I hope you do to. 🇺🇸

Badass, Ron!

Nice to hear from one who was involved.

We need more nerds like you!

That’s very interesting 🤔 that’s actually really cool

My pop worked for Boeing and i remembered seeing all kinds of posters and company propaganda for the joint strike fighter around the millenium when i attended take your kid to work day. I had forgotten about it until the f-35 was up and coming when i was in the army in 2014-ish

The entire F35 project has been a testbed for 6th and 7th Gen.

Fast tracking it like the vax? That doesn't work out well

Arcbird?

@@jamesstuckey2732 Arc Bird's the flying space laser ship. Arsenal Bird's a literal flying drone aircarrier.

@@romankvapil9184 ah ok, thank you. I remembered hearing it but wasn't totally sure

@@jamesstuckey2732 no but close. Arc Birb is from AceCombat 5. Arsenal Birb AC7

Is that a good thing?

And after Lockheed price-gouging for the F-35s, I'm sure this was a bipartisan agreement. This kind of reform was badly needed. With that said, I simply can't see how smaller firms will be able to compete with the big boys, even if they do focus on one part of the process (say, maintenance) just from the sheer experience, prestige, and vast resources (not to mention economy of scales) the legacy companies have. I'd love for new blood to prove me wrong though!

It can also make it so that companies do not find it as profitable and may not be as invested.

@@headoverheels88 Price gouging? It is a military contract with a stated budget.

@@bighands69 it was cost-plus. What NASA Administrator recently called "a plague" on the agency for them, probably for DoD too.

Makes sense, once a company has the contract with no competition it behoves them to prolong that as long as possible.

Mad Max, I concur. Will add my comment: I am merely a lead Service person that works with Engineering and Manufacturing for mid-range / high end server for 22 years. You *CANNOT* delink Service and support from Engineering and Manufacturing. RCCA (Root Cause / Corrective Action) on field defects is impossible.

@@BV-fr8bf Yeah, I guess they are going to learn that the hard way.

Now isn't that the truth.

Yep. The idea of splitting up contracts like that just sounds like an excuse to spend more money. I can not see how it can lead to fielding planes more efficiently.

@@BV-fr8bf , you can, plenty of private sector firms literally specialise in service and support to manufacturers spec without a mutual affiliation. What you're saying is that YOU, and those of a similar mindset, can't do it, those are two very different concepts.....

Or they are the missiles themselves, negating multiple takeoffs

Your personal take and everyone's on every single military KZfaq channel ever

@@OzoneLead Do you mean, like, a manned fighter carries the drones on hardpoints - as if they were bombs or missiles? I've long wondered about that idea ... the drone could be some sort of reusable Harpoon. Replace the warhead with a bomblet dispenser, and add a tail hook so it can "land" by snagging onto a line between a helicopter and the carrier. However, this idea doesn't really mix with stealth. All those traditional underwing hardpoints and drones hanging from them would be wonderful radar reflectors.

@@blink182bfsftw I mean. Its kind of obvious. Anti air missile tech will always have a greater engagement radius than an aircraft. Its just physics at this point. And those systems are cheap. Russia is selling them to everyone. There will never be another aircraft that can operate without fear inside a radar bubble. Weapons delivery platforms must be considered expendable now and that means we only have 2 options. Either lose a lot of pilots, or some unmanned solution with some measure of autonomy. Obviously, the latter is easier to stomach and almost certainly more effective. Because we have to have a penetration threat. Its clear that MAD is no a guarantee any longer. And even in conventionals, we need the ability to take out hypersonic platforms before they can threaten manned assets (like is basically the entire focus of Chinese hypersonic assets). Any future scenario between US and China will be resolved not by a threat of MAD forcing people to play nice, but by whoever develops the ability to use their nukes while destroying the enemy's.

Correct - 4G Collection of Systems to 5G F35 Single Platform System of Systems to 6G Networked AI Assisted Multi-Platform System of Systems with a Piloted Fighter commanding a Strike Package of Attritable Drones configured for Air Combat + Strike + IEW + ISR + Tanker = MQ25 + MQ28 + XQ58 to greatly increase Strike Package effectiveness while increasing Pilot survivability...

It sure will be a next generation distraction for the F-35 Pilot. But i see, you look at the important stuff first.... moneyflow.

Sounds like the loyal wingman concept but times 4

I think pilots have become obsolete, In a defensive posture the war In Ukraine Is changing everything.

@@Gunni1972 shush reformer.

I'm old enough to remember one of the driving forces behind the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35, was that the Air Force, Navy and Marines would all be utilising one supply chain for parts and maintenance, rather than all fielding multiple different planes, and each needing their own logistics chain. I guess I'm the only one that can remember that part of the plan.

Dream on. Unless those drones are supposed to ram into the enemies. like if they were missiles, Each drone, that engages targets with weapons, is manually controlled. there are no supersonic drones, apart from orbiters. And they don't dogfight. As to: "Autonomously engaging" , You only can engage, what you know. And downloading Datasets for possible enemies might take a while. If it comes to a Dogfight, Stealth either hasn't worked, or worked so well, everybody is out of ordonnance. Yes, you could theoretically make a drone that goes supersonic, carries a few sidewinders, and has enough fuel for a decent chase. But it will just be as complicated as a modern Jet and reliant on the EW of an F-35, OR wildly more expensive again.

Naysayers notwithstanding, deadeye, the Chinese are also working on swarm technology. There _will_ be swarm fights in the future and the outcome will be determined by whose tech and AI are best. Autonomous weaponry is part of the future whether we like it or not. AI is in its babyhood and it is giving the fear-mongers the yips. Let them bounce. If it was up to them technology would be stopped dead right where we are. Duh. You either learn to live gracefully with uncertainty or you get left on the wayside. There will always be Luddites living in fear. It's a hell of a way to live.

@@Gunni1972 Bro why you gotta roll him like a little man?

@@Gunni1972 there’s so much wrong with that post. Simply taking the human in out of the launch platform allows it a much greater range in off-axis shooting. That feature alone will make a break a dogfight. And taking the human out of the platform saves gobs of money and not just because you’re taking 200 kg out. Manned aircraft devote a substantial amount of resources to keeping the man alive without being shot at. And design programs for a huge amount of effort into that aspect of the design. Oh that without considering the fact that without a human in it you can sacrifices so you can risk doing more dangerous things outright. Seriously dude wtf?

Hr: Perhaps at dogfighting. The F-35 is already a better fighter for its' multisensor capability.

@@KB4QAA The F-35 certainly has areas where it may exceed the F-22. Though the F-22 retains an advantage in internal air to air weapons capacity. God help the people who have to go up against either. As for the people who have to deal with both even god can't help them

@@hresvelgr7193 Why should they rely on God, if they can use their brains? there are faster planes than the F-22, that can launch 600 miles range Hypersonic missiles. Remember, Aircraft start from Airports. you only have to hit the Airport/Hangar/Carrier.

@@Gunni1972 Do you seriously think being faster will somehow allow you to magically avoid the F-22? It won't. You can't use speed to avoid something if you aren't sure of it's location. And launching hypersonic missiles with 600 miles range? That puts the launching aircraft easily within the range defended by the F-22s and F-35s, especially when the AIM-260 enters service. And then missiles have to deal with the many methods used to defend airports. Also you are overlooking the fact that the faster planes you mention also need to take off from an airport. And the F-22 and F-35 are both capable of penetrating IADS and destroying either

And still these other countries can't catch up to us. Haha, sucks being a little man!

The technology seems to be arproaching much quicker than intended, variable cycle engines, the laser like the one seen on the stryker recently and more powerful AI and missiles and jammers and radar are all coming. Putting it all together, you could expect to make a truely next gen fighter by 2030. And better yet, the prototype will be flying by 2025-7

Also, yes it will cost less, stuffing far more technology into a program makes it take way longer to develop and more per plane and then you have delays.

i doubt costs could be offset entirely, but i wonder what gains could be made by maintaining active development for a platform (compared to a more 2 step approach of develop release). if the maintenance goes to a specialist contractor who can manage efficiency gains compared to the manufac's offerings, maybe they can offer tooling that's cheaper to use. i think the idea is to start with a frame and then work in modular upgrades/sidegrades to match present combat demands as closely as possible. on paper it's better to build a gun that can take any bullet, in practice we're used to building the gun around the ammo (to some deg, imo). though im definitely skeptical of making more new planes to use for less time, the modular philosophy seems to be working well enough for aerial wep systems. there is a bit of an archimedes paradox when it comes to making upgradable planes; to question the efficiency of replacing everything but the airframe, compared to starting anew. maybe we're mirroring nature in that stealth air might have a mathematically 'correct' shape to arrive at to reduce rcs much in the same way a crab's exterior has been molded by the pressures of the sea?

The development cost is surely lower, since you don't have to develop systems to fight the wars of 50 years into the future, simply 5 or 10 is enough. This makes it much easier to just take and refine slightly "off-the-shelf" technology.

IMO the real boost here is spending a greater proportion of lifetime funds on R&D, rather than maintenance. I imagine that every dollar spent on R&D has a multiplicative effect on advancing US technological leadership across all domains, whereas maintenance $$$ doesn't have the same kind of powerful positive externalities. Transitioning to lean programs with a strong future-forward focus seems like the right way to handle the reintroduction of near-peer forces to our security situation. The other advantages to this approach, like maintaining a diversified domestic aerospace industry with multiple world-class R&D programmes existing in parallel, should complement this strategy.

I think the threat of China and Russia is a little overblown esp if you look at Chinas and Russias failure rate of their recent aircraft - quality is definitely a problem. However, the NGAD program is heading more towards pure air dominance, which actually might negate the need for close air-to-air engagement. In fact, I suspect with US's surveillance capability and EW capability, that there is little need for direct engagement at all, and we will see a large increase in standoff, and defensive human flight aircraft, with a massive swarm drone offensive system - why send the pilot, when 50+ drones will do. In fact in the Iraq war this was actually applied. Saturate the airspace, and the defence systems have a hard time tracking and killing so many targets. The doctrine as already shifted (remember how long ago that was btw) and I think many countries dont realise how far ahead the US already is.

@@GroverAU LOL man, Just LOL. You just ignore all the useless or overpriced stuff the US MIC has produced lately. Let's talk Railguns, Zumwalts Ford class, Littoral combat ship, IFV and Amphibious Landing vehicle. Hypersonic missile. An ageing Aegis class (Destroyers and Frigates). While IRAN hijacks and lands US stealth drones. And each of these Items were at least twice as expensive as advertised. (The F-35 was supposed to be a 35 million $ plane). And if you look at US economics right about now, the future does not look pretty. You can have electronics and Tech make your life easier. But you always have to update, service and/or charge it. Which takes away from "Action time". Which in military matters, makes you vulnerable.

China will never have the technological edge, as all of their technology relies on stolen western tech.. They wait for us to design it first so they are always a step behind.

@@Gunni1972 cope

@@Gunni1972 So what are you saying? You are being funny, right? Its bad to fail and improve? Did I say US (and others) always make perfect projects and never wastes money? Im really having a bit of a chuckle at this - _all_ R&D is worth something. Its what makes technology move along. Whats the problem with this? I think what you mean is the F-35's are your "Action time" replacements.. theres 2000+ coming, to replace the F-15, F-18 and F-16's. And the problem with having an advanced drone oriented standoff platform is? You know this is already happening, right? There have been hundreds of drones in service for well over a decade in the US (probably thousands by now, and many different platforms). I think you might have mistaken that the NGAD is going to replace everything - that is never the case in any armed force. You have a specific platform for a specific portion of your doctrine (sometimes overlapping with others). Having spent time contracting in a number of armed forces, its very common, and the US does develop more and better than pretty much everyone (why else do China and Russia always want to copy/steal)?

Before I retired I worked on some of the systems (EW) in the F-35. Lots of the parts are cutting edge, single source parts. This stuff is NO WHERE NEAR commonly available. It's also not cheap.

Unless they chose the "I will outgadget my competitors" business route. Worked with the F-35. Now imagine 3 competitors try that. You'll end up with a flying submarine, that can land upside down, and still eject the pilot safely while flailing with the landing gear.

They changed it from being able to maneuver and beat any plane to blowing up anything that isn’t ours in the sky.

Ablative shield swarm!

@@devendietrich3445 or target jamming

Anyone who has worked in a laser laboratory will tell you how to defend against a laser. A mirror!

A plasma shield generated firstly by hypersonic velocity and then refined using some "other" technical developments.

@@gusgone4527 lmao wild

maybe a big wing with 200 BVR meteor missiles on it

Yep. IP is huge with those guys. And the payoff is sustainment to recoup R&D.

And? Defense industries operate under national monopsonies. Its not like they can just go to Fred down the street if you don't give them a bid they like. They accept the terms the gov't gives them or they cease to exist.

It would be assumed that the process would be done through the pentagon. This process maybe experimented on with the NGAD to see how well it works while other contracts will use the traditional approach.

Don't forget the insurance.

that was my thought as well. something so fast and high that engaging it once it sneaks up on you is nearly impossible. equipped with very long range hypersonic cruise missiles and anti satellite missiles.

We haven't had anything analogue in decades.

Then someone develops shields and we're back to swords

Tankers DO need to be stealthy, if they are refueling an F35C, flying toward an artificial island in the south China sea....

you underestimate the power of modern software to manage this stuff.

I believe the b-21 has some tricks we won't learn about for years but even then having 2 stealth aircraft loitering together to refuel in contested airspace seems like it would negate the advantages of stealth by creating a much bigger combined radar return. gotta remember that the F-117 that was shot down over yugoslavia in '99 got taken down by an SA-3 system, that's 60s technology. I'm sure the stealth technology is far more advanced but by the time the raider is fully operational we're also gonna be talking S-500s in terms of what it has to defeat, a system that can chuck sams out to 600km.

You may be thinking along the lines of a pilot and another crewmember dedicated to taking care of drone ops and weps. But all of that could be handled remotely or by software.

@@wehraboohunterssvu316 It would be contested airspace adjacent. The bad guy knows if they can take out a tanker, they also take out all the planes that were depending on that tanker to get home, so some kind of stealthy tanker that operates relatively close to the battle space makes sense...or even just loitered nearby as a backup plan in case a couple of regular tankers are taken out.

Yeah, for example look at the newly released trainer aircraft’s cycle.

Correct - The Digital Trinity = There Is No Spoon....

All I know is that if Tom Cruise doesn't want to fly it, I don't want to buy it! lol

but, having 3 airframes A, B, C most certainly did reduce cost. You think the Marines could separate fund a aircraft with stealth, and spend 15 years developing software? And then develop an engine? And then do that all over again for the A model? and then do that all over again for the C model? The F35 was less cost to develop then the ONE f16 program. So, seems to me, the F35 was a much better way to do this. The F16 was supposed to cost 5 billion. But, costs soared and ballooned by an additional 7 billion. (total 13 billion). So, we have these costs: F16: 13 billion (1973 dollars) F16: 83 billion (2022 dollars) F35: 80 billion (2022 dollars) but, they built 3 very DIFFERENT airframes for that same cost. (A, B, C) models ONLY share 20% common. That common is quite much only cockpit and engine - the rest of the airframes are not even close to each other. Not even the front landing gear can be swapped from A to B model, let alone the C model. So, 3 branches wound up with 3 very advanced airframes, and each of the A, B, C models are FAR FAR better then if you had 3 separate programs to develop stealth, software, and the engine. So, the fact that they achieved the F35 program for less then the ONE F16 program? I fail to see the narrative floating here that stands up as to how the F35 program was and is considered expensive? Same goes for lifetime or program cost. It sounds all cute and warm and fuzzy to toss out say the 1.5 trillion number for the F35 program. But that number WITHOUT a compare to other programs is of ZERO value - it just fodder for the low IQ masses. They calculate that 1.5 trillion by taking the number of units, x unit cost. They then add the cost per year, and X by 70 years. So, lets do that F16 total program cost: 3.1 trillion F35: total program cost 1.5 trillion So, once again, how is tossing out 1.5 trillion allow you make any kind of judgment here? And 1.5 trillion actually will not be hit, since it based on an expected number of airframes - of which they probably will not make. The F35 costs less per hour to fly then a F15, and less then a F18 per hour to fly. Only fighter that is less is the F16, but the F16 takes more hours of maintains to keep flying and more ground crew (manpower) to keep flying then a F35. We see this: Typhoon: 115 million per copy Rafale: 94 million per copy F15: 88 million per copy F18: 80 million - more if you include options to match the F35 F35: 77.8 million per copy so, given that the F35 program cost less then the F16 program, and it resulted in 3 branches receiving a an advanced fighter, it hard to make a case against the F35 program. And the F35 is the best selling fighter in 40+ years already. Give the F35 costs less then most 4th gen fighters, has better (lower RCS) stealth then a F22, seems to me like the F35 is a real winner.

@@Albertkallal Yeah marines definitely wouldn't get their 5th gen without F-35. I just worry about costs if upgrading stealth will require big airframe changes. Then upgrading old may be more $ than buying new. Ofc just an idea, may be wrong

Military power is still built on scale combined with capabilities. While German systems in WW2 were more advanced than American systems the main difference was that the US could throw large volumes of advanced systems into battle that were not quite at German levels on a per aircraft basis but when there was several thousand of them in the air it really worked.

@@bighands69 actually there wasn’t many advanced systems difference except in the intelligence agency. Numbers was the key difference

with advances in data link and satellite data technology the guy in the backseat can probably just stay back at the base and still control things quickly and efficiently.

@@TexasGreed The big reason I can see why you would not want him at the base is you can jam communication and the longer the distance the easier it is. If you are doing data links why not just have unmanned aircraft?

why? the single seat hangs back with fly by wire control and autopilot to minimize teh pilot workload, while he designates targets for the drones with his own normal targeting controls. Instead of assigning his own ordnance, he assigns a loyal wingman's ordnance to teh target and the drone executes the strike on command.

AI will take over for the backseat functions, I think. But I happen to agree, two sets of eyes are better than one in any kind of combat.

@@SoloRenegade why have 6 aircraft when you can have 7 It will let the pilot fight as the back seater controls the drones. You can’t count on the drones being able to stop everything so in that situation you either sacrifice yourself by continuing to manage the drones or sacrafice the drones when nobody is directing them and they all get shot down.

There's no such thing as a "Mach 3 turbo jet, the SR71 was and is the only aircraft (manned jet powered) that broke Mach 3

@@m42037 ....er....yes that's exactly the plane I was referring to by 'mach 3 turbojet'. It broke mach 3, it was turbojet-powered. What exactly is your complaint?

I agree, but I bet they will come up with something awesome.

Seems much less scary now we've watched 60% of Russian PGM missiles fail and the most of the rest miss.

@@TenOrbital Russia are far more different than the chinese.

@@user-gc1hg9sp9k - No. Another corrupt dictatorship with derived, reverse-engineered Soviet tech. So probably worse. The CCP still can't make a jet engine.

I don't care about the costs, 30 trillion debt and growing. If we short the military it will be spent somewhere else.

Because morale is always a thing. Many pilots want to fly fighter jets, not drones. Air Force recruitment and retention rates reflect this.

I agree with your concept there. Just one other thought - a plane that does not require all the systems and kit that protects and support a meat and bone occupant, the plane can be made to take far higher G's than is possible with a human inside . So they can go faster dive, climb and manoeuvre harder.

@@xkavarsmith9322 Yes, morale is a thing... but then, you don't actually need pilots to fly a drone... and there seem to be lots of people who enjoy playing flight simulator games and such. It actually costs quite a lot to keep that "meat in the cockpit". By "yanking" the meat OUT of the cockpit, you can do maneuvers that a live on-board pilot can't do. The cockpit also requires both volume and weight... not just the weight of the pilot, but the weight of the material (metal etc) to enclose the cockpit, oxygen delivery systems, ejection seat, and so on... Perhaps MOST importantly, by using drones, you can REDUCE the "combat information overload" by distributing jobs among multiple personnel... For example, you could have your pilot, an offensive weapons operator, a defensive systems operator... even have *multiple* personnel processing information (ie situational awareness) coming in from the drone's sensors, and an officer to maintain overall awareness. It might not be as much "fun" for the pilot, but...

skynet bad. human good.

"The channel is very optimistic" Or he's just repeating what he's been fed. The agile development concept they're touting is also an overrated project management term that managers like to use while the purported benefits are inconsistently realized.

"Optimistic" is putting it mildly. Most ideas bare no logic advantage. No plane is stealthy from all angles and in all spectrums. And mobile AA/Radar stations can make life very hard for tactical planners. "Yesterday, that route worked", today it won't.

@@wisenber …I don’t really think so… he makes a lot to tiff up. The Pentagon (USAF etc) are mostly intentionally vague. It is the interpretation, which makes it ludicrous.

@@Dominikmj " The Pentagon (USAF etc) are mostly intentionally vague." And he's repeating what he's been fed.

Russian and Chinese 3 and 4 generation are not that good to begin with.

Well and its expensive AF to even get one of these projects started. They barely give NASA a dime these days and a lot of the same teams work at JPL.

Until it isn't. Don't fall for American exceptionalism, it's been the downfall of many empires

My money is solidly on the latter case.

It would be assumed that the design process would take manufacturing abilities into account. SO part of the design would be how the aircraft are to be manufactured. It would also be assumed that the companies that are in for the manufacturing contract would understand if the project could be completed and what the issues are. The issue with all of this is that companies may not see enough of a profit to really devote all their efforts.

And that isn't even considering the electronic warfare systems on the planes themselves which pilots have praised.

@@kameronjones7139 Mark one Eyeballs spot you anyway. And Satellites have incredible eyes.

@@Gunni1972 that is the worst response I have heard so far in how to shoot down a stealth plane

What about infrared?

Or China's claims about A.I. capabilities to track and intercept hypersonic missiles going Mach 5 using anti hypersonic missiles

@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle “China” never claimed that. That was an article written by a certain infamous writer for the SCMP, and it was just describing a research project that described a possibility of using AI to filter out noise in radar returns. It then went through a gross amount of sensationalization .

@@jonathanpfeffer3716 "Chinese researchers say they have developed AI to predict course of hypersonic missiles" according to SCMP

It has been confirmed that the US built and flew a prototype NGAD and broke records doing so

AI or not, you'd need an insane amount of thrust from small engines to shift a fighter's orientation. It's going to be inefficient. The reason it works well in space is because there's no friction to worry about. Besides, why overcomplicate a fighter when you can just lob a missile that will pull way higher Gs than any fighter or in the future use lasers when the output becomes sufficient enough.

Those variable jet thrusters are exactly what the Hawker Harrier jump jet pioneered in the '60s.

No just no. 6th gen isnt going to waste time with any form of vector or new forms of thrust engines. No point. It LOOKS cool and there was a time and place for it in the past for sure, but now with new advance technology in weapon systems such as BVR (beyond visual recognition) missiles, the age of. Dogfighting/close fighting will essentially be dead/will be phased out/almost nonexistent. Why would i need to face my enemy when i could be far far away with a 10x scope and sniper while my enemy is still sitting on their ass with a rifle. That idea and approach is now being phased in as the new form of air to air superiority fighting. These BVR missiles will continue to advance, already at mach 5 (getting faster) will hit you by the time you notice it on your radar. NEXT GEN is focused on how to create better stealth to avoid detection, create better radar for longer distance, and creating more advanced BVR missiles. Vector thrust engines and new forms of gimmicky thjrust engine is no longer going to work moving forward. These BVR missiles and with advacne radar will strike a jet before the piloe will even recognize it.

The method of supermaneuverability used on modern atmospheric fighters is via "thrust vectoring", which is what is used on the F-22A Raptor. Only a very very small handful of "modern" fighters are capable of (albeit limited) supermaneuverability without the assistance of thrust vectoring... one of which is a cold war relic called the Saab Draken.

Well, you'd need an Airframe so sturdy, Fat Amy would look like a Supermodel.And the pylon stations for weapons would have to be massive, just to securely hold them in place. You literally play with a lead balloon at that stage.

It won’t, I can’t see the f35 being relevant within a decade

The F-22 wasn't built with roadmap The F-15, F-16 and F-18 all have several upgrades. The F-15 from A to EX, The F-16 from Block 10 to Block 70 and F-18 to Block III The F-35 has roadmap of upgrades and equipment changes like the F-15, F-16 and F-18s that will keep it relevant through 2070 The F-22 was given some increment upgrades but nothing that would keep it relevant

@@verdebusterAP if you think the f35 will be flying up to 2070 you are mad !

@@velocitymg The F-4 , F-5 and MIG-21s have been flying since late 1950s So why would it be impossible for the F-35 do the same The C-130 and B-52 have also been in operation since the 50s

@@verdebusterAP Isn't the F-15 getting close to that age as well?

They need it to soldier on for next 15 years or so until sufficient number of NGAD takes over.

@@piotrd.4850 yeah

So you believe that all of our Cold War nuclear-capable carrier aircraft (that's weapons carrier, not aircraft carrier) would have committed suicide and fratricide after the first delivered nuclear detonation? Do you believe that we didn't know about EMP until the internet happened?

How do you know they are susceptible to EMP?

@@trumptookthevaccine1679 Unless they're specifically hardened against an EMP with heavy shielding, all microchips/processors/data devices are susceptible to EM radiation.

@@koori3085 so I’ll ask again, how do you know they’re not?

@@Ni999 Actually the first EMP was recognized when some of the Trinity Test equipment failed. Aircraft deploying weapons outran the reach of the EMP, or were shielded... None were nimble fighters, however!

It may not have the smallest RCS, but it's likely still stealthier than anything else they're currently fielding.

That was by chance, considering it was flying in a non combat situation, and J-20s are built with a focus on frontal RCS, stealth doesn't mean undetectable, it means difficult to track and lock on to.

@@criticalevent The early U-2s flew on the ragged edge of stalling when they were at high altitude. The difference between its cruising speed and its stall speed was shockingly small (I no longer recall the exact number), and this led some to believe that Powers' U-2 was not actually hit by a missile. Instead, possibly while being distracted by a near miss of one of the missiles fired at him, he stalled his aircraft, couldn't recover the stall, and had to bail out. I don't think this theory was ever proved, however.

Let me honest, stop fighting. This is how they keep Asia from dominating the world

Did the Indians ever show evidence of this?

Actually, yes, the idea of the F35 program was VERY good idea. They managed to build 3 very different airframes - and did it for the cost of one fighter jet program. I am shocked that posters here are suggesting that 3 separate programs for the Air force, Navy and Marines would by magic trick be less cost? How? So, the air force developers their stealth fighter, then all the amazing software and engine for their fighter. Just the software takes 15 years. Then the Navy goes ahead, their own engine program, their own stealth, their own weapons' and advanced software system - again another 15 years. Then the Marines goes ahead, their own engine program, their own stealth, their own weapons and software - again, another 15 years of work. In fact, you wind up with 3 MUCH less fighters, since all 3 now did not have the budget nor means to share that basic technology. Only 20% of the F35 A, B, C are common to each other. You can't even swap the front wheel nose assembly from a A to B model, let allow the double nose wheel and different airframe for the C model. In fact, the F35 program cost LESS then the F16 program, and they did not have to build the challenging STOVL B model. And the F35 program cost is and was less the the F16 program. I mean, if I just tell you the F35 was high cost? Then COMPARE to what, and what fighter then???? the F16 program was to cost 5 billion. but R&D costs ballooned by an additional 7 billion to a total of 13 billion. So, we have: F16 program: 13 billion (1973 dollars) F16 program: 83 billion (2020 dollars). F35 program : 80 billion (2020 dollars). So how is they managed to build 3 airframes for LESS cost then the one F16 program? And should we not divide the cost of that 83 billion between the 3 models? If we do, then the F35 costs are MUCH lower then the F16 program, right??? but, what about that 1.5 trillion cost? Well, they not even spent 400 billion (which includes the 80 billion R&D above). And they delivered over 800 copies of the F35. Its already the best selling fighter in 40+ years for that 400 billion. But, lets do that silly life time cost calculation for the F35 vs F16 then, right? After all, that quoted 1.5 trillion cost? They NEVER quoted other fighter jet programs that way before. So, what do we see and get? F16: lifetime cost: 3.1 trillion f35: 1.5 trillion They get that cost by: number of units made/sold x unit cost + 70 years x year cost to run x number of units. And the F35 is the low cost choice and option against all other fighters - only exception is the F16 - but they made so many of them! - it keeps the cost down! Eurofighter: 115 million each Rafale: 94 million each F15: 88 million each Gripen E/F: 85 million each f35: 77.8 million each. And the F35 costs less per hour to run then a F18, and less per hour to run then a F15. And is within 3% of a F16 and still dropping. So, on what basis do you suggest the F35 is any more costly then any previous fighter program? F35 has a lower cost to buy, then even a Saab Gripen, and the F35 has the same cost per hour to fly as these other fighters. In fact, the only fighter that I can find less per hour to operate is the F16, but the F16 takes more hours of ground crews and maintains to keep flying then does a F35. So, when someone says the F35 was high cost? Well, compared to what fighter program then. Since without a compare, then such ballyhooing amounts to fodder, and nothing more.

Remember that NGAD will be composed of multiple platforms filling specialized roles, I'm absolutely sure certain instances of NGAD can go toe to toe in a dogfight, but a few others would be too specialized for their role to be able to, and likely would serve as an arsenal truck or jamming units or anything else that doesn't necessarily need to dogfight and/or stays far enough behind friendly lines to be mostly safe The ones that can dogfight would likely take care of anything that can threaten the ones who can't, maybe even have a few be escort

The F-4 was introduced into service in 1960, a date closer to the Wright brother's first flight than to today. I'm not saying there isn't a lesson in the mistakes of the F-4, but it probably isn't all that relevant

Its important to take those lessons to heart while also acknowledging the question of dogfight viability is never a foregone conclusion to either measure.

That’s what the drones are for and they are not limited by g forces

It will be optionally manned anyway.

In the commercial world and in military contracting there are organisations and programs which are literally "too big to fail". And the F-35 is definitely in that category. It's incredibly easy for the military to overhype a weapon system - they've done it before many times, and they can establish canned scenarios where any weapon system has a huge kill ratio.

The F-35 is still just entering service, and now they suddenly need to fast track a brand new fighter? I smell a rat, especially given there doesn't appear to be a major threat from China or Russia from an advanced technology perspective. Who is deciding that there is suddenly this super-advanced threat? Or is the F-35 sub-par, requiring a plane that can actually do the job.

You're ignoring the fact that the NGAD isn't supposed to be replacing the F-35. It's supposed to replace the F-22 and complement the F-35. The early problems with the F-35 have been extensively reported. If there were further ones, I suspect we'd know about it. But the pilots flying them love them, they're dominating Red Flag and other exercises, and other countries are clamoring to buy them. (I doubt Israel is going to buy a substandard aircraft since its existence depends on its military with no room for error.) You can go back to early reports for just about any aircraft and find lots of problems. The B-29 was always unreliable. The P-51 was nothing special until it got an engine upgrade. The SR-71 leaked fuel like a sieve until it heated up in the air. The F-14 was plagued with engine stalls resulting in flat spins until it got new engines. The F-16 had extensive problems with its new fly-by-wire system and engine. The list goes on, but they all ended up being excellent aircraft. The F-35's issues are nothing unusual and have mostly been fixed. And the unit cost is now below a few 4th gen fighters. People are just cherry-picking data with no context because they have an obsession with claiming that the Pentagon and the MiLiTaRy InDuStRiAl CoMpLex are trying to hoodwink us and handicap so-called "better" systems just to line their pockets. Are costs somewhat inflated? Sure. But we typically end up with top-notch weapons that are many years ahead of our adversaries, and there's not outright theft. This isn't Russia.

@@k9killer221 In the military it is completely normal for pilots to be very protective about their equipment. They will not admit to flying something which is shit. And in any case, it is *illegal* to mention limitations/criticisms because of secrecy. I think the initial *test pilot* reports were accurate, but you won't get that story today, pal. Do you seriously think a career military pilot is going to say in a military press video that he thinks the plane is shit?

@@bluemarlin8138 I only go by what the Pentagon told us. The F-35, with its huge cost, was supposed to do everything. BVR shooting, the whole lot. They even said the ACM was very good, as a self-defence contingency. If they said the F-35 was just an expensive somewhat stealthy bomb truck, I probably would have been fine with that.

That's the cost of an F-22. And we fielded 170+ of those. So a more technologically advanced and more capable craft costing the same amount as a fighter created in the 90's is quite an achievement.