@@John_Redcorn_ Interest on the $36.3 Trillion dollar debt is bigger than Defense spending. Nations that are going into the red $1 Trillion dollars every 90 days are not long for the planet.
It was never meant to be a “sports car.” Air Force version would be like a Toyota Corolla, while the Navy version was a Toyota Crown. What complicated it was the Marine Corps version which needed to be an FJ Cruiser.
@ my point is jack of all trades master of none. You have needless compromise everywhere and it’s more expensive and time consuming to develop than it needed to be. Should have told marines to get bent with their stovl requirements for example
24 дні тому
With laser beams and a jacuzzi.
24 дні тому+1
@@marcppparis _Jack of all trades, master of none, but often times better than master of one._
The only way one design can work for both Navy and Air Force is if it starts out as a Navy design first (ie Phantom). You can take a carrier aircraft and remove some of the carrier "stuff" and make it a USAF aircraft, it is much harder to take a USAF aircraft and add carrier "stuff" to it. Plenty of US Navy aircraft have operated with land based only air forces (Hornet, Phantom, Corsair, Bearcat, Skyraider) not many USAF aircraft have been converted to carrier aircraft..... none that I can think of.
@@FLMKane Not even it. The YF-17 contender for the USAF LWF competition looks like the F-18 that was developed from it, but the F-18 was an entirely new aircraft. The F-18 was larger, much heavier, different engines etc.
It's pretty revisionist praising the F-4 like it didn't have any growing pains of its own. Imagine being a brand new F-4 pilot in Vietnam with crap missiles and no cannon... no thanks It ended up maturing into a great platform for sure, but there isn't a single aircraft in history that rolled off the production line and never needed (extensive) modification
@@gregsutton2400 No doubt the B variant was what held back the JSF the most Still, I'd rather take a fighter that's not as good as it COULD have been than a fighter that was fundamentally flawed from inception. I respect Gonky a ton but it's easy to say the F-4 was great when he wasn't one of the first ones flying it in a combat zone The early AIMs were horrible (especially the AIM-4) and cost a lot of lives
The U.S. Air Force has always had an issue with enemy propaganda. If the Chinese came out and said its fighters could travel at near light speed, the U.S. generals would believe the Chinese. That's why Air Force generals are so goofy.
@@khandimahn9687 Both the U.S. Army and Navy don't understand physics. Take the Stryker. The Stryker was suppose to be a quick reaction vehicle. Then somebody had to say it needed to be protected from RPGs, which automatically doubled its weight for armor making it a Bradley with wheels. Now the army once again wants a fast reaction vehicle.
As the U.S Navy had developed the F-14D Model with advanced avionics & power. It also had advanced plans of building a more super advanced version of the Tomcat. This illustration appears very similar to the advanced tomcat version complete with the variable sweep wing configuration.
The A-7 was an aircraft designed for the Navy and later on when the Air Force wanted to use it, they provided some input that Vought made upgrades for that the Navy eventually bought. This was a good example of cooperation between both services. You also need to consider the fact that the Navy and the Air Force always come back with additional requirements after the plane was selected and starting to be built. The factory then has to compensate and possibly re-tool to meet the new requirements. This is why it sometimes takes a while. Also something to consider is the latest contracts that have been awarded have been fix priced contracts. So in order to save money to avoid additional costs, companies are taking a slower approach to maximize quality.
In addition to the A-7, the Rafale M, MiG 29K, and Su-33 are all carrier based aircraft developed from land based aircraft of which all are currently in service.
@@joeclaridy Rafale was designed for both Air force and Navy from the start, A-7 was designed for the Navy and later adopted by Air Force and I don't think Mig-29K and Su-33 are specially successful planes
It seems like combining multiple roles within a single service is more effective and cost efficient, than trying to make a single platform for multiple services. For example if the F/A-XX can combine both the Super Hornet and Growler, and the NGAD can combine multiple Air Force platforms into one. That seems like the best possible balance between capability, cost, and support/logistics.
The US Air Force doesn't have the constraint of carrier operations though. However, they don't have a equivalent electronic warfare aircraft since they retired the EF-111A Raven. I heard Air Force personnel are embedded in Growler squadrons these days. However, they can base their support aircraft off of civilian aircraft since that's fine for reasonably long runways. The E-7 will replace the E-3, and without a rotating dome. And for bombing they won't be restricted to small aircraft and will hopefully have the B-21 in larger numbers than the B-2.
@@ypw510 Honestly the USAF should just buy (a lot) more B-21s, and turn them into anti-air platforms in addition to the strategic bombing role. My concern would be speed. Even with hypersonic missiles, the cost of having a bunch of those seems like they would be much higher than simply having a fast reusable plane that can fire slower, cheaper weapons and then do it again the following day. I have the same concern about the B-1 being retired. As for the Navy, I'm relieved that they seem to be doing their own thing, unaffected by the USAF's budgetary woes because they waited too long to replace our ICBMs.
Step 1: Trick a certain country into selling remaining Tomcats . Step 2: Use them to reverse-engineer it. Step 3: Contract Northrop Grumman to make brand new F-14EX Super Tomcats (fully digital, easy maintenance access and composites where applicable should reduce operational costs significantly). Step 4: "Highway to the Danger Zone" 😉 😃 🤙 Awesomeness > Stealth 😂
One of the axioms of Kelly Johnson is, "Engineers should be live on the same floor next to the workers." That way, engineering changes can be made quickly.
It wasn’t just the US Marines that supposedly messed up the F 35 with the vertical takeoff. You guys need to look up who the original partners were that were all responsible for what we have as the F 35 they are. Lockheed Martin is the prime F-35 contractor with principal partners Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems and of course BAE systems from the UK were also well aware of the Royal Navy wanting vertical takeoff as well
Lockheed had already planned to design a harrier replacement for the Marine Corps. The trouble wasn’t the fact that being everything is a problem. The problem is that it’s really, really, really, really hard to make it do everything. It’s probably one of the most advanced pieces of technological hardware in existence. It’s simply an extremely complicated problem, so the solution is just as much.
Exactly. These guys didn’t even understand that the Marine Corps wanted VTOL for their helicopter carriers. The Marine Corps gained an enormous capability by being able to deploy stealth fighters anywhere an MEU would need it. It’s like a cheat code.
@@mike-0451 yeah Gonky punted his answer by ignoring the strategic capability of the ARG/MEU … arguably even more capability in an Air-Ground Task Force than what a single CVW can bring. If the Marines didn’t have a replacement for the Harrier, the Navy’s 7 Big Deck Amphibs would be rendered mostly ineffective. But Gonky is not alone … Navy CV VFA guys tend to have a very narrow take on things.
@@MakeMagic49 The fact that the F-35B has its uses, doesn't change the fact that it impacted the JSF program a lot Many of the design compromises are to make the B version work
Canada does not need procurement. It should just let somebody else built, test, and perfect an aircraft. BTW, the biggest mistake Canada made was scrapping the CF-101 fleet. It was the perfect long range aircraft for Canada. It used the J-57 engine, the parts were cheap and plentiful. The perfect aircraft *FOR CANADA'S NEEDS* is an arctic version of the F-16V. It has the range to meet Canada's needs and the weapons suite for the interception missions.
@@Easy-Eight The biggest mistake Canada has made in acquisition was in 2015, when Trudeau announced his party would buy Super Hornets instead of F-35s. This was a political move that largely contributed to their success in the following election. The next year, Canada cancelled its plans to buy Super Hornets, citing that Boeing was grossly overcharging them $6 billion for only 18 airframes. Now, Canada is flying with outdated legacy Hornets and nearly a decade late in getting their new fighter.
@@pwurplewolf Canada can't afford the F-35 and that's even with a Poilievre government. The RCAF has less than 100 operational fighter aircraft and all are elderly versions of the F/A-18A & B models. Range is needed in Canada and the CF-18 has a choice: range or weapons, pick one. Then again I'm getting a little disgusted by the RCAF fighter squadrons. We are becoming like New Zealand. Perhaps it's time to scrap the fighter aircraft. Anyway, the F-16V is a better aircraft than the F/A-18. We certainly can't afford 100 F-35s because it may distract from Ottawa's spend thrift social ways. Perhaps Poilievre can get some F-16C block 50+ for a good price.
@@Easy-Eight I’m not sure why you say Canada can’t afford F-35s when it has already purchased 88 while also planning on tripling its defense spending by 2030. The F-16 is a great aircraft but it’s still a 4th gen. You can’t expect a competent Air Force to fly Block 50s in the 2040s and 2050s against J-20s.
@@pwurplewolf *planning on tripling its defense spending by 2030* I deal with fiscal reality. The USA went insane with debt and is going on $52 Trillion Canadian ($36 Trillion US) in the hole. They are looking dead at fiscal calamity in 2025. As I wrote, we may wish to follow New Zealand's lead and scrap fighter aircraft. Ottawa is as worthless as Washington D.C.
I wonder if in truth the British are a major part of the reason for the F35B. The UK is the only Tier 1 partner with a not insignificant 10-15% total work share and needed a carrier capable plane. However the UK made the decision to not have the QEs use catapults so necessitated STOL hence the F35B. Without the British maybe the Marines would have been on their own so no F35B.
and Japan. And the US marines. Both are being transformed by the F-35, which is basically turning their helo carriers into actual carriers. I think Japan is the most significant one since it's a capability they haven't had since WW2
Rafale was made for AF and Navy simultaneously and it’s doing great The F-4 is one of the most successful fighter of all time, was a navy design later adopted by the air force. I think the F-35 is overall a successful program.
Wow, you mean we can learn lessons from history - Mind Blown. I've been saying for a while that we need a Navy F22 type dogfighter with a 2 seat variant for EW /Strike variant. The Airforce can use Navy planes, but the reverse is not true. Loyal wingman aircraft need to be small and super maneuverable, doing things a manned aircraft can never do and it needs a gun. Space on an aircraft carrier is very limited. The flying triangles are not what we are going to need.
The F-22 is wonderful, but it was built for a different time, and a war that thankfully it never needed to fight. The next war we fight, or hopefully manage to deter, is going to be about over-the-horizon networked kills, not even _merely_ beyond visual range. Whoever spots the enemy first wins.
I disagree with the F35B take, in terms of opportunities it actually allows the ability to operate area where you don't expect a capable fighter to operate. the marine being able to operate in short distance is a huge benefit in an amphibious strike or landing and taking off short ended runways and in region where it's highly unsuitable for conventional plane to land and take off this plane has the access to do the job. But the biggest takeaway that the F35B revolutionize is actually carrier warfare and carrier Design, a lot of carrier are either in the short end of the stick knowing that they dont have the capacity to operate heavier conventional jets that require more tools and space, the very same problem for the royal navy on why they couldn't replace the harrier was due to the fact nothing could replace it and designing carrier for fixed wing squadron would be very expensive to design and maintained, we seen this with JS Kaga and HMS Queen Elizabeth which both now relies on F35B as there strike force and we also see other US amphibious carrier being refitted with F35B allowing more complementary in air warfare for the navy. In terms of how the program went I absolutely agree that it definitely did NOT went smooth and that it absolutely cost a fortune to make but by having a plane that could do majority thing it allows so many designer and planner to utilize it as a solution without putting more time and money on solving another solution, in the end the F35 is just a giant flying super computer that could operate on majority of the region depending on the varient. In the end we just have to wait and see when the F35 starts to mature and the production becomes much more firmed which allows it to be more cheaper and effectient
The B just shouldn't have been in the F-35 program Definitely not on the airframe side of things - sharing electronics, construction techniques, RAM tech, ... is all something else
Let aircraft development fall in the Navy's hands, if it's good to go for carrier landings it should be good to go for the field. Let the airforce specialize the design off the Navy base model
I love sweep wings too but they come with significant maintenance costs and particular mechanical failures. No joint is alike ... you can't cannibalise or just replace those parts with new ones. The wings are deformed to fit that particular screw. I also heard someone say if you banked too hard at a certain speed the sweep wing mechanism would crummy up and you had to wait and/or fly it out. Putting additional "temporal" restrictions on air-to-air combat. But I love the Tomcat too. There is something about those drooping jet inlets, that big ass bird like tail, the transformer wings, the short nose. It's defiance to be as symmetrical as the F15. Which I had to grow to love and absolutely do but I still miss the F14.
@@loganvelasco1889 Can't it be done with lessons learned? I would think that a significant reduction in overall cost could come from ease-of-maintenance improvements.
Can you guys bring an F-35 pilot onto your podcast like hasard Lee to actually challenge your talking points? If you want someone retired, there is an Marine corps pilot that flew both the F-22 and F-35 and has debated pierre sprey on every single talking point that you have managed to get wrong. Have the conviction to have your minds changed. I think his name is Colonel Chip burke. But let me check that. Edit: lt. Colonel David chip berke (with an e) watch his debate with sprey.
Any big twin-engine fighter flying 10,000 ft above you and 500 mph faster ..... with a massive radar and long-range missiles owns the sky ..... a fat little single-engine slug ..... won't stand a chance
@@GaryKennedy-g7p The F-35C has the same service ceiling as the Super Hornet. And yet the Super Hornet is used for air-air, not the F35C. This is what I don't understand. Are they using the FA-18 becuase it is cheaper to fly? If the Super Hornet can do it so can the F35.
F-14, F-14, friggin F-14! A dominant naval aircraft should never have been retired. The F-15 is about as old and it is a force to be reckoned with. Create a modern F-14 and she will dominate once again.
I think we should let the Navy develop the next fighter then have the other services adopt it just like what happened with the F-4. It was the original tri-service aircraft that worked.
Damn it I was going to say the same thing. Let the Navy get their plane and see if the airforce wants it. It would probably work. A-7 was the same story as F4 too
@@Idahoguy10157 yeah they feel like it's hand-me-downs. It would probably hurt the USAF identity too if you consider the Navy has technically had aircraft history longer as an independent force, it'd be like if the Navy got to lead procurement on long range missiles because they had missiles before the Space Force
I hope it looks good. I haven’t seen a single ngad rendering that isn’t ugly. I think they should do retractable external pylons, so they can carry fuel tanks and AIM-174s and then be clean after they’re done with them, without needing new pylons every time.
Mover is correct that today's cost being just too high. Every Navy pilot seems to agree that the last perfect fighter that the Navy loved was the F-14. According to DoD figures, each F-14 would cost about $226 million today, adjusting for inflation. That is the sticker price at the factory, not the cost of flying it for 30+ years. If the Navy can afford that kind of money to build a custom fighter for just them, then they should build it. If Gonky is right about the Navy only needing a few fighters to win an air war, then less than 300 fighters should do the job. Otherwise, they are going to have to settle for something less than the perfect Navy fighter.
I agree with the F35B ruining and delaying the development and production and the agile fighter the F35 could have become (I mean the powerplant puts out as much trust in normal mode as the Viper's/Eagle's P100/GE110 in afterburner and their improvements). But I always thought it was meant to be the export version for navies without catobar aircraft carriers.
@@mill2712 I don't really know what the MC is there for or what its mission is exactly, forgive me for that I'm from Belgium. So is for short runways ? Like The Gripen ? You have that central fan helping it to gain lift sooner ? Also how expensive fuel wise is real VTOL ? When the F14 finally got good engines (retrofitted from the PW/GE enhancements for the F16/F15 engines), it could take off from a catobar carrier without afterburner and that made it a totally different plane. I think it increased the combat radius by 60% or increased the flight time by 60%. Because afterburner is very expensive. Isn't landing and launching vertically on engines really expensive ?
@@kevinpaulus4483 To add to the other comment: The Harriers in the US Marine Corps fly off of short forward airfields and the US amphibious assault ships (Wasp class and America class), as well as normal airfields. So the V/STOVL requirement is for the Amphib assault ships and the STOL is for the short expeditionary airfields.
I'm impressed with how many countries have adopted the F35B for helicopter carriers/amphib assault ships. It's going to be a strike force multiplier for the Japanese, Italians, and Koreans as operated from a shipborne asset. At the same time, yeah, it's expensive.
I'll go out on a limb and make a prediction. The FAXX might become the new F4. (Phantom 3?) Basically, I think the air force is gonna buy 120 ish FAXX airframes because they'll keep delaying their NGAD, but they'll need new airframes to counter China, and they ain't building new raptors. Foreign allies like Israel, but especially Japan and Korea, are also DESPARATE for an f22 grade air dominance fighter, because they have a few hundred Chinese fighters staring at them from across the sea, along with ballistic and cruise missiles
F-110 Spectre / F4H Phantom first a Navy plane then adopted by the Air Force and F-86 Sabre / FJ Fury first Air Force then Navy are the only cross-service jets I know of. The F-35 series are so different they ought to have been designated F-25, F-26, and F-27 (that is assuming the Boeing X-32 ought to have been designated XF-24)
It doesn't matter which branch develops the platform, the current issue, in the past as well, is interservice politics and bickering that helps no one but the lobbyists. France (Rafale M), China (J-15), and Russia (MiG-29K & Su-33) have all took land based aircraft and adopted them for naval use. Yet here in the US getting both branches to cooperate is still like pulling teeth.
NGAD should be a two pilot system because the secondary pilot can be the overseer of the golden swarm AI. With the satellite constellation communication
Keep the cost down? On time? These concepts exist? So the USN will design a fighter, to operate from carriers, have long range and the best sensors anywhere. It will be fast, and kick ass, carrying a weapons load that is worth a damn. So.. they are going to make another F-14.. yeah..
I wish we'd either forget the whole thing of keeping costs down, or can the fighter programs entirely. Especially if we want to stick to a schedule, these things are crazy expensive to develop given what we're asking them to do.
You two can get delusional at times. The F-35 has solved the Marine's fighter problem for the next 50 years. The ability of ground based radar detection of stealth platforms has about topped out except for the US Aegis platform. What other platform can supply 4 mW of electrical power to the radars? Basically the F-35 A and C variants will certainly be top of the class for another 40+ years.
Yeah, the F-35 is a brilliant plane, at least in two of its variants. But it's a bit slow, a bit short-ranged, and it can't carry as much as it probably would need to against a serious enemy air force.
@@fakecubed Well reasoned but you forgot about stealth. Every discussion about 6th generation fighters revolves around stealth sir. But the problem for the rest of the world is that the US has been working on stealth for 50 years. Right now if any nation wants any competent military air craft with stealth you have to buy it from the US. There is no other option.
"VTOL is dumb" says everyone, until it suddenly is mission critical that you are able to land on a coral reef for rearming. VTOL might be dumb, probably is, but what if it isn't once the sh*t hits the fan in the Pacific
Keep in mind that there are a lot less independent aircraft manufacturers than there used to be. Less competition. Less innovation. On the positive side. The process between Design and production has changed dramatically. It should take much less time to setup a production line once a choice is made. A higher chance of getting it right the first time. Different missions, different operational requirements. Of course a one size fits all approach doesn’t really work. Everyone loses. We never sell our top of the line equipment to anyone. So the idea they will be cheap is unrealistic. The price of security. We just need to do a better job of not hiring former foreign nationals in those tech fields. The highest cost is having to compensate for stolen technology.
I don’t think people realize that the people doing the acquisitions are not the issue. It is the regulations that have hamstrung us from going faster and smarter. There are so many hurdles that u must jump through u will never get fast. We need to set the requirement and allow competition. Best product, including sustainment, affordability wins. And then start over immediately for next iteration while first is in test and deployment. We have to iterate
Do you think the budget with trying to modernize our nuclear deterrent is it going to kill the budget for anything that we need like the ngad program or any other programs that we have call so much to modernize our nuclear deterrent
After seeing the Boeing XF-32 in person, it astounded me that it was ever even built. If Low Observability was a priority for the program, the Guppy was never going to work.... Line-of-sight straight into the giant fan. Radar return had to be huge!
seems like Boeing was relying on a radar blocker in the ducts. not sure how well it would work though. crazy thing is that during the ATF competition which saw the YF-22 and YF-23, Boeing basically proposed a large X-32 like plane.
The X32 was actually much lighter and cheaper than X35 and stealth was better. Modified for production with actual tail plane, it would have worked probably better. It was just too ugly.
The X-32 actually was a competent fighter that almost had won the reason it lost is due to the fact that it faces the same issue as the harrier in VTOL, both plane peform well as expected but the X35 did prove higher reliability with VTOL. In terms of cost production i would say the X32 wouldve face the same problem as the X35 and the program would've ended up as the same trillion dollar program due to the complexity and requirements for these aircraft to be produced, same reason why they chose the yf22 over the yf23 because it was cheaper turns out it wasnt once the production was set into place. But in the long term x32 wouldve absolutely been cheap once assembly lines start rolling with high demands
The X-32 as flown, was very much unlike what Boeing proposed The intake would have been significantly redesigned As would the tail surfaces, to look more like the F-35 / F-22 Trying to sell something by proposing almost a full redesign doesn't tend to work though, as it just adds more developmental risk
And yep, the timelines to get new aircraft from a gleam in someone's eye to operational is insane - and has been before I was flying fighters. There has to be a better way.
The reason the F4 was so great is because it was a great plane for the navy that the Air Force also used. Now the Air Force wants to create an OK plane and force the navy to use it. It works one way but not the other
If they were able to do it with an F-4, surely they can replicate that effort. Or the platforms don't need to necessarilly look like each other, just use 70% of the big ticket systems and engines to get to the commonality that allows for efficiency in production of parts and systems that drives costs down. I like the idea of sharing the engines between the NGAD and FAXX, but what of the truly expensive systems, avionics, sensors, and EW?
@slammerf16 you said that the B model compromised the A and C model. Those models have excellent range and internal payload. If you don't need stovl just get the A. What is your argument? Compared to the harrier, it has almost twice the range and probably will with the upgraded engine. It currently has more internal fuel combat radius than superhornet 505 nm.
7:10 every analyst who studied the joint strike fighter, came to that exact conclusion all well. The F 35 was on the drawing board. Neither the Pentagon nor any defense OEM wanted to listen to that and now they’re stuck having to make the best of a bad situation.
The F-35 isn't bad and it might be good enough to beat the next gen fighters in usefulness. That's what happened with the Comanche and the Apache. The guts of the Comanche created the Apache Longbow, rather than having the Apache and the Comanche. The issue I see is that there is not going to be a near peer enemy fighter or SAM to compete with the F-35. Russia's military R&D is dead and China copy's Russia's R&D. Without Russia to steal from, China's R&D is also dead. Slap a super cruise engine on the F-35, make a two seat version and use the Apache Loyal Wingman system and that's all that's needed for any updates.
2 Good 2 B true ! The F-16 was entrenched. Some among John Boyd's inner circle, dis-satisfied with the bloat imposed on the YF-16, by the USAF, worked on the F-20, at Northrop.
@@maximilliancunningham6091 Yeah, the F-16 and definitely the F-35 have moved so far up the food chain that there's once again, room for a low(er) cost fighter underneath ...
Combined corruption and ultra low risk tolerance, aka CYA for upper management both corporate and military, are hamstringing our R&D and procurement processes… JMO of course. Good discussion, thanks.
Gonky, you’re wrong, and you fail to realize the strategic capability that the VTOL F-35 brings to the Gator Navy. Historically, ARG/MEUs have accomplished more military operations across the spectrum of conflict than the CVWs.
And hell yeah, Mover: affordability has always been a bad joke, i.e. a lie we tell ourselves about aircraft dev costs (with the possible exception of the F-20 Tiger Shark II).
And I understand the Air Force is having second thoughts about NGAD. I've even heard rumor they are considering taking some of the tech that was developed for NGAD and applying it to the F-35 to create a "5th generation +" fighter at a lower cost.
Comanche+Apache=Apache Longbow. The only upgraded needed for the F-35 is a super-cruise engine to make it 6th gen viable. It could also use the Apache drone software could be put on the F-35 and there is the Loyal Wingman without extra R&D.
It's not like the Air Force doesn't want NGAD, it's that they can't afford NGAD while also replacing our ICBMs. They're budget-constrained by that whole mess. It has nothing to do with not wanting the NGAD's promised capabilities. So they probably will just make some kind of suped-up F-35 that adds more range and armament and call it a day. But that'll just be a stopgap, and then they'll still try to get a new NGAD as soon as they can, even if just in limited numbers.
Had there been a dedicated Navy fighter rather than the F35, it'd probably be able to replace all navy aircraft on all carriers.with a stealthy multi role fighter-bomber. Commonality...just not the kind they were trying for.
If the USAF can't afford NGAD it's just a matter of time till the F/A-XX program gets cancelled; as their budget problems are even worse. The USN will be flying F-35 right along with the Marines and Air Force well into the future.
So what is the origin of Fat Amy? (The tag, not the plane) PS. What did anyone expect about an idea for one plane for the Navy, Airforce and Marines by an Army General?
I would be curious if anybody would be able to narrow down the origin to any specific squadron or community or if it started at the factory or online at a very early stage. It's strictly referencing the tubby kinda silhouette of the F-35. It is intended to be disparaging, and don't get me wrong, I prefer a fat girl 😋, but she's gotta be pretty, and I just don't think I can say the F-35 looks really pretty - it's just ok in the looks department. I dunno I think it's just modern aircraft these days, there are a bunch of angles that I think the F-22 looks kinda dumb.
@KalFulsom I was gonna say it would only fit if it had a sleek fuselage, but actually it would be pretty funny if it was as big or bigger than the F-35, in irony
@@12what34the We need to have something to take the sting on how much it will cost. That said, if they make it Navy specific, it may not be as bad as Fat Amy trying to please everyone... that came off taudry, didn't it?
One thing I was wondering is why does the USMC have their own jets? Wouldn't it be more efficient to use catapult launched planes from the carriers instead of lower performing vtol jets ?
Fleet carriers have other things to do and being there for every Marine operation that requires air support beyond helicopters will require more aircraft carriers than what the Navy can afford. That's why the Marines bought Harriers and operated them off the assault ships they already have. The funny thing is recently the Navy is eyeing these assault ships as light carriers and the rest of the world has been for decades. Even an ARG with its limited fixed wing aircraft is still quite potent for raids and such.
The Army would love to have their own ground attack aircraft but there's a whole saga about the Army and Air Force butting heads over who should do what. Since breaking off from the Army in the 40's, the Air Force has been very defensive and aggressive about their importance and independence -it's basically politics. Look into the history of it, it's interesting. Navy doesn't seem to feel remotely threatened by the Marines having their own aircraft, now if the Marines wanted to get their own crewed ships that might be different lol...but nobody wants that, no Marine would ever want that 😄
Mass is always a plus. Launching an F-35 off of any LHD or LHA on top of giving our allies (UK, Japan, Italy Korea) the ability to launch a 5th generation air craft 500+ nm is a significant capability. You guys rag on the F-35 for being bad but can't realize that its weight is mostly fuel. 18250 pounds of internal fuel while the F-16 has 7000. All you would have to do to make an F-35 equivalent to an F-16 is just to add 9k to 10k pounds of fuel. The F-35 would have less drag and more maneverability under those conditions.
@@12what34the "Every Marine is a rifleman." Maybe the Marines should resurrect the battleships and do coastal bombardment with 16 inch guns while the Navy keeps using their fancy missiles. 😂
I think there's a ton of us here thinking the same thing. There's probably some inter-force political chest thumping going on about relevance insecurities and/or the Air Force doesn't want to set the precedent that the Navy gets to pick what they want and the Air Force gets sloppy seconds
Clearly do not realize about peroquial service rivalry. Air Force would never let navy develop their plane. Biggest challenge will be connecting supply bases and systems on back end
@@ronniehobbs6031 yeah but we are in 2024 not in the sixties anymore. This is a National Defense matter it should be way more important than service rivalry. We are not talking about a cargo helicopter or a drone
How much does interservice politics and infighting play into the past failed joint programs? On the surface it shouldn't be that difficult to develop a joint fighter with minimal compromises such as adding stronger landing gear, beefed up tail hook and folding wings for storage. Sure, making a VTOL capable variant in my opinion is a bridge too far but other aspects shouldn't be that difficult.
Here's the real problem: military aviation missions are now a fully known dynamic, AND designs to execute them *have approached diminishing returns*. An excuse to spend more was the F35 "idea". Which doesn't work. What we know works - F16,F22, A-10, *do what the Chinese do*: copy, update. El Presidente Elon is half right and wrong; Ukraine shows the future is drones, BUT different air frames are still needed for different roles. We still need A-10s and F-22s, and we don't need to start over and wait 5 years designing replacements for a possible, maybe, potential, 3% performance difference. Copy, streamline and update production, save development costs and get on with it. We'll still need fleets of drones, but we don't need "networked pseudo-not really stealth multi-kinda role all purpose mediocre".
@6:30 the F-20 cost Northrop approx $3 billion in FY 1980 dollars. This resulted in three F-20 production air vehicles (PAVs) which operated at a near 90% mission ready rate. Unit flyaway cost was anticipated to be in the $5 million range. Pretty incredible little fighter and a bargain, but was hamstrung when the Reagan administration allowed foreign sales of F-16s. It’s unfortunate, as it was a great airplane.
For what it's worth ...Yeager flew the 20 quite a few times and was VERY precise in his praise: for a highly capable, reliable, day-time, 'dog fighter'....it was great ( think of a jet-powered P-51). Same mission.
@ well it was capable of multi role air to air and air to ground missions, similar to its F-5 ancestors. There’s a lot to be said for a lightweight fighter that you can purchase for very low investment, with cheap operating costs, and a high degree of reliability. An airplane like an F-35 sounds great on paper or at a defense tradeshow. But when the airplane cost $100 million, plus $50,000 an hour to operate with a mission capable rate of only 50%, you quickly realize what a dog you bought with your money. What good is a DAS system and a fancy helmet when only half your fleet is flight ready at any given time, and it’s a money vampire eating through your defense budgets?
Correct. There may have been some similarities in how the two services put out calls for technology demonstrations, and the contractors are no doubt looking for every commonality they can as they put in their bids, but they are two completely different programs.
I think that we have a culture that requires us to fool ourselves into building huge projects. If we are honest and conservative with our estimates, we get huge sticker shock and can drum up the political support. Instead we want to consider other bids until a convincing liar comes along with a sweet low bid. Then we get stuck in and embarrassingly realize that we neglected certain important things like fudge factors for uncertainty. Stuff gets swept under the rug and we try to soldier along badly until we finally feel committed to run over budget. Just like when Shinseki and Rumsfeld clashed over troop requirements to occupy Iraq. Rumsfeld freaks at Shinseki’s assiduous massive shopping list and decides to charge along with a much sexier guesstimate that he can get political support for. America gets stuck in and slowly gets string bet into a long protracted engagement that ends up running hugely over budget and over time. All this because the lower expectation was a much easier sell. We screw up like this on military stuff. Big infrastructure things, and smaller things like bridges. We can only accomplish big expensive things by fooling ourselves into them.
meanwhile every "rendering" shows a delta-type wing (which the Navy hates due to high landing speeds ..... no big horizontal stabilisers .... which the Navy loves for landings ..... and even better .... no vertical tails either ....... which nobody has figured out how to fly with over Mach 1 .... not to mention making landings trickier .... what could possibly go wrong ???
Not enough pilots and not enough enemy aircraft. It is believed that the U.S. can complete SEAD in China in a week meaning 4.5 Gen aircraft can fly over China without getting shot down. That's why the F-15 went from air to air to being able to do bombing runs. The F-15 couldn't find enough fighters from previous enemies a couple nights into the conflicts. After there were no more fighters, the F-15s would just sit there if they couldn't bomb targets.
Un-killable programs is guaranteed money for defense contractors. That's why manufacturing war machines is spread out across nearly every state in the union.
Too much cynicism here IMO. Better to explore factors as to *why* programs are 200/50 as mentioned. We can do better but we need to ask for it. Check out the Skunk Works book by Ben Rich where they had a phenomenal approach to innovation on a budget with the F117 program. Also check out the last part of Robin Olds' autobiography where he presents a compelling argument on how to fix procurement.
No ngad is a system of system with a cloud, a fighter, drone … Both the usaf and navy have a ngad (so two). The main fighter for the navy is the fa xx The main fighter for the usaf is the pca (penetration counter air). Same in Europe fcas is the system and ngf is the fighter.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE MANNED STEALTH SUPER TOMCAT!!!! PELASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!!! We are on a roll of universal fighter, navy badasser in a cyclic loop. Ya know it's time boys!
Gonky nailed it. We went through the same BS in the 60/70's. One size fits all really means everyone has to compromise performance.
Robert McNamara
But its the reason our defense spending is almost $1T a year. Its ridiculous. Everyone HAS to have their own little thing.
F-35 as well.
60-70s got the F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-18. late 50s-mid60s got the F-4 and F-111. Your time lines are off.
@@John_Redcorn_ Interest on the $36.3 Trillion dollar debt is bigger than Defense spending. Nations that are going into the red $1 Trillion dollars every 90 days are not long for the planet.
I think it's appropriate to give an honorable mention here to Northrop Grumman and the B-21 - on schedule and under budget. Absolutely unreal.
That is strange,,,
Under budget …as reported. The real total historical budget likely existed long before the B-21 and under dark programs.
I believe a lot of the R&D came from the B-2 and the F-35 so a lot of problems were already fixed.
After Dick Cheney gutting their contracts, Grumman needs a win.
Meh... corporate aren't dummies. It's only fiscal strategy... this is what we promise, this is what we deliver, this is what we fudge
The F35 was “ let’s build an off-road amphibious sports car that’s gonna be the best and affordable “
It was never meant to be a “sports car.” Air Force version would be like a Toyota Corolla, while the Navy version was a Toyota Crown. What complicated it was the Marine Corps version which needed to be an FJ Cruiser.
@ my point is jack of all trades master of none. You have needless compromise everywhere and it’s more expensive and time consuming to develop than it needed to be. Should have told marines to get bent with their stovl requirements for example
With laser beams and a jacuzzi.
@@marcppparis _Jack of all trades, master of none, but often times better than master of one._
@@marcppparis so... They built a lancer Evo???
The only way one design can work for both Navy and Air Force is if it starts out as a Navy design first (ie Phantom). You can take a carrier aircraft and remove some of the carrier "stuff" and make it a USAF aircraft, it is much harder to take a USAF aircraft and add carrier "stuff" to it.
Plenty of US Navy aircraft have operated with land based only air forces (Hornet, Phantom, Corsair, Bearcat, Skyraider) not many USAF aircraft have been converted to carrier aircraft..... none that I can think of.
The navalized X-17, is the f18. That's the only one
@@FLMKane Not even it. The YF-17 contender for the USAF LWF competition looks like the F-18 that was developed from it, but the F-18 was an entirely new aircraft. The F-18 was larger, much heavier, different engines etc.
@@dogsbd sorry, I'm wrong and you're right. Good catch!
@@dogsbd actually, the F-404 engine is a development of the YJ101 model used by F-17, so not so different engines.
@@rodrigorincongarcia771 a turbofan is very different from a turbojet, even if they use the same core
That's the greatness of the F4 Phantom. So far, it has been the only aircraft that was used by every service, and it did so quite well.
It's pretty revisionist praising the F-4 like it didn't have any growing pains of its own. Imagine being a brand new F-4 pilot in Vietnam with crap missiles and no cannon... no thanks
It ended up maturing into a great platform for sure, but there isn't a single aircraft in history that rolled off the production line and never needed (extensive) modification
In fairness there was no VTOLcapability when the Phantom went live and it was forced on the Air Force.
@@gregsutton2400 No doubt the B variant was what held back the JSF the most
Still, I'd rather take a fighter that's not as good as it COULD have been than a fighter that was fundamentally flawed from inception. I respect Gonky a ton but it's easy to say the F-4 was great when he wasn't one of the first ones flying it in a combat zone
The early AIMs were horrible (especially the AIM-4) and cost a lot of lives
Army used it?
The F-4 was such a success because the USAF century series was so poorly conceived that they had no choice but to take the Navy F-4…
I'll give the Navy this much - at least they know what they want and are working to get it. The Air Force keeps changing their minds.
Said no one working on the next DDX and frigate.
@@michaelpetty8416Ooooh! That was a cold burn! Love it
@@michaelpetty8416 No argument there. The Navy has had its share of 'make up your damn minds!'
The U.S. Air Force has always had an issue with enemy propaganda. If the Chinese came out and said its fighters could travel at near light speed, the U.S. generals would believe the Chinese. That's why Air Force generals are so goofy.
@@khandimahn9687 Both the U.S. Army and Navy don't understand physics. Take the Stryker. The Stryker was suppose to be a quick reaction vehicle. Then somebody had to say it needed to be protected from RPGs, which automatically doubled its weight for armor making it a Bradley with wheels. Now the army once again wants a fast reaction vehicle.
As the U.S Navy had developed the F-14D Model with advanced avionics & power. It also had advanced plans of building a more super advanced version of the Tomcat. This illustration appears very similar to the advanced tomcat version complete with the variable sweep wing configuration.
The A-7 was an aircraft designed for the Navy and later on when the Air Force wanted to use it, they provided some input that Vought made upgrades for that the Navy eventually bought. This was a good example of cooperation between both services.
You also need to consider the fact that the Navy and the Air Force always come back with additional requirements after the plane was selected and starting to be built. The factory then has to compensate and possibly re-tool to meet the new requirements. This is why it sometimes takes a while. Also something to consider is the latest contracts that have been awarded have been fix priced contracts. So in order to save money to avoid additional costs, companies are taking a slower approach to maximize quality.
In addition to the A-7, the Rafale M, MiG 29K, and Su-33 are all carrier based aircraft developed from land based aircraft of which all are currently in service.
@@joeclaridy Rafale was designed for both Air force and Navy from the start, A-7 was designed for the Navy and later adopted by Air Force and I don't think Mig-29K and Su-33 are specially successful planes
So well said, Gonky (about the huge differences between the Navy and the Air Force). And I say that as a former F-111 aviator (from the early 80s).
It seems like combining multiple roles within a single service is more effective and cost efficient, than trying to make a single platform for multiple services. For example if the F/A-XX can combine both the Super Hornet and Growler, and the NGAD can combine multiple Air Force platforms into one. That seems like the best possible balance between capability, cost, and support/logistics.
The US Air Force doesn't have the constraint of carrier operations though. However, they don't have a equivalent electronic warfare aircraft since they retired the EF-111A Raven. I heard Air Force personnel are embedded in Growler squadrons these days.
However, they can base their support aircraft off of civilian aircraft since that's fine for reasonably long runways. The E-7 will replace the E-3, and without a rotating dome. And for bombing they won't be restricted to small aircraft and will hopefully have the B-21 in larger numbers than the B-2.
@@ypw510 So what your saying is the Navy and USAF have different requirements? Interesting, where have I heard something like that before…
@@ypw510 Honestly the USAF should just buy (a lot) more B-21s, and turn them into anti-air platforms in addition to the strategic bombing role. My concern would be speed. Even with hypersonic missiles, the cost of having a bunch of those seems like they would be much higher than simply having a fast reusable plane that can fire slower, cheaper weapons and then do it again the following day. I have the same concern about the B-1 being retired.
As for the Navy, I'm relieved that they seem to be doing their own thing, unaffected by the USAF's budgetary woes because they waited too long to replace our ICBMs.
@@ypw510technically the f35 and f15e can do electronic warfare just because of their ginormous radars and their emag emissions
Step 1: Trick a certain country into selling remaining Tomcats . Step 2: Use them to reverse-engineer it. Step 3: Contract Northrop Grumman to make brand new F-14EX Super Tomcats (fully digital, easy maintenance access and composites where applicable should reduce operational costs significantly). Step 4: "Highway to the Danger Zone" 😉 😃 🤙 Awesomeness > Stealth 😂
Nope never going to happen, swept wing designs are too expensive and maintenance intensive.
Why would Northrop Grumman need to reverse-engineer their own planes?🤔
One of the axioms of Kelly Johnson is, "Engineers should be live on the same floor next to the workers." That way, engineering changes can be made quickly.
It wasn’t just the US Marines that supposedly messed up the F 35 with the vertical takeoff. You guys need to look up who the original partners were that were all responsible for what we have as the F 35 they are. Lockheed Martin is the prime F-35 contractor with principal partners Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems and of course BAE systems from the UK were also well aware of the Royal Navy wanting vertical takeoff as well
Lockheed had already planned to design a harrier replacement for the Marine Corps. The trouble wasn’t the fact that being everything is a problem. The problem is that it’s really, really, really, really hard to make it do everything. It’s probably one of the most advanced pieces of technological hardware in existence. It’s simply an extremely complicated problem, so the solution is just as much.
Exactly. These guys didn’t even understand that the Marine Corps wanted VTOL for their helicopter carriers. The Marine Corps gained an enormous capability by being able to deploy stealth fighters anywhere an MEU would need it. It’s like a cheat code.
@@mike-0451 yeah Gonky punted his answer by ignoring the strategic capability of the ARG/MEU … arguably even more capability in an Air-Ground Task Force than what a single CVW can bring. If the Marines didn’t have a replacement for the Harrier, the Navy’s 7 Big Deck Amphibs would be rendered mostly ineffective. But Gonky is not alone … Navy CV VFA guys tend to have a very narrow take on things.
@@MakeMagic49 The fact that the F-35B has its uses, doesn't change the fact that it impacted the JSF program a lot
Many of the design compromises are to make the B version work
If American procurement needs a complete overhaul I'm not even sure what words could be used to describe what's needed to fix Canadian procurement.
Canada does not need procurement. It should just let somebody else built, test, and perfect an aircraft. BTW, the biggest mistake Canada made was scrapping the CF-101 fleet. It was the perfect long range aircraft for Canada. It used the J-57 engine, the parts were cheap and plentiful. The perfect aircraft *FOR CANADA'S NEEDS* is an arctic version of the F-16V. It has the range to meet Canada's needs and the weapons suite for the interception missions.
@@Easy-Eight The biggest mistake Canada has made in acquisition was in 2015, when Trudeau announced his party would buy Super Hornets instead of F-35s. This was a political move that largely contributed to their success in the following election. The next year, Canada cancelled its plans to buy Super Hornets, citing that Boeing was grossly overcharging them $6 billion for only 18 airframes. Now, Canada is flying with outdated legacy Hornets and nearly a decade late in getting their new fighter.
@@pwurplewolf Canada can't afford the F-35 and that's even with a Poilievre government. The RCAF has less than 100 operational fighter aircraft and all are elderly versions of the F/A-18A & B models. Range is needed in Canada and the CF-18 has a choice: range or weapons, pick one. Then again I'm getting a little disgusted by the RCAF fighter squadrons. We are becoming like New Zealand. Perhaps it's time to scrap the fighter aircraft. Anyway, the F-16V is a better aircraft than the F/A-18. We certainly can't afford 100 F-35s because it may distract from Ottawa's spend thrift social ways. Perhaps Poilievre can get some F-16C block 50+ for a good price.
@@Easy-Eight I’m not sure why you say Canada can’t afford F-35s when it has already purchased 88 while also planning on tripling its defense spending by 2030. The F-16 is a great aircraft but it’s still a 4th gen. You can’t expect a competent Air Force to fly Block 50s in the 2040s and 2050s against J-20s.
@@pwurplewolf *planning on tripling its defense spending by 2030* I deal with fiscal reality. The USA went insane with debt and is going on $52 Trillion Canadian ($36 Trillion US) in the hole. They are looking dead at fiscal calamity in 2025. As I wrote, we may wish to follow New Zealand's lead and scrap fighter aircraft. Ottawa is as worthless as Washington D.C.
I wonder if in truth the British are a major part of the reason for the F35B. The UK is the only Tier 1 partner with a not insignificant 10-15% total work share and needed a carrier capable plane. However the UK made the decision to not have the QEs use catapults so necessitated STOL hence the F35B. Without the British maybe the Marines would have been on their own so no F35B.
Good point, everybody kinda forgets that it wasn't just the tri-service wants and needs, it was input from a bunch of countries
and Japan. And the US marines. Both are being transformed by the F-35, which is basically turning their helo carriers into actual carriers. I think Japan is the most significant one since it's a capability they haven't had since WW2
Rafale was made for AF and Navy simultaneously and it’s doing great
The F-4 is one of the most successful fighter of all time, was a navy design later adopted by the air force.
I think the F-35 is overall a successful program.
Wow, you mean we can learn lessons from history - Mind Blown. I've been saying for a while that we need a Navy F22 type dogfighter with a 2 seat variant for EW /Strike variant. The Airforce can use Navy planes, but the reverse is not true. Loyal wingman aircraft need to be small and super maneuverable, doing things a manned aircraft can never do and it needs a gun. Space on an aircraft carrier is very limited. The flying triangles are not what we are going to need.
The F-22 is wonderful, but it was built for a different time, and a war that thankfully it never needed to fight. The next war we fight, or hopefully manage to deter, is going to be about over-the-horizon networked kills, not even _merely_ beyond visual range. Whoever spots the enemy first wins.
I disagree with the F35B take, in terms of opportunities it actually allows the ability to operate area where you don't expect a capable fighter to operate.
the marine being able to operate in short distance is a huge benefit in an amphibious strike or landing and taking off short ended runways and in region where it's highly unsuitable for conventional plane to land and take off this plane has the access to do the job.
But the biggest takeaway that the F35B revolutionize is actually carrier warfare and carrier Design, a lot of carrier are either in the short end of the stick knowing that they dont have the capacity to operate heavier conventional jets that require more tools and space, the very same problem for the royal navy on why they couldn't replace the harrier was due to the fact nothing could replace it and designing carrier for fixed wing squadron would be very expensive to design and maintained, we seen this with JS Kaga and HMS Queen Elizabeth which both now relies on F35B as there strike force and we also see other US amphibious carrier being refitted with F35B allowing more complementary in air warfare for the navy.
In terms of how the program went I absolutely agree that it definitely did NOT went smooth and that it absolutely cost a fortune to make but by having a plane that could do majority thing it allows so many designer and planner to utilize it as a solution without putting more time and money on solving another solution, in the end the F35 is just a giant flying super computer that could operate on majority of the region depending on the varient. In the end we just have to wait and see when the F35 starts to mature and the production becomes much more firmed which allows it to be more cheaper and effectient
The B just shouldn't have been in the F-35 program
Definitely not on the airframe side of things - sharing electronics, construction techniques, RAM tech, ... is all something else
Be nice for the Navy to have a fleet defender again.
Been missing that capability since the 06.
Soon As I Saw the Thumbnail I Knew It Looked Very Much Like The F-21 Super-Tomcat
Let aircraft development fall in the Navy's hands, if it's good to go for carrier landings it should be good to go for the field. Let the airforce specialize the design off the Navy base model
"Design a plane for a given mission and go with it."
Remember folks, you heard it here first...the A-10 is going nowhere! lol
Tomcats!
God I love that jet, and would happily pay taxes to see a new one come back.
I love sweep wings too but they come with significant maintenance costs and particular mechanical failures. No joint is alike ... you can't cannibalise or just replace those parts with new ones. The wings are deformed to fit that particular screw. I also heard someone say if you banked too hard at a certain speed the sweep wing mechanism would crummy up and you had to wait and/or fly it out. Putting additional "temporal" restrictions on air-to-air combat. But I love the Tomcat too. There is something about those drooping jet inlets, that big ass bird like tail, the transformer wings, the short nose. It's defiance to be as symmetrical as the F15. Which I had to grow to love and absolutely do but I still miss the F14.
Maybe not the exact plane itself, but one with its mission capabilities. Swept wings are not the best concept. I know it looks cool though.
No
-very respectfully, a maintainer
@@loganvelasco1889 Can't it be done with lessons learned? I would think that a significant reduction in overall cost could come from ease-of-maintenance improvements.
@@dampsok as cool as the tomcat was the lesson learned was to replace it with the super hornet
I miss the days of the A-4 and F-8. Small, compact, low cost naval warplanes that could operate on a variety of US and foreign aircraft carriers.
Can you guys bring an F-35 pilot onto your podcast like hasard Lee to actually challenge your talking points? If you want someone retired, there is an Marine corps pilot that flew both the F-22 and F-35 and has debated pierre sprey on every single talking point that you have managed to get wrong. Have the conviction to have your minds changed. I think his name is Colonel Chip burke. But let me check that.
Edit: lt. Colonel David chip berke (with an e) watch his debate with sprey.
I suppose everyone has different points of view, how sure are you that mover and gonky are wrong?
@@Glee73for the same reason you can assume they are right. Unchecked or better yet unchallenged debates rarely net desired results.
Love the artwork. Looks like a Tomcat humped an F22.
I always called it, “One size fits none.” 😂
Thank You............FINALLY! You two are saying what needed to be said.
Of course it’s gonna be expensive! But imagine the cost of failing the mission.
Navy just wants a modern f14 back. I think we all do want the f14 back in a future version
With impending huge budget cut .. progress for the next four years will just be in development phase only.
F/A-XX should be built by Grumman and be named the Tomcat II.
The hellcat II
Exactly
Given the Grumman kicked ass with the b21, they might actually be the guys behind the mysterious flying prototypes
What adversary is the F35C not enough for in air-air?
Su-35S goin 2.3 mach at 45000ft ?
F-35A seems a more likely counterpart to the Su-35S, I also don't see how a F-35C would struggle with a Su-35S in any way.
Any big twin-engine fighter flying 10,000 ft above you and 500 mph faster ..... with a massive radar and long-range missiles owns the sky .....
a fat little single-engine slug ..... won't stand a chance
@@GaryKennedy-g7p The F-35C has the same service ceiling as the Super Hornet. And yet the Super Hornet is used for air-air, not the F35C. This is what I don't understand. Are they using the FA-18 becuase it is cheaper to fly? If the Super Hornet can do it so can the F35.
@@GaryKennedy-g7p and the Eurofighter has a 10K feet higher ceiling than the F-35. But no one argues that it can beat F-35 in air-air.
F-14, F-14, friggin F-14! A dominant naval aircraft should never have been retired. The F-15 is about as old and it is a force to be reckoned with. Create a modern F-14 and she will dominate once again.
I think we should let the Navy develop the next fighter then have the other services adopt it just like what happened with the F-4. It was the original tri-service aircraft that worked.
I agree but the challenge is getting the USAF to agree to adopting a Navy aircraft
Damn it I was going to say the same thing. Let the Navy get their plane and see if the airforce wants it. It would probably work. A-7 was the same story as F4 too
Crazy idea like the F-4 Phantom and the A7 Corsair II.
@@Idahoguy10157 yeah they feel like it's hand-me-downs. It would probably hurt the USAF identity too if you consider the Navy has technically had aircraft history longer as an independent force, it'd be like if the Navy got to lead procurement on long range missiles because they had missiles before the Space Force
@ …. In the 1950’s the US Army, Navy, and Air Force all had space programs. Why NASA was created.
Share some parts, electronics, coms, radars, weapons, engines maybe, but design everything else for the mission of the particular service.
I hope it looks good. I haven’t seen a single ngad rendering that isn’t ugly.
I think they should do retractable external pylons, so they can carry fuel tanks and AIM-174s and then be clean after they’re done with them, without needing new pylons every time.
Mover is correct that today's cost being just too high. Every Navy pilot seems to agree that the last perfect fighter that the Navy loved was the F-14. According to DoD figures, each F-14 would cost about $226 million today, adjusting for inflation. That is the sticker price at the factory, not the cost of flying it for 30+ years. If the Navy can afford that kind of money to build a custom fighter for just them, then they should build it. If Gonky is right about the Navy only needing a few fighters to win an air war, then less than 300 fighters should do the job. Otherwise, they are going to have to settle for something less than the perfect Navy fighter.
I agree with the F35B ruining and delaying the development and production and the agile fighter the F35 could have become (I mean the powerplant puts out as much trust in normal mode as the Viper's/Eagle's P100/GE110 in afterburner and their improvements). But I always thought it was meant to be the export version for navies without catobar aircraft carriers.
It is also meant for the aviators of the USMC. I do believe it is useful for them.
@@mill2712 I don't really know what the MC is there for or what its mission is exactly, forgive me for that I'm from Belgium. So is for short runways ? Like The Gripen ? You have that central fan helping it to gain lift sooner ? Also how expensive fuel wise is real VTOL ? When the F14 finally got good engines (retrofitted from the PW/GE enhancements for the F16/F15 engines), it could take off from a catobar carrier without afterburner and that made it a totally different plane. I think it increased the combat radius by 60% or increased the flight time by 60%. Because afterburner is very expensive. Isn't landing and launching vertically on engines really expensive ?
@@kevinpaulus4483 The Marine Corps wanted a replacement for their Harriers that they are currently flying.
@@kevinpaulus4483 To add to the other comment: The Harriers in the US Marine Corps fly off of short forward airfields and the US amphibious assault ships (Wasp class and America class), as well as normal airfields. So the V/STOVL requirement is for the Amphib assault ships and the STOL is for the short expeditionary airfields.
I'm impressed with how many countries have adopted the F35B for helicopter carriers/amphib assault ships. It's going to be a strike force multiplier for the Japanese, Italians, and Koreans as operated from a shipborne asset. At the same time, yeah, it's expensive.
I'll go out on a limb and make a prediction. The FAXX might become the new F4. (Phantom 3?)
Basically, I think the air force is gonna buy 120 ish FAXX airframes because they'll keep delaying their NGAD, but they'll need new airframes to counter China, and they ain't building new raptors.
Foreign allies like Israel, but especially Japan and Korea, are also DESPARATE for an f22 grade air dominance fighter, because they have a few hundred Chinese fighters staring at them from across the sea, along with ballistic and cruise missiles
I could tell you a thing or two about DoD acquisition because I have seen a thing or two.
F-110 Spectre / F4H Phantom first a Navy plane then adopted by the Air Force and F-86 Sabre / FJ Fury first Air Force then Navy are the only cross-service jets I know of. The F-35 series are so different they ought to have been designated F-25, F-26, and F-27 (that is assuming the Boeing X-32 ought to have been designated XF-24)
It doesn't matter which branch develops the platform, the current issue, in the past as well, is interservice politics and bickering that helps no one but the lobbyists. France (Rafale M), China (J-15), and Russia (MiG-29K & Su-33) have all took land based aircraft and adopted them for naval use. Yet here in the US getting both branches to cooperate is still like pulling teeth.
The Navy institutional memory, is still smarting from the F-111, " fool me once,,,"
NGAD should be a two pilot system because the secondary pilot can be the overseer of the golden swarm AI. With the satellite constellation communication
The Air Force will probably use the B-21s as drone controllers.
ST-21 Let's GOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! 🔥😎🔥
If large scale wars broke out, STOVL would be indispensable. Especially with new anti ship mussels and next gen hypersonics
Keep the cost down? On time? These concepts exist?
So the USN will design a fighter, to operate from carriers, have long range and the best sensors anywhere. It will be fast, and kick ass, carrying a weapons load that is worth a damn. So.. they are going to make another F-14.. yeah..
I wish we'd either forget the whole thing of keeping costs down, or can the fighter programs entirely. Especially if we want to stick to a schedule, these things are crazy expensive to develop given what we're asking them to do.
You two can get delusional at times. The F-35 has solved the Marine's fighter problem for the next 50 years. The ability of ground based radar detection of stealth platforms has about topped out except for the US Aegis platform. What other platform can supply 4 mW of electrical power to the radars? Basically the F-35 A and C variants will certainly be top of the class for another 40+ years.
Yeah, the F-35 is a brilliant plane, at least in two of its variants. But it's a bit slow, a bit short-ranged, and it can't carry as much as it probably would need to against a serious enemy air force.
@@fakecubed Well reasoned but you forgot about stealth. Every discussion about 6th generation fighters revolves around stealth sir. But the problem for the rest of the world is that the US has been working on stealth for 50 years. Right now if any nation wants any competent military air craft with stealth you have to buy it from the US. There is no other option.
"VTOL is dumb" says everyone, until it suddenly is mission critical that you are able to land on a coral reef for rearming. VTOL might be dumb, probably is, but what if it isn't once the sh*t hits the fan in the Pacific
But what range do you get when VTOL? You are so close to FEBA, that your atoll will be blasted into dust.
Trainer should be the subject of a straight fly-off type programme there is no excuse for it to be anything other than full-risk to the manufacturer.
Keep in mind that there are a lot less independent aircraft manufacturers than there used to be. Less competition. Less innovation.
On the positive side. The process between Design and production has changed dramatically. It should take much less time to setup a production line once a choice is made. A higher chance of getting it right the first time.
Different missions, different operational requirements. Of course a one size fits all approach doesn’t really work. Everyone loses.
We never sell our top of the line equipment to anyone. So the idea they will be cheap is unrealistic. The price of security. We just need to do a better job of not hiring former foreign nationals in those tech fields. The highest cost is having to compensate for stolen technology.
I don’t think people realize that the people doing the acquisitions are not the issue. It is the regulations that have hamstrung us from going faster and smarter. There are so many hurdles that u must jump through u will never get fast. We need to set the requirement and allow competition. Best product, including sustainment, affordability wins. And then start over immediately for next iteration while first is in test and deployment. We have to iterate
Do you think the budget with trying to modernize our nuclear deterrent is it going to kill the budget for anything that we need like the ngad program or any other programs that we have call so much to modernize our nuclear deterrent
TOMCAT 28?!?!?
After seeing the Boeing XF-32 in person, it astounded me that it was ever even built. If Low Observability was a priority for the program, the Guppy was never going to work.... Line-of-sight straight into the giant fan. Radar return had to be huge!
seems like Boeing was relying on a radar blocker in the ducts. not sure how well it would work though. crazy thing is that during the ATF competition which saw the YF-22 and YF-23, Boeing basically proposed a large X-32 like plane.
The X32 was actually much lighter and cheaper than X35 and stealth was better. Modified for production with actual tail plane, it would have worked probably better. It was just too ugly.
The X-32 actually was a competent fighter that almost had won the reason it lost is due to the fact that it faces the same issue as the harrier in VTOL, both plane peform well as expected but the X35 did prove higher reliability with VTOL. In terms of cost production i would say the X32 wouldve face the same problem as the X35 and the program would've ended up as the same trillion dollar program due to the complexity and requirements for these aircraft to be produced, same reason why they chose the yf22 over the yf23 because it was cheaper turns out it wasnt once the production was set into place. But in the long term x32 wouldve absolutely been cheap once assembly lines start rolling with high demands
The X-32 as flown, was very much unlike what Boeing proposed
The intake would have been significantly redesigned
As would the tail surfaces, to look more like the F-35 / F-22
Trying to sell something by proposing almost a full redesign doesn't tend to work though, as it just adds more developmental risk
And yep, the timelines to get new aircraft from a gleam in someone's eye to operational is insane - and has been before I was flying fighters. There has to be a better way.
The reason the F4 was so great is because it was a great plane for the navy that the Air Force also used. Now the Air Force wants to create an OK plane and force the navy to use it. It works one way but not the other
If they were able to do it with an F-4, surely they can replicate that effort. Or the platforms don't need to necessarilly look like each other, just use 70% of the big ticket systems and engines to get to the commonality that allows for efficiency in production of parts and systems that drives costs down. I like the idea of sharing the engines between the NGAD and FAXX, but what of the truly expensive systems, avionics, sensors, and EW?
Is the Marines f-35 a bad thing? i thought it made sense for quick take-off and vertical landing because that's the Marines thing
It's a great thing if you're a Marine. Not so great if you have to make the compromises necessary for STOVL but don't need it.
@slammerf16 yeah I could imagine the navy and airforce being 🙄😒
What compromises, please be specific. If it's cost, we can agree, but name me a capability that the F-35 lost.
@@hermanmusimbi4337 range, shorter weapon bay,
@slammerf16 you said that the B model compromised the A and C model. Those models have excellent range and internal payload. If you don't need stovl just get the A. What is your argument?
Compared to the harrier, it has almost twice the range and probably will with the upgraded engine. It currently has more internal fuel combat radius than superhornet 505 nm.
Exactly!
7:10 every analyst who studied the joint strike fighter, came to that exact conclusion all well. The F 35 was on the drawing board. Neither the Pentagon nor any defense OEM wanted to listen to that and now they’re stuck having to make the best of a bad situation.
The F-35 isn't bad and it might be good enough to beat the next gen fighters in usefulness. That's what happened with the Comanche and the Apache. The guts of the Comanche created the Apache Longbow, rather than having the Apache and the Comanche.
The issue I see is that there is not going to be a near peer enemy fighter or SAM to compete with the F-35. Russia's military R&D is dead and China copy's Russia's R&D. Without Russia to steal from, China's R&D is also dead.
Slap a super cruise engine on the F-35, make a two seat version and use the Apache Loyal Wingman system and that's all that's needed for any updates.
Internal gun this time? Currently the gun pod for the C variant arent compatible with the B variant, and vice versa.
Man the F-20 Tigershark was awesome.
2 Good 2 B true ! The F-16 was entrenched. Some among John Boyd's inner circle, dis-satisfied with the bloat imposed on the YF-16, by the USAF, worked on the F-20, at Northrop.
@@maximilliancunningham6091 Yeah, the F-16 and definitely the F-35 have moved so far up the food chain that there's once again, room for a low(er) cost fighter underneath ...
Combined corruption and ultra low risk tolerance, aka CYA for upper management both corporate and military, are hamstringing our R&D and procurement processes… JMO of course.
Good discussion, thanks.
Gonky, you’re wrong, and you fail to realize the strategic capability that the VTOL F-35 brings to the Gator Navy. Historically, ARG/MEUs have accomplished more military operations across the spectrum of conflict than the CVWs.
Canada should partner on a navy stealth. Duel engines longer range.
And hell yeah, Mover: affordability has always been a bad joke, i.e. a lie we tell ourselves about aircraft dev costs (with the possible exception of the F-20 Tiger Shark II).
And I understand the Air Force is having second thoughts about NGAD. I've even heard rumor they are considering taking some of the tech that was developed for NGAD and applying it to the F-35 to create a "5th generation +" fighter at a lower cost.
Comanche+Apache=Apache Longbow.
The only upgraded needed for the F-35 is a super-cruise engine to make it 6th gen viable. It could also use the Apache drone software could be put on the F-35 and there is the Loyal Wingman without extra R&D.
@orlock20 I like that idea! Especially since the NGAD fighter is estimated to be north of $300 Million per copy.
It's not like the Air Force doesn't want NGAD, it's that they can't afford NGAD while also replacing our ICBMs. They're budget-constrained by that whole mess. It has nothing to do with not wanting the NGAD's promised capabilities. So they probably will just make some kind of suped-up F-35 that adds more range and armament and call it a day. But that'll just be a stopgap, and then they'll still try to get a new NGAD as soon as they can, even if just in limited numbers.
Had there been a dedicated Navy fighter rather than the F35, it'd probably be able to replace all navy aircraft on all carriers.with a stealthy multi role fighter-bomber. Commonality...just not the kind they were trying for.
What’s wrong with the t-38? Never heard any issues with it.
If the USAF can't afford NGAD it's just a matter of time till the F/A-XX program gets cancelled; as their budget problems are even worse. The USN will be flying F-35 right along with the Marines and Air Force well into the future.
So what is the origin of Fat Amy? (The tag, not the plane) PS. What did anyone expect about an idea for one plane for the Navy, Airforce and Marines by an Army General?
I would be curious if anybody would be able to narrow down the origin to any specific squadron or community or if it started at the factory or online at a very early stage. It's strictly referencing the tubby kinda silhouette of the F-35.
It is intended to be disparaging, and don't get me wrong, I prefer a fat girl 😋, but she's gotta be pretty, and I just don't think I can say the F-35 looks really pretty - it's just ok in the looks department. I dunno I think it's just modern aircraft these days, there are a bunch of angles that I think the F-22 looks kinda dumb.
@@12what34the Its a funny name. I want to go on record for naming the navy GEN 6 fighter as SLIM SHADY.
@KalFulsom I was gonna say it would only fit if it had a sleek fuselage, but actually it would be pretty funny if it was as big or bigger than the F-35, in irony
@@12what34the We need to have something to take the sting on how much it will cost. That said, if they make it Navy specific, it may not be as bad as Fat Amy trying to please everyone... that came off taudry, didn't it?
One thing I was wondering is why does the USMC have their own jets? Wouldn't it be more efficient to use catapult launched planes from the carriers instead of lower performing vtol jets ?
Fleet carriers have other things to do and being there for every Marine operation that requires air support beyond helicopters will require more aircraft carriers than what the Navy can afford. That's why the Marines bought Harriers and operated them off the assault ships they already have. The funny thing is recently the Navy is eyeing these assault ships as light carriers and the rest of the world has been for decades. Even an ARG with its limited fixed wing aircraft is still quite potent for raids and such.
The Army would love to have their own ground attack aircraft but there's a whole saga about the Army and Air Force butting heads over who should do what. Since breaking off from the Army in the 40's, the Air Force has been very defensive and aggressive about their importance and independence -it's basically politics. Look into the history of it, it's interesting.
Navy doesn't seem to feel remotely threatened by the Marines having their own aircraft, now if the Marines wanted to get their own crewed ships that might be different lol...but nobody wants that, no Marine would ever want that 😄
Mass is always a plus. Launching an F-35 off of any LHD or LHA on top of giving our allies (UK, Japan, Italy Korea) the ability to launch a 5th generation air craft 500+ nm is a significant capability. You guys rag on the F-35 for being bad but can't realize that its weight is mostly fuel. 18250 pounds of internal fuel while the F-16 has 7000. All you would have to do to make an F-35 equivalent to an F-16 is just to add 9k to 10k pounds of fuel. The F-35 would have less drag and more maneverability under those conditions.
@@12what34the "Every Marine is a rifleman." Maybe the Marines should resurrect the battleships and do coastal bombardment with 16 inch guns while the Navy keeps using their fancy missiles. 😂
Why do none of these future airplanes have tail planes? Are they going to use vectoring engines for Rudder? What if an engine is out?
Couldn’t they build the plane for the navy and then simplify it a little bit for the Air Force ? Something like the F-4 back in the day
I think there's a ton of us here thinking the same thing. There's probably some inter-force political chest thumping going on about relevance insecurities and/or the Air Force doesn't want to set the precedent that the Navy gets to pick what they want and the Air Force gets sloppy seconds
Clearly do not realize about peroquial service rivalry. Air Force would never let navy develop their plane. Biggest challenge will be connecting supply bases and systems on back end
@@ronniehobbs6031 yeah but we are in 2024 not in the sixties anymore. This is a National Defense matter it should be way more important than service rivalry. We are not talking about a cargo helicopter or a drone
They better develop something to where they dont shoot snother friendly down
How much does interservice politics and infighting play into the past failed joint programs? On the surface it shouldn't be that difficult to develop a joint fighter with minimal compromises such as adding stronger landing gear, beefed up tail hook and folding wings for storage. Sure, making a VTOL capable variant in my opinion is a bridge too far but other aspects shouldn't be that difficult.
Specialized airplanes for specialized missions... "The one size fits all" approach sounds good but usually doesn't work.
Why not revive the F-14 with the latest tech?
Because it has an RCS the size of a planet.
Guess the F-35C just didn’t cut the mustard for all that cost and wait.
Here's the real problem: military aviation missions are now a fully known dynamic, AND designs to execute them *have approached diminishing returns*. An excuse to spend more was the F35 "idea". Which doesn't work.
What we know works - F16,F22, A-10, *do what the Chinese do*: copy, update. El Presidente Elon is half right and wrong; Ukraine shows the future is drones, BUT different air frames are still needed for different roles. We still need A-10s and F-22s, and we don't need to start over and wait 5 years designing replacements for a possible, maybe, potential, 3% performance difference. Copy, streamline and update production, save development costs and get on with it. We'll still need fleets of drones, but we don't need "networked pseudo-not really stealth multi-kinda role all purpose mediocre".
@6:30 the F-20 cost Northrop approx $3 billion in FY 1980 dollars. This resulted in three F-20 production air vehicles (PAVs) which operated at a near 90% mission ready rate. Unit flyaway cost was anticipated to be in the $5 million range. Pretty incredible little fighter and a bargain, but was hamstrung when the Reagan administration allowed foreign sales of F-16s. It’s unfortunate, as it was a great airplane.
Its still nowhere near the jet the F-16 was. They made the right decision.
For what it's worth ...Yeager flew the 20 quite a few times and was VERY precise in his praise: for a highly capable, reliable, day-time, 'dog fighter'....it was great ( think of a jet-powered P-51). Same mission.
@ well it was capable of multi role air to air and air to ground missions, similar to its F-5 ancestors.
There’s a lot to be said for a lightweight fighter that you can purchase for very low investment, with cheap operating costs, and a high degree of reliability. An airplane like an F-35 sounds great on paper or at a defense tradeshow. But when the airplane cost $100 million, plus $50,000 an hour to operate with a mission capable rate of only 50%, you quickly realize what a dog you bought with your money. What good is a DAS system and a fancy helmet when only half your fleet is flight ready at any given time, and it’s a money vampire eating through your defense budgets?
pentagon needs to downsize to a triangle
Maybe we can start with the space force.
To understand cost and contractors you need to look way back to the 18th century, revolutionary war.
This has been the plan the whole time, F/A-XX and NGAD were always two separate contracts
Correct. There may have been some similarities in how the two services put out calls for technology demonstrations, and the contractors are no doubt looking for every commonality they can as they put in their bids, but they are two completely different programs.
I think that we have a culture that requires us to fool ourselves into building huge projects.
If we are honest and conservative with our estimates, we get huge sticker shock and can drum up the political support. Instead we want to consider other bids until a convincing liar comes along with a sweet low bid.
Then we get stuck in and embarrassingly realize that we neglected certain important things like fudge factors for uncertainty. Stuff gets swept under the rug and we try to soldier along badly until we finally feel committed to run over budget.
Just like when Shinseki and Rumsfeld clashed over troop requirements to occupy Iraq.
Rumsfeld freaks at Shinseki’s assiduous massive shopping list and decides to charge along with a much sexier guesstimate that he can get political support for.
America gets stuck in and slowly gets string bet into a long protracted engagement that ends up running hugely over budget and over time.
All this because the lower expectation was a much easier sell.
We screw up like this on military stuff. Big infrastructure things, and smaller things like bridges.
We can only accomplish big expensive things by fooling ourselves into them.
F14 mk2
Or just nuild the super tomcat that was proposed
And the a harrier mk2 for the ones that need vtol
Project completion date (IOC), three-times the time it took us to fight WWII. Garbage MC-rates and horrible cost per flight hour.
Cheap - Performant - Fast Development. Pick 2 !!!
The Navy is going right way with F/A-XX and the drones are for air refuelling, while the AF way with combat drones are totally wrong
meanwhile every "rendering" shows a delta-type wing (which the Navy hates due to high landing speeds ..... no big horizontal stabilisers .... which the Navy loves for landings ..... and even better .... no vertical tails either ....... which nobody has figured out how to fly with over Mach 1 .... not to mention making landings trickier .... what could possibly go wrong ???
should the American military move away from the multi-role crafts and return to dedicated joint-strike/combined arms doctrine?
Not enough pilots and not enough enemy aircraft. It is believed that the U.S. can complete SEAD in China in a week meaning 4.5 Gen aircraft can fly over China without getting shot down. That's why the F-15 went from air to air to being able to do bombing runs. The F-15 couldn't find enough fighters from previous enemies a couple nights into the conflicts. After there were no more fighters, the F-15s would just sit there if they couldn't bomb targets.
J36 and J50 exists now...
Un-killable programs is guaranteed money for defense contractors.
That's why manufacturing war machines is spread out across nearly every state in the union.
Too much cynicism here IMO. Better to explore factors as to *why* programs are 200/50 as mentioned. We can do better but we need to ask for it. Check out the Skunk Works book by Ben Rich where they had a phenomenal approach to innovation on a budget with the F117 program. Also check out the last part of Robin Olds' autobiography where he presents a compelling argument on how to fix procurement.
NAVY needs to go retro. Go back to cheap turboprop aircraft that anyone can fly......bring back the P-38.
Uh...F/A-XX and NGAD were *always* separate programs.
No ngad is a system of system with a cloud, a fighter, drone …
Both the usaf and navy have a ngad (so two).
The main fighter for the navy is the fa xx
The main fighter for the usaf is the pca (penetration counter air).
Same in Europe fcas is the system and ngf is the fighter.
@@jeanvaljean9293 Congratulations, you said the same thing I said, only with more words.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE MANNED STEALTH SUPER TOMCAT!!!! PELASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!!! We are on a roll of universal fighter, navy badasser in a cyclic loop. Ya know it's time boys!
France needs a carrier aircraft. It's going to use the EMALS too. It's not going well with Germany. Why not collaborate with them
Call it "Challenger"
No.
@@Stinger522 Harpyie 🦅