US NAVY: the Future Beyond the F-35C

Less known than USAF's NGAD is the NAVY's NGAD is an ambitious program. The US NAVY will build a family of systems Under the label NGAD to fly from the Carriers from the '30s of this century.
including the piloted F/A-XX.
#ngad #USNAVY
Join this channel to support it:
/ @millennium7historytech
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com...
Join the Discord server / discord
Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/...
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.c...
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the KZbin Partner Program, Community guidelines & KZbin terms of service.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Join this channel to support it: kzbin.info/door/VDkfkGRzo0qcZ8AkB4TMuwjoin Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7 One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Millennium7star Join the Discord server discord.gg/6CuWEWuhsk Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/?aff=173 ---------------------------- Ask me anything! Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below! forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0 -------------------- Visit the subreddit! www.reddit.com/r/Millennium7Lounge/ --------------------- All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the KZbin Partner Program, Community guidelines & KZbin terms of service.

[@bastadimasta]

A middle aged Italian talking to a vacuum cleaner about aviation. This channel is genius!

[@hiteshadhikari]

*U take that back, otis is an extremely advanced machine*

[@saml7610]

Otis is only disguised as a vacuum cleaner. He's ACTUALLY got a quantum computer in there, alongside a traditional supercomputer, effectively emulating a human mind, but with much greater raw processing power. Otis is actually designing his own 6th generation aircraft.

[@bastadimasta]

@НАТО в шоке, США обосрались where did you get that idea?

[@cam35mm]

it's not a vacuum cleaner it's a spy.

[@douginorlando6260]

Otis may be a Twonky from the future disguised as a vacuum cleaner … just like the 1953 movie “The Twonkie”

[@alanfenick1103]

I enjoy the fairness and objectivity without politics and country loyalty when evaluating the systems that are presented!

[@marsmotion]

god yes in this day and age of the brainwashed fan boi and girl or whatever.

[@samad3251]

Objectivity, balance, analysis of scientific facts and figures with 0 room for politics- that's our host. 🙏🏽🙌🏼

[@ELMS]

I just want to mention one thing. You said the MQ-25 is constrained in future roles due to the position of its air intake. This kind of observation is why I watch your channel. You pick up on details like that. You have an incredible depth of knowledge. I’m sure there are people in the US Navy (or the PLA Navy) who would miss that kind of nitty-gritty detail. It’s such a treat to get these insights. Thanks.

[@freedomstar3814]

I remember of a die cast metal airplane I had as a kid. It never made it into production. It was from the late 80's early 90's .... all the other metal planes made by the company were in fact real production planes. I wish I still had that die cast metal airplane ! It had a very stealth and smooth look to it with a unique exhaust on it .... and was black of course !

[@cannonfodder4376]

Yet another informative and objective video. One thing is for sure, the fight will not be a sterile white room fight. A complex theater level fight involving many assets and systems.

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

Another great video! The US Navy has had a multi-role policy for a while now. That was why they went with the F/A-18 when they replaced the F-4, A-7, A-6 and F-14 Tomcat.

[@Noisy_Cricket]

An upgraded F14 would have been better at multirole, but alas 😥

[@Harley-D-Mcdonald]

@@Noisy_Cricket expensive but worth every penny. Imagine a block IV or V Phoenix Am-Ram. All the large hard points under the fuselage would come in handy with all the anti ship missiles to. Increased range, upgraded engines, and modern radars and avionics. This plane could be really special.

[@Noisy_Cricket]

@@Harley-D-Mcdonald and we need its range vs China. When the F14 was cut, there was no counter navy against the USN. Now there is. And that's exactly what the F14 was designed to beat. FA18 is a land attack aircraft, jammer, and fighter. F14 is a fleet defender. Except it was so big and could carry so much fuel that it could easily do the FA18's job too. Especially if it had been upgraded to the Super Tomcat 21. Let alone the RIO/WIZO role could have also been adapted to command drones and such, as they are thinking about bringing back that role in the next fighter generation. A missed opportunity.

[@pogo1140]

@@Noisy_Cricket And now they need to spend millions to rediscover that capability.

[@indycar1007]

Keep in mind the Carrier is never alone. A number of them can fly F35 B , ships and subs can launch tomahawk shaped jammers. The sub jammers are planed to has self destruction of all electronics on top of thermite physical destruction before the vehicular meets the water or ground the key is the ability to never be reverse Eng.

[@alexandermarken7639]

One aspect of UCAV and Drone warfare is the fact the aircraft do not need to fly as often to create the training needed. This means it is entirely possible for a crated UCAV to increase the numbers carried by the fleet. The ability to return to the underway replenishment ships and transfer 20 or 30 UCAV to bring the fleet back up to numbers.

[@JagdgeschwaderX]

I would expect a hot war with China or Russia would result in anti satellite missiles being used early on, wouldn't that render drones useless?

[@viktor_v-ughnda_vaudville_476]

I really can’t wait to see the designs that the NGAD and F/A-XX produce and their capabilities

[@Gunni1972]

I would actually only look at the price tag, because if you can't sell it to your Allies. Where shall the Profit come from? Otherwise it may well share the F-22's fate, being EOL'ed 20 years in. It's not going to be cheap, and therefore worth risking in a war.

[@kingdedede1066]

@@Gunni1972NGAD yes, FA XX might have some potential though

[@terrywestmorland3069]

The fact that these things exist proves one thing....Humans are totally insane.

[@plasmafoal1117]

A video about Otis would be wonderful. I would like to know about his parents (who I suspect are an industrial robot and a PLC). He probably has millions of brothers and sisters. How did he get to be so charming?

[@rgloria40]

FAxx or Navy NGAD is something we needed like yesterday. We are not that far behind for example research into reducing drag has been ongoing. For example, the F/A 18 legacy has been doing research in Creating Votex Generators and now going into Active Flow as describe by KZbin under the X-65 demonstrator. PS...We are still adhering to the need of a tall tail Rudders to provide yaw control performance...while giving the largest radar return. Update NAVY came up with AIM 174b (SM-6)

[@michaelguerin56]

Thank you for another well reasoned video without PR nonsense OR silly guesswork. Good job.

[@swordsman1137]

OTIS and his wisdom

[@GWT1m0]

I've always heard it as "Autist", given the reputation of online military forum commenters...

[@r.b.seiple5913]

Excellent content (as usual)... but I do have a couple of issues: 1. You mention that the US Navy is less concerned with pure stealth (wrt to USAF) and more focused on long range weapons employment. Then you say that the US Navy's FA-XX would need to be able to carry the LRASM in its internal weapons bay. My question is; if internal carriage is mainly needed to maintain stealth, then why would the Navy need to carry its long range weapons internally, isn't it the point of the long range to reduce the reliance on the delivery aircraft's stealthiness??? 2. You somehow claim that the Chinese are ahead of the US Navy in UCAV but in fact they don't even have a ship to launch a UCAV from and probably won't have a an operational CTOL carrier for 3-5 years yet alone a navalized variant of their current UCAV, you just can't mount a tail-hook and call it carrier capable...

[@MrDJAK777]

I mean they strapped one to an f18 wing for visual demo so they are definitely willing to do that but if you have a stealth craft might as well make it capable of using them from internal bays too cause there may be missions where long range weapon or not the launch vehicle still has to get inside the range of enemy radar to be able to target and fire. Being stealth and having a small rcs let's them get closer/in range before being locked so higher odds of success/safety.

[@Frost-01]

for your 1st point there's actually quite a good reason, stealth helps with 2 things, the element of surprise and safety of the assets deploying the weapons. Sure they're firing from extreme ranges but that also means the munitions have a longer time to reach the target, although the LRASM is stealthy its not completely invisible and if the fact that the aircraft carrying such assets are detected before hand means the enemy can redirect patrols that are much closer to the aircraft and potentially engage them or even intercept the cruise missiles or give the enemy time to reorient their assets that can track stealth and intercept the LRASMs. What stealth provides here is the counter to both of those situations, being they wont detect the aircraft carrying the LRASM giving the LRASM much more down time from enemy detection as the enemy wouldn't know that the missiles were fired as tracking stealth aircraft from extreme range isnt really optimal nor possible... thus it will leave the enemy with less time to react and the chances for interception of the aircraft and missiles are either slim or null especially for the aircraft's case.

[@ViciousDelicious.]

Stealth is a Spectrum and I would assume he is saying that the Navy isn't interested in the Very Low Levels of Observability the Air Force is looking at but Reducing EM Signatures below what would be Average or LO for a 4th Gen Plane is Important for Survival in Higher Threat Environments especially as Radar Definition and Range increase and Missile range increases.

[@johnaikema1055]

thank you so much for covering this. manned unmanned teaming will completely change tactics. it is very wise to track the progress of how this new system of system's develops. we are looking at a near rewrite of future tactics...the capabilities of the new manned and unmanned assets will dictate what tactics can or will be used. the current rapid advancement in technology will change operating tactics quicker then we have ever seen in the past. once again thank you for covering this.

[@marklowden5054]

Superb analysis as always.

[@JZ909]

Something that is often missed when discussing carriers is the integration of other aerial assets. For example, a modern American carrier air wing doesn't have any reconnaissance aircraft. It depends on other assets to do that job, like MQ-8s flying off of destroyers, land-based aircraft, like MQ-4Cs, P-8s, U-2s, RQ-180s etc. and satellites. It will be interesting to see what the Navy decides to put on their carriers and what they decide to leave off.

[@hobojoe694]

Yes they do? Its called the E-2D Hawkeye. Plus the F-35's being trickled into the fleet seem to be able to provide the same role admittedly with less loiter time. Generally helicopters are used to provide an additional screen for sub defense, or SAR. For recon in the sense of taking pictures, anything but satellites is too vulnerable in any kind of contested airspace. That is why most intel is gathered through radar or through ELINT, unless you can fly uncontested over whatever you want to look at.

[@pogo1140]

@@hobojoe694 The E-2D as a recon plane can be seen from distances greater than it can see and is too slow to escape any interceptor that is sent to kill it.

[@hobojoe694]

@@pogo1140 Which is moot because it doesn't operate outside of the air defense zone of the fleet, in terms its a giant eye in the sky to detect aircraft/missiles far before ship based systems can because of the horizon of the planet. Like I said, in any contested airspace aerial recon just doesn't exist because nothing can fly high/fast enough to not get shot down now days. Which leaves satellites as really the only thing that can take direct images of ground assets with impunity, however most if not all satellite orbits are known and that can be accounted for. now an exception to this would be very light weight drones like what we see in Ukraine being used for tactical level recon. But those have the problem of short loiter time/short range. Additionally if they are seen someone with a rifle and a decent shot can down them. With what seems to be the case now that Russia got its shit together with modern AA systems we see much fewer uses of anything larger than civilian grade drones near any of the active fighting.

[@DAAllan82]

The SR-71 would still do just fine IMO. And a hypersonic SR-72 would basically be invulnerable.

[@hobojoe694]

@@DAAllan82 Well the SR-71 was taken out of service once the Russian SAMs could reliably make an intercept, along with the development of the Mig 25/31. The second reason why it was taken out of service and the U-2 left in service is because it was insanely expensive to operate compared to the U-2 and no longer had a niche it could fill because of the new SAMs and the Migs. The SR-72 being a conceptual hyper-sonic aircraft could be the answer, but since it is officially only a concept that is up to conjecture... That being said the webpage for it suddenly disappeared so maybe its being worked on as a serious aircraft, for that we will have to wait and see.

[@merlesmith6794]

Great well researched content. 👍 love your channel

[@brunodandine3951]

The Magodelvuoto at its best... Always glad to hear from you !!

[@hassanmirza2392]

Your channel is quite pro. Well done!

[@hassanmirza2392]

But there will be no naval J-20 as it is too big. There will be naval J-31 though. I think China will reach European levels of sci-tech by 2050 and maybe by year 2090-2100 it will be comparable to US levels of sci-tech. By then its population will be around 700 million which is half of its current 1.4 billion population. China will be 1st biggest economy by then, followed by USA and India.

[@jpierce2l33t]

LOL that 'your mom!' Got me 🤣🤣🤣 I gotta disagree with Otis, that was impeccable placement 😂

[@saltyshackles5227]

I always thought drones make submarine aircraft carriers much more possible.

[@MrDJAK777]

Imagine the cost/maintenance though

[@DAAllan82]

You’re better off just putting conventional cruise missiles on a sub. The cost of building and maintaining a sub that can land aircraft and then store them while going into deep blue water would be astronomical and not offer much in the way of a benefit to justify the cost.

[@Gunni1972]

@@MrDJAK777 No, Don't.

[@aburetik4866]

The Chinese YJ-21 anti-ship ballistic missle has a range over 1500km, well above all existing carrier wings. And it flies at hypersonic speed that can evade all air defence. I think in the future naval battle would be a battle of long range hypersonic missles rather than carrier wings.

[@xOnelinx]

Hmmm... looks like ussr naval doctrine))

[@aburetik4866]

@@xOnelinx Carriers might be a good platform to project power to small countries. But in future naval battle between advanced navies, long range hypersonic missles might be more effective. That could be a game changer.

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

It already is, CSG anti-ship work mostly relies on air launched missiles. That’s because air launches missiles are just flatly superior to ship launched ones in the vast majority of cases. That also isn’t anything new, since missile barrages to take out CSGs was Soviet doctrine for most of the Cold War. Also, hypersonic missiles for anti-ship roles are not invincible and are incredibly overhyped.

[@aburetik4866]

@@jonathanpfeffer3716 but the Chinese YJ-21 missle outranges any existing air launched missles plus the carrier wings. And its hypersonic speed can evade all existing CSG air defence. A type-055 destroyer can use it to make standoff strike to an opposing CSG. And US navy has no way to counter it. Similar doctrine but the weapons are very different now.

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

@@aburetik4866 Do you get your information about said missile exclusively from tabloid sources or something? That’s not true.

[@johncheresna]

thanks

[@mbaladon]

This is more and more looking like the 1988 game Carrier Command. The player is a Supervisor Commander on the AAC Epsilon who has to destroy the fully automated ACC Omega. A clash of two unmanned carriers over control of a rich archipelago. Both carriers have so many systems: laser turrets, guided missiles, sacrificial drone barriers, amphibious assault vehicles, multirole flying drones and so much more. Visionary.

[@markjackson7467]

You can't beat fundamentals - China produces over 1 million STEM PhD's/yr 4x the US and 4.7 million STEM graduates/yr 10x the US with the toughest Uni entrance exams

[@gcharny8022]

The thing is that the US draws on more than its own graduates- look at its rocketry, lots of foreign nationals work for NASA and other rocketry companies - the same in so many levels Of US academia - that isn’t a great choice for comparing capability tbh

[@markjackson7467]

@@gcharny8022 50,000 US graduates return to their own countries every year - mostly China now opportunities are better - Facebook AI lead now works in China for Xiomi

[@kurtwinslow9770]

I work at a major US university. If Chinese education is so superior, they why do they send so many Chinese students Here?

[@txt5173]

Good question.2022，10.76 million STEM graduates in China!!!

[@monkeyking-self-proclaimed7050]

@@kurtwinslow9770 Because their universities are crowded.

[@pogo1140]

Looking at the Chinese carrier deck operations makes me smile because it clearly shows that they've been watching Top Gun.

[@BenVaserlan]

Alternate title: "The US Navy's Plan vs the Chinese P.L.A.N.'s Carriers 003 - NGAD & F/A-XX"

[@asper1952]

Another great video thank you !

[@DAAllan82]

The USN would probably take out Chinese carriers with attack subs, not aircraft. Just my opinion.

[@aburetik4866]

Boeing's design for 'NGAD' looks like a copy of J20 with canards.

[@jamysalmeida18]

Skynet enjoy the autonomous idea 🙂

[@draleigh8881]

I jist want to see these jets already! The suspense is killing me!

[@TK199999]

It should be noted that this video is year old and the adaptive cycle engines have come a long way since it was posted. To the point it was seriously debated to put it on the F-35 as part of the Block 4 upgrade. This idea was shelved as it would just take too much time to adapt the F-35 to the new engine. The USAF and USN want the upgrade and new engine to be ready by the end of 2024. With F-35's being rotated out of service for the upgrades starting in 2025. The Pratt & Whitney upgrade to the current Pratt & Whitney engine to increase range by 15%+, thrust by 10%+ and fuel efficiency by 20% for the F-35 has already been chosen by summer 2023. Though according to the USAF and Secretary of the Airforce we should see at least two NGAD prototype proposals by the end of 2023. With the prototype budgeting start in January 2024 and prototype construction beginning by summer of 2024.

[@vincentlamolinara9476]

The MQ-25 CVN-based drone is analogous to aircraft in WW1 which were at first delegated to spotting for artillery. The US Navy wants a large tanker to support longer range conventional manned strike missions (likely required in the Pacific vs China). Hence a huge non-fighter, but bomber capable drone. The Chinese use of CV-based drones may have a very significant advantage with being less entrenched in manned flight, long-range doctrine, thus a Chinese strike-fighter drone is a great asymmetric strategic response to the US Navy.

[@darkofc]

👍👍 oh yes - a new era - time for a new generation of AvGeeks - finally.. more time for me to look for worms, study butterflies, bumblebees and dragonflies with occasional swallow, hawk or stork .. don't worry - I will continue to follow and support you - along with my morning corretto .. 😉

[@josephcruz7936]

The producers of Mystery Science Theater 3000 must be proud.

[@MK-yj7pn]

Wonder what that cost of one NGAD would be... 500 million each?

[@mill2712]

I believe that's the price range for the other concepts of 6th generation fighters our allies are coming up with as well. Or at the very least Japan's 6th gen.

[@KC_Smooth]

It's crazy to think some of the pilots of these future manned fighters are just being born, or not even been conceived yet.

[@chadbernard2641]

Great video as usual. The navy does not love F-35. The limitations that stealth puts on speed is not appealing. However there was breakthrough in radar material made with ceramic that 80%+ radar absorption and temperature over 3000°C. The S-70 okhotnik is already going into production for SU-57. Should be interesting.

[@spankythemonkey9828]

That carpet cleaner sounds like the the old original robot from Space Family Robinson.

[@patcrow_gawker5494]

"Hal, open the pod bay doors". What will go wrong with autonomous warplanes deciding to go on with a mission?

[@anahernez1]

I would be glad if you would do a video on RADAR varrients.

[@lamalien2276]

This looks like a much better approach than the ngad.

[@braddbradd5671]

Also an un manned vehicle can stand more Gs

[@ltitus8900]

At this point, I think the NGAD name will be the X-02 and it'll be flown by blaze.

[@mill2712]

Found the Ace Combat fan! Though there's a bit of an issue with that. Blaze is an Osean, why would he be included in an American fighter project?

[@Phos9]

So I was thinking recently that an unmanned aircraft could have a dorsal intake for the stealth benefits and then maneuver by actually pitching down relative to how we normally think of airframes.

[@charlesblithfield6182]

What weight, if any, can be given to the fact of the strong naval history of the USA, particularly with respect to carrier operations in a combat environment?

[@johnryan8645]

I don’t think we’ve yet grasped the role of Space Command in Integrated Warfare. When you can put 100 tons of mini SAR sats up three times a day, you need a lot les on board radar…

[@user-dc1ud6px3s]

I'm really confused. First they say it sucks, now they have come up with a way to counter it? So they are going to suck even harder?

[@patcrow_gawker5494]

I hope we get to the "third decade" of this century. Military Industrial Complex gave us such advanced weapons that Russia is backed into a corner and unleashes ar

[@kathrynck]

Good video :) Considering the premium on multi-purpose aircraft with the limited space available on a carrier... I can't help thinking that the roles of the E-3 and tankers could be combined into a single aircraft design. Not 2 versions of a similar design, but a single design. You'd need to work up a way to have highly variable power. Probably variable flow engines, but more than that, probably the option of not using all of the engines, all of the time. Alternatively, and perhaps simpler: something like a gas turbine engine, perhaps a T700, used purely for power generation. They only weigh 500 lbs/240kg, and can generate 2500 shp. Fat lifting body, lots of carbon fiber, lots of internal space. The electronics for radar, elint, ew, etc. have shrunk considerably. It's more a matter of the power generation. UAV could make EW simpler, since there's no need for crew protection in the design. Alternatively, an EW kit (including a T700 or similar), and an additional fuel tank, could be hot-swap-able modular internal packages. Though the gas turbine would need air holes to breath ;) I think the MQ-25 could be made into something which does an E-3 role. Though it wouldn't likely have the ability to be modular about it, instead being a dedicated role aircraft. If you want it to keep up with FA-XX, with a fat body, it would likely need swing wings. But I'm not convinced that's a critical requirement. If you go with a slow platform, you get more range & loiter... so there are tradeoffs. I'm not sure that speed is worth the design compromise. Although, being able to super-cruise to and from operational positions would definitely be an asset. I don't think in an AWACS or EW role, that you need to worry about ruining stealth performance. Such aircraft are "not subtle" about their presence. So if a modification like slinging 1 or more big gas turbines to the belly would mess up the RCS, it's not really a significant concern (while in that role). A sea plane which can do IFR or AWACS duties could also be something interesting, though it's use would be more weather sensitive, it could be operated by other vessels in the fleet (other than the carrier). All of the arguments against the Navy having sea planes come from a time of numerical dominance on the sea, which is no longer a valid argument. Sea planes are obviously less capable in the air, but they can be large, and can operate from a glorified barge, rather than taking up limited space on a carrier. As for the FA-XX, long range & high speed are desirable, sure. But those features would mean it's probably gonna be a big plane. I hope it folds up very compactly. A carrier costs $13 billion. The full complement of support craft which flush out a carrier battle group nearly triple that. And ongoing operational costs are not low. By the time you add up all the support crew, including escort vessels, supply ships, etc. You're looking at a ground crew of 10,000 people for 90 planes. They had better be 'very' good planes. The navy needs the very best aircraft it can get, which fit into as tight a space as possible, else the whole operation is a gigantic waste of resources. If you can improve the effectiveness of the on board aircraft by just 10%, it's worth at least 5 billion in associated naval costs to get it airborne on location. That makes a 10% performance boost worth about $60 million per aircraft. The aircraft themselves are very pointedly NOT the place for the Navy to save money (likewise the ordinance). And any navy planner who wants to have unused space on a carrier, needs to be sent home with a nice coloring book. The air force has like 100x the runway footage and hangar space; only the air force can realistically consider budget aircraft.

[@edjo3430]

Questions: How far can DAS on F35 see a fighter jet? Can DAS itself be used to target and guide missiles?

[@kakavdedatakavunuk8516]

Thx for the thorough video. I tried to watch fully concentrated because you gave numerous information about NGAD, and something confuses me: Would it be the new Tomcat with the stealth coat (I was thinking of the top air superiority fighter with a secondary role against maritime/ground targets), or it will be a relatively simple all-rounder like the F-18 (at the beginning, later, of course, it will be improved with the new versions)? Or it will catch both worlds? I am not happy with the term simple for military aircraft in the 21 century, but you will understand. My thoughts are that NGAD will be at first, an air superiority fighter who will escort, and protect the drones for ground/maritime attacks, but I am just speculating.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

It is going to be a multirole aircraft

[@kakavdedatakavunuk8516]

@@Millennium7HistoryTechActually all new first-line combat aircraft are multirole

[@johnparrish9215]

We have a lot of Submariners that would love a Big Fat Target. I don't think our carriers will even get a chance at them if the time comes.

[@GoSlash27]

The Yellow Sea is a very hazardous area for submarine operation due to its shallowness. It negates pretty much every tactical advantage subs have. The Chinese have zero experience with underway replenishment (a dangerous evolution with a steep learning curve), so they'll be operating mostly in that area.

[@zetareticulan321]

And US carriers aren't fat targets for their submarines? You're talking like their carriers aren't going to have an entire battle group with it.

[@spartancrown]

@@zetareticulan321 you’re making the assumption he’s implying they will be in the range needed instead of letting subs do the work first. All surface ships are big fat targets regardless.

[@HLC64]

Big fat tin makes more noise..Chinese saying..ha ha

[@johnparrish9215]

@@zetareticulan321 We were discussing Chinese carriers not US carriers, but there have been several NATO wargames that the submarine got to the carrier. We are not perfect.

[@LosLS2]

with these new micro satellites, will we even need AWACS. Space force could deploy a constellation of micro sats all over the world that would be pretty hard to shoot down in space being as small as they are.

[@janwitts2688]

I really hope that the drones don't return directly to base if they are attacked..

[@Idahoguy10157]

The US Navy hasn’t taken to the F-35 in the way the marines and air force have. Rather the navy continued buying Super Hornets. Along with some F-35C’s. Probably because the Carrier Air Wings need strike range the F-35 can’t provide. At least not yet.

[@laracroft938]

Actually US navy's reluctant on stealth was more about hardships of shipborne maintenance than effectiveness in combat. After the first deployment of F-35C though, the navy is talking about super squadrons of up to 20 stealth fighters in a deployment

[@mignik01]

One can sing praises about Chinese Naval might all they want. Here are the issues 1. They have no history or experience of fighting Naval warfare. Have no real doctrine other than "show hardware to analysts". In 2015, China had plans to build cities big enough to house 3.5 billion people. This is comfortably twice as much their population in ADDITIONAL CAPACITY. There was also a time in 2015 when they made so much steel that it was cheaper than cabbage. What I'm trying to say is that China builds stuff because their economy is centered around keeping people employed. They will build ANYTHING as long as it keeps people working. It doesn't even have to do anything. This is why you see roads that don't go anywhere and cities that doesn't house people. When you look at China's military you have to look at it in this lens. It is a jobs program. They will build stuff for the sake of building stuff. Just because you see a carrier doesn't mean they built it for war. In the same way Just like they built a city, it doesn't mean it is meant to house people. 2. China's energy and food line is easy to cut off beyond the reaches of most of their Navy. They are not energy and food secure like the US and Russia. They rely heavily on imports. If there is a war, US will just do that and ask the Chinese to come fight them on their terms far away from any "hypersonic missile". 3. They have no real allies. Maybe Pakistan but I'm talking relevant allies. Then there are cultural and demographic issues that are as important to military capability as any hardware. People often neglect this. 4. In US, UK etc., being in the military is considered an honor. Not so much in China. Also, kids are supposed to take care of their parents in China. Their social security net for seniors isn't really great. Now, with the one child policy, the only child left is not really that keen to give up their life and leave their parents to fight for their great communist country. There is an issue of morale. 5. They are facing a demographic collapse (again thank the one child policy). They are running out of people in their 30s. Sex selective abortions mean that most of these aborted babies were girls. There is not enough people to produce babies even if they started trying now. This means consumption led growth will not happen in China. They have to export. And because you have no allies anywhere in the region, these exports also can be threatened in case of a war. All the chest beating you see from China is not pointed towards US or anyone else, it is pointed towards the Chinese people. When you have a food insecure, energy insecure country, that goes into lockdowns at the drop of a hat, you only have nationalism to keep yourself in power. This is the CCP appearing strong in front of the Chinese people. All of these are the reasons why you are building all this up to fight a paper tiger. But I guess you rather have it and not need it.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

I beg to differ. 1. Doctrine/experience is built and it can be learned 2. That is why they are building a Navy 3. South America, Africa and large parts of Southern East Asia are moving out of American and European orbit to get closer to China. Plus the West threw Russia and China into each other's arms. 4. Who told you so? First time I heard that. 5. I see that Peter Zeihan is leaving his mark here too... He is factually right but it will be mostly inconsequential, like in the west: too long to explain here.

[@mignik01]

​@@Millennium7HistoryTech 1. I don't believe they will be able to achieve that in any reasonably tight timeframe to rival US and UK. I wouldn't even bet on it this century. I mean this is a country that makes skyscrapers that don't house people. What makes you think, anything works in that aircraft carrier? 2. When they build out the Navy and sail to the point of conflict, all the "home field advantages" that you mentioned will be gone. And it will be an like to like battle, against technologically superior, much more experienced opponents. Again I wouldn't bet on it. 3. Well, even if it works out, you can see they are are quite far away. Here is why it won't. Unlike the western alliances, where there is a trace of ideology holding things together, these are alliances of opportunity. Here is how the new "alliance" between India, China, Pakistan, and Russia works. Indians hate china and Pakistan. Russians tolerate China and can't be close to Pakistan because they are close to India. Pakistan hates India and is close to China. It is the opposite of western alliances. 4. Well the first bit is from personal experience from the people I know. I don't know how I can provide data about the feelings of the Chinese people towards the military. The second bit is just a logical conclusion to a fact. In a culture where you are supposed to take care of your parents, how willing is the only child to go to war? 5. I don't think it is inconsequential. Everything I am seeing from China is them preparing for the boom to end. Their foreign policy is their "internal" policy aimed at showing how strong they are to the Chinese people. I mean how many times is the west going to make this mistake of overestimating? Remember when Japan was going to be the new economic superpower? Remember when Russia was going to just brush Ukraine aside? I guess it is better than underestimating after they made some high profile failures themselves.

[@mignik01]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech by the way, it's not a Peter Zeihan thing the demographic collapse. Its been well publicized for at least 5 years. China faces a demographic collapse, water shortage, food shortage and a mammoth housing crisis at the same time. This is on top of the fact that companies are leaving because of lockdowns. The best case for China is stagnation like japan.

[@dswizz1e920]

Do you think NGAD will be two seat. Like a pilot and a drone operator

[@stupidburp]

I suspect that will be a task for the F-15EX. Drones, missiles, and electronic warfare when supporting stealth aircraft. On their own they will mostly do home country patrols and interceptions, some of the most frequent missions in the USAF.

[@brianjiang2287]

Chinese spaceship carrier say hello to NGAD from the near space when US start to test.

[@ChrisDavis333]

Idk why people show the Chinese hypersonic glide vehicle as a viable anti ship missile, it’s only hit stationary targets, I don’t think it’s hitting a ship at 35 knots. Just my opinion. The race for a Hypersonic Cruise Missile is the one that matters, a land fired glide vehicle is nothing more than something to wheel out in a propaganda parade.

[@joelau2383]

You don't think HGV can hit a moving ship because you are actually imagining it as a ballistic missile, not a maneuverable HGV. HGV can climb to slow down for target searching and then dive back down to accelerate for hypersonic terminal attack.

[@sleepyjoe4529]

idk why you think hypersonic missiles only hit stationary targets? And why you think they'll launch one at a time instead of a fully volley that covers a certain area ? Seems like you're huffing the copium a bit too much.

[@ChrisDavis333]

@@sleepyjoe4529 you don’t know what you’re talking about. I specifically mentioned the Chinese hypersonic glide vehicle as only hitting stationary targets, and there’s no evidence that it’s ever done anything otherwise. If you tried to suggest that I would call you a fucking moron, respectfully. In regards to hypersonic missiles in general, it’s nothing new, and neither are hypersonic glide vehicles, the US had one in the late 70’s. Most missiles are in fact hypersonic in nature, it’s common, and they have been the better part of the last century. Hitlers V2 rocket was “Hypersonic” and he was hitting England with them in 1944. There’s actually not much difference between the Chinese DF17 and Hitlers V2 rocket, besides the inclusion of a glide vehicle warhead, which loses speed as it maneuvers. The Chinese glide vehicle is a LAND BASED Hypersonic Glide Vehicle intended for stationary targets. Next time I’m going to charge you so I hope you paid attention.

[@GoSlash27]

@@sleepyjoe4529 Pause and ponder what you just said. "Fire off a volley"... of *BALLISTIC MISSILES* ??? No way *that* would ever get mistaken for a nuclear first strike and accidentally trigger WW III.

[@rickythomas9698]

Ah my favourite vaccum cleaner content.

[@PrivateEyeYiYi]

Currently operational aircraft aren’t enough to counter China’s navy? Edit: That includes 003 and 004 aircraft carriers and the planes they’re expected to carry.

[@hilairelaplume1616]

Something tells me in the near future in advanced piloted ngad jet will be running sorties in contested environments and the enemy will think it is unmanned and shoot it down and it's going to be the start of something bad

[@keithw4920]

Ngad and fa xx arent needed to deal with the 003. Current numbers are already overwhelming in USN favor.

[@ruiborges1635]

Hello. This is the director of the psychiatric hospital in your area speaks. We are doing promotions. When renting a padded room, we offer a free straitjacket. ENJOY, because everything indicates that you meet the necessary requirements for admission

[@georgemancuso9597]

The elephant in the room is politics. In the past Beyond Visual Range engagements were limited by politics, now the situation is doubly complicated by the use of AI and drones

[@efone3553]

Does anybody know how to send millenium 7 an email. I have a picture of a very interesting aircraft that doesn't look anything like the renders in this vlog, but it might be a new aircraft design for the us Navy. Millenium 7 is so cool. I figured if any civilian knew what it might be, it would be him.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Go tot he channel home page, in the ABOUT tab section there is an e-mail

[@scottmcdonald5237]

It's the technology, sure, but it's the leadership quality. E.g. Zero vs. Wildcat, Zero wins. Add Thatch weave, Wildcats win.

[@agsystems8220]

In future I expect AWACS to be performed by a formation of aircraft, rather than a single one. As well as being less vulnerable (They are basically flying flashlights), laser communications and ranging between them will have enough bandwidth to let them operate as a single antenna as large as the formation. Beams can be narrower, meaning more energy on target, and returns can be more accurately placed for the same return. Range and fidelity can be considerably improved without increase in power. With regards to power, I think you are underestimating the amount you could draw from an engine even remotely designed for it. For reference, the F35 lift fan is pulling about 20MW out of the engine*. Drawing power from the fan of modern engine doesn't affect the core at all, so adapting a turbofan to increase power output is no more difficult than modifying the bypass ratio. * While I doubt the AN/APG-81 is capable of 20MW target illumination, fitting the F35 with a radar that could would not require as much of a redesign as you might expect if you are prepared to give up the lift fan. I fully expect to see an F35-a with an F35-b engine being the first platform to deploy energy weapons effectively.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Actually radar powers are measured in Kw, not in Mw, and usually we refer to the peak power of a single narrow beam for few milliseconds.

[@agsystems8220]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech In an aircraft, yes, though there are a few ship radars out there in the MW range. My main point was not that such massively powerful radars are to be expected, but that getting enough power for systems is not as difficult as you implied, even in small aircraft, provided they are designed that way from the start (retrofits are harder). Pulling megawatts is very feasible. Cooling is often a harder problem, though in a subsonic high altitude loiterer also not hard.

[@doc0core]

Your intel is solid and your speculation highly intelligent. But there's something more, much more. Your Powerpoint skillz... e.g. the gongs.... LOL amazing!!!

[@patcrow_gawker5494]

Sober appraisal of the near future. Thanks for the insight.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

"a generational gap" was once supposed to mean that the lower tier one simply have no realistic chance against the higher tier, and i very much doubt that the difference will be anywhere near that sharp. Although that concept seems to have been conveniently swept under the carpet the moment the US military industry started talking about 6th generation aircraft... Also, as you somewhat noted, there's no way China is going to fight USN "carrier group vs carrier group". Preferably, they will most likely sink USN carriers with subs and SSMs. Trying to fight symmetrically, why would they?

[@forcedanonymity1791]

Without US business support and investment, China’s demographic problem and domestic strategic resource issues assure their failure beyond a few years to feed and power their country.

[@pashapasovski5860]

Hahaha, US business support, cracked me up! China owns most of US debt, some 4 trillion and what demographic problems China has!? US is a divided nation on every issue and China has infinite resources coming from Russia in a way of energy and mineral reserves! They have a 300-500 million middle class and 0 poverty, no homeless people, what are you talking about!?

[@joelau2383]

US is not the only market on earth. China can just replace US with other markets. Similarly, China is not the only factory on earth. US can replace China with other factories. However, there is very high profit when they work together, so none of them want to cut it even if they are playing cold war.

[@level1selamat155]

Your US is 30 trillions in debt and no way of paying.. leave China alone.. they're harmless

[@9999plato]

Submarines are a real threat to the carriers. I have not been a Sonar Tech for 25 years but I'm certain the Chinese would have no problem losing a wolf pack of subs to sink American carriers. I have no knowledge of the ability of our subs to handle that threat as they are one of our est countermeasures. I have no doubt that the Chinese have laid underwater SOSUS nets by Taiwan or their other artificial islands to listen for submarines.

[@riccccccardo]

A wiseman once said “to prepare for peace is to prepare for war”

[@markjackson7467]

The US never learnt to keep it's ships in port. Aircraft carriers only scare small countries - they're just big targets for near peer countries - how's the US going to cope with losing a carrier group and 14,000 sailors?

[@vangpham2514]

Unless you are a war monger and always looking for war to satisfy military complex

[@markjackson7467]

@@vangpham2514 Unfortunately the US is a war monger and realising it's proxy Ukraine is losing to Russia it is now starting war with China maybe before the mid term election

[@christophmahler]

It's also every midwit's motto who can't grasp that preparing for peace, prepares peace.

[@riccccccardo]

@@markjackson7467 true.

[@guaposneeze]

I still think an armed MQ25 is plausible in the future. It may not matter that it isn't perfect as a maneuvering fighter. Things like laser defenses may matter more in the 2030's than trying to maneuver away from a threat. And anyway, popping an enemy carrier with an MQ25 and a LRASM on a one way trip may be a perfectly acceptable tradeoff for the navy. The one way range of an MQ25 can basically go all the way from a carrier at Yokosuka to the Taiwan strait without refuelling, as long as you don't need it to come back. That's potentially useful.

[@elvingarcia4296]

How is electricity produced in a jet aircraft anyway?

[@MotoroidARFC]

The same way a car does. A generator is attached to the engine(s). When the engine(s) are running, the generator is running too.

[@Keyman135]

It's all talking and planning. When the F/A-xx come out? after 2050?

[@Trojan0304]

All carriers are targets for submarines

[@Harley-D-Mcdonald]

What do you think about the failure of Russian state of the art weapons being blamed on inferior Chinese parts and components? Love your content btw.

[@RogueBeatsARG]

Ngad doesnt look very manouverable tbh, and they could say "dogfighting is a thing of the past" but is not

[@garynew9637]

When cyberspace crashes M7 into sub brief.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

😄

[@olderchin1558]

I think you can expect hypersonic air to air missiles from China soon, some Chinese news channel has announced this breakthrough. And some form of long range dual mode ramjet missile has also been announced. China is also working on hypersonic scramjet sub-orbital vehicle, I think their gen-6 fighter is likely be a hypersonic plane. The other possible gen-6 plane is a hyper-manoeuvrable VTOL.

[@kauphaart0]

Wu Mao

[@keithwood6231]

The FA-XX will be designed as either a piloted or unpiloted aircraft depending on the tasking.

[@sedigives]

Drones will only work if you put 30,000 sats low flying to control them and our opponents as well!

[@user-kc1tf7zm3b]

1:37 *“[The NGAD should fly from the] third decade of this century”* Surely the years from 2020 to 2029 are commonly believed to be the third decade of this century? With 2010 to 2019 being the second, and, 2000 to 2009 being the first. The host’s tone seems to imply that NGAD will be flying and entering service in the 2030s. Obviously Year Zero does not exist, so 1 January 2001 was actually the first day of the third millennium for the mathematical purists.

[@corsel6911]

Creative thoughts: Weapons system. What about a several hundred smaller nuclear arms transported on satellites. Enough satellites to guarantee first strike capability in 30min and critical strike density within 6hrs?

[@Ni999]

We don't need to violate the treaty that we've honored since 1967 to keep nukes out of space. We certainly don't need orbital platforms to give the response times you suggest when we achieved or exceeded those goals decades ago. And space is not a great launching area, it's a ridiculous security problem that buys you nothing but unnecessary risks.

[@corsel6911]

@@Ni999 fair enough on all your points. I'm not 100% familiar with weapons response time currently, sounds like we can have first strike pretty quickly already. But, what makes space a less than ideal launch platform? I'd be interested to find out more.

[@Ni999]

@@corsel6911 Space is an operational nightmare. Land based missiles silos and bomber bases you can defend in depth. Space assets would be similar to missile submarines - if you know how, you can track them - if your technology is good enough. But missile subs are going to be far more sophisticated than anything you can put in space anytime soon. With subs you get a man in the control loop, you don't trust the machine alone. Not in an unmanned space platform. Subs can rotate home for service and upgrades. You try to visit your secret flying missile launcher and you'll be sending an open house invitation to your enemies. Imagine rotating your secret platforms home - deorbiting megatons for a safe landing near your own home. I wouldn't have to bomb you, you'd be doing 90% of my job for me - so you wouldn't do that. And nukes aren't like porcelain figurines - you can't put nukes on a shelf for decades, they need servicing. And finally, if one side starts the launch sequence then the other side will light up their hunter-killer platforms to turn them into shrapnel. That will likely lead to a cascade failure of all satellites being turned into orbiting scrap - the Kessler syndrome. And end all space services (communication, GPS, TV, etc) probably for centuries. Cost is too high, value is too low.

[@corsel6911]

@@Ni999 Thanks man, I'll keep an eye out for more info on this, it makes sense as you talk. Lol @ secret flying missile launcher. Makes it sound like The Thunderbirds.

[@Ni999]

@@corsel6911 Nothing wrong with that! 😀

[@davec9399]

I think you made need to do something to improve the audio quality of your productions. Something just doesn't sound right and I find the pod casts difficult to listen to

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

What were you listening with?

[@davec9399]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech Was my flat screen TV. I tried again and its better on my laptop. Good content.

[@chadbernard2641]

Just wondering if you could do video on the truth about the technological differences between Russia and West. I find there is a lot of American propaganda about the SU-57. Not that is on par with West. But the fact USA put so much energy into negative press about plane says they take SU-57 very seriously because they say almost nothing about J-20 even though there are 100+ of them vs only 7 SU-57. Keep up great work.

[@zetareticulan321]

They talk plenty of shit on the J-20.

[@chadbernard2641]

@@zetareticulan321 I haven't seen it then. I definitely could be wrong

[@douginorlando6260]

An unmanned fighter could be twice the performance of manned fighters (2G acceleration, 20+ G turn rates, extreme performance from sea level to 50,000 feet, pop up maneuvers to unheard of altitudes, difficult to see … but I seriously doubt the behemoth corporations with a strangle hold over acquisition process will deliver (just like the F35 big fail).

[@vikingskuld]

What about jamming or hacking the uav signal. I know its been done to us by Iran. So what prevents it from happening again? Also In a ww3 environment what would the use if they destroyed satilights how would the get the signals to a drone? Just a few question I would love to have answered. Thanks

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

it is a complex thing. I am working on it.

[@GoSlash27]

I can talk about this in some detail. The USN uses a spread spectrum double encrypted datalink network to communicate with their drones. With their whole force, really. They're constantly hopping from one channel to another to another in a "random" fashion that cannot be predicted without both the precise system time and keys. Since the next channel cannot be predicted, adversaries are forced to spread their energy across the entire spectrum, rendering jamming and spoofing too weak to be effective on any specific channel. The USAF drone that was "hacked" was using a much less robust system, which was necessary because it was so far from any friendly forces. According to the Iranians (disputed by the Americans) They simply jammed the satcom frequency and spoofed the GPS (both easy to accomplish) , convincing the drone that it was near home and out of communication, so it simply "landed". The only way this system can ever be jammed, spoofed, or hacked is if the Chinese somehow get ahold of the actual keys. This isn't impossible and the Americans know it, so we go to absurd lengths to protect them. I won't get into that part but trust me, it is extensive :)

[@vikingskuld]

@@GoSlash27 thank you krs all I needed to know. I was in the military and know how far they can carry things. I was just curious how they wouldn't be capable of jamming them. You seen the little gins the use in Ukraine to jam the little drones over there. Thanks again

[@GoSlash27]

@@vikingskuld Glad I could be of help. :)

[@vikingskuld]

@@GoSlash27 I really do appreciate it. I knew it happened one time years ago and never happened again to anyone that I have heard. It just nagged at me as with anything like that there is always a way someone will come up with something then you have to come up with a counter. So I was rely curious as to how it hadn't happened again as well as what would happen if we went to war and someone was able to do that to us. So thanks I really appreciate it. Again I don't need technical details don't want them and wouldn't understand much more then the simple explanation you gave. Again thank u

[@badlandskid]

Ssh|t.. navy can’t even land the new F35s on deck without giving them a bath. Let’s get that down first

[@plicker9261]

As if the US Navy will ever show their had in advance! WTF

[@kittenastrophy5951]

NGAD reads > แหง็ด