Could the B-21 Raider absorb the air superiority mission?

[@SandboxxApp]

Go to ground.news/Sandboxx to stay fully informed on military developments around the world. Subscribe through my link right now for 40% off their Vantage Plan, which is what I use everyday.

[@ScottySundown]

Hey Alex, is there any possibility you could make a video on just what U.S. air superiority doctrine would look like right now against a near peer military? In my lifetime I’ve only seen it applied to Iraq in both wars and during the NATO interventions in the Balkans, which were not anywhere close to near peers. I think that might be really cool to hear about stuff like how SEAD, etc might actually play out. Thanks man I love your show!

[@modernmountaineer]

We need to just start a program inside the military that makes aircraft in house. This would cut costs and allow us to keep producing top notch jets in large quantaties.

[@russelbrown6275]

Didn’t know that you are a Veteran. Thanks for your service. I’m a Veteran also.

[@trumanhw]

I'd ask you to do a video on the diplomatic efforts the US took to avoid a war in Ukraine, but since we took none it'd be pretty short. I guess you could instead do one on all the efforts Russia undertook to avoid war ... or all the ways we provoked a war ... but that's a level of honesty you only pretend to have. Or debate me. I'll use western media or US military / US Think Tank for literally EVERY CLAIM I make.

[@ryelor123]

I'm pretty sure China's tactic would be to blockade Taiwan and prevent civilian cargo ships from visiting. They wouldn't touch American navy vessels but those same ships wouldn't be able to feed Taiwan. The country needs food imports. I think 2/3 of their food comes from abroad and we all saw how those trolls in Yemen showed how easily you can mess with insurance rates and cut off shipping.

[@Scruffy-LookingNerfHerder]

What if fighter jets get so difficult to target that you have to get really close to do it, and end up right back in dog fighting territory?

[@Christian-fg3we]

No one besides the US has gotten anywhere close to the stealth capabilities the US has had for 40 years. Enemy stealth aircraft are nothing to worry about, they are decades upon decades behind

[@tbe0116]

That’s pretty much where we are. Drone wingmen will help with this, but it will be an issue for low maneuverability stealth fighters.

[@elijah_9392]

I think that the future drones they are developing may be able to assist with that.

[@nuclearattackwombat8390]

Even with developments in stealth technology, engagement ranges consistently increase. Bringing back dogfighting only works if radar technology stops advancing for several decades for some bizarre reason.

[@EddyA1337]

Enter point defense lasers. We aren't there yet but you can bet by 2040, fighters will have a laser pods that can shoot down enemy missiles before they hit the plane.

[@ceemack2165]

With only 100 airframes planned for the B-21 program-and we may not even get that many-it doesn’t make much sense to pile additional high-risk roles onto that aircraft.

[@DUKE_of_RAMBLE]

I wager that if it proves its chops in that boxing ring, in place of another far-more capable fighter, then it'll open the door to increasing that order...

[@andrewg7576]

Some could be a test bed for future technologies. But not a replacement for anything.

[@SoloRenegade]

exactly right

[@BurntOrangeHorn78]

Those numbers can be fkexed. So not a valid argument in the least.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@BurntOrangeHorn78 it's a completely valid argument. you wouldn't risk prized expensive bombers doing a high risk mission cheaper aircraft can do.

[@falkenlaser]

Years ago I remember reading an article in Popular Mechanics about the B-21, and it said it would carry air-to-air missiles. We’d finally have a plane capable of carrying Ace Combat levels of missiles.

[@kathrynck]

or a DEW.

[@ypw510]

There was the B-1R concept - aka "Bone-R" carrying a boatload of AMRAAMs. I even remember way back in the 80s there was talk about modifying the B-1B for use as a missile truck with a loadout that might even include Phoenix missiles. There was some 1985 photo in a magazine that showed what a B-1B might be able to carry.

[@timbrwolf1121]

​@ypw510 the B1-R was supposed to be the model to fill that role but it was never built

[@warpdriveby]

I played at least 3 or 4 in the series, they're not really simulators but fun, great reference!

[@_snaiio5492]

Hey, those air to air nukes are still good yeah?

[@beng7844]

Imagine the B-21 firing the SM-6 with sensor fusion alone 🤯

[@Terryray123]

Or a B-1 as the B-21 being the quarterback

[@beng7844]

@@Terryray123 nah the B-1 as a missile mule would defeat the purpose of the tactic, you’d have F-35’s (or stealthy drone stand-ins) locking targets out to their radar’s limits and the B-21 would be able to fire on their track without ever being detected, the bone is fast but it isn’t stealthy, they’re more of a cleanup machine than a tip of the spear in a near-peer conflict unless they’re all that’s available for immediate deployment in the event of a retaliatory strike

[@ramonpunsalang3397]

IMO the AIM-260 would be a more practical loadout being similar in size and weight as AMRAAM while featuring a significantly larger NEZ while being launched from a ghost. The AIM-174 is huge and weighs in excess of 3,000 lbs AFAIK. Maybe have a couple on board for contingencies.

[@WonkoTSane]

Or something like the 747 missile truck concept launching SM6 from 400 miles out at targets provided by an F-35 or B-21.

[@Terryray123]

@beng7844 I'm meaning behind the B-21 and F35s. With them two radars in a passive mode. They can see and direct. Stealth is great till the doors open or you see it. And the B-1 has a smallish RCS. With ECM and air launch decor. 2 planes could look like a carrier strike group. When each b-1 could have 24+(that's a guess with the ALCM external racks being modified), missiles each.

[@TheRichardson711]

I think the focus needs to go into a new navy fighter. The Airforce can use f35s and b21 when the f35 doesnt have the reach. But the navy doesn't have anything stealth that offers that kind of reach. And i imagine the navy fighters will be far more important in the Pacific.

[@shalashaska5851]

Don’t quote me here but I believe the navy is limited by the stealth coating and material (paint etc) as it would corrode much quicker in the salty sea water air on a carrier. Not saying it’s impossible to field stealth fighters on a carrier; just that its cost is astronomical due to upkeep etc.

[@mermaidmane808]

@@shalashaska5851the next gen coating used by Northrop on the B21 significantly reduces the operating costs & upkeep associated with traditional stealth. The new stealth coating is ceramic rather than being painted on like on the F35 & F22. They could store them outside without any real problems. The navy 100% needs the F/AXX before the AF needs NGAD.

[@davidgreenwood6029]

If they're smart, and want the most bang for their buck, they will do exactly as you say, but with the addition of the upcoming drone wingmen having but the range and numbers to assist any of the above assets and fill in the gaps between them. It would probably be easier to design smaller drones with smaller payloads and no cockpit for long range as opposed to either traditional stealth fighters or bombers, just as it would be to design drones to be more maneuverable, than B21s, but still with comparable range, just with greatly reduced payload sensors etc. But they are going to have to get something really impressive with the Navy program, or else there is a huge gap there, not just in the air game, but in carrier defense, and projection of power as a whole.

[@shalashaska5851]

@@mermaidmane808I did not know that. Interesting. In that case I hope the navy goes stealth

[@thegooddoctor2009]

Uh, the Navy has the F-35C (and the Marines have the F-35B to fly off of LHAs and LHDs)

[@maine-lygamingtips2039]

A B21-Raider armed with a large missile rack of a couple dozen AIM 174B would send shivers of terror down the spine of any adversary. Imagine destroying an entire air wing of enemy fighters in a single engagement...and the enemy never even knowing who shot at them. We will need a new class of aircraft...the ADA or generic tag of Air Dominance Aircraft.

[@donaldwilson6338]

Why not just modify the B1B into the B1R and install massive numbers of rotary launchers with long range missiles. The B1R can be used as a standoff aircraft used in concert with the F35. The B1R can carry well over 20 to 30 long range missiles would definitely pack one hell of a punch.

[@texasranger24]

4:52 to skip the ad

[@EddyA1337]

Doing the Lord's work

[@tipoomaster]

@texasranger24 Y'all haven't discovered sponsorblock yet? Bout to change your life!

[@EddyA1337]

@@tipoomaster I have premium so no sponsors. Can't skip in video sponsors

[@Hebdomad7]

​​@@TLDE.0 they do. Watch time is also tracked over ads. Smart advertisers would ask for that data. But such is life, in the life of the media. People don't like ads. But they fund the very content people enjoy.

[@Jayv1313]

​@@tipoomasterOnly works in the browser I think huh? Wish it worked in the app.

[@benjaminlynch9958]

Was mentioned near the end of the video, but I suspect this is partially a negotiating tactic. There’s no reason NGAD needs to cost 3x what the F35 costs. The Air Force should absolutely push back and get that cost down to something more reasonable. Second, I disagree with Alex here on the usefulness of refreshing the ICBM fleet. It’s crazy expensive, but that’s the big stick that’s kept the Cold War from going hot and helped (along with Russia’s ICBM’s) prevent another massive world war that resulted in millions of casualties. Ensuring that deterrent is effective for another half century will also help ensure that the B21 and NGAD aren’t used in another large scale peer to peer conflict. That’s a price worth paying IMO. Lastly, one concern I do have about using the B21 in an Air Superiority role is that it’s not designed as a fighter plane. Its slow speed and large turning radius will have consequences, particularly the speed aspect in terms of getting to the battlefield. For offensive missions (like bombjng) it’s not a big deal because you just plan the mission around that. But for defensive actions, that could be a major problem if it takes an hour or more to get a B21 into position. By that point the battle could be over and lost, and that’s a real problem. The other major problem with using B21’s to orchestrate the drone wingmen is the relative small number of B21’s being ordered and the huge number of square miles around the globe that need air-to-air protection coverage. Mainland USA (both east and west coast, plus Hawaii & Alaska), Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Eastern Europe, and periodically other hotspots around the globe. Are we really going to divide those B21’s up 2 and 3 at a time to bases all over the world just to ensure adequate coverage???

[@AdarisTempest]

I'm pretty sure that these comments from the Air Force are both a negotiating contract with the NGAD's contractors to reduce costs AND a petition to Congress for an expanded budget to cover the program. These kinds of statements can be used as a tactic push the needle on both ends to get a program within the scope and budget it needs to be at.

[@k53847]

NGAD wasn't implied to be a particularly maneuverable vehicle. It was being portrayed as a very fancy missile truck

[@jobcovey8741]

Absolutely agree. We allow companies like Northrop to charge WAY too much. They need to be put in their place.

[@benjaminlynch9958]

@@k53847I would be very surprised if that’s the case. It’s meant to replace the F22, and if it isn’t fast or maneuverable, it’s hardly a replacement then is it? The Air Force already has slow and lumbering ‘missile truck’ in the B21, to say nothing of the other non-stealth platforms the Air Force has in service. I don’t know what the Air Force has planned for NGAD (or even whether the Air Force itself knows!), but I do know that there is a need for a high speed air to air fighter, particularly for defensive roles. A slow moving plane coming from distance is going to be useless against an adversary that has even rudimentary stealth capability. Those attack planes will be long gone by the time a slower moving plane can even get to the fight, and that necessarily means air superiority is lost.

[@griffinfaulkner3514]

​@@k53847Even if it doesn't have the Raptor's absurd maneuverability, NGAD's likely going to be obscenely fast. After all, the higher and faster you are when you launch a missile, the better that missile's effective range is.

[@MrRobertX70]

It was a very bad idea to cancel the F-22.

[@Milvus_In_Excelsis]

The F-35 is superior to the F-22.

[@meanman6992]

The F22 wouldn’t do what we need going forward anyway, the YF23 might have been relevant for a lot longer than the 22 though had it been chosen.

[@Doug_Dimmadome]

Completely different roles.The f-35 is a sniper, and the f-22 is dogfighter​@Milvus_In_Excelsis

[@gyratingwolpertiger6851]

Considering when it was cancelled the USSR had collapsed and we then went into 20 years or so of counter terrorism warfare it was the right move at the time

[@eric97909]

Raptor’s the top dog for its job but it has its flaws and limitations. The Raptor glazing is rampant

[@texasranger24]

The US Army just chose General Dynamics and Rheinmetall as finalists for the 4000 Bradley replacement IFVs (a year ago). Could you do a Firepower series video about this program, the two finalists and the other three that dropped out. Or more generally the current state of IFVs (Bradley, CV90, Puma, Lynx) and their most likely future. Maybe even including anti air IFVs like some CV90 variants and SkyRanger.

[@GainingDespair]

Bradleys is severely outdated and was not particularly impressive for its time. The vehicle is more of a compromise and still retains several design flaws. For instance, the tracks are prone to slipping and jamming at medium/high speeds, leading to the vehicle flipping due to its top heavy nature and momentum at speed. This has occurred numerous times, even resulting in the tragic loss of a close friends buddy when the hatch crushed him. Despite this ongoing problem with the vehicle, they continued to prioritize upgrading the armor instead of investing in a much needed new vehicle, causing additional weight distribution issues.

[@alannajones330]

​@@GainingDespairThe Bradley may be outdated, but it is currently taking out T80s like a boss.

[@daltonv5206]

Really not sure why we didn't just go with up to date/future cv90. Great platform and beloved by those that run them

[@laurijuntunen2816]

​@@alannajones330 According to some it actually destroyed more Saddams T-72s in Desert Storm than Abrams ever did so it might be old and outdated but still carrying a large stick against Putins T-72s and T-80s... 🤔

[@pike100]

You seem to be frequently spamming this same comment.

[@jamesforreal]

The battleship. The heavy tank. The air superiority fighter. All these things morph into something else and antiquate the old guard. Thanks for the video.

[@icarussisyphus5201]

I think a B21 as a missile truck of AIM 174 missiles +233km range. It alone could achieve air superiority quickly and with drones to carry the AIM 174 to air to air and air to ground targets. Imagine it can carry 25 of those AIM 174 for stand off and air to air roles.

[@jcorey333]

It's nice that you seem to so clearly understand the role and limitations of nuclear deterrence.

[@zlm001]

I’ll lose it if they cut engine development. That’s ridiculous. They need to develop the next generation of gas turbine for future planes, drones, and missiles. We can get that next generation sooner and cheaper if we spend it right now. The longer it takes and the slower it is developed the more it will cost, especially with lots of stops and starts. A new airframe development doesn’t usually impact as many other projects as jet engine development, which can be adapted for many different airframes. They could possibly improve some current planes.

[@Confessor555]

Without new engines, there won't be any leap forward. The engine is the heart, the cornerstone - the absolute foundation of a warplane.

[@StEvEn-dp1ri]

"If you want peace prepare for war, and makes sure your adversaries know it!"

[@unbrandedindustriesincorpo1701]

Si vis pacem, para bellum?

[@ViceCoin]

$1trillion for a military that has never passed an audit, by a declining empire with $34trillion in unsustainable debt, crumbling infrastructure; last among developed nations in education, healthcare, crime makes as much sense, as Trump and Biden as the only presidential candidates.

[@erasmus_locke]

F-21 Mustang II I could get behind that.

[@onebladeprop]

I remember the Mustang II, trust me you don't want to name a plane after that.

[@counterfit5]

Mustang III

[@doc0core]

You forgot the F-19

[@Appletank8]

Maybe FB-21 since it's a converted role? Like AC-130. Cargo plane turned attack plane.

[@glennchartrand5411]

Extremely long range anti air missiles could make an air superiority weapon useless , because even if you can dominate the sky over the battlefield, your opponent can still fire anti-aircraft missiles into it from far away.

[@johnathanclayton2887]

B21 costs 600M, why would you use it as a cheaper replacement for a better 300M aircraft? You'd use both to full capacity in a future peer conflict.

[@albertf.2639]

HEY HEARD ABOUT STEALTH BOMBER UNDETECTABLE AT 50,000 OR 70,00 FEET JUST ALONE RUSSIA & CHINA CANNOT TOUCH IT LOL !@@@

[@kaourintintamine1383]

The B21 is already developed and won’t require years of fixes and callbacks, while the NGAF could be another F35 with years to go before being mature It cost 300 billions to develop the F35 to its current maturity (it could be argued whether or not it’s mature)

[@johnathanclayton2887]

@@kaourintintamine1383 so it depends whether it'll be more like the 20B b21 development cost or the 300B f35 cost. You'd make up the 20B extra development in 66 planes worth of lower recurring cost.

[@kashmir883]

good, they are forced to find cost cuts, no more “$5,000 bolts”

[@nicholaidajuan865]

This only makes logical sense if the 700m+ B21 is considered to be a sunk cost to cut back on the $300m+ NGAD fighter in a world where planes are never lost in combat even if the Air Force can afford to sacrifice speed and use the bomber in the role of the 6th Gen fighter

[@willadeefriesland5107]

As much as I love them, the F 22 could end up being a knight in armor, while the B 21, plus drone fighters, could be a tank with screening troops supporting...

[@utubeflyer]

F22 airframes still have a ton of life left on them - at current utilization levels some could fly to 2050. Get all 182 upgraded as turn and burn airframes - get the f-35 kinks worked out and build out that fleet - and up planned production of the B-21 to 12-15 a year. 6th gen fighter can be slow rolled for more of a 2040 launch to accommodate budgetary restrictions.

[@kineticstar]

Sounds like they will force the Navy and Air Force to use the same chassis and make variants like they did with the F35. Looking at what they want to put in the NGAD, they will most likely not want to sell them on the market like they did with the F22, so it will drive up the price per unit.

[@mill2712]

Not to mention, allies (Mainly Japan, Italy, and Britain) who are looking for 6th gen aircraft are trying to build their own because they know we most likely won't sell it.

[@ulrichkristensen4087]

The F35 is designed for loyal wingman in mind, so it makes sense

[@isaacbrown4506]

They need to just ignore uniformed and ignorant people's complaints about costs and make the NGAD and F/A-XX the best they can, or they'll end up making another F-22 sized mistake

[@TypicalBritishperson4972]

That is true, capability is worth more than the money saved by making something worse but cheaper

[@isaacbrown4506]

@@TypicalBritishperson4972 that and the fact that with taking inflation into account, they won't be anymore expensive than an F-22 was or an F-14 was when they came out. They need to be allocated the money for these two programs even as surplus to yearly allocations. Canceling these is going to risk winning a potential global war or at the very least, increased casualties and combat losses which will cost even more money to replace than it would've to just make the new planes. Not to mention the loss of human life

[@TypicalBritishperson4972]

@@isaacbrown4506 Exactly. In my opinion, whatever deterrence value a plane has it loses when the enemy can see the appalling unnecessary waste of time and resources on some programmes. I think it makes the nation look as though it can not adapt

[@isaacbrown4506]

@@TypicalBritishperson4972 yeah, j mean don't get me wrong I do still feel like we outclass both Russia and China, but at the same time anything can happen in the decades to come. India is still way too friendly with Russia and trying with China and for all we know they could end up choosing Russia and China, then we would have to fight against 1/3 of the entire world's population and we would need to have a complete technological advantage since we clearly wouldn't have numbers. And they're just throwing that all away by trying to make everything multirole platforms

[@TypicalBritishperson4972]

@@isaacbrown4506 I don’t really think India will go with Russia or China. Their and China’s relations are terrible and India is famous for its non-aligned move. But yes, the west outclasses Russia and China

[@Administrator_O-5]

Given the history of stupid within DoD, I'm concerned about the B-21, because now they are talking about reducing its numbers.

[@TylerF35A]

And NGAD is also at risk. Apparently everything is too expensive, all while SecDef Austin just approved another $2b to Ukraine

[@user-zl6bs5ih9c]

​@TylerF35A good value. Taking many russian chess pieces off the board is that 2 bil...unlike deterence dollars

[@Administrator_O-5]

@@TylerF35A "we can't fund this, we can fund that, we have to delay this, we have to cut back on this. All due to budgetary constraints". Yet nearly a 1/2 Trillion dollars for Ukraine, no problem...

[@colbunkmust]

@@TylerF35A That $2b is coming out of already purchased old stock that cost the DoD $$$ every year to keep maintained. It's saving the taxpayers money to send it to war. All of the new equipment isn't being sent for free, it's lend-leased, which is even more money for the US economy. Aid to Ukraine is a win-win for the US no matter how you slice it.

[@reubensandwich9249]

​@@colbunkmustAnd where's your source on it saving money? If it's old stock, like you say, it needs money to be refurbished, needs money to be transported, needs money to send the spare parts, ect. So cough up your source information where it's saving taxpayers money and what the decom costs. Otherwise, you're full of crap

[@meanman6992]

Basically what they want I gather is a F15EX that’s stealthy as hell AKA a missile truck?

[@paulbade3566]

I'm reminded of the notion the Army Air Corps had in the early days of WWII that all of the fighter weapons on the B-17 Flying Fortress made fighter escorts unnecessary. Experience proved that idea was very much mistaken. A B-21 - led package of drone fighters may work for a while, but what happens if the adversary figures out how to find and take down the B-21s or incapacitate the drones with jamming/spoofing techniques? We should not put all of our eggs into one basket.

[@AndrewGasser]

F-15EX, F-16 Block 70, F/A-18 E/F Block III are missile trucks. Just buy new air frames. B-52K could also be a missile truck. F-22, F-35, B-21 are targeters

[@libertylivesin1776]

That's common sense. Not applicable to the U.S. Government.

[@MattyJ55046]

Yep

[@reubensandwich9249]

Which is funny because all but two of those aircraft are current active production lines. -B-52K is a re-engine of a long out of production line -F-22 is out of production line nearing the end of airframe life. So it's either move on or dump a ton of money to extend the life or a limited number.

[@BV-fr8bf]

B-52 *J* , not K

[@SmoochyRoo]

​@@BV-fr8bf The J is the modernized variant without the new engines, and airframes with that designation will become Ks when they receive their new engines.

[@Rusty.1776]

You saying all this is assuming that China and Russia's advancements in technology are stagnant and not advancing daily. America has already payed the expensive cost of creating the technology not using it now is ridiculous. The money this country recklessly spends on people who refuse to enter this country legally would sure make a big difference in the future of America's military.

[@diablosmda324]

I served in the United States Submarine Service for 8 years myself. I was in Sub School when Black Hawk Down event happened and later saw the Seawolf being constructed in the Naval Shipyard (Electric Boat) in Connecticut. I bring that up because the Navy had high aspirations for the Seawolf Class until the bill came in and they instead shifted to the Virginia Class. The headline in this video reminded me of that because there are similarities. Now you mention that the idea of the Raider supplementing the role of the Air Dominance mission hasn’t been considered until recently due to Defense Leadership statements but I remember quite a long time ago that very concept being toyed with when details about the Raider were first emerging. It seems to me that the question was raised if a dedicated Air Dominance platform of the future would even resemble traditional Air Dominance platforms such as the F-15 and F-22 which had a focus on speed and maneuverability. So I don’t believe this is necessarily a new concept/idea, but rather we are just now seeing American leadership taking that idea seriously. Perhaps because of several factors to include the price of the proposed NGAD, the price of the Raider (basically they cannot afford to do both). The next factor is the capability of the Raider may be seen as negating the need for such robust capabilities in the NGAD. Also the technology may be driving this. To remain stealthy in all spectrums (High Frequency & Low Frequency radars, acoustic sensors, and Infrared) Aircraft may not even be able to take advantage of high speeds anyway. And finally Leaders may be looking at the events in Ukraine and being influenced by what they are seeing. That even if we can afford to field an Aircraft that can overcome the threats posed by today’s battlefield, how long before emerging technologies negate that advantage after billions spent fielding the new aircraft? The Air Force may see the future of Air Combat needing to focus on modularity and nimbleness rather than Swiss Army Knives that can do it all when we cannot afford to do it all in the first place. My issues with that however begin with the lessons of the past when Leadership decided they knew best and ignored the lessons of the past dooming our military to learn the hard way all over again time after time. From the F-4 Phantom to our military’s Sniper Program. We keep thinking we will never need this technology, or fighting doctrine in battlefields of the future because of x, y, and z (insert history lesson of your choice). A big one for me is the focus here is on what the Air Force needs with only a casual mention of Navy’s F/A-XX Program and their needs. We already know a few things on this. Since WWII The United States Navy has prioritized maintaining a capability of fighting a war on two fronts simultaneously. Second we know that roughly 71% of the Earth’s surface is covered in Oceans. Next we know of China’s two pronged strategy of negating the United States Navy’s capabilities. First by increasing the volume of their own Navy and second by developing a stand off capability through long range hypersonic missiles and Ship borne Stealth aircraft of their own. They may not have gotten where they want to be but the United States has to assume the worst and prepare for that technology maturing to a level that makes that threat real. The Raider may seem like an attractive option for the Air Force’s mission but the Navy has different needs and I do not see them wanting to put themselves in a position of dependency on the Air Force. So any modifications to NGAD, may/should not necessarily be applicable to the F/A-XX. Also remember the F-15ex isn’t a carrier aircraft and cannot necessarily be guaranteed to be able to fill the missile truck role for the Navy in every situation. With that in mind I think a larger aircraft with more fuel and missile capacity makes a lot of sense. But combine that greater fuel capacity with GE’s Adaptive Cycle Engines and perhaps even small cheap unmanned stealth refueling drones; we now begin to negate China’s stand off strategy. The Navy will need an aircraft that not only brings all these capabilities to bear without the help of the Raider, but from a platform that fits on and operates from a flat top. An aircraft that can rapidly close the distance and one that can in the worst case scenario fight its way out of and return to the Carrier.

[@garrettd.6215]

Good comment

[@russelbrown6275]

Take a breath

[@ecleveland1]

Take one look at the problem in Yemen . It’s the Navy and its carriers that are what’s needed so badly in that conflict. Presidents ask where are the carriers not where is some Air Force bomber. I personally think we should have built more Seawolf subs, more F-22 Raptors and keep the NGAD program in full swing for the Air Force and the Navy. We can cut back in other areas of government expenditure and stay far ahead of our adversaries. Keeping the peace cost money but it’s far less expensive than war.

[@garrettd.6215]

@@ecleveland1 exactly. We gotta figure out how to keep the current stable of stooges from bankrupting us spending on nonsense.

[@robmccormick3197]

Need to ditch the sentinel missile and spend the money on NGAD. Polaris and more submarines could do the same job,and are much harder to find and target. Fixed missiles are a known quantity for anyone wanting to target them.

[@AJAtcho]

I guess the bigwigs just learned that Air Superiority is a strategy, not a tactic or plane derivative.

[@willadeefriesland5107]

Hey Alex, how about 'a walk on the wild side'? A video on "What would it take for the United States Space Force to get a true exo-atmospheric 'Space Plane'?" Turbojet/ram jet/scram jet/rocket combination or multiple engines...

[@charlesparr1611]

It would take a combination of strategic stupidity, complete indifference to budgetary concerns, and an almost treasonous attitude towards the importance of ensuring the military is actually effective, Not much of a video.

[@willadeefriesland5107]

​@@charlesparr1611 I wasn't asking YOU. Alex has occasionally taken a lighter subject to examine in his videos. A look at such can dispel misconceptions. I don't expect a cross between a Federation Danube class runabout and a T 65 Incom variant parked outside the Space Force's HQ. I just thought he might like a change of pace...

[@AutomaticJack]

Just to balance the scales vis-a-vis good Charles down there, I shall take the question seriously for a moment: Putting serious weight behind a development program like Skylon/ SABRE is probably the fastest path to a actual space fighter... The conceit there is that they have a precooler good enough to turn air into liquid oxygen on the fly (badum-tiss), so that hydrolox or kerolox hybrid engines don't have to carry oxydizer for in atmo flight. In it's final form it will carry a small LOX tank for exoatmospheric maneuvers but be a mostly air breathing engine. They have done a bunch of JVs with others to apply the technology to other less agressive targets in order to keep the lights on. One example being that apparently their JV with BAE has pushed something based on the bloody T58 into the temperature/pressure range that the SR-71 flew in. It is an interesting program that is making slow but steady progress (like SABRE itself). Though IDK if this is purely dev, or if BAE are thinking about using it for a high-supersonic drone or something... That said, a SABRE based space-fighter would absolutely the ACE/NGAD combo look cheap, simple and and quick by comparison.

[@texasranger24]

Could you do a video about the future of Shorad? Will short range air defense provided by the laser stryker? Will the Bradley replacement IFV XM30 function as an anti air cannon? Should the US look at the SkyRanger / Skynex / millenium gun system? And will there be a Stinger replacement with a better battery, targeting, and most importantly more affordable? Or is this affordable future the APKWS guidance upgrade for the cheap and plentiful Hydra 70mm rocket? Should we slap that on Avenger Hummvees? Or IRIS-T? And how are M-shorad Strykers doing?

[@UnexpectedHistory]

I said when it happened that canceling the Raptor was a VERY bad idea. Had it not been discontinued, it could be receiving updates to its capabilities that could've pushed the requirement to develop the NGAD back a decade or more. That said, changing design requirements this deep into the process will delay the NGAD & cause cost overruns that will likely be blamed more on the contractor than the revised specifications. Making a fighter aircraft that is deliberately less capable than it can be is pure folly, IMO.

[@arbelico2]

A B-21 or B-1 with SM-6 missiles, AMRAAM or a laser can make a mess of enemy fighters.

[@Vhvjdow0ajsbcdhcuei3o22-om4sm]

I think you miss the point of the SM-6, the SM-6 is a long range air-to-air (and air-to-ground/surface) missile meant to destroy special mission aircraft such as tankers, awacs, and aircraft capable of telemetry/communications. The missile range has to rely on the altitude but also the way that the missile preserves fuel, missiles cannot turn on a dime and require there to be sufficient amounts of fuel to be able to hit fast air targets. This is why the meteor was for the most part inferior to the amraam, even though it was able to hit targets 30 nautical miles further.

[@pauljs75]

It's interesting to see the flying fortress idea end up back on the table if laser weapons are considered that capable now.

[@arbelico2]

@@Vhvjdow0ajsbcdhcuei3o22-om4sm If I understand it, the question is how these missiles can be used if the F-35 and F-22 cooperate by designating targets with the B-1, B-21 and other fighters that carry these missiles. It would allow a large quantity of them to be carried into combat. Greetings .

[@Vhvjdow0ajsbcdhcuei3o22-om4sm]

@@arbelico2 The fifth gen fighters are actually the designators. The missile will almost certainly increase the RCS of the F-22 and F-35, which is why they have an internal weapons bay, but I believe that the SM-6 is also too big to fit in the weapons bay, no problem however because 4th gen fighters can carry and launch the missile while the stealth fighters can risk being closer to ghe target and guide it in with its own radars and data link.

[@Vhvjdow0ajsbcdhcuei3o22-om4sm]

Although now that I say this, it's hard for the stealth aircraft to be stealthy if it's guiding in a missile... I'm unsure at what point the SM-6 is self-sufficient at hitting its target without assistance from an AWACS or fifth gen fighter.

[@facsimile-io3dd]

Great overall discussion, think you've gotten that last part spot-on.

[@texasranger24]

A video about the X65 and active flow control would be cool.

[@KG5RJR]

Great stuff Alex!!

[@keithpennock]

Short answer: No, it isn’t maneuverable enough to be a real “Air Superiority” fighter, its engines are sub-sonic and its energy state would be way too low to tangle with other fighters or evade missiles. Stealth alone would not protect it with IRST still being able to lock-on in close range. They would do better to fast-track ceramic radar absorbent materials, use DARPA if you need to, that could critically lower the sustainment cost of all stealth aircraft in the U.S. arsenal, as RAM maintenance is the most expensive part of stealth sustainment.

[@docstew75]

It's got the payload capacity for 10 AIM-174B missiles, and with the drone capability, could turn that into a definitive first strike SEAD or Anti-Air capability. Have a drone flying 60 miles ahead or so, spotting targets that might be more than 100miles from the B-21. The B-21 launches the AIM-174B missles in either a ground attack mode (for SEAD uses) or in an Anti-air mode using the drone's radar to guide it until the missle's own seeker head could take over terminal guidance. 10 B-21s firing 100 missles could clear a 300 mile wide swath of air space for any number of B1, B2, or B52s to fly through, with 4th/5th Gen fighter escorts.

[@alexsawicki]

So, here’s the thing: The F-22, while everyone SAYS that it’s the best air superiority fighter to ever exist… It’s actually NOT combat tested. It was SO much better than the competition, that no one WANTS to have to fight against it. But, that also means that it has, I believe, only 1 air-to-air kill… Ever. The other thing is this: The F-35 can do probably 95%+ as well in the air superiority role… While being substantially better than the F-22 in other roles. It’s like comparing a multi-tool to a single edge knife. Sure, the single edge knife is probably better for cutting (and other things that a knife is used for)… But, it CAN’T be used as pliers. Given our advantage in stealth tech, and given our current platforms: I’d rather the military spend money on the multi-role fighters, rather than the dedicated fighters. I’ll admit, back when the F-35 project was being developed, I was skeptical that the F-35 would be able to fill all the roles they wanted it to fill. I was skeptical that we’d get VTOL (or, at least the vertical takeoff and short landing). I was skeptical that it would be maneuverable enough to compete with dedicated fighters. I was skeptical that it would be able to carry enough payload to do anti-ground missions. I was proven wrong. The multi-role fighter is the way to go.

[@russelbrown6275]

That 5% extra difference means that the F22 flies home and the F35 flies into the ground.

[@alexsawicki]

@@russelbrown6275 What mission, today, could the F-22 do that the F-35 could not do? What "enemy" weapon system could defeat an F-35, but couldn't defeat an F-22? I put "enemy" in quotes, because I'm even fine with including weapons used by allies (of course, not including our own weapons). To be honest, I'm not sure there is one. I'm being serious: If you know of one, even if it's speculation, let me know! Sure, the F-22 *probably* beats the F-35 in a "dog fight", and absolutely does beat the F-35 on stealth... But, does that matter? On the other hand, the F-35 has a LOT of advantages over the F-22. There's a LOT of missions that a properly configured F-35 could fly that the F-22 would be incapable of flying. The F-35 can carry a LOT more weapons. This is not just more ammo, but also bigger weapons. The F-22 would be basically worthless in an anti-capital ship role, or any other role that requires bigger bombs/missiles. As we create more capable missiles, those missiles get bigger as well, even in the anti-air role. The F-22 isn't great in any kind of anti-ground role, but the F-35 is. The F-35 has the semi-VTOL option. The F-35 has substantially better sensors. The F-35 has the advantage of economy of scale: Because the F-35 is so versatile, we made a LOT of them, even for other allied countries, and this economy of scale meant that the per-unit cost is actually quite low for the amount of capability. The F-35 has 95% of the capabilities of the F-22 in air superiority... But 130% of the capabilities of the F-22 in all other roles, and even does some roles that the F-22 simply cannot. *THAT* is what I'm saying.

[@griffinfaulkner3514]

​@@alexsawickiThe F-22 is objectively superior in practically all air-to-air roles, with greater stealth, payload, range, and speed, and post-upgrade it'll be roughly on par with the F-35 in terms of sensors. That extra speed and missile capacity when in a stealthy configuration is particularly noteworthy, squeezing more range out of the same missiles by launching them faster and higher than what the F-35 is capable of.

[@ecleveland1]

What works best is a mix of dedicated air platforms such as the F-22 and A-10 and the multi role platforms such as f-35 and F-16. Layers of weapons systems cause more problems for our enemies that cannot develop as many weapons systems as diverse as ours.

[@alexsawicki]

That still didn’t answer the question about what mission could the F-22 do that the F-35 can’t, or what weapon system could defeat the F-35, but couldn’t defeat the F-22. There’s also cost: According to some quick research, the cost per F-22 is something like $150 million, with a cost of $68K per hour of flight time, with a lifetime cost of something like $334 million per aircraft. The lifetime cost per F-35 is something like $170 million (averaged across all 3 variants, and averaged across the entire development process). So, the F-35’s total lifetime cost is something like half the cost of the F-22, on a per plane basis. Given this cost difference, it might be appropriate to ask: Could 1 F-22 “beat” 2 F-35s in the air superiority role? For the air superiority mission, would 2 F-35s be better than 1 F-22? As for weapons: Best I can tell, the F-22 can carry more missiles internally… Depending on the missiles. But, the F-35A (because we’re comparing the air superiority versions) can carry more on the external hard points. If you put the internal and external together, the overall missile capacity of the planes seems to be basically the same (though, this is also hard because the F-35 is capable of carrying a larger variety of missiles… Including a larger variety of air-to-air). The higher speed of the F-22 is ABSOLUTELY an advantage. The fact that the F-22 can super cruise is absolutely an advantage. I just don’t think that those advantages overcome the difference in cost from the F-35.

[@mikes-qk1sh]

Perhaps the Air Force is thinking about letting the navy do the heavy lifting (budget wise) with its FA-xx program and just roll that into NGAD

[@markbrisec3972]

FA-XX is also postponed.. Navy has it's own high cost tickets with the COlumbia class boomers

[@millennialfalcon1547]

They used to build new fighters from the ground up in 2 years. Now its 20 years because Northrup and Lockheed have a Duopoly. The Air force needs to fund many new companies to cut these costs and time frames.

[@50megatondiplomat28]

The air force and the entire military depend on rapidly achieving and maintaining air superiority and air supremacy. Our government just prints the money they need and it's clear that they will never pay off the debt and they will drain every last cent of value out of it before they collapse it and it goes the way of Argentina. So that being said, if our entire military strategies depend on air superiority as a lynchpin, it's REALLY stupid that they can't find the money for it and they can get it designed and constructed faster than this. Seriously, Congress, Military, find the damn money. Cut DEI and Alphabet Mafia programs that don't produce anything before you cut the damn air superiority mission.

[@thedungeondelver]

Simon Whislter did a video on the Minuteman a few days ago, I recommend everyone watch it. Thing is, _something_ has to give. Either fewer B21s, no NGAD, or no F15-EX. The Minuteman *has to* be replaced. It has to. Just sitting in the silos, the engines and electronics can and do wear out. And there are parts that not only aren't manufactured any more but the company that subcontracted to make those parts don't exist any more and there are no more spares. The missiles can't be rebuilt again. So LGM-35 has to be acquired, or we lose our land-based leg of the nuclear triad. Some think that's a good thing and we should only be using sub-launched or bomber-delivered systems, but most everyone in defense thinks otherwise. So the missiles must be replaced with something new. So that leaves the cutting to be done somewhere else. The B21 is surprisingly on-time and on-budget. The F35 is what it is. F15-EX I haven't really looked in to. But if they're talking about less complex (read: less powerful) engines for NGAD, then I say keep the Wingman drones, tie them to F15s or B21s, and cut the fat there. Because I'd rather the US have either the best fighter jet, period, than a neutered NGAD. Remember the F14, and the "Gutless Cutlass"? The initial batches of F14s were really underpowered, and it wasn't until the late 90s that enough of them got re-engined. The Cutlass (among it's many problems) was equally underpowered. There's no point in investing in a new fighter if it's not going to have a world-beating engine in it.

[@EmmettBrown9]

AIR FORCE Sentinel ICBM cost grows to nearly $141 billion, 81% more than originally forecasted By MATTHEW ADAMS STARS AND STRIPES • July 8, 2024

[@Youtubeuser1aa]

As a Northrop employee is agree we should keep sentinel and b21 😂

[@aqualung58]

I have always wondered why we dont upgrade the Trident missiles as their subs are retired. Put them in silos and or on mobile launchers in Alaska. Maybe Canada would let us deploy some there.

[@LeonAust]

@@aqualung58 Because Trident is a better deterrent almost undetectable.

[@deca2289]

No - it isn't fast enough to reposition, and since it's stealth is compromised once it fires 2-4 times... it doesn't really make sense

[@krakhedd]

I love the direction you're going with this channel. I love the thought you're putting into this stuff, I love that I don't feel like I'm being entertained BUT that is NOT to say or suggest in ANY way your content sucks, quite to the contrary! The quality keeps me engaged and keeps me watching. I remember having a different impression of your early stuff, maybe on another channel w/ a different agenda? Regardless, good shit and keep going. Thank you. I'm not a vet and I know you target them; I hope a large number of vets have similar sentiments

[@goobfilmcast4239]

The most valuable element that both the B-21 and future NGAD "fighters" bring is the panic they instill in our adversaries and the HUGE expense in attempting to match them. ...they will be forced to spend ungodly amounts of money to match their capabilities along with developing and deploying new sensors and counter-measures. Ronald Reagan did this starting in the early 1980s with the now defunct Soviet Union. Between increasing the size of the Navy, beefing up troops in Western Europe, SDI and the Space Shuttle program.... the Soviets basically went belly up. Now it's China's turn......and their economy is already in a bit of a slow down.

[@martindice5424]

With the advances in missile technology I can understand why the USAF are having second thoughts about an F-22 replacement. If you can have a missile truck data linked to an F-35 or even an autonomous UAV the advisory should never even know you’re there before they’re destroyed.

[@johndoh5182]

No, the Air Force WANTS the plane. NO QUESTION they want the plane. They helped to get it going. The issue is ALWAYS the budget. And to put this into simple economics without referencing one party or another since it doesn't matter, the US govt. doesn't take in enough revenue to pay for Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid/Disability, and the military. I could talk about how one party wants to prioritize spending a few billion on extending the wall on the southern border and haven't really talked about the military, or how the other party wants to prioritize some social program or another and not really talked about the military. BOTH parties talk about China and the threat. But when one party or another talks about not approving even a CR for a budget because of deficits and then talks about spending X on program A, B or C they're either lying or hypocrites because they're not increasing revenue to pay for it. Part of the reason the F-22 was cut was because the govt. didn't perceive a big threat and one party was really big on cutting taxes and with tax cuts comes cuts in spending or more national debt. Those cuts came in the late 90s (capital gains) and 2001 and they were very significant cuts. And then the 2017 cuts were also significant. So, which party is going to be the hypocrites and say we need to cut taxes more AND approve funding for NGAD AND THEN wage a war against itself the next time a debt ceiling has to be raised by not approving it? Once again the US govt. isn't even bringing in enough revenue for Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid/Disability, and the military? This has nothing to do with the military. The different branches ALWAYS have a long list of wants/needs and NGAD is top for the Air Force and I'm sure the Navy would want to see NGAD make it onto carriers.

[@jakobneubert6801]

Alex, Add 1% importtaxes on all imported products and AirForce can buy 50 annually

[@gonepostal9101]

Stupidest comment here. The customer ALWAYS ends up paying for import tariffs.

[@nolongerblocked6210]

0:36 "..some might say shortsightedly.." 🙋🏼‍♂️ ME! I'd say!! It's borderline military malpractice that they cut the F22 line off at 186 fighters & couldn't/can't restart the line to replace or repair the ones already produced

[@FlyxPat]

Fair point. Maybe the ICBM upgrade could be stretched over a longer timeframe

[@NathanielRuzicka]

Having the B-21 as the new NGAD drone control center is actually a good idea, why put the expensive air frames in danger, when you could command the drones stealthily from 100 miles away?

[@stcredzero]

I've been wondering lately: Has anyone made an air defense system which uses only low frequency RADAR, which serves to launch a missile with superior IRST? The missile reaches its final waypoint then goes "pit bull" and finds and engages the most likely target using its IRST.

[@brainletmong6302]

If you have low frequency radar in place, you have all of the wiring, networking, power delivery and infrastructure in place to install another set of high frequency sensors right next to it. Thermal only missile seekers exist, but you're effectively gimping your launching platform's capability for absolutely no reason by leaving out the other bits.

[@galexymitzelplik9560]

Then make me a stealth B-17 Flying Fotress with laser cannons.

[@jaysonpida5379]

Hmmmm, so ngad/fa-xx is going to be pursued only in order to produce a B-21 type weapon/sensor system that can be stationed on carriers. It'll be a Navy-driven program and the AF will buy what they >think< they'll need in order to keep per-unit-costs low for the Navy.

[@richardcoggins739]

I hope they don’t forget the lesson we learned in WW II back then they thought the B17 could do bombing missions on escorted. They were wrong. I sure hope they remember that lesson.

[@themonkeyman2547]

The B-17 was designed 90 years ago. Its lessons are irrelevant

[@hoss1003]

I've got an idea for the Air Force. Get rid of the Clown in the Whitehouse and all of his Cronies and that'll lower the Inflation and Cost of everything. That way the cost of the B-21 will probably drop back down to manageable levels..

[@Confessor555]

You win best comment of the day. YT is on to your attitude. Believe me. They are masters of detection and censorship.

[@ulrichkristensen4087]

These plans where made decades ago, as long trump does not get the chair freedom will survive

[@FlyxPat]

NGAD was supposed to be fast and cheap from being based of existing tech and seemed to be achieving that until recently

[@machdaddy6451]

This is going to create a whole new set of challenges for our adversaries.

[@alter-nator]

"(...) at least if we are lucky, anyway..." OMG! This made my day 😂

[@MilushevGeorgi]

Great content, good job Alex

[@AZ-vt4zz]

Well, for interceptions/counter, you will still need something fast. You can't always pre-position assets as the only way to deal with distances.

[@JohnJaneson]

Agreed. Even with BVR, speed and agility matters.

[@elphi4321]

The F-22, initially it was going to cost about $125M each. Then politicians said, "If part of the aircraft wasn't built in their state, they weren't voting for it." Now the price is $375M....surprise!

[@linctexpilot8337]

This video describes the exact type of technology, inventory, & concept-type Scenario that I have been describing to others for several years now

[@jakobneubert6801]

Alex, cover next "rotation detonation engines" implementation into missiles how much distance is increased or weight saved for both air to surface and surface-to-surface missiles - particular for 3-man teams inside Taiwan or near-pear islands/countries.

[@jaymoore332]

We should keep in mind that fighters have been accompanied by increasingly capable combat drones for decades. We call them air-to-air missiles. The UCAVs of the future will be a natural evolution of this long-running trend.

[@navret1707]

Alex, I think you just said “The best defense is a good offense.”

[@GeorgeSmythe]

To my previous comment, which I think is correct, it could also be that fighter and bomber aircraft may be at the end of their days as missiles and drones may be far affordable and effective in many or even most situations.

[@ThirdLawPair]

The AIM-174 being carried by the B-21 is a terrifying combination.

[@Sacto1654]

The B-21 will likely launch stand-off missiles as much as 250-300 miles away from the intended target. As such, it will be almost impossible for local air defenses to find the plane before the missiles impact.

[@robertandrew880]

Don't underestimate Block 4 F35s. Extremely stealth. Sensor fusion. Ability to control done wingman. AI integrated. Isn't that what 6th gens are supposed to be capable of?

[@DUKE_of_RAMBLE]

If a stealth aircraft has a radar return the size of a mailbox (on a bad day), and the S500 has already been taken down by off-the-shelf consumer drones... would it pose any real risk to said stealth aircraft?!

[@druwk]

The biggest deterrent to conventional readiness is corruption and waste of our military budget. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to be able to exercise a “Big Stick” to keep our adversaries at bay, and provide leverage in negotiations. However, we should also work at making the planet a safer place for our shared interests with our fellow humans. This means confronting our worst human attributes: greed, envy, pride, anger and fear.

[@undecidedmiddleground5633]

In the end, I regretfully agree with removing the NGAD. I've seen warfare simulations with modern equipment and the definitive winners always revolved around outranging targeting and firing enough missiles to take out the opponent's equipment. What we should focus on is the data connectivity, unmanned sensor platforms for proximity, and flying missile trucks like the Raider for the Air Force and the F-15 EX Strike Eagle for the Navy. Loft as much ammunition as you can and strike from greater height and range.

[@pastorrich7436]

I cannot help but see the Raider taking on air superiority for the USAF while the F/A-XX for the USN. Systems should reflect the mission and purpose of each branch. When C-130s can be leveraged as land/sea attack platforms I think we’re in new territory. The B-21 as an air superiority platform seems a no brainer or may we say FB-21 Raider? Besides, the LGM-35 cost overruns will have to come from somewhere in the AF budget.

[@davidsonfitness318]

Alex can talk about the "Any Sensor, Any Decider, Any Shooter" concept with our weapons and platforms moving forward?

[@ditzydoo4378]

Look at it this way. It's the weapons, not so much the delivery system. With the advent of the new AIM-174B, a modified Navy SM-6 with an upgraded Aim-120 seeker. and a range at high altitude exceeding 200-miles. a lone B-21 could roll-up and unload a ridicules number of these deadly missiles at any in bound air-to-air threat.

[@eyefly001]

What they need is a carrier based drone/missile aircraft that can carry far more than the fighter jets. The carrier aircraft can fly at safe distances and let the stealth fighter guide the missiles in.

[@nazukeoya]

I was 20-years old when 9/11 happened, abd I remember debates at work that same day. My coworker was arguing that we no longer need conventional weapons, and I argued that as long as other countries have conventional weapons then we will too. 2-years later and we won the Iraq war BECAUSE of conventional weapons. And yes, we won the Iraq War. The goal was to topple the Saddam govt and we accomplished that. You can argue that we lost the peace, but us winning the war is undisputed.

[@AvocadoAfficionado]

When you have a stealthy networked missile truck and a scout why do you need a stealthy mini missile carrying convertible?

[@stephensmith6599]

Whatever is decided ... we will half ass it, pivot to a new platform, come back to it with upgrades, and then finally move on. Our lack of commitment is very evident over the past 40 years.

[@forfun6273]

I’ve been advocating for this since awhile back. I know you made a video before talking about it’s side panels may being able to hold air to air missiles. I just think it’s a great idea. Like I point to the iron dome and David’s sling and Arrow. Like they were so effective vs the attacks from Iran. That’s also operating with ground based radars. Which really doesn’t have that far of a view for low flying targets. Like if you could miniaturize those systems and put them on a B-2 or B-21 you would expand the radar line of sight by orders of magnitude. So basically anything in its orbit is a potential target. I mean it would face a substantial threat from stealth fighters if they were able to figure out where the B-21 was. They would be able to possibly defeat those defense systems and it’s not like the B-21 would be doing evasive maneuvers. But then you bring it fighter drones with AI pilots that can be directed by the B-21 co pilot if necessary. Then they could go after the fighters coming after the B-21. So idk. But yeah I think this is a great idea.

[@nekomakhea9440]

> pivoting away from dedicated air superiority fighters dedicated tactical bombers that got pushed aside by multirole fighters: First time?

[@CharlesFosterMalloy]

Using B-21s as a bridge to the future along with CCAs could allow for greater focus on CCA development, manufacturing & deployment, justify producing more B-21s (which are needed), and allow more time to develop more cost effective NGADs without quality drop off. So the NGAD just gets delayed in full scale production but not design & development. Also, with that delayed deployment, the NGAD could be justified as smaller multirole vehicles themselves, and a heavy bomber could be designed & developed along side it to bring online as B-52s start disappearing from service. So we end up with 300+ B-21s and sooner, and perhaps fast forward to autonomous NGADs, stealth tankers, & flying carriers/heavy bombers (super big versions of B-21s or B-40s). Or maybe you scale down the B-21 and make that the NGAD manned element. Can B-21s be made into stealth tankers as well ? Will everything be built around the B-21 in smaller & larger or just modified forms ? The most important capability, besides strategic deterrence, would be to identify & take out radar and air defense assets and infrastructure - after that, it doesn’t much matter if your air supremacy “fighters” are stealth or not, as long as they outperform opposition fighters. At some point, you want fewer vehicles in the sky burning fuel, so you want a stand alone capable jet for maintaining air superiority once it’s established. If the enemy puts a bird in the air you want to be able to shoot it down before it can attack you. The F-35s and F-15EX will be able to perform that role for a while, so long as manned NGAD hits the scene in the next 12 to 15 years. Tempest is set to fly a prototype inside the next 3 years. Worst case, maybe you buy Tempests ?

[@terryfreeman1018]

Gotta love Alex Hollings, and everything he talks about

[@BMF6889]

I saw this exact same argument when it came to the B-2 vs the F-22. Oh we don't need to worry about air dominance because we have the hundred or so B-2's for strategic missions and the F-22 isn't needed for low intensity warfare. I served 21 years in the Marine Corps as an infantry officer with 3 years in combat. I can assure you that our military is always thinking about fighting the last wars instead of the future technologies of the next war. Form the SPAD in WW I to the P-51 and B-17 in WW II, to the B-29, to the F-86 and all other aircraft generational models, the cost per aircraft has increase exponentially. There is no reason to believe that with inflation those costs will rise even higher for each now aircraft model. You want to know who is really irresponsible? Our brain dead government that has now increased our National Debt to over 30 Trillion dollars. If that debt didn't increase and we paid off the interest which is not our largest annual expenditure, it would take something like 20 or more generations to pay off what Congress has over spent assuming no additional debt for the next 20 generations. Who is the brain dead government? It's mostly the Democrats but also Republicans who have to spend to make up for the mistakes of the Democrats such as the military, energy independence, jobs, saving social security, etc. all of which increases or National debt. Think of it this way. Your wife spends a million dollars on credit at 20% interest and you have to pay not only the interest but also pay down the debt. If you only pay the interests each month, then you never get to pay down the debt. That is where we are today in our government's irresponsible spending. So when Democrats are in power, where do they try to cut annual debt? They start with the military because the military has not voice / union to protect their budget. That means trillions of dollars for worthless green wind mills, solar panels, and burdensome EPA regulations take precedence over national security. Think about it. Without national security we have no country. Over reliance of solar, wind, reduces our ability to protect the country or win wars. Think about it. Even if we go all electric EV's and military vehicles, where does the energy to recharge those batteries come from? Not from solar or wind, but from fossil fuels. Climate activist are complete morons. They can't explain how the Ice Age suddenly melted 10,000 years ago a 10,000 years before the industrial revolution. Was it because cavemen were roasting rabbits over campfires? The truth that climate activists don't want to talk about is that in the geological history of Earth there have been wild climate changes from tropical to Ice Ages. They only believe that in the history of the Earth only man has impacted climate. But the carbon that man emits in all forms pales in comparison to what Earth produces in nature. In fact, there is not a single scientific peer revived study that has been able to determine the percentage of man made CO2 relative to natural CO2. But they claim man made CO2 is the problem. And CO2 is not the most predominate climate changing gas in our atmosphere: water vapor is. So what is the climate change morons going to do to prevent water vapor?

[@jerseyshoredroneservices225]

Imagine a B-21 filled up with AIM-174 missiles. That would make a nice contribution to air superiority 😊

[@bremnersghost948]

Worth remembering that it was GMLRS and the Pershing 2 that brought the Soviets to the Treaty Table in the 80s as they had no Defence against it!

[@user-EMT1124]

I can also see the B-21 being a missle truck, so to speak. Imagine the B-21 packed with AIM-174s and a drone spotter.

[@rowanyuh6326]

The thing is you already have f-35s and F-15EXs that can carry a shitload of 120s 260s sm6s. Why waste precision bomber doing air superiority at that point. It’s going to be a better bomber than a dogfighter. Just have it avoid the enemy air defense.

[@eugenenunn4900]

The ending statements were very insightful

[@SlowrideSteve]

Never doubt congress's ability to mess up a perfectly good solid strategic plan

[@giganigga9624]

We are heading in a very good path, when it comes to missiles technology. Can’t say much about aircraft’s tho. We are literally adjusting our strategy for China , we have the longest range air to air missile available for f18 just launch, let f35 designate targets and boom, and then save the f35 missiles for more valuable land assets or targets I bet China wish they never did wolf warrior diplomacy, now the US is preparing and even if China was too hit the us by surprise and full force, the US would still be prepared to respond

[@NoobNoobNews]

As long as it has the radar and targeting computer, it is arguably the best stealth fighter in history. The B2 bomber has a smaller radar return compared to the F22 for a reason.

[@ML-lg3hv]

French mirage 2000 is an air superiority fighter. It’s still in use and upgraded, even dodged a live American missile not so long ago.

[@LaserGuidedLoogie]

At this point, we might as well use some version of the "Rapid Dragon" that floods a given area of the sky with masses of air-to-air missiles, launched from a C130.

[@MickyChowMein69]

When I was a little boy in the 80s, my mum and dad split up, so my mum took me to live at my late grandmother's house in London. She was a WAAF in the war, and she had all these gasmasks still in her house. When I asked her about them she told me that every person in London was given one in the war in case Hi t ler used chemical weapons on London. Weapons of mass destruction are nothing new. And yet they never seem to get used. I mean, the point of conquest is to take your enemy's wealth accortding to Putin. Why would you want to inherit a smoking wasteland? My point is nukes will never get used. They are a political weapon. A stick to scare the little people., and America...that war might just have already started.

[@mrrolandlawrence]

indeed if drones control the airspace and there is no way to 100% deny that, maybe 200 x b21 is the way forward. it would also lower the cost per b21 as well. a win win

[@fakecubed]

All roads lead to flying wings.