Could the F-35 replace NGAD in the air superiority role?

[@SandboxxApp]

Go to ground.news/Sandboxx to stay fully informed on military developments around the world. Subscribe through my link right now for 50% off their Vantage Plan, which is what I use everyday.

[@chuckevans2792]

Could the F15 conformal tanks be the basis for a more stealthy F35 add on tank?

[@steveshoemaker6347]

ALEX🇺🇸

[@ADB-zf5zr]

Could @SandboxxNews do a video about the proposed / suggested DOGE cuts to defence spending when they arise please and thank you. And yes, I strongly suspect that the NGAD has been put on hold because of the new administration, it's different priorities and of course if the NGAD was signed today, it could be ripped up in less than 2-months and replaced with something else, or perhaps exactly the same thing but in different quantities and at different prices. I have not seen any rumours and will ignore them if I see them and wait for you to report on them.

[@noneofyourbusiness4133]

America is slowly becoming like Russia: unable to come up with new competitive designs for anything resembling competitive prices and quantities. I fear for our country deeply.

[@jamesjross]

There is a Sandboxx on bluesky with no posts - is that your channel?

[@jacobmumford1496]

This is probably a sensible option, but I wanna see a flying dorito loaded with aim-260's so triple the defense budget please

[@mcblaze1968]

F/A-XX has entered chat.

[@eliasmai6170]

or a flying Burrito. 😂

[@leroybarron6005]

Dorito POWER

[@noctisumbra2749]

I disagree, I think the F35 lacks both electrical power and cooling for future electronics and the interior space for both fuel and weapons

[@agent7176]

​@noctisumbra2749 Even with the increased electrical power the next upgrades will provide?

[@CreepyFungus29]

It would be so funny if the navy beat the air force to the 6th gen fighter table

[@FloridaManMatty]

They will…

[@samtobio3045]

Requirement 1: Must be able to carry AIM-174 internal

[@BoschhammerActual]

Wasn’t the F14 the first 4th gen fighter too?

[@Stinger522]

​@@samtobio3045Yes.

[@edl653]

I don't know but I have been told Navy wings are made of Gold. And it has been said Airfoce wings are made of Lead. Hehe, yes I am biased.

[@nekomakhea9440]

"We want NGAD performance at F-35's price point" is the new "We want an entry level position getting entry level pay with 10 years experience in a tool that has existed for 5 years" The only way they'd get NGAD down to F-35 price point would be to surpass F-35's economy of scale, which would mean even bigger export sales, and that doesn't seem likely to happen for a multitude of reasons.

[@leftycosta1899]

USAF & USN suffer from EXTREME lack of leadership, stupidy & lack of leadership. NGAD was doomed & unaffordable from Day 1. USAF wasted Billions $$$ on a pie in the sky it could never afford. Look at what the USAF is funding: T7, F35B4, F15EX, B21, KC46, NG Tanker, Sentinel ICBM which is $40B over budget and unfunded, NGAD, AWACS, B52 upgrade another complete waste taxpayer $30B bc its completely unsurvivable in Pacific, EA-37 Compass Call which is needed ASAP, etc. There is not a budget on this earth that can afford those projects and its not even close. So what gets cancelled? Serious Q, what gets cancelled? I'd start with B52 upgrade for sure. Probably delay NG Stealth Tanker by upgrading K46 with ECM. I'd pour as much $$ into B21 & F35Blk4 with AETP as possible because that is how you win Pacific.

[@fabiolean]

They’re so used to people bending over backwards to fulfill these demands that they’ve started making demands on reality 😂

[@tkmmkt6569]

Or maybe Lockheed ceos need to make less money…

[@mojothemigo]

I would guess that the AF don't expect it that cheap. They "say" they want it that cheap as a business tactic. Despite all the criticism, the American MIC make good stuff and for the most part, companies don't get the same negotiating pushback they should. Wouldn't be surprised if this was to get $300mill jet to a $200-250mill jet

[@BrandoDrum]

I'd just say make an F-35 D model. Use the C's larger wings (without folding capability for more strength and fuel capacity) and control surfaces but use the F-35 A's landing gear and gun and use the next generation dual-cycle engine in it so you can forget about putting it in the rest of the F-35's. Still an expensive program but not nearly as expensive as an all new fighter.

[@brenthegarty3922]

For a range boost for the USAF, perhaps take the F35C and remove all the Navy specific gear except the larger wings that have more fuel capacity than the F35A. Remove the hinges for additional wing fiel storage. The stealth external tanks can also be added in addition to that. That might get it a combat range approaching 1100-1200 miles without much in the way of change to existing production lines. 👍 Call it an "F-35ER" or something

[@140theguy]

Adapting the stealth drop tanks from the F-22 is a better option. If they really wanted max range Congress would have gone the Adaptive cycle engine.

[@Rob_F8F]

That's a great idea. Of course the next step would be to give the F-35 the F-16XL treatment!

[@terryritter7065]

Interesting idea, but the C varient's larger wing is rather draggy. It'd likely require substantial engineering just to do what you suggested, and then shape redesign to better suit the AF's mission. But while they're at it add two more hard points and carry twice as many external stealth tanks. An ER indeed.

[@maleprincess62]

The bigger wings are mostly to allow it to fly slower for carrier approaches

[@bluemarlin8138]

⁠​⁠​⁠@@140theguyThere are other benefits to the F-35 airframe. If you had those bigger wings without all the undercarriage reinforcement and Navy-specific gear, it would also have lower wing loading for better maneuverability and a higher payload.

[@dougkennedy4906]

The sensible option is .....let the Navy develop the FA/XX program. Then buy them for the Air Force as well. Like they did with the F-4. Would also cut down the price of spare parts.

[@CaptainBanjo-fw4fq]

And once most of the navalised stuff was stripped away you probably boost the performance of the fighter.

[@cavalierliberty6838]

​@@CaptainBanjo-fw4fqwhich is pretty much what the air force is there for.

[@brabblemaster401]

Plus do the maintenance in house. Not outsourcing it to Lockheed Martin

[@pawpawstew]

That's never a good idea. Case in point... The primary customer for the F-35 was the Marine Corps as a replacement for the Harrier. Because of the need to integrate the vertical lift fan in the B model, the A and C models were shackled to the same fuselage. Then, the Navy needed to have longer wings and stabilators, different nose gear, and a tail hook. In the end, each model was compromised because the three services had very different needs.

[@wholt242]

@@pawpawstew The tri-service requirement of the F-35 is totally different situation than adapting a naval fighter for primarily land-based use. Both the F-4 and F-14 were the most capable fighters in the world upon their introduction, and the former actually did provide decades of good service with the USAF. The bigger problem is making the aircraft a joint-service program from the outset, as conflicting desires (not even necessarily true requirements) inevitably cause problems. It's better to just have it be a Navy program throughout the development phase (it's much easier to adapt a naval fighter for land-based use than the other way around because naval fighters also need to be able to operate from land anyways) and then have the Air Force adopt it after the Navy with perhaps a few tweaks. So long as the Navy designs their aircraft around the fighter mission first and foremost (i.e., does not emphasize the "a" over the "f" in f/a-xx) it should be okay (we don't want to just create another f/a-18 with the performance and range of a paper airplane.) Anyways, after the sheer dereliction of responsibility on the part of Frank Kendall and the Air Force writ large, it would be highly satisfying to see them eat some humble pie by having to choose between adopting a navy plane and being stuck with Fat Amy.

[@texasranger24]

3:50 if you already know about ground news and want to skip their ad

[@SD352-68]

Doing gods work!

[@icemaninsane]

You are doing God's work. Thank you.

[@icemaninsane]

Also since he doesn't have much content, he speaks slowly, so watch it at 2x or 1.5x.

[@aerialbugsmasher]

Or hear me out: use the sponsor block extension

[@maleprincess62]

Get KZbin ReVanced if you're on Android, it skips it automatically

[@AvocadoAfficionado]

Mom can we get NGAD? We've got NGAD at home. NGAD at home: F-35 Block 4 Mom was right.

[@mrvwbug4423]

Knowing just the unclassified capabilities of the F-35 I'd still never want to get into an air to air engagement with one. They're maybe not the best in a merge, but odds are you'll be shot down long before you ever get into a merge with one, even in a SU-57. A J-20 might be able to merge with an F-35 but the F-35 would easily win that merge.

[@dreadus8125]

Mom was absolutely right.

[@411bvRGiskard]

No. The limited F-35 in any variant or block can and will be overwhelmed by sheer mass of Chinese drones and missile barrages on that side of the vast pacific even if it can get close enough with its short legs and huge logistical tail.

[@411bvRGiskard]

It’s a shit plane that wasted so much money that we can’t afford nice things anymore

[@AvocadoAfficionado]

@@411bvRGiskard imagine thinking it could be cheap to set up a production line to mass produce one of the most complex machines on the planet and then insinuate the plane is bad because of it. If it was so jank why is your enemy copying it, airmen want it and allies buying it in such quantity to realize unit costs less than any other plane on the market? Lol, lmao even.

[@hermanmusimbi4337]

As I see it, there are three options for the airforce. 1.) Field the F-35 with the upgrades alex mentioned in the Video ( almost inevitable) 2.) Field the F-35 with all the upgrades alex mentioned but add and revive the adaptive cycle engine for the F-35A 3.) Adapt whatever comes out of the navy NGAD problem, either as is or modified to air force needs. It has worked before with the F-4 phantom . It's easier to convert a navy fighter into a land based plane than to do the inverse.

[@ThirdLawPair]

Another option is to deal with the high per unit cost by just having fewer units and strategically using them to augment the capacity of the F-35.

[@CaptainBrawnson]

Whatever happens, they're going to have to embrace the paradigm shifts as tech improves for further and further BVR combat where the munition itself is taking over much of the role of the air dominance aircraft, as with the initiative looking at using B-2s as effectively larger F-35 style quarterbacks for data fusion, coordination, and carrying a high volume of long range munitions. I think we're going to see manned aircraft get larger, fewer, and further from the action, and more complex missiles and UCAVs taking over much of the space jets like the F-22 existed in. Similar to how we've seen drones take over much of ISR.

[@dianapennepacker6854]

I seriously hope the B 21 can do air to air. Maneuvering on a dime isn't important. Having huge sensors, and being able to see the enemy before they see you using stealth, and out ranging them. Is the only foreseeable way America will win. We cannot out produce a country triple our size. A country who can make their citizens do whatever they want. Who can pay less on everything from wages to benefits. I don't have high hopes for Trump to make any global pacts, or have any political tact at all. In fact quite the opposite. He will weaken our alliances. So unless we are smarter. Or lucky. We seriously need to figure out if the future war will be cheap drones, which we are behind, or expensive platforms with exquisite performance that stomps everything. What we need is a bigger budget suitable for a cold war damn it. Why have Republicans gone from Cold War Warriors to licken a (Russians) Putins boots. We are screwed. I don't have faith in our politicans nor our military industrial complex to do anything, but milk, and get rich first amongst all else. Even to the detriment of the future. Or Americas place in the world.

[@daveansell1970]

Could you get more range by building a C version with the lighter A parts? I guess it would be a bit slower but there are bigger wings and more fuel capacity both which should get you further across the Pacific.

[@hermanmusimbi4337]

@daveansell1970 that's an idea, but C only has about 1500 lbs more fuel than A. To little bang for your buck. Maybe building a delta wing version like the F-16XL could be feasible.

[@richardbryan6349]

Well let's hope the USAF can adopt the Navy's NGAD fighter: the F/A-XX. It's always easier for the Airforce to adopt a Navy fighter than the other way around. The F-4 Phantom was a great example of that principle.

[@kibathemechanic4967]

The USAF buy a USN fighter?! Surely you jest! Their ego alone wouldn't allow it!

[@johnroberts9922]

I have been tooting this horn for a year. With the new Block 4 processors (and yes there are 4 of them) the F-35 can control 2 loyal wing man drones. In a few years a new adaptive cycle engine could be fitted. And if a new more stealthy RAM coating is developed, you will have most of what is required to satisfy the USAF's NGAD requirements.

[@RavenRunFoxRoam]

Combat range is still an issue. I think the B21 with CCAs is interesting for air superiority

[@stayoffthemarbles6790]

​​@@RavenRunFoxRoamthe new adaptive engines could reportedly increase range by up to 30% due to its ability to change how air flows through the engine. The new engine combined with the stealth drop tanks could give the F-35 a combat radius of almost 1200 miles. Add in the new extra long range missiles with a range of ~200 miles and you now have a navy and Air Force that can project power beyond the range of any current land based missile that China or Russia have

[@TomatoFettuccini]

They could conceivably develop D and E variants that are slightly larger than the C with the added size used for fuel and larger weapon bays, akin to the Super Tomcat concept; D could be an upsized C but for land-basing and the E also an upsized C but fitted for carrier operations. In some wishful thinking, Lockheed-Martin should give SAAB a call and have some of their engineers help make F-35 less of a runway queen. Robust engineering goes a long way.

[@Snoop_Dugg]

But perhaps that role will evolve to more of a loiter and control the wingmen role in the pacific at least

[@johnroberts9922]

@@RavenRunFoxRoam Absolutely. You hit the nail on the head.

[@rodlever3620]

This was great, you answered my main question which is how would the F-35 cope with the range requrement in the Pacific, which as I recalled was one of the main reasons for the NGAD to be developed. (i.e. low-observable drop tanks coupled with missiles with far greater range, and then the Block IV F-35 upgrade).

[@777Outrigger]

The F-35 is excellent at WVR too. Because it always enters the WVR fight in an advantageous position. It's stealth and sensors gives it a big SA advantage while denying the enemy any reasonable SA, which enables it to ambush in WVR. At least one F-22 pilot who has flown against F-35s in Red Flag calls fighting the F-35 "very challenging".

[@Kroggnagch]

WVR=within visual range? And what is SA? I'm really sorry, I'm trying my best to think of what it is but I'm just too ignorant I reckon... I'm sorry.

[@marcusallen6123]

SA= ‘Situational awareness’

[@777Outrigger]

@@Kroggnagch Situational Awareness (SA) is the most important thing in the air battle. I know most people think it's aerodynamic performance, but that's more of a movie perception. .. Like one pilot, who participated in Red Flag in an F-16 and an F-35, said, "in my F-16 I had a small bubble of SA, but in my F-35 I had a "god's-eye view" of the air battle".

[@choov7554]

I still stand by the idea an statement, that cancellation of the F22, was the USA’s worst mistake when considering near peer adversity, and not building it in a way that made it easier to upgrade with new technology was likely our second biggest mistake

[@angelaferkel7922]

Well the basic design of the Raptor was still made back in the cold war so of course it didnt have the priority of having an open architecture, they needed a fighter with the maximum performance in everything packed into one frame and get it to go. Its like a custom built race car made to be the fastest but yes its also a pain to upgrade and maintain it The F-35 based on this open architecture philosophy which is why its a fighter system that is growing every day

[@angelaferkel7922]

So in a way, it was not a mistake to cancel the production because indeed, after the soviet union fell, the US had no potent enemies and the Raptor was not used for anything but for show. And today having to field 700 Raptors that all would need upgrades because they were never designed to fight against other stealth fighters over the pacific in long ranges over 3 decades after its creation, it would be very expensive and inefficient for a long term war. They were 100% correct on cutting the production of the Raptor

[@choov7554]

@@angelaferkel7922I guess I should have switched the mistakes… I’d say it would be more logical to consider the lack of open architecture, lack of foresight , and planning for the needs an F22 would need in the future would be the main reason for the cancellation. Upgrades were nearly impossible, especially from a fiscal perspective, and it was shown that trying to upgrade the f22 would cost as much, or more, than designing a new fighter… I’m glad we invented an produced the f35 especially for export and stealth, but outside of the ability to upgrade, and being much more budget friendly, it can’t hold a candle to the air dominance capabilities of the Raptor

[@choov7554]

@@angelaferkel7922I do agree with what you’re saying, but I can’t help but to wish that the F35 had come first, and then the f22. If it had gone that way then we’d have a smaller fleet of 35’s, and likely be mass producing f22’s with all the technological perks of the f35. It’d be nice, but if an bots don’t amount to anything in reality so… I do believe the 35 is an excellent craft, and probably a better fit for multi role missions than the 35, but the 22 is just an absolute beast and I would hate to get in a scrap with a peer enemy and not have the Raptor

[@angelaferkel7922]

@ yes i agree, the Raptors every part was to maximize performance in air to air fight and also cant help it but it just looks beautiful and has this less controversal backround unlike the 35 But for a full scale war in 2024 it probably is not ideal and the 35 with sensor fusion and data link will propbably be more effective overall in war with better BVR than Raptor and for closer range with the help of the drone wingmen in a war but we have to see how things will go

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

if you wanted a land-based F-35 with a longer range and were willing to do some design work, I bet you could take the F-35A, give it the larger wings from the C model without any of the other extra structural weight and add some conformal shoulder tanks. getting reasonably low observable drop tanks worked out seems like a good idea regardless since you can always do with some extra range, and converting it to a weapons bay for more payload on shorter-range missions shouldn't be that hard once you get the pylon and shell worked out.

[@triaged]

This is a great point about the wings. I always wondered why they put such small wings on the Air Force model.

[@mrmazda329]

​@@triaged more airfoil, more lift and lower stall speeds. Perfect for carrier launches.

[@Jacksonflax]

The larger wings come with a fairly significant performance penalty over the alpha. They're on the charlie as a necessary compromise to reduce the approach speed.

[@mrsmegz]

Give it delta wings and call it the F-35XL.

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

@@triaged the airforce A model weights less than the CATOBAR C model because it doesn't have to survive carrier ops, so it doesn't need as much wing area, and oversized wings just add extra drag.

[@chrissmith-rv5ro]

Remember either the Lockheed or Pratt CEO said "you're not turning this (F-35) into a 6th generation fighter..." when responding to a question about equipping the F-35 with the Adaptive Cycle Engine.

[@LeonAust]

From a Australian/Pacific point of view the F-35A is being modified now to TR3 standard and block 4 in the future, but having stealth external fuel tanks/pylons would be much needed asset. This could bring a patrol of southern sections of the South China Sea in range with minimal air to air refueling to carried be out in a much more benign safer rear guard area.

[@jloiben12]

Air power is the most important combat power. Virtually everything this side of WWII has demonstrated this, especially with wars like Ukraine. Having the right fighters is critical to being able to win wars

[@bromine_35]

ev&oe the Ukraine war showed that modern AA makes "air superiority" a meme

[@jonlamontagne]

Or how Desert Storm approved that are dominance was more than necessary and having adequate AA would be a very valuable thing to invest in. Well that is unless you're the United States because we have two of the most massive borders we can have using oceans as protection and Mexico and Canada is buffers which both would be almost impossible to Traverse through in any reasonable time to attack America and clearly it's not going to be a surprise if it's coming across two separate oceans when they have to Traverse at least a thousand miles and that's just the Atlantic I mean geographically we haven't made a whole East Coast is protected by Islands essentially so none of her comments would be affected from the Mississippi to Maine but then you add in the fact we can Traverse the Saint Lawrence freeway and you then you have from the Canadian border of Maine down to Galveston Texas of barriers protecting traversing ships just like they did during World War II

[@jloiben12]

@ Thank you for demonstrating that you are a joke that has no idea what they are talking about. Which belligerent has 5th gen fighters, you know, the only aircraft in the world designed specifically for this type of engagement? Oh that’s right, neither of them have 5th gen fighters. In other words: stop lying, learn the subject matter, and stop being a joke

[@CarbonatedGravy]

@@bromine_35 if it’s s-400s (which are proven far from invulnerable) against old soviet fighters and a few F-16s? Okay sure, that’s asymmetric warfare in the skies though. If it’s a massive fleet of stealth fighters and soon stealth bombers, good luck with that. US SEAD strategy with new capabilities will be a serious problem for air defense going forward

[@F1ll1nTh3Blanks]

The problem is that we do. The F35 the US problem is that its ambitions outweigh its current capabilities, especially monetarily speaking. The F35 is proving to be very good as well, probably even better than expected, so realistically, you just wanna do that but better, but that's what other countries are doing, like Europe is with their own 6th gen projects, the US has to make everything look, decidably 5.5 gen by comparison. So the only option is to go for broke, which sounds great for the USAF as they will be truly unleashed again but for those like the USNF, that has more practical aims, that's simply preposterous.

[@GM-fh5jp]

That 20:1 kill ratio at Red Flag has gotta sting for the F-35 haters. They have suffered a lot lately what with that awesome Israeli mission over Iran by F-35 Adir. Perhaps an F-35 S model? The bigger wings from the Navy C model, the new stealth drop tanks, a gun, and 6X JATM 260 would be a formidable air superiority fighter. Ramping up an existing production line with some Block 4 changes sure is cheaper than starting a new one from scratch...let alone training the workers to build it. If they get into a close in dogfight it's generally the better pilot who wins, not the guy with a slight edge in turn rates and dive speeds etc.

[@The_ZeroLine]

@@GM-fh5jp I agree, but that Iran thing wasn’t an F-35. That was just super early speculation that turned out to be wrong.

[@GM-fh5jp]

@@The_ZeroLine LOL what? Source? and no, pulling it out of your butt doesn't count as one.

[@MrDowntemp0]

probably makes sense to skip the ngad, letting the B-21s and F-15ex, and current F-22 cover its potential duties. Meanwhile let the navy come up with their new fighter, and then build a variant of that in the future to save some R&D

[@FlyingTexan]

I don't get why the navy and air force just couldn't build off the same design.

[@mill2712]

​​@@FlyingTexan Because both branches have different requirements and missions for their fighter which could result in minor or drastic design changes. Even completely different air frames.

[@TheOsfania]

Stop making sense.

[@MrDowntemp0]

@@TheOsfania Don't worry, it's very rare for me.

[@unknownuser069]

The F-15EX can NOT do the Air Superiority job anymore. Period. End of. It’s probably still capable of air denial in a near peer conflict … but that clock is ticking down fast. And we don’t have enough F-22. Not even close to enough. I don’t think we need to race into 6th Gen. However we do need a new 5th Gen fighter that is a tech peer to F-35 Block 4… but made for Air Supremacy and long range.

[@Milo_1368]

F15EX loaded with AIM120s is spooky with the F35 stealthily spotting targets

[@blackhornetf]

Let's not forget the range of the F-35 can also be extended with a loyal wingman that only carries fuel to refuel the F-35 mid flight with the other loyal wingman used as a missle truck.

[@MrGriff305-d3u]

The F-35 will obviously handle the role alongside the F-22 for a while. It'd be cool if they trained in teams of 80% F-35s with 20% F-22s. That would handle a wide range of capabilities. The F-22s would chase and disrupt while F-35 designates targets and cleans up.

[@M16_Akula-III]

Not possible. F-22s datalink "INTERLINK" only works with INTERLINK, cannot be integrated to Link 16.

[@MrGriff305-d3u]

@M16_Akula-III I think you might be wrong that it's impossible for U.S. fighter planes to work together

[@M16_Akula-III]

@@MrGriff305-d3u Oh, they can work together, it's just harder because there is no datalink connecting between the F-35 and F-22. They would do it like the NVAF did back during 'Nam, ground radar guides fighter to vectors, then the fighters engage it themselves. In this scheme, the F-35 is the ground radar, and the F-22 are fighters. With datalink, an aircraft can get: identification of bandit, speed, heading, altitude, etc on their MFDs, instead having to get close and visual the bandit.

[@gups4963]

Maybe the airforce should just buy into the navy's project. Knowing the navy will be the focus, but set it up to strip it down if possible.

[@firstnamelastname2669]

With absolutely no relevant expertise it would be my guess that's how things will eventually pan out, but not for some time yet.

[@Americaisgreat12]

@@gups4963 yeah why don't they just make one aircraft instead of two it would be cheaper

[@texasranger24]

@@Americaisgreat12 but dont repeat the F35 desaster. Built a navy jet, and then give it a lighter frame for the air force with more fuel.

[@fredbecker607]

​@Americaisgreat12 that idea has been around since at least WWII. Usually doesn't work because of some serious differences in missions and other requirements.

[@TheJBerg]

@@texasranger24 The original contract was that the F35C was just the F35A with a heaview frame and 80% part compatability vs ~40% parts campatability with the F35B.

[@christianpatton9364]

The expensive components of any fighter program are avionics and propulsion. Design an air dominance specific airframe fitted with block 4 F 35 propulsion and avionics.

[@KalFulsom]

I have a feeling that the NGAD is like the Auirforce's version of the Boeing rocket for NASA. Overloaded with everything and overpriced knowing the government will pay any price. Maybe the answer is the F35 or a version of it tailored for air superiority only. But whatever it is, it can't be business as usual for the huge companies. Maybe Andruil can step in and simplify things... or make an NGAD we never thought possible.

[@homurseempsone154]

Thats essentially why it's on time out, it was getting way too much added on and they don't want another f22 situation. That and the B21 and F35 are capable of plenty of other duties and both excel at ground attack. Most likely the ngad was getting more things besides air superiority tacked onto it.

[@jakobneubert6801]

Alex, no, because the rudders alone will make it easy to detect by radars. 6th gen must be without rudders & have +2.000 miles radius distance, which F-35 cannot & bigger bomb bat. Therefore, 6th gen will get similar design as B-21. So, maybe the loyal wingman can be made for $89 million per wingman drone but not the NGAD.

[@mojothemigo]

Still hard to get missile locks on an F-35. Israelis have proven that. Iran has invested in a lot of Russian anti air missiles.

[@texasranger24]

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

[@jeremyc74]

Two thoughts. First, the problem with BVR technology is that often the rules of engagement require a visual verification to make sure you're not shooting down a friendly, or civilian aircraft, so our planes still need to be able to dogfight. Second, having a really good RADAR is great, but as soon as you turn it on you're blasting your position to anyone who's listening. The passive systems are going to be a lot more important until we have air superiority.

[@mojothemigo]

"Visual verification" with the pilots own eyes from the cockpit is a thing of the past. There are several ways pilots can get conformation and there have been many BVR A2A missile strikes around the world in the last 30 years using the same verification methods.

[@sp00f64]

Maybe they will put the GE XA100 in it, at some point. That would be a sizable improvement in engine performance for sure.

[@steviestevie366]

I been told,in a perfect world,frogs would have wings, so they wouldn't bump their butts so hard when they jump

[@Shadowboost]

We need a Mach 2.3, long range, heavy payload fighter with laser defense system and sensors up the wazoo. The high speed/altitude means longer range for air to air missiles, longer range for the Pacific theater and on station time, high payload to counter an outnumered engagement, and sensors to target for F/A-18s and F-15EXs

[@BMF6889]

The biggest problem with the Air Force F-22 and F-35 is actually it's range limitation. That may be somewhat mitigated by tanker support but tankers which light up radars like a Christmas Tree or possibly developing stealth tanks for the F-35. In my opinion some of the mistakes the Air Force has made is not developing a stealth tanker and not developing fighters with a much longer range. It seems that the military while developing new amazing technologies, seem to be developing them within the constraints of previous wars.

[@yulfine1688]

that is basically one of the largest shortcomings of the 22 and 35, however upgrades can lessen that shortcoming as we are starting to see, engine improvements for the 35 are coming with a possible 30% range increase.

[@grider421]

Perhaps a few b-2’s could be converted to tanker mode?

[@edl653]

Why not just postpone the NGAD for 1/2 or full decade, then take the Navy F/A-XX and modify it for Airfoce uses that way both programs benefit from greater scale. How hard would it be to take of catapult gear and tail hook. off the F/A-XX? In the meantime, get F-35 Block 5 in the works for an F-35D air superiority role. Maybe a modify an F-35C with its greater fuel capacity and again take off the catapult gear and tail hook.

[@4ggranit]

You'd think it should work like that...But this IS our government.

[@manticore387]

Might be possible to clean sheet with a design optimized for manufacturing cost instead of performance. Design it for modular installation of the same systems as the F-35 (radar, AI wingmen, etc.), but larger for extended range and capacity, with perhaps a newer and more robust/reliable/cheaper stealth coating. Don't try to go for the home run at this point.

[@erasmus_locke]

3:51 to skip

[@audacity60]

Options. 1. A F-35E. This would have an extended fuselage & weapons bays, F-16XL cranked arrow wing + new AETD 3rd airstream GE or P&W engine. 2. Get Boeing to join the British/Japanese/Italian GCAP/Tempest program. 3. Put into production a new F-22 with in production F-35 parts.

[@texasranger24]

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

[@Rob_F8F]

SHORAD is not anti-helicopter/ anti-CAS anymore, it's anti-drone. Hard kills with missiles, cannons, and lasers. Soft kills with EW. More power lasers seem to e the way to go. Ot addresses depth of battery concerns inherent to physical countermeasures.

[@timbrwolf1121]

I mean they could always go ahead with the plan for the full thrust vectoring F-35. As long as they can keep it to mostly an engine swap then it shouldn't cost to much.

[@ernstbergerbrent]

I feel like 6th gen fighters are going to be so expensive and high maintenance that there will be half as many of them as F22s. It'll require 250 man hrs and $100k per hr of flight.

[@yulfine1688]

its why ngad has been on hold, that and they also wanted it compete and outperform the 22 and 35 being able to handle both sets of multi roles.. and still have air dominance capability like the 22.. Its no feasible at all, not unless someone finds some sort of special material and fuel source etc..

[@NostalgieFreak]

I hope NGAD will only be postponed, not cancelled. A later introduction could even help using more advanced technology.

[@Americaisgreat12]

They gotta Crack down on defense companies at this point if they wanna get cheap things from them and widen the competition so that not 5 defense companies control our military this is getting ridiculous man.

[@agent7176]

The reason we only have 5 major defense companies is because The Pentagon told all the defense companies that existed that they'd only be able to support X ammount of companies going forward because Congress was slashing the defense budget. It was called The Last Supper.

[@TheWatz05]

This is a fallacy go watch the video that debunks the military industrial complex by Ryan Macbeth. All five companies combined make less than Procter and gamble.

[@MrAjmay1]

It’s a cartel

[@IndigoSierra]

Lockheed Martian, Northrup Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon, and General Dynamics combined made less profit in 2023 than a company that makes diapers.

[@texasranger24]

@@IndigoSierra oh great you copied some bullshit from a mediocre information and propaganda warrior. no, PG doesn't just make diapers, they basically own everything you can but at every supermarket ever. Along with Nestle they own everything you can eat, drink or use. Also, they have different incentives given that they have more than 1 customer than must be lobbied for every contract. PG is selling to everybody, the military industrial complex literally only to the US government (who can then resell to other nations through foreign military contracts). It's like saying you sell golf balls to the only golf player in the world but you are totally not dependant on him.

[@BCAT3089]

and I also remember FLAT screen TV use to cost $10,000 and that was for maybe a 40 inch size.

[@benitosalazar3749]

Air Force leadership either has an ace up their sleeve we don't know about, or they are completely dysfunctional when it comes to figuring out which tools they want to fight with.

[@mojothemigo]

Ace=trying to leverage a better price. Sounds reasonable to me

[@benitosalazar3749]

@@mojothemigo Historically speaking that leveraging of a better price almost always results in the program's cancellation. They need to stop signing these cost plus contracts. They also need to stop changing requirements in development. As I am sure you recall the F-35 was supposed to be a less expensive supplement to the drastically cut F-22 program. It ended up being the most expensive fighter program in history.

[@mojothemigo]

@@benitosalazar3749 Somewhat. However, the military does high risk/high reward and trying to guess what they need 10-40 years in advance. Despite the setback, the overall way works. It is the reason why we have stealth and all the other crazy advanced stuff. The F-35 was overbudget, but still fantastic. Also, like other people are saying while the AF budget is a bit tighter the Navy looks like it more likely to pick up on its next fighter. The NGAD for the AF might be cancelled and in a few years, they take orders from whoever (probably N.G.) from what they are making when the budget allows.

[@arbelico2]

Greetings from Spain. The US would do well to seek partners to reopen production of the F-22 with all possible improvements. As soon as the TEMPEST and FCAS arrive, the F-35 will have very serious competitors. Countries such as Australia, Israel, South Korea, Poland, Canada, etc. could be interested.

[@The_ZeroLine]

I’d like to know what the cost of an all new NGAD vs setting up production again from scratch for our latest, already complete F-22 design. We’ve already blown through billions just exploring NGAD.

[@foxglow6798]

The entire reason they created the NGAD program is because they found that setting up F-22 production again would cost more than just making an entirely new 6th gen.

[@TheGreatness-gg1jx]

I was thinking the same thing. Why not just update the F-22- more range, more firepower, wing-men. Then gradually developing the NGAD.

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

none of the components have been manufactured in decades, so restarting F-22 production would require doing probably half the design work over to use components you could actually buy.

[@The_ZeroLine]

@ Equal in setting up a production line. It didn’t include R&D. Common sense tells us producing an aircraft whose design is 100% complete + compatible w/existing ordnance would be a few billion cheaper at least. Not to mention faster. It also doesn’t include the cost of learning how to fly the new aircraft, training née maintainers, etc. and a thousand other little things that add up.

[@The_ZeroLine]

I’d also add that we’re in a very transitional period. We’re still not sure exactly why the skies of tomorrow are going to look like or the optimal approach. Since every time we’ve given a “near peer” the benefit of the doubt and assumed their aircraft would be as or more capable than they claimed and every time they haven’t been half as good, I’d prefer a long but careful gestation period before we produce our NGAD than rushing forward and inevitably having about 10 different blocks in the first 10 years of production and frequent delays due to realizing we need or want to add something else.

[@bjornodin]

I was getting ready to get to sleep, a few lines into the script, and I'm absolutely hooked! I couldn't sleep to save my life!

[@jloiben12]

The SU-57 is not stealth. Being as observable as an F/A-18 does not make one stealth

[@samsonsoturian6013]

Except it isn't

[@YepTriedToTellYou]

True. The RCS of the SU-57 Is about the size of a VW bug. It isn’t stealth at all.

[@kuhnville3145]

Let’s start calling the F/A-18 SH’s stealth jets

[@jajssblue]

If the F35 is upgraded to be NGAD capable through something like a Block 5, that update is going to cost what Kendall wants for the NGAD. It doesn't mean it's a bad idea. I just don't think its reasonable to want a plane with that capability to be at that low a price point. Even if you're adapting a current airframe.

[@NinjaRunningWild]

I think the money would be better served by recreating tooling for the F-22 & upgrading them. They've hardly seen their potential.

[@yoshida_3472]

I don't know why they won't make a hybrid F-22 Raptor that combined F-22 Raptor air superiority capabilities with F-35 technology. It would be so cost effective

[@Rob_F8F]

Cost as much as NGAD.

[@maleprincess62]

​@@yoshida_3472The air force determined restarting F-22 production would cost almost as much as a new fighter. That's why we had NGAD

[@brunol-p_g8800]

In a world where getting in the air and shooting long range beyond visual range missiles is the norm, a B-52 or a simple Tucano can replace both the F-35 and NGAD… There is no need to even field expensive fighters, as I said simple aircrafts, bombers or drones can do the job for a fraction of the cost… You could pair a Cessna patrolling the air space with a modern radar and with a new generation of long range missiles and it would do the job.

[@Echowhiskeyone]

Use the F-35 for seeking targets, then use the B-21 as a stealth missile truck (FB-21?). Then skip the NGAD(make a few demonstration airframes) and go to the Next Gen NGAD.

[@nikolaideianov5092]

You dont skip generations Think of it as trying to go from the saber to the f15 , entirely skipping everything inbetween Or from f4s to f35s Its just not gonna happen

[@Xenomorphine]

Plus, this is to create something with much longer range. You couldn't do that with the F-35 if it's too far from any carrier or a friendly land base to operate from. Sometimes you get air base permission, but sometimes you only get permission to land aircraft, but not conduct combat missions from it. Or no permission, whatsoever.

[@timtomthekiwi]

And with this video I now recognise Alex Hollings as an OG TWZ poster Very very cool

[@littlebabycarrotful]

I think it'd be way cooler if they just made the yf-23

[@eric97909]

Never forget what they stole from us (However: Boeing probably would’ve bungled the YF-23 in the long run)

[@xlorian]

If that’s the case then they need to go ahead and upgrade the F-35 engine as well. They could also test the Stealthy fuel tanks while also building a inexpensive unmanned refueling drone wingman to accompany it on long patrols

[@texasranger24]

Could the F35 replace the NGAD? Well, no, it does not have the same capability. But with how shitty the military is with managing money and projects, and how greedy and wrongly incentivized defense contractors are, it might have to. Despite that not being ideal.

[@rikulappi9664]

11:00 "warfare means losses are inevitable! " The perceived oversensitivity over losses is a US weakness - not a force multiplier but a force divider!. It is seen as an opportunity by enemies and a risk by allies. I am absolutely not suggesting changing the approach. Just reminding that the US military mostly fights abroad, mostly alongside foreign troops mostly against foreigners.

[@cvashel]

whoever decided to cancel the raptor should be in jail

[@bigsteveh999]

Obama

[@agent7176]

​@@bigsteveh999*Congress

[@weissmorris8822]

The collapse of the Soviet Union is what terminated the F-22 production. Should China fail within the next few years (which many analysts predict) the F-35 will suffer the same consequence.

[@bigsteveh999]

@@agent7176 both lol 🤝

[@stayoffthemarbles6790]

You also forgot about the new variable flow jet engine for the f-35. If the Airforce is willing to invest in the F-35 over NGAD, the combo of stealth drop tanks and the upgraded engine would make for a terrifying bird of prey.

[@kameronjones7139]

While the f35 can can dominate just about anything in the skys it wouldn't surprise me if they bought the navy fighter and used stealth fuel tanks they have already developed or potentially a plane designed around the f35 technology but with larger and more stealthy airframe

[@bjw0007]

My only problem with depending on BVR for a fighter’s success is the vast majority of Rules of Engagements. Most air to air engagements in the last decades have all been within visual range. Either because a target had to absolutely, positively be identified as hostile, or because it required a certain hostile action to be taken, such as the downing of a Syrian jet over Syria after it performed a bombing run on allied forces on the ground. You can see these sorts of situations today, where flights are routinely intercepted by adversaries, be it a drone near Iran, or a Speaker of the House on a transport flight to Taiwan. These sorts of situations have the potential to escalate from tense to actively hostile very quickly, and not only are these within visual range, but often with the adversaries having an opportunity to position themselves behind the escorts. I’d hate to see us be able to win an all-out war with BVR engagements, but not be able to deal with small scale “diplomatic crises” without a significant disadvantage.

[@FloridaManMatty]

More gas, more heat-resistant RAM to allow for higher sprint speeds and the combined cycle engine upgrades and they have it. The F-35 CAN be what NGAD was meant to be all along.

[@LackofFaithify]

As long as an entire new engine comes with block IV...wait.....LOL

[@Chris-yg6lo]

It's ridiculous that a multirole fighter has to assume our primary air superiority role because at 800B a year we somehow can't field one.

[@robertpesche]

Thoughts prior to watching: No. It lacks the speed, ceiling, and manueverability. It's certainly useful in air defense in a BVR engagement, a drone engagement, and engaging 4th Gen fighters. But not against the best Gen 4.5 and 5 air superiority fighters.

[@foxglow6798]

I think no as well, but I totally disagree as to why. Maneuverability is not likely to be a significant concern for NGAD, and it likely would be even LESS maneuverable than an F-35. The most important places it is lacking in are also totally different. What matters most is the range and payload capacity issue. Speed and ceiling are just nice-to-haves for this role, which is the very reason the F-35 doesn’t prioritize them itself. The F-35 can most definitely defeat anything that isn’t an F-22 9/10 times. I think you may be looking at this from a more 1980s angle than a 2030s angle.

[@enlilofnippur8409]

Regarding the point you made around 6:16 - working in a quality assurance role in a highly regulated industry, I would say that this means the US military as is missing the most critical point here if its focus is on guaranteeing air dominance / supremacy. If your ability to win is contingent on any one condition, that is a massive vulnerability; the solution is to diversify your approach so that you can be successful under a range of circumstances, not double down on the element upon which your success is currently dependent. Investing heavily in air dominance is missing the root cause of the (potential future) problem: losing to or a Pyrrhic victory over a peer adversary. For example / to illustrate, in much the same way state troopers across the US focus on enforcing our ridiculously low speed limits on interstates rather than road rage, improper use of blinkers, using the left lane for purposes other than passing, and the other elements that much more directly and profoundly lead to highway fatalities are failing to address the root cause.

[@tom23rd]

I think you win the comments section.

[@The_ZeroLine]

Instead of producing both NGAD + F/A-XX, we’d be better served investing in significantly bolstering the number of ADS systems we have and interceptor production volume, including much cheaper SAM variants for drones, rockets, etc.

[@Fubar0106]

No, it will not work for air dominance. Give the Nuke missile to Elon to build. Make the NgAd cheaper through Doge.

[@Xenomorphine]

That would be happening, regardless.

[@rogerbiggerstaff3293]

Air defense is good over your own airspace, but we need airpower to achieve effects over enemy airspace.

[@thadstahly507]

Maybe the best idea would be to give the f35 a KingSnake treatment with a delta wing and a thrust vectoring. That would increase the range and payload. Thrust vectoring would or could negate the need for vertical tail surfaces. STOL capability on short runways. Production would be simplified for tooling and production locations. Fleet wide production blocks upgrades could be universal. It is not as easy as throwing new wings on. A new airframe would be needed, but part interoperability would definitely cut production cost after initial development cost are realized. It may be a pipe dream. This may be an answer looking for a question.

[@Rob_F8F]

One word: F-35XL

[@sgsheff]

I've thought and said this multiple times. The reason NGAD is a thing is because the F-35 needs significantly more range and needs to be able to carry significantly more missiles inside. An F-35XL would solve both.

[@solarissv777]

So a single engine GCAP?

[@GustavSvard]

So what I'm hearing is that one idea would be to design a new fighter that shares as much as possible with the F-35? Same engines, same avionics, same radar, etc,? So: a fighter that is an upscaled F-35 that has two of those engines, that has twice (or more) the internal weapons bays (each with the same dimensions as those of a F-35), a cockpit that is almost the same, internal fuel tanks that allow for far greater range, maybe designed to be able to fly with a bit more of the wings destroyed (F-15 has had some amazing survivals). That way it could be an integrated part of any upgrade program in the future.

[@vanodne]

It seems to me it might be worthwhile looking into whether F-22 airframes could be hand-built, like prototypes, on a greatly diminished assembly line at a rate of maybe one every other month. Even adding a handful of Raptors to the fleet each year would be helpful!

[@Spearhead45]

one of the most shortsighted decisions American politicians ever did canceling production on the F-22. in no world will the F-35 be an air superiority fighter does not have the internal weapons bay storage nor the speed maneuverability and range. I as a citizen will pay a tax specifically for getting production going on the F-22 again and of course modernizing it but not only that, but also investing into air to air munitions that can outrange the Chinese counterparts.

[@JustinSeabolt]

I think you're wrong there. Without the cutting of the F-22, which still had closed systems architecture, we'd not have the F-35, whose architecture makes upgrading it an incredibly easier process. The F-35 will never turn with the F-22, but it's not hard to see that in the next couple upgrade cycles, money is better spent making the Lightning II a faster, more efficient fighter- one that will score kills well beyond dogfighting range. Even if it comes to dogfights, pilot training counts for a LOT more than a slight kinetic edge of one airplane over another.

[@Spearhead45]

@@JustinSeabolt well I do agree we would not have the F35 if we did not cancel the F-22, but that just means the architecture and upgrades would’ve been on the F-22. To be honest it’s just a personal thing with me. The F-22 is single-handedly the best aircraft ever made. And it’s sad that it was terminated from the hand of a politician.. I will agree what you say does have merit and I think it would probably be more efficient to upgrade the f-35 instead but like I said, I’d be more than happy to pay a proper tax to bring the F-22 back proper to at least make 1000 of them

[@yulfine1688]

@@JustinSeabolt its not just a slight kinetic edge as multiple tests have shown that the 22 isn't able to be beaten when there are not restrictions placed on it. The 35 is a great fighter but it cannot compete with a 22, but the 35 does outcompete the f16s and f15s easily enough outside of earlier tests the 35 hasn't really be contested by those aircraft. Even a small force of 35s and f16s couldn't beat the 22 and far as im aware the systems on the 35 can detect the 22 in stealth but its not quite enough to actually counter it. Anyone can see stealth with lofi radars and some hifi radars can as well but its not exactly easy filtering through and lofi doesn't provide good quality to lock or keep a lock and hifi has a hard time filtering and detecting stealth due to how they appear on radar as they get closer hifi has an easier time, its a range game.

[@JustinSeabolt]

@@yulfine1688 I didn't mean to imply the F-22 and F-35 were even in the same ballpark with regards to maneuverability, rather it's not likely to come up against a considerably more maneuverable adversary without shooting it down long before closing to dogfighting range.

[@DrJoy-cw7lt]

Maybe if the industry quit ripping off taxpayers. And maybe if the Generals quit letting them do it. Then maybe we can have the NGAD. With the bloated 6,000 dollar toilets and sixty dollar screws we can't. I don't expect this to change.

[@wan3416]

Tell me you’ve never worked in the aviation industry without telling me you’ve never worked in the aviation industry

[@Fatallydisorganized]

@@wan3416yeah, $60 screws for aircraft are definitely the least egregious use of money, gotta make sure they absolutely do not fail.

[@rudolphpyatt4833]

A bad man once said that “Quantity has a quality all its own.” This is something that we had in achieving air superiority and then air dominance from 1944 onwards. Stated simply, we no longer have the industrial capacity to produce an overwhelming number of qualitatively superior aircraft as was the case with the P-38/P-47/P-51/F6F/F4U/F-86/F8/F4/F15/F14/F16/F18 etc. And that doesn’t include the various attack aircraft. Like so much else, market consolidation/lack of competition yields high prices and lower capacity. Lockheed-Martin and Northrop-Grumman are themselves amalgamated from their respective corporate ancestors (see also Boeing in its current form, which blends McDonnell, Douglass, and the 26:08 McDonnell-Douglass combine). I suspect that if such as Vought, Convair, and North American, for example, were still on the scene as independent companies, we would already have NGAD in service.

[@Rob_F8F]

Defense consolidation was the inevitable result of the end if the Cold War. Remember the Last Supper.

[@mcraiderking5690]

I’ve been thinking if all the 6th gen fighters are doing is controlling drones and making operational decisions, we’re wasting our money. A B21 can handle that.

[@sgsheff]

Check out one of his previous videos because that's what it's about.

[@mcraiderking5690]

@ I’m aware, I’ve literally been scratching my head as to why we’re were trying to build the NGAD. I’m also pissed that we had the Japanese ready to build a Modernized YF-23, in conjunction with the U.S. and the GD Air Force said ‘no’. I mean dafuq!

[@yulfine1688]

@@mcraiderking5690 ngad is meant to fill the role of the 22 as well being air dominace and outcompete it while having the capability of the 35 systems and drone connectivity etc. Basically a not viable reality currently.

[@KevinMcLaren71]

I think it’s a sensible option. I’d like them to take the F-35 internals and avionic and create a new airframe. Dual engines with enhanced range, payload and performance for the air dominance role. No need to reinvent the wheel, just the chassis (for want of a better way of putting it)

[@MattyJ55046]

Make multiple b-21 variants. B-21 tanker & b-21 air superiority. Stealth air refueling would be huge. No more tankers just flying ‘by themselves’ before and after strikes that are huge targets. B-21 chunking out 20 new gen air to air missiles from 100+ miles away would be terrifying. It doesn’t need to get into a dogfight ever. Maybe give the air superiority b-21 upgraded engines to get to Mach 1.6- 1.8 at least would help too

[@xkavarsmith9322]

Great video. It's making the case -- again -- for a two-seater F-35 Delta.

[@jloiben12]

It would be nice if it could and it likely can

[@ArkoProvoMukherjee]

Great episode as always Alex! You covered range as a capability that needs fixing on the F-35s with a path to fixing it. What about super-cruise though? Isn’t that a hard requirement for air dominance, especially in the IndoPacific theatre?

[@myfinaloption]

Boy, how the combat radius has shrank over the years from the F14 with over 1800 NM down to the F35 600 NM 🤔

[@vampiro4236]

That's still better then the Hornet, plus a lot of the things the F-35 is not supposed to be able to do, it seems to be doing. I mean, looks at the amount of fuel it can carry internally (more than any fighter we're currently fielding, I believe.) If it's consumption rate is decent, I'm betting that 600nm is BS.

[@keep22]

F-35A on air to air combat load has 900nm combat radius according to female F-35 pilot who accidently disclosed it during interview.

[@jakammor4449]

F14 can carry 3x external tanks with no problem, f35 carries none. Makes sense to me

[@vampiro4236]

@@keep22 Oof. That was a F Up.

[@johnsilver9338]

That's with external fuel tanks. Even F-15 would need external fuel tanks to reach the same combat radius of F-35A/C.

[@daviddrotar410]

I hope the USAF just builds a new 6th generation fighter incorporating technology used for the cycle engine technology that the possible hypersonic aircraft such as the Son Of blackbird aircraft can be produced as our 6th generation fighters. A rescoped program! Xo, DD. 🇺🇸

[@texasranger24]

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

[@TerryGaskett]

Hi Alex, I'm from a country that's far away from the main military countries.🇦🇺 & there is oodles of water between us. Being on a naval island, we must always keep in mind, that there is distance to get there & get back. NGAD would have had 2 engines & increased fuel, but would be limited to human endurance. The f18x dual seat would be ok except it's not stealthy. This is really only leaving f35 upgades.😮

[@Nahjitwhat]

God, defense companies overcharge so much.

[@PoliticalChad]

How much is your countries freedom worth?

[@Nahjitwhat]

@ not 800,000% overpriced soap dispense

[@jakejakeboom]

Lockheed’s profit margin last year was 10%. That’s like half or a third of what most tech giants earned. In other words, Lockheed couldn’t reduce their current prices by more than 10% without losing money (assuming no additional orders due to price drops).

[@samuel5823yo]

Yeah but if you pay cheap what do you get

[@rogerbiggerstaff3293]

Care to quantify "overcharging."

[@brand8590]

He who controls the high ground wins. Vital for the US. Thanks as always Alex!

[@DocWolph]

I honestly feel that a proper Air Superiority Fighter (ASF), and not one shoehorned into the role is best in the longer term. Russia, China, and a host of others are NOT going to be on the back foot in advanced stealth fighters forever, or maybe much longer. And we don't want them to develop a Stealth fighter than can get into gun (melee) range with any degree of regularity to take on the F-35 a fighter that is not well made for a "knife fight" and NOT have a real answer to that. That said, a much less costly ASF is still in order, even if it is not what is currently what is happening.

[@keithdsny]

Why not Navy's upcoming F/A-XX? From what I can gather, the F/A-XX would fill most of the (available information) NGAD mission set(s). Reminds me of how the USAF got the F-4 Phantom II. The F-4 was designed for a Navy mission set and "forced" upon the USAF by US Secretary of Defense, and the rest is history. Could the F/A-XX be the new "Phantom III"?

[@RiffeLivingLife]

Putting new projects on the back burner is not how you stay on top of Air Power. 🇺🇸 please Double the Defense budget now before its to late.

[@perrytheplatypus8802]

This will almost certainly be the answer, followed on by adaptive cycle engine powered F35 D/E's replacements for the A/C

[@Nathan-vt1jz]

This is exactly what I commented last video. I’m looking forward to hearing Alex’s breakdown.

[@jameswalker7899]

This was a great episode! Warmest compliments. Thank you, sir. :)

[@chaosfenix]

It would be interesting to consider if the US should be looking to re-engine the F15, F16, and F18 Jets. The F135 engine found in the F35 would be pretty much a drop in replacement for the F100 and F110 engines found in the F15 and F16. The F135 engine though is able to produce 2x the thrust of those engines all while using less fuel. Another option would be to use the AETP engines that were developed for NGAD which should greatly improve their performance as well as efficiency. The thing is that the F100 engine was developed in the 70s. As great as it is it was only 30 years from the genesis of the jet engine. We are now 50 years from the development of that F100 engine in history and things have improved greatly. We may want to look into benefiting from those improvements.

[@matthewrobertson6923]

Love all your coverage. Keep it coming Alex.

[@rogerbiggerstaff3293]

the Typhoon doesn't have any avionics that are superior to the F-35s, whether it's radar, IR/EO, DAS, datalinks, computing power, etc.... The Typhoon can't detect an F-35 before being shot by the F-35. It doesn't matter how fast the Typhoon flies, or its turn rate. The F-35 can carry more, and carry it further than the Typhoon. The disparity only widens with Block 4.

[@kylestoddard2881]

The guys I know in the 388th and 419th fighter wings here in Utah say that the F-35 is: "Very Raptor like." The eventual 1700+ of these planes is terrifying.

[@jackimo22]

Saw five F35’s taking off from RAAF Williamtown AFB, one with a new sensor pylon and another with a ‘stealth’ pylon three days ago. Each of the two aircraft were flying with only one pylon each which is what made me look closer

[@ossuseryoutube]

Modern war will full drones to attack infantry, missiles to attack ground sites, and missiles to attack aircraft. Many, many drones and missiles. I wonder how low the cost can be for aircraft that are practically invisible to those being attacked? I thought a goal of NGAD was to build an excellent but lower cost aircraft than the F22 and the F35.

[@LunaryxDiarmait]

Always nice to see my favorite aircraft get massive upgrades.

[@tom23rd]

BVR is great if you're allowed to fire without visual confirmation. How often has that been allowed? BVR is great until everyone is stealth. Then not being able to BFM better than the enemy is death. F35 in that context is largely suboptimal. Given costs, the cost benefit of exploring f22 retooling might make sense.

[@ebw16256]

Well said at the end Alex.

[@bowencreer3922]

I don’t know how anyone can say the f35 isn’t for air superiority. What other aircraft besides the f22 is better? Nothing that we, nor anyone else has is even close to being as dominant.