The 6th Gen Fighter I DIDN'T KNOW about!

[@wilburnprice9886]

I like the way Otis brings his own perspective to these matters.

[@jondavidmcnabb]

He is exceptionally reasonable and covers most of the known and relevant topics. He is the exact opposite of the standard industry liars.

[@johnmoorefilm]

Gus - I filmed the footage at 8’30 of the deck-shooter in the green vest on board the John C. Stennis in January 2001 for the movie “Behind Enemy Lines”….we had a happy deal with the Navy - we get boats and planes, they get all our footage for public use! Pretty good deal! Delighted to see it again, you will notice it looks pretty good because it was shot on Kodak 35mm with Panavision Primo lenses. Thank you for showing it❤😂

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

That is very cool! I got the video on Dvids. Do you have any story to tell us?

[@oscarcharliezulu]

Nice work!

[@johnmoorefilm]

@ many! Mostly from good-natured Hornet drivers who had to keep a straight-face when i was shooting the missile scene!!! I would be happy to send you a signed poster - but I know people are worried about scams on their mailing address?

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

@@johnmoorefilm You find my e-mail in the channel about section. If you need to contact me in private. Thank you!

[@johnmoorefilm]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech I am looking for the email, but I must have been near too many jet engines because I can’t find it, can you point me towards it please Gus, thank you

[@MotoMarios]

I don't think the efficiency of the engine is of less importance to the Navy than the Air Force. Firstly the carriers must stay as far away from threats as possible, and furthermore, stealth necessitates the elimination of external tanks which takes the issue of range on another level. So I think that the Navy needs the adaptive cycle engine as much as the Air Force.

[@keirfarnum6811]

They’re developing stealth gas bags and pylons to carry on the jets. 🤷🏻‍♀️

[@kathrynck]

I'd agree. The F-35 has phenomenal range. If their new plane has only the same range or less, then what exactly is it accomplishing?

[@부산할배]

​@@kathrynck f 35 는 이미 러시아의 S400 에 락온 되었습니다. 미국의 과장된 홍보보다 중요한 건 과대포장을 자신있게 하지 말아야 한다는 겁니다. 서방의 무기 이제 더 이상 믿지 않습니다

[@angelaferkel7922]

@@kathryncklmao one of the very reasons the Navy needs a new fighter despite having the F-35C is because the F-35 lacks in RANGE, and also in speed and payload capacity. The F-35 has like literally half the range of the J-20

[@MotoMarios]

@@keirfarnum6811 That's probably quite the challenge but it'll be interesting to see.

[@RobertNeptune]

china unveiled her first 6-gen aircraft at 12.26. Any comment?

[@MrUser999999]

Crazy how it was leaked, does china have a area 51 like area?

[@antoniomiguelsimao]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZ7OeHatlLlspK8si=PM9OLMnmVHhioJZs

[@ralfamann1172]

Danke!

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

Thanks!

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Thank you!

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech Long time, subscriber, and friend of elements of the John Boyd inner circle.

[@johnmoorefilm]

My dog Murphy dances when that music comes on!❤😊

[@caseinnitratjr6861]

Beware. Internet Experts☝🏻👇

[@christophmahler]

Beware the meta-squint.

[@michailsuvorov9337]

@@christophmahler Beware the post-meta-squint.

[@FrantisekPicifuk]

Borderline trolls.

[@douginorlando6260]

… and MIC paid posters.

[@miamijules2149]

Yeah except for…. he is kinda an expert. Lolol

[@ElsinoreRacer]

Defense has to get over the optics of a difficult Adaptive Engine introduction and just get it over with. EVERY platform will benefit, and the benefits are synergistic. Yes, it is tough, but that will make it very difficult to duplicate. This is our strength. Push through it, my God.

[@andrewday3206]

Adaptive cycle should have been used. Reaching targets with the smaller aircraft carriers can support cannot have the range of larger US Air Force aircraft. The navy has been complaining about the limited range of its planes for decades.

[@AvocadoAfficionado]

@@andrewday3206 you can just.... Refuel.

[@christophmahler]

"The navy has been complaining about the limited range of its planes for decades." It's also the reason of the upscaling of the truly lightweight F/A-18A/B Hornet into the 'Tomcat sized' F/A-18E/F Superhornet, effectively trying to roll back the 'cost saving' retirement of the F-14A/B/D in 2006... They may as well make the carriers fly...

[@andrewday3206]

@ That is not true. There are times on combat missions where refueling is not possible, such as over enemy territory, or can give away the aircraft leading up to the attack run. Refueling in the middle of nowhere and not over hostile territory is one thing, but having limited range that makes missions impossible over an enemy combatant is another. After Sept. 11, 2001 the only US Navy aircraft that could reach the furthest Taliban targets was the F-14D Super Tomcat. The rest of the air wing had too limited range.

[@andrewday3206]

@@AvocadoAfficionado Having a less efficient engine also means more fuel and less ordinance must be flown. The entire point of a mission is flying ordinance and not burning fuel. If you have ever spent time on the flight line or flying this would be second nature, not to sound disrespectful.

[@M16_Akula-III]

@@andrewday3206 ...Yeah? That's what they're planning for NGAD and F/A-XX IIRC

[@DarkVader-jj4dt]

I'll believe it when I see it.

[@user-gj9cn7tn5r]

When you see it, it will be “old” tech. The one you don’t see is the “new” tech.

[@olexp9017]

​@@user-gj9cn7tn5rThis "new" tech is also non-existing. 😂

[@user-tx9zg5mz5p]

Still at least 10yrs out😂

[@greghorine4995]

Very interesting analysis, thank you for your perspective and time!

[@kylekyle5438]

Will you do a new video about the SU-57 flat nozzles? They seem like a major advancement in RCS reduction since they are a smooth flat nozzles with few discontinuities and serrated joints. Now compared it to the standard round nozzles which have multiple sections of nozzle peddles and rings and screws and many discontinuities including on the interior of the nozzle plus no serrated edges.The RCS implementations is big plus there is a reduction in IR signature and let’s be honest, it makes the SU-57 look like an alien craft, it completely changes its look.

[@douginorlando6260]

Perhaps the reason for Navy next gen drones focus on air to ground is either: 1… space based orbiting weapons expected to help protect the task force? 2… the Navy plans to focus development on the air to ground drone mission first, then after issues are ironed out and lessons are learned create a variant with air to air capability (this is what the F35 program should have done, starting with the Airforce model and ending with the Marine model) 3… Air combat drones are a separate program? (loyal wingman). The next gen Navy development may include a manned variant with no air to air weapon capability because it depends on loyal wingman drones. The sensors are mainly in this variant and loyal wingman would be very light weight low cost launch platforms with thrust to weight = 2.0 and 20 G turns. Loyal wingman drones stored vertically in hanger deck triples the number stored. Just my guesses.

[@kathrynck]

Orbiting weapons wouldn't often be where & when the USNavy needs them, in a tactical situation.

[@douginorlando6260]

@@kathrynck nowadays satellite constellations have thousands of satellites in orbit.

[@spamfilter32]

​@douginorlando6260 and they can be destroyed too. Russia tested an anti satellite missile this past year. On top of that, Russia and China could both have their own orbital defense system that could still target AC groups.

[@kathrynck]

@@douginorlando6260 Well, it's banned by treaty ...though I appreciate that isn't to say it'll never happen. 1000's of weapon-bearing satellites though... that'd be quite an undertaking. Weapons laden satellites wouldn't be as small and light as starlink.

[@GG-md1dh]

Not to offend anyone, but before fantasizing about orbital weapons, read the types of orbits of celestial objects. An aircraft carrier group that is waiting for its combat satellites, which, spending the last crumbs of fuel to enter orbit where they are now needed, risks waiting for them in the middle of the Mongolian steppes :)

[@FedericoLucchi]

It isn't clickbait if Otis calls you out for it. Can't beat the honesty of a machine!

[@sevrent2811]

In DoD statements to congress, they see F/A-XX as a complete replacement for the F-18 so it'll likely be tasked with both AA and Air to surface just as the hornets are. Long range AAMs, and JASSM, future hypersonic missiles likely carried internally

[@kathrynck]

Considering their range needs for the southwest pacific, I would be surprised if it's small and cheap as well. Really kinda expecting a large supercruise platform, with multi-role options.

[@meteorknight999]

Why would electronic warfare jet replacement carry a hypersonic missile ? Beside AA missiles are hypersonic many times, it's hypersonic cruise missiles/glide vehicle thats the craze for fighter jets like mig31

[@sevrent2811]

@@meteorknight999 itll have a big internal weapons bay to carry air to surface missiles which growlers already do.

[@brendanwood1540]

This is a theory, but in my opinion probably a secret project being researched. After completing some research I learned that Beryllium, or I220H Beryllium, has been studied for use in vacuum airships. Likewise, there are aerogel materials made with Graphene which possess very interesting properties. Graphene aerogel is 7 times lighter than air, equal to helium gas, has high mechanical strength, compressive stress-strain resistance, thermal resistance, and super elasticity. Meaning, a hybrid Beryllium and graphene aerogel sphere could pull a vacuum and become more buoyant than hydrogen. This could create an airship that is not explosive, capable of extremely fast climb rates, and able to loiter for a very long period of time conducting surveillance. The shape also offers a good stealth profile.

[@sirati9770]

Ignoring any merit to what else you said. If you take a box with the dimensions of the f35 the lift a vacuum could provide would be 1.7 tons. If you want to carry ammunition you would need a lot bigger airframe

howthis material responds to G force?

[@brendanwood1540]

@@sirati9770 Yeah, it would require a very large vessel to carry a significant payload. But some lightweight surveillance equipment would be easy. Likewise, the shape needs to be like a submarine because of the difference in pressure. Can't see the other comment anymore: Not sure how it would react but the properties seem very good. It's unlikely to sustain g forces absent any control surfaces or significant forward propulsion method. So not the tic tac things. Maybe the shiny spheres though.

[@miamijules2149]

Yeah, they’re building DAARP’s new fancy WALRUSES with that stuff and all kinds of other goodies. Apparently, the damn things are basically massive, yet retain the maneuverability of much, much lighter craft. I suppose we will see in time but one thing is certain, those airships will come in handy if we are to have this little cold war with China. The sheer amount of logistical strain on our armed forces will necessitate the ability to get lots of stuff, at great range, promptly.

[@horusfalcon]

@@sirati9770 Yeah, but if The F-35 still has its engines, that added lift can be redirected to more ordnance, or just to an improvement in range. (I know: that's something of a stretch...)

[@chrislong3938]

I recall a show on History back in the e'90s I think where during a discussion about autonomous jets, a Navy pilot said he thought it was way too far out to contemplate and then added, "Hell! Even in Stars Wars, they had pilots in their planes!"

[@globalterroil3208]

Your advanced robot friend needs a sensor check! Everything at his operating level looks neatly clean! : - )

[@deeb7752]

I watch a lot of your video Whats your background aerospace?

[@onetwo5155]

I like how the Navy seems to think about this; very practical, but with an eye to the future.

[@horusfalcon]

Another insightful report. It does look like the Navy is going their own way (as they frequently do) to produce something that will perform their missions under their conditions. This has been going on for a while now, but I wish the two services could sit across a table, look each other in the eye, and come up with a common solution that only requires modular changes to suit it to one purpose or the other. (Fellas, ya might consider giving the US taxpayers a break for a change?)

[@arcataslacker]

Isn't that what the f35 was supposed to have been?

[@horusfalcon]

@@arcataslacker Yeah, but the program was allowed to be sited in multiple Congressional districts (allegedly for "strategic reasons") to make it insanely hard to pull the plug. F-35 could have been accomplished much more cheaply. (And that's my only criticism of the program at this point: it's too expensive!)

[@austinbixler8662]

I’d imagine drones can pull gs pilots couldn’t even dream of so maybe that’s what this is all about, they see the drones as the ultimates air killers and can probably store more drones on the carrier as well

[@kathrynck]

Technically, guided air to air missiles "are" drones. And the F-35 treats them as such, using them in ways which really deconstruct traditional dogfighting. I don't see a high need for extreme maneuverability. Especially when they really need impressive range, altitude, internal payload, & supercruise. That said, anything you can land on a carrier needs to have good AoA, which translates to turn rate.

[@stc2828]

China: happy Christmas pentagon, no Christmas vacation for you guys 😆

[@henrikerdland578]

A limited air to air capability for the future! That’s sounds like a dangerous approach to me.

[@Chris_Toney]

Another fine video. Thank you!

[@tomtom4405]

Having an onboard human pilot can be hugely beneficial, what if Russia or China can repurpose/redirect the ucav/plane spoof the navigation or confuse sensors in some way. A human pilot can actually think and say... "hang on, something smells wrong". There are drawbacks too of course, but few people balance the discussion by remembering in some cases an onboard pilot can be beneficial

[@christopherchartier3017]

The Russians and Iranians already did it once back during obama’s presidency. Although it’s interesting how they never it again, since there’s plenty of US drones surveying the war in Ukraine and Russia definitely doesn’t like them being there

[@david7384]

lol how will a human pilot sniff out electronic spoofing at BVR?

[@carlosandleon]

inertial guidance and AI can remedy this

[@greghight954]

These planes strike over the horizon. The targets are rarely within eyesight.

[@jeffviper6973]

Love your channel Man!

[@PrincepratapsinghRawat-cw5em]

It's the naval version of NGAD

[@renstein8210]

@@PrincepratapsinghRawat-cw5em The NNGAD

[@generalmarkmilleyisbenedic8895]

@@renstein8210racist, they dont like words with N

[@Jagdtyger2A]

Well done, You should do a follow up video where the Military scientists reverse engineer the captured Imperial weapons. Imagine the speed and power of an Imperial Tie fighter incorporated into 6th generation Earth stealth fighters mounting missiles, energy weapons and auto cannons . And Earth tanks ounting their big cannons and coaxial energy weapons with energy shielding

[@youtoubezhuke]

逆向工程也不是件簡單的事情

[@Jagdtyger2A]

@@youtoubezhuke True, But when facing death and destruction, Humans are very creative when motivated that way

[@steelrad6363]

Thank you for your video.

[@DonVetto-vx9dd]

Flying aircraft carrier when? That would solve the range issue the Navy have.

[@sonictech1000]

I could imagine the B2 or perhaps even B52 re-tasked as a drone mothership.This sort of thing was experimented with decades ago with manned fighters but might be more practical with modern drones.

[@diraziz396]

Thanks for the Intel. Cheers

[@MrJenslandbo]

Very interesting as always, let's see when they hit the sky

[@MultiYlin]

Millennium can claim: I predict the future 2 weeks before they release

[@Mongrel214]

Btw your mustache looks great

[@ghostindamachine]

As always: great journalism!

[@peceed]

Optional crew is a totally free feature now - just a software update. In more advanced solutions, this should mean the possibility of replacing the part of the fuselage containing the cabin with an additional fuel tank, and at the very least the possibility of installing a cabin tank instead of the pilot's seat. By the way, I don't understand why they insist on classic cabins, when a pilot lying on his back in hydrogel with VR goggles could take up less space and withstand 15-20g maneuvers without wearing out his body.

[@carlosandleon]

Bro you still pull Gs no matter what surrounds you. Even if you cement in your body, your internal organs and fluids still slosh

[@peceed]

@@carlosandleon Please don't write in topics you have no idea about.

[@GBnet2]

Otis is pretty funny 🤣😂

[@dennissmith6783]

please not Boeing

[@douglasburt1622]

Question: One of the justifications of adaptive cycle engines has been to allow carrier based NGADs to strike Chinese targets from significant enough distances that their carrier home bases would remain largely out of reach of anti-ship weapons. Wouldn't shortening NGAD's combat radius reintroduce their carriers to excessive risk and eliminate one of NGAD's primary benefits to the fleet?

[@christopherchartier3017]

Unless they have/planning to equip them with adequate stand-off weaponry that would warrant the reduction in range

[@christopherchartier3017]

Unless they have/planning to equip them with adequate stand-off weaponry that would warrant the reduction in range

[@ShayneBiggs-ix2vp]

You know what I'd have liked to have seen..during the ATF program why didn't the black widow have thrust vectoring? Not 2D like the f22 but just one way.the bottom could have come up 15-20 degrees. Do we really need to vector it down? Pilots prefer to flip upside down and then pull g's. So how often do pilots need to pull negative g's?? I understand the jet was almost as maneuverable with out it so I'm wondering why they chose not to go that route. Ty

[@gorkarullan]

Great video man! GJ!

[@asper1952]

Interesting video 🎉 thanks a lot

[@poprocket2342]

It's been interesting to watch the extravagant promises and subsequent roll back of the NGAD program. They listed all of these technologies and capabilities for it that were all technically plausible but would inevitably cause delays and cost over runs and end up giving a final product that's an excellent aircraft but has a lot of capabilities that aren't ultimately needed for what the US would actually use it for.

[@fredmdbud]

NGAD isn't a single aircraft, but a system of systems.

[@lokai7914]

Thank you, yet again for a fascinating vid.

[@marekk5262]

Otis should have it own Channel 😂

[@jamshedsethna3428]

How does Russian Hazelnut impact on carriers and air bases on which 6th generations would be stationed ?

[@marcgatto9675]

Given current realities with missile technology, it's hard to see a role for carriers against near peer rivals. They will still be effective against Nicaragua, for example, but not against, let's say, China. There'll be some heavy losses against them.

[@agsystems8220]

I might argue the other way. Carriers are essentially mobile airbases. Modern missiles make stationary airbases vulnerable at any reasonable range, but it is still hard to hit a carrier. The alternatives are grippen like aircraft, less reliant on air fields, and aerial refuelling infrastructure, which also relies on mobility.

[@j.celgoog3275]

My dream fighter for carriers ? A Northrop Grumman - Dassault program.

[@kathrynck]

Whether for carriers or not, that would make for a very interesting pairing.

[@j.celgoog3275]

@@kathrynck Yes, for carrier. Because in Europe, just like in 80's, the German seems to discover that France own a carrier.

[@sewinvicta9274]

China just flew another 6th gen fighter/bomber that you didn't know about.

[@zwen3763]

Two, different prototypes

[@nasosst3092]

A glass of Barolo would be nice signore

[@billhanna2148]

To each his or her wine

[@kathrynck]

I kinda prefer argentinian for reds. I don't think it's any special place to make wine or anything, but the exchange rate makes really high-end argentinian cost like very middling or cheap wine from EU or US.

[@nasosst3092]

@@kathrynck thanks for the suggestion. We south Europeans appreciate good wine

[@NeroontheGoon]

Bunch of alcoholics…😂😂😂

[@kathrynck]

@@nasosst3092 Argentina is making headway at fixing their economy and stabilizing their currency though. The super-cheap exchange rate may eventually improve for Argentina. Again, i don't think there's any magical vineyard's in argentina or anything. It's just that their "top 10%" stuff only costs like mid-range wine, cuz their currency is in such a bad state, so you get more for your money.

[@BBBrasil]

I never understood why the Navy accepted the F-35 program.

[@FedericoLucchi]

Probably political corruption. Unfortunately there is a lot of lobbying going on behind the scenes for this kind of projects, which is to be expected since the Pentagon just shovels out money regardless of progress.

[@sgt.grinch3299]

It was thrust upon them by congress.

[@jimsteinway695]

There’s always the future system in development. The f35 is being fielded the government is already working on the next generation. It depends on whether which one wins the design competition and whether it gets funded. In the olden days we used to have fly offs

[@cannonfodder4376]

Another informative video as always.

[@34ccsn]

It will take 15 years to get it to actually work. It will cost 10x as much as projected. They will be unreliable and have low production. Imho.

[@krixus72]

Lol...seeing that it's been underway since 1999 ,it will be operational soon and say they will be unreliable is a joke. The U.S's worst jets out perform any other countries as is soooo...??

[@Karackal]

And 30 years from now, people will complain that the program was canceled too early.

[@34ccsn]

@Karackal i never understood why america goes with new fighters rather than evolving successful designs.

[@markshackelford9373]

All aircraft evolve and get new hardware. Sometimes though, if a near peer is pressing hard to catch up you need to take a quantum leap to keep a substantive advantage to deter any aggression they might otherwise use if they feel they are on par or have certain advantages

[@masnur7007]

Money ... money ... money ... ​@@34ccsn

[@ShayneBiggs-ix2vp]

Like the black widow had smaller RCS, faster supercruise. It probably would have cost a fortune

[@43DAEMON]

Thanks for interesting information. Any new info/video on Flat nozzles for AL-51-F1 with thrust vectoring on SU-57 ? Thanks

[@THEADVISOR-OneFromBelowAbyss]

My god, I just realized I wasn't subscribed to you well now i am

[@mikefarmerjr6200]

I just subbed. Sorry. Ive been watching your vids for awhile now and thought i usbbed already. Keep up the good work. God bless you and everyone

[@christesterman]

Future US Navy talking shit to Chinese aircraft will go something like this "Just wait until you touch down we'll get you then!!!"

[@SeaJay_Oceans]

The REAL secret ? Those Flying Tic-Tac Capsule things using Counter-Grav propulsion . . .

[@MalcrowAlogoran]

I will be so pissed if the rumored NGAD gets shelved at the last moment.

[@blahorgaslisk7763]

I can't see how not having air to air capability would be beneficial. These hangar ships are pretty soft targets without air superiority. I can understand if they don't want to make Air to Air the primary purpose but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to ignore it.

[@AvocadoAfficionado]

@@blahorgaslisk7763 what does air to air even mean in 2024. If you can integrate an air to air weapon and receive targeting data from a detector... You're.. air to air. Building a plane specifically for air to air is kinda pointless

[@xyz-hj6ul]

​@@AvocadoAfficionado You build to a performance point. If you build a VW bug, you will not get a Ferrari race. And many of the conditions which dictate superior air to air performance, specifically: internal carriage, low wing loading, high thrust to weight, decent legs and balanced (by fuel weight) performance also help provide the muscle to carry a significant air to ground payload. Modern air to air combat tends to happen at altitudes where transonic to supersonic performance is the norm and this, plus the necessary elements of stealth as aspect control and low dynamic velocity vector change (to retain energy and maximize first pole) also limits the G pulled to around 4-5 with little of inverted/multi-G crap you see in the movies. This has ALWAYS been the case, it's just that the weapons system and signatures of a Phantom/F-106 era system did not support the doctrine of the silent sniper. It's simply the physics of high altitude flight, the Q-factor, the fuel burn, the need to retain energy for that 'one big move', whether it's the cutoff into an intercept vector or the breakaway into a crank. Having that performance in turn gives you the payload and throttled-back loiter to also be a decent air to ground munition platform since a four shot BRU-61 replaces a couple AMRAAM/JATM but still leaves four more. The question then has to be: do we need that mission to be manned? Manned fighters were deemed essential on a few-saves-many basis of TARCAP wherein you actually fly PAST the target area and hold the space behind it so that neither the airbase itself (if that's what it is, counter air comes second only to SEAD) or the airbases it's linked with cannot launch QRA intercepts that smash into your bombers as they are in the chute, dropping free fall bombs. We no longer do that because standoff weapons, be they small diameter bombs like SDB or cruise like JASSM no longer require the strike package to get that close to the target defenses. Now, at best, we have 'the few' defending the robots. By using specialist jamming modes of their radars to insert cyber techniques and/or raise the noise floor to the point where these glide bombs or cruise missiles cannot be detected. And that is backwards. Since these munitions were BUILT to protect human pilots by allowing standoff. And it takes quite a bit of advantaged aspect as range to get in through the protected antenna sidelobes. And why would you want to close up a manned jet with a LOUD jammer package to 10-15nm, to ensure that happens, 'the better to save the kamikaze munition'? A more critical role is that of OBAS, where you are not sure where thethreat is, you are often working in a mixed collaterals environment (civilian road traffic, necessary for society to continue) and cannot simply shoot anything that moves. This kind of mission doesn't have to happen in denied, high risk, airspace but it takes hours if not DAYS to accomplish. And there has to be many more of the jets to sweep multiple large areas and avoid the whackamole effect. Satellites can help. Provided they are not knocked out. But offboard sensors like JSTARS or Wedgetail are often still at too much risk to the kinds of long range SAM (40N6, 77N6, SM-6, etc.) which put down the A-50. While, relying upon manned fighters is also foolish due to limited inventories, pilot endurance and MMH:FH/CPFH limits on sortie generation, particularly in LIC/COIN missions. So the high end favors the robot protecting the robot, in the contested/denied zone. And the low end favors the robot in the controlled airspace, dull and dirty, 'NTISR' mission set, because My God does your butt not hurt after 8hrs of sitting on an ACES II. Double that and fighter pilots will be walking bent over, like old men. Because of these conditions, I would question the presumption of using offboard 'nodes' in a kill web. Because, again, you are NOT going to be dragging high end (E-2, EA-18G) etc. platforms into a threat airspace or even anywhere peripheral too it. And you should not be a lighthouse of datalink emissions in a stealth platform. Finally, we need to accept the fact that the various air services have been suppressing laser kill effectors for a long time. When a Turkish Aselsan laser mounted on a Lorry type truck can shoot down a Chinese drone 3-5 miles away (over Libya) with a 60-100kw laser, you know that the U.S., China and probably Russia have had the tech for decades. With the rise of drones, this can no longer be ignored. And drone kill lasers will lead to missile killing lasers, as an alternative or supplement to stealth. Because RF stealth is vulnerable to quantum radars and ALL stealth is vulnerable to high end, dual band, FPA count IRST. If someone shoots a pair of missiles at you and you knock them down (high, clear, air) from 10-20km out, then the simple 'having a missile makes you a fighter' argument is highly questionable, both on shot count and ultimate penetration to lethal range. Do you accept half a weapons bay loss to a capacitor stack and cooling plus optics tray or do you carry more AAM? And if you are all jammed up with AAW missioning, what about that jeep or tank or truck or TEL your CCD sensors just spotted, 40-60,000ft down below? At some point, survivability of the targeter may require the kill effector to be what is offboard. Either as a small (Anduril Barracuda, Northrop Jackal, BAe SPEAR-3) micro munition or something which comes in a hurry from a long ways away, off a boat or, more likely, a sub. The best solution for being shot it is likely unloading the jet, putting it into plaid, and running away. Followed by lasers on an unmanned (no canopy, no eyeblind) to knock down the threat. But where you will always have a fixed limit of purchased 'fighters' before you shut down the line and the talent moves on to new jobs, you may need the option to dedicate a long-term automan capacity to newer/bigger/faster/multi-submunition variants of missiles to guarantee rapid prosecution of fleeting HVT/HPT under conditions where you buy 100 per year for ten years and then 4-5-6 THOUSAND in a single year to refill inventory after a major warfighting expenditure. Do you want to be stuck with a 'how-big-is-thy-bay?' aircraft solution to improving that missile? Or would it be easier to use a CABS level bomber or VLS launcher from a sub? It's a guarantee that, even if you are talking about a 4 million dollar hypersonic weapon, if the alternative is a 300 million dollar, 'multirole' NGAD, the 75:1 purchasing factor is going to favor the missile, at least for high value/low density targets like bridges, trains, factories and fuel targets which are what actually keeps a war going, especially between Peer states. Bluntly then, it is never 'just' about having the munition at the correct point in space to launch on a target that drives the fighter mission. Being a fighter is being a hotrod. Getting quickly to the target or area of interest containing targets (low transit duration) and staying there until the mission you serve or the target set you hunt, is gone (long dwell) is how you use that flying Ferrari, via tings like advanced standoff sensors, very high end stealth, and adaptive cycle engines or even geared turbines plus lasers, on a robotic platform, to get that mission accomplished. You still need the 'fighter' as a performance point metric. You just need to change the reasons for and methods by which it exploits that high end capability.

[@jeremyr7147]

It's basically a cargo ship to transport aircraft across the world to where we attack other countries.

[@agsystems8220]

Modern air to air is a sensor battle, and winner takes all. If the enemy has a 5% edge on you, you lose almost every time. For a long time the US has had no threats within 30%, so they could give 20% to ground attack and still be fine in air to air. The f22 was simply overkill by the time it arrived. The j20 has sort of snuck up on them, and we don't really know how it or the Chinese air force would perform in real conflict, but if it wins it will win hard. The Russians seem to have the plan right with the su57 mig31 pairing. High survivability sensor platform combined with high kinetic performance missile truck.

[@AvocadoAfficionado]

@agsystems8220 nice numbers did you grow them yourself? 🤣

[@christophmahler]

If the General Electrics XA100 and Pratt & Whitney XA101 Adaptive Cycle Engines were operational, why would they not be installed in the JSF as originally planned in 2007 (the 'Adaptive Engine Replacement program' of 2022 - as part of the Block III Technology Refresh 3 upon which any Block IV upgrades depend - was shut down in 2023) ? Or are they in 'operational testing' like the JSF... ever since 2001 - without _ever_ achieving 'Full Operational Capability' (completely fitting for 'a conspiracy, masquerading as a country') ?... If the Navy were still developing the F/A-XX, why would they cut the prospected development cost within the annual budget - first, from 1.5 billion USD of the 2024 fiscal year proposal to 500 million USD - then to mere 50 million USD in 2025 (see Joseph Trevithick: 'Navy's F/A-XX Next Generation Fighter Program would be gutted under Senate Defense Bill' - there is still the possibility of obscured, covert funding) ?... But Ukrainian Intelligence can assure that the F/A-XX will not follow the pattern of the F-22A (production shutdown in 2011, 100 units short of the prospected mere 300) or the equally expensive, but less performant JSF (still short of 1500 units, but already ballooned from it's original 200 billion USD to 1.5 trillion USD, and thus rapidly increasing toward 3 trillion USD program costs)... Let's face it: Halliburton man Dick Cheney, not modernizing the F-14D into the 'Advanced Strike Figher-14' was the wrong turn, the Navy can't course correct, now as no advanced weapon system can be procured without aggressive global export and it's Economy of Scale effects (the reason of the production shutdown of the 'lightweight' F/A-18E/F and EA-18G in 2027)... Up next, the seizure of all health insurance and pension funds to fund the National Guard, suppressing riots.

[@AvocadoAfficionado]

@@christophmahler lmao, keep joining those dots. Did you top up on tinfoil this month?

[@christophmahler]

@@AvocadoAfficionado Keep winning in Ukraine...

[@AvocadoAfficionado]

@@christophmahler what does a country with 0 credible airpower, seapower and wider strategic capability have to do with this conversation? They don't even have f35s lmao.

[@M16_Akula-III]

@@christophmahler The F-35 is leagues above the F-22 by almost everything. The only thing the F-22 is above the F-35 is range and kinematic performance.

[@M16_Akula-III]

@@christophmahler Per unit cost of each F-35 variant is also way cheaper than a single unit of a late F-22A.

[@planetofthepete]

wrt the A2A mission ... are we talking about the loss of dog fighting as a capability? ... because that went as a priority quite some time ago. Air superiority is now a function of sensor / effector overmatch - which the 6th gen concepts will have in abundance. Some will argue that the US Navy's top gun super hornets are a last line of defence in a near peer contest ... but you could also argue that an unmanned system is able to out turn anything with a cerebral cortex...

[@user-gj9cn7tn5r]

IF and WHEN you see real pictures of NGAD…it is no longer NGAD.

[@TheVigilantEye77]

AWACS drones for GPS like functions

[@theenchiladakid1866]

The way things are 7th and 8th gen Fighter will be up

[@KingSlayerTTV]

i love your stuff but i just cannot look at the comments i wish youtube would do something about the bots

[@johnathanpearson3203]

But you're a bot 🤖

[@Wvk5zc]

says a bot

[@salamanderpete]

Super content as always! o7

[@cujimmy1366]

Would a craft made with a carbon fibre and graphine layers with Wigner crystals mean that the body is also the power source and engine.

[@XimCines]

So some lessons are being applied e.g. modular sofware for better integration.

[@Jacob-pu4zj]

4:23 Ok, but what's the alternative? All the mergers in the 90s happened because the Cold War ended and there were no longer enough contracts for every MIC to stay up and running. Do the Russians have four manufacturers? The Chinese? Anyone in Europe? Didn't Putin merge all of Russia's aircraft manufacturers in 2006?

[@peterazlac1739]

With the current state of hypersonic anti ship missiles one wonders what the Navy will fly this aircraft off and whether such aircraft carriers are gong the way of the WWI battleships.

[@tudogeo7061]

The Next Jeneration

[@Joakim-j7h]

Is the US Navy investing in missile based AA capabilties instead?

[@jebise1126]

but if aircraft group is there to project power on land too not just to control sea they can expect more air power opposed to them... can they not? or if lets say example attacking a country from sea where there are no other land bases around, who would deal with air power of that country?

[@lavenderlilacproductions]

9:50 i wonder if their air to air will be handled by Aegis and a handful of Super Bugs with Fat Amy acting as AWACS, mostly to stop incoming ASMs

[@chamindadecosta3970]

Fantastic till a Oreshnik shows up over head ............................

[@michaelmayo]

The Air Force has already admitted they have a flying 6th gen prototype.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

No. The USAF spoke of a technology demonstrator, which is a very different thing.

[@RicardoDixo]

I haver a bridge to sale you! A bridge of seven generation!

[@Idahoguy10157]

A navy fighter can be adapted for use by an air force. Adapting an air force warplane for an aircraft carrier is at least problematic.

[@ftc9258]

I always pick up something new by watching this channel. So, in some parts of Europe, people apparently spell the word generation, jeneration, with J. 🤔 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@vickydroid]

Bravo another interesting article while I do my chores. Few thoughts, firstly wonder if the new US Administration will look to do bring some “efficiencies” to these programmes aka MacNamara style, hopefully they have learnt from this. Policing the pacific is a mammoth task and one piece of kit is not the sum of the Doctrine and practices they will need to bring to the task. We live in interesting times but the kid in me impatiently wants to see what’s coming down the pipeline and into service.

[@agcgilmour]

Why don't aircraft hade rear firing weapons?

[@spamfilter32]

Seems like Russia has a similar idea to the US navey with their Oreshnik system to take out opponents' air bases in the first hours/minutes of a war.

[@BV-fr8bf]

How can the Navy complain about needd long range fighters for the Pacific and not use Adaptive cycle engines.....? HOW?? The Navy doesn't want to endanger it's $10 Billion+ carriers.

[@tapad5]

These f5s are getting fancy

[@kelvinh8327]

It's always the same names because they're the only ones left!

[@utubemewatch]

For once the Navy isn’t the red headed step child and it knows exactly what it wants and needs. It’s not unaware of the numerous new threats it faces abroad of the rapid technological growth of near peer adversaries. Still is it putting too much faith in a communications network & interface? I’m sure it will have many redundancies. It’s also interesting to note the change from air launched supersonic missiles in Russia to air launched ballistics (hypersonic) in China (following Russias lead). A conventional near peer war will be an unimaginable hellscape few can predict. From FPV to NGAD drones.

[@showdown66]

When Testors releases a kit we’ll know it’s real. 😉

[@НиколайНикакоюс-л2ь]

Хорошо что американцы разучились делать такие эффективные и надежные системы вооружения как А-10, Ф-16 и Хамви. Сокращение финансирования говорит только об одном - ни кто не верит в эту разработку.

[@FISSIONINITIATEDSUNRISE]

I tought that they postponed the project?

[@BrunoViniciusCampestrini]

It has been delayed by budget restrictions. However, the USN seems on track to pick a winning design next year already.

[@FISSIONINITIATEDSUNRISE]

​@BrunoViniciusCampestrini Thank God, this program is like a wet dream for us the F35 ,F22,B2,B21 fanboys.

[@BrunoViniciusCampestrini]

@FISSIONINITIATEDSUNRISE Indeed, it is. I'm really hoping NG gets the contract. A new cat on USN carriers after a decades long hiatus.

[@FISSIONINITIATEDSUNRISE]

@BrunoViniciusCampestrini Yes , Iv been following the developments for this program, very underwhelming... And since,I heard that they are indefinitely postponing it...

[@M16_Akula-III]

@@BrunoViniciusCampestrini That is not very useful...

[@brianhaygood183]

This is me commenting for no other reason than I was asked to. It is not hard.

[@Ballysack]

That's a J-35 (Swedish one, not Chinese, obviously) used by the National Test Pilot School...

[@texasranger24]

Air to air focus was from the time when only 1 plane could carry the phoenix missile. Slap a few Aim-260s on any plane and it's anti air now.

[@downix]

An under development program which is slated for axing with the new congress next year cannot be slapped on anything.

[@michaelkaylor6770]

Oh, can I write things here to help your channel grow? Wait. Did I just do that?

[@konekillerking]

The arguments here remind me of the post WW2 arguments that missiles would replace all SAC aircraft, and that SAC would replace the need for boots on the ground etc etc. They will be actual needs of different platforms for situations. There will not be a one size fits all system. Ever.

[@AvocadoAfficionado]

@@konekillerking "ha people who were used to travelling by horse got ahead of themselves when they first saw radio guided proximity fused weapons being used and said they would replace boots on the ground." "It will never happen, nothing ever changes, look at all the horse stables, bows and arrows, flintlock rifles, swords and shiny armour suits we still have, I hear France is equipping their soldiers with sticks again!" We have and will be wrong about what will be replaced and when. But the new **will** replace the old. It **always** does, grandad. If you don't think so, you're not going back far enough.

[@konekillerking]

@@AvocadoAfficionado Yes I am a grandfather. Why you think that's would be an insult well deal with it. That you do not address my actual comments, suggests you are ignorant of the sources I refer to. They refer to the fact that in the past there have been those that predicted the end of certain systems, being replaced by other systems. My comment suggests that Musk, like those in the past, are premature or flat out wrong. Your snarky retort wasn't even well constructed. Understand, using an insult to gain an advantage, is a clear indication that your premise is flawed. As to my understanding, I do have the professional and personal background to support my opinion. and don't need to resort to putting those with a different opinion down.

[@AvocadoAfficionado]

@@konekillerking You never made an original point. You parroted the oldest meme of "nothing ever changes" and thinking it makes you smart. Except it does change, substantially. Nobody rides horses into war anymore. You just aren't thinking over a long enough timeframe. Lol

[@sohrabroozbahani4700]

This has historical precedence, Navy made the F4 and airforce had to pick it up, airforce made F111, then Navy had to make the F14 and even airforce themselves had to make the F15... i guess that explains a lot...

[@carlosandleon]

their contractors did

[@subatomicparticle6535]

By the time this ever comes to fruition if at all they will only be able to afford 5-10 of them.