The Secret Stealth Fighter that Could have Changed Everything

[@-Yogo]

Looks a lot like Tinman from "Stealth"

[@rickbrookes9491]

The Extreme Deep Invader? 😅 What a silly movie… but the special effects and scenes with the planes made it worth watching.

[@SCFPV]

Wonder if the son of blackbird will look a lot like Darkstar.😮 I just noticed, the send button for comments looks like a F-117 Nighthawk. Is that a stealthy send button Google? 🤔 😂

[@SHINR__]

​@@SCFPV great sentence.

[@edwardfletcher7790]

Tinman was designed by aviation enthusiasts with an eye to the future...

[@TheMelbournelad]

Yep NGAD or whatever the raptor replacement project is call has this popping up a lot

[@Jeff55369]

One thing people completely gloss over is the ngad is a whole "family of systems." We've already seen the b21 be unveiled as a 6th gen airframe. You can be certain it will be included in the ngad family. Imagine it's internal bays full of sidewinders.

[@kidddogbites]

Yes. This. The B21, F/A-XX, Xq58, mq25, and eventual sr72(or whever they eventually call it) will all be part of the NGAD program.

[@CausticLemons7]

@@kidddogbites Don't get my hopes up for SR-72. I've been hearing about it since the 90s and I don't want to be let down again lol.

[@kidddogbites]

@Astovoc Azrro Look up the Darpa Falcon Project, HTV 2 and HTV 3, how it got rolled into Lockheeds blackswift program. Then project Meyham. Look all this stuff up. They keep developing the tech in the background amd constantly changing the program name to keep it up to date without releasing it offically so they dont start a new arms race.

[@kidddogbites]

@Astovoc Azrro Also look up the company IO aircraft.

[@CausticLemons7]

@@kidddogbites I already saw Top Gun: Maverick so I'm well informed.

[@glenn_r_frank_author]

Makes me wonder if the real reason the F-22 Raptor was chosen instead of the YF-23, was because the thrust vectoring system was something they wanted to get real-world test information from for a future fighter design. Not for any of the other stated reasons that get floated. The YF-23 was a grreat plane but maybe the Pentagon had a further goal of seeing the extreme thrust vectoring concept get implemented so that some day a tail-less fighter could use it?

[@DocWolph]

Test Pilots had stated the YF-23 was roundly superior to the F-22. The decision making process was wildly complicated, political (though not as nonsense as some things in Govt) and largely would have been solve simply by building both. But Russia and China had been very quiet in the 1990s, so only one would be chosen. I had come to the personal conclusion the YF-23 was just so much better, yet so different, they did not want to push too far ahead of the curve without need or having at least a vague idea what comers next. It would not surprise me if the YF-23 was aped heavily for the NGAD and F/A-XX. Or a heavily updated YF-23, with 360-degree Thrust vectoring was at least submitted. This as the YF-23 was determined to have, in hindsight, all the attributes desired fore sixth generation fighter. Longer range, better stealth, higher innate speeds with and without afterburner, and fairly easy to retool as a fighter bomber, not entirely unlike the F-14. Pretty much what is needed should war with China break out.

[@LGB-FJB]

Lockheed was told they could either do the yf23 or b2, but not both.

[@DocWolph]

@@LGB-FJB As I understood it 1) Northrop Grumman was already building the B2. 2 ) The Military did not want "all their eggs in one basket" and among other reasons chose the F-22 so Lockheed Martin would have a better chance of staying in business and if anything went wrong with NG, the Military would not be out BOTH their Stealth Bomber and Stealth Air Superiority Fighter. As it was, since there was no enemy to fight or at least stand strong against at that time, the Military did not see the need to have BOTH the F-22 and *F-23.

[@mrow7598]

To me the air-force has a hard time picking planes outside the visual norms.

[@MrKentaroMotoPI]

​@@DocWolph Both aircraft met requirements, but the YF-22 had thrust vectoring. Game over for that reason alone, obviously. Add to that taxpayers were paying twice for the B-2 since the original design performed poorly and Southrop had to start over. Add to that, Southrop was in trouble for delivering ICBM guidance systems with Radio Shack parts. The ATF program flight test data is classified. You never had access to it. If you did, you sure as hell wouldn't be blabbing about it here.

[@williamslocum9161]

In 1942, they said that you could fly a barn door if you put enough power on it!

[@333jarhead]

That how we got the F4 lmao.

[@corujariousa]

This technology could probably have its advantages maximized by an UCAV style fighter, where there would be no hinderance to sharp fast radical maneuvers giving humans being absent from the aircraft.

[@CausticLemons7]

That's just a missile that launches smaller missiles! 🤣

[@hecklepig]

If you mean uncontrollable at low speed and high G maneuvering then yes it was Avant Gard. The vectoring thrust can only help so much with lateral maneuvering.

[@cahg3871]

I can only imagine what is in development at Lockheed Martins Skunkworks facility that we don't know about.

[@johnanderson591]

All your content is always great 👍😊

[@bencoss7003]

Just looking forward to seeing it

[@aurorajones8481]

You have have have to have this shape as it gives the best of all worlds in that you get lift, speed, and stealth. The tail is a huge hammer to your signature.

[@DavidRobson-st7mz]

Righto Tom cruise lol😂

[@InquisitiveBaldMan]

I think its better to use air pressure, from the compressor stages of the turbine, to apply pressure through pinholes to above or below the wing. A lot of research is going into this type of control. It can completely get rid of flaps, which ruin the radar signature.

[@Pharozos]

Interesting. I assumed at high speeds it wouldn't do anything. I will have a look. Thanks.

[@MasterMayhem78]

@@Pharozos Exactly what I thought. At those speeds the pressurized air wouldn’t be able to break through the air stream barrier.

[@aunderiskerensky2304]

pretty sure this is similar to how the b2 spirit works

[@icollectstories5702]

Bae Demon. I dunno about Coanda effect at supersonic speeds, but you could certainly pressurize the bleed air (at subsonic) as high as needed. Maybe you steer by adjusting the shock-front?🤪🤪🤪 I've been thinking about this, but have no idea how to make the FAA happy about fail-safes. Like, if your bleed air dies, do you need back-up flaps and slats, or do you just add redundant APUs?

[@InquisitiveBaldMan]

@@icollectstories5702 I guess the FAA only matters when you acknowledge the existence of it. Or it stops being a military secret. An unbeleivable amount of drone testing happens in woomera australia now. It really is the middle of knowhere. The military will be less and less worried baout fail safes as they move away from pilot and towards AI/ drone swarms. Losing one or two doesn't matter so much then.

[@lhopi]

“Shows a wedge shaped aircraft showing no tail” /shows a wedge shaped aircraft with two tails..

[@miketeeveedub5779]

20 years is a loooong lime in aero technical timeframes. Makes you wonder what's on the drawing boards today if the Manta was not considered practical enough for additional development. Betcha we got electro-gravimetric craft; like from all those UFO videos. No need for a tail or exhaust vectoring when you got mass cancellation and electrogravitic drive. The truth will come out eventually...that, or I've watched too much Star Trek growing up. 😆

[@Reepicheep-1]

We probably have Something mind blowing in testing or waiting for a reason. About 17 years ago I saw SOMETHING vaguely triangular hovering around Monterey, seemed right overhead. Thought I was imagining until my girlfriend asked if I saw those 3 lights moving around slightly, but no sound. (They weren't stars, they were moving too much.) Course, it could have been some sort of tricopter drone up higher, now that I know they and quads exist, but I've no doubt what we Know exists is only the surface.

[@dalefrolander3583]

Some of the early two person seadoo's had only thrust vectoring for the steering. When you let off the throttle you lose your steering and run into whatever is in front of you. That's why I learned that if there was suddenly something in front of me, like say a sunken log in the river, I would just turn hard and not let off the throttle. I can see the same issue with a fighter jet relying only on thrust vectoring.

[@bear76009]

if you lose your engine in a dogfight , losing the ability to control it most likely is not the immediate concern. They would likely already be in the process of ejecting

[@I69urmom]

@@bear76009 if you're dog fighting you're dead. all about integrated targeting networks with autonomous vehicles. I think "shield" drones and smart "formation loitering" munitions will be the new race. Keeping stealth as a main priority until a new radar shows up.

[@bear76009]

@@I69urmom I agree in a peer or near peer situation but that's not the case yet unless we fight ourselves.

[@paktahn]

@@I69urmom i dont think it will be a new radar that ends the stealth trend i think its gonna be an ai driven irst network solution that can track targets in the visual and beyond spectrum that will make stealth obsolete along with most modern countermeasures like chaff flares ew pods and rwr if this comes to be every military will have to scramble to develop a completely new doctrine for aerial combat those to be first will be the ones to steer the future of warfare

[@CausticLemons7]

1:23 Was a really cool edit!

[@rustyshaklferd1897]

I always saw the raptor’s 1 dimensional limited thrust vectoring of the raptor as a huge compromise that couldn’t have saved much money.

[@trplankowner3323]

That shows how little you know about the F-22's design. That feature wasn't chosen to save money, but to limit a potential radar return. I doubt the NGAD gen 6 fighter will have thrust vectoring at all. I'm certain the gen 7 fighter won't.

[@Mr.Robert1]

Before you know it we will be back where we started. Flying Pyramids.

[@jhmcd2]

Its likely that development never stopped on the MANTA. Sometimes, what happens with US military development is that an idea will be in announced for a while before suddenly being shelved, only for rapid development of some new weapon using that tech to magically surface. Like hyper sonic missiles. The US supposedly gave up on that in the late 90's early 2000's. Yet, in the last 2 years, they have managed to develop a suite of advanced weapons, all practically battlefield ready with less then a tenth the cost of even some basic arms.

[@TheSecretAgenda]

We all know the F-22 Raptor is one impressive piece of machinery, but let's get real. The YF-23 Black Widow II was the real deal. It was faster, more agile, and had a bigger weapons payload. Plus, it could fly longer distances without breaking a sweat. And let's talk stealth. The YF-23 had a lower radar cross-section than the F-22, making it practically invisible to enemy radar. And get this, it had a serpentine intake design that made it harder for heat-seeking missiles to catch it. But wait, there's more. The YF-23 had the most advanced avionics and sensor systems of its time. Its radar system was a game-changer, allowing the pilot to see in all directions at once. Sure, it lost out to the F-22 in the competition to become the next US Air Force fighter jet, but let's be real, the YF-23 was the real winner. It was the superior aircraft in every way imaginable. It's a shame politic$$$$ was the reason the F-22 won out.

[@rustyshaklferd1897]

Considering the raptor was designed 40+ years ago (far before the internet or dvd players) I can’t imagine what they’re designing now. Especially if you remove the one biological component that limits the aircraft to 9 gs.

[@trplankowner3323]

I don't think that will be until gen 7 and even then they'll have to drag the USAF kicking and screaming to get there. It will happen, but it will likely be the first time the USAF has had to swallow it's pride and do what it's told.

[@davidouellette6833]

One must ask yourself who was getting payed off for the contract. "that could never happen"

[@SnakewithaGun]

I'd prefer twin engine designs mainly for redundancies. Considering the problems the F-35 is going through with it's single engine powering both conventional flight and VTOL modes failing at times.

[@kiro9257]

And what problems specifically is the F-35 experiencing together with its variants (provide sources)? Only problem I’m hearing of is its slow speed which can be traced with the the fact that it only has one engine.

[@SnakewithaGun]

​@@kiro9257 The F-35 wasn't designed for mach flight. The problem is that the engine is having to power both the VTOL and conventional flight. It puts a lot of strain on the engine. Plus the inducted fan is so vulnerable to debris. Given time, issues can be worked out. It's only entered active service recently. You can only learn so much from tests and simulations. Real world operation will always surprise you.

[@IYCB]

Nice thumbnail change!, I was just about to message to say change yesterdays one

[@Chris.Davies]

A plane which would probably cost 250-500 million dollars each, and $150,000 an hour to fly. You dodged a bullet, 'Merika!

[@iwantyourcookiesnow]

The design images don’t mean jack. You got nuttin’. Nuh-TING! Just talk, mere conjecture.

[@mikeharvey9184]

I can't be the only person who saw the rendering with the pop out tail fins and thought "Lock S-Foils in attack position..."

[@YouveBeenMiddled]

Boy, I'd hate to try and control such an aircraft during a loss of engine power.

[@joeylawn36111]

Or failure of the thrust vectoring mechanics. Either way - no choice but to bail out….

[@Mobius118]

@joeylawn Let’s be fair, failure of control systems in any fighter requires bailout…

[@joeylawn36111]

@@Mobius118 true

[@R3cKi7]

that triple jet motor design would be cool, smash the middle one on for mach 11

[@cliffcampbell8827]

Why not? The B-2 and B-21 don't have tails and the B-2 flys just fine. As for the SU-57...I wouldn't worry too much about Russia's "stealth program" (or their armor program or their "advanced weapons" programs or their ship/submarine programs or their armed service member training programs or, you get the idea).

[@SteelWolf13]

Take the manta pair it with a pilot on the ground but put that pilots pod in a next genVR 360 degree viewing chamber. (Think Professor X in Cerebros.) That way you have a fighter jet with a human control but non of the G-force enduced negatives and you could literally turn on a dime with vector controls. Add in some A.I. stabilization/low level auto pilot and you have a 6th Gen fighter.

[@ronnyek4242]

I wouldn’t assume this was totally scrapped. Keep in mind we’re usually years behind in what we know. Latest gen, best fighter is very advanced… but look how old the f22 actually is.

[@SwanOnChips]

Won't let me Like it!

[@chartphred1]

The yanks really short-changed themselves by building too few F22s, they really need another 400 of them.

[@Mobius118]

Couldn’t agree more. Further production also drives down unit costs and helps with maintenance expenses as well. We definitely needed more of them, but it appears someone wanted the nation to be weak

[@DUKE_of_RAMBLE]

@@Mobius118 Further production drives down cost... in a consumer space. Pretty sure the price wouldn't deviate much, in the military side of things. 😕 heh

[@Ahornblatt2000]

What use has an aircraft with such agility and manoveurbility when the man inside passes out by 10g maybe? Even the Eurofighter can do more than the pilot can endure

[@Ahornblatt2000]

@Michael Micah ??

[@mytubehkjt]

How would you control the aircraft at idle, IRCM, engine failure?

[@GoodLukWithThat]

Would have though you would mention the FB-22 in this vid as it does share similarities to what your talking about.

[@JohnJohn-yl4ko]

This is giving me Ace Combat X nostalgia

[@Youtubeuser1aa]

Yea it was a backronym

[@edwardfletcher7790]

Of course the acronym came from the sea creature ! They just played clever with the description to use the name ! LoL

[@muhammad8970]

This aircraft is childs play. Where is the TR3-B?

[@philoso377]

Page 6:19 depicts an in flight refueling configuration with a delta plane with no vertical fin. From passive / active stability view that the fuel port may be too far backward. Such porting location may be inadvertently mocked in from past models of vertical fin.

[@jamiecanivet247]

No tail? You mean like Northrop's designs from the 40's? Ya Lockheed came up with this idea.

[@robgrey6183]

$31 Trillion in debt! Let's built a bunch of these! Money printer go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

[@boffo63]

USAF sure does spend a lot of money on a whole lot of different vehicles.

[@mortoopz]

Great idea.... until your engine goes out. Or you need to power down a LOT, like when you're trying to land.... you know, the most dangerous bit of flying ;)

[@TROOPERfarcry]

It's always interesting to me how the manufacturers choose to go with a single-engine versus a double-engine configuration, or vice-versa. I'm sure that there are advantages and disadvantages to either setup, but it seems like neither one is a clear-winner, because we're back-and-forth on this.

[@Ghettofinger]

It depends on the goal of the aircraft and the thrust potential of the engine itself. A single Pratt & Whitney F119 engine didn’t provide enough thrust to accomplish the goals and requirements of the F-22. However, the Pratt & Whitney's F135 was more capable and had enough thrust for the F-35 with just a single engine. A single Pratt & Whitney F135 engine has almost as much thrust as 2 Pratt & Whitney F119. It was made several decades later so there was a lot of advancements in engines since then. NGAD will probably have 2 General Electric XA100 engines, because this will be a giant plane. It will be designed to go very far and store the AIM 260 internally. So it will need far more thrust to compensate for its size and weight.

[@InquisitiveBaldMan]

In terms of pure effciency for range and dwell times, less but bigger engines is always better. But i guess survivability is greater with two.

[@American_Made]

single engine is for a fighter, lighter and smaller airframe. 2 engines usually more of an inteceptor/fighter.

[@King_Dusty_Of_Pookytopia]

Actuality a single engine is solely about keeping the overall price lower. Ironically 2 of the most current F-16 engines are cheaper than one F-35 engine.

[@mrow7598]

@@King_Dusty_Of_Pookytopia the F35 engine also produces almost twice the thrust of the F16's. And as for cost does that account for R&D and inflation?

[@kathrynck]

Alternatively, you could have a YF-23, and actually be hard to find on IR because your exhaust is well concealed. It already had less drag than the 22 as well. Not to mention no turbine RCS from below & behind. And included thrust reversers, which were dropped as a requirement to help Lockheed compete. And losing power wouldn't cause you to completely lose control and likely never get it back. But Lockheed did good on the F-35.

[@berylrosenberg704]

Hyper maneuverability is great! However, as the great pilot John Boyd observed, there is no escaping the loss of energy required for that maneuverability. Show me an aircraft with unlimited Isp AND DeltaV and I'll show you a fictional aircraft from any number of movies. It may well be that this type of advanced aircraft may win the dogfights of the near future and slightly beyond. However, the ultimate challenge has yet to be achieved! Great video!

[@jubjub7101]

I cannot wait until we see what the NGAD program produces.

[@davidharris2519]

when you mention the F-22 you show the F-35

[@davidkenworthy2403]

Often the ( dark channel across the board ) pays no attention to reality or truth! Often they seem like click bait!!!!!😮

[@KennethKustren-lr6tg]

I remember this Bird !¡ Beaut !

[@larryowsowitz2274]

There is a philosophy that dogfighting is going away. With all the space , ground, and airborne sensors providing information to the fighter elements about other fighter threats and using data from those other sensors, BVR missiles can be launched from extended ranges it totally obviates the need for close in combat.

[@abikeanditsboy3449]

Yep, they've been saying dogfighting has been going away for decades and yet the F-35 has a gun. Something tells me dogfighting will be around for some time to come.

[@geekmechanic1473]

​​@@abikeanditsboy3449 only the air force has a gun the Navy doesn't. Air Force chose to keep the gun while the Navy chose not to, this goes all the way back to the f4.

[@abikeanditsboy3449]

@@geekmechanic1473 - I knew the idea went back to the F-4 but didn’t know if it went back further than that. The belief was that now that we have beyond visual range missiles and can kill the enemy before they ever know we’re there we’ll never be close enough to dogfight so who needs a gun. The problem with that turned out to be two fold. First, the planes carry a very limited number of missiles. If your missiles miss then you’re up there, unarmed, with enemy planes closing and your only option is to run and go home. (As the pilots of the F-4s discovered.) The second problem defeated the point of a BVR missile in the first place, having to have positive or visual confirmation that what you were shooting was actually an enemy plane. The rules of engagement have only gotten stricter over time because the US wants to achieve the impossible, zero “collateral” damage. With the closing speeds of warplanes, you literally give up the advantage of BVR and ultimately end up in dogfight range. The war planners were wrong about it in the 60’s and they’re wrong about it today because ultimately the decision about whether or not a gun is useful on a warplane is up to the enemy and how they choose to fight.

[@geekmechanic1473]

@@abikeanditsboy3449 yet the Navy had the same problems as the air force but didn't add guns. Instead they focused on better training with missiles and maintenance of them in turn creating top gun. The Navy ended having better performance than the air force as a result. Guns aren't everything and today we have ways to identify others besides visual.

[@dylanwhite3383]

Looks more like an f-22 raptor with no tail section

[@jouhannaudjeanfrancois891]

the acronym MANTA for once, makes sense...

[@iwantyourcookiesnow]

No wonder the new AD jet got engineered so fast. It was already done basically

[@trplankowner3323]

I got done so fast due to rapid virtual prototyping.

[@trplankowner3323]

BTW, they're going to give you their cookies whether you like it or not. Also, Chrome is going to read all your other browsers' cookies without asking permission first! Cookies are a damn free-for-all marketing orgy these days.

[@themenace4017]

Everything with the NGAD should be Top Secret Even The Companies drawings of such 6th Gen. I would have hoped the program would have all been SKUNKED and only come out in the time it to truly needed

[@Reepicheep-1]

From everything US MIL has been implying, it won't matter if 6th gen can't 'fight', as they're meant to snipe you from 50+ mi. or sneak up behind you and knife you in the back. Bombing/dogfighting is for 4th & some 5th gens, where stealthiness isn't AS necessary. 5th/6th gen sneak in, take out defenses & sensors. After they're done, 4th gens storm the attack sites while the stealthy planes snipe incoming hostiles focused on 4th gens.

[@anubis20049999]

When a F-22 and a F-14 have a baby

[@Mobius118]

The two sexiest fighters in existence

[@duanepigden1337]

The F22 is not very effective since there are only 186 and it takes 40 hours of maintenance for every flight hour.

[@duanepigden1337]

@Michael Micah -- thanks just mail it to me.

[@duanepigden1337]

@Michael Micah -- now that the niceties are over please explain your comment.

[@tomstopshots]

I'm willing to bet some smart-ass made the acronym work cuz the plane looks like a freaking manta ray

[@st.john_one]

nice plane

[@braddbradd5671]

I wonder if Tejas got there delta wing idea form them ?

[@IK3A]

F-40 Tomahawk II

[@danielmartin7838]

Eventually they'll look like...flying saucers

[@gabrielmoney7437]

4 ads in a 8 min vid..!!? are you kidding me...!? im only 4:44 min in...!!!

[@CHMichael]

Pop up control surfaces - once you have been discovered you trade stealth for maneuverability.

[@rjust2297]

Autonomous capabilities are becoming quite more obvious. Halliburton non-autonomous capabilities are becoming quite a bother

[@kabalu]

...any stargate fans here?

[@abikeanditsboy3449]

Maybe?

[@bayembo]

Hell yeah... i know what you mean

[@galvinstanley3235]

In concept videos,they say it might have directed energy weapons,but I doubt it will happen.

[@TROOPERfarcry]

It would explain the need for a dual-engine setup, as the weapons are powered off of electricity generated by the engines, and not from some internal battery bay.

[@galvinstanley3235]

@@TROOPERfarcry They can't use a laser,because it fails in bad weather,and different types of materials can dissipate the heat from it,they will have to think of something else.

[@ericclausen6772]

You better start pumping them out then secretly

[@wcsii]

Hey guys, I’m from Ukraine. Just moved to Florida. Is it true you can eat alligators???? And how do they taste????

[@Kiskaloo]

As noted in the video, the X-44 looks similar to the concept art for the USAF Next Generation Air Dominance fighter and I would not be surprised if Lockheed-Martin is drawing from lessons they learned for their RFP for that program.

[@buvin456]

ok but what happens if you have no fuel or engines dont work and you have to glide? where pitch control?

[@AtroposLeshesis]

If we depended on you to have accurate and useful information we'd be screwed

[@Minong_Manitou_Mishepeshu]

Wonder if a canard set up would further improve performance?

[@twotrackjack2260]

Perhaps, but at the cost of stealth signature.

[@MohitJainDDN]

It may take a decade or more for full life cycle development to bring back a vehicle from outer space.

[@mattharms5629]

One must wonder, when it comes to R and D, how many systems are installed on aircraft to slowly build and perfect technology for future aircraft. This is widely done in the auto industry. So why not aircraft

[@travisbond635]

It sure does.

[@ShinieGenie]

it might just be the first collab of the two greatest enemies the Northrop is the one who created the infamous B2 the tailess bomber but it is the Lockheed Skunk Works that built the SR 71 ... well if they team up for this likely it is a jet that take it all but if not forget it lol

[@mr.j1381]

i think a tail is a better way to hide the profile of the aircraft if seen from the ground and were talking air to air fights a tail gunner would be more useful sheath could have a tail surface? mastering vertical take off is more attractive.

[@dobraydien7242]

I'm betting it's still around flying above us

[@brendakrieger7000]

Cool✈😎

[@cohutta_pines]

manta

[@codered5431]

X32

[@hztn]

Now that's a future. F-35 isn't advanced as this thing.

[@auro1986]

you have your f15 then why do you need these tail less or nose less or engine less aircrafts?

[@Istandby666]

Wow, is that B-21 rendering way off....lol

[@wraith600original1]

take out the pilot and that is the next gen

[@Yuki_Ika7]

Seeing as Northrup Grumman was in a way Robbed of the Advanced Tactical Fighter program contract (i think the YF-23 is better than the YF-22 which became the F-22) i hope Northrup Grumman gets their design selected this time as the winner, but seeing as the US DoD wants to have new designs every 10-15 years for the foreseeable future they should have multiple chances, i just think they do Stealth better than Lockheed Martin and Boeing

[@Agent77X]

F-22 was limited to only 188 planes by Congress because of cost overruns! F-35 now cost near that of a F-22 and still has thousands of software problems!😮

[@billotto602]

You make the best videos out there. Thank you ! 🫡 🇺🇸

[@johannes7185]

Opel Manta

[@nicholasmazzarella2720]

Comment for the algorithm

[@Slamboni4k]

The fact that we hear of it today means they never stopped development

[@loduke3905]

It'd say we take something from EVERY iteration, design, development and testing we embark on, kind of the point.

[@somerando7233]

Coulda, shoulda, woulda.

[@hildablanco1591]

Anti gravity plains or saucers are better and uav are good

[@jamesbowman5062]

If they are still looking for customers for the ‘23, I’ll take one ha.

[@ashishsingh7654]

This jet will shoot down Chinese J20 .

[@johnnelson7192]

How about powering it with something other than jet fuel

[@IamSpectre2020]

The future is not in the design but it's propulsion,.