The BIG problem the Air Force's NGAD fighter has to overcome

[@SandboxxApp]

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

[@BigTimeRushFan2112]

so what you are saying is our Pentagon isn't gonna waste another trillion of our hard earned money? good.

[@chrisholder4978]

If NGAD had issues, you would know nothing about it. Only what is speculated by folks like yourself. Truth is NO ONE knows....

[@erasmus_locke]

I don't believe you read your comments because you never seem to realize that air dominance involves fighting other AIRPLANES, not dropping Jdams on buildings. A fighter needs to be fast because other fighters are fast.... I mean a lot of your videos are just the same topic and the same points repeated over and over and over again for 20+ minutes. It's pretty annoying. You must have 57 videos about the rapid dragon! Who cares! You can watch one video it and learn everything there is to know about it.

[@IgorEngelen1974]

wasn't there mention of a new propulsion method when the B21 Raider was announced? Is there more information about that already?

[@jaredyoung5353]

It’s got to overcome being behind China!

[@tarmaque]

As we used to say when I was in manufacturing: "You can have it cheap, good, or fast. Choose two." This is all an exercise in arguing about which two for so long we get none.

[@mso82]

Cheap and Fast is also extremely dangerous, and typically ends up being neither; so that's not really an option.

[@Delrin3030]

They tell everybody it's "choose two", but it's actually "choose one"

[@python3215]

@@mso82 no then youre just china. Making a shitton of cheap equipment at a high rate, but it all being awful shit.

[@doomedwit1010]

Cheap is off the table. Fast is off the table. Let us just pray for good. And that it matters. 2035+ may no longer matter. The future may be decided by then.

[@appa609]

​@@doomedwit1010 Exactly. You engage in an R&D arms race during a cold war when war is a far off future problem. You engage in an acquisitions and training arms race when you're actually expecting a fight.

[@andrewday3206]

This reminds me of the photo of the B-2 landing with the YF-23 sitting next to the runway. The YF-23 was less maneuverable than the YF-22, but it was more stealthy, faster, had greater range and possibly greater payload. One cannot help but see the parallels with today.

[@shenmisheshou7002]

And the real pain is in the fact that there are almost no real maneuvering dogfights anymore. The F-4 designers were right about using missiles instead of guns and the only problem was that the missiles were not reliable early in the war. The reality is that every US Air to Air kill since 1970 has been with missiles, and a very large portion of those were beyond visual range kills, aided by AWACS, which did not exist during Vietnam, but clearly defined the need for AWACs, which almost all later combatants benefitted by in major engagements. As it turns out, you can't outmaneuver a Sidewinder and the plane that has the sidewinder does not have to outmaneuver the target. The firing envelope is quite large now.

[@Zulu4impi]

22 vs 23 maneuverability was only slightly to the 22's advantage. Range, top speed and RCS advantage 23. However with regard to RCS it was bee vs gnat.

[@bosoerjadi2838]

The B-2 entered service in 1997, the YF-23 prototypes went into storage in 1996. What was the occasion for that photo, where and when was it taken?

[@andrewday3206]

@ The B2 was publicly released and flying in 1989 I believe. It took years for it to enter service, but it had flown many times before then. It was at Edwards Air Force Base. They both were there for testing. When the pilot of the Yf-23 heard the Spirit was coming in for landing they stayed there so they could have a picture of them together. Look up “yf-23 b-2 picture”

[@Zulu4impi]

@bosoerjadi2838 I see your point, however we're just speculating 🤔 If as stated they have prototypes flying, what compromises will need to be made to make the budgets work? I'm still of the opinion an open architecture with a good to best airframe would allow evolutionary development to do limited production run. The TBCC engines look promising and adaptive hull plating for visual stealth could be incorporated down the line.

[@mikepatton8691]

One of the problems with massive programs like the F-35 or even the F-22 is that by the time a critical mass of airframes are actually in active service, our "top of the line" aircraft are actually something like 20 year old designs.

[@jrljr26]

You’re correct, but our enemies face the same challenges.

[@GutsDovakjin]

Only in total war scenarios does the process speed up dramatically. On relative peace times, when there also may be many economic issues plaguing a nation, it is much harder to justify the expenditure to the general public. The backlash would be insane. Furthermore, all the new technologies that are constantly being developed are more and more expensive to incorporate fast in the available or upcoming platforms. So, you settle for those 20 year old designs and hope that the newer ones that are still on the drawing board will be effective and actually doable when the time comes .

[@TheBooban]

@@GutsDovakjintrue, but also true the massive industrial complex is incapable of delivering anything at a fair price. They are incentivized to be expensive and delayed.

[@GutsDovakjin]

@@TheBooban Exactly that. This is the same topic of conversation me and my brother had yesterday. He insisted that all factories after WWII are built with the appropriate specifications for a quick conversation to military production and that heavily industrialised countries could produce weapons at a similar rate as back then. I argued that that would not be possible for the exact reason you mentioned. The cost for development and production, along with the rarity of materials used, the complexity of the finished products or even some of their components and the training required for someone to use them, would all mean that we might never see such a massive scale of production again. At least not aircraft and ship production.

[@TheBooban]

@@GutsDovakjin well, the west has de industrialized. So what factories to convert to military production? Even now shipbuilding is expensive because there is no civilian ship building to keep the knowledge and skills. US can never build cheap military drones because China owns the civilian market. Luckily, you have Boeing…oh wait…scratch that.

[@BaloneySandwichWithKetchup]

video starts at 4:44

[@farmcat9873]

Thank you cuz thats a 4mins and 44 seconds i would never get back and wasted on a Ground news commercial i see constantly and would choose not to..... You da best @BaloneySandwichWithKetchup 🤘

[@malcolmpuhawan3695]

Thanks!

[@arthurrod7638]

Thanks 🤗

[@accountantthe3394]

Legend 😎

[@TheGweilo701]

I think if we have learned anything in the last 50 years, it’s certain ways of waging war should not ever be considered “outdated”. There’s nothing new under the sun, and if we forget that it could cost us dearly. We are already falling behind, if we don’t figure out a way to change that we could find ourselves in a place we don’t want to be.

[@cameronwebster6866]

There is a reason soldiers still have the ability to turn their rifles it to the most basic of manufactured weapons (as opposed to a found weapons, like a rock), the pointy stick.

[@angusmatheson8906]

Oh there absolutely is new and horrifying things under the sun. Drones and AI swarms...

[@fightingparamecium9605]

Reminds me when brilliant people said missiles make guns obsolete so we don’t need them or dogfighting skills anymore. Then they sent a “few” pilots to early graves… And if these projections are somewhat true then Chinnnna already a head of the game with their 6th gen missile truck of a fighter.

[@Lonech]

@@fightingparamecium9605 missiles decades ago were dogshit that could only cover specific scenarios. The truth is that range and guidance remains king with missiles now having completely functional digital computers instead of analog masterpieces that still were nightmares in practical use. Never mind that China has very little information released for the J-50, dunno what conclusion you can even make at the end there when you know as little as anyone else does about it.

[@Forevertrue]

Certain things do become outdated. Like a 60s style fighters that can be attacked and destroyed before they know we are there. Even the mighty SU-57 is not that stealthy and can be seen and locked before we can be seen. An updated YF-23 could improve on that exponentially. The YF-23 has a large nose that can accommodate a large radar array. Electro Optical sensors can find an aircraft and provide a launch target and the new missiles can lock when close.

[@grandlotus1]

Congratulations, Alex, on your appearance on the PBS NOVA episode about UAPs. When I saw you, I had much more confidence that the episode was not total bunk. You were the high point. All else was down hill.

[@agena6594]

I like Alex because he presents to us as a human and he's interviewed good credible people in the industry; Bob Behler for example. It's a refreshing channel in a sea of AI click-bait slop.

[@donbrunodelamancha1927]

This “question” is reminiscent of Air Force Brass questioning the need for, and removing guns from fighters.

[@Emperorvalse]

More resembling the UK government decision in the 1957 Defence White Paper that SAMs can replace the need for interceptors and that bombers would be replaced by ballistic missiles.

[@Edward-op3yc]

I suppose if unmanned aircraft become the mainstay of airpower then perhaps a rethink of everything is in order?

[@deadlydays3401]

@@Edward-op3yc yea I think it all really hinges on the CCA program. Will it actually materialize as an effective system? Will we actually build them in bulk? If so, then having B21's behind controlling and supplementing forward CCA's with long range air to air and air to ground missiles seems like a feasible idea. But this would be adopting the very bleeding edge of technology ahead of anyone else, which can be very very hit or miss. If it's too early, then you get basically unsupported air to air b21's and not enough of them to really control the airspace.

[@SmoochyRoo]

The thing with that comparison is, the decision to not put a gun on fighters was more of an oversight that was based on things that weren't even trends yet. Today we're so much better at predicting the environment of a future battlespace, and the question regarding NGAD is entirely based on adversary trends that have been around for decades now and which are verifiably increasing in capability. And it's also mostly in part because NGAD can't just offer what already existing and in development aircraft can already do. It has to justify itself with much more than that. Unlike the gun dilema, NGAD not being funded won't leave the US with its pants down in battle, as those capabilities can still be brought to bare by other platforms.

[@doomedwit1010]

Yes. Assuming we are talking about aircraft 55 years ago, IIRC, The air force needs guns. The Navy did just fine without them, but Air Force Pilots need some help. We can't all join the Navy. Of course, let's keep in mind Vietnam is as close to The Red Baron as it is to present day. And the Red Baron's plane will be more of a vietnam contemporary aircraft than NGAD. And yes, The Red Barron had zero luck with missiles.

[@ArchigraphicA]

Thanks!

[@Brian-or2jy]

A 1,000 mile SAM would be insanely large and expensive. They could be overwhelmed by decoy drones mimicking the radar signature of bombers, AWACS and tankers.

[@Sir_Godz]

a counter like that is really simple and cheap. it would look like bagdad in the first gulf war but millions per shot

[@PvtPartzz]

Or countered with other missiles. Always wondered why AWACS and tankers didn’t carry a couple aim120’s for self defense.

[@EmmaDwan8251]

​@@PvtPartzzNGAD is supposed to replace AWACS...like J36

[@mtmadigan82]

​@EmmaDwan8251 I hope your kidding if you think the J36 is doing that currently. I don't know where you get that as the goal. Not in any of the solicitation for bid parameters.

[@mrackerm5879]

What happens when the satellite providing the targeting data itself becomes a target? Predicting the future combat environment is difficult. History teaches that rarely does any country get to fight the war they planned for.

[@jordostan]

@@mrackerm5879 you mention anti satellite warfare like it's something new and that people haven't been talking about it for many decades.

[@korana6308]

That's not even a new thing. There's already a wf in space in that regard at this point. The only question at this point is how to make is efficient as possible. Russia's next fighter jet plane is there to solve that issue precisely.

[@inoculateinoculate9486]

There is no "next fighter jet" from Russia. They can't even manufacture their so-called 5th gen fighter in any numbers. Anything they advertise at this point is just a balsa wood mockup .

[@ThePorkchop1787]

The military now has a constellation of satellites similar to starlink for that exact reason. You can take out 1 or 10 and there's hundreds more to pick up the task

[@ycplum7062]

First successful test of a non-nuclear orbital anti-satellite weapon (basically a satellite that collides with the target satellite) was in 1968. In 1885, the first ASAT missile was successfully tested. Orbital ASATs are technically easier. ASAT missiles are more immediate since the weapon does not have to go into orbit and then slowly match orbits with the target. In theory, an ASAT missile can takeout and ASAT satellite. Russia and China has successfully tested ASAT satellites. The US went with teh ASAT missile route. A lot will depend on how redundant is a country's satellite constellation and their ability to repalce satellites.

[@WeAllLaughDownHere-ne2ou]

I'm going to be a broken record on this concept. The Air Force does not have the time to develop a brand new off-the-shelf aircraft with every Wunderwaffen imaginable. And we don't need to. Take all of the avionics of the F-35, take the engines, ejection seat, life support, helmet, radar, Sensors, EVERYTHING. And fit it inside of a larger, twin engine fighter jet. Give it an extra large payload bay, an enormous fuel reserves and call it a day! We have a new aircraft flying by 2030 with the range needed to cross the Pacific and Indian oceans. It's payload Bay would be large enough for new oversized A2A missiles, and it would already come with all of the ground and sea strike capabilities that the F-35 offers. We wouldn't need new logistics lines. All of its future tech upgrades are garenteed via the F-35 program. The only new tech would be the airframe itself.

[@greater_ape]

I'm willing to admit ignorance, but isn't the integration of these systems with the airframe itself one of the most difficult issues for aircraft design?

[@MrConocon]

Wow! The most sensible thing I've read in awhile. Could field it sooner than 2030 as well.

[@armchairgeneral7557]

What is funny is I was thinking the exact same thing while daydreaming about NGAD this morning. Use everything possible from block 4 f-35 like you said! Maybe we could get them eventually at a price less than $150m? Maybe even less if we renegotiate with vendors. I was going back and forth on an engine upgrade because xa100 and xa101 has already been developed/tested to a certain extent. What would it take to get these fully developed, tested and in production? There is tremendous upside for the future to complete the development on these engines. But regardless, the f-135 is proven and would do the job. I think this is the best option of all options available. I just don’t like the idea of a b-21 getting shot down at a cost of a half billion because it couldn’t turn and burn to escape a threat. Maybe I am making excuses because I really want to see NGAD come to life.

[@Mark-qw8lc]

@@armchairgeneral7557 Your take is correct. The F135 is a fine engine but NGAD requires an upgrade to adaptive cycle engines.

[@piotrd.4850]

@@greater_ape Not if it 90% of work has been done already.

[@citizenblue]

YF-23:

[@ssa6227]

Good explanation. Also explains why one of the 6th Gen fighters looks like a Bomber in the Chinese line up. Though they have a very different role namely just as deterrence and not actual combats especially overseas like American Empire.

[@ulric_official]

The high speed intercept role will never go away. It doesn’t matter how good your BVR is, it’s useless if you can’t get the launch platform into position in time. Whatever they do come up with, that role simply cannot be filled by B21.

[@ADobbin1]

until someone figures out a way to put AA missiles in the B21 that have a range somewhere around 400km.

[@erasmus_locke]

I've been saying that for years and no one has been listening! It's an air superiority fighter not a ground pounder, and, surprise surprise, enemy airplanes fly a lot faster than cars and tanks can drive. I like this channel a lot but sometimes it's really annoying how Alex misses what the point of air dominance means like what it's actual definition is...

[@ulric_official]

@@erasmus_locke well it’s very much intended to be multi role, supposedly particularly focused on anti-ship, but for most roles you always have scenarios where you still need a platform that gets to where it needs to be much more quickly than a subsonic bomber

[@forfun6273]

Interceptor is intercepting something. If the thing they’re intercepting can defend itself and has long range capability then yeah it’ll negate a high speed interceptor.

[@tomtxtx9617]

Drones and continued upgrades to F-22 fill the niche when you really, really need an intercept. Between those and B-21, NGAD became superfluous.

[@cptnemo20kl]

I can see the push for stealth resulting in a return to Visual-Range dogfighting. If long-range sensors are better and better defeated, opposing planes may end up not being able to engage until within Infrared/Visual Range. It's like in Dune where everyone has shields, and so everyone uses knives.

[@MardukTheSunGodInsideMe]

The programs are never canceled. Just their public information. We've learned this lesson so many times.

[@andy164501]

Your data is excellent. Your execution of the data...superb - love listening to you. So much ENERGY.

[@BMF6889]

I see the solution a bit differently. It's true that the distinction between fighters and downsized bombers is becoming blurred. Current and future fighters will be able to shoot down enemy aircraft and bomb targets. The B-21 will be a bit like a much larger fighter but can still shoot down enemy aircraft and bomb targets. To me is more like the relationship between the Bradley IFV and the Abrams tank. Both can destroy small and large targets but the Bradley is smaller, more maneuverable, and carries less ammunition. The Abram is bigger, stronger, less maneuverable, and carries more ammunition. But together they become a force multiplier. You could eliminate either one, but you lose flexibility and capability. See the NGAD / B-21 debate in a similar way. The NGAD and B-21 can both do similar missions but eliminate one or the other and you lose flexibility and capability, especially if the NGAD cost less and can have more airframes in the fight than the B-21. And one more consideration. My dad was a B-52 pilot and one of my uncles was a fighter pilot who was a double ACE in the Korean War. Their personalities were completely different. My dad was long duration mission to penetrate deep into Soviet territory to deliver nuclear weapons. My uncle was an intensely aggressive fighter pilot who was determined to destroy enemy aircraft with guns during the Korean War and with missiles and guns during the Vietnam War. I think you need both types of personalities to focus on two primary missions that overlap. B-21 crews need to focus on penetrating enemy defenses to address strategic targets but capable of engaging enemy fighters. NGAD pilots need to focus on eliminated enemy fighter defenses but capable of bombing tactical and operational targets. I don't think the Air Force is ready for a one aircraft fits all missions yet. Maybe in 40-60 years from now, but for the foreseeable future I think both fighters and bombers will be critical to success.

[@Edward-op3yc]

I don't think one aircraft can do everything but with R&D costs and production start up costs, we need to get higher numbers of aircraft and slow down on new tech?

[@manticore387]

The problem is in 20 years ALL missions may be relatively long duration missions. Otherwise I generally agree, but I don't actually think the NGAD would really be much smaller than the B-21. Just cheaper and less survivable behind enemy lines. By the time you get to the kind of combat radius that's required, you're already so much bigger with so much fuel, that if you don't significantly increase stealth payload capacity your sorties become much less efficient. The raptor with hardpoints isn't that far behind the B-21's internal capacity anyway, so I think something close to B-21 internal capacity on NGAD is pretty much unavoidable.

[@korana6308]

They are two completely different crafts though. One is a steak knife the other one is a butter knife. Each have their own role that they do best.

[@xanovaria]

The issue is cost.

[@tomshackell]

That is what this video is questioning: let's suppose drone aircraft reach combat readiness in the next 10 years, which looks quite probable. Economically it then makes sense to have most of your aircraft being drones: they're cheaper, they're expendable. So what is now the role of your manned aircraft? Well they sit at the back and control all the drones. Does that need to be a "fighter" aircraft? A fighter sized aircraft will struggle to have the necessary range. Why not have a much larger aircraft: that would give it the needed range and payload? It could have multiple drone operators inside controlling a whole fleet of drone aircraft. The "mothership" and drone swarm could still have the primary mission to destroy enemy aircraft. It's still fighter aircraft destroying enemy fighter aircraft .. it's just that those fighters are AI drones being commanded from a nearby mothership.

[@exposingthedarknesswiththe9190]

A Great Report!!😊

[@texasranger24]

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

[@jaysonpida5379]

Air Force should concentrate on getting the Sentinel ICBM program under control and just wait to see what the Navy rolls out with the FA-XX and take that. They did it before with great success.

[@FloridaManMatty]

Yep. Been beating that drum for a while myself. The days of the individual services needed vastly different hardware to do the same job are coming to an end. It wasn’t such a hot idea when McNamara tried to apply his automotive industrial expertise to the DOD. The technology just wasn’t there in those days. Today though? We have so much proven hardware just waiting to be fielded or scaled up that to do otherwise seems, well…kinda dumb. The technology has advanced to the point that USAFs biggest fighter problem today is a lack of range. A hardware hybrid F-22/F-35 in a larger VLO body would do it.

[@piotrd.4850]

Why not get cannisterised, englarged Trident then?

[@neilstammers8366]

So how does the chinese j36 plays into the ngad program and what it potentially offers ???

[@VarroTigurius-u1f]

Yes!! Someone finally talking about the FB-22! I remember being a young airman back in early 2000s and hearing about the plans for that plane. I had absolutely no idea why they wanted to do something like that back then with the B-2 and B-1 being around.. Wasnt till a few years ago when I came to understand how planes work/fly that I realized how cool an idea the FB-22 was!

[@KRGruner]

Excellent analysis.

[@deusexaethera]

As soon as we stop building the best fighters in the world, you can bet your ass other countries will exploit that. Our fighters are what make other fighters obsolete; other fighters will stop being obsolete the second we stop making our own.

[@PureAmericanPatriot]

I totally agree that the tactical high ground is everything. 40-60k feet used to be it for air combat. However, I’m starting to think that Starship’s advanced payload capacity, maneuverability, reusability (economics), and other factors may make it the future of advanced air combat. What if you had both inert but hypersonic smart bombs on board or released as satellite constellations combined with hypersonic anti-aircraft missels that can re-enter atmosphere. What about advanced space based lasers that are quickly becoming a thing. The new tactical high ground is low-Earth orbit. Rocket reusability is changing everything.

[@tomshackell]

I agree that the role of a "fighter" won't go away, but what if those fighters no longer need to be manned? What if the only manned aircraft is a bomber sized "mothership" sat at the back controlling a fleet of AI fighter drones. It would still be "our" fighters fighting "their" fighters .. but our fighters are AI drones rather than manned aircraft. That is the vision of the the USAF report this video was describing.

[@北方的纳努克]

不是你们停止建造的问题，是你们不停止也依旧被中国超过的问题😂

[@user-McGiver]

@@北方的纳努克 Hey grasshopper!... Haven't you learned never to believe the ''white devils''... They say one thing, and they do another... I bet they have already extraterrestrial technology on their hands... did they warn anybody before dropping the bomb on Hiroshima?... did they warn the Germans before landing in Normandy?... They always hold a big stick behind their back... and move their hands around to make you look away...

[@accountantthe3394]

The question to ask is: Does US have enough money to fund these programs? If not, why?

[@Pympjuice2010]

Another great AirPower video. Thank you!

[@geoffreywardle2162]

Enlightening video as always, with some very good points.👍

[@ryanhenderson4395]

The Air Force should just go with the Navy F/A-xx and the B21. Combined with the F-35 block 4, thats a formidable combo. No need for NGAD when the NAVY plane is able to operate in less than ideal conditions.

[@brenthegarty3922]

Agreed. This is my thought too. Make enough B-21's that you aren't afraid to risk them in combat. Make it a B/A-21. It's super long range and super stealthy. Doesn't have to be fast if they can't see it to intercept.

[@MrGriff305-d3u]

Also, upgrade all F-22s in existence with modern electronics and stealth fuel tanks

[@bixudiwon6363]

B21 fly like a turtle.

[@tomtxtx9617]

@@MrGriff305-d3u Already in the works. The AF NGAD effort is effectively dead (unless resurrected politically), replaced by B-21 and continued F-22 upgrades.

[@MrGriff305-d3u]

@tomtxtx9617 True.. Good plan for now

[@Tube_America]

Nice footage of Luke AFB and the surrounding area!

[@tonywhite8162]

The whole argument that the US is behind on hypersonic technology is crazy to me. Doesn't anyone remember we built, tested, and flew a manned hypersonic platform in the 50s. 1st to answer what was the first NASA airframe gets a gold star.

[@colinbrown9017]

Not so much the argument that we’re behind on hypersonics. We have multiple weapons and even aircraft being designed and fielded. The problem is that after fighting asymmetric wars in the Middle East for so long, the military gave up its ability to shoot down advanced missiles since the enemy didn’t have any. Now we don’t have the interceptors that can take down maneuvering boost glide vehicles, whereas if we had stayed focused on near peer conflicts the whole time we wouldn’t be playing technological catch up. The US has always been the first to field the most advanced systems, except when we get distracted on fruitless multiyear long wars like Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan. This is the result of that.

[@tonywhite8162]

@colinbrown9017 you make an excellent point. I can respond with a cliche, "Do you really think we spend $200 on a hammer, $500 on a toilet seat?"

[@inoculateinoculate9486]

Isn't it crazy to think that the Space Shuttle, a program which has come and gone, was a maneuverable, hypersonic reentry vehicle which could house a significant payload, land precisely on a dime, and the only limitations were that it had to house and protect a crew of astronauts. If you just had the same technology, but replaced the crew cabin with a self-guiding electronics suite, and the payload bay with explosives and tungsten fragments, you could have your hypersonic weapon using 1980's systems. It's absurd when people say the US is behind in hypersonic technology when this stuff was created while the millenial generation wasn't even born.

[@jade7631]

I’d wager you’re referring to the X-15. Sure it was fast, but that would be like saying the US had F-22s in the 70s just because both the F-4 used in the 70s and the F-22 have two engines wings and a cockpit. All the X-15 was is just a rocket attached to a plane. If you’re going to use X-15 as an example,you may very well just say rockets used for space are hypersonic technology. It is a very different dynamic.

[@voivode2591]

It was much more than a rocket attached to an airplane. It wasn’t an airplane at all. It was the first truly hypersonic aircraft. Airplanes do not have reaction thrusters. The only thing attached was extra fuel tanks in later flights. It defined the limits of materials and processes for flight beyond mach 5.

[@grb4944]

Alex, you and your team have consistently produced extremely well researched reports. Bravo. At least for the foreseeable future, there will be a need for manned fighter aircraft, not even necessarily stealthy, for a wide variety of missions. Strategic deterrence, at least in part, relies upon the operational flexibility afforded by tactical air platforms. Hence the Navy will still float carriers simply because of the political effect that a carrier brings to an AOR. That being said, the issue really boils down to available and survivable tanker support. Platforms like the F-15EX fill this capability niche well, and will do so for some time. But the AF has a tanker problem to solve, and with everything else going on, it doesn’t have to budget to do it all at the levels of the Cold War. The qualities afforded by capacity and numerical advantage are going to be ever more increasingly difficult to manage. Which makes me think that the future AF will rely upon more and more unmanned systems to levy numbers in a fight in addition to continuing to fly older systems like the B-52 and 4th gen ++ well past when anyone expects them to be flying. Lastly, looking at the current conflict in Ukraine, both sides are very reluctant to engage in direct manned aircraft v aircraft combat, as neither can afford to lose one, both psychologically and fiscally. There are simply too few; they are too expense and time consuming to produce, and it takes too long to train a new pilot.

[@chronus4421]

Thanks Alex! Can you do a video on the first manned vehicle the US Space Force might use?

[@Echowhiskeyone]

Sounds like this is an evolution of the GCCS(Global Command and Control System). Which was working at a fusion of all services for battlefield management. My GCCS class had Navy, Army and Air Force members, discussing how all branches can work and fight together. This was over 20 years ago. Interesting to see how this is playing out.

[@therealfearsome]

I believe that the problem with BVR fighting is that as near-pear stealth improves the detection and tracking range gets shorter to the point of not detecting your target until the merge and then the surprise dogfight is on, long range missiles are great if you can lock your target, but if you can't even track them at BVR that leaves you with a knife fight and B21's won't last long in that envelope

[@xanovaria]

You need to rethink the world's ISR capabilities and that of off-boresight missiles like AIM-9X.

[@larryc1616]

That's why the J36 has 3 engines with a ramjet for hypersonic escape

[@voidtempering8700]

​@@larryc1616There is no evidence that what you just said is true, nor would it make sense. Its shape alone wouldn't be good for hypersonic speed.

[@YSKWatch]

​@@voidtempering8700 it will fly above 20km, with less atmosphere it can fly faster.

[@voidtempering8700]

@@YSKWatch There is no source for these claims as their is no official information about the aircraft.

[@JoeB1207]

Air dominance is like battlefield dominance or close air support. The survivability of all platforms is seriously threatened. Tanks are still needed, as are fighters and close air support. They will all be things.

[@bpora01]

The air force has gone through this several times in the past. The B-58 is a classic example of changing technology making a good airframe irrelevant. This time the problem has expressed itself before the airframe went into production and while planners can sit back and rethink the strategy.

[@TheMilpitasguy]

Alex --> since I can't seem to get a straight answer anywhere else, can you cover THAAD effectiveness in Israel, vis a vis missiles fired versus targets destroyed with those missiles?

[@avogatro]

Why not build more stealth tankers? sounds like an easy solution for me. Does the Navy already have stealth unmanned tankers? MQ-25A

[@aneececolt]

That was my immediate dumb-guy idea

[@APANAFRANKLINETINOH]

Yeah! New advanced variants are available.

[@Sir_Godz]

i was thing this years ago for the B2

[@timblack33]

I just wonder how small of an RCS you could get with an aircraft hooked up tanking even if both platforms were stealthy. I imagine two stealthy profiles that close together might not be as stealthy as each platform separately.

[@RT804]

This is how the entire military needs to be thinking after lessons learned in Ukraine. Improve what you have. The Bradley replacement is a perfect example. The thing still shreds with high survivability. Along with the replacement program, they have quietly been developing improvements to the Bradley using an unmanned turret that allows for much or what a new build would offer. That would mean a $10 billion upgrade cost vs a 'projected' $45 billion replacement cost. If you ask a Ukrainian what they need on the line it's not a new, heavier rifle with a cool optic (although the optic should be fielded), the M4/M16 and other 5.56 rifles are fine. They want more artillery, Brads, drones, electronic warfare, and hand grenades. Lots of hand grenades. All the hand grenades.

[@jfiery]

I'm a little bit confused because once upon a time that Tomcat cost almost 300 million dollars a piece adjusted for inflation. Yet at that time we could not only buy Tomcats but also f-15s, f-16, f18, and we had F-117 and B2 in development. This was all going on while we also were building up our ICBM Fleet as well as as the b1. But today, we can't do anything. The problem is it the money the problem is that our defense acquisition programs have completely gone off the rails. Of course then, there was competition amongst manufacturers, as well as at least a modicum of patriotism amongst those same corporations. Also at that time most people paid their taxes. Corporations, rich people, not just us morons in the middle and lower class. At least the nation's Lord and savior is back in office. I'm sure any day now will find out that this is all been solved. I'd even delayed by a day or two the free gas and groceries that are inevitably on their way as well. World peace is just around the corner as well because we are now feared and respected by the rest of the world.

[@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?!

[@nefomore9958]

The answer is an arsenal platform - something akin to the Old Dog idea - make the missiles smart and the platform stealthy. Keep some manned/elite style knife fight fighters for special operations where needed but a wider strategic A to A platform works. (although maybe I'm just a die hard Dale Brown fan....)

[@cturdo]

Defense appropriations has always been a cluster. I am more concerned about auditing and accounting for budgets than projected totals. Spend the money for advanced weapons and use that technology in other industries as well.

[@rtyrsson]

As much as I enjoy your videos, and especially your analysis, much of the technicals fly over my head. That said, I do learn a lot in the process. It becomes less "speaking Greek" as the days go by. Thank you, Alex.

[@RTPJu]

I remember a video (maybe in this channel) talking that some folks at the USAF requested that the 6th-GEN to not be about a fighter with better performance, but one like a 5th-GEN that costs less than a 4.5th-GEN... that the challenge would not be to develop the airplane, but to make a more efficient industry plus a more optimized fighter project focused on it's faster and cheaper manufacturing as priority. That's because this hole NGAD stuff works better with a video game than with the military financial, no matter the country you're talking about

[@paladin0654]

It would be interesting for you do an analysis about the Navy's requirement for a 6th gen fighter. The USN really doesn't have a choice about acquiring a new platforms with more range: without the new jets, carriers lose their relevance. Might there be a case for a "21st. Century Phantom" used by all services?

[@bradleysandberg7756]

Don't give them another dime until they can pass an audit

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

I think the most cost-effective answer is something like: cancel the NGAD program completely, dramatically increasing the B-21 order, and work on an F-35 upgrade package that adds adaptive cycle engines, low observable shoulder tanks, a more heat-resistant stealth coating, and the required inlet bleed doors for supercruise. the B-21 can fill a lot of what the NGAD wants to do, and increasing its order volume would be extremely cost-effective. an upgraded F-35 would also manage most of the NGAD's notional capabilities from the other side, also extremely cost-effectively, be inherently carrier-capable, and with the new engine maybe even still STOVL capable. An F-35 upgrade package would also be exportable to keep the rest of the American lead coalition relevant, while a notional NGAD would probably get the F-22 treatment. If you wanted to be extra ambitious, I can see an argument for working on a new version of the old B-1R proposals because even if it's not as stealthy as a proper stealth bomber, it should be reasonably priced and a supercruising intercontinental bomber with a

[@bright5801]

Fighters need to be fast for interceptions and policing. B21 team should be proud that its even being considered

[@christopherrasnick8535]

A carrier without its strike group is like a spider without its web dangerous but vulnerable. Both NGAD and the B21 have the potential to be that spider in the air forces web of multirole fighters and UAVs.

[@3d1e00]

Any near peer (China) conflict (Taiwan) will involve them taking as much ground and holding it within the response window of the USA and allies. As soon as they've ran out of time they will then turn it in to a game of chicken where they will not engage the USA/allies unless engaged first. Thus the whole thing stalls and they get what they want (Taiwan). The whole game is now so expensive we are in a defacto dreadnought 2.0 era. No near peer opponents will fight because all engagements cost way too much. So the only game now is deterrence. And that deterrence is simply putting friendly troops in the expected line of fire so the opponent simply won't risk a full engagement. The only way to actually win now is destabilising the social fabric of your opponent. And that doesn't require any of this. And I really don't think we in the west are seeing this at all.

[@tbe0116]

10000%. Neither side can afford a full scale war. And the US public isn’t going to support a war where we fire first. Besides. China is the industrial power now. They would easily outlast us. To your point though, they are doing a great job in the propaganda war. A war most people are unaware is happening.

[@timblack33]

Finally someone gets it

[@danielch6662]

The lions always win. Your herd of zebra will have to be always on alert. The lion picks a time, and attack the distracted zebra. You can station 1,000 troops in Taiwan, but China only needs to wait for a President who can be bribed, an isolationist one, or one distracted with some other problem or disaster somewhere else. They need to win only once. The way they win is to not fight the US. This was what happened to Artsakh. And nobody in the world even knew a Christian nation was defeated in a blitzkrieg, and it's population evicted from the land they have been living in for a thousand years. Are you surprised if I told you this happened in September 2023 when we were distracted with other stuff?

[@oompalumpus699]

_This is the same discussion I had with some anons online. A conventional war between first-world powers would be just too destructive._ _However, if you have a roadmap of 20-40 years and your mission is to weaken your rival nation, then social destabilization would be the better weapon. Far lower cost too even if you need more time._ _For example, if your opponent has a strong military, then you can spend two decades promoting pacifist sentiments amongst the populace of your rival nation and you can then have this escalate to defunding their military to near-uselessness a few years later._

[@3d1e00]

@oompalumpus699 it is text book sun Tzu. Know yourself, know your opponent. The massive weakness they have is pretty much every neighbour they have would benefit from China declining. It's a odd attribute of their foreign policy and completely at odds with the European way of war. It may simply be arrogance, something to exploit though.

[@likwidchris]

@14:20 OMG I'm pretty sure we had that exact CRT TV when I was a kid.

[@MrMrrome]

Adaptive cycle engines will fix the range issues

[@xanovaria]

We don't know that. Their offset in weight may just give them the same range with an added capability for high mach for a certain percentage of that flight envelope.

[@AIOLiveby]

Beautiful Summary!

[@erasmus_locke]

All this fear of what our adversaries MIGHT be able to do is crippling our decision making ability.

[@freyatilly]

Mr Enthusiast on a high again. Thank you for the great update/intel.

[@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.

[@ryszardfalkowski7917]

Is the XM-30 an IFV? Thought I saw a video on them?

[@lobsypobsy]

Alex please make a video on this topic. I'm sick of seeing texasranger24 post the same comment over and over again.

[@TheHk1966]

@Texasranger24. Wrong topic dude. This channel is dedicated to AirPower not land power. Please find a more appropriate channel to post your request. Your repeated duplicate requests seemingly smack of someone with something to gain from attention to this requested topic. Also, honestly, I’m really tired of seeing your off topic request posted in the comments for every single video. Thank you for consideration.

[@bgshin2879]

An excellent edition yet again. Here are my 2 thoughts. 1. Which would be a better offensive platform 2. Which would be a better defensive platform B21 certainly offers better range and ISR capabilities suitable for more long range offensive role, NGAD would offer a formidable defensive capability. For example, if an adversary is to take an aggressive action against one of US’s base in ally nation, would B21 be a better platform to defend or NGAD would be better?

[@kyee7k]

NGAD is basically a mini stealth B-1.

[@stevemansfield3449]

The B-1 isn't a Stealth Aircraft.

[@kyee7k]

@@stevemansfield3449 There were concept designs on upgrading B-1B to stealth B-1R in the late 90s and early 2000s. But that process would probably be far more expensive than designing a stealth B-1 bomber from the start.

[@donchaput8278]

A lot of things point to a 7th gen or maybe even a 6th gen "fighter" being much more of a a "bomber". Stealth, Standoff and Range are the kings of the future planes

[@b.griffin317]

Obvious question: If the NGAD-or-whatever mothership is to have 2k+ mile range and be surrounded by Loyal Wingman drones, how large/expensive must the drones be to achieve similar ranges? After a while, doesn't it begin to all merge together?

[@aneececolt]

yeah, and if your drone is too good, it's probably too expensive to lose, and we're back where we started, with insufficient mass versus China.

[@shenmisheshou7002]

My own speculation is that it has to be about as big as the Chinese J-36, which I think is intended to be a drone queen, controlling up to 50 FH-97 drones equipped for anti-ship operations. 10 JJ-36s controlling 500 FN-97s can fully saturate a US Carrier strike group, which only carries about 420 surface to air missiles. Once the missiles are depleted, a couple of YJ-21s would finish the carrier itself. People laughed at the size of the J-36, but if you heard the video, the Air Force recognizes that the F-35 is all but useless against an evolving Chinese air force capability, and it is a fantasy to think that the F-35 can stay in service until 2086. We will have to cut the size of the F-35 program in half, and the sooner the US realizes this, the better. They can buy 6000 XQ-58 stealth drones for the cost of one year of F-35 production. (I also believe that the new Chinese carrier that everyone is puzzled about is the drone airport that will bring the drones within range of the carrier strike group and recover any drones that were not shot down.) The US put all of its eggs in a 25 year old stealth design with limited capabilities much better suited to fighting countries like Iran and Iraq and maybe a war with Russia, but I don't think Russia will ever attack a NATO country. No US Fighter has shot down a Russian or Chinese operated aircraft since 1970. We build these expensive planes, and they are only ever used against second world powers.

[@tomshackell]

Not necessarily: you can have the mothership refuel the drones .. or have drones whose primary purpose is to carry fuel for other drones.

[@b.griffin317]

@@shenmisheshou7002 But does the XQ-58 how the range?

[@shenmisheshou7002]

@@b.griffin317 3000 nautical miles, 5.600km.

[@Nondas8552]

Could the 'thing' that the ngad would offer be some sort of super effective countermeasures to missiles? something in the form of energy weapons that would have unlimited 'ammo' and need a very big aircraft to be housed in. then ngad would be able to protect its drones that would be carrying the actual missiles. maybe if the ngad also had very advanced electronic warfare and sensors, then those sensors and e/w could reach places that the b-21 wouldnt have access to. like others mentioned, maybe the ngad should start as a base skeleton of a very stealthy and large aircraft (great range and speed) and add the f-35's capabilities and when those previous technologies like energy weapons mature, add those to the base skeleton. basically have a more modular design of similar specs (stealth, range, supercruise) and more maneuverability than a bomber but less that the f-35.

[@C.VernonLewis]

As a neophyte to strategic thinking; would not a overall strategic air dominance solution be coordination of an enhanced carrier based F/A-XX into battle management kill chain facilitate the expense problem and enhance operational capability of fighters and bombers.

[@HandleHandled]

😂 I’m responding before actually watching the video… my answer? ACTUALLY GETTING BUILT 😂😂😂😂

[@acarrillo8277]

I am of the strong opinion that the USAF should just let the USN develop their NGAD and buy that plane after they are done. Worked for the F-4 and the A-7. Yes I know it was at McNamara's behest that the USAF got the F-4.

[@ypw510]

McNamara also brought us the TFX program.

[@shenmisheshou7002]

The Navy can't afford their NGAD. The Air Force can't either. The F-35 program and for the Air Force, the B21/F-35, have soaked up the entire budget for aircraft. The NGAD isn't really the right aircraft for the Navy though because carriers are too vulnerable to drone swarms and they will not be able to operate close enough to China to be much good. The Navy has never used its carriers against a Tier 1 opponent, and it should simply recognize that it is best suited to battles against lower tier opponents, and stock up with more traditional fighter/attach aircraft for wars like the Gulf war.

[@jetli740]

ngad estimate over 300m a piece that is very expensive to lose in battle . and exactly how many can u build at that price

[@dzmach74]

This is a good point ... why isn't the development and strategy more coordinated and holistic? Would be much more cost-effective ...

[@BARelement]

We saw how that worked out in Vietnam.

[@mrgustavoperez]

May a couple of the older B2 can be reconfigured as tankers to extend current fleet mission ranges

[@hunnybunnysheavymetalmusic6542]

And thus... The F-15 EX continues to be the greatest bird to ever fly.

[@DragonsinGenesisPodcast]

You have to be joking.

[@navret1707]

Don’t let The Kid hear you say that.

[@korana6308]

The Su30/ Su35 is much better than the F15.

[@slavicspider7762]

​@@korana6308in what way?

[@Team6OWG]

Might be the dumbest thing I ever heard. The J-16 is already better.

[@markmitchell5220]

I'm with you, Alex. If the NGAD is as good as it should be we have to keep pushing that envelope. I still can't get over how good the Raptor is...

[@blurglide]

Wouldn't we better off with some kind of B-21 mothership with many crew members if the wingmen are the ones who're actually delivering the weapons?

[@dapete1091]

Non-recurring engineering (NRE) costs is what drives the final per aircraft cost. The F22 & F35 per aircraft cost wasn’t much different from each other in the early days of development. The F22 advertised cost was so high because so few were built.

[@texasranger24]

4:44 if you already know about ground news and wish to skip the ad

[@hoghogwild]

thank you.

[@korana6308]

especially because what he is saying in it's ad is bs.

[@FarțResidue]

why not have f35s refitted as tankers? it can already deploy that towed radar thing, as well as wing pylons with fuel tanks. all it would require is installation of fuel probe on NGAD

[@AvocadoAfficionado]

USAF : Mom, can we have NGAD? Congress : We have NGAD at home. NGAD at home : [F35 block 4] [B-21] USAF : Oh yeah we do

[@christopherwalls2763]

Great job Alex

[@nekomakhea9440]

Maybe if multimode engines that can transition to ramjet mode enter serial production, NGAD could justify its existence. Hermeus Chimera can do Mach 5-ish, NASA is testing a dual mode rotating detonation engine that could go up to Mach 10. That's much more of a performance boost than just supercruise. Otherwise USAF might have to settle for using Navy's NGAD.

[@xanovaria]

Hermeus' Chimera is as yet non-tested, even on the scale model Quarterhorse. It works, *in theory*. They have a lab setup with an old off the shelf jet turbine and still need to turn that into to a fully functional combined cycle powerplan that is tested at mach 5+ in darkhorse. Going from that to a model that fits in a preconceived airframe is a 5-10 year ask - and that's IF they had a fully functional testbed model already. What you're talking about is 15 years away.

[@Zulu4impi]

​@@xanovariaAt current developmental speed baring catrostphic failure the Darkhorse looks to be 3-5 years from maturity. Halcion is the 8-10 years projected maturity. The issues seem to be thermal integrity at +5 mach related to material science manufacturing for large scale craft.

[@jeremyhall349]

Be cool to see another one of those concepts of aircraft videos.

[@gregoryspring1303]

Where does the SR 72 fit into NGAD

[@rayreyes977]

Spying satellite

[@korana6308]

SR72 doesn't exist. But if it were to exist. It's an interceptor, that can do reconnaissance too and perhaps precision strikes. It's not really something to consider strategically but rather some limited tactical use like the F117.

[@maleprincess62]

​@@korana6308SR72 absolutely exists.

[@gregoryspring1303]

I'm not convinced that the 72 doesn't exist. The 71 didn't exist either. They DID have an A 12 that could carry nukes. The F 106 also carried a few nukes. They are working on a craft that can put munitions on any target on the planet in an hour or so.

[@gregoryspring1303]

They can't always put a satellite on a site in time. It is outrageously expensive to relocate a satalite.

[@RedSinter]

This is like the destruction of the production line for the F-22 for the F-35 and then finding they needed them. And now we have the "new" Hypersonic long range pulse engine missiles specifically designed to take out B-21 Raider.

[@stevesoltysiak1161]

Luv this show, but I’m not sure you are giving the latest range of the Only stealth fighter F-22. The new fuel just developed is supposed to extend ranges by 40%

[@tkmmkt6569]

Source on that?? Never heard that before…

[@maleprincess62]

You mean the new drop tanks?

[@numeristatech]

Internet has corrupted me. I see NGAD. Brain sees GONAD.

[@jhubb903]

Is there a bigger problem other than it won’t be ready before our military needs it?

[@xanovaria]

Cheap, Fast, Good. If we want it to be relatively cheaper and good, no.

[@pastorrich7436]

I agree and have said it before. FB-21 to the rescue! I could even see it in NAVY service as a land-based multi-role platform.

[@RavenRunFoxRoam]

B21 is subsonic Alex. A slow lumbering albeit low observable platform doesn't sound like the answer.

[@ravissary79]

Trouble is, so are all the drone options too. Only the Fury MIGHT be faster, but it's not stealthy either.

[@jajssblue]

NGAD vs. B21 is more a question of dash vs. loiter capabilities. Both will attempt to be low observable and higher capacity than 5th Gen fighters. You could argue NGAD gives you manuverabilty which will probably be true, but with missiles being primary offense and defense, it's less of a priority like guns have been relegated to the past. Dogfights shouldn't really happen anymore. Dash gives you prompt responses to unexpected situations. But that can probably be solved better through missiles having those capabilities rather than the planes themselves. So I think it's more of a difficult choice than one might expect on the face of it. I hope NGAD goes forward, even if it's ultimately the last of its kind. Just because I think it's good insurance around the uncertainty of the future.

[@randytessman6750]

It isnt about how fast you get to the fight anymore, its about not being seen by the enemy till its to late for them to stop you.

[@randalcroshaw8202]

Alex, you make you make very good points about what capabilities may be required to engage an enemy near or over their territory (advantage "bomber"). Which makes me wonder, what would we need to defend our own territory (not something that we've really had to do in a long time). Would "fighters" retain an advantage in a defensive role, or fleet protection, where range and support may not be so much of an issue?

[@Jeff55369]

The b21 is quite a bit more expensive than the ngad, that doesn't seem like a great substitute.

[@deadlydays3401]

i mean if you are supplementing with CCA's, that seems manageable possibly? maybe b21 in higher production would make it cost effective enough? you still have F35's and navy fighters, if CCA's turn into your air superiority weapon, backed by b21's, could work by having the range, stealth, and capacity to fill the air with enough air to air missiles to counter swarms of chinese fighters/etc or shoot down swarms of missiles. A lot of that comes down to effectiveness of future missiles and the CCA's themselves in the mid 2030's when they would be active in force, it'd prob turn out fine.

[@IDBTitanosaurus]

ITs actually cost effective to use the B21 and F22 in tandem, While using the B1B running Decoy all over the West Pacific targeting maritime shipping of the Enemy... ....MMmmmmm we actually could take a little break from being so far ahead in military technology, and just figure out how to make a "cheaper" f22 at this point.

[@manticore387]

Yah, I wonder if this could be resolved with a combination of scale from a much larger production order and a variant with slightly reduced capabilities. B-21 is I think intended for survivability behind enemy lines entirely on its own, so there may be an opportunity for compromise there that reduces some high dollar components. Still, I think supercruise is likely something that really is important. In that case the right solution IS indeed a new modular airframe with supercruise, probably with the best low cost next gen stealth available (better than F-22 but not as extreme as B-21) and essentially the F-35 electronics suite. If NGAD airframe requirements with F-35 electronics were achievable at 2.5x the unit cost of the F-35, I think that would be a win. Given the pace of AI and electronics development, I really don't see how we can get away with NOT creating an open source modular airframe simply to accommodate electronics and software upgrades more easily.

[@hoghogwild]

@@IDBTitanosaurus In the 80's B-52 got the ability to carry Harpoon anti ship missiles, this mission now uses the AGM-158C LRASM(Long Range Anti Ship Missile). B-52 can carry 12 under the wings and 8 more in the 8 missile rotary launcher in the bomb bay.. B-1B can perform the same mission with more missiles and is more stealthy with 1% the radar return of the B-52. It can load an 8 shot rotary launcher in each of its 3 bomb bays. 24 stealth cruise missiles all internally carried. Boeing has a new adjustable pylon system that attaches to the existing external carriage points on the bottom of the fuselage. That would be 32 AGM-158A JASSM or 32 AGM-158C LRASM or a mixture of the 2. the B-1B has been wittled down to 45 airframes and are undergoing modifications to allow it to serve until 2049 or whenever the B-21 Raider has reached Full Operational Capability(FOC) B-2 Spirit will be retired then as well. The good old B-52H's will go under the knife and get new Rolls Royce engines and a new variant, the B-52J.

[@Tiberix1256]

I suggest that they start with a much larger engine. Instead of 155kn thrust (like the f-22s Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100), you need something with at least 300kn of thrust. You take two of these engines and built a fighter around it. With a max take-off weight of 100 tons or so, you're going to have an operational radius of >2000miles.

[@robf8349]

Seems too much these days to try and pack everything into one system. I feel like the way to go is with a family of stealth air systems each with dedicated roles. A stealth tanker, a stealth missile truck with limited avionics, a stealth sensor and jammer, and a stealth drone deploy system that can throw out some decoys to soak up enemy missiles. Throw a squadron together with 2-3 of each and they can together be very very hard to deal with. And you can phase in autonomous deployment, with the easier (i.e. tanker) system going autonomous first

[@manticore387]

The thing is, long range very stealthy airframes are REALLY expensive. The first 1 lb payload capacity is the most expensive. So by the time you get there, it's almost always going to be more cost effective to just make it a bit bigger and combine things than keep them separate. The cheapest approach is probably to design a single airframe with the range, speed and stealth you need, provide a large internal payload capacity, and have modular payload systems for different missions.

[@robf8349]

@@manticore387 Agreed. To be clear a semi modular family of systems is what I was proposing in my original comment. The master of all trades approach just seems to be at the breaking point when it comes to 6th gen systems. Hence the B-21 comparison of the video because to have the fuel needed, the internal space for modern missiles like the AIM-174, and the radars, avionics, and sensors you essentially need a bomber sized system. But this strikes me as having more drawbacks than the video shows including limited existing airfield infrastructure to support stealth bombers, and being incompatible with our carrier force. Instead, with a family of systems based on a common platform of reasonable size you could generate the same capabilities in a way that they could be carrier based with the added benefit that losing a single airframe isn't as calamitous as losing a 800 million dollar bomber.

[@manticore387]

@@robf8349 I don't think there's any near future in which the Air Force and Navy will be sharing planes again. I don't think current tech allows for a sufficient quantity of carrier operable aircraft which also have the combat radius requirement to meet the air force's needs. Carriers are WAY less vulnerable than stationary air fields. I"m with you on the $800 million bomber. I agree. I think something closer to $200 million should be the goal. The F-35 is less than $100 million, largely due to production volume, and has many of the electronics capabilities needed. I therefore think that's probably doable with basically a super sized F-35 with a more stealthy profile (no vertical tail wings), no need to accommodate a carrier-capable variant, and the budget version of next gen stealth coatings (better than F-22, but no need to go as far as the B-21). In the short term, using open source architecture with something close to F-35 systems would reduce the project scope to basically just the airframe, which could hopefully be done for around $100 million additional cost per plane.

[@MrBlackdragon1230]

As much as the NGAD concept has been a great sounding capability, after watching this video I could see instead the AF using the B-21, SR-72 to be the primary stealth battle management platforms while F-35 is closer range stealth support craft all controlling CCA's and then F-15EX, C-5, C-17 bringing up the rear just being missile trucks for the stealth aircraft to call missiles from.

[@jckluckhohn]

So you’re really saying we need a B1 C with all new electronics. Improved stealth, and Mach 3 capability and air to air missiles and stealth drone capability???

[@chaosfenix]

I can definitely see the argument and am kinda leaning that way anyway. I mean instead of making a fighter airframe that can dogfight we might be better off making a long range missile that could dogfight. A missile, with it's smaller mass is going to be much more maneuverable than any aircraft that it could be placed against. If we are moving to a platform where pilots are simply in the aircraft missile truck then it might be worth looking into doing something like adapting the JASSM-ER or XR for this task You wouldn't need the 1000lb warhead so you could free up some volume there. You also may not need the 1000 mile range of the JASM-XR. You would need more or bigger control surfaces to allow for much tighter turns but given you don't have a pilot to worry about you aren't limited by how many Gs a human could survive in maneuvers. I think you would also need to change it's propulsion. The motor on the JASSM is designed for efficiency which is great but if this is going to be a fighter missile you would need something that could allow speeds greater than mach 2. Prioritizing performance in the engine is going to sacrifice some of the range but given we are starting with 1000 miles here that will probably be fine. Along with that you may even want to have solid rocket boosters that could be fired at the very end of its flight path for a boost of speed that would make it faster and harder to avoid. Maybe enough to get it up to around mach 4 like the AMRAAM. Critically you would need computers/guidance systems that could allow this missile to actually close with, out maneuver, and eventually destroy an enemy aircraft. It may be a tall order but even if this system cost 2x what the already expensive JASM-ER cost then we would be looking at a fighter missile that cost around $3M. Not cheap but it also may be cheaper than having to fund the NGAD.

[@nicholaidajuan865]

At $600million for each B21 bomber compared to a projected $300million for each NGAD fighter, I can think of at least one reason for continuing to develop the new fighter even if the only other advantage is the ability to super-cruise

[@Sir_Godz]

with 20 times the payload and range

[@spartancrown]

You’re basically saying you'd rather spend $900m instead of $600m

[@mactwentytwentyfour]

the cost is due to the low production #'s. The more they make, the lower that B-21 figure gets. If the Air Force decided to just dump that other $20B into B-21, they'd probably have 500 of them. (not actually, but you get the idea) That was the whole point he made about the F-35 initially costing $200M / aircraft. Its at about $80M now

[@RT804]

In an era where stealth refuelers will be hugely utilized in a near-peer war, I think we can fund the Raider program fully and wait on a true 6th gen airframe. Keep developing more advanced refuelers, and they are. Keep improving existing airframes, an they are. Even the old F-16 is getting deadlier still with block 70, and block 80 will make it 75% of what a 5th gen fighter is, or more. The F-18 block 3 improves a lot, including range. And the B-21 is going to be a workhorse. It's not just theoretical. It will take jobs away from fighters. We ended up with less than 1/4 of the B-2's they wanted but I think the B-21 really will reach 100 built and they are looking to leverage that in ways we haven't thought of.

[@nicholaidajuan865]

@ for $900 you would then have 2 planes. Spending $600 mill would get you one B21. In my experience 2 planes is better than 1. The USAF could buy 2 B21's for $1.2bill, but that would be $300mill more expensive. So yes spend $900 mill for 2 planes, as the airforce tends to buy more than 1 or 2 planes at a time. A mixed fleet of expensive, and really expensive planes may end up cheaper than a mix of only really expensive planes? Or is logic just hard ?

[@icare7151]

Going down the SDA rabbit hole of out going Tournear gives some surprising data nuggets that gives insights into the future direction the Pentagon is moving towards and thus suggest some missing pieces in the NGAD on hold puzzle.

[@StEvEn-dp1ri]

Aren't the drones that accompany this new invisioned fighter/bomber going to be fraught with the same limitations as any craft they're flying with when it comes to combat radius? How are they going to fly the ranges needed if they don't have the fuel capacity?

[@dzmach74]

Good point. They'd need to be launched from another "quarterback" platform ... and perhaps be essentially disposable.

[@eileenbauer5266]

Could you do something like several popup vertical stabilizers? Only popup when you need the manuevability and laying down when it's not needed

[@PvtPartzz]

Shutting down F22 production has to be one of the most shortsighted decisions our government has ever made. If the B21 is to be used as a missile bus in air to air combat, the B21 will have to get after burning engines and the structural reinforcements to handle supersonic speeds and maneuvers. Perhaps we’ll see retractable vertical stabilizers for cases where the pilot needs maneuverability over stealth

[@jimdale9143]

This was interesting. I was pretty skeptical of the premise stated in the beginning, but if you think about it we are revisiting in a modern context an air combat question from WW2. Can bombers defend themselves without fighter escort? In an era of machine guns and cannons the answer was no. In an era of guided missiles the questions become: (1) Is stealth really good enough? and (2) Are active defenses adequate when you have sacrificed maneuverability? In the case of stealth, a technological innovation that defeats it leaves you helpless without active measures. In the case of active air defense against missiles it is an open question affecting all of the services, land, sea and air. It looks like the Air Force is going toward a combination of both plus improved long range missiles on our own aircraft. Will this lead to one sided battles with superior technology winning or to slugging matches between groups of aircraft at range with missiles?

[@gregoryspring1303]

How does the aircraft that can attack any spot on earth in 1 hr, SR 72?

[@joshuafischer684]

The thing that doesn't exist?

[@NOC1TIME]

Hey. 1960s covers of Popular Mechanics magazines. Actually here to see it.

[@ckennedy444]

I'm convened concerned that we're making a similar mistake to the one we made with the F4 during Vietnam where it was determined that since missiles were the future, guns and dog fighting were obsolete. We're doing that again giving up maneuverability and dog fighting due to our faith in stealth.

[@jeffherndon]

I was going to say the same thing but let me add the second part to why that happened. Then you add in politics where they make the rules of engagement where you have to physically see the other jet and now you need that maneuverability, speed, and yes the gun. That’s a bad mistake to do it again.

[@thelemon2764]

From what I've seen in Ukraine, almost all air engagements that weren't fighters shooting drones/cruise missiles have been beyond visual range. A huge advantage russia has had has been its ability to keep Ukrainian aircraft flying low to avoid radar, and being able to lob missiles from high altitude. Aircraft are consistently engaging targets from the very edge of their targeting ranges. This edge is where stealth shines.

[@jkg6211]

Think Swiss Army knife... it may be adequate for simple tasks, but it doesn't excel at any one task. Period. (Sorry Victorinox) We need stealth, and we also need maneuverability, IMHO. Is they're truly a need to combine the two?

[@CognitiveDissonance2.0]

New jets will be more command and control vehicules. The drones under its command will do the dog fight

[@inoculateinoculate9486]

Modern jet fighters do not need maneuverability. There will be no more dogfights, unless you anticipate your jets dogfighting with advanced Ai guided missiles. CCA drones will be the ones to rush forward and perform any "close in" work on other aircraft. No nation is going to send 100 million dollar stealth aircraft into enemy territory to bring a chaingun and 5 seconds worth of firepower. The B-21 raider and the new Chinese flying dorito are the future of modern airpower: Long range, highly networked and sophisticated manned platforms, avoiding detection well away from enemy SAMs, while lobbing equally long range stealth missiles and coordinating drones. Dogfighting only sticks around in the mind of the public because of movies like Top Gun.

[@i-love-space390]

It is interesting that the NAVY still has enough money to push forward with their own advanced Stealth fighter program. So if the Navy's fighter goes into production, will we have another repeat of history where the AF just adopts the Navy fighter like they did with the F-4 Phantom II? That seems like it could be a win-win situation. If the AF was to put their chips into the program, it would increase the numbers of fighters produced and lower the unit cost at the same time. Of course, that would reinforce the trend of creating combined military programs, which the services don't like. The AF would have to swallow some of their pride.