Exactly. That’s a major reason why the Russian and Chinese so-called 5th gen fighters aren’t nearly as stealthy as the US aircraft (although the J-20 is a lot closer than the Su-57). Even if they can make aircraft with the right shape, and even approximate the RAM coating, they don’t possess the machining technology to produce aircraft with the tight tolerances to reduce radar signatures nearly as much as the West does (and we won’t sell it to them). Any seam or uneven surface will greatly magnify radar returns.

@@bluemarlin8138 The application scenario of J-20 is different from F-22 and F-35. The J-20 focuses more on performance during supersonic cruise, and the US military places more emphasis on stealth. Chinese commercial satellites recently spotted the U.S. F-22, and Chinese and Russian meter-wave radars can also capture U.S. fifth-generation aircraft.

​@@bluemarlin8138 There is also no clear RCS value of J-20. The aspect of its stealth performance that has been questioned is primarily the duck layout, not the stealth coating. The NGAD is currently only available as a prototype, and it will take a long time for the US to actually build it. An article (Radar cross-section effect of canard by GUO Zhanzhi, CHEN Yingwen, MA Lianfeng) compares the RCS of the F-35 and J-20 by a more accurate method, which can be used for your reference.

@@jingyangzhang1234 Capturing something on radar is child’s play. Stealth doesn’t mean it’s invisible to radar.

Nobody has come even close

How about the next time you talk about something talk about this, a stealth aircraft carrier a stealth Destroyer and a, stealth Cruiser.

@@jerryshield1582 perhaps something I've missed but it feels a bit redundant to have stealthy assets of that size and slow speed. Seems like trying to hide an elephant with a blanket: you're still gonna notice all the poop piles and that strange fabric formation.

What about the Oregon from the Clyde Kessler series that was a stealth ship that was pretty amazing. It was kind of made up, but it was pretty incredible series. There from the Clyde Kessler the author who recently passed away it was pretty amazing ship and that story.

PS Brose may not a red car Kessler. The Oregon ship in the story had a I don’t know how to say this a needle or something rather, I forget how to pronounce this word suction water. It takes the energy by magnetism to power to ship instead of regular fuel and so like the Red October thing is kinda proportion thing it’s it takes all energy out the water to power it so it’s like quiet but also very fast so I don’t know how to exactly put that into words how describes in the book and I’ll pull to work.

Or even as a sort of AWACS, linking to the aircraft and giving the pilot an even better picture of the battlefield

Poobah’s Party! That was incredibly effective.

@@flyingplatypus7272 That’s a good idea! Good flying platypus! Good platypus! 😁

The decoy form of that exists already. Depending on what you mean by offensive/defensive weapons that would just be a fighter or a missile. Loitering munitions don’t really make sense for air to air combat.

Or what you do is send out some drones ahead of the aircraft. As soon as it gets there is links up with the drones and they become part of the family temporarily.

he make a video about the FCAS ?

Excellent suggestions, Manish.

and perhaps one on the Future Vertical Lift program

I honestly wouldn't be surprised. Active flow control can apply thrust in directions and ways impossible with even 360 degree thrust vectoring. With active flow control you can almost turn gravity and physics into suggestions

I believe it. In kerbal space program, I have made designs with similar maneuverability, even without advanced computer control, using the above systems. The main problem was high g-force loads, but I imagine that those could be reduced via some clever wing design and piloting, and the use of real engineering and math.

I saw that video, impressive as hell. The tumbling you're talking about is a maneuver called a snap roll. Any aircraft with aerobatic ability can do them, you get into it by putting flight surfaces into cross control and it'll keep doing the roll as long as you hold that input

Maneuverability costs speed, so let's hope both can be increased in correct proportions. This is probably the biggest reason thrust vector isn't as important as it was once thought because tight maneuvers can only be done at low speed which makes a jet vulnerable to even old missiles and even guns. Fly fast enough, you don't even need to worry about bullets, just hypersonic missiles whose maneuverability is also faster & cheaper to improve than with larger, heavier jets.

​@@jamesmaddison4546 Hey James where can I find that video, please thanks 👍

ello, engineer here. Active flow control, actively modifies fluid flow over a body. For a common example would be an inlet bleed, an inlet bleed are like tiny perforations on the inlet leading edge, and they are actively maintaining a succc to succ the boundary layer air (bad slow air that sticks to the body). Passive controls don't use powers (or very very less). Like a tail, flap, brakes they change shapes to modify the flow. why use active? cuz tails and flaps and ailerons can fail. think about a plane, and it pitches up(that is what high alpha means by the way if u dk the terminologies). the tail, now is 'hidden' by the plane body, when viewed from front, can imagine xD? the tail dont get to use the fast and fresh moving air, instead it got the air flow that is stuck to the body of plane, slow and turbulent air flows. It reduces the effectiveness of such control surfaces. how do we fix that with active systems? well it is never gonna be like what the creator of the video said, literally using little jets to steer the aircraft, because it is very inefficient. But u can do a few things: remember about the little holes that succ bad airflow? we can use them not only on inlets but wings as well! we can modify the flow over the wings so they dont turn bad as quickly, if they dont turn bad at higher angles, tails and flaps and ailerons can be smaller, because they are more effective. adaptive lifting body? oh boy, that is the holy grail of aerodynamic efficiency. all the above problems arise from the fact that we are trying to steer and fly a brick. Look, f 35 is a brick, fr. We gotta fly it, so we stick wings to it, now it looks a little more plane like. But like I said at certain angles, it doesnt look plane enough from the front anymore(high alphas). That is bad. If only we can change the shape of the brick.... wait wdym look at nature? well, look at the nature! An eagle wants to turn, it banks, it slants and pitch one side of wing , its body curves to the direction. There you go! adaptive lifting body. Instead of using control surfaces, we change the lifting bodies: the wings itself(not only wings, the fuselage can be changed as well) to better ACOMMODATE the air flow. Note the ACOMMODATE, this is inherently a passive process, we are not re routing air flow from engine and pump it into the air flow over the plane, we are changing the shape of wings, ACCORDING to air flow, like an eagle. That is ofc, extremely hard to do, the reason why we have not done this already hahahaha. As you can see they are very different concepts, but achieving the same goal thru different methods. Hope my explanation helps!

@@core-experience Yes, that helps tremendously. Thanks for that vivid and detailed explanation.

@@core-experience dont super-cavitating torpedo's already use active flow control in a way? althought obviously in water, not air

@@cod6guy12 most designs seems to be relying on a passive system(a flat nose and speed) to create the bubble. I have read somewhere that on some torpedo gas are routed to the nose to enlarge the bubble. So yea they fits in the description of a active flow control, a weird connection indeed! hahaahaha

@@cod6guy12 yes, but it is not nearly as difficult in water, since it is so dense.

Better question may be what the holes do to the rcs..

This is where autonomous fighters will excel.

@@montithered4741 loyal wing men, I get it but what if the 6th gen fighter itself isn't maneuverable, and a new adversary stealth fighter with excellent WVR characteristics managed to get close. Yes it will die but it can also take the 6th gen down with it, it may also force the loyal wingmen to go down as well.

@@michaeld1170 That would be a net win because losing an AI UCAV is much less costly than losing a comparable manned aircraft.

@@montithered4741 no, what I mean is, what if the adversary manages to get close to the manned 6th gen. Because the way I understood your statement is, its okay to have a slow and slugisg 6th gen as long as it is escorted by highly maneuverable UCAVs. My take is, what if the adversary gets close to the slow and slugish 6th gen. All I'm saying is, the F-15, Su-27 and F-22 managed to have extreme maneuverability without sacrificing too much in other aspects. I hope 6th gen does the same.

@@michaeld1170 If they did get close to a 6th gen fighter, an AI UCAV would still have the advantage due to reduced size, reduced weight, increased reaction times, reduced g-limits, asymmetrical and negative-g maneuvering, greater sensor awareness, and increased accuracy with guns.

It's a comic book story. None of it is real.

@@BigSmartArmed its well documented that the US is working on a 6th generation fighter. No telling what it will be able to do. The F-35 already does some of these things.

Added to that there are two smiling projects in progress in Europe

You have a Bhairab art from Nepal as your profile pic?

Drew Dutton 👋

@@Make-Asylums-Great-Again 🇺🇸 Asylum is great again, thanks to President Barack Obama's appreciation for those seeking it from countries in which totalitarian regimes oppress their people to the point that they leave everything to seek asylum in America 🇺🇸

The bae is 2 decades away. And might not even be developed

It will be another Britarded flunky like their previous efforts and the taxpayers will be shafted again.

BAE North America =/= BAE systems in UK They don't tend to share technology due to a special arrangement put in place by the US government.

@@djl5634 If its BAE the jet should be ready in about 150 years ....SMH

2035 in service date. Also doing work with the Japanese fighter project to compliment each other. Tempest in service date works well as the typhoon replacement so can’t be delayed for a lot of years. America F35 block 4 is the current delay champion

Anything big enough to carry a cruise missile internally probably isn’t going to be a very good fighter. Best to launch those from outside enemy airspace with more conventional aircraft.

Agreed. It takes years to produce a competent pilot. Maybe a month or so to make the vehicle.

Drones would be terrifying to enemy pilots. I know I would be terrified coming upon a swarm of machine gun drones in the field.

No because of electronic warfare that's an awful idea

@@cancelanime1507 Ummmm drones ?? Never heard of encrypted Comms ?

@@edwardfletcher7790 I’m talking about the connection between the pilot on the ground and the aircraft would be prone to electronic and cyber warfare

Dogfights are extremely rare In modern combat tho? Enemy aircraft are usually destroyed when they are far away

Actually it was on April 7th late afternoon when I was heading to a wedding in lake Havasu. Anyone else see the convoy? It was pretty long.

@@geraldlundgren8836Awesome, as someone who frequently drives thru the desert portion of California. I love seeing these convoys traveling late at night.

If it was a top secret Aircraft then they would divert traffic so they would not come into contact with it. In other words they would close the route ahead of it until it is way past.

@@billymiles6870 it was too secret something. All police of about 30 vehicles out in front of it and a bunch behind. If you were traveling in that direction you would not be able to see it.

X-59 probably is what you saw: www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/4.18-3.jpg?itok=4BkInyGZ

I've thought of this before. How about a v-tail that is stored flush with the body surface and then deploys at low speeds?

Not a bad idea, though it would probably be very expensive to keep stealthy and hard to maintain.

@@DAAllan82 I got the idea from the retractable opening on the f35b

The B2 gets by without a tail, instead using split-ailerons as aerodynamic brakes to affect yaw. It uses a computer system to keep it inside a safe aerodynamic envelope and tame any oscillations or instabilities that are inherent to the design, but it works. Its predecessor, the YB-49, lacked any such computer stabilization systems and was still airworthy as long as the pilot was skilled enough and kept it inside the approved flight envelope. As for drag-controlled yaw, that's actually a very safe and well-proven method. On the general aviation side, there are the many Burt Rutan designs that do employ vertical stabilizers but rely on drag for yaw control. Many of those aircraft are still being built and sold today, like the Velocity.

@@ParadigmUnkn0wn Interesting. I was not aware Rutan's designs worked by that method. I have recently seen vids that show ideas that have vertical tail surfaces during slow flight that fold to horizontal at higher speeds. Pretty cool but probably expensive, heavier and with great complexity.

I agree.

Forward swept wings tested on one F-16 model and Su-47 Berkut have some....structural challenges. As for agility - well, for F-16 it is the PILOT that is limiting factor but these attributes also help to land in strong crosswind, take off and land using shorter runaways.... all sorts of useful stuff.

@@piotrd.4850 if you’re referring to the X-29, that was actually a heavily modified F-5A

The FA-37 Talon is not really a stealthy air frame. It lacks the general geometric symmetry, and a switchblade design decreases G load limit for the wings itself. The reason why the NGAD is what is now is because its made from lessons learned from all aicrafts

@@WarDaddy8917 could you please explain the g-load limit? Not all that versed beyond high school level aerodynamics. The only reason I mentioned the Talon was because it was a switchblade design. I’m not advocating for it to be built IRL (although I would love to see some of its capabilities/technologies be incorporated into NGAD and FAXX)

DARPA is testing AFC now, it’s been going quite successful. Also NATO avt-239 was also testing for possible tailless next generation aircraft.

Those times were half a century ago. Sensor and tracking technology have matured to the point where missile shots are pretty damn reliable

I agree. However, whilst the best defence may be a good offence, relying solely on it is foolish. If you can evade the enemy's attacks whilst dishing out superior firepower, why wouldn't you? Having it as a backup would be beneficial in situations has gained an advantage. Also, I'm sure you know, but the development of aircraft and weapons systems are done independently meaning there doesn't have to be a choice between them, and you can do both provided you are willing to fund them.

EW will never make you invisible, and will actually make you incredibly visible. EW is the context you describe it is jamming, which is flooding radars with massive amounts of noise. This will make it incredibly obvious that you are there, but will make it more difficult to get a bead on exactly where you are, thus making targeting difficult.

@@jonathanpfeffer3716 no that was how first gen ew worked... Now ew along with stealth allows to manipulate the signals in way to confuse the enemy radar.

@@nighthawk4028 It is speculated that the newest types of EW pods can do something like what you describe. The vast majority of tactical level airborne EW is still just jamming. The Gripen's EW suite, that was describe above, is just a jammer.