Go to ground.news/Sandboxx to stay fully informed on military developments around the world. Subscribe through my link right now for 40% off their Vantage Plan, which is what I use everyday.
@SandboxxApp A L E X !!! Sorry for yelling. Use your clout to start a go fund me ( Or something similar but a little more formal and professional) for NGAD. I'm sure there is a lot of money that would come in. If people knew their dollars would actually go directly to this program. A donation separate from tax dollars. I would definitely donate towards it.
Ahh yes CR spending. We were building an app for one of our lakes to upgrade their dock permit tracking. With no budget, no money in a time when we could have knocked it out by Christmas. Now it is having to share time with 3 or 4 other priorities and maybe the end of this FY?
It should be illegal to make omnibus bills. The reason why the defense bills get delayed is because people want to pour their unrelated-to-national-security pork into the defense budget.
Agreed, but this is largely a consequence of lobbying, if the wealthy PACs who backed the congressperson in question don't get their due, they'll drop them like a hot potato and pick someone who will. Unfortunately, "ban lobbying" is something popular among the common people, but not so with our politicians.
we also want term limits, anti corruption investigators, stock market bans for politicians. But we ain't getting none of that, because that doesn't help the corrupt to be more corrupt. And there is no way to vote our way out of this, as both parties really love their corruption. Like, a lot.
It was comments about timing and funding allotment for FY26... having to choose which programs to prioritize... reporter specifically asked about NGAD and he said that is one program that would have to be prioritized when it comes to spending. Cant put all eggs in 1 basket and not be able to pivot if threat assessments change... typical political answer... but they could cut back on some of the funding in 26, like the Navy did in 25, and add more back in in 27 or 28, just extending it out longer, to allow more upfront funding for other programs closer to production
@@johnoliver4739 Did he say this part "to allow more upfront funding for other programs closer to production"? That seems like the B-21 in all but name. I don't know anything about the Minuteman replacement timeline, tbf.
@@Varadiio Insanely over time, insanely over budget, and the Minutemen are insanely over their sell by date. So the perfect storm if you ascribe to chance someone waiting too long to do something about a problem that they have known about for over a decade. So less storm, more long line of can kickers.
Missing out on air dominance and superiority for the next several decades seems so shortsighted and ill advised I couldn’t believe we wouldn’t make NGAD. Gotta do it for the lore
Why? The Ukraine war has shown that Russian aviation isn't nearly as good as projected. Ukraine is being armed with nearly 40 year-old F16s and these are likely to be equal to anything they Russians have. Russian planes aren't much of a match for older Patriot systems, older Soviet-era aircraft, etc. by a foe with a massive numeric disadvantage. Modern western missiles on far older aircraft, drones, older HIMARs, and other systems are easily destroying them. Further, Russia won't even be able to face the US with even these as its losing aircraft quickly and new aircraft production is in serious trouble due to sanctions, demographics, etc. There is little doubt that F15s, F22s, or F35s would decimate Russian aircraft in any actual fight against modern western air forces. China relies on copies of Russian tech and so they have all the same issues. Exactly who is the US supposed to fight that it can't already defeat fairly easily?
I mean yes, but the thing is, the F-35 is meant to be able to be upgraded, and it's getting an insane upgrade as we speak. Over double the sensors, weapons payload near par with the F-22, an even crazier radar than it already has (and the radar has already been proven to be able to track, lock on to, and get a weapons solution on a cruise missile), new weapons that every plane that can carry them is getting, all in a package that comes back as a steel marble on radar from far away. And that's just the hardware upgrades. That's not including its capabilities. The radar can take missiles fired from 4th generation aircaft and guide them as the non stealthy aircraft goes cold. With the f-15 EX's insane weapons payload, that's an incredible recipe for air dominance. And I didn't even touch on all the other things the F-35 can do and all the upgrades it's getting.
I am a Military Avionics Test Engineer and I was shaking my head through most of this video thinking "This'll never work" until he started talking about the Gambit procurement method. That sounds like the way to go. Only upgrading systems that need it every 5 years will keep the NGAD current and the costs, which are gonna be high, down to manageable levels. Just my opinion, take it or leave it.
Congress has been a major roadblock for defense acquisition for decades. The entire LCS program was a disaster entirely because of Congressional meddling. And the fact that fewer and fewer legislators have any actual military experience only makes their lack of understanding more problematic.
How exactly have all of those officers that have gone before congressional committees and testified under oath that the LCS is a perfectly good and survivable ship(classes) been a fault of congressional meddling? The statement you made is so astoundingly stupid that I have to actually defend congress on something with is bizarre enough, but again, it wasn't just congress forcing the navy to buy theses things. Unless of course all the officers and DoD people testifying at, who knows, how many hearings were all not merely lying about the LCS and its abilities, but were up there lying as part of a scheme in conjunction with congress to lie about the lying.... Oh, I'm sorry, you're right. The US military is above reproach and things like corruption. They should be in charge of everything and we would have no problems.
Outstanding episode! This show isn't telling you what you already know, or providing inaccurate info in a computer generated voice, like a lot of the "military channels" out there. This is original analysis and much more valuable than the cost of clicking thumbs up.
What people need to realize is that development as a whole, not just fighter craft, doesn't need to be state of the art. We don't need a fighter that can keep pace with hypersonic missiles, we need a fighter that can keep pace with progress. We see it with the F-22 not being able to integrate with data links and take IRST units, despite it having been the best air superiority fighter that money could buy. Things need to have an open architecture that can take future technologies, otherwise they won't stay superior for their projected lifespan.
As a government contractor, I can say without reservation that the root of the problems are: The AF rotates the people in charge too often. People in Congress that hold the purse strings change too often. Politics is rooted too deep into defense. The government beauracracy moves too slow for technology. The AF fails to look far enough into the future.
Of course can all planes be shot down. The advantage stealth gives is that the enemy most come closer to you, than you need to come to him before someone can open fire. So the plane with steal is more likely to get the first shot and win the fight. Its not a guaranteed victory. The other plane might have super strong sensors and AI that can collect data from multiple sources and get a superior situational awareness and capability to shot down a stealth plane, before it can see the other plane. At least in theory. In practice do I however think that this is very difficult to achieve.
This is what you get when bureaucrats get involved in weapons development. Now flash back to the decision to axe the F-22 program, and the numerous congressional inquiries to restart the program after the fact. I wish once a program has started, it is completed, and if it is proven to be inferior, then future programs should be held to a higher level of scrutiny before making that decision.
I remember when all of the Navy admirals go up and testified about what a waste LCS was and how it was being forced upon them by bureaucrats. Wait, no, they said it was survivable and exactly what we needed. Or will you now call them bureaucrats as it is most likely just your catch all name for any group of people that say things you don't like or vibe with?
Both contractors bidding for the next stealth fighter have serious quality issues on delivering quality products on time, on budget and still don’t function as advertised to this day.
Might I suggest the problem isn’t a lack of funds, so much as available funds having been wasted and used poorly. Couple that with poor choices in government effecting inflation quite badly, and the national debit still growing military might better not slip…. And I’m not reffering to the last administration or two… since about the 60s some really stupid economic choices have been made and continue to cost us…
@@jqmachgunner2577next year (edit 2027) something will fly, then roughly ten years it would enter service. Getting a flying plane is not actually that difficult. It's all the other stuff that the craft would have to do and how to actually build and maintain it that's the tricky part.
@jonathanbowen3640 The USAF reports it is already testing NGAD features on F-22 test planes such as stealth attack drones that will fly under the control of F-22, F-35, B-21, and NGAD jets, projected hologram decoys that will divert any missiles, and laser beam weapons (which will enable the B-21 bomber to attack targets and protect itself.
Another part of this process is that that among all of these factors the DoD tends to also change requirements, adding complications and wanting to reduce funding.
For this and things like Naval expansion, sub programs, industrial base, etc., it seems like we really need a re-capitalization funding bill apart from the NDAA. Something that allocates, like, let's say $50 billion/year for 10 years, for example, or whatever the full funding & time-frame needs might be, but just specifically for priority recapitalization projects like NGAD so that funding is stable & keeps coming on a regular basis throughour that required time frame. We need to ensure that the necessary funds for necessary programs will always be available over the necessary length of time to garauntee development & implementation is not inhibited, interfered with or interrupted due to bureaucratic, political or any other kind of nonsense, prevent things like stop-starts, and keep the funding steady & predictable regardless of what goes on with the NDAA in a given year. Also, as to the digital century-series conversation, how I'd understood the idea behind the digital century-series was that it would be used for the CCA portion of the program to keep updated drone wingmen coming in at intervals of every few years, and ensure that no one version of CCA drones are around for any more than 10 years so that they stay well ahead of the curve and aren't draining resources having to be extended & kept up. The fighter, on the other hand, I'd understood to be, in concept, built with large margins and be easily upgradable & highly adaptable in all aspects, but especially to make it a **relatively** quick & painless process to make the necessary updates & upgrades as the control node for those digital century series drones coming online anew every few years. Am I incorrect or have a less than accurate understanding? Anybody who might know more on the details with those program development strategies and the differences between their application to F-X & CCA, I would be very interested and grateful to hear. One final venting note, I've gotta say, the way that the $1.5T to $2T F-35 lifetime costs estimate is thrown around in the media really pisses me off, especially considering literally no other program has ever had its total lifetime costs calculated that way. F-35 opponents were real a-holes coming up with that kinda messaging, made more so by the fact that they rarely ever mention the fact that the F-35 program is one which involves essentially 3 very different aircraft, and it bugs the hell outta me that they got the narrative to stick so well that it's basically the first thing anybody in the media mentions when talking about anything even vaguely to do with the F-35. I mean, what would the total lifetime cost of F-15 be if calculated that way? Or total lifetime costs of Nimitz-class carriers? Developing & construction costs of the Nimitz-class are easy enough to find, but I've never once seen, read or heard a thing about the all-encompassing lifetime costs, including, but not limited to, upkeep & maintenance, repairs, overhalls, updating, refueling, operating and any & every other associated cost in the same way for the Nimitz-class carriers as for the F-35. The numbers are out there, I'm sure, but I never hear about it in the same way. It's only ever discussed in that way when it's in reference to the F-35.
Question : Why does the US NOT put the SEAD E/W warfare equipment on our satellites, something similar to what an EA/18 Growler does, to be used against enemies satellites ? I am sure that it would be a very difficult to achieve but I am also sure it is worth a "Look". If it were ever to be successfully employed... that would mean the DF 17, DF 41, missiles etc. would be rendered useless because it would interrupt the "Kill Chain". Of course, the enemy could always us long distance drones to locate the US Fleets, but overall the enemy SEAD plan could be rendered almost futile. What do you think ? Does my idea have merit ?
We do need long range stealth, to deal with the Chinese threat, we may not need many that are maned but there is something to be said for the overwhelming force dominance model.
insightful comments, but I can see them doing the digital version of century series, combat changes and one must adjust no matter what, but this is one of the more funny videos: 17:10 dancing machine, dancing machine, watch me get down, watch me get down 15:18 "The cost of the nGAD will be . . . 1 billion dollars!" " today we unveil the NGAD drone, I shall call it, mini me." "The greatest failure of the digital century series was the F-20 Tigershark, laser technology wasn't [micronized] enough to fit lasers on the head."
You know, if we need it build it.Why just have 12 aircraft carriers?Let's have 12 whatever ocean.Why just have a 120 raptors?Let's have 1200 raptors.We go spend a d*** money anyhow.We might as well be protected
But what do you do with the obsolete models? The F22 is still so ground breaking that the US won't even let allies have it. If you create a new plane every 10 years, even if you sell the old plane to allies your risk of having one sold to / stolen by / spied upon by your expected enemies vastly increases and they can learn useful intel from your previous generation, *especially* if you've only upgraded a couple of systems rather than the whole plane.
We can't build frigates. We can't get hypersonics right. We can't replicate the technology that got us to the moon in the 1960s. We can't produce civilian aircraft that don't try to open and disembark passengers mid-flight, or nose dive to oblivion, we can barely ramp up artillery shell production (and one of the plants has a fairly major fire when we do), we can't deliver block III F-35 still (they are sitting in warehouses, unfit for use), our fleet of now insanely slow boats could not all survive the trip across the Atlantic to build the Gaza pier that then almost instantly broke apart and had to be rebuilt, we as a country build almost zero ships from freighters to those frigates we can't get right, our subs are all behind schedule, the Burkes were supposed to be replaced by now, you really don't want to know how many merchant vessels we would have in the event of an actual conflict, not only do we have LCS we have leaders in the military that across multiple administration of both parties we and lied under oath that it was exactly what we needed and there was nothing to fear if you served or depended on one for your safety, we also do not merely have a population not physically or mentally fit to draft in-case of a conflict, the truth in all the reports that no one wants to speak out loud is that the draft age population does not care about the country (hard to argue the country cares about them either) that uses them to fuel older generations retirement at the cost of their everything, our leaders both commercial and political sold and sell with gleeful abandon every shred of manufacturing to the point where we now have little choice but to put our entire country in the arms of war and death because we are so dependent on a tiny island we allowed so many of those we educated to move US businesses away from the place they were born and provided everything they required to grow (until of course American workers became too expensive, so hello Taiwan and China), our higher ed is fueled by a disturbingly large amount of money from over seas, even worse for anything we call a Think Tank. Can we admit there is a problem yet, or do we keep talking about how amazingly awesome we are and name systems we don't have after things like sharks and forces of nature and buy into the fact that while we can't make anything we at least have the Dollar General where we can get everything we ever wanted for just a buck! Right. Go US, we are the best there are and have ever been. Nothing to see here. Move alone to the greatest tailgate party in the greatest most powerful country, with chips and queso brought to you by the generous donations of Blackrock and Vanguard (companies that have decidedly not American controlling powers within them but that control things like Lockheed), a controlling interest from the oil dudes in UAE and Qatar, and your soon to be not employment check courtesy of NVIDIA (no AI can't do the really cool stuff, but you've never been paid for the really cool stuff have you?), and of course, the same donors to both the political parties: we give you the feeling of choice! Let's drink that beer brand that isn't American anymore (ok, no loss on that swill) and laugh about the Russian and Chinese corruption and ridiculousness and pagentry of both of those country's single ruling groups, just before our obviously different and , broad and representative 2 parties have their high school proms set with actual dates now.
@@bennittotheburrito9606 Yapping is when you provide no proof of a claim and bring nothing of benefit to any discussion. The US has serious structural issues. It's people are too prideful and ignorant to ever deal with until it will be too late. But go ahead, how are any of those points not true? Dead empire walking.
There are certain things that all aircraft need right... Like take for example the ability to fire X-Missile or drop Y-Bomb. The software to do that has to be individual to EVERY FUCKING INDIVIDUAL AIRCRAFT? We can't develop a little plug and play module that can be integrated into any plane we want to have those capabilities CUZ WE FUCKING STANDARDIZE AN OPERATING SYSTEM FOR ALL AIRCRAFT THAT CAN ACCEPT MODULES LIKE ANY GODDAMN COMPUTER IVE EVER BUILT IN MY FUCKING LIFE. Windows scans my computer for new hardware every time it boots up and when it detects new hardware it asks for drivers, why do military planes not have something similar... why are we not paying defense contractors to develop modules for integration of whatever new system we want the latest and greatest aircraft to have. Planes should be designed with modular computer architecture that can accept targeting modules, or avionics modules or navigation modules or WHATEVER FUCKING MODULES THE PLANE NEEDS TO HAVE. The plane itself should be designed as a flying blank slate that can be configured with whatever modules we want it to have, upgradeable via software patches that can be uploaded whenever they have been tested and deemed ready...
I would argue that the USAF and USN need next gen quarterback airframes to comfortably handle the distance dilemma of the Pacific ocean to confidently counter the CCP.
If someone could develope a stealthy turbo-prop maybe they'd bring back prop driven fighters so long as they're able to house the radar systems required to do those kinds of tasks. If dogfighting really is dead then what difference does it make? Could always have jets for fast interception but when it isn't needed why bother flying stuff that costs so much to fly per hour?
It's good to see that defense budget and debates haven't changed one bit since the founding of our nation there was quite the debate if we were even going field a navy that only came to being to combat piracy The more things change the more they stay the same
I think if they would start building these planes where you could upgrade them every few years with new technology that would be the best deal. Then they wouldn’t have to start from scratch on anything new for a while unless they had some new technology that would add value to the body of the aircraft then I could see a clean sheet build. But if they are going with the whole drone project then they would need something that was fast and maneuverable with enough brains to get away and let their drones do the work.
How does even 3-5% inflation turn $300M to $500M if you're building the same number of planes during the same time frame. Something not adding up. I don't think these problems are being made worse by the lawmakers themselves, but by the military contracting organizations that are low balling to get an award and then running up costs because they can. THAT is something that needs to come under control. Just like Boeing is giving us the steaming turd of the Starliner because it has to be largely fix-priced, it highlights that our out of control defense spending is due to our military industrial complex not being able to deliver at the price set.
We’re on the cusp of large-scale 5th gen fighter proliferation - the f35 most likely remains the most capable 5th gen fighter currently in production but it’s not going to stay that way forever - right now it looks like GCAP is going to be the first non-US “6th gen” project out of the door and that’s a coalition of nations friendly to the US behind that, but it’s not inconceivable that China will have their own out the door not long after. If the US wants to remain dominant in the skies the way they have been for 50+ years now, then now is the last time that they should consider cheaping out. If they want to save money, then Congress needs to let the USAF retire old and obsolete aircraft once and for all (*cough* A10 *cough*) rather than skimping on crucial future capabilities.
Hello Alex and Chat! I said once before and will continue to repeat: If an NGAD fighter cannot equal a UAP's flight performance envelopes, we are wasting our money! Heck, I submit the US and its allies have a sufficient quantity of 4.5 and 5th Gen fighters to keep our current non-NATO enemies at bay! Besides, if my memory still serves me, no F-35 has EVER engaged another aircraft in actual aerial combat, right???
Improvised FPV drones weren't a thing when today's MBTs were designed. 50 year plans for combat aircraft sound like the Maginot Line. If your plans don't assume that the air environment is going to be radically different you're likely to be surprised. There will be things nobody's thought of, yet. Some of those things will be really bad for whatever's going now.
I second this. If active control and RDE/RAM engines on the horizon. I actually don't blame them for not going all in on a new fighter that doesn't have these technologies! A jet that flies without the typical flight surfaces would make one hell of a stealth fighter.
Aussie here. Its like my favourite American line ever and i have mastered the accent and say it in unison with the presenter. So yeah, you're not alone mate ;)
Haven't you and everyone else said this about the last 10 fighters. F35 was going to be a shambles and never get off the ground according to most pundits.
Not building NGAD is not an option because there is no substitute for air dominance. If theres one thing we learned in the modern era its that you either control the air or you lose the war so we'll have to bite the bullet and build this fighter without question.
Yes, but expensive jets are not the only way to achieve air dominance. Space and access to space is frequently more critical to mission success. The loyal wingmen and drones are proven to be supremely effective at saturating the airspace. What good are secret high energy radars and sensors if you can't counter all the threats. Heck you could even put cheaper disposable radar jammers onto balloons or blimps for a fraction of the cost.
The issue is if you buy a "short term" fighter with the intention of replacing it fast, you can guarantee the next administration will take the saving by not replacing it.
Might I suggest the problem isn’t a lack of funds, so much as available funds having been wasted and used poorly. With the national debit still growing military might better not slip…. I mean it’s not like we have the manufacturing power we once did…
Weeeeeee doooooo thisssss alllll theeee timeeee. We spend billions upon billions in research and development. Then to turn around cut the program completely or the programs numbers. It’s so frustrating it’s no longer funny. We have no long term vision whatsoever.
The dollar is losing value fast, costs are going up up and up. Not to mention the new generation of engineers at all these major weapons companies aren’t prioritizing national security anymore like their forefathers that built the B-2s and F-22s. They were told to get into engineering for the money! They just want a check!
Actually this is part of that vision. New programs are proposed as test beds for advanced technologies which are cutting edge. Then we kill the program and deploy those technologies on future programs as cost becomes more manageable. Its an element of strategic ambiguity, or more concisely, "The Kansas city Shuffle"
@@neo2190 Probably cause their grandpas and forefathers were able to afford houses and leisure for a tiny salary. Maybe that could have continued if their greed and gluttony didn't screw over every generation that came after?
My impression has been the original century series are not, as a whole, a group of particularly well-regarded fighters. In fact, they seem to get trashed a lot.
Hopefully the source code for the F-35 avionics can be handed out as part of this new century series, as it'll be a great way to reuse technology. It's the first ever written in a modern programming language
The US Government sounds like it learned the expensive mistake of privatized software access, so for the B21 and other future projects mandated government ownership of the source code.
Wasn't the century series acquisition model the reason why we didn't get a dedicated air superiority fighter for a long time since the F-86 until the F-15?
@@tbe0116 the F-4 wasn't a dedicated air superiority aircraft, it was used for the role sure, but wasn't designed with that in mind from the get go unlike the F-86 and F-15.
The way Ive heard it, the Multirole concept was more the culprit bc it suddenly became harder to sell dedicated purpose aircraft bc a bunch of uneducated politicians decided Air Superiority was something Multirole fighters could do.
@@tbe0116 Funny the F4 started as a Navy program. And all the century fighters are Air Force. The Air Force was pre occupied in the 1950s and into the 1960s with Strike, nuclear Strike. This left America totally unprepared for the tactical battle field in Vietnam. Wrong aircraft, wrong doctrine, wrong command structure. Have things changed? The Airforce still wants big, expensive, sharp pointy Mach 2 stealth aircraft to blow up a Toyota pickup.
I can’t help but wonder and worry about the potential implications of moving to ~5 year lifespan airframes from a pilot training and proficiency standpoint. It takes a lot of time and resources to train pilots on a specific airframe, and even more time for pilots to become very proficient on that airframe. Shorter airframe operational life seems to me to mean frequent retraining, and less experienced pilots. Now I do admit that as technology continues to progress, the amount of training required to transition between airframes may decrease significantly, but I can’t imagine the need to retrain would ever go away entirely. I just find this aspect of the whole idea of moving to shorter lifespan airframes hard to explain around, at least on the surface. I’m very curious what everyone else’s thoughts on this are.
Note to the editor: Chill the f*@# out with the intro music volume. I cannot comprehend why editors always have to have the volume of music so much louder than the narration. You just blasted the hell out of my hear drums for no damn reason
That quote by the army chief was pretty cryptic, but rather than finances or spending, it seemed to be more about the pace of technological advancement. I think he was implying that tech and automomous systems are evolving so fast and in a direction such that it might make the program condidered "Next Gen" completely obsolete by the time they get to building the craft! I wonder what he's seeing to get that idea?
This doesn't really surprise me. One thing we can predict is that unmanned drones (the loyal wingmen) will get more capable and CHEAPER with every year. The manned NGAD will get more expensive. PLUS -- engine tech is advancing fast - as shown by the Hermeus Chimera. So much is changing so fast that it may make sense to not commit right now.
@@LunaticTheCat Yep. Right now the idea is one piloted NGAD and two loyal wingmen. Well, what if it turns out to be one NGAD and 6 loyal wingmen?? OR --- NO NGAD, and 20 drones??? OR NO NGAD, and a swarm of self-directed drones??
This was deeply informative. It was shocking to learn that NGAD was being downgraded in budget priorities. But now you provide an excellent explanation which renders the inexplicable explicable. Thank you, sir.
It's not the fault of Congress as a whole, new is Republicans, who block anything from getting done - even if it's something they want - or even someone they largely had a hand in creating - simply to prevent progress during a Democratic administration. They're insane.
I don’t see how you’d be able field new fighters so often like the digital century series when suffering tax cuts so often. So many budgetary compromises are being made because of the tax cuts. I’m okay with paying more taxes to pay for the tech that would put us back on top. I’ve always, and will always vote against tax cuts.
@@cadennorris960 You have to put aside your pride for this. The Chinese government released a statement shortly before the U.S. announced the NGAD delays. Supposedly the Chinese are set to reveal their 6th generation fighter by the end of this year. America is not getting a next generation fighter, Mr. Norris. This is the ultimate sign of decline in our Republic.
Lol, you have the biggest _and_ second-biggest airforces on this planet. You are very much already on top. (and since I live in a tiny NATO country, I hope it stays that way)
There is a little photo failure at 10:57 concerning the Century-Series of US fighters: that's not a F 106 Delta Dart at the bottom of the right side! Round air intakes with spikes, firmly mounted fuel probe protruding to the right side, round non-edged form of the cockpit canopy, Matra R 500 Magic Air to Air missiles and MBDA Mica RF or IR variant air to air missiles under each wing, an engine exhaust that doesn't fit to a F-106 Pratt & Whitney J75-17 (F- 106A) turbofan nozzle. And last but not least: the F-106 Delta Dart had no centerline pylon for a fuel tank!! Nope, this is a French Mirage 2000 (may be the C variant) single seater with US-markings! Best regards from Germany.👋
I think the issue is more reputational. Lockheed is very busy with the F-35 and F-22 programs and well known to take longer at their programs then the brass would like. Boeing is in deep doodoo because of all their controversies, see T-7 Redtail, loose parts in tankers and all the crap in their civilian side as a few examples. Northrup Grumman is busy with the B-21 and the Naval NGAD programs. There is no contractor available with enough bandwidth to tackle the Airforce's NGAD program. Might be better for them to let the naval program develop and adopt a land based version of that.
Lockheed did something similar with the F35. A marine unit received 6 F35Bs , all of them had something wrong with them and it wasn't the same thing on all 6 but different things and multiple. Whoever was working on those jets did a "screw it" job. Lockheed can't even complete their refresh 3 so that Block 4 upgrades would be possible. Not only that a couple European countries received their first F35s and they received them in the most basic configuration when the contract stated it needs to be the latest tech version , it might have been The Netherlands , or Belgium or Denmark, I'm thinking the first one.
A lot of reason for these delays not widely researched by the general public but TR3 is essentially a new jet. Not a bandwidth issue but a cutting edge tech developmental delay issue. Industry bandwidth isn’t the issue here, industry can ramp fairly quickly. It’s the veiled wishywashy nature of DoD development needs that leads to constant iteration, churn, and waste. When there’s constant funding restraints and change orders, the talent leaves, equipment goes into storage, and ripples are felt 5 tiers down into the supply chain. Then some fool on the internet starts pointing fingers, gains media traction, pressurizes the DoD, then political pressure comes down hard on the program. It’s a tale as old as time.
This should come as a bit of a relief. Boeing wasn't content with just screwing the entire commercial air industry and passenger base over, they're now stranding astronauts in space as a bonus. We cannot afford the possibility (50% at this point) that they would get the contract.
How dare you slander Boeing, a patriotic weapons maker. It is treasonous to speak ill of our military industrial complex. Next to the Bible and the NRA, they are untouchable and like President Trump, above the law and immune to criticism. I'm reporting you to my local MAGA chapter.
If I'm not mistaken, the US spends significantly less on defense nowadays, as a percentage of GDP, than it did during the Cold War. The world is changing rapidly, getting arguably more frought and more dangerous than it has ever been, so lawmakers and the public need to face reality and start significantly increasing the defense spending and make it a priority by passing funding bills on time. All the dithering over the defense authorization and the constant effort to slash defense spending needs to stop. Otherwise, I fear we're going wind up living in a world we dont recognize. Just imagine what the world would be like if Germany and Japan had won WW2. I dont think we want to find out what their modern-day contemporaries will do.
The first time I heard the projected price tag for the NGAD, I knew there was going to be a problem. They cut the Raptor buy by 75% and NGAD is not a better deal. There's one question the Pentagon needs to answer: Where are the long range, stealthy strike drones? The answer to that question is more than 50% of the solution to America's future air dominance.
@@extragoogleaccount6061 Wingmen are going to accompany manned fighters to multiply a strike force. The strike drone I'm talking about has the role of today's fighter/bomber and is the main strike platform.
The X-47B was canned in 2015, but it fit that bill nicely. Stealthy, payload capable, and so friggin accurate that it wore down the non-skid on carriers because it kept hitting the same spot on the deck when landing.
The same thing that happened to the F-22 is going to happen to the NGAD or whatever. They'll initially order hundreds while it's still in development/testing. Then Congress/USAF/whatever will go, "Oh my god, this is way too expensive. Slash the order." Then the price will go up because they slashed the order number. Then they'll cut more because the per-unit price went up. And instead of having several 750 F-22s, we ended up with less than 200. And because the initial price of NGAD is even more expensive, we'll have either a B-2/B-21 or B-1-esque fleet of NGADs/6th gens. Calling it now.
I went to ground news not using your link and savings. Than went using your link. Both were identical same savings, no difference. I love your shows,think your great ar what you do. Just thought you might want to know this. Loyal subscriber
Come on guys. We've got all the tech to build it. We've got all the parts in inventory. Flight controls, got it. Weapons platforms, covered. Pilots, dozens. All the electronic weapons are already in use. Remote pilots, in high school right now. Lazers, testing now and almost complete. Stealth materials, in common use presently. Data links, perfected and upgradeable. Form seems to be the only thing left. Affordability is the only thing the government can't seem to wrap it's head around. Too many cost overruns so everybody gets their own piece of the pie. That's where the expense is really at.
Go to ground.news/Sandboxx to stay fully informed on military developments around the world. Subscribe through my link right now for 40% off their Vantage Plan, which is what I use everyday.
Pretty Cool.
@SandboxxApp A L E X !!! Sorry for yelling. Use your clout to start a go fund me ( Or something similar but a little more formal and professional) for NGAD. I'm sure there is a lot of money that would come in. If people knew their dollars would actually go directly to this program.
A donation separate from tax dollars. I would definitely donate towards it.
says this and ignores the f35's lol which already partially replace the f22
Ahh yes CR spending. We were building an app for one of our lakes to upgrade their dock permit tracking. With no budget, no money in a time when we could have knocked it out by Christmas. Now it is having to share time with 3 or 4 other priorities and maybe the end of this FY?
So you'll know, it's Continuing Resolution not "continual".
It should be illegal to make omnibus bills. The reason why the defense bills get delayed is because people want to pour their unrelated-to-national-security pork into the defense budget.
Agreed, but this is largely a consequence of lobbying, if the wealthy PACs who backed the congressperson in question don't get their due, they'll drop them like a hot potato and pick someone who will.
Unfortunately, "ban lobbying" is something popular among the common people, but not so with our politicians.
@@NucleAri what's sad is we all know this happens, what you're talking about in your comment/reply....but sadly nothing is done about it!!!!
@@NucleAri lobbying is in turn incentivized by Congress ignoring the General Welfare clause and passing the crap the lobbyists want anyway.
we also want term limits, anti corruption investigators, stock market bans for politicians. But we ain't getting none of that, because that doesn't help the corrupt to be more corrupt. And there is no way to vote our way out of this, as both parties really love their corruption. Like, a lot.
This is why the US stays 20 years ahead of potential enemies... especially in Aircraft... everything else, not so much recently..
Ah yes, the only foe capable of taking down the USA’s military: budget constraints.
Thanks to soviet union for tapping out of the cold war 😂
It is the first and greatest enemy of all militaries
God dammit we need to be more like Russia and North Korea, just using all the money on military, those nations are great to live in...
@@authoritariangentleman7570 idk man, I heard the surface of Mercury is pretty competitive in terms of living conditions…
@@maniac117I do hope he is ironic
Hard to evaluate the General's statement without the context of knowing the exact question he was answering.
That was my thought as well.
Agreed. That response could’ve been to somebody asking him if his wife had decided on a new car.
It was comments about timing and funding allotment for FY26... having to choose which programs to prioritize... reporter specifically asked about NGAD and he said that is one program that would have to be prioritized when it comes to spending. Cant put all eggs in 1 basket and not be able to pivot if threat assessments change... typical political answer... but they could cut back on some of the funding in 26, like the Navy did in 25, and add more back in in 27 or 28, just extending it out longer, to allow more upfront funding for other programs closer to production
@@johnoliver4739 Did he say this part "to allow more upfront funding for other programs closer to production"? That seems like the B-21 in all but name. I don't know anything about the Minuteman replacement timeline, tbf.
@@Varadiio Insanely over time, insanely over budget, and the Minutemen are insanely over their sell by date. So the perfect storm if you ascribe to chance someone waiting too long to do something about a problem that they have known about for over a decade. So less storm, more long line of can kickers.
Missing out on air dominance and superiority for the next several decades seems so shortsighted and ill advised I couldn’t believe we wouldn’t make NGAD. Gotta do it for the lore
Even though I gave your comment a 👍
...and how much do you pay for this content?
I just want to see NGAD fly
Why? The Ukraine war has shown that Russian aviation isn't nearly as good as projected. Ukraine is being armed with nearly 40 year-old F16s and these are likely to be equal to anything they Russians have. Russian planes aren't much of a match for older Patriot systems, older Soviet-era aircraft, etc. by a foe with a massive numeric disadvantage. Modern western missiles on far older aircraft, drones, older HIMARs, and other systems are easily destroying them. Further, Russia won't even be able to face the US with even these as its losing aircraft quickly and new aircraft production is in serious trouble due to sanctions, demographics, etc. There is little doubt that F15s, F22s, or F35s would decimate Russian aircraft in any actual fight against modern western air forces. China relies on copies of Russian tech and so they have all the same issues.
Exactly who is the US supposed to fight that it can't already defeat fairly easily?
I mean yes, but the thing is, the F-35 is meant to be able to be upgraded, and it's getting an insane upgrade as we speak. Over double the sensors, weapons payload near par with the F-22, an even crazier radar than it already has (and the radar has already been proven to be able to track, lock on to, and get a weapons solution on a cruise missile), new weapons that every plane that can carry them is getting, all in a package that comes back as a steel marble on radar from far away. And that's just the hardware upgrades. That's not including its capabilities. The radar can take missiles fired from 4th generation aircaft and guide them as the non stealthy aircraft goes cold. With the f-15 EX's insane weapons payload, that's an incredible recipe for air dominance. And I didn't even touch on all the other things the F-35 can do and all the upgrades it's getting.
@@BW022........can the USA Destroy a Tic tac lol....?
color me red, white and blue but if it's outclassing and setting the new global standards of air power then take my tax dollars 💀
Tariff dollars, we’ll make chyna pay for it
@@HubertofLiege And China will make you pay for theirs with tariffs.
if Donald Trump wins the election now in November, yes, then the US will buy Russian defense equipment, it is cheaper
MTG will be responsible
Your money was spent 20 years ago. At this point they're spending your great grandkids money.
Id pay double my taxes if it meant the air force could fly X wings
I am a Military Avionics Test Engineer and I was shaking my head through most of this video thinking "This'll never work" until he started talking about the Gambit procurement method. That sounds like the way to go. Only upgrading systems that need it every 5 years will keep the NGAD current and the costs, which are gonna be high, down to manageable levels. Just my opinion, take it or leave it.
Congress has been a major roadblock for defense acquisition for decades. The entire LCS program was a disaster entirely because of Congressional meddling. And the fact that fewer and fewer legislators have any actual military experience only makes their lack of understanding more problematic.
And the fact that the LCS was and still is a complete piece of garbage
TYVM
The blank check isn't enough?
You seriously have a problem with civilian oversight of the military?
How exactly have all of those officers that have gone before congressional committees and testified under oath that the LCS is a perfectly good and survivable ship(classes) been a fault of congressional meddling? The statement you made is so astoundingly stupid that I have to actually defend congress on something with is bizarre enough, but again, it wasn't just congress forcing the navy to buy theses things. Unless of course all the officers and DoD people testifying at, who knows, how many hearings were all not merely lying about the LCS and its abilities, but were up there lying as part of a scheme in conjunction with congress to lie about the lying.... Oh, I'm sorry, you're right. The US military is above reproach and things like corruption. They should be in charge of everything and we would have no problems.
@@timmilder8313Civilian governance isn't a problem. It's those who don't understand the military who are a problem.
Outstanding episode! This show isn't telling you what you already know, or providing inaccurate info in a computer generated voice, like a lot of the "military channels" out there. This is original analysis and much more valuable than the cost of clicking thumbs up.
What people need to realize is that development as a whole, not just fighter craft, doesn't need to be state of the art. We don't need a fighter that can keep pace with hypersonic missiles, we need a fighter that can keep pace with progress. We see it with the F-22 not being able to integrate with data links and take IRST units, despite it having been the best air superiority fighter that money could buy. Things need to have an open architecture that can take future technologies, otherwise they won't stay superior for their projected lifespan.
Alex, it can be divided into 3 contracts: design, production, maintenance.
As a government contractor, I can say without reservation that the root of the problems are:
The AF rotates the people in charge too often.
People in Congress that hold the purse strings change too often.
Politics is rooted too deep into defense.
The government beauracracy moves too slow for technology.
The AF fails to look far enough into the future.
Ouch!! At ~ 11 minutes, you showed a Mirage in the F-106 box, when discussing Century Series aircraft...😅
Nothing says war footing like a wartime design and production strategy.
so we have a recurring problem with a recurring solution. I might be missing something but I don't get it...
Don’t let them kill that project or China will pass us.
Of course can all planes be shot down. The advantage stealth gives is that the enemy most come closer to you, than you need to come to him before someone can open fire. So the plane with steal is more likely to get the first shot and win the fight.
Its not a guaranteed victory. The other plane might have super strong sensors and AI that can collect data from multiple sources and get a superior situational awareness and capability to shot down a stealth plane, before it can see the other plane. At least in theory. In practice do I however think that this is very difficult to achieve.
This is what you get when bureaucrats get involved in weapons development.
Now flash back to the decision to axe the F-22 program, and the numerous congressional inquiries to restart the program after the fact.
I wish once a program has started, it is completed, and if it is proven to be inferior, then future programs should be held to a higher level of scrutiny before making that decision.
I remember when all of the Navy admirals go up and testified about what a waste LCS was and how it was being forced upon them by bureaucrats. Wait, no, they said it was survivable and exactly what we needed. Or will you now call them bureaucrats as it is most likely just your catch all name for any group of people that say things you don't like or vibe with?
Both contractors bidding for the next stealth fighter have serious quality issues on delivering quality products on time, on budget and still don’t function as advertised to this day.
Might I suggest the problem isn’t a lack of funds, so much as available funds having been wasted and used poorly. Couple that with poor choices in government effecting inflation quite badly, and the national debit still growing military might better not slip…. And I’m not reffering to the last administration or two… since about the 60s some really stupid economic choices have been made and continue to cost us…
Cover future Awacs would be pretty cool. Ty
That's what you get when you neglect all of your weapons systems for something like 35 years, and then insist on tax cuts for rich people.
Dont worry, us Brits will always sell you Tempest.
When will you have a real plane?
@@jqmachgunner2577next year (edit 2027) something will fly, then roughly ten years it would enter service. Getting a flying plane is not actually that difficult. It's all the other stuff that the craft would have to do and how to actually build and maintain it that's the tricky part.
@jonathanbowen3640 The USAF reports it is already testing NGAD features on F-22 test planes such as stealth attack drones that will fly under the control of F-22, F-35, B-21, and NGAD jets, projected hologram decoys that will divert any missiles, and laser beam weapons (which will enable the B-21 bomber to attack targets and protect itself.
Labor will always be the reason why things cost more then it should
China is making their own sixth gen fighter. Therefor we will too.
'sixth gen fighter' but yes, I get the spirit of your take
china is *stealing* their *pieced together* *4th gen* "fighter" therefore *we were going to make ours anyway*
I dought they are.
China doesn't even have a true 5th generation fighter yet.
Another part of this process is that that among all of these factors the DoD tends to also change requirements, adding complications and wanting to reduce funding.
I'm going to take a guess that Boeing doesn't get the contract.
Best military journalism on the internet.
F15 and 16's had about the same hours of service limit. How many hours do those 40 year old jets have on them?
For this and things like Naval expansion, sub programs, industrial base, etc., it seems like we really need a re-capitalization funding bill apart from the NDAA. Something that allocates, like, let's say $50 billion/year for 10 years, for example, or whatever the full funding & time-frame needs might be, but just specifically for priority recapitalization projects like NGAD so that funding is stable & keeps coming on a regular basis throughour that required time frame. We need to ensure that the necessary funds for necessary programs will always be available over the necessary length of time to garauntee development & implementation is not inhibited, interfered with or interrupted due to bureaucratic, political or any other kind of nonsense, prevent things like stop-starts, and keep the funding steady & predictable regardless of what goes on with the NDAA in a given year.
Also, as to the digital century-series conversation, how I'd understood the idea behind the digital century-series was that it would be used for the CCA portion of the program to keep updated drone wingmen coming in at intervals of every few years, and ensure that no one version of CCA drones are around for any more than 10 years so that they stay well ahead of the curve and aren't draining resources having to be extended & kept up. The fighter, on the other hand, I'd understood to be, in concept, built with large margins and be easily upgradable & highly adaptable in all aspects, but especially to make it a **relatively** quick & painless process to make the necessary updates & upgrades as the control node for those digital century series drones coming online anew every few years. Am I incorrect or have a less than accurate understanding? Anybody who might know more on the details with those program development strategies and the differences between their application to F-X & CCA, I would be very interested and grateful to hear.
One final venting note, I've gotta say, the way that the $1.5T to $2T F-35 lifetime costs estimate is thrown around in the media really pisses me off, especially considering literally no other program has ever had its total lifetime costs calculated that way. F-35 opponents were real a-holes coming up with that kinda messaging, made more so by the fact that they rarely ever mention the fact that the F-35 program is one which involves essentially 3 very different aircraft, and it bugs the hell outta me that they got the narrative to stick so well that it's basically the first thing anybody in the media mentions when talking about anything even vaguely to do with the F-35. I mean, what would the total lifetime cost of F-15 be if calculated that way? Or total lifetime costs of Nimitz-class carriers? Developing & construction costs of the Nimitz-class are easy enough to find, but I've never once seen, read or heard a thing about the all-encompassing lifetime costs, including, but not limited to, upkeep & maintenance, repairs, overhalls, updating, refueling, operating and any & every other associated cost in the same way for the Nimitz-class carriers as for the F-35. The numbers are out there, I'm sure, but I never hear about it in the same way. It's only ever discussed in that way when it's in reference to the F-35.
Question : Why does the US NOT put the SEAD E/W warfare equipment on our satellites, something similar to what an EA/18 Growler does, to be used against enemies satellites ? I am sure that it would be a very difficult to achieve but I am also sure it is worth a "Look". If it were ever to be successfully employed... that would mean the DF 17, DF 41, missiles etc. would be rendered useless because it would interrupt the "Kill Chain". Of course, the enemy could always us long distance drones to locate the US Fleets, but overall the enemy SEAD plan could be rendered almost futile. What do you think ? Does my idea have merit ?
Everyone who has ever worked with a committee knows this pain.
We do need long range stealth, to deal with the Chinese threat, we may not need many that are maned but there is something to be said for the overwhelming force dominance model.
Alex, at 60% tariffs on the $400 billion annually imports from China, will generate $240 Billion annual revenue, so there's plenty of funds.
Until you start paying them and then start complaining about them and how your freedom is at risk because you are no longer allowed to buy cheap junk.
insightful comments, but I can see them doing the digital version of century series, combat changes and one must adjust no matter what, but this is one of the more funny videos: 17:10 dancing machine, dancing machine, watch me get down, watch me get down 15:18 "The cost of the nGAD will be . . . 1 billion dollars!" " today we unveil the NGAD drone, I shall call it, mini me." "The greatest failure of the digital century series was the F-20 Tigershark, laser technology wasn't [micronized] enough to fit lasers on the head."
China has more J20 than we have F22 now...like every other platform.
You know, if we need it build it.Why just have 12 aircraft carriers?Let's have 12 whatever ocean.Why just have a 120 raptors?Let's have 1200 raptors.We go spend a d*** money anyhow.We might as well be protected
That is not what you said recently.
Wasn’t one of the features of the NGAD supposed to be the ability to more easily upgrade it and/or include new technology?
But what do you do with the obsolete models? The F22 is still so ground breaking that the US won't even let allies have it. If you create a new plane every 10 years, even if you sell the old plane to allies your risk of having one sold to / stolen by / spied upon by your expected enemies vastly increases and they can learn useful intel from your previous generation, *especially* if you've only upgraded a couple of systems rather than the whole plane.
I think they can hold out for 6yrs and use that time to incorporate new tech then bring it out.
We can't build frigates. We can't get hypersonics right. We can't replicate the technology that got us to the moon in the 1960s. We can't produce civilian aircraft that don't try to open and disembark passengers mid-flight, or nose dive to oblivion, we can barely ramp up artillery shell production (and one of the plants has a fairly major fire when we do), we can't deliver block III F-35 still (they are sitting in warehouses, unfit for use), our fleet of now insanely slow boats could not all survive the trip across the Atlantic to build the Gaza pier that then almost instantly broke apart and had to be rebuilt, we as a country build almost zero ships from freighters to those frigates we can't get right, our subs are all behind schedule, the Burkes were supposed to be replaced by now, you really don't want to know how many merchant vessels we would have in the event of an actual conflict, not only do we have LCS we have leaders in the military that across multiple administration of both parties we and lied under oath that it was exactly what we needed and there was nothing to fear if you served or depended on one for your safety, we also do not merely have a population not physically or mentally fit to draft in-case of a conflict, the truth in all the reports that no one wants to speak out loud is that the draft age population does not care about the country (hard to argue the country cares about them either) that uses them to fuel older generations retirement at the cost of their everything, our leaders both commercial and political sold and sell with gleeful abandon every shred of manufacturing to the point where we now have little choice but to put our entire country in the arms of war and death because we are so dependent on a tiny island we allowed so many of those we educated to move US businesses away from the place they were born and provided everything they required to grow (until of course American workers became too expensive, so hello Taiwan and China), our higher ed is fueled by a disturbingly large amount of money from over seas, even worse for anything we call a Think Tank. Can we admit there is a problem yet, or do we keep talking about how amazingly awesome we are and name systems we don't have after things like sharks and forces of nature and buy into the fact that while we can't make anything we at least have the Dollar General where we can get everything we ever wanted for just a buck! Right. Go US, we are the best there are and have ever been. Nothing to see here. Move alone to the greatest tailgate party in the greatest most powerful country, with chips and queso brought to you by the generous donations of Blackrock and Vanguard (companies that have decidedly not American controlling powers within them but that control things like Lockheed), a controlling interest from the oil dudes in UAE and Qatar, and your soon to be not employment check courtesy of NVIDIA (no AI can't do the really cool stuff, but you've never been paid for the really cool stuff have you?), and of course, the same donors to both the political parties: we give you the feeling of choice! Let's drink that beer brand that isn't American anymore (ok, no loss on that swill) and laugh about the Russian and Chinese corruption and ridiculousness and pagentry of both of those country's single ruling groups, just before our obviously different and , broad and representative 2 parties have their high school proms set with actual dates now.
@@LackofFaithify yapping lol
@@bennittotheburrito9606 Yapping is when you provide no proof of a claim and bring nothing of benefit to any discussion. The US has serious structural issues. It's people are too prideful and ignorant to ever deal with until it will be too late. But go ahead, how are any of those points not true? Dead empire walking.
Great Content as usual
For the love of God, please not Boeing. That company has gone to garbage.
Continuing resolution -- not a problem in France because the vote is to accept the submitted budget or not... no changes by parliament.
They said the same thing about the F16 EX, F35and the F22. New technology has a wringing out period.
Like the F35C, costs go down as production goes up.
There are certain things that all aircraft need right... Like take for example the ability to fire X-Missile or drop Y-Bomb. The software to do that has to be individual to EVERY FUCKING INDIVIDUAL AIRCRAFT? We can't develop a little plug and play module that can be integrated into any plane we want to have those capabilities CUZ WE FUCKING STANDARDIZE AN OPERATING SYSTEM FOR ALL AIRCRAFT THAT CAN ACCEPT MODULES LIKE ANY GODDAMN COMPUTER IVE EVER BUILT IN MY FUCKING LIFE. Windows scans my computer for new hardware every time it boots up and when it detects new hardware it asks for drivers, why do military planes not have something similar... why are we not paying defense contractors to develop modules for integration of whatever new system we want the latest and greatest aircraft to have. Planes should be designed with modular computer architecture that can accept targeting modules, or avionics modules or navigation modules or WHATEVER FUCKING MODULES THE PLANE NEEDS TO HAVE. The plane itself should be designed as a flying blank slate that can be configured with whatever modules we want it to have, upgradeable via software patches that can be uploaded whenever they have been tested and deemed ready...
I would argue that the USAF and USN need next gen quarterback airframes to comfortably handle the distance dilemma of the Pacific ocean to confidently counter the CCP.
if money stopped military projects america would have none 😂 but excited to see your breakdown!
If someone could develope a stealthy turbo-prop maybe they'd bring back prop driven fighters so long as they're able to house the radar systems required to do those kinds of tasks. If dogfighting really is dead then what difference does it make? Could always have jets for fast interception but when it isn't needed why bother flying stuff that costs so much to fly per hour?
Stealthy turbo-prop planes?!? LMAO 🤣
It's good to see that defense budget and debates haven't changed one bit since the founding of our nation there was quite the debate if we were even going field a navy that only came to being to combat piracy
The more things change the more they stay the same
I think if they would start building these planes where you could upgrade them every few years with new technology that would be the best deal. Then they wouldn’t have to start from scratch on anything new for a while unless they had some new technology that would add value to the body of the aircraft then I could see a clean sheet build. But if they are going with the whole drone project then they would need something that was fast and maneuverable with enough brains to get away and let their drones do the work.
How does even 3-5% inflation turn $300M to $500M if you're building the same number of planes during the same time frame. Something not adding up.
I don't think these problems are being made worse by the lawmakers themselves, but by the military contracting organizations that are low balling to get an award and then running up costs because they can. THAT is something that needs to come under control. Just like Boeing is giving us the steaming turd of the Starliner because it has to be largely fix-priced, it highlights that our out of control defense spending is due to our military industrial complex not being able to deliver at the price set.
Let's face it: we are broke. We need to fix our government spending and debt before it's too late.
They could always cut back on golf course maintenance. lol
We’re on the cusp of large-scale 5th gen fighter proliferation - the f35 most likely remains the most capable 5th gen fighter currently in production but it’s not going to stay that way forever - right now it looks like GCAP is going to be the first non-US “6th gen” project out of the door and that’s a coalition of nations friendly to the US behind that, but it’s not inconceivable that China will have their own out the door not long after. If the US wants to remain dominant in the skies the way they have been for 50+ years now, then now is the last time that they should consider cheaping out. If they want to save money, then Congress needs to let the USAF retire old and obsolete aircraft once and for all (*cough* A10 *cough*) rather than skimping on crucial future capabilities.
If we are going to war, it is not enough to have the best stuff. We have to be able to make the best stuff quickly and sustainably.
Well, just look at the speed and time savings we got from the T-7a program's revolutionary digital design and simulation.
Hello Alex and Chat! I said once before and will continue to repeat: If an NGAD fighter cannot equal a UAP's flight performance envelopes, we are wasting our money! Heck, I submit the US and its allies have a sufficient quantity of 4.5 and 5th Gen fighters to keep our current non-NATO enemies at bay! Besides, if my memory still serves me, no F-35 has EVER engaged another aircraft in actual aerial combat, right???
Improvised FPV drones weren't a thing when today's MBTs were designed. 50 year plans for combat aircraft sound like the Maginot Line.
If your plans don't assume that the air environment is going to be radically different you're likely to be surprised.
There will be things nobody's thought of, yet. Some of those things will be really bad for whatever's going now.
There should be consequences for congress if they can’t get a budget passed in time or delaying anything for an unreasonable amount of time
Why don’t American , Britten & European air forces make a joint fighter ?
That…actually is a not a bad idea.
They're gonna A-12 Avenger this thing, aren't they?
3:23 to skip the ad
T y
You can skip all the ad at 20:25
I kid.
Poor man's sp0nce or block :)
@@BoraHorzaGobuchul doing the lords work (manually)...
thx mate
A video about the X65 and active flow control would be cool.
I second this.
If active control and RDE/RAM engines on the horizon. I actually don't blame them for not going all in on a new fighter that doesn't have these technologies!
A jet that flies without the typical flight surfaces would make one hell of a stealth fighter.
And the BAE Demon and its derivatives.
Does anyone else involuntarily say "and THIS is Air Power" out loud? Prob not alone in this.
Yeah haha, it´s almost as iconic as that; "EA Sports: It´s in the game" line.
Aussie here. Its like my favourite American line ever and i have mastered the accent and say it in unison with the presenter. So yeah, you're not alone mate ;)
Haven't you and everyone else said this about the last 10 fighters. F35 was going to be a shambles and never get off the ground according to most pundits.
Modularity and adaptability can be great, but beware the pitfalls demonstrated by the Navy's LCS ships.
Not building NGAD is not an option because there is no substitute for air dominance. If theres one thing we learned in the modern era its that you either control the air or you lose the war so we'll have to bite the bullet and build this fighter without question.
Yes, but expensive jets are not the only way to achieve air dominance. Space and access to space is frequently more critical to mission success. The loyal wingmen and drones are proven to be supremely effective at saturating the airspace. What good are secret high energy radars and sensors if you can't counter all the threats.
Heck you could even put cheaper disposable radar jammers onto balloons or blimps for a fraction of the cost.
Ukraine says otherwise. So far, anyway.
@@zacnewman7140 Ukraine is a really small geographic area, you can’t really do bvr
@Snoop_Dugg ...oh, sorry, that was aimed at the OP.
@@Snoop_Dugg Ukraine is actually a pretty large land mass. BVR is only about 20miles. From west to east Ukraine is over 800miles.
The issue is if you buy a "short term" fighter with the intention of replacing it fast, you can guarantee the next administration will take the saving by not replacing it.
Might I suggest the problem isn’t a lack of funds, so much as available funds having been wasted and used poorly. With the national debit still growing military might better not slip…. I mean it’s not like we have the manufacturing power we once did…
Just quit sending 100's of billions to the ukraine
We got a 6th generation fighter, before a 6th generation GTA.
Weeeeeee doooooo thisssss alllll theeee timeeee. We spend billions upon billions in research and development. Then to turn around cut the program completely or the programs numbers. It’s so frustrating it’s no longer funny. We have no long term vision whatsoever.
The dollar is losing value fast, costs are going up up and up. Not to mention the new generation of engineers at all these major weapons companies aren’t prioritizing national security anymore like their forefathers that built the B-2s and F-22s. They were told to get into engineering for the money! They just want a check!
Lots of corruption going on as well. Lots of money to be made for individuals just for the program to be cut and never audited for frivolous spending
It's not like this r&d is lost though.
Actually this is part of that vision.
New programs are proposed as test beds for advanced technologies which are cutting edge.
Then we kill the program and deploy those technologies on future programs as cost becomes more manageable.
Its an element of strategic ambiguity, or more concisely, "The Kansas city Shuffle"
@@neo2190 Probably cause their grandpas and forefathers were able to afford houses and leisure for a tiny salary. Maybe that could have continued if their greed and gluttony didn't screw over every generation that came after?
My impression has been the original century series are not, as a whole, a group of particularly well-regarded fighters. In fact, they seem to get trashed a lot.
In a an official statement from Lockheed/Martin they reiterated “working with UFO technology ain’t easy Sam, or cheap!”
Hopefully the source code for the F-35 avionics can be handed out as part of this new century series, as it'll be a great way to reuse technology.
It's the first ever written in a modern programming language
Haha, Uncle Sam paid for that code but it's actually owned by Lockmart, who would be happy to lease it to us for a tidy profit.
@@briankeeley6464Uncle Sam should have required that all software developed for the F-35 project be licensed under the Gnu Public License.
Wrong
The US Government sounds like it learned the expensive mistake of privatized software access, so for the B21 and other future projects mandated government ownership of the source code.
Alex, your title almost brought me to tears
Wasn't the century series acquisition model the reason why we didn't get a dedicated air superiority fighter for a long time since the F-86 until the F-15?
The F4 came before the f15
@@tbe0116 the F-4 wasn't a dedicated air superiority aircraft, it was used for the role sure, but wasn't designed with that in mind from the get go unlike the F-86 and F-15.
The way Ive heard it, the Multirole concept was more the culprit bc it suddenly became harder to sell dedicated purpose aircraft bc a bunch of uneducated politicians decided Air Superiority was something Multirole fighters could do.
The bomber mafia lives.
@@tbe0116
Funny the F4 started as a Navy program. And all the century fighters are Air Force.
The Air Force was pre occupied in the 1950s and into the 1960s with Strike, nuclear Strike. This left America totally unprepared for the tactical battle field in Vietnam. Wrong aircraft, wrong doctrine, wrong command structure. Have things changed? The Airforce still wants big, expensive, sharp pointy Mach 2 stealth aircraft to blow up a Toyota pickup.
18:21 ya we had a genius saying we wouldn’t need the F-22 or tanks anymore about 15 years ago…. Oh ya it was the president.
That President was Obama if I recall. That’s the Genius our media adores? 🙈
Yes. And his genius SecDef. Pres needed money for his social programs that successfully tore our nation, down to our families, apart.
"Iii'm Ahlex Hollings... and THIS is AIRPOWWWWERRRR!!"
No your not. Stop lying! 😁
I can’t help but wonder and worry about the potential implications of moving to ~5 year lifespan airframes from a pilot training and proficiency standpoint. It takes a lot of time and resources to train pilots on a specific airframe, and even more time for pilots to become very proficient on that airframe. Shorter airframe operational life seems to me to mean frequent retraining, and less experienced pilots. Now I do admit that as technology continues to progress, the amount of training required to transition between airframes may decrease significantly, but I can’t imagine the need to retrain would ever go away entirely. I just find this aspect of the whole idea of moving to shorter lifespan airframes hard to explain around, at least on the surface. I’m very curious what everyone else’s thoughts on this are.
Yeah, thanks Barak.
_We ain't gonna fight no wars no more_ may play well in the cheap seats, but demonstrate extreme naïveté.
Note to the editor: Chill the f*@# out with the intro music volume. I cannot comprehend why editors always have to have the volume of music so much louder than the narration. You just blasted the hell out of my hear drums for no damn reason
That quote by the army chief was pretty cryptic, but rather than finances or spending, it seemed to be more about the pace of technological advancement.
I think he was implying that tech and automomous systems are evolving so fast and in a direction such that it might make the program condidered "Next Gen" completely obsolete by the time they get to building the craft!
I wonder what he's seeing to get that idea?
This doesn't really surprise me.
One thing we can predict is that unmanned drones (the loyal wingmen) will get more capable and CHEAPER with every year.
The manned NGAD will get more expensive.
PLUS -- engine tech is advancing fast - as shown by the Hermeus Chimera.
So much is changing so fast that it may make sense to not commit right now.
Good point. Drone technology in particular is changing at a blistering rate.
@@LunaticTheCat Yep. Right now the idea is one piloted NGAD and two loyal wingmen.
Well, what if it turns out to be one NGAD and 6 loyal wingmen??
OR --- NO NGAD, and 20 drones???
OR NO NGAD, and a swarm of self-directed drones??
This was deeply informative. It was shocking to learn that NGAD was being downgraded in budget priorities. But now you provide an excellent explanation which renders the inexplicable explicable. Thank you, sir.
they stop production of f22 too early
lol @ 10:56 the F-106 Delta Dart is actually a skin for the Mirage 2000C from Warthunder.
Thanks.
I was scrolling through the comments to confirm this.
Glad to see you placing this at the feet of Congress.
Blame the Freedom Caucus. They don't have actual plans or policies beyond attempting to shut down the government
It's not the fault of Congress as a whole, new is Republicans, who block anything from getting done - even if it's something they want - or even someone they largely had a hand in creating - simply to prevent progress during a Democratic administration. They're insane.
I don’t see how you’d be able field new fighters so often like the digital century series when suffering tax cuts so often.
So many budgetary compromises are being made because of the tax cuts. I’m okay with paying more taxes to pay for the tech that would put us back on top. I’ve always, and will always vote against tax cuts.
Well you're a minority, because the majority don't want tax increases.
They gave up on the Century Series idea a while ago
We still are on top.
@@cadennorris960 You have to put aside your pride for this. The Chinese government released a statement shortly before the U.S. announced the NGAD delays. Supposedly the Chinese are set to reveal their 6th generation fighter by the end of this year.
America is not getting a next generation fighter, Mr. Norris. This is the ultimate sign of decline in our Republic.
Lol, you have the biggest _and_ second-biggest airforces on this planet.
You are very much already on top.
(and since I live in a tiny NATO country, I hope it stays that way)
There is a little photo failure at 10:57 concerning the Century-Series of US fighters: that's not a F 106 Delta Dart at the bottom of the right side! Round air intakes with spikes, firmly mounted fuel probe protruding to the right side, round non-edged form of the cockpit canopy, Matra R 500 Magic Air to Air missiles and MBDA Mica RF or IR variant air to air missiles under each wing, an engine exhaust that doesn't fit to a F-106 Pratt & Whitney J75-17 (F- 106A) turbofan nozzle. And last but not least: the F-106 Delta Dart had no centerline pylon for a fuel tank!! Nope, this is a French Mirage 2000 (may be the C variant) single seater with US-markings! Best regards from Germany.👋
I think the issue is more reputational. Lockheed is very busy with the F-35 and F-22 programs and well known to take longer at their programs then the brass would like. Boeing is in deep doodoo because of all their controversies, see T-7 Redtail, loose parts in tankers and all the crap in their civilian side as a few examples. Northrup Grumman is busy with the B-21 and the Naval NGAD programs. There is no contractor available with enough bandwidth to tackle the Airforce's NGAD program. Might be better for them to let the naval program develop and adopt a land based version of that.
Lockheed did something similar with the F35. A marine unit received 6 F35Bs , all of them had something wrong with them and it wasn't the same thing on all 6 but different things and multiple. Whoever was working on those jets did a "screw it" job. Lockheed can't even complete their refresh 3 so that Block 4 upgrades would be possible. Not only that a couple European countries received their first F35s and they received them in the most basic configuration when the contract stated it needs to be the latest tech version , it might have been The Netherlands , or Belgium or Denmark, I'm thinking the first one.
A lot of reason for these delays not widely researched by the general public but TR3 is essentially a new jet. Not a bandwidth issue but a cutting edge tech developmental delay issue.
Industry bandwidth isn’t the issue here, industry can ramp fairly quickly. It’s the veiled wishywashy nature of DoD development needs that leads to constant iteration, churn, and waste.
When there’s constant funding restraints and change orders, the talent leaves, equipment goes into storage, and ripples are felt 5 tiers down into the supply chain. Then some fool on the internet starts pointing fingers, gains media traction, pressurizes the DoD, then political pressure comes down hard on the program. It’s a tale as old as time.
@@wan3416 TR3 isn't a new jet at all. Just a new computer and related systems. Older versions can and will be upgraded to TR3.
I have seen the demonstrator flying already. The capability is where it needs to be for further development.
This should come as a bit of a relief. Boeing wasn't content with just screwing the entire commercial air industry and passenger base over, they're now stranding astronauts in space as a bonus. We cannot afford the possibility (50% at this point) that they would get the contract.
How dare you slander Boeing, a patriotic weapons maker. It is treasonous to speak ill of our military industrial complex. Next to the Bible and the NRA, they are untouchable and like President Trump, above the law and immune to criticism. I'm reporting you to my local MAGA chapter.
If I'm not mistaken, the US spends significantly less on defense nowadays, as a percentage of GDP, than it did during the Cold War. The world is changing rapidly, getting arguably more frought and more dangerous than it has ever been, so lawmakers and the public need to face reality and start significantly increasing the defense spending and make it a priority by passing funding bills on time. All the dithering over the defense authorization and the constant effort to slash defense spending needs to stop. Otherwise, I fear we're going wind up living in a world we dont recognize. Just imagine what the world would be like if Germany and Japan had won WW2. I dont think we want to find out what their modern-day contemporaries will do.
The first time I heard the projected price tag for the NGAD, I knew there was going to be a problem. They cut the Raptor buy by 75% and NGAD is not a better deal. There's one question the Pentagon needs to answer: Where are the long range, stealthy strike drones? The answer to that question is more than 50% of the solution to America's future air dominance.
Weren't that basically what the unmanned "wingman" concept was going to be? To go alongside NGAD. Were they a packaged deal or seperate programs?
@@extragoogleaccount6061Kind of both. NGAD is supposed to work with the various wingman things and have an unmanned variant of the NGAD
@@extragoogleaccount6061 Wingmen are going to accompany manned fighters to multiply a strike force. The strike drone I'm talking about has the role of today's fighter/bomber and is the main strike platform.
The long range stealthy strike drone is already in production. It’s called the B-21.
The X-47B was canned in 2015, but it fit that bill nicely. Stealthy, payload capable, and so friggin accurate that it wore down the non-skid on carriers because it kept hitting the same spot on the deck when landing.
it feels criminal to be this early to an edition of airpower
How early do you think you are? Just watch the video and learn something should be the objective.
@@JSFGuy didn't mean to sound rude or anything.
swear, normally i’m about 6-8 months behind because there’s so much to watch😅
The same thing that happened to the F-22 is going to happen to the NGAD or whatever. They'll initially order hundreds while it's still in development/testing. Then Congress/USAF/whatever will go, "Oh my god, this is way too expensive. Slash the order." Then the price will go up because they slashed the order number. Then they'll cut more because the per-unit price went up. And instead of having several 750 F-22s, we ended up with less than 200. And because the initial price of NGAD is even more expensive, we'll have either a B-2/B-21 or B-1-esque fleet of NGADs/6th gens. Calling it now.
I went to ground news not using your link and savings. Than went using your link. Both were identical same savings, no difference. I love your shows,think your great ar what you do. Just thought you might want to know this. Loyal subscriber
Come on guys. We've got all the tech to build it. We've got all the parts in inventory. Flight controls, got it. Weapons platforms, covered. Pilots, dozens. All the electronic weapons are already in use. Remote pilots, in high school right now. Lazers, testing now and almost complete. Stealth materials, in common use presently. Data links, perfected and upgradeable. Form seems to be the only thing left. Affordability is the only thing the government can't seem to wrap it's head around. Too many cost overruns so everybody gets their own piece of the pie. That's where the expense is really at.