@4:35 - "The J-Twentyyyyyy!!" - right when you said that, my monitor and the entire power in my home blinked. That was one very powerful effect from you.
As a prior F-22 avionics guy, you did a great job, and I honestly couldn't think of a single thing you said that was wrong. I love your channel. Keep it up!
One interesting experience I had, we were doing Red Flag in Alaska, and our F-22s had a 120 to 1 Splash ratio against the F-16s and some Hornet guys that came out to play. Towards the end of the TDY, they were code 3ing there jets on purpose because the pilots didn't want to fly against the raptor. This was many years ago...about 2011. The 18th Aggressors had came up with some tactics and finally manage to make things difficult for the Raptors later. Good aircraft when it doesn't break. MC rate was always an issue.
@@callsignlocksmithI think Kenny was commenting on a different comment...lol Question for you (as long as it doesn't violate OPSEC stuff) but was there a significant difference in terms of whether OPFOR aircraft were using AESA radars or not? Just curious (Former F-18 diagnostics guy here)
@@chrisburke624 Chris, I guess I don't understand the question fully, The F-22s I worked on had the APG-77 radars. The block 40 F-16s had the AN/APG-68. We did not have the AESA APG 83s in on our while I was in because we knew by 2010 we would be getting the F-35s.
To avoid reflections of radiation off the surface, the material’s impedance must match the impedance of a vacuum (377 ohms impedance). To absorb the radiation, the material must have electrical resistance.
TH-camrs with this knowledge level provide unique new content. TH-cam should reward their ranking by a multiple times the number of viewers and followers, and a larger share of ad revenues, to promote increased diversity and value added. Giving incentives to unique content creators.
@@dragonmyke Before making such a statement, wait almost that Otis would finish recharge... Just for prudence. And not, Su-57 would become such when almost a pair of regiments of it would be operative.
The cracked F-22 is a specific F-22 that hadn't gotten maintenance for 18 months. Be it as part of testing to see the effects of neglect and how it affects RAM and RCS, or for other reasons. This F-22 was part of an airshow group iirc, another reason why RAM upkeep wasn't seen as necessary
I have absolutely no rational basis for my opinions, but on a gut level, I "liked" the F-22 upon its introduction and "disliked" the F-35 when it was introduced. Good to hear that they're not junking the F-22 (yet). Cheers!
@@rifat6913 Cost of plane is just a fraction of the entire package. Last i looked at it, before the pandemic, countries were buying the F-35A at around 450m $ / plane, with F-35B being potentially 100-150m $ above that. F-16 or F/A-18 SuperHornet were around 200-240m.
Well done man! Most videos are either very detailed to the point of data overload or just a thin veneer of info that really doesn’t tell you anything. I’ve watched many videos about the Raptor’s update that were either super boring or just limited lip service. Your video on the F-22 is both super informative and entertaining. Well done man!
@@Danlovestrivium Probably one of the stupidest answers I have ever read. Sounds like even you yourself don't know that. What is 2+2? If you ask, you won't understand. Next time when you decide to write a comment, please, think multiple times.
That EW pod looks a lot like Gripen Es wing tip one too, major difference is that it looks small (but huge on Gripen) - could just be due to plane size...
I saw a Gripen E at an airshow last year, and there was an F-22 on display. Honestly the Gripen E almost looked like a large toy/RC aircraft in terms of its size compared to the F-22. It was quite the sight, seeing just how much of a difference there was in terms of aircraft size!
Excellent summary of the planned F-22 upgrades. A joy to watch and well laid out. You are at the top of your game, sir. Thanks and keep up the good work!
Could be also that they are experiencing issues or delays with NGAD jets, so rather then retiring the Raptor, they are giving it a stop-gap measure upgrade.
Brilliant and entertaining. Classic expert Italian Professor - you are one of the few surviving remnants of the greatness of the Roman Empire. The US Air Force (the current faltering “Roman” army) would do well to follow your every word to avoid the fall of the “Empire”.
I think the issue with the F22 is the total production number. Even if they’re all updated to block 30 the PLAAF will produce that many J20s annually within the next few years. Around 120 aircraft. It’s not enough.
Yeah but the F-22s are backed up by F-35s and 4th gen aircraft. The efficiency and effectiveness of combined arms in US military doctrine is unmatched. F-35 production is in full swing. A squadron of 35s with a pair of 22s would be insanely effective.
I hope you’re joking, the j -20 is extremely suspect as far as its performance. If you put 10 j-20’s against 1 f-22 the only problem the f 22 would have would be lacks of enough missiles to fire, as it only holds 8 total but two of them are for close quarters when you’re in the merge F.A.C.T.S.
@@gityoassup9087 I’m just curious what you think happens when the F22 turns on it’s radar. Tack while Scan radar mode It’s lights up all it’s targets but also tells everyone else hey I’m here. F22 isn’t invisible can be directed like at about 40 miles range with AESA radars. To underestimate one’s enemies is a grave mistake. J20 creates serious problems when planing a defense of Taiwan
First time watcher. Very good presentation. I haven't been involved in this field for nearly a decade. I was surprised to hear that the MK XII IFF still exists.
Your speculation on the AIM 260 is the reason I am very critical of the F35. Its simply horrible kinematicaly and thus handicaps all weapons giving any oponent a massive developmental advantage. Not only that but its payload bays cant carry a large missile so you cant even sacrafice numbers for range. You are just stuck with mediocre range while others outrange you. And since its an all in development any opponent knows that a true long range missile is just not on the horizon for DECADES out of the US. You basically have to wait for 6th gen mass adoption before the US can field a true long range missile in mass. F22 production lines are long gone and its in limited numbers.
I think you need to lay off the kool-aid a little bit. The F-35 kinematically is very much similar to the F-18 Super Hornet / Typhon. . all of the data that suggests otherwise comes from situations where the F-35 performance was being purposefully limited by the software. The internal payload bays are adequate in size and will be able to carry the AIM-260. The AIM-260 is rumored to out range and out perform the PL-15 with a duel motor rocket.
@@arkadious9320 Yeah, you are comparing it to the most lackluster aircraft in the us air force. You can do the math and see what the kinetic energy of a mach 4 missile is gona be fired from f35 flying at mach 1.4 or a su57 at mach 2 let alone a mig 31 at mach 2.5. quite simply it matters a lot. You can do the same math with f22 and f15.To say nothing about the fact the f35 cant supper cruise. Its payload bays being big enough is kinda doubtful even if it can fit the aim 260. A missile that will not outrange current russian r37 variants that can do 400km. That has a variant that fits inside the su57 btw. Having a handicap in the ballpark of 20% due to poor kinematics is not a trivial matter when the f22 clearly proves you can do a fast stealth.
@@SlayerBG93 And this is against what sort of target? An F-35A can hold it's own in most cases. What it can't do is protect strategic aircraft such as AWACS from long range threats, but that isn't it's purpose. It's also highly unlikely for fighters to ever reach the speeds you suggest in actual combat unless they have a pre-planned target. A more likely difference in speed would be an F-35A at Mach 1.2 vs an Su-57 at Mach 1.5. If the F-22 can carry the AIM-260, then so can the F-35A/C.
@@dumdumbinks274 Those long range missiles will hapily take out the F35 as well. No AA missile on the planet has a lower turn rate than a plane and long max range is directly proportional to long no escape zone. F35 cannot supercruise. Meaning the most likely scenario is actually an F35 flying mach 0.9 and the Su 57 doing mach 1.3 supercruise. 1.5 if it gets around to using the new engines. That range penalty of braking the sound barrier is a bitch. Obviously there are situations where it wouldnt matter as much. For example F35 sneaking up on an ususpecting aircraft flying subsonic while it is going mach 1.4-1.5 but that is situational. The reality is that bad kinematics put you at a general all around dissadvantage that one must work around. F35 is almost in a dead if spoted situation since most modern aircraft outclass it kinematically both in top speed for launching missile and top sustained speed to close distance. So an F35 should be very afraid of AWACS or ground based radar detecting it with low frequency radar.
@@SlayerBG93 No *powered* missile has a lower turn rate than a fighter. Turns are also not how fighters defeat missiles at long range, rather the distance they put between themselves and the turning point is what matters kinematically. It's 90% tactics and 10% luck. A missile such as the R-37M can easily be de-energised at long range if the launch is detected, and once it's sustainer motor runs out it decelerates faster than other missiles. Not that it matters much because it would not be able to use it's range advantage vs a stealth target without significantly degrading the missile's accuracy. Fighters fly around at subsonic speeds unless they have a target location. Supercruise is not fuel efficient, it's just better than afterburner. The F-35 has trouble accelerating through the transonic region, but it can still reach Mach 1.2 by the time an F-22 reaches Mach 1.4, starting from subsonic cruise. By that point a missile launch is highly likely to have occurred. However that assumes there are supporting assets. In a situation comparing *just* the fighters, they would likely not reach supersonic speeds at all before missile launches occur, due to the engagement being stealth vs stealth.
This was a terrific episode, I enjoyed every bit of data, and was only sorry t had to end so soon. With regard to DATA storage, it would surprise me if they have not upgraded to SSD for storage, as the HDD has very specific G-lock limitations, due to its high speed gyroscopic nature. Along with the fancy helmet which circumvents the blocking of the aircraft body, as long as disorientation has been overcome by pilots? Further, the fitment of conformal tanks would be more readily achievable on the YF-23s longer and more sinewed body layout. As an interim measure, I would hope the USAF are considering the concurrency of both the F-22 & YF-23 upgrades.
arguably the other apex fighter where every airframe is treated like gold and constantly being upgraded is the Mig-31 - and has even morphed into a hypersonic ASM carrier
People need to consider this before bashing J20 and Su57 for not being stealthy enough, it seems these weapon systems have been designed not as predominantly as an air superiority fighter, but as part the larger area denial systems they are operating at, specially J20 is clearly a long range quite low visibility fast platform, which considering the operational obligation of pacific theater that requires support platforms such as tankers, awacs, elint and asw assets in large numbers, almost all of the slow platforms, J20 seem to be a hunter designed to catch that kind of prey, stealth is only necessary to be well enough to get them through the BARCAP and back, the impact to the opposition is clearly well planned, imagine the operational strain constant escorting of these many assets will place on the blue force, which will be already hard pressed to keep up with their own frontline operation requirements...
Simply looking at those 2 mainsails near the F22 tail and comparing that with the SU57 much smaller all moving tail surfaces tell you something about aerodynamic design capability or at least the more than 2 decades between design freeze.
An excellent explainer on the F-22 and its bumpy and now expanded future. BTW, I am generally fine with the Otis skits but I would prefer them to be a bit more toned down. The J-20 skit at 4:35 was too much IMO, didn't add anything with how heavy you went there.
The unmanned option upgrade is very interesting to me. I believe on 2021, lieutenant colonel Randy Gordon lectured an MIT class about the F22. Several times during his lecture he mentioned that, although not unique to the Raptor, its ultimate limitation is the pilot. Now, with the USAF’s current development of its Skyborg program look up AI flown F16), and the F22’s sudden massive upgrade packages, could it be that the Air Force is looking at possibly having unmanned F22s? Although its aerobatic performance limits are highly classified, it has been confirmed that this platform is capable of repeatable sustained 9G maneuvers (upper limits of a pilot). Could the F22’s performance limits be so high that AI integration into this platform could make up for its electronic warfare shortcomings?
@@Millennium7HistoryTech I don’t completely disagree. I do think it’s blown out of proportion at its current state, but it can’t be too overrated if China and US, among others, are spending billions in its development and military implementation, can it?
I’m 64, I design components for the F 22 by the way, just saying, However I am against any kind of manned combat aircraft. Before I was an engineer I was in the US Air Force as an electronics technician working on aircraft older than me, older than 64 years as of the year 2024! That was the F106 Delta dart, an interceptor aircraft similar to the F 22 mission. That aircraft had digital computer, and that enabled it to get rid of the pilot, and we should’ve did it back then. I’m a pilot also. I know damn well the pilot is the weakest link by far. In every way the pilot impedes the mission.
I work at pratt and whitney, more money goes into engine development than the airframe.. especially when the government says that's good, you met our goal, but.... we need more... back to the drawing board.
I remember playing as this in Air Combat 1. Which was the UK name for Ace Combat 1 for people in the know ;) F22 was the beast craft, had the opaque return on the radar and everything!
With my limited knowledge on things like energy density in rocket fuels, missle flight envelope optimization, aerodynamics etc. I often questioned myself where the performance boost from aim260 might actually come from. Especially if the weapons size/volume is limited by the internal bays. Seems like having a Mach 2+ top speed and rapid Acceleration and great climb rate are not traits of combat plane from yesteryears.
Terrific episode! In addition to what you describe I expect that the stealthy tanks and weapons pods will also use canted pylons to eliminate the 90-degree corner traps. That's an extremely obvious shaping measure that can be taken to eliminate some of the worst RCS properties.
Wow! Superb content...and as a delightful bonus, you pronounce KIL-o-meter correctly! It's maddening how many so-called science & technology channels talk about ka-LOM-mitters. Idiots parroting other idiots. It makes no sense. But this is one of the few rare channels with the intelligence to use the correct pronunciation, and has content quality to match. Subscribed!
Oh, Lord! I was guessing that “open architectures” meant kubernetes. Yes, that’s what we use in the commercial world. Even for realtime processing (low-latency trading platforms). I’m not sure how I feel about embedding it in weapons. It changes CONSTANTLY and the commercial world is fine with that. Sort of.
"the least we can do is try to understand why". My apologies if I can sum up what is legitimately a 37 minute video in a few words: "It's just that badass" But I'm still totally sticking around for the whole video. 👍 okay. For all of the videos and articles I have consumed over the years regarding the F22 and the J10, the _Air Force_ saying that the block 20 F22s are "not operationally viable" vs the J10 is the single most validating statement I have _ever_ heard regarding the actual capabilities of the J10. Damn. Just _damn._ I just hope we're overestimating the J10 like we did the Mig-25. Oh - and I love your tie!
One interesting question is: Why are we still in an arms race? Because the profits are way too large to ignore? We signed treaties regarding chemical and nuclear weapons. Why can't we sign others regarding ground, sea, air and space weapons? We could still pour the money into technology research. That is not, necessarily, a problem.
The F-22 is massively overweight. It was supposed to have a takeoff weight in the 55,000lbs range. It in fact has an operational takeoff weight at least 10,000lbs heavier. The resulting loss in performance was so extreme that supposedly 'backing off by 10% in one key area of performance' was needed to bring things back in line. It is often assumed that that mission capability was STOL and reversers for the engines. In any case, the F119 were given larger fans, as part of a preplanned thrust increment which raised engine output to around 28,000lbf military and 39,000lbf in burner. This, in turn, greatly compromised an already borderline internal fuel number of ~19,000lbs. It is worth noting that the YF-23 had ~23,000lbs of fuel and the F-23 would have had more. It was also a much cleaner airframe in terms of wave drag and area rule and so could fly test points at supercruise which the YF-22 could only achieve subsonically. This is important because the ATF was _never about_ replacing the F-15. Certainly not at '35 million each in adjusted 1984 dollars' (you see much the same nonsense reported for the A-12 and later F-35, '35 million' must be a really popular numerological number...). As an always intended 70-100 million dollar airframe, the ATF was to be an airborne sniper, penetrating the WARPAC airspace after a refueling over the North Sea or Kattegat and then flying into GDR or Poland or even Belarus to hit Soviet gorilla packages, forming up to raid Western targets with Su-24/27 and MiG-25BM/Tu-22M. Killing Midas tankers and Mainstay AWACS along the way. Then flying back out to recover into Sweden which had secret treaties with NATO to cooperate, in case of war. This IS an 800nm combat range requirement and it WILL require 400nm in supercruise, just as the ATF key performance parameter specification called for. With the end of the Cold War looming in 1990, the USAF chose to go for the hotrod, 'we can do Cobras too!' alternative and thus envisioned all air battles as being the rough equivalent of the Bekaa Valley, 1982, air combat, at viciously close ranges and 'damn the VLO, full speed ahead!' likely loss of several jets worth of sensitive techint harvesting in turn-and-burn combat. For which the thrust vectoring was seen as appealing to the childish egos of the fighter pilot community in an F-104 like platform which would almost certainly never be purchased in the originally intended numbers, as the threat evaporated. The combination of increasing weight due to VLO demands relative to the YF-23 (the LM fighter had a 'clean sheet' moment in 1986, whereupon the engineers discarded the extant F/A-18/Su-27 hybrid design to start over, the flipped F-117 configuration being much heavier...) and the resultant increase in altitude specific thrust requirement to push it all through the sky hey-wow super maneuvering capacity resulted in a jet that could not meet the original ATF spec for range. When SecAF Rice I think it was, locked himself in a room with a bunch of blue/green/yellow Powerpoint printouts and chose an airframe based on industrial politics of and ego, not asked-for capability, the resulting F-22 gave them exactly the same solution that the F-15 had: hotrod performance deriving from minute man fuel fractions of .28 or so. Except the F-15 could carry almost its internal fuel equivalent in droppable, WRM, 610 gallon tanks. The F-22 could and cannot, if it expects to maintain signature norms. The end result being that it's not suitable for the 'Pacific Theater' because it FAILED operational suitability metrics for the 'European Theater' mission: 800 miles in range within a two hour mission time, half of which would be flown at supercruise. The F-22 is a massive compromise of the original ATF spec. That doesn't mean it's not a really good airframe. But it is one whose operational employment method has changed radically from the original specification. NGAD is happening because the wrong fighter was chosen for the ATF downselect. This applies, not just to the F-22 but also the F-35. If you're going to fly the Andersen to Taipei mission set, you absolutely need the ~900square foot wing area (YF-23, 965sqft; F-22, 840sqft), 70-75,000lb TOW and 70,000lb thrust to do it, in a high efficiency profile condition. The YF-23 would have gotten you there, the YF-22, not so much. It's important to get this right so that the next time an unelected bureaucrat decides to make a decision based on personal favors and industrial base real politick, someone can slap him, trip him, and sit on his chest until the silly notion passes.
13:32 smartphones have antennas that have to be a certain size, analog components and smartphones are held together with glue so modification is impossible
The IRST on FA-18A Super Hornets are in fact fairly large units, which are cryogenically cooled, and I cannot imagine any significant advances in miniaturisation. The far smaller pre cockpit mounted units used by other aircraft models, cannot serve those air forces as completely as the high off bore sight swivelling, available to the USAF/USN aircraft?
4:25 imagine saying this to an impartial audience who spent lot time seeing DCS videos where a F-16 can beat a J-20... that's some balls right there lol
My dude, I love your shows and that you take time to get into the detail with explanations even I can follow and it fascinates me - so I have no issue with the time as I know it’s time well spent for me :-). ‘Good Job!’ As the septics would say :-)
The F-22 has a range disadvantage to the J-20, relevant to the pacific theater. As the USAF has bases and tankers this disadvantage is tolerable. The USN has the pacific covered. The USAF is only relevant to Europe.
@4:35 - "The J-Twentyyyyyy!!" - right when you said that, my monitor and the entire power in my home blinked. That was one very powerful effect from you.
Yeah I snorted … great to have such levity during serious subject
That was hysterical 😂😂
As a prior F-22 avionics guy, you did a great job, and I honestly couldn't think of a single thing you said that was wrong. I love your channel. Keep it up!
One interesting experience I had, we were doing Red Flag in Alaska, and our F-22s had a 120 to 1 Splash ratio against the F-16s and some Hornet guys that came out to play. Towards the end of the TDY, they were code 3ing there jets on purpose because the pilots didn't want to fly against the raptor. This was many years ago...about 2011. The 18th Aggressors had came up with some tactics and finally manage to make things difficult for the Raptors later. Good aircraft when it doesn't break. MC rate was always an issue.
@@Kenny-yl9pc where did I even talk about a SU-57 or J20?
@@callsignlocksmith
@4:30
@@callsignlocksmithI think Kenny was commenting on a different comment...lol
Question for you (as long as it doesn't violate OPSEC stuff) but was there a significant difference in terms of whether OPFOR aircraft were using AESA radars or not?
Just curious
(Former F-18 diagnostics guy here)
@@chrisburke624 Chris,
I guess I don't understand the question fully, The F-22s I worked on had the APG-77 radars. The block 40 F-16s had the AN/APG-68. We did not have the AESA APG 83s in on our while I was in because we knew by 2010 we would be getting the F-35s.
22:41 They missed the opportunity to use the acronym "BACON" and we all know that 🥓 makes everything better.
I wish I had noticed, it makes for a great joke!
Smells great though
Now that you mentioned BACON I couldn't help referring to it as bacon while I was reading the Wikipedia article about it.
The USAF does have a program named BACN. It serves as a gateway for various communication networks.
@@rickbase833 That's literally what the link is talking about.
Your Italian accented _J-20!_ scream cracked me up. 😂
I am a simple man… When i see Millennium7 new video, I am happy. Daje
Long standing Subscribed. Agreed, you always know you're in for some excellent perspective and analysis.
You are a complex and intelligent man because you enjoy and understand Gus' content.
"I am a simple man"...find another cliche. It's over used. The content of this video however, is great.
Same with me when I see Raptor. I click. Automatically. 😊
@@paulkelly7388 Shut up.
Happy to see you are looking in better health. Yet another great video. I can’t understand why this channel doesn’t have more subscribers.
Indeed, he looks 100x better. I was quite worried before.
Because he is bought and paid for by the brics countries
To avoid reflections of radiation off the surface, the material’s impedance must match the impedance of a vacuum (377 ohms impedance). To absorb the radiation, the material must have electrical resistance.
Correct.
The integrity you show by not going after easy clickbait content is awesome, keep it up!
I absolutely love how you present information
TH-camrs with this knowledge level provide unique new content. TH-cam should reward their ranking by a multiple times the number of viewers and followers, and a larger share of ad revenues, to promote increased diversity and value added. Giving incentives to unique content creators.
Thanks
Thank you!
The kid is getting an upgrade.
Maybe one day he will be let out.
Let's hope not. I'd love to see what the Raptor can actually do too, but not at the cost of what it would mean for the world.
Su57 is the predator.
Great post, all the mishaps of now decades old development failures summed in just one sentence...
man of culture I see
@@dragonmyke Before making such a statement, wait almost that Otis would finish recharge...
Just for prudence.
And not, Su-57 would become such when almost a pair of regiments of it would be operative.
2 best features of the J-20, large internal fuel tanks and large weapons bay for stand off missiles.
The cracked F-22 is a specific F-22 that hadn't gotten maintenance for 18 months. Be it as part of testing to see the effects of neglect and how it affects RAM and RCS, or for other reasons. This F-22 was part of an airshow group iirc, another reason why RAM upkeep wasn't seen as necessary
I have absolutely no rational basis for my opinions, but on a gut level, I "liked" the F-22 upon its introduction and "disliked" the F-35 when it was introduced. Good to hear that they're not junking the F-22 (yet). Cheers!
F-35 is like the F-16 cheap and can be sold to allies.
yah, but that is just the narrative we've lived with for a long time. F-35 narrative finally started changing about 5-10 years ago.
F-35 was supposed to be cheaper, the F-22 was meant to dominate the entire sky.
@@bdub1934 And guess what it's not. You many say f-35A version is only 74 million dollar to buy. But It's operational cost is enormous.
@@rifat6913 Cost of plane is just a fraction of the entire package.
Last i looked at it, before the pandemic, countries were buying the F-35A at around 450m $ / plane, with F-35B being potentially 100-150m $ above that.
F-16 or F/A-18 SuperHornet were around 200-240m.
Well done man! Most videos are either very detailed to the point of data overload or just a thin veneer of info that really doesn’t tell you anything. I’ve watched many videos about the Raptor’s update that were either super boring or just limited lip service. Your video on the F-22 is both super informative and entertaining. Well done man!
what a great video, no clickbait just facts, thank you and subbed.
World's most expensive balloon popper.
Okay? You want US to start involve in war and send f22 shooting every rival jets?
One of the items that are keeping CH, RU, IRAN at bay, despite North Americas best efforts to destroy our way of life. Be grateful.
@joelzinho4600
"our way of life"
What does that even mean?
@@bootstraphan6204 If you have to ask you wouldn't understand.
@@Danlovestrivium
Probably one of the stupidest answers I have ever read. Sounds like even you yourself don't know that.
What is 2+2?
If you ask, you won't understand.
Next time when you decide to write a comment, please, think multiple times.
That EW pod looks a lot like Gripen Es wing tip one too, major difference is that it looks small (but huge on Gripen) - could just be due to plane size...
I saw a Gripen E at an airshow last year, and there was an F-22 on display.
Honestly the Gripen E almost looked like a large toy/RC aircraft in terms of its size compared to the F-22. It was quite the sight, seeing just how much of a difference there was in terms of aircraft size!
Nah its just that the F22 is massive
The gripen is Just physically tiny
Great video, once more.
Excellent summary of the planned F-22 upgrades. A joy to watch and well laid out. You are at the top of your game, sir. Thanks and keep up the good work!
I'm glad you guys are back from the singularity.
You totally got me at like minute five when you switched to the space... Well done sir. Well done
Its a pleasure having your videos
I normally chuckle a bit at your interludes. But getting pulled into the vortex and floating around actually left me laughing out loud.
Millennium, you make my day every time you post a video, thank you for your somber thoughts and insight
Could be also that they are experiencing issues or delays with NGAD jets, so rather then retiring the Raptor, they are giving it a stop-gap measure upgrade.
The NGAD apparently flew recently and is much further ahead than we thought. But I think this is a stop gap decision regardless.
Loads of detail, thanks :)
I dont know why, but F22 running on K8s is hilarious to me
Great video: I learned lots about F22, past, present, future
Thank You Sir. Great to see you looking well.
Very comprehensive! Signals between airplanes is simple to a fighter pilot. "Identify or die".
Enjoyably comprehensive analysis. Much appreciated. : D
Love your analysis , you never try to go over the top always straight facts without embellishment thanks my friend :-) :-)
Your differentiated analysis, is exceptional and highly informative.
Brilliant and entertaining. Classic expert Italian Professor - you are one of the few surviving remnants of the greatness of the Roman Empire. The US Air Force (the current faltering “Roman” army) would do well to follow your every word to avoid the fall of the “Empire”.
😂
As usual, excellent.
Thank you sir
Interesting and entertaining as usual! Thanks! ;)
Very interesting analysis, thank you. Always look forward to your new videos.
Excellent video!
I think the issue with the F22 is the total production number. Even if they’re all updated to block 30 the PLAAF will produce that many J20s annually within the next few years. Around 120 aircraft. It’s not enough.
There are already more than 2 times as many J20-ties in service as there are F22 flying (or rather standing in hangars).
Yeah but the F-22s are backed up by F-35s and 4th gen aircraft. The efficiency and effectiveness of combined arms in US military doctrine is unmatched. F-35 production is in full swing. A squadron of 35s with a pair of 22s would be insanely effective.
I hope you’re joking, the j -20 is extremely suspect as far as its performance. If you put 10 j-20’s against 1 f-22 the only problem the f 22 would have would be lacks of enough missiles to fire, as it only holds 8 total but two of them are for close quarters when you’re in the merge F.A.C.T.S.
@@gityoassup9087 I’m just curious what you think happens when the F22 turns on it’s radar. Tack while Scan radar mode It’s lights up all it’s targets but also tells everyone else hey I’m here. F22 isn’t invisible can be directed like at about 40 miles range with AESA radars.
To underestimate one’s enemies is a grave mistake. J20 creates serious problems when planing a defense of Taiwan
But China only makes a few weather balloons so 120 is enough
Very good technical content
First time watcher. Very good presentation. I haven't been involved in this field for nearly a decade. I was surprised to hear that the MK XII IFF still exists.
Great information , super informative
Nicely done and informative.
Great video!
Bravo, loved your diversions to explain terms you weren't going to explain, fun update on the F22.
Good video. Again.
performed very well against a weather balloon. nice
Got to see one flying at an air show last weekend and it was fantastic
Thanks for researching and educating us. 🌏👍
Thank you for your video. I have watched and read about the F 22 since the early 90's it has been an interesting story, with still more tale to tell.
Your speculation on the AIM 260 is the reason I am very critical of the F35. Its simply horrible kinematicaly and thus handicaps all weapons giving any oponent a massive developmental advantage. Not only that but its payload bays cant carry a large missile so you cant even sacrafice numbers for range. You are just stuck with mediocre range while others outrange you. And since its an all in development any opponent knows that a true long range missile is just not on the horizon for DECADES out of the US. You basically have to wait for 6th gen mass adoption before the US can field a true long range missile in mass. F22 production lines are long gone and its in limited numbers.
I think you need to lay off the kool-aid a little bit. The F-35 kinematically is very much similar to the F-18 Super Hornet / Typhon. . all of the data that suggests otherwise comes from situations where the F-35 performance was being purposefully limited by the software. The internal payload bays are adequate in size and will be able to carry the AIM-260. The AIM-260 is rumored to out range and out perform the PL-15 with a duel motor rocket.
@@arkadious9320 Yeah, you are comparing it to the most lackluster aircraft in the us air force. You can do the math and see what the kinetic energy of a mach 4 missile is gona be fired from f35 flying at mach 1.4 or a su57 at mach 2 let alone a mig 31 at mach 2.5. quite simply it matters a lot. You can do the same math with f22 and f15.To say nothing about the fact the f35 cant supper cruise. Its payload bays being big enough is kinda doubtful even if it can fit the aim 260. A missile that will not outrange current russian r37 variants that can do 400km. That has a variant that fits inside the su57 btw. Having a handicap in the ballpark of 20% due to poor kinematics is not a trivial matter when the f22 clearly proves you can do a fast stealth.
@@SlayerBG93 And this is against what sort of target? An F-35A can hold it's own in most cases. What it can't do is protect strategic aircraft such as AWACS from long range threats, but that isn't it's purpose. It's also highly unlikely for fighters to ever reach the speeds you suggest in actual combat unless they have a pre-planned target. A more likely difference in speed would be an F-35A at Mach 1.2 vs an Su-57 at Mach 1.5.
If the F-22 can carry the AIM-260, then so can the F-35A/C.
@@dumdumbinks274 Those long range missiles will hapily take out the F35 as well. No AA missile on the planet has a lower turn rate than a plane and long max range is directly proportional to long no escape zone. F35 cannot supercruise. Meaning the most likely scenario is actually an F35 flying mach 0.9 and the Su 57 doing mach 1.3 supercruise. 1.5 if it gets around to using the new engines. That range penalty of braking the sound barrier is a bitch. Obviously there are situations where it wouldnt matter as much. For example F35 sneaking up on an ususpecting aircraft flying subsonic while it is going mach 1.4-1.5 but that is situational. The reality is that bad kinematics put you at a general all around dissadvantage that one must work around. F35 is almost in a dead if spoted situation since most modern aircraft outclass it kinematically both in top speed for launching missile and top sustained speed to close distance. So an F35 should be very afraid of AWACS or ground based radar detecting it with low frequency radar.
@@SlayerBG93 No *powered* missile has a lower turn rate than a fighter. Turns are also not how fighters defeat missiles at long range, rather the distance they put between themselves and the turning point is what matters kinematically. It's 90% tactics and 10% luck. A missile such as the R-37M can easily be de-energised at long range if the launch is detected, and once it's sustainer motor runs out it decelerates faster than other missiles. Not that it matters much because it would not be able to use it's range advantage vs a stealth target without significantly degrading the missile's accuracy.
Fighters fly around at subsonic speeds unless they have a target location. Supercruise is not fuel efficient, it's just better than afterburner. The F-35 has trouble accelerating through the transonic region, but it can still reach Mach 1.2 by the time an F-22 reaches Mach 1.4, starting from subsonic cruise. By that point a missile launch is highly likely to have occurred. However that assumes there are supporting assets. In a situation comparing *just* the fighters, they would likely not reach supersonic speeds at all before missile launches occur, due to the engagement being stealth vs stealth.
I found this video to be thought-provoking and am looking forward to the next one that you and Otis produce.
This was a terrific episode, I enjoyed every bit of data, and was only sorry t had to end so soon. With regard to DATA storage, it would surprise me if they have not upgraded to SSD for storage, as the HDD has very specific G-lock limitations, due to its high speed gyroscopic nature. Along with the fancy helmet which circumvents the blocking of the aircraft body, as long as disorientation has been overcome by pilots? Further, the fitment of conformal tanks would be more readily achievable on the YF-23s longer and more sinewed body layout. As an interim measure, I would hope the USAF are considering the concurrency of both the F-22 & YF-23 upgrades.
I loved the spacetime joke. :D
I enjoyed your use of the term hoovering rather than hovering. Reminds me of the Hoover vacuum cleaner.
You may not believe it, but it was on purpose...
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Kudos back to you!
@@Millennium7HistoryTech LIES
"Hoovering" is the technical term for what the DoD does with American taxpayers' money.
arguably the other apex fighter where every airframe is treated like gold and constantly being upgraded is the Mig-31 - and has even morphed into a hypersonic ASM carrier
Thank you
People need to consider this before bashing J20 and Su57 for not being stealthy enough, it seems these weapon systems have been designed not as predominantly as an air superiority fighter, but as part the larger area denial systems they are operating at, specially J20 is clearly a long range quite low visibility fast platform, which considering the operational obligation of pacific theater that requires support platforms such as tankers, awacs, elint and asw assets in large numbers, almost all of the slow platforms, J20 seem to be a hunter designed to catch that kind of prey, stealth is only necessary to be well enough to get them through the BARCAP and back, the impact to the opposition is clearly well planned, imagine the operational strain constant escorting of these many assets will place on the blue force, which will be already hard pressed to keep up with their own frontline operation requirements...
6:30 There is no problem with going through the transonic region for a missile. It costs the same energy as any other speed.
The Best ballon killer known to mankind.
Man, Frank Luke Jr. is rolling in his grave...
I still want an F-22 video from you! even if there are a lots of videos on it i feel like nobody would go so in depth as your vids
I thought high off bore sight capability and helmet mounted sights was a key part of the upgrades?
Off boresight yes, with the AIM-9X, but not helmet mounted. Crazy.
Simply looking at those 2 mainsails near the F22 tail and comparing that with the SU57 much smaller all moving tail surfaces tell you something about aerodynamic design capability or at least the more than 2 decades between design freeze.
An excellent explainer on the F-22 and its bumpy and now expanded future.
BTW, I am generally fine with the Otis skits but I would prefer them to be a bit more toned down. The J-20 skit at 4:35 was too much IMO, didn't add anything with how heavy you went there.
Like the new mustache!
(Also, great video, as always.)
07:00 tell your audiance how long the f22 can maintain afterburner 😅 its measured in seconds..
The unmanned option upgrade is very interesting to me. I believe on 2021, lieutenant colonel Randy Gordon lectured an MIT class about the F22. Several times during his lecture he mentioned that, although not unique to the Raptor, its ultimate limitation is the pilot. Now, with the USAF’s current development of its Skyborg program look up AI flown F16), and the F22’s sudden massive upgrade packages, could it be that the Air Force is looking at possibly having unmanned F22s? Although its aerobatic performance limits are highly classified, it has been confirmed that this platform is capable of repeatable sustained 9G maneuvers (upper limits of a pilot). Could the F22’s performance limits be so high that AI integration into this platform could make up for its electronic warfare shortcomings?
AI for combat is way overrated
@@Millennium7HistoryTech I don’t completely disagree. I do think it’s blown out of proportion at its current state, but it can’t be too overrated if China and US, among others, are spending billions in its development and military implementation, can it?
@@RaulV22 Far too many things are called artificial intelligence that have nothing to do with any autonomous reasoning.
I’m 64, I design components for the F 22 by the way, just saying, However I am against any kind of manned combat aircraft. Before I was an engineer I was in the US Air Force as an electronics technician working on aircraft older than me, older than 64 years as of the year 2024! That was the F106 Delta dart, an interceptor aircraft similar to the F 22 mission. That aircraft had digital computer, and that enabled it to get rid of the pilot, and we should’ve did it back then. I’m a pilot also. I know damn well the pilot is the weakest link by far. In every way the pilot impedes the mission.
@@rosomak8244 Correct
I work at pratt and whitney, more money goes into engine development than the airframe.. especially when the government says that's good, you met our goal, but.... we need more... back to the drawing board.
US engine tech is 10 or even 20 years ahead of our adversaries.
I remember playing as this in Air Combat 1. Which was the UK name for Ace Combat 1 for people in the know ;) F22 was the beast craft, had the opaque return on the radar and everything!
Anche se alla fine del video mi viene sempre un' po' di mal di testa.... Thank you Millenium 7👏
With my limited knowledge on things like energy density in rocket fuels, missle flight envelope optimization, aerodynamics etc. I often questioned myself where the performance boost from aim260 might actually come from. Especially if the weapons size/volume is limited by the internal bays. Seems like having a Mach 2+ top speed and rapid Acceleration and great climb rate are not traits of combat plane from yesteryears.
Amazing as usual.
Hyped to invincible status just like the Abram tanks 🤣🤣
Terrific episode!
In addition to what you describe I expect that the stealthy tanks and weapons pods will also use canted pylons to eliminate the 90-degree corner traps. That's an extremely obvious shaping measure that can be taken to eliminate some of the worst RCS properties.
Wow! Superb content...and as a delightful bonus, you pronounce KIL-o-meter correctly! It's maddening how many so-called science & technology channels talk about ka-LOM-mitters. Idiots parroting other idiots. It makes no sense. But this is one of the few rare channels with the intelligence to use the correct pronunciation, and has content quality to match. Subscribed!
ngad will not be a major upgrade from the Raptor but marginal upgrade. The Raptor is still superior in maneuverability and some other features.
Bravissimo. Pls cover the flanker :)
I Cant believe it took so many years, and a Ace Combat game, for the USAF to realise they can make Stealthy shaped Fuel Tanks
Thanks boss
"what are you waiting for! Do it! " I love it
Oh, Lord! I was guessing that “open architectures” meant kubernetes. Yes, that’s what we use in the commercial world. Even for realtime processing (low-latency trading platforms). I’m not sure how I feel about embedding it in weapons. It changes CONSTANTLY and the commercial world is fine with that. Sort of.
wait
is that F22 camo in the thimbnail the same shiny camo in ace combat assault horizon ?
I think that the new moustache really suits you. You should keep it.
"the least we can do is try to understand why".
My apologies if I can sum up what is legitimately a 37 minute video in a few words:
"It's just that badass"
But I'm still totally sticking around for the whole video.
👍
okay. For all of the videos and articles I have consumed over the years regarding the F22 and the J10, the _Air Force_ saying that the block 20 F22s are "not operationally viable" vs the J10 is the single most validating statement I have _ever_ heard regarding the actual capabilities of the J10. Damn. Just _damn._
I just hope we're overestimating the J10 like we did the Mig-25.
Oh - and I love your tie!
I really liked what you did to your mustache tips. That makes you a mustache aficionado.
One interesting question is: Why are we still in an arms race?
Because the profits are way too large to ignore?
We signed treaties regarding chemical and nuclear weapons. Why can't we sign others regarding ground, sea, air and space weapons?
We could still pour the money into technology research. That is not, necessarily, a problem.
You are in an arms race because your country does not tell the truth when it negotiates a treaty.
HELL YEAH FINALLY F22 VIDEO LESGOOOOOOOO
The information in this video is staggering. The declassified disclaimer at the end...very apropos.
The F-22 is massively overweight. It was supposed to have a takeoff weight in the 55,000lbs range. It in fact has an operational takeoff weight at least 10,000lbs heavier.
The resulting loss in performance was so extreme that supposedly 'backing off by 10% in one key area of performance' was needed to bring things back in line. It is often assumed that that mission capability was STOL and reversers for the engines. In any case, the F119 were given larger fans, as part of a preplanned thrust increment which raised engine output to around 28,000lbf military and 39,000lbf in burner. This, in turn, greatly compromised an already borderline internal fuel number of ~19,000lbs.
It is worth noting that the YF-23 had ~23,000lbs of fuel and the F-23 would have had more. It was also a much cleaner airframe in terms of wave drag and area rule and so could fly test points at supercruise which the YF-22 could only achieve subsonically.
This is important because the ATF was _never about_ replacing the F-15. Certainly not at '35 million each in adjusted 1984 dollars' (you see much the same nonsense reported for the A-12 and later F-35, '35 million' must be a really popular numerological number...). As an always intended 70-100 million dollar airframe, the ATF was to be an airborne sniper, penetrating the WARPAC airspace after a refueling over the North Sea or Kattegat and then flying into GDR or Poland or even Belarus to hit Soviet gorilla packages, forming up to raid Western targets with Su-24/27 and MiG-25BM/Tu-22M. Killing Midas tankers and Mainstay AWACS along the way.
Then flying back out to recover into Sweden which had secret treaties with NATO to cooperate, in case of war.
This IS an 800nm combat range requirement and it WILL require 400nm in supercruise, just as the ATF key performance parameter specification called for. With the end of the Cold War looming in 1990, the USAF chose to go for the hotrod, 'we can do Cobras too!' alternative and thus envisioned all air battles as being the rough equivalent of the Bekaa Valley, 1982, air combat, at viciously close ranges and 'damn the VLO, full speed ahead!' likely loss of several jets worth of sensitive techint harvesting in turn-and-burn combat.
For which the thrust vectoring was seen as appealing to the childish egos of the fighter pilot community in an F-104 like platform which would almost certainly never be purchased in the originally intended numbers, as the threat evaporated.
The combination of increasing weight due to VLO demands relative to the YF-23 (the LM fighter had a 'clean sheet' moment in 1986, whereupon the engineers discarded the extant F/A-18/Su-27 hybrid design to start over, the flipped F-117 configuration being much heavier...) and the resultant increase in altitude specific thrust requirement to push it all through the sky hey-wow super maneuvering capacity resulted in a jet that could not meet the original ATF spec for range.
When SecAF Rice I think it was, locked himself in a room with a bunch of blue/green/yellow Powerpoint printouts and chose an airframe based on industrial politics of and ego, not asked-for capability, the resulting F-22 gave them exactly the same solution that the F-15 had: hotrod performance deriving from minute man fuel fractions of .28 or so.
Except the F-15 could carry almost its internal fuel equivalent in droppable, WRM, 610 gallon tanks. The F-22 could and cannot, if it expects to maintain signature norms.
The end result being that it's not suitable for the 'Pacific Theater' because it FAILED operational suitability metrics for the 'European Theater' mission: 800 miles in range within a two hour mission time, half of which would be flown at supercruise.
The F-22 is a massive compromise of the original ATF spec. That doesn't mean it's not a really good airframe. But it is one whose operational employment method has changed radically from the original specification.
NGAD is happening because the wrong fighter was chosen for the ATF downselect. This applies, not just to the F-22 but also the F-35. If you're going to fly the Andersen to Taipei mission set, you absolutely need the ~900square foot wing area (YF-23, 965sqft; F-22, 840sqft), 70-75,000lb TOW and 70,000lb thrust to do it, in a high efficiency profile condition.
The YF-23 would have gotten you there, the YF-22, not so much.
It's important to get this right so that the next time an unelected bureaucrat decides to make a decision based on personal favors and industrial base real politick, someone can slap him, trip him, and sit on his chest until the silly notion passes.
Thanks for the effort
13:32 smartphones have antennas that have to be a certain size, analog components and smartphones are held together with glue so modification is impossible
Maybe not the best of analogies, I was referring to the fact that you can fit a smartphone in whatever form factor, almost.
The IRST on FA-18A Super Hornets are in fact fairly large units, which are cryogenically cooled, and I cannot imagine any significant advances in miniaturisation. The far smaller pre cockpit mounted units used by other aircraft models, cannot serve those air forces as completely as the high off bore sight swivelling, available to the USAF/USN aircraft?
Tacking on a bunch of stuff is the same strategy I use for upgrading my motorcycle
Love it! 04:35
4:25 imagine saying this to an impartial audience who spent lot time seeing DCS videos where a F-16 can beat a J-20... that's some balls right there lol
nice
Why not shape the tank to match the fuselage' on flush mount slides?!
My dude, I love your shows and that you take time to get into the detail with explanations even I can follow and it fascinates me - so I have no issue with the time as I know it’s time well spent for me :-). ‘Good Job!’ As the septics would say :-)
Video : F-22
Thumbnail : F-35
Me : Dang, what do they feed this raptors with, they got chonk
That is not an F-35 in the thumbnail.
The F-22 has a range disadvantage to the J-20, relevant to the pacific theater. As the USAF has bases and tankers this disadvantage is tolerable. The USN has the pacific covered. The USAF is only relevant to Europe.