New F-36 Kingsnake - Return of the Monster F-16XL Fighter

[@DarkMilitaryTech]

Show your support for us! Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS®5 and Xbox Series X|S: playwt.link/darktech. Get your exclusive bonus and download the game now! See you on the battlefield! Thanks for watching.

[@iwannistsalkitzides2115]

goodtech darkTech..keep going..thegoodjob.... kudos

[@aegrotattoo9018]

Always enjoy the technical 'stuff' from your Dark channels, many thanks :)

[@s3cunit]

Who does the voice over work? He sounds exactly like a childhood friend, Jonathan Preston.

[@clonecommando-cn6bo]

Hahaha. Budget problem? All our dumbass government does is spend money on warfare

[@rupenimara1819]

@@aegrotattoo9018 078.m

[@Tam0de]

Putting delta wings on the proven F-16 airframe is looking like a match made in heaven. I've always admired the F-16XL platform & elated that they're even considering of reviving it.

[@Skinflaps_Meatslapper]

They're not. These were just random aviation people that got together and decided to see what they could make that would fit the proposed requirements.

[@xyzaero]

NOBODY EVER CONSIDERED REVIVING THE F-16XL !!

[@deadshot4245]

add thrust 3d vectoring capability

[@RobertsonDCCD]

@@deadshot4245 That’s a recipe for much higher cost.

[@thepunisher2988]

I feel like this kind of thing should be considered in other areas as well. Repurposing/retrofitting old equipment for modern use.

[@JackBWatkins]

Designing low cost specialty fighters instead of trying to satisfy all branches with one design make a lot of sense. Not every jet needs to be an F35 or F22 once you have air dominance. The US has proven that pilot training is just as important as equipment in defeating opposing air forces. Quality vs quantity? Quantity is a quality all it’s own.

[@toddw6716]

Your so right. But the pentagon is owned by the defense contractors who give jobs to generals. The military is as corrupt as politicians

[@Overworkedandunderpaid]

Your wrong. His quotes are taken out of context. The f-35 is actually cheaper now than the f22 ever was. Edit: and I’ll add its only 20 million dollars more expensive than the most expensive variant of the f16. Edit: also on the modern battlefield quantity doesnt matter much, when one f35 filled to its beast mode configuration can engage all of the aircraft you mentioned, 1) before they even know its there, 2) before they even get in range, 3) can engage 8 of them at once, all without even being visible on the horizon.

[@Glenmoto12]

Your point is good, and it is proven air craft don’t need to be incredibly fast to engage in successful dogfights. However, perhaps a well trained pilot in a well equipped aircraft would best a well trained pilot in a poorly equipped aircraft.

[@JackBWatkins]

We ordered 4,600 F16’s and 1,500 F15’s. We are only ordering 1,700 F35’s. It is true the cost of the F35 is down to $77 million. But in a shooting war you can’t replace aircraft like we did in WWII. Plus in Desert Storm we wore out a lot of aircraft so if you hold to the 2 front war plan, I just ask if we have enough aircraft.

[@canis2020]

@@Overworkedandunderpaid true. This constant reiteration of outdated information and politics is a big reason why we are slowing down in our progress. There is no reason with how much we spend that we aren't light-years ahead of where we are now.

[@ezragoldberg3132]

The King Snakes wing looks a lot like the SAAB Draken's delta wing.

[@dudelebowski8629]

It does have some similar aspects but it looks a bit more like the F-16XL, just a new modern version.

[@rapidsqualor5367]

I thought it looked like the Tejas.

[@Year2047]

It does

[@swiftusmaximus5651]

Same base design

[@mikeysgametime8914]

Reminds of a saab viggen, is that the same plane?

[@Wedgetail96]

Given the massive drop in price for an F35 (yes it’s now cheaper than European offerings), it will be interesting to see if this new aircraft actually ends up cheaper per unit.

[@kblo7473]

Pls enlighten us how price drops in inflation times(excluding FED printing press)?

[@georgethompson1460]

@@kblo7473 It's cheaper to purchase F-35's than Euro-fighter typhoons or Gripens due to mass production of the airframes.

[@reaperthemad8731]

@D this. The F-35 costs $30k-$35k per flight hour. The F-16 is $20k-$25k per flight hour. Now multiply that times hundreds of aircraft, then multiply that times thousands of hours. And unless they do something dumb or crazy, an upgraded F-16 airframe would almost certainly have higher combat readiness.

[@ロース-z7m]

@D I heard that expansive maintenance is part of the actual engine, and the next block version will get a new engine, what will significantly decrease maintenance cost.

[@williamadams4843]

@@reaperthemad8731 except like the f22 the f35 will destroy the f15 in any variation. We are talking 10 f35 will down 100 f15 so while the cost difference is nothing to ignore. Give me the better chance of winning

[@BMF6889]

I'm not going to second guess the Air Force. I'm a retired Marine infantry officer with 3 years in combat and what I needed in combat was immediate close air support in low intensity warfare. I was a Marine platoon commander in Vietnam 1968-69 and close air support wasn't close enough because it was just a dangerous for us. The Navy and Air Force planes that supported close air support for my platoon were too high and too inaccurate--but compared to today, technology then was in the cave man era. Marine pilots in Vietnam provided the best close air support because they came much lower and were therefore more accurate. Accuracy in Vietnam was solely dependent upon where I knew where I was and the pilot knew where I was. That wasn't easy. I was using out of date French maps from the 1940's and the pilots were using aeronautical maps that were much different from ours. I was lucky if I knew where my location was within a kilometer or more. I remember calling in an artillery mission. I always asked for a smoke round to verify the target. In one case I called for a smoke round and it landed 2 kilometers behind me. I only had an out of date map and a compass for navigation and where we operated there were very few terrain features that could be used to help determine where exactly we were. Perhaps you can't visualize the problem. When in the mountains using out of date maps, you would think you knew which mountain you were on. Not true. There is triple canopy jungle and there were not visual clues where we were. In my opinion here is the dilemma for the Air Force: in a low intensity confrontation, do you want a superior close air support aircraft or do you want a swiss army knife aircraft that can be a fighter when there is no air threat or if there is, the F-35 and F-22 can easily provide combat air patrol cover? As an experienced combat veteran, I want an aircraft that can deliver close air support up to danger close using the appropriate ordinance based on closeness to friendly forces. Depending on how close the ordinance needs to be to friendlies' the standard 500 pound bomb is not the answer for all close air support missions. I've had 500 pound bombs dropped in close air support missions and depending on the distance, it can be just as deadly for us as it is for the enemy. Again, just my opinion, but I'd leave air superiority to the F-35 and the new stealth advanced fighter being developed . Give me a more advanced A-10 type of close air support aircraft that can take the damage from enemy ground forces and keep in the fight. I want the equivalent to a flying tank to provide close air support because I also need a real tank to provide close ground support. I grew up in the Air Force. My dad was a B-17 pilot shot down on July 26, 1943 and spend the rest of the time as a POW. He stayed in the Air Force and became a B-47 and B-52 pilot during the Cold War. I had an uncle who flew F-106 interceptors during the Cold War. I had an uncle who was the first double ACE in the Korean War and became a major general on retirement. I had an uncle who was in Special Forces in Vietnam and severely wounded. My brother was a Marine Captain company commander in Vietnam when he was severely wounded and spent a year in the hospital. My grandfather on my Mother's side was the senior medical advisor to Eisenhower and directed to investigate Patton's slapping of a soldier in a field medical facility for being a coward. It's not surprising that I joined the Marine Corps in 1967 to avoid being drafted into the Army. I knew that I would be sent to Vietnam do matter what I did, so I decided I wanted to be a Marine infantry officer instead of an Army private. I can't help but think the General Brown does not have in input from Army and Marine ground forces. I can guarantee that the concept of close air support for ground forces is totally different than that of the Air Force which explains why the Air Force wants to retire the A-10 -- the most effective air close support there is to relying on F-35's and the F-36 concept. I would want a flying tank like the A-10 to support me in a close air support mission. All other missions can be done with the F-35 at 25,000 feet or higher. No way the Air Force is going to risk an F-35 in a real close air support mission at danger close with guns at 500 to 1000 feet.

[@darrellcook8253]

The A-10 is being upgraded with better electronic devices and bigger engines. To keep the project as expensive as possible they messed with the airfoil and hit the jackpot. If any aircraft can compete with the ground support this aircraft offers I'd like to see it. Oh yeah it has almost twice as much armor. And more ammunition. And it looks the same as the old beast. Just flies better.

[@JackBWatkins]

Thank you and your family for saving America’s Fanny since WWII. Great in-site on the view from the ground.

[@georgethompson1460]

@@darrellcook8253 I heard COIN is gonna be done by militarized Cessnas with PGM's, also CAS in contested airspace is gonna be done with precise PGM's from 25,000ft anyways due to the manpad threat. An A-10 is gonna be dropped by MANPADS like starstreak weather it has a titanium bathtup or not.

[@tatersgonnatate6230]

I agree with you for the most part, however the new introduction of loitering munitions/advanced gbu programs make CAS somewhat obsolete. Take a look at Ukraine for example. S300 batteries were a pain in the ass until haarm standoffs. It’s better in practice to use an accurate munition to dispatch of a target. I believe the f-35 fits this roll well. Now, for the air superiority side, the new f/x program promises an even greater standoff.

[@Zedeezia]

They are making the "sky warden" which is basically a suped up crop duster with all kinds of armor and equipment.

[@PaPaFiggy69]

I was instantly in love with the F-16XL as well as instantly sadden by the fact it was never produced. So I pray this King snake gets produced. As the F-16XL could supercruise and had more range and payload capability. An i can just imagine how well it fights in the WVR fights. I believe it either kept the original F-16 engine or the F-22 engine either way would have still been a powerhouse

[@xyzaero]

F-16XL or Kingsnake will never be produced since USAF did nit ask for such airplanes. Furthermore the F-16XL is a very bad performer in the WVR arena and would be eaten a life by the super maneuverable F-35. Why do you cavemen always have to live in the past instead of accepting the superior present ?? 🙈

[@lokai7914]

@@xyzaero why do you have to throw insults? Don't you think your arguments are strong enough to stand on their own?

[@alistairdiren5790]

@@xyzaero most technological is not always the solution my friend...

[@PetrolHeadWolfComments]

​@@alistairdiren5790 Not when it comes to military hardware my friend. Best tech wins. Sentiments, fond memories and past achievements doesn't make an obsolete platform better. That's like flying a F-86 Sabre against a "4th/5th Gen " because it was a legend. A squad of F-4 phantoms will lose against a squad of F15/16s. A squad of 4th Gen fighters will lose against the 22's/35s/Su-57s.

[@yigithan3713]

The top reason why I like USA is their amazing performance in very high techy stuff like the NGAD. I mean, F-35 is a very fresh design and yet they already built a 6th gen fighter and tested it. Go check its engine proposal and the coolent for that engine. Its simply amazing engineering and dedication. Aside from politics and all, you have to give the credit where its due....

[@xodiaq]

That plane as is, probably not happening, but I definitely feel like significant parts of this and the YF-23 are in the NGAD/FA-XX programs

[@chriszachary8104]

The yf 23 is heavily influencing japans 6th gen fighter looks just like it

[@asteve6537]

​@@chriszachary8104 the Japanese beast is a 22/23 hybrid

[@tsubadaikhan6332]

@@chriszachary8104 The presenter of Millennium7 was saying when you're trying to design for things like Stealth, certain limitations mean a lot of the Aircraft look alike. I'm Australian. We built a lot of our own Airframes in WW2, but sourced Engines from the USA and the UK. Pictures of the Australian Aircraft look very similar to their Allied Counterparts. But once you factor in the size of the Engine, and where that leaves the Centre of Gravity, it kind of makes sense. We were in WW2 a couple of years before the US, and had engine orders cancelled on us, because when America was dragged in they needed those engines themselves. However, we had designed planes around Engines we thought we'd be receiving, and they also looked significantly like their American Counterparts. Interestingly, the first Fighter our Chief Aeronautical Engineer, Fred Davis, designed, looked a hell of a lot like the Fokker Wulf 190. Which shouldn't be surprising. Because Fred Davis was originally an Austrian Jew previously named Fredrich Davide, who worked for Fokker Wulf but fled to Australia in the mid 1930's. My Great Grandfather worked with him, and said he was a Genius, and without him the Japanese would have been in the North of Australia long before the Americans arrived to help us out. So - Thanks, Germany - I guess?

[@lokai7914]

The F-16 XL had somewhere around a 65% commonality of parts with the F-16 C/D.

[@Revan2908]

No surprise, considering how the two original prototypes were built.

[@TROOPERfarcry]

The Air Force needs a 'grunt'. There's a reason that the Army has a small group of Special-Forces, and then a large group of grunts.... and it's for this same reason that the Air Force needs 'grunts' as well. Ordinance needs to be delivered, and lots of it.

[@paulbarthol8372]

Does the AF need a new airplane or does the general need a consulting gig when he retires?

[@1slotmech]

Yes.

[@verticalfracture]

The Air Forces F35s are already 10 million dollars cheaper than new f16s. This kind of seems to be a program looking to solve a problem from a decade ago that's already been solved

[@whatdoesntkillyoumakesyous6707]

Thats because so many F35 have been sold,if the same was for new f16s the price would drop as well

[@mg.8144]

I’ve watched stuff on the F 16 XL years ago it was an insanely capable fighter that they built out of the f16 that wiped the floor with just about everything we had at the time…. So of course we built a single f35.. instead of a few thousand xls.

[@shandonmeadows8620]

Well you know what they say, the military is sure as hell redundant-now hold my beer and hurry up and wait soldier! 😂

[@verticalfracture]

@@whatdoesntkillyoumakesyous6707 they both have mature manufacturing lines it's an apples to apples comparison. That being said the 35 will likely get cheaper still.

[@ricardosmythe2548]

A few of each working in conjunction with one and other would be a more capable mix than the f35 alone. The F35 isn't an all rounder it's designed to be used with 4th gen platforms that can carry big load outs for best results

[@TROOPERfarcry]

2:36 -- _That is some _*_damn_*_ good advice._

[@Bestnightcoreofalltime]

To be honest: you need to have the US military budget to have fun in War Thunder.

[@TheDwightMamba]

There us no such thing as a cheap mobile game that's promoted in a KZbin advert-read.

[@lancekilkenny721]

@@TheDwightMamba As far as I know war thunder is console and PC only not mobile.

[@TheDwightMamba]

@@lancekilkenny721 , you got me. Not a gamer. That said, I have never seen any service or product sponsor that was putting their name on videos to lose money.

[@cybersentient4758]

@@TheDwightMamba there's tons of free mobile games that's as advertised, lots of mobile game hate these days just because of some bad apples

[@cybersentient4758]

Lmao war thunder 101

[@jimmcneal5292]

This design can actually make US air force much more potent

[@phased-arraych.9150]

I kinda think it just be easier to upgrade the current inventory of F-16s to the Block 70 standard.

[@dreamhunter2973]

Nope, the proposed F 36 design can carry more payload for a longer time, so not equal to the block 70. Pius, of they use the Raptor's engines, then it can even supercruise....

[@Overworkedandunderpaid]

It’s more expensive. Another KZbinr covered the same topic and it’s actually more expensive to do per aircraft than it is to make a f35.

[@mulgerbill]

How many hours are on those airframes? Much as I love the Falcon, there comes a time when you're riveting patches over patches. A new build run of a well proven aircraft with latest powerplant tech, block 70+ sensors and avionics might fit the bill nicely

[@deadeye4520]

This fighter needs to be built. The U.S. does need to shift the philosophy to creating a "mix" of high tech and relatively low tech equipment. I like the F-15x as a support fighter for the F-35, and I believe this F-36 concept would be even more useful.

[@diljithayre9379]

Absolutely agree

[@user-pf6wl4hv5j]

Over reliance on technology is a weakness it causes the fundamentals to be lost in the sauce ACOGs are cool and superior in many ways but iron sights are still a thing Directed energy weapons are still inferior to the ma deuce which will still be around in 500 years

[@deadshot4245]

should've made more raptors. or build off of its designs further

[@don-tj7su]

They did build this aircraft many years ago

[@CharliMorganMusic]

No. Our planes should fall into one of three categories: super props for attack missions, and multirole stealth fighters supported by autonomous stealth fighters. If we want to build the F-16, then export it, but there is no point trying to compete with China in a numbers-game; we have quality and we need to capitalize on it.

[@DRAGONFANG18]

I love the F-16. The more variants of it, the happier I am about it.

[@rlicon1970]

Me too

[@monkebanana2506]

@@rlicon1970 "Me too, kid." - Mr. Incredible

[@sarcasmo57]

Will need a lot of fighters soon. Good luck with it all.

[@christophsherburne6792]

“Well I’m a Crawling Kingsnake! And I Rule My Den” - Jim Morrison That’s all I a heard in my head the Entirety of your Video. 🤣

[@darrellcook8253]

Uh oh. You might want to listen to "The Dogs of War" by Pink Floyd and detoxify. Either that or it pushes you over whatever edge you prefer. Stay cool man. And the Doors are unmatched cool. It took me a long time to get where I'm not. Or something like that.

[@dewarkhodern9990]

"The F14 Tomcat was too expensive" F35: No

[@Steven_Edwards]

Adjusted for inflation, the F-14 was still about twice as expensive. The thing was iconic but also a money pit.

[@dewarkhodern9990]

@@Steven_Edwards I doubt your comment. The F35 in funds is still climbing. And it would've been cheaper than the F35 to make new/better/simple-to-maintain F14s in large numbers compared to the F35. Grumman was going to do that however a-hole Rick Chaney stopped that. Simply due to the fact that Grumman was hated by Cheney. Go figure.

[@strikercwl]

@@dewarkhodern9990 No the 35 is not getting more expensive.. It's getting cheaper, and the 14 was expensive to maintain because of the sweep wing design. A newer plane with a fixed wing based on the 14 would have been nice. But politics being what they are makes it hard for Northrop Grumman to get any big contracts anymore after they overcharged both the navy and the air force for several major components and sold the air force a bunch of faulty satellite parts.

[@dewarkhodern9990]

@@strikercwl Lmao, I doubt your comment. Especially when the helmet of the F35 cost over fkn 400000+ dollars!

[@Imperious4k]

@@dewarkhodern9990 Google is your friend. The F-35′s annual cost per plane has dropped 37% between 2015 and 2021, and its cost per flying hour has dropped 50% over that same period. Lockheed and the Air Force expect those costs to continue decreasing by 2026. The F-15E/F/-15EX cost more to fly than the F-35.

[@darrellseike3185]

What a great video! A stealthy version of the F-16XL would be killer! That plane was before it's time.

[@texasranger24]

The F35A already costs the same as a new F16. If they want to get more affordable, the Textron Scorpion is right there...

[@Noisy_Cricket]

Yeah, but if the US govt ordered the equivalent of an F16 in big enough numbers, the F16 equivalent would be cheaper.

[@mikejohnson5900]

Your videos have just gotten better and better. Thanks for this particular one, the F-16 has been my favorite fighter for years.

[@rlicon1970]

My fav plane

[@WonderfulAircraft]

While cautiously optimistic, I am hoping this comes to fruition. If the program meets its goals, it could be exactly the type of aircraft the airforce needs right now.

[@martinimris5168]

Huge quality jumps each release. Thank you.

[@DrOneOneOne]

I was thinking the exact opposite. All of this is 100% speculative and little more than rumours.

[@matthewsheeran]

If partly stealthy it would be eminently suitable for export markets and allies like Taiwan in South East Asia. Lower range requirements there as well as the use of roadways as emergency runways during wartime. The delta wing configuration would bring the short take off and landing needed. They've got to build it and then can keep full the new 5th and 6th gen fighters and technology to themselves.

[@dreamhunter2973]

I think the F 15ex already answered this question.... So there wouldn't be a need for the Kingsnake....just build more F 15ex.....

[@specialman6004]

If it’s a delta wing then it’s just gonna be a BVR intercepter of some sort. I doubt the F-36 will be put in service because the F-15 is likely better and not a delta wing.

[@4x4nutzo]

That would absolutely be a fun plane to fly!

[@Overworkedandunderpaid]

That I will agree with.

[@garystrittmater8258]

Showing drafting boards is equivalent to having a blacksmith on staff for metallurgical expertise. CAD/CAM is now, prett much, constant!

[@bighands69]

People still use boards.

[@heavenburnt9055]

Dude, keep doing these. They are fun to imagine, and cant wait to see the finished product. I guess I'm waiting until war or 2030 before we see it.

[@tsangarisjohn]

I hope this is true. The “F-36” or a like variant would be a great move. First of all a single engine unit will help with cost and maintenance cost reduction for the USAF. I would hope the “F-36” also incorporates the new “adaptive engines” for greater efficiency in flight. The shape can be optimized to provide near stealth function as well. Specially without a tail. Overall it would be a good move.

[@Yuki_Ika7]

i have heard rumors that it can supercruise and might have some internal weapons bays!

[@josephforrest3713]

They would have to dial down the power. The new engines slated for NGAD are rated in the 45,000 pounds of thrust category, I believe.

[@soticsbackup1027]

A fighter like this could be great for close ally exports to bolster new F-35 fleets. If it is a new F-16 type it should be a great dogfighting jet to compliment deep strike F-35s.

[@Overworkedandunderpaid]

You don’t need dog fighters. F-35 loaded in beast mode air to air can see engage and kill before the opponent even knows the aircraft is present.

[@bowez9]

@@Overworkedandunderpaid only if it's in range and no external mounted weapons. So only 4 targets. Or if a DOS attack isn't lauched. At which time it's useless.

[@ALegitimateYoutuber]

@@bowez9 f35 systems can detect an aircraft out to 400km last i remember and also it can fire missile off bore. so it has a lot of detection range with some of the best rdar on any aircraft, and should be able to carry similar or same missiles as the f-15 which can hit targets out to 110km. and if in a dog fight the pilot doesn't need to get behind the enemy, just having them to the side is enough to lock and fire. Because it's designed to fire missiles off bore.

[@Tommasini9]

I'm legend for the fleet of model airplane war planes that I had in my room as a teen ager forty plus years ago. The F-16 XL was the final model! No joke. Interesting to see this concept may go into production... forty years later?

[@fgialcgorge7392]

The F16 itself is a fantastic fighter and if I remember correctly the XL variant was even more capable. Faster, more maneuverable, more capacity for munitions. It makes perfect sense to update the design using modern materials and a new powerplant. Have it be able to operate in a stealth mode if needed but also operating as an air to air fighter alongside 5th and 6th gen fighters as escort aircraft is where it could really shine, or doing some wild weaseling opening up the airspace.

[@jimmiller5600]

Only reason the F16XL lost was due to "industrial strategy" --- the F16 assembly forecast was solid for another decade but the F15 line was scheduled to go cold. The winning F15E kept MD (now Boeing) going until more nations ordered F15s. History actually supports the decision since both assembly lines, against all expectations, are both going strong.

[@specialman6004]

If it’s a delta wing then it’s not going to be maneuvering good. It would be drifting in air. But still cool.

[@andrewlambert7246]

I HAVE BEEN PRAYING FOR THIS DESIGN TO COME TO ALIVE AGAIN. THE F16XL HAD 50% MORE WEAPON LOAD AND 80 TO 100% MORE RANGE OR THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THE PROTOTYPE WAS USED FOR OTHER EXPERIMENTS SUCH AS DRILLING THOUSANDS OF SMALL HOLES TO SUCK IN THE DISTRUPTIVE FLOW ON WINGS (LAMINA FLOW STUDIES)

[@turdferguson5723]

When you try and have 1 plane do all these roles it usually does none of them well and you wear out the airframe just look at the F-18s

[@dreamhunter2973]

True. But the USAF is repeating this same mistake with the F 35. It's made to do like 712 or something type of Airtel roles.... 😂😂😂

[@jacobmccandles1767]

The Legacy F-18 never did do it as well as the F-16 though. Fancy seeing you here. Weren't we just watching yodel pups getting popped?

[@leonardmiyata482]

But the exception that proves the rule, the US Air Force adopted the Navy F-4 Phantom, simply because it was breaking performance records right and left, and simply was better then all the Air Force projects that were then under development. The F-4 Phantom eventually became the most successful fighter aircraft for its generation

[@mobiusZero2]

F-16XL is the true proto base type. It is a huge jump eliminating from square one. With existing air frames and continuous Upgrades is available the Kings Snake might be in service much more earlier then predictions.

[@markjmaxwell9819]

A great concept using the F-16XL as a starting point with the proven M61 vulcan 20mm gatling gun used and the Pratt & Witney F119 engine fitted to the aircraft with no thrust vectoring used. Using this engine gives the aircraft extreme reliability with a supercruise capability as part of the overall design. The aircraft is low observable and is cheap and easy to develop with the avionics and equipment from the latest version of the regular F-16 used. It's nice to see no delta wings and canards as this seems to be a European must have for their fighter aircraft. The goals for the program look like they have been fully met by this prototype aircraft in it's own uniquely American way. It's impressive how coalesced all the tech is with only off the shelf proven technology used.The amount of weapons hardpoints is pretty amazing as is the large amount of fuel able to be carried with this style of wing having many advantages. I sincerely hope they end up building this Aircraft I think it would surprise everyone in a good way and help support the F-22 by using the same engine. The F-35 issues have been virtually all resolved including cost thankfully but because of the way the aircraft was designed with one airframe design trying to do three jobs they will never be 100% suitable for each role. The F-36 fighter has it's own unique capabilities as a standalone aircraft and shouldn't be seen as direct replacement for anything. 😎🇦🇺👍

[@jeffmoeller4522]

Great video! I always thought that F-16XL was a beast and I'm glad to see that we may yet see something similar grace our skies. One point of criticism: I'm not sure whether the blurring/focus effect used on a lot of the still shots was for aesthetic reasons or to circumvent copyright claims but ugh it was distracting and kept making me feel like my glasses needed cleaning. Please tone that down or get rid of it. It really stood out on this video and made it much harder to enjoy your otherwise fantastic content.

[@rodzacjisook]

Fingers crossed on an updated F-16. Such a good looking aircraft just on looks it won my heart. Add the actual capacities from air combat to strike missions, I.e. not every plane is capable been part of wild weasel team

[@teddy.d174]

General Brown announced a month or two ago, that the Air Force isn’t pursuing a new clean sheet design for a new 4++ gen aircraft, so they’re sticking with the F-16.

[@sonar357]

They could also go the foreign-route with options like the JAS-39E Gripen. It fills a multirole position similar to the F16 combining high maneuverability, modern avionics (including networking), a wide array of armament options but with low operating costs, especially when compared to the F35 and even the F16.

[@monkebanana2506]

Then where’s the fun in governments keeping things to themselves?

[@PD-we8vf]

This is important. F35 costs 45k in maintenance cost for each hour flown.

[@defcon1africa676]

And the Eurofighter typoon cost $100,000 per flight hour. Go figure.

[@donaldconnolly220]

i like that shot of the guy on the assembly line. with a belt sander... i did not know these planes require such prescision....

[@scottcampbell4678]

The Vermont Air National Guard received the F-35 Lightning a couple of years ago. It was the first ANG to receive them. That is because the VtANG outperforms most other guard units and competes on a level equal to the USAF.

[@timper4326]

Excellent choice, versatile, deadly, plus great flight characteristics.

[@Intrepid_A]

Apparently, the US is open to collaborating on the Tempest programme due to the f35 collaboration being successfull

[@HScarlet]

I hope not. For political reasons, it would benefit the UK to not always be in the pocket of the US. There are rules to using US fighters, they more or less tell you when you can and can not use it. I'd prefer the UK keep the US out of this. This is one of the reasons a lot of countries would prefer to make their own fighters if they can, even if they are inferior to US fighters. The UKs F-35 fleet is good for nothing but defence, there's always that question, "does the US approve of what the UK is doing with them?". Worst case scenario is that the US can anytime put sanctions on the UK, stop selling the jets to them, stop arming them with ammunitions they need. For political reasons, I don't really consider the F-35 as really something that's part of the UK and under their control. The Eurofighter and Tempest is more important imo for that reason.

[@craig4867]

As a fighter pilot in the United States Air Force, forget the F-16XL or the F-36 king snake, it's not happening! That's what the F-15EX is for and thank God!

[@speedypete9694]

The us wants the biggest most expensive jet , when only a couple hundred planes can be made for a ton of money , it’s not worth it . Once we have air dominance we need numbers . Cheap simple jet would be enough

[@kmarasin]

I think this project is part of an overall readiness plan for a future unknown conflict. Rather than building huge fleets of possibly obsolete aircraft, the US will maintain a certain amount of aircraft capable of flexible responses (i.e. the F-35) while having several prototype airframes ready to manufacture depending on the nature of future conflict that is fought. We've already heard about the NGAD program already flying a top secret, advanced tech prototype; this "Kingsnake" probably represents the other end of possibilities: comparably low tech, but fast to build and easy to train green pilots in its use. Nothing will be actually procured until a conflict is in view.

[@michaeldavid4857]

Try up grading the F-20 Tigershark. Also, let the Army have prop-driven aircraft, like a super P-51 or equivalent, for close air support in "low intensity" conflicts.

[@Farmer_1776]

Block 70 Viper is a start!

[@letsfarm_1776]

Also the new Saab is a good airframe to consider!

[@JSFGuy]

Well now? More and more attention on this F-16 XL

[@jefmatttab]

I think it's funny that they picked king snake. Which is a non-poisonous snake commonly referred to as domesticated. In other words it's a pet

[@darrellcook8253]

Ah finally a good comment worth a comment. Pet projects leap to mind, isn't inference a wonderful thing? Even kingsnakes have to eat, they are entirely dangerous to their prey. Names mean many things. Anything really.

[@richarda996]

Because they eat poisonous snakes.

[@mrsteiner5290]

I think it's a great idea, top of the line is not always needed .... something cost effective and 4.5 gen is a good idea totally, it's got that edge but with out the extreme cost of a 5 gen

[@patmcbride9853]

They had a chance to have a low cost fighter, but they nixed the F-20 Tigershark.

[@angelarch5352]

Please oh please USAF make this F-16XL derivative, it should have been made years ago!

[@tzarnick1507]

F-16 is my favorite plane ever, F-22 is a close second

[@828enigma6]

If they don't do it quickly, it'll have a red star on the wings and tail. We are on the cusp of all out war and will need every fighters we can get our hands on.

[@gyldenstraahle]

“Airforce budgeting problems”. Well now I’ve heard it all.

[@hbtv6356]

When the US Air Force does decide to retire the F16, I don't think this F36 will replace it. They already tried this and found out it was too expensive and risky hence the F15 strike eagle was chosen. If anything I think they might try the Korean KF21. It would be a production ready aircraft and Lockheed is a partner in that program. It just fits the description of 5th gen minus since it has the shaping of a stealth but won't have the expensive RAM coating to absorb radar.

[@CShivery]

The blur effect is lame. What's the sense in showing us a picture when we can't even see it? Looking at details is the whole point of a picture.

[@camerancole8433]

Well. The f35 is more like a stealth jet AWACS honestly. They waited until the tech was available for it to do what they wanted it to do

[@ロース-z7m]

It's a multi role fighter: air superiority, attack missions, AWACS, jamming, who know what else this jet can do. Having one jet to fulfill those jobs will simplify maintenance, training and logistic costs dramatically.

[@southronjr1570]

I never have understood this idea of just one fighter or aircraft type to cover all aspects of aircraft jobs. The greatest problem is if we get into a near peer or peer V peer conflict, one the enemy figures out how to knock one aircraft type down, we are screwed if that is the only aircraft we use across all branches and for all mission types. WW2 taught us, if nothing else, tactics remain king but once it is figured out how to kill one model of aircraft, there is pretty much no defense against except not to fly. Look at what the US pacific theater pilots did to the zeros and by the time imperial Japan realized we could kill their zeros, it was too late for them to get another aircraft into development that could counter the US tactics, Corsiars, and Hellcats.

[@ChadZLumenarcus]

The fact that the US Air Force managed to develop and build a 6th gen in a year just makes me wonder how soon 7th or 8th gen airframes will be able to not just be tested, but quietly deployed while we all talk about 5th gen fighters. That would be the craziest thing to be a part of.

[@DEATH-THE-GOAT]

The USMC should have gotten the Swedish JA 37 VIGGEN in the 80th. It had fitted them like a glove. Mainly for it's turn around time of 10 min (fueled and armed). The pilot have just time to take a smoke break.

[@coolbreeze2.0-mortemadfasc13]

I can’t ever see the US buying a fully foreign fighter.

[@garycredit1602]

not at all

[@tigerpjm]

US airforce officer says a thing, internet speculates on thing, Dark Skies does video on speculation about the speculated thing that the internet is speculating on.

[@charleswade2514]

Nice shot of the Raptor at Wright Patterson Airforce museum.

[@Jonnywmusic]

That Thing looks like something ID build in simple planes

[@lewiecamp7915]

Everyone’s talking about “new fighter this” and “future aviation that”. I’m more impressed by that seamless ad transition- that shit took me like 10 seconds to realize I was watching an ad😳 this guys getting too good at this lol

[@Revan2908]

The F-16XL has *always* my favorite, ever since Hunter's old Thunderbird F-16 got rebuilt into one (with the Thunderbirds paint scheme) in one of the _Wingman_ novels.

[@philipmoll1123]

F-20 tiger shark low cost powerhouse

[@Oakley902]

It's funny how most of the "new" fighter designs look an awful lot like the Avro arrow and her mk 4 concept...

[@Bellthorian]

LOL No they don't the Arrow is the most overhyped plane in HISTORY. It was obsolete before it ever flew.

[@Oakley902]

How was it obsolete before it flew? It was the fastest plane at the time and had the ability to go faster with the development. When the specs of the next gen arrow was put into current simulators it was able to benchmark with the current modern interceptors.

[@darrellcook8253]

A program where aerodynamics design the aerodynamic window of the airplanes mission results in some interesting shapes that after awhile blend into each other and here we are. Mission designed for the next gen fighters and ground support aircraft is critical. But here we are building war machines. Death served up cold.

[@rustyshaklferd1897]

Impressive. I don’t see it being viable in 50 years though. The advancement of technology will only accelerate and I don’t think we have a clue of the requirements needed in 20 let alone 50 years.

[@asteve6537]

I agree! we currently use ancient aircraft and are already bitching the 35 and 22 don't meet our needs. what makes them think this new aircraft stands a chance at even 15 years with the advancement of super cruise drones

[@neon.kalash3115]

Myth

[@verneblestien315]

Who thought that the B-52 would still be viable in 2022 back in 1955 when it first joined the service?

[@verneblestien315]

And they aren't expecting to retire the Buff till after 2050. You have grandkids flying planes that their grandfather's flew. By the Buffs retirement, you could possibly have 5 generations of family emergency flying the same plane for the military. Now that's f'kin amazing.

[@MrSpikebender]

The California King Snake gets it name from not only preying on other snakes but preying on Rattle snakes.

[@MeDucky-z7b]

Like the Space Shuttle and F35, they need to stop building Multirole aircraft. Trying to stuff more than one functional objective into a single airframe never works well or, nor is cheap. Allowing it to develop after the first production models seems to work best; such as with has happened to F15 Eagle and other past aircraft. It is kind of like a child stuffing their face in a feast, you get more in but in the end all you do is choke on the food.

[@DashPar]

The USAF wanted the lower cost F35 opposed to the far more superior F22. Now the F35 is more expensive than the F22. Government is the problem!

[@phelansa23]

In other words, they are trying to build a Gripen.

[@larryhyak2529]

With the right power plan and adjustable nozzle, this ought to be whizbang bird......

[@ericb.4358]

Ain't gonna happen. Vertical stabilizers are 90 degree radar reflectors and say "HERE I AM!"

[@theroachden6195]

They could literally build brand new F-16 style jets with a slightly bigger body, and the F-22's engine and all of the modern technology in the cockpit. It won't be stealthy but it will have super cruise and be armed to the teeth.

[@shannonedens7854]

My dad worked on the F16 XL program in the 80’s. I remember seeing it as a kid and realizing how cool it was.

[@ZedNinetySix_]

I'm convinced the YF-23 would not of had such a tragic fate if it was chosen instead.

[@Chief-Solarize]

the F35 program has been a great way of learning what's wrong with giving people incentive to never finish

[@wisenber]

A good way to see F35 per unit costs increase is to treat it like the F22. The darned F35 was supposed to replace the F16 and F18, not the F22. The USAF already has to fighters in production that cost less than the F35, the F15 and the F16. Fortunately allies are buying those still so we have the parts to replace the 'aging airframes' with new ones. Just update the avionics and engines. The F16XL lost to the F15 already. The USN is already cutting their orders for the F35C because it doesn't meet their needs. The USN took a step bacl in payload, range and speed when they gave up the F14 for the F18 Super Hornets. The F35 has even less than that.

[@herbertkeithmiller]

With the update to the f-15EX it makes sense to update the other legacy fighter that has been America's most successful export. A revamped G-16XL would make sense.

[@unholyknight9636]

Using the F22 and F35 to do the initial engagements such as air superiority and SEAD warfare, once those are complete a fleet of cheaper aircraft to pick up the majority of the CAS missions or other tactical roles makes a lot of since.

[@richardables6561]

People keep saying the f35 keeps getting cheaper so it doesn't make sense. However cost per flight hour and man hours of maintenance per flight hour of a 5th Gen fighter are seriously high. The combat readiness and life cost of most Gen 4 fighters is significantly better. I think Ukraine is showing the world that the next major war will be a grind it out gritty kind of war. Not a type of war that Gen 5 fighters thrive in with their high cost per flight hour, long maintenance turn around time. A f35 won't be flying 4 or 5 missions a day.

[@mikey5396]

As much as I liked the F-16XL it's a program that is no longer needed. We already have a "low" option to supplement our F-22/F-35. They're called drones and by the time the F-36 could go into full production we'll have already started pumping out whatever drone equivalent that is being worked on.

[@jasonmitchell5392]

For the love of the old gods those fighters are a thing of beauty 😍🙂🤘

[@Overworkedandunderpaid]

I would argue that the generals idea is a pipe dream. Put 12 of these new fighters against an f35 air to air variant loaded to maximum or in its “beast mode variant”, not only does it have a missle for every single target but it can engage and shoot down said aircraft before it even gets in engagement range or knows the f-35 is even there

[@TheSybermedic]

The USAF should bring the F-36 into production. A light weight low cost option to compliment the F-22 and F-35 is needed as the F-16 begins to reach its end of life. The F-16 is a 1960/70's design, while credible at the present time its only getting older. The F-16XL could carry more farther than the F-16 and with the incorporation of new technologies and practices, the Kingsnake would be an incredible asset to the USAF.

[@christineshotton824]

There have been several excellent aircraft designs that never made it into production simply due to timing. As one example, Northrop developed an advanced improvement on its successful, but aging, F-5E design. The F-20 was a low cost, lightweight tactical multirole aircraft designed to be a lower cost alternative to the F-16. It could do most of what the F-16 could at a lower purchase price and for lower life cycle costs. It was ready to take advantage of a big market of nations that didn't want to spend the money on the F-16, but wanted a modern technology multirole aircraft. It was very reasonable to expect that the users of the F-5A and F-5E would be predisposed to selecting the F-20 as a new technology fighter. It was a very good aircraft and the flying prototypes indicated that it had all the promised capabilities. It was ready to go into full scale production in the early 1990s. . .then the USSR fell apart and the Cold War ended. Suddenly, there were hundreds of F-16s with very low flight hours that were being offered on the surplus market for less than a new F-20. And that was it for the F-20.

[@jamesharvey9410]

As of yesterday, I have seen flybys. Of what looks to be a brand-new F 16XL. I work at the end of the runway at Donaldson Center, and ive seen it and a regular F16 take off together. Local news said f18s, but thats not what they are.

[@lowkey213]

Maybe if they stuck to the navy’s standards and just built that plane for the use of all branches, it might be allot cheaper, since they don’t have to have 3 different internals for one frame. And give the marines their specialty planes, and the air force theirs. At the end it might cost a lot less and still have a variety. It kind of blows my mind that the Air Force or marines can’t just land all their stuff on a carrier if need be. You’d think we would have developed things to be more compatible with each other. Away from like the sr71’s and such.

[@bighands69]

The F-35 is designed to be a foundation aircraft for all branches. So that means all branches now have a stealth fighter that is able to suppress air defence systems such as the S400. That is a game changer that no body that opposes the US would have even dreamed about.

[@hybridt]

I think this checks all the boxes as to what is needed for the f16 replacement

[@wr6392]

It makes sense, therefore the government won't do it.