower cost F35, of which you are making many more of.......
@@Albertkallal Hi, Albert. The F35 costs about 85 for the A model at the present time due to inflation. The F15EX is roughly 95 to 100 million in small batches. If built in larger numbers, it could be done at about the same price as the Lightning 2.
The F15EX could be used as a missile or SDB carrier at the behest of the F35 increasing the F35s effectiveness by a factor of 3 or 4. It is also quite capable of surviving in a contested environment thanks to EPAWSS. Seriously, a team up of both jets would be practically unstoppable. You could also use the EX in conjunction with the F22 or even the B21 with Link 16 (or similar tech).
My point is that putting all of your eggs into one basket that is limited in its capabilities (the F35) might not be the best idea if war were to break out with one of the biggies. Longer range, bigger payload, and a backseater to possibly control drones is just what the Air Force needs. The NGAD would not be missied (yet).
@@myplane150
the F35 block purchases are well known.
The numbers I had are:
F15 cost:
73.2 Non Stealth Airframe
22.62 2 engines @ 11.31 each
13.6 EPAWSS (Eagle Passive Active Warning and Survivability system)
2.5 ATPS (Advanced Target Pods)
10.9 IRST Search and tracing system (POD)
1.2 Auxilary Mission Equipment
1.1 Software
total cost = 125.12
F35:
F35 cost
54.4 Stealth Airframe
12.8 Engine
12.2 Offensive / defense electronics package
total cost = 79.4
Keep in mind that for the F15, for every hour of flight, you are chewing up 22 million dollars worth of engine time with a limited lifespan compared to 12.8 million for the F35 single engine.
As for the airframe lifetime? Well, the F15 airframe used to be rated the same as most fighters (8,000 to 12,000 hours).
However, to pitch the F15 to congress, they simply by some magic act doulbed the airframe life rating of the F15.
How did they do that? (they did not change the design of the F15 airframe)?
Well, they simply stated that if you "baby" fly the F15 in a loiter flying like use case, no hard turns, and limit the g-loads, and limit the number of takeoff's and landings? Presto, you now have by a wave of the magic wand extended the airframe lifetime to 20,000 hours.
Why does that matter?
Well, assuming say 8,000 hours rated airframe?
Then at 80 million for the F35, then we have a airframe depreciation cost of $10,000 per hour, not including the per hour "consumables" to run that aircraft.
So, at 125 million for the F15, then if you rate the airframe at 20,000 hours (by waving that magic wand), then you get a aircraft per hour depreciation rate of 6,250 dollars. This was done SOLEY to pitch to congress that the F15 is not all that expensive (but, it is still high priced, and a LOT higher then the F35).
As for pitching the F15 as a bomb truck? Why?
The max payload of the F15ex is rated at 29,000 lbs (I seen a tiny bit more, but let's go with the 29,000 lbs).
The F35 is max rated at 22,000 lbs.
However, the 2 max weapons payload numbers are misleading, and the reason why is this:
F15 fuel tank size: 13,455 lbs
F35 fuel tank size: 18,500 lbs
So, as you can see, the internal fuel tank size of the F15 is rather low, and to get a good combat range, then the F15 has to now start trading wing stations for fuel bags. The result then is that the useable weapons payload drops. If you want to add 5,000 lbs of fuel to the F15 to give it good range (range to match the F35), then you have to pull off 5,000 lbs of weapons. You now wind up with a payload of about 24,000 lbs, which is only 2,000 lbs more then the F35. But, then why fly that F15, since flying a lower cost F35 with almost the same payload means the F35 becomes part of the sensor network, and each F35 acts as a BETTER system then what a AWACS gives.
In other words, you better off to fly the F35 in beast mode, since it payload will be rather close to the F15, but then you not splitting your logistics between 2 fighters, and the F35 is far more useful, since the F15's can't enter any contested airspace anyway. And the F15 can't act as part of the flying network that the F35 has.
So, the math numbers from a practical point of view don't add up to use a 125 million dollar dual engine high priced fighter compared to using a 80 million F35 as a bomb or missile support truck.
And if you saying that the above 77.8 million dollar quote has increased somewhat due to inflation, then the numbers I posted for the F15 will also have increased by that same inflation amount.
either way, it sure don't make a lot of sense to use a 125 million dollar fighter that exists in few in numbers, has low production rates, and worse yet, only gets you about 2,000 more lbs weapons payload into that battle theater compared to a F35 when you take fuel loads into account.
The flight cost per hour of the F15 also tends to be higher then the F35...
Archer was also unexpected.
As general global destabilization accelerates, I think we will see development projects take a turn towards expedient practicality over next gen concept systems. Same as with the Russians cancelling the T-14 and going turtle. We'll probably see a general move towards open architecture, incrementally upgradable systems over encapsulated "package" systems too.
There's also the shock of Ukraine still ongoing; it is a transformative war with many evolving technologies and everybody is observing and trying to find out how to best evolve their doctrines and equipment.
90% agree.
Although I think if the US put forward their best tech, the war in Ukraine would turn massively against Russia. They just don't want to put their best tech into close proximity with Russia over Ukraine.
Note: this isn't a western pie-in-the-sky war propaganda sentiment. I think, contrary to popular press, that Ukraine is losing quite badly right now, and has been for about 10 months.
It's just that if the US brought in its massive SEAD capabilities and air power... the whole paradigm of the Ukraine conflict would change overnight.
Which isn't really a suggestion that the US _should_ do that... I think open direct war between the two largest nuclear powers is a terrible idea. It's just that the lessons to be gleaned from the Ukraine conflict are somewhat more limited in scope & application than some realize (though there's definitely lessons in it).
@@kathrynck I agree, the whole reason the war is still ongoing is because of both being afraid of passing the nuclear threshold so much.
I admit that I don't share your position on the lessons from Ukraine being limited, especially when it comes to threats to armour and mechanized infantry, low flying small drones and general infantry tactics.
Some where considered before this conflict of course; the effect of cheap suicide boats in large numbers over advanced warships was modelled in an US wargame in the early 2000s, though they weren't drones.
But I agree that at this point the Ukrainians seem to be losing and generally on the backfoot, which Is probably why the US seems to be expediting escalation moves, like allowing use of their long range weaponry to strike in non-occupied Russian territory.
The two most reasonable explanations aren't mutually exclusive. Flighting China is a wall and the tech to make NGAD work is a moving target. It could be the Pentagon is afraid the two will converge at inopportune timings.
yeah, that.
Well put.
china really has no intention to fight u.s but the longer it waits, the less % u.s can have any success in winning the fight....
A new plane isn't needed if the F35 can be upgraded to a combined cycle engine.
The US likes to have a better version of a weapons system for itself than what it makes available to other countries. It was supposed to have continued with the F-22 but production of that plane was killed to pay for the F-35. The US will want to have at least one fighter better than the F-35 in the future for when the F-22 stops flying.
@@capitalinventor4823 The F22 was cancelled due to the costs of & irrelevance of stealth for the War on Terror, but your point is a good one.
@@capitalinventor4823 This was an achievable goal post the Cold War, when the U.S. was a hyper power and had no peer threat. Nowadays it’s pretty much an even race between the U.S. and China to get a 6th gen fighter into service. I don’t think it can reasonably hope to stay a full generation ahead of even its closest allies when it’s at risk of falling behind in certain areas even to its biggest adversary.
We beat China by working together, not withholding tech from each other.
Drinking Tea? Not espresso? Living in England has an effect on a man.
NGAD = Not Gonna Acquire Dis! 😉💰💰💰
I see ngad as a way to Produce air borne somthings,in a fast way. Its more a set of integrated Production mathods,than a final aircraft,maybe;) that is the goal of cuting edge Civil Industrys these days❤
My taxes are already too high this is good news.
oh... they'll find plenty of ways to spend that money, NGAD or not.
We have a money printing machine. The US spends more money than it collects in taxes so really doesn't matter.
No the USA can stop funding the U.N the NGO’s and the Open Borders people. There’s enough money in our budget. To fund our own defense 🇺🇸 Stop giving it away.
How is St.Petersburg
Theyve cancelled it because WW3 is imminent. Theyre trying to rearm quickly. Youre taxes will jump when it starts, also you may be drafted.
It does look very sleek, futuristic doesn't it? It again is one of the Jets many UFO-fans will say that it has been based on the characteristics of an captured UFO.... the US-Air Force copying all the goodies from an alien ship in Area 51! 👽😎...😂
The problem, with integrating USAF and USN requirements, seems to be you end up with a cludge. F-111 and F-35.
FA-XX and NGAD are separate programs, but DARPA is managing tech exchange & asset sharing between them. Like for example, they both might use the same engines or radar.
The F-111 was awesome to observe and inspired several Soviet air frames - yet supersonic low altitude strike bombing wasn't a concept that could counter guided missile air defense networks - as we now know from Su-24 mission records.
It is likely that NGAD suffers from a similar gap between expectation on paper and realistic execution.
@@christophmahler But by NO stretch of the imagination, a multirole & Air superiority fighter.
th-cam.com/video/8-RlUF9nFyA/w-d-xo.html
(7:00)
@@christophmahler Ironically, I think what they want out of NGAD is quite similar to the F-111. Dramatic range & payload. I'll be surprised if the NGAD isn't quite large.
@@kathrynck
"I think what they want out of NGAD is quite similar to the F-111. Dramatic range & payload."
Interesting - and _plausible_ , especially if one considers that *a reduction in RADAR cross section benefits larger craft, most* .
However, unless it has even more efficient stealth features than the discontinued F-22, I doubt that another manned air frame reflects an actual progression in fighter generation.
The risk of trained pilot loss - reflected e.g. by Russian Su-34s strike bombers - becomes just too much of an issue in a near peer conflict - and if avionics were so automated as in the Flanker that a child could fly them 'on the fly', they would also be too expensive for mass production.
The F-35 appears to fulfill the same role already, e.g. commanding several UCAVS into a hostile air defense zone via it's data link - none of us see a novel platform requirement that isn't already implemented (compared to a mere scheme to keep companies afloat with public contracts).
Both USAF and USN NGAD seem to be having problems. Now is the time to build a Joint NGAD right. Despite the bad examples of joint aircraft, like F-111 and F-35, there have been some pretty good ones. FA-18 has been used as a land based fighter for the USMC, Canada, Australia, and a couple others. The mighty F-4 was the backbone of both the USAF and USN for a few decades. The A-7 was highly successful for both services. The common theme? They started as Navy. Make an NGAD that is truly Joint by making it a USN fighter first with the ONLY allowable changes for the USAF is weight reduction in the landing gear. Build a truly 90% common airframe.
The US government is $34 trillion in debt and that debt just keeps on growing. Something will have to give. In other words they can't afford to carry on as the have been. That means either downsizing, or trying to be more efficient, i.e., getting more bang for their buck.
Edit. P.S. The US military has a tender process that is supposed to be competitive and result in the best product for the lowest price. Well, for starters there's pork barrel spending, so we know of at least one way the process has been corrupted. What appears to be happening is the winning tender gets the right to fleece endless billions of tax payer money. Once they win the tender they no longer have any competition, i.e., it becomes a monopoly on that product for the entire duration of its service life. No wonder stuff costs so much.
Your richt bud you looking wrong at the amerikan "debt" its way different then what you think you should do more research on it.
Well, despite some rather political efforts to blame everything on the "MIC", defense procurement is only about 4% of the fiscal 2024 budget.
The US is not (nor has ever been) going broke on defense spending. Although during Regan's presidency, it did put a somewhat more significant dent in things.
You don't understand money, the US debt is the only REAL money out there - everything else is speculation by the banks. The government don't need money because their word is money. All serious transactions are done with US debt as medium, everything else is Walmart coupons. The US debt is not needed by the government, but by the banks.
@@kathrynck True, but historically when the USA has has to tighten its belt, defence programs have got the chop. I am not saying it's why they have so much debt; just that they will need to reign in spending, so it will be no surprise if planned programs get cancelled.
@@axl1002 That must be why the US government pays billions every year in interest huh?
No you're dead on it's both your points though...
NGAD, at the very best we can maybe get a few airframes by 2030 and the War with China will happen before then(2026-2028 is what DoD thinks)...
So yes, improvements of the Pacific base infrastructure, aim 260 f-35 and F22 upgrades (I mean Block 4 F35) on top of the CCA's that is moving forward, and can be controlled by F-15EX(backseat), F35 maybe new 22's as well as B21's and likely B-52 (upgraded, J/H?)...
All the US fanboys left the chat 😂😂😂😂
We didn't. Still the most dominant air power on the planet. While our adversaries are printing 5th generations we are already eye balling 6th and beyond
You sound like saddler in 1915.
@@jedispartancoolman Hahah yeah right...at least when your Airforce won't convert into a rainbow dancing club 🌈🦄 looking towards cliffs 🤣
@@jedispartancoolmanyou can't make the difference between men and women. Get those eyes replaced.
@foshizzlfizzl ask the Russians how our rainbow flag weapons from the 80s feel
Frank Kendall said that NGAD needs to have twice the operational radius of the F35 at the same cost as the F35. This is because China has developed ultra-long-range anti-aircraft missiles that can target tankers. The weapon bay can be the same size as the F35 because the CCA (Collaborative Combat Aircraft) carries the missiles.
The US Navy also needs a fighter with twice the operational radius of the FA18. Stealth is the lowest requirement for carrier-based aircraft because the weapon bay is difficult to install and remove missiles.
The new design of GCAP meets the requirements of both the US Air Force and the US Navy. The US Navy needs twin-engine aircraft.
Let's work with Boeing to get the US Air Force and US Navy on board.
Lockheed Martin could create a revised NGAD by enlarging the wings and fuel tanks of the F-35.
Fighters would have to visually identify friendly targets with broken identification friend or foe systems before firing a missile.
If missile launches were left to the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), there would be no need for a weapons bay, reducing manufacturing and maintenance costs.
50Tn $ is a serious reality. And you have to ask if you have F22 and F35 *today*, and if you believe the 'story' that they are beyond any opponent, and I forsee no competition on the table, or in production any time soon that elevates past them - NGAD would see to be a luxury program...
Yeah, I think it's an issue of timing.
If you could spend $30B on having an "almost ready prototype" in time for war in the pacific... or $30B worth of F-35's in stock in time for war in the pacific...
@@kathrynck Very little of the inventory is fit at all for a wider war in the pacific. Unless the US and Taiwan agree to operate bases in a unified way, almost everything is at a serious range problem - especially F22 and F35. Unless the US places Carriers in range of Taiwan (and Chinese Carrier killers) - then the Chinese have all the cards. I've said this before elsewhere - the US defense of Taiwan was always nuclear. Whoever is pitching the long conventional 'war' 'plan' - seem to be idiots and are setting up for either a gigantically costly war, which at 50Tn$ - can't be fought, and can't be won. The US should simply back channel with absolute clarity that China is turned to glass on any military war op against Taiwan. As simple as it is brutal.
@@AdmV0rl0nChina hasn't demonstrated that their "carrier killers" work in practice and as long their nuclear subs lag behind US they wont control oceans.
@@AdmV0rl0n Possibly, yeah.
AND THEY STILL HAVE NO TANKER, because corruption lead to buying Boeing KC-46s wich still is years from being operational 😂
Hello, my friend, Millenium 7. Don't forget our Black Budget, which is huge. Alex Hollings was speculating about a fleet of B-21s flying with a pair of AI Drone Wingmen, based on an airframe like the drone the US Navy uses to refuel its Super Hornets, reminding us that the bomber is more than a bomber, and that it's practically invisible to both high frequency and low frequency radars. Maybe that's our 6th gen stealth surprise? The bomber is already in a cycle they call a limited production run. We don't know how many, but all reports say it's a great flying machine. How about that, Jack!
Hey, it looks like you injured your right hand, or is that a new Italian style? Either way, good health to you!
First word problems. The US is the one that will define the paradigm, and they have so much options to chose from. Money is not the issue, ability is not the issue, time is not the issue.
Warning: NAFO detected
@@dgiulio2677 Got any actual arguments?
Personally I'm a big proponent of the high-low mix. That said, i think upgraded f-15s, f-16s, fa-18s, and/or the king snake concept would make for a good component of the large numbers low mix, perhaps augmented by drones. For high end low numbers, maybe the f-22 and f-35 (and maybe a more advanced fighter further down the road) would be good for it.
China bot "The stealth fighter made in China will win!"
Hello NAFO NPC
He meant that the plane they wanted was way the he77 too expensive to put into production. I have said, many times, that the REAL 6th gen aircraft would have to be AFFORDABLE STEALTH aircraft.
I have another theory: The F-35s cost so much per flight hour, require so many repairs and maintenance and have so many accidents that budgets are exceeded by several hundred percent. And I must not be too far from reality.😉
Your "theory" is garbage...
The F-35 costs roughly 32k per flight hour to operate.
An F-16, by comparison, costs 28k.
So the cost is quite similar and the additional capabilities the F-35 has, they more than make up for the incremental additional cost.
As for accident rate: An F-35 has an average class A mishap rate of 0.23 per 100,000 flying hours since the start of the program.
F-16 has an average annual class A mishap rate of 8.15 since the start of the program.
If you're going to have a "theory" you might want to check to see what the actual facts are so you know what you're actually talking about.
A better theory is the F-35 program gives the US such an advantage that we have time before the advances promised by NGAD are necessary. And, we have time to come up with more advances instead of freezing the design and entering production.
Or... We're reading way too much into a single speech...
As someone who worked whit it i can tell you your fare from richt repairs are barely needed and maintenance isnt as expensive as you make it sound also compared to flicht hours there is barely any accidents
Pretty far from reality actually.
@@marijnnn4992 lie much ? You can't write but you worked with it ? As in ? You worked on the f-35 program, you maintain them ... ,,?
I'm not so sure. It has now become one of the most cost-effective, the AF now has in service. The safety record also stands as one of the best the AF has ever fielded. Not sure where you're getting your opinion (?)from, but at best, it sounds like you're using old biased media to base your assumptions on. The statistics say the exact opposite.
De-dollarization makes effect also on US army. Even US will be forced to think twice in the future where their money goes. Sustaining 800 military bases all around the world cost a lot of money.
SMART... THANKS... (WAR IN 5????) U$A MIGHT AS WELL MISS THE NEXT WAR, HAVING ALREADY LOST THE ECONOMIC-INDUSTRIAL WAR: THE EMPIRE IS NO LONGER PROFITABLE...
Realising the competition is so far behind, the USAF may push the NGAD back! So F-35s & F-16X fill the gap!
There are much better system designs that are more in tune with FLEX BASED BATTLE EVOLUTION that nothing has properly addressed on all fronts thus the NGAD and all other crafts in the world in design are obsolete even on the drawing boards. As per AdaptionSystems mentions from as far back as 2021-22.
Yeah everyone hates on Pierre Sprey (wonder if it has anything to do with Lockheed Martin’s social media budget). But Sprey and Wheeler both said this would happen and it’s happening:
They said F-35’s tremendous expenses, paired with its long list of delays and issues, is forcing our armed forces to gouge out other parts of their budgets in order to free up money to support it-or to make up for it still not being ready.
It’s a shame. A lot of big talk about how it’s the best plane ever! But none of it has any real basis-all of these claims are unscientific. Because what’s the baseline? What’s the opportunity cost? If you’re ignoring cost, and comparing it against platforms that were built half a century ago, and designed even before, then yeah, of course it looks better. But when it comes to NGAD-the question is, what are we missing!?
The F-35 remains promising, and frankly, we’re already stuck with it and have to make it work. That said, it’s not a versatile or capable enough platform to maintain air superiority to 2040+ against near-peer adversaries like China. And this is even more true, if our armed forces are cutting out a great deal of technologies they planned on having, and pressing the F-35 into a Swiss Army knife role.
Anyway, Sprey and Wheeler were absolutely correct on this point. This far, the F-35 program is absolutely crippling our armed forces.
I often hear “we can’t restart f-22 production because it would be too expensive.” I also hear that what makes the F-35 effective are its sensors and sensor fusion.
Well, we already have the F-22’s development cost largely covered. And sensor fusion and new computers can be added to designs like the F-22 as they have very large airframes. For example, look at how Boeing updated the Super Hornet into the Growler…
So, instead of NGAD, why not just update the F-22s design with more powerful sensors, and better integration capabilities, and then send it to production. This would presumably be faster than a completely new design, would have a higher probability of passing muster in testing, would lower training costs (training infrastructure already exists) etc etc….
Whoever runs these forces is about as savvy as a baby boomer trying to use Microsoft excel.
Honestly, Lockheed Martin should be banned from producing fighters for the airforce for a good while. The F-22 and F-35 has been the mst expensive [rograms ever, with insane delays. Specially the F-35. You said NG is on time with the B-21, NG should be granted fighter programs if they can respect schedule and cost some some pressure for improvement can be transferred to LM.
This is the result of the continuing cost escalation of the F-35 program. The F-35 Program cost is not expected to be $2 Trillion and the F-35 is going to have to stay in service until 2088. It is laughable to believe that the F-35 will be relevant in 35 years much less in 64 years, but because of the cost to upgrade, operate, and maintain the F-35, the services will have to reduce the annual flight hours from 240 hours to 187 hours. Then there are drones. In mass production, The XQ-58 would cost 2 million a copy. For the price of 16 F-35s, you could buy 640 XQ-58s, and if you converted 500 F-35s to drone queens, you would have 6000 combat aircraft. AI is getting good enough to allow this, and drones are the future. If you converted 1000 F-35s to drone queens, you would have 12,000 combat aircraft and no country could defend against this. The F-35 was a financial blunder of the highest order and China and Russia are right now looking at drone tech, and China is going to get there first unless the Pentagon diverts all available future funding to drone queen/drone air defense network. The F-35 did this to the services. It just got so expensive that choked the armed services to spending death. This wasn't a surprise to me. If you look at the program spending, you could see it coming.
They would, at this juncture, be better-off just updating the YF-23 to accommodate NGAD program goals. What a mess!!!
But, but...only 29% of the US F35 is operational because of breakdowns and the intense maintenance requirements. The Ukraine has made clear that quantity and basic functionality is paramount. Numbers matter.
Typical US military spending , 200% over budget with 50% of promised performance.
Does Hamas have a superiority fighter? Does Hezbollah have a superiority fighter? Does Yemen have a superiority fighter? How about Iran, or yeah they don't have an air force. How about Syria? How about them bad boys ISIS?