The American Gripen! 👍

The engineering around that duel stabilization through the wing would be an interesting challenge

@@phantomdracula more like draken

@@phantomdracula The difference is the American version is based on a larger diameter engine. With USAF's common engine requirement, 45,000 lbf estimate from NGAD and future F-35 engine upgrade or 29,000 lbf engine from F-15EX and F-16C Block 50.

Thing is, we really don't need it, do we?

Indeed and thanks for commenting!

Or just actually officially name it the "Viper"

Yes it is!!!

@@PilotPhotog The F36 fighter appears in Taiwan and is scheduled to buy

I like the name as well but why not go all out and call it the king cobra king of all snakes but i do like king snake

Thanks for commenting and good to see you here again!

@@PilotPhotog You're Welcome. It's interesting that the US Air Force didn't want the F-16XL, but they didn't want other countries to have it either. I remember other countries being very interested in having the aircraft built for them.

@@robertgarcia6569 can you imagine if the F-36 gets built? The XL would have come full circle

@@PilotPhotog Very True. When i look at all the pictures of the F-36 I see many of the proposed modifications that were being considered for the XL. I would be great to see all the testing the F-16 community did come to fruition :-)

For me, the F-22 and F-35 is similar to the Navy's Seawolf and Virginia class submarines. The Seawolf and F-22 production numbers are low but they have the best tech. The Virginia and F-35 are less complex, but more numerous. Eventually the Air Force will just have the F-35 and the F-16 replacement.

Do you have your design uploaded on the internet anywhere? I'd like to take a look at it and show it to those who actually build Americas Airframes.

@@imghost6296 ..No. it was 1:72 scale model. It was back in the 80s, and it's long gone now.

LOL... I built one also... Think it was Testor model? Sat on my dresser next to a Grumman X-29A, both were amazing designs!

Hahaha

kind of hot ngl

Is more like a F16, eurofighter and D. Rafael had a tri-some and only one kid came out. Who knows whos who on this sex triangle.

@@juanguerrero9128 idk for me it's just a double delta F16, so I'd accuse Draken for it

More like a Mirage 2000 dropped off a basket of joy on the F16's porch... I guess you're a dad now, huh?

The F-36 is going to happen, So is the F-23, incidentally. You're going to see two very iconic designs operating contemporaneously in a way that nobody ever thought was going to happen.

@@mysteriousfleas Let's hope so , mahn ! Both were fantastic designs , and should not be wasted ! 😎

@@mysteriousfleas I'd like to see that happen and I am for wise military spending but would love to hear the reasoning behind your comment

It's weird how everybody seems to prefer the unofficial name of the F-16 Viper. I always thought Falcon sounds way better and honestly, "Viper" sounds kind of cheesy, like what a 10 year old would name a plane.

@@Durzo1259 Yep, the F-16 was always the Falcon, or Fighting Falcon while I was in. Then in the 90's I started noticing that term 'viper' creeping in.

Unless you are bombing the Taliban it's obsolete. They want a cheap stealth fighter.

Exactly, I don't get that statement.

I understood the gen 4.5 to be closer to the older gen 4 tech and gen 5 minus to be closer to the gen 5 tech.

Ya but did you not hear what he said about using new materials on a old design, that in its self will send the costs up. some times old tech is good enough depending on mission to be done.

An new F-35A costs about the same as a new build F-16V or F/A-18E or F Block 3. And it's got mission systems that beat the pants off the pods you hang from those frames. The main cost problem right now with F-35 is keeping parts in stock to keep mission rates high. And deciding how many of the initial batches should be fully upgraded or repurposed to non-frontline roles.

I don't It will sapp resources from the f35 and drive up it's costs

@the O.D.S.T spartan Yea but operating costs of the F-35 are high. It cost up to 30k or more to operate a F-35 , and the F-16 cost only 8k. I dont think the new fighter will be much more expensive than the F-16 maintenance wise. Well depending on the engine.

@@cncmne7404 Operating costs are not always compared apples to apples, so take such numbers critically. During wartime, an F-35 mission is expected to take far fewer planes to accomplish the same objective. The per-mission costs for such objectives is going to be lower. For certain, during training or deployed to low intensity conflicts, the F-35 costs are currently higher than mature platforms. This is a high priority item for both Lockheed and the US military, so those costs will come down. As an operational platform, the F-35 is still young and having teething issues. Placing hopes that a new, undeveloped, program will not have similar issues is an unfounded assumption on the part of many people. For all the ink spilled about the F-35, it's faced a normal level of program risk and overruns for any platform the US has developed over the life of military aviation. These things are normal and expected, with normal and expected resources to handle them. The platform is good and doing what it was requested to do, and then some.

Not going to be built

This is the best reply EVER!!! LMAO ... I am still laughing

That'd be a great kit, just imagine the different colour schemes.

Go forward, America! Long live the Nato! Long live freedom! Down with all dictatorships and terrorists all around the world! Best wishes from Germany!

That's what they said about the SLS rocket - it will be cheap because it reuses technology. The Kingssnake would be a completely new plane with radically different fuselage, wings, engine, avionics, and everything else compared to the F-16. Some of the F-16s being sold now already cost more than the F-35 and we're supposed to believe that this would somehow be much cheaper? Come on, let's be realistic. Also, F-16s are wearing out now and need replacing now. This plane does not exist and probably wouldn't be available in quantity for a decade at least so what do we do until then?

Just as I think that using the YF-23 as a base to make and/or influence future 6th gen fighters would be a good idea!

@@Yuki_Ika7 I "Completely Agree", with you ! . . .

"what's with" "all the" "quotation marks?"

@@thefolder69 I do it to "Piss Off", you English Majors ! . . .

Yf-23s are going to make a resurgent comeback in the JSDF to the point where the state department realized they were behind on the times from the outset. The black widow and the kingsnake are going to revolutionize air defense.

There's a whole hell of a lot more UAVs being built right now than Kingsnakes...

Nah, they have a role. The will bomb truck configure most and have them guided in by a networked Raptor like it was intended to be. The other F35s in stealth mode would take out radars. That's the plan but I don't see them buying 3000

@@mysteriousfleas the Japanese own their design. Their new fighter is based on it.

The same idiocy said about the F104.... in 1958!

The Soviets knew this...win by having numbers over numbers. Look at their tank squadron structures during the Cold war. Our tanks could take out about 10 or 11 Soviet tanks but they had 20 on standby just to fill the void so we would never win a tank battle. Use that philosophy in our aircraft strategies we would be invincible

@@samfosdick9874 its not an unbeatable strategy, it has merit if the conflict is over in a short time. But if it drags on, youll end up rapidly burning through experienced personel. (Which as we al know isnt something that gets replaced easily)

@@koekiejam18 so true brother. We've lost a lot of good men and women to stupid wars our government gets us into. I'm a retired disabled US military veteran and am sick of the neverending story of our "leadership" sending us were we don't belong. Look at who makes $$$ off these long wars and you'll see why Trump is right...our military men and women have died for the profit of a select few.

@@samfosdick9874 yes thats true sam but its worse than that. the wars have all been designed to bring into being a one world technocracy where due to the level of technology human free will comes into serious question. see "Geoengineered transhumanism" by elana freeland for deeper technical descriptions of whats planned and being implemented now. god bless us all we will need it.

@@marsmotion truth what’s crazy is those of us at speak like this are currently thought of as lunatic fringe conspiracy theorist but but our eyes are wide open. When all the rest of the sheep realize that they are being led to a slaughter it will be too late for them. I’ve armed myself quite well and have a plan a back up plan and several more back up plans. The last plan is save the last round for me because I refuse to live one day on my knees to what’s coming and I will take as many of those bastards with me as I can.

Incorrect this all stems from a stupid forbs article this guy explanes it better"Well, it’s more of a desperate attempt to write about the F-35 program in light of recent media attention (David Axe’s infamous Forbes article). If you’re relying on comments from politicians that too from 5 years ago then that says it all. The article’s argument revolves around program cost. But what do you think will happen if you cut down F-35 procurement dramatically? The unit cost and operational cost will skyrocket as economy of scale shrinks. Then the very people proposing the whole notion will be outraged and call for further cuts… And you’ll have F-22 2.0; only this time there won’t be a multirole Fighter program like F-35 in development to save the day from such short-sightedness. You think the Next Generation Air Dominance platform (6th gen.) is going to be any less expensive? Hint: It’s going to be closer to F-22 than F-35 in terms of cost. The JSF program had a target of reducing the unit cost down to $80 million for the F-35A before full rate production begins (Lot 14). From $107 million ($125 million after inflation) in 2011, the F-35A unit cost reached $79.2 million in Lot 13, a year before planned and In Lot 14 the F-35A cost $77.9 million.[1] These are not estimates but the actual Pentagon contract signed in 2019.[2] Let me break that for you, the F-35A today has lower unit cost than any modern 4th gen. aircraft (with the exception of F-18E/F and F-16V). Yeah that includes Gripen-E which is projected to cost $85 million according to Saab.[3] And the F-35’s full rate production is yet to begin.  The F-35 doesn’t just have better sensors - there’s no equivalent of DAS on any other platform, the F-35’s Helmet fully replacing HUD, the sensitivity of ASQ-239 or the massive computing power handling 1 TB of sensory data produced in every flight.[4] The only reason the F-35 cost less than almost any contemporary aircraft is because of the economy of scale. The fact USAF will be buying 1,763 F-35A. You take away that economy of scale and you don’t need to know economics to predict the outcome. And it was incredibly funny to see the very same people concerned about F-35’s cost today being silent or supporting the idea of Pentagon forcing the USAF to buy 80 F-15EX at $98.3 million unit cost last year.[5]Oh and unlike the F-35 having an integrated Targeting pod, jammer and sufficient internal fuel - the F-15EX requires Sniper/LITENING pod, external jamming pod & fuel tanks to be combat capable - none of which are included in the unit cost. So add a couple of millions more to have a combat capable aircraft. After all, it’s perfectly fine to spend $20 million more for a “low-end” platform… There’s a lot of talk about F-35 having high operational cost but no outlet understands what that actually means. You’ve them talk about F-35 being “so expensive to maintain” at $34,000 CPFH. On surface that sounds a lot but you know what else cost exactly that today?  The F-15E fleet today has same operational cost as F-35A.[6] The F-15C fleet is even higher. Have a look at F-15 fleet cost from 2015.[7] The F-35A’s CPFH decreased to $34,000 down the years while everybody else’s increased due to ageing fleet.  Funny we don’t see articles calling for scraping the USAF F-15E fleet as they’re so expensive to maintain… The real issue for USAF isn’t that F-35 is super-expensive, it’s not. The real problem is that it’s meant to be the backbone of the USAF just like the F-16 have been for last 30 years. They’ve to buy 1,763 F-35A to meet that role but in post Cold War era tight budget, the only way to sustain such a large fleet is for F-35 to have comparable operational cost as the F-16. The JSF program had a requirement for F-35A to have comparable CPFH as Block 52 F-16C/D, which is about $25,000. The F-35A is supposed to achieve that CPFH by 2025 and this was always a controversial for obvious reason. The F-35A will eventually reach close to $25,000 CPFH just like it reached

Too bad we're broke as a nation. Can't afford an expensive development program like the F-36. Too much money spent on F-35s.

@@capnron65 the program's expensive the aircraft is not and we're not broke yet the government could learn to cut spending though there are a bunch of military programs that are entirely meant as bailouts the f-15 eagle 2 for example

@@spartanx9293 well i gues the initial starting point was that 3 presidents in a row thought about the F-35 being a cashgrab, overpriced and way to delayed to make any good IF it should go into serial production (the F-35 is still pre-series! And buggy as hell, too!). Now with the report Biden asked, Forbes has all the reasons to dig into the topic. To bring "to light" what has happened before. Refering to "F22 instead F23, when the Black Widdow was the better choice", "F-35 instead F-32, eventough the F-32 was better", findings around F-16XL never implemented, aso...

@@michaelkeller5008 the yf23 was the better choice the aircraft that couldn't launch missles from its weapons Bay and couldn't surpass mach 1.6 for fear of cracking the cockpit was the better choice the yf-22 gave a much better preformance a both surpassed the criteria given to them

Thank the Lord Boeing didn't get anywhere with the x-32, first sign things were going badly over there 🤮

Honestly I like the su variants the little notch on the nose and where the fuselage meets its sexy af it just makes it look like it has a high angle of attack when flying the Americans to me seem like more conventional like something you'd expect Americans to build if that makes sense...im American by the way I love our aircraft don't get me wrong but like the draken the su the mirage the typhoon they're EXOTIC looking if you will....like the su is a benz and the f16 is a ford haha

As an American, I certainly appreciate our fighters design. However, I do find the Soviet/Russian designs to be even more so. Of course they have no chance against our superior tech and pilots/ tactics

@@zopEnglandzip to be fair. The end result.of the Boeing X-32 supposedly would have looked liked a little Stealthy F-86 saber. That's not a bad thing at all

Like others said the SU Russian designs are super cool. Thank God their electronics, materials, and tactics are over 10 years behind.

What's worse is that the competition never meant the XL could not / should not be built. For a near doubling of combat capability for about a 2.5% total cost of ownership/operation, I have always rated it as the biggest miss in USAF purchasing ever.

Thank you much appreciated! Using my voice doubles production time but is totally worth it, already working on the next video!

Specifically, the next war is Iran.

It's my understanding that part of the intended use of the F-15EX is to be a weapons hauler for the F-22. The 22s will fly ahead and point out targets and the F-15s will chuck them.

@@cap.meruwkateklimana8321 what do they have? A couple Mig-29s?

@@kevinrusch3627, that is my understanding also. The stealths will point out to the 15s and the 15s will put foot to ass. The 15s can carry a bunch of hurt to whomever wants to play in the sandbox. They won’t be taking any ass whoopins either. They don’t know how! Stay safe mates!😊👍🏻😷

Do you know what you do when you have a mission that doesn't require a low-observable aircraft? You fit the L/O aircraft full of bombs and missiles. Both the F22 and F35 can more than double their payloads with external stores. The fact the US is buying F15ex and even considering something other than 5th gen just proves we've spent entirely too long in the desert bombing primitive people. Spec'n aircraft on yesterday's war is really stupid idea to put it lightly.

Agreed and thanks for commenting! In case you haven't seen it, here is a video all about the XL: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bNJjfNuSxL3Rg5s.html

Yes, that is exactly correct

Wrong f35 was upgraded replacement of f117 with kutte better fighting and load carrying capabilities but is a sitting duct against indian mig29upg and lca tejas mk1a

can become cheaper as more F-35s out there and more to be roll out soon. U.S need to start selling their downgraded version of F-35A to other countries that operates F-16 but right now they're happy to just upgrade existing F-16 to F-16 Block 72 which will add another 25+ more years.

79 million per airframe is roughly the cost of an f16 airframe in the 1970s so not too expensive

@@spartanx9293 usa airforce must seriously consider indian mwf tejas for light to medium role . It is most cost effective versatile 4.75plus gen fighter jet in the world. Second why usa needs 300 plus squadrons of light fighter jets in drone era ?

Excellent point and thanks for commenting!

Yeah, it would make more sense to me to just use the f-35’s engine, which is very powerful and already in production

@@Ry_TSG The Correct answer! Reduce logistic bottlenecks.....

While you make excellent points the larger concern is that the F135 Engine has run into production issues. Otherwise we would be acquiring F-35 more rapidly. A new revision of the F119 would be my top choice. Yes the F119 would take a long time to restart, but solving F135 production is also a problem. Also - the F-135 engines have a lot of stupid compromises related to keeping commonality for the F-35B version. As mentioned the cranked delta wing can lead to loss of energy in high AOA maneuvering. The 1dimensional thrust vectoring of the F119 would easily offset that - making the proposed aircraft more maneuverable than the F-16 in all domains. including a sustained turning fight. This plane is not going to spend its life as a dogfighter, especially with the missile loads it can carry. What most of these sorts of videos miss is that fighters have to execute evasive maneuvers against missiles. Being able to generate large changes in flight vector in a short time will help defeat faster hypersonic medium range FOX-3 missiles like R-77M. Pilots call this "notching" and executing it effectively is an artform, and it requires rapid turning capability. Further the F119's engine isn't flat for thrust vectoring - it is easier to achieve multidimensional thrust vectoring with nearly circular nozzles - as seen on Su-35 and Su-57. The real reason is IR stealth. This is essential against newer high performing FOX-2 missiles, as the flat nozzle disperses the exhaust laterally very widely, thus cooling the exhaust rapidly with atmospheric air. Further, the F119 can be shrouded. F110 and F414 (Super Hornet/Gripen Engine) are exposed from all rear aspects. By comparison if you look at the F-22, its pretty hard to see the engines except from nearly on its six or in planform. So, not only would I like to see F119 on this proposed plane, I would like to see it on F-15EX as well. (Though I have very serious reservations about the F-15EX program in its totality - too many compromises for a new build.)

@@unknownuser069 That would indeed be better but the F-36 is not there to be better its there to be cheaper. And while I would love nothing more than to restart the F-119 line that can lead the way to improved F-119 variants, I just think the added work and cost will immediately get the proposal shut down. I am aware that the F-119 is not flat for TVC, the YF-119 installed on the YF-23 was also flat despite the absence of TVC. The F-119, its YF-119 prototype and the PW5000 that was the tech demonstrator for it all came with flat nozzles. All I'm saying is that if you need round nozzles, modifying the F119 is not the cheaper option. You can use the F-135 or advanced derivatives of the F100 and F110 if round nozzles is indeed what you need.

All F-16s are Delta winged.

More like The Mirage3, the F102, the F106 and the Lippische P13

Actually it started with Delta Dart and Dagger.

Everyone is seeing reflections of the Draken, it looks like the Swedes had it right all along.

Don't forget great-granddad, the Vulcan.

@@willdsm08 its three years i dont know if great granddad is waranted

Glad you enjoyed it and thanks for the comment! I try to get a little better with each episode so stay tuned, lots more on the way.

the designer of the F-16 once famously told a young aircraft designer that the optimum position for a canard was on someone else's aircraft.

Nah, why go backwards? Use the adaptive engine they keep trying to sell for the F-35s. 15% more range, and probably an enormous boost in supercruise speed and range.

Literally laughed out loud

Tf lol

Lol

Pure speculation

😂😂

Thank you Chris, I really appreciate that - I think you will enjoy Monday's video - its about the NGAD fighter. Cheers!

I'd love to see some new, high tech Hawgs. I'd work on those beasts again if they did.

I'd like to see more A-10's but with a downsized gun and increased payload. The 30mm ain't as useful as it was in the 80's. A 20mm would work considering its mostly used on soft targets.

@@PugilistCactus tank warfare would still definitely happen if we werent at war with a developing country, and killing tanks is the original reason for the 30mm. the 30mm is also used to take out people in buildings, something a 20mm definitely couldnt do. besides, replacing the 30mm with a 20mm would be extremely costly and require very extensive modification. the whole aircraft is built around that gun, and taking it out would shift the center of mass significantly and require expensive changes to the entire airframe. besides, why try to "fix" something that is working just fine?

They definitely need to keep the A10. A new model would be a great idea

Japanese F-23s are forthcoming, they will be multi-role maritime defense and intelligence aircraft, they will set a precedent. The Kingsnake may well be the mainsteay but the F-23 will will become the specialist fighter-coastal defense asset that it should have been the whole time.

Memories of the Round Table

Can we just get Zero remastered?

@@MrPetarted86 yes!!! I’d be the first to buy it 😎

Great video BTW. I’m sure this feels like something perfect for Taiwan. Also, back to ace combat I’m glad we get all the wunderwaffen planes but man I would love to have that game in like 1971. The strangereal universe but with late 60’s and early 70’s aircraft.

@@MrPetarted86 that would be a great setting for an AC game

Can you imagine?

@@PilotPhotog I can imagine, but it's not remotely credible. Concorde could do Mach 2 supercruise because it was built for it and had a very sophisticated variable geometry inlet which delivered superb pressure recovery and made it possible for the engines to supercruise at that speed. Kingsnake has a DSI which is good for simplicity and stealth, but has very poor pressure recovery and no variable geometry so top speed takes a big hit as a result. Mach 1.6-1.8 with afterburner would be credible but better supercruise than a Raptor despite a massively inferior intake is pure fantasy.

Why not use the f135 engine

@@spartanx9293 good point and I should have mentioned that as an option in the video.

Thrust vectoring is high cost and not nearly as important in this role. Keeping engine costs down is high priority.

@@PilotPhotog If the thing does actually use it this will partially alleviates my fears of the f35 being killed as parts commonality would help keep it in service

@@spartanx9293 That's what I've said on other videos

I think you will like the next video in the series 😎

Was thinking the same. I would love to see the USAF take another look at the F-20.

@@PilotPhotog buy indian lca lekar mk1a , mwf tejas and being engine orca. Indian jets are designed to dominate hostile air defences and 4.5plus gen fighter jets. Americans have no experience of fighting a against a potent airforce that is why they failed in Vietnam.

@@dblankenship88 today gripen is better available choice and lca tejas would be rhe best choice. Tiger shark was good concept when it was designed but today no pilot would like to fly any jet in war with such a high wing loading .

@@pravirchandragadkari88 agreed but being a USAF veteran I can assure they will not purchase the Gripen. They (USAF) always wants to keep their airframes to a select few companies that do not originate overseas. The Gripen, even the Rafael would be amazing to see having a squadron in the Air Force but it’ll never happen. It doesn’t fit the narrative for the overall future of the Air Force.

most planes since the F4 phantom could super cruise. You just need a clean airframe with 0 stores mounted.The stock f16 will supercruise too if you have an empty wing setup. The trick is to be able to carry missiles and supercruise at the same time, which only stealth planes can do because only stealth planes carry weapons internally.

Probably not under combat load

@@Im_TheSaint Sorry but I have say no. I doubt that a clean F-16 would be able to supercruise. The only Stealth aircraft that can supercruise is F-22. Typhoon and Rafale can also supercruise in combat configuration with external stores. F-18 SH and Gripen E are able to supercruise but doubt this is in combat configuration. I know that F-35 can stay supercruise for about 150 miles before it drops below. But the definition of supercruise is that a aircraft has to reach supercruise speed and stay there without the use of afterburner. Else would all aircraft be able to supercruise.

@@spartanx9293 one of the things the F-16XL was intended to do was be able to supercruise under a combat load

@@silaskuemmerle2505 sorry it doesn't have to thrust away to do so parasitic drag will keep that from happening

Internal room for some smaller ordnance....conformal fuel tanks, integrated IRST.

Thank you!

I spent many, many hours playing Doom in college - IDKFA was great, and who can forget the BFG 7000 lol

That's a great info, sir!

How old is the king snake design. I thought the new upgraded f-16s were for export mainly. And they were not as modified as the king snake.

The only ally that the US would ever trust to utilize such a design was the JSDF, and only Japan would be ballsy enough to take the place at the bleeding edge of technological innovation to try these things out. Think about it. The U.S has a fucking plane for every role, but the JSDF cannot afford such things, thus they must homogenize as many roles into as few aircraft as possible. The future is the JSDF F-23 Black widow with a full maritime defense compliment alongside the F-36 kingsnake compliment of fighters. Cheap and stealthy and capable of long scale maritime flight just like their big(er) brother the F-23. The F-23 will be outfitted for a variety of roles including anti-ship and coastal maritime patrol, and the kingsnake will be their stealthy and more economical backup should things go bad.

If they do, i would like to see F-23A

Just to piggyback off of that. The F22 needs to be optimized to have parts commonality with the 35.

@@kolinmartz no, the F-35 should have been designed to have parts commonality with the F-22

@@silaskuemmerle2505 true. But at this point there’s more f35s in production and with newer technologies. So I can only speak for the future not the past. The past has passed.

The F-22 can't be changed much. I've heard it's a packaging problem and has to be designed from the outside - in. The F-35b is brilliant, one F-35c mixed in with 10 F/A-18 should improve effectiveness but the F-35a ..... bring on the Kingsnake.

@@kolinmartz the F-22 has been out of production for as long as the F-35 has been in production, there’s nothing that can really be done to give the F-22 parts commonality with the F-35.

What you mean "not cool"? Looks so much better than an F-35

@@kingdomofprussia9749 I think he means "cool" as in over engineered stealthy, fancy 5th gen hype etc.

Who cares if it's cool? People get all stressed out over that question, and it drives me crazy. We're not talking about TV stars or fashion models.

People are starting to acknowledge out loud that even if the F35 problems can be overcome, both the F22 and F35 are just too damned expensive. How many can we afford to lose? Same goes for the B2. Totally badass, but horribly expensive to maintain and operate.

It'll never be built

Great questions, and I'm wondering if the added weight penalty/maintenance could be a factor. Thanks for commenting!

Normal control surfaces at high speed give you more maneuver authority than you can use, without thrust vectoring, so thrust vectoring is only useful when you are going really slow. Thrust vectoring is heavy, hard to make stealthy, and the weight is in the wrong location- the back. Hot structures are hard. Transparent structures are hard. Low radar cross section structures are hard. Light structures are hard. Choose two, and they get harder. Choose three and it becomes very hard.

It doesn't need it. It will already be nimble seeing as its a single engine. This would only work if they really manage to keep it as cheap and simple as possible. Otherwise I think the money would be better spent just pushing out more 5th gen stuff.

@@CrossWindsPat Is the F-36 in addition to the NGAD fighter? or is it the same thing. We haven't heard much about the Kingsnake since the press release, but there has been stuff about NGAD

What's not to love about 4x J-79s?

I heard some rumors that F-16XL might had outperformed the original F-16. Then again, I could be wrong.

Thank you glad you enjoyed it!

Saab aircraft design has always seemed advanced. Beautiful aircraft.

Double engine plane are more expansive to fly. That is why is not a good reason for "work horse".

Cost mainly.

Same lmao

Makes me wonder if you could also make a carrier capable XL as TV is supposed to help with shorter take offs.

Or maybe use a YF-23 wing and V tail design to give the F-36 kingsnake incredibly low wing loading. A clean YF-23 had a wing loading of 280kg/m^2 which is lower than a fucking clean Gripen. The YF-23 was actually noticeably more maneuverable than the F-22 especially in high speed sustained turn rates because the YF-23 had lower drag, better thrust to weight ratio, and lower wing loading.

@Chris Pasquale It did not.

Not sure i understand how thrust vectoring is supposed to help a delta wing energy fight. The key to winning a dogfight is always to play to your aircrafts strengths. Delta wings like this excel in nose to nose fights where the radius of the turn (how small it is) is more important than how fast you come around your circle.

Surprise dogfight is what the latest AIM-9 is for (or F-22s). From the vid, this strikes me as more of a high speed missile and bomb delivery platform (ie a bomber). Also the gun would only make sense for CAS, better to eliminate and save the weight and drag.

I agree, structurally it would be practically impossible to make the vertical stabilizers strong enough for a maneuvering jet fighter while only being supported by a thin wing section. The ~90 degree joint would experience overwhelming stresses when side loaded.

Agreed.. plus a larger blended fuselage could carry more internal fuel cells.

But the maintenance costs are much lower for the F15EX.

The F-15EX is about $20 million more than the F-35A and its operating costs are similar.

The F15ex has half the operating cost of the F35 and a 40 year life for 150% better performance and range, way cheaper than the hanger queen that is the F35. The F15 has been purchased new as late as last year or operated currently by countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, South Korea, Japan and Israel. What does Canada need? A long range interceptor to cover the Great White North, routinely Russian bombers test Canada's defenses, expect China to do so as well. You need a long range high speed interceptor and the F15ex meets both categories and with two engines one failure doesn't write-off the entire aircraft like the f35 with the pilot bailing out in sub zero invironment over the Rockies or the Tundra. Adaptation could include the loan of entire squadrons of f15c/ds to familiarize the pilots and support crew with the type, for dirt as these aircraft are being retired. Stealth, since the F35 is an expensive turd and Canada would only need that in a first tier war is limited. If asked I will explain what Canada could do to fill that envelope. Look Canada is a wonderful country that when called upon fights consistently above its weight class, but it is a small country population wise and cannot compete as a first tier power so you have to think outside the box sort of like Israel. The F15ex is outside the box for Boeing, the USAF and maybe Canada.

@@joemaloney1019 Its operating cost isn't even close to half that of the F-35 and it costs $24 million more when it's fitted with comparable systems. That pays for quite a lot of flying hours, especially when operating costs for the F-35 are dropping fairly steadily. The DoD's CAPE office which came out in support of the Eagle determined that the difference in cost per flying hour was only just over $3000 - equivalent to 8000 hours of flying (higher still with inflation over the life of the aircraft). manylikelihoodfailurequalitiessuggesting

It would fall into the F/A 36 kind of role very naturally, with the possibility of a high speed BVR interceptor role for continental defense. That's where the long range and the ability to super cruise comes in really handy. If the Air Force plays its cards right it could get a very capable, useful, reliable, practical multi-role aircraft for an economical price.

But it would add weight ... if the YF-23 consideration of thrust vectoring applies, it would have made a few hundred pounds of difference. Hard to say who was right. Northrop must have assumed there would almost never be a turning fight ever with super stealthy planes so there was no need for thrust vectoring which would affect range and maintenance. Lockheed probably assumed there would still be visual turning fights and so they traded off range and top speed for turning ability at very low speeds, which is apparently rarely seen in air combat.

@@SanjaySingh-oh7hv I think there are far more benefits than just slow speed turning. It means that in a dogfight you can turn inside your opponent giving a distinct advantage. You can also turn tighter to aid in avoiding missiles and you can make it much harder die an opponent to get a middle lock or gun lock on you.

@@jaimegrant784 Hi Jaime. It sounds like you're assuming a 1 vs 1 type of situation, so let's go with that. I'm not a pilot or in the military, just an enthusiast who flew simulations like Falcon 3.0 and Mig-29: Deadly Adversary of Falcon in the past, and what I have read in books and on KZfaq. From what I have read and heard, the thrust vectoring maintains the ability to control the plane in the "post-stall" flight regime, meaning that there is not enough air flowing over the wings, elevons and tail surfaces to generate the forces needed to control the plane. Under the vast majority of normal flying conditions these surfaces generate much stronger forces than thrust vectoring will. But if you're in an airplane that most of the time is invisible to radar from most angles and you've ended up in a turning fight with a non-stealthy plane and you're running out of kinetic energy to the point where all you have is thrust vectoring, you've probably made a grave tactical error. If there is even one other enemy plane in the area, you're likely not going to make it. In a 1 vs 1 against a generation 4 plane thrust vectoring will allow you to get a missile or gun shot. But a visual turning fight if you are in a 5th gen fighter is not a good use of its abilities nor a good place to be in general. TTYL.

@@SanjaySingh-oh7hv original ATF program requested thrust reversers, not thrust vectoring. The requirement was dropped during development to save money. The YF-23 design was so advanced that to avoid too many changes the thrust reversers were deleted but the fuselage kept its shape. Had it been produced, the F-23A would have had a more streamlined rear fuselage, and be even faster than the prototype. And the YF-23 simply didn't need thrust vectoring to meet the ATF program requested maneuvrability. As you said, the weight difference between a F-110 GE-129 class engine and a thrust vectored variant is around 600 pounds.

It would also cost even more than the F-35 or F-22, and intakes on the top surface aren't a great choice at high angle of attack which is a bit of a killer if you want to include thrust vectoring. The idea is to keep this as close as possible to the F-16 design to make it cheap. If you redesign it, you get a whole new plane which means 15 years development before it's available (minimum) and a huge amount of money on R&D

If you want a cheap replacement for the F-16 the last thing you want is to design a totally new plane with 2 engines. The engine is the most expensive single component and the whole point of the Kingsnake is that it's supposedly a modest upgrade to the F-16 (actually it's a total redesign and would cost a fortune, but we'll ignore that).

@@trolleriffic Well now we see why it didn't get made.

@@Vespyr_ One thing I forgot is that these days a single engine isn't the problem it used to be. The F-16 actually had fewer catastrophic engine failures than the F-15 despite using the same P&W powerplant. Two engines sound good, but when an engine does fail (more likely with 2 of course) it can very easily cause so much damage that it doesn't matter if you've got a spare.

Why? The design specs that make it a better long range attack aircraft go directly against what would make it a better flight demonstrator than the current F-16

It's not going to be built

But parasitic drag though.

That would reduce quantity and variability. The whole idea would be for the F-35's to get up close and personal, while the F-36 would hang back and launch standoff missiles and bombs at the targets designated by the F-35's. Why would you want another aircraft to compete with the 35. The aircraft are supposed to complement each other.

@@Joshua_N-A Conformal weapons bays.

thank you Joe!

Thank you Andreas! Glad you enjoyed the video and I appreciate your support 👍👍👍

@@PilotPhotog welcome friend...for your enjoying and interesting aviation videos &photos

Thank you very much and thanks for subscribing! I try to get a little better with each video, and look forward to your feedback. Cheers!

yF 23 please

@@seifer918 he has already made a video ..

@@PilotPhotog 👍👍

@@venome447 yes, i know he had a video on it. Thanks, btw. I guess I wanted to say "I hope the Air Force used the YF-23 airframe to make the next plane."

If the U.S. were to seriously look at the Gripen, it would have to be a licensing deal allowing it to be made by a U.S. manufacturer so that proprietary technology could be integrated. In the end, it might actually be more expensive than an advanced F-16.

@@Primus54 isn’t Gripen already licensed to Brazil? I also thought the same arrangement would be offered to Canada? I’d be interested in a video from the channel as to why it might be more expensive to develop a new fighter rather than just license an existing one, especially one that is already using many western systems.

@@Primus54 The US has done it before with the Goshawk. Why spend billions developing a new fighter when the Gripen is so good and already exists. Plus it is fit out with a US engine and weapons.

@@jimmyw7530: The Goshawk is a trainer, not a front line fighter/attack aircraft. The U.S. has proprietary advanced technology it does not share with any other nation that would have to be retrofitted into an American version of the Gripen. The aircraft imagined in this video is not really a “new” airframe, and variations of a delta wing F-16 have already been built and tested. With the exception of the British Canberra and Harrier, the U.S. has never incorporated a foreign platform into combat service post WW2, and both of those were eventually licensed and built in America.

@@Primus54 So, they have done it at least 3 times already. The Gripen has a US designed engine and already carries US ordinance. It wouldn’t be too difficult at all to retrofit it and build it under licence in the US. The Americans can even change the name and pretend it’s their design like they did in the past.