That is what the US did during the air Campaign of Desert Storm, drone decoys were launched on mass to confuse Baghdad's Air Defenses and cause them to waste ammo in advance of the attacking forces.

The Navy needs to do this on a much larger scale for their aircraft carriers. Create numerous false radar/sensor returns per every ship within the target zone and confuse/overwhelm Chinese targeting systems.

Poobah's Party: the Sequel

@@karlkobler218 they actually do have decoy systems that do what you described. I don’t know at what scale though.

Attach high speed cameras to first missiles and provide intel on whether they're drones or not. Save missiles

I never quite understood that either. To me, it seemed like there was a place for both... Not just one.

@@rjb1115 using both requires setting up a extra squadron, facilities, support equipment and parts/supply system for each one on a ship, it's not efficient or needed when you already have not only the f18, but it's entire logistics chain already in existence and QUITE large, along with several years worth of experienced maintainers. It's not easy adding in new craft to a fleet.

@@thezombiepotato1 thanks for the explanation

Meh. Global Hawk costs like $150 million a pop.

@@williamwchuang sure, but modern systems are proving more capable for less money. Spirit was 1 billion each. Raider is 500-600 million. Global Hawk was designed for a very different mission during a very different era.

@@williamwchuang I knew there’d be people like you. Always underestimating US air capabilities, thinking every missile defence in the world especially Russia and China can shoot down every American Jet, Bombers, Drones and even Stealth Bombers like B-2 Spirit and the upcoming B-21 raider if insanely optimistic. It also sucks to make lengthy comments like what I’m making right now, knowing that you won’t comment back like all others I’ve commented to.

It's US monopoly money. Just type 12 zeros into the money printer and boom. Drone fleet.

Hold up. I remember the US trying something like this before. I'm being serious. And it's part of history. It wasn't successful, i saw a KZfaq video on it, the project was abandoned

@@RazorM97 welp, no reason to try again then 🤷‍♂️ I kid, I kid

@@defective6811 not that. But i do have a better solution. Though the US was planning on getting something good enough(mentioned in a previous video from the channel). I think the US forgot about it's European allies. That could be a great place to start..

@@RazorM97 I do expect to see a great deal more capabilities integration among the allies moving forward. Whether Russia 'wins' this war or not, the troubles are just starting. I would love especially to see a combination of effort among US/UK/FR/DE firms to build cooperative systems. As seen from India's ethical quandary, a symbiosis of military equipment does a great deal to tie partners together.

Ive often wondered about that 'loyal escort' concept, as you call it (great name btw!). As far as the tactical failings - that is probably a question that won't be answered definitively for years. We _know_ that the Russian armed forces are capable of performing at _such_ a higher level than we have seen in Ukraine. They demonstrated that in Syria, if admittedly at a small scale. Until we have a peek behind the Rusty Curtain, we likely won't know exactly what went wrong for them to un-learn it all so spectacularly.

I think the issue is the wingmen for bombers: Cheap, expendable and would give away the location of the B21. Or expensive/nonexpendable/steathy. Plus you dont want to give away your beat stealth tech by having something willingly shot down.

I dont want to speak for OP, but when I envision a flying-wing 'loyal escort' I envision a platform on par with the low observability of the Raider or Spirit, but which includes counter-offensive capabilities such as the ability to engage air assets which may be attempting to track the bomber, or clear an escape route should the bombers mission become compromised. I essentially think of it as a system which is not designed to be attritable, but which is able to sacrifice itself _if need be_ to protect the bomber. The platform could even still have air to ground capabilities such as SEAD, but its role would be to complement the capabilities of the bomber while ensuring its safety. But I am NOT a weapons designer lol.

Could call the Escort plane 'Sharon', or Shazza for Australians. The dazzler 'Robert', or Bobby Dazzler. Shazza and Bobby Dazzler 👍🏿

That's what the f22 and its orators drones are for. They want a streamlined force with no more than the minimum number of air frame types. That's my guess based on public news anyhow.

Well, that is true, but how far can the tankers really go? To be fair, that xb 47 drone is a carrier based mid air refueller, but it will also have a limited range (unless they use them as Toad, or take off and die, aircraft).

Exactly, it all depends on how they anticipate using them. Definitely gives them more options with all these capabilities and tradeoffs to choose from.

They will have tanker drones for refueling. The US is a logistics monster. Part of that is being able to keep the equipment you have in use. Especially now that we’re building up to counter China.

⁰

Too bad China forgot all about all that in the 50's

That's kinda in the lion's mouth, wouldn't want to loiter there in a subsonic aircraft.

@@kathrynck you people put way to much emphasis on speed. The best asset in that area is stealthily ones like the b21 and submarines

@@kameronjones7139 If you're going subsonic, in an aircraft which can't maneuver, in an area which is in VERY easy reach of chinese fighter aircraft, in an area where you would quickly be spotted due to the density of operations in a relatively small swath... You're gonna have a bad day. Period. Stealth planes are "stealthy", not "invisible". You can't outrun a fighter, you can't maneuver with a fighter, if you meet a fighter in a B-21, that's very not-good. Now could they make hit & run attacks in that area? Yeah. Could they carry cruise missiles to within range of ships in the straight? Yeah. They'd be useful there. But they're not going to "loiter" right off the coast of China.

@@kathrynck again you are putting way to much emphasis on speed without knowing the first thing about it. You do understand that a supersonic bomber like the b1 would actually be more vulnerable. It would get spotted at longer range than the b21 and would be shot down because it still can't outrun a missile. Stealth has shown to be the most survivable and again that it is the best option for planes to survive in contested airspace. For some reason you didn't put two and two together and realize that they could loiter with anti ship missiles until the very end of your sentence. Name me any other plane that can survive in those areas better than a b21

@@kameronjones7139 You have a knack for condescension. The whole point, is that's not a place for bombers to spend any significant time, without a significant amount of SEAD and fighter escort. In & out perhaps, but not loitering. It would do better than a Bone, yeah. And neither of them would loiter there. Not in the early stages of a Taiwan invasion war anyway.

Yeah, it's a wild weasel, with a specific goal of testing (and clearing) a specific corridor for the B-21. Unfortunately, that would tell an opponent where to expect the B-21... so... meh.

Nah suicide MALDs.

The Dr dose know😉

I'd almost forgotten about Dale Brown and his Patrick McLanahan novels, but you're absolutely right. I actually thought about the OLD DOG when I saw a video about the proposed J/K upgrades for the B-52 and was disappointed that it wasn't going to be that for real And I guess I shouldn't be surprised to find a fellow fan of those books on this channel. Hail, and well met. #thebuffwillneverdie

The issue wasn't that we couldn't figure it out but rather it was pointless to do it cause the US was so far ahead. Imagine this, during the 1990s, Russia was still trying to reconstitute their military aircraft production outside of Ukraine and China's military was set up like they were going to first a second Korean War. For railguns, the issue was never about the projectile issues, those are easily solvable with pure hardened munitions like tungsten. The issues with the rail gun program is that they tried to merge conventional wisdom with gun power wisdom i.e. the barrel is designed like you are firing a gunpower based munitions which was never designed to handle the expanded energy from an electromagnetically propelled object. This issue actually reduced the range of what they had hoped for and then mix this with the fact that firing this weapon on a ship, it took numerous refits just to get the needed electricity and then had to severely reinforce the frame of the ship in order for the gun's recoil energy wouldn't tear the frame apart. The only ships capable of using this gun are the Zumwalt class ships and the navy has already abandoned making anymore of them in favor of the fact that laser weapons electricity requirements allow them to be deployed on existing ships with minimal changes to ship designs. Hypersonic weapons could have easily been made in the 1990s or 2000s however critics won out saying they contribute little to US military capabilities, unnecessary compared to existing deterrence assets, and lack a defined mission requirement. China and Russia see hypersonics as a way to deal with US carrier assets first and foremost.

❤

Ya, like their doctrine that allows the use the nukes without needing to be hit by one 1st. Scary shit!

Yes yes!

*More on delusional propaganda please

Yea like 100+ dead Ukrainians every single day lmao

Only failure here is pentagon cancelling this project hahha

I wonder why China is building carriers of the same size, then. Having a large target also makes the opponent predictable, if he wants to be able to beat you.

Who told ya that??

From what I can tell, your suggestion cannot be consistent with Navy experience. Smaller versions of any ship has to mean less capability and unless you can cross a threshold if it exists that a ship would almost disappear, all you're doing is putting more targets at sea with less range and capability that are equally vulnerable targets. A very large ship like the Ford has at least a chance to defend itself by its massive source of energy and resources to support a variety of weapons.

Seconded

Thirded

@Wiegraf Wow a large military was able to make meager territorial gains while fighting a smaller weaker opponent through sheer manpower while sustaining 30K causalities. I'm impressed. Totally not a flawed military right?

@Wiegraf yeah so that's why they attacked Kiev several hundred miles away. They wanted to conquer the whole country.

Yep, Boeing needs intervention ...

I agree, unless the deep strike capability allows you take out all their nukes.

@@artnull13 what are you going to do about submarines though

@@chembleton very good point - but it’s probably more useful against rogue nuclear states such as N.Korea, rather than Russia.

@@artnull13 that may be very true but one thing that this Ukraine war has highlighted is NATO is utterly impotent the minute a nation has nukes. I think this will therefore give rise to other countries trying to develop them even more. Putin may even try to supply them to countries like Syria, Iran, North Korea in order to gain allies and create a Warsaw Pact V2.0 . I sadly believe WW3 is inevitable at some point in the future.

The stealth bombers are obviously used conventionally, but their main purpose is nuclear. Bombers still serve a niche role in nuclear conflict, mostly bunker busting. And non-stealth bombers just won't be able to get there reliably. So alas, we need to invest in a technology we'll probably never use. Remember, contrary to what Russia claims, the US and NATO have no interest in a preemptive strike against Russia without thinking they're planning an attack. So this is mostly about being able to deter them, or any others, from thinking they can get away with a first strike without total annihilation in return.

M163? So you would have been a 16R? Probably 16R2 or 16R3 as well, since you were senior gunner, I'd imagine. Im not 100% sure how the rank structure worked in the AAA end.

Sounds like the Aurora. That thing has yet to be confirmed.

A problem with drones, even military grade is that sometimes the connection to the operator is lost. Most the the time it's required before crashing, but USA lost lots of drones in the middle due to crashing after signal was lost. Can't risk that with a drone that would have to be able to carry nukes.

China it was insinuated over and over again in the video

Seems if we train specifically for China, Russia would be dealt with too.

China is the US's closest peer

My arguement is that China is deeply influenced by Russia doctrine and tactic. So are they REALLY peers or just another false flag? Their military also has basically zero combat expierence as well and a deeply corrupt system.

Aliens

Why? It's not very stealthy if people can find you.

Where are you getting your information from? They have stated it is going to be around 500 million

How do you refuel a package of .....say....140 Planes ? How many tankers would you need ? Are those tankers in danger of being shot down?

@@junkookbts1273 Depends on what tankers you are using. With the KC-130 you can refuel up to three at a time from one tanker. Each tanker can carry 83,000 lbs of fuel. The USAF currently operates >450 air tankers. The Navy, Marine Corp, National Guard, and Coast Guard have hundreds more. So a 140 plane fight wouldn’t be any trouble.

Reality is stranger than fiction at times. I most definitely believe that we will live to see that become reality in less than 2 decades and wouldn't be surprised if it was implemented within a decade or less. (If they haven't flown already considering the secrets the US keeps.) The tech is there, it's simply a matter of application.

@@marrqi7wini54 100% agree. Maybe even sooner.

Yes. Stealth can kick the door down and establish air superiority then regular aircraft hangs out

oh 4th Gen will be around for a long long which is why the F-16EX II is being produced.

oversight and collaboration. Just cause something is released does it mean that our enemies actually know how it functions. Perfect example of this was the space shuttle program. NASA released every single document that existed which created confusion among soviet scientists on what the space shuttle framework and capabilities actually were. And when i say they released everything, they literally released everything including parts that they considered and tested. They just never said what their final actual design was or included any information that indicated something was a failure or not giving the sense that every concept was feasible and workable. When the Russians tried to do it they couldn't figure it out cause it meant they had to test all of these capabilities and parts themselves even though they had the plans for it all lol.

What it does is the secret, how it does it is.