THIS Was Unexpected...
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 06. 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/paypalme/Mille...
Join the Discord server / discord
AFFILIATE LINK:
Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/?aff=173
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the CZcams Partner Program, Community guidelines & CZcams 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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
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 upgrades to the F-22 make perfect sense now.
¡Gracias!
Thank you very much!
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.
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.
The USA should subcontract SAAB for any 6 generation project. Swedes combat aircrafts are far more efficient
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 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
That's what I believe too. Every new platform must have an open architecture for easier upgrades.
@@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.
@@xyzaero9656 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.
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.
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.
I appreciate your discussion and interpretation of the latest technology and trends . You have an interesting and very thorough understanding of a great deal and I like how you present the facts . Good job !🎉
Thanks!
Thank you so much!
Rich people flaunting
Another option: there's classified tech that makes these designs obsolete, and they don't want to waste money on them.
That was a fun video, the new camera angles were cool.
Thank you Gus. No surprise in your conclusion.
i think the most probable thing is going progressively radio silent on a multitude of projects, like RQ180. You can continue the development without budget constraints if it becomes a black project, even if single pieces of it are developed at a time
More than enlightening update, many thanks and keep going
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
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.
Concerned about your left hand, and forearm.
It is slowly getting better, thanks
Thanks for letting us into your home, and the hair is on-point!
lovin the new distinguished gentleman hair styles
Whatever happened to Boyd’s high-low mix?
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.
With the exponential increase in AI capability there are probably forces behind the scenes pushing for either advanced companion craft that work in conjunction with manned craft or fully autonomous craft that can carry out any mission without having a human in danger
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.
Excellent presentation of reasonable perspectives
Could also just be smoke. Turn the project black (or more black than it currently is) so adversaries don't get wind of it.
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!
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).
An Archer cutaway!!...just when I thought this channel couldn't get any cooler 😀
Yep, loved it 😂
Dji entered the chat
Danke!
Thank you!
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.
No budget? No problem. PRINT, BABY, PRINT!
Interest on the national debt is crowding out all other budget items
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.
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.
Great analysis... I agree.
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.
"on time and within budget" . No one ever expected him to say that.
Fair enough...
Yeah what a lot of people don't understand about the b21 somehow is that it's far more vital to the Air Force's plans/Strategy than is/was NGAD and in many ways is just a fat very long ranged NGAD really...
NGAD is not an aircraft or a specific type of technology but an initiative for Next Generation Air Dominance. It's fluid and dynamic. One thing is certain; The Airforce will end up having the "Next Generation Air Dominance". Given Ukraine vs Russia massive shift towards drone will definitely have an impact on all these programs.
Very interesting and a useful perspective
Thanks for your efforts in sharing the information contained.🤔🙏👍👌
One thing that may be happening to force the delay of NGAD is the AMAZING fast development of Combined Cycle Engines like the Chimera from Hermeus. IF the NGAD can wait for the perfected Chimera, then the NGAD could be doing Mach 5, or even faster.
The people at Hermeus talked about the Chimera going faster than Mach 5.
Mach 5 is just a starting goal, not a limit of the technology.
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.
One other thing -- Artificial Intelligence is developing REAL FAST.
So fast, that it is likely changing what a CCA can and should do.
I wonder if our doctrine is keeping up with the expanding capabilities of possible weapon systems.
Enjoyed this thank you
He just puts pressure on the price expectations of the manufacturers.
Thank you
In all likelihood, it's a combination of your listed factors. 6th gen is still too conceptual to address some very nebulous strategic needs.
A most balanced and informative take on this new development.
I really appreciate Northrop hiring designers from Marvel or DC to make the B-21 so cool looking.
Just look at those windows.
It looks like it is staring at you and threatening you at the same time.
How cool is that??
agree with the direction
I don't agree with you very often. But I do agree on this. After 22 years in the USMC, I'm use to the eggheads believing science fiction can be easily achieved. Just keep spending money, and it will happen.
I retired from the USAF way back in 1999 and I see the 'hurry up and wait' mantra is still relevant!
Great video!
There is another consideration discussed in a sandboxx post: the need to build easily upgradable planes that have modular elements and common system interfaces. Current planes are all bespoke designs that have too little in common to allow cost sharing, require excruciatingly expensive requalification when modified and cost way too much. NGAD was going to be another one of those.
Sandboxx is deluded, and the USAF, if they think so, they are as well. I used to agree, but I changed my mind recently. Long story, though.
How can anybody take Sandboxx seriously. The BS meter with that guy is off the chart. Delulu.
"(...) modular elements (...)"
Littoral Combat Ship procurement failure.
It is a school boys perspective on industrial warfare - it is all plausible, but detached from generations of established industry practices.
Like social engineering of gender and sexuality it is an effort to dictate forces of nature, instead of aligning to it.
@@christophmahler mic drop. Well done! Love it.
@@jeffhedrich3551
"Love it."
Thanks.
I think it's a combination of the 2 options that you mentioned.
Somehow the walls weren't enough of a hint, but the glove was :) Nice to see an artist in his natural habitat ;)
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 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....
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
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.
Great job
I think it is a hard stop because of new propulsion technology suddenly on the horizon that changes the Paradigm so profoundly that everything prior and in service is obsolete, hence have to totally rethink all programs!
The B21 can quarter back for the drones they just need the range to get into the fight. Probably provided by stealthy tankers . I think option 1 is more likely , prepare for war.
My concern is pilot overload. Controlling multiple drones while maintaining situational awareness could be a big problem. I get the drones are supposed to help with early threat detection but it is easy to get task saturated in a combat environment
Love your vids.
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.
Great video 🎉
Maybe a simpler explanation is that there are two bidders for PCA and the contract is to be announced.
A difficult decision as to who will win. Especially if on paper the lead bid is Northrop (good recent history of plane development) in conjunction with Boeing (given their woes).
The quote was so small and without context tbag anything could be read into it with enough imagination.
I'm really sad at what's happened to my service. Constant dithering, unable to deliver on projects and products. B-21 seems to be the only bright spot.
I'm sure a lot of this comes from a congress that can't pass a basic budget on time. Over the last few years they have to constantly fire and rehire contractors as the old year's budget runs out but the new one takes months beyond the due date to pass. In this environment I don't think something like the NGAD can continue until funding is guaranteed and stabilized. It would make more sense to do what they used to and do small production runs of specialized aircraft like they used to in the 50's
If you need to have a manned node in a networked system of systems a larger, better protected platform with longer air time (the b21) may make more sense than a smaller one in the front lines trying to get into dogfights and evade air defense. Especially when the f35 already exists in large numbers. Additionally, it's easier to cram on upgrades to keep up with a changing battlefield when you have a larger airframe. Just look at the longevity of the b52.
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...
Another possible reason they decided to cancel NGAD is they realized that even if you make a super powerful 6th gen plane that can achieve 10:1 kill/death ratio against Chinese planes. The Chinese can just make 11 unmanned planes with the same or lower cost.
This is very interesting. I have for a long time had the feeling that much of the very expensive investments in very complex platforms that is expected to live super long is not realistic. Thinga change so fast that mayne rapid redesign and re use of know part of system is the only way forward. Then one can focus on the most needed novel tech on each redesign effort. Having a half new platform every time. When the propulsion system or airframe is out dated thats what you focus on for the next phase keeping the rest. We drastically have to cut development time.
This video and the releas of the saab drones and sweden backing of from FCAS is to me an indicator that this is the case. Small nations have to be coste effective and design systems that are a good value for money. Making an incredible expensive air dominans fighter that might be out dated when its taken in to service is a problem.
They won’t let them retire the F-22 which would free up some monies to start production of the NGAD.
I mean it always seemed to me when people talked about the USAFs new procurement strategy of releasing new aircraft faster and faster that this would balloon out of budgetary control. I understand why the Air Force wants that but that’s simply unrealistic. I can definitely see your point that if Lockheed came to them again and said “yeah this is going to be a troublesome and annoying as the F35 development” the Air Force would turn tail and run
Well it is less unrealistic with planes such as F-35 and other similar systems built upon a modular architecture and a software-defined equipment and infrastructure with things such as software-defined networking, software-defined radio, etc. It allows rapid development, integration and upgrades. It will make it easier, cheaper and quicker to turn F-35 from a fifth-generation fighter, to a 5+ and 5++ or 5.5-generation.
I think it is a third reason, the Air Force may be trying to switch gears. Meaning they may want a platform that isn't going to last 70 years but one that can be replaced within 5-10 years and keep replacing them often. That would be a big change ans would require massive changes to NGAD. I was listening to another podcast about this same issue. I think the Air Force wants to change how they do things.
It was always going to be a tall order for NGAD to start anything in earnest at the moment. And after war in Ukraine and Israel started, a HUGE amount of money was sent to those two nations both in cash and in form of military hardware.
NGAD was never really defined. Before one embarks on design of a next-gen asset, one needs to actually define its conops, which will dictate the required capability set the asset will have to have. And finally from there one issues RFI and development programs start. From what I've been able to gather, there was no development of precise CONOPS or skill set it MUST have.
Another thing is ability to work together with wingman drone. No way a pilot today can do anything beyond setting the overall mission (such as "attack enemy aircraft", "defend me") after combat begins. If there is a requirement to change mission for the drone mid-combat, second crew member becomes a must, therefore a 2-seat F-35 will have to be made with all the associated costs.
I never really expected NGAD program to become anything significant this decade for reasons stated and it seems I was right. When clusterfuck in Ukraine and Israel started it convinced me even more.
"NGAD was never really defined."
This.
The problem is explicitly in the name.
As a joke: a weapons officer could be seated in a UCAV, trailing the F-35, 'clown world' full in...
They know they can't afford the inevitable attrition rates. $300 million per airframe is the cost of a Light Frigate / Sloop / Corvette.
It may well be option 1. The strongly accelerated mass introduction of the currently in development CCAs already next year seems to suggest that they are expecting an imminent military confrontation with China. And considering China's demographics mean it will have the best chance to win such a conflict in the 25-28/9 window, I would think it certainly not unlikely.
I heard somewhere the USAF is also talking about needing the A-10. Those USAF generals are smoking something that aint tobacco.
I think about how many US programs were shut down, then revived. B1, F22, A10, B52 and a few others. This doesn’t mean it’s going away, maybe on the back burner till the necessity is there. With the newer upgrades of the raptor, I’m guessing it was not as necessary as originally thought.
The best sort of back-burner is "refinement"... where there's a small(ish) amount of money (but lots of time) given to refining a design to make it more reliable, cheaper to produce, etc.
Unfortunately I don't think the NGAD is far enough along in development to benefit from that.
@@kathrynck I heard that one of the planes has already flown. I’m not sure which one. But, I don’t think they will scrap it entirely. Maybe use it as a testing bed of some kind to aid in future designs. You may be right, you have a good point. I personally think it won’t be scrapped since they’ve been working on it for more than a few years plus all the money already pumped into the program. But, I admit I’m not an expert in the subject so you may be right. 🤭
@@Jermo7899 I suspect it would get "slow rolled" and not canceled outright. IF they decide to focus away from it I mean. They might not.
@@kathrynck yea, I think it’s too expensive to turn back now. They’ve flown a prototype already. With using open system architecture it should cut back drastically on cost and the amount of time spend building and integrating everything together. Plus, you get a lot of modularity. Again, I’m not an expert so we will see
@@Jermo7899 There's a lot of unknowns. Can be fun to speculate :) but I wouldn't bet the family farm on any of my predictions hehe.
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❤
I somewhat reluctantly agree with your analysis. I think in their recent tests with an AI piloting an F-16 showed them that they can get more bang for the buck in a short time with unmanned fighting escorts. They could just build more F-15s and F-35s, but recruiting and training combat pilots in sufficient numbers isn’t so easy. They’ll have to train the expert systems (they’re not truly AIs) to fight BVR as well as dogfight, but that would be a good use for the pilots they’ve got, and once trained an expert system can be quickly cloned. Human pilots would have to oversee and “point” them, but airframes that can operate at 15G and replace life support systems with an extra AIM-260 or so wouldn’t have to be considered attritable.
The military has not delivered a project on time, and budget in decades.
B21 costs are soaring.
The general mangaging the Sentinel was fired.
The NGAD will probably cost $1billion each, as each genneration costs 10X the previous generation (F4, F14, F22).
The Navy and marines are now considering defending Taiwan with drone swarms, not carrier fleets.
They already have NGAD they have room in the B-2's to convert them into AWACS hubs while having them stealthy enough to be a hub for the NGAD stratagem. The new F-15EX and Cyber'd F-16's can be used to provide the wing men for stealth f-35's and f-22's. New stealth paint and modern components for both old airframes are "good enough stealth" for drone sidekicks.
Another great vid! There is the anti-gravity/cloaking/warp-drive technology that's soon to be technologically cresting onto the general public...whether it has anything to do with aliens or reverse engineering"craft" and/or "vessels" is another issue, entirely. I'm a non-resident alien. According to the IRS classifications. Anyone who follows the aerospace industry has at least some familiarity with America's "open secret" high-technological capabilities. Since the Chinese have been apparently making "knock-offs" of the fleets of publicly marketed aircraft, I'm sure they've been at least somewhat aware (and attempting to duplicate the achievements).
Re-open the F22 production line, build interim F-22Cs (retrofit the tech from F35) models while the USAF deliberate over the next decade the scope of requirements.