🎮 Play War Thunder for FREE! 🎮 playwt.link/pilotphotog24 New and returning players who use my link in the pinned comment or video description will receive a bonus pack with premium vehicles, the "Eagle of Valor" decorator, 100,000 Silver Lions, and 7 days of premium account-available for a limited time only! You can now also play on mobile: wtm.game/pilotphotog
Yes, NGAD is needed n has already flown a demonstrator so all this news about NGAD being canceled (I kno that's not* what your saying;) is making me mad😐
worldsmasterofspiritsknightsofchrist,tm* ngad is alive and well but what if there where 2 yes 2 onespace ie spaceforce and 1 airforce low and high ,money this is your problem i would not worry about money we always find it
If it costs too much then just wait longer until technologies mature nuf to drive the cost down. No need to rush. It's not like F35s need to be replaced urgently.
The thing is Chinese anti ship missiles currently outrange carrier fighter combat radius, which means without a long-range fighter the Navy couldn't safely engage a Chinese attack on say Taiwan.
@@sethb3090 It will always be the case, even with slightly inferior tech. Whole problem is overreliance on carriers - ships, which once had job to go in harm's way, carrying fire- and staying- power to the enemy are now to precious to send them in combat.
Back in the late 50s and early 60s, the Navy-led F-4 Phantom project led to one of the most successful fighter programs of all time. This is largely because it's easier to retrofit a carrier plane for ground ops than the other way around. This is why the F-111B program failed, and led to the creation of the F-14 Tomcat. In the next decades the Navy and Air Force would pursue separate fighter programs, which resulted in the F-15, F-16, and F-18. The F-35, likewise, is three separate planes with common core technologies. The Air Force adopting a Navy plane and just removing the tailhook would be far cheaper than two separate airframes.
I suspect you are MUCH closer to what will ultimately happen than most realize… Regardless of how JSF fleshed out, the idea of shared, open architecture is still a BIG mover in DOD. Don’t be surprised if we see a JSF MkII approach. The F-4 is superb example.
They'd actually keep the hook and swap the heavier carrier landing gear for lighter gear. Or just do what Canada did with our hornets and just keep all the hardware and disable the carrier launch bar.
@@avroarchitect1793 Either way, the point stands - it's easier to remove capabilities than shoehorn them in after the fact, and with the Air Force facing a budget crunch, they would be smart to let the Navy have this one and work around the carrier landing equipment.
@@avroarchitect1793 Which is why I'm suggesting that the Air Force would adopt a Navy platform wholesale. If they don't have the budget to develop their own sixth-gen tactical aircraft, they could save what money they do by buying the Navy's already-complete one and modifying it lightly. You're right, in real life the Air Force almost certainly won't and will most likely just scale back their ambition for the NGAD program, but the F-4 was a huge success and is still an object lesson in procurement.
I wonder if the real reason the Air Force is talking about abandoning NGAD is because a decision has been made that we simply can't afford both NGAD and FA-XX, so we have to pick one of the two. The Navy is the service most in need of an upgrade, and they made do without any air superiority fighter for all 20 years since the Air Force got their F-22s in 2005. So, it makes sense that if only one can be afforded, the Navy should get their needs met first and the Air Force will just have to make do with whatever the FA-XX turns out to be. Think about it. How awful would it have been if, back in the 70s and 80s, the Air Force had to make to with F-14s because we decided we simply couldn't afford both F-14s and F-15s?
Maybe..but the. fA-xx won’t be “an air superiority fighter”. It will be multirole and designed to replace the F/a-18. And frankly, I’m not sure what the FA-18 super hornet can do that the F35C cannot. so it would make more sense to me that they just invest more in that program. But the truth of the matter is none of us know what the situation is with the technologies involved. It could very well be that advances in AI and drone technology are such that the Air Force is looking to abandon their program in favor of utilization of drone wingman with current F-35 to achieve air superiority; we just don’t know
@@mikeck4609I am not sure if they will completely abandon it for drones but I definitely think they are revaluating how it will fight with those things
Grumman needs to get that Navy contract, we need a Cat back on deck. Call the new gen the Black Cat (plenty of stealth / night time / spooky / historical maritime good luck innuendos to support that name) and call the loyal wingman / drones Alley Cats…
I know some would disagree, this would be a smart move especially for refueling around the carriers. It would take the load off a human pilot to do this task in my opinion.
B21 should have modular bomb bay area for a refueling pack, so it can operate as a multi use platform: Bomber, Refueling Tanker, Electronic Warfare Growler, and Central Command Fighter Coordinator(Think Starcraft Protoss Swarm Mothership)
I think the B-21 is a fighter bomber, or more correctly a bomber fighter. Bomber role is obvious. But, with vastly more capable air to air missiles, the B-21 will destroy any other aircraft. Sounds like a fighter role to me. Dogfighting isn't necessary. Also drones can do that. AA missiles also do all the dogfighting that might be needed.
@@brianboye8025 Absolutely! I think with a few AIM 170 racks in its bombay belly, that could be definitely be an AWACs and Tanker killer with a forward F22 hunter killer role. Still would love to see what an NGAAD would look like that they are testing even if they don't buy the NGAD and convert the B21 as a cerebral hub for drones. China would be toast, especially if the AIM170 still retains its anti ship capabilities besides being a long range air to air missile.
@@RyTrapp0 Yes, but when you need to go on a strike mission to China, they will see you coming and have fighters ready to shoot down down tankers and AWACs. Especially if you are refueling stealth fighters that cannot alert the adversaries which cannot see stealth fighter strike packages but can see tankers. A large modular pack in the belly would be a stop gap to the new stealth tanker they are going to build. Sooner or later they will need a stealth AWACs as well, though once they activate their radar, they can be honed in. It would still allow them to appear out of no where. I think the area in the belly could be converted if it is large enough. Heck, they have other fighters with external packs to refuel other fighters, why not an internal conversion pack for the B21. They can have a modular pack for EW or refueling. Just thinking scenarios.
The B-21 could also be ideal for the air superiority role as an arsenal ship, being one of the only planes big enough and the only plane survivable enough to internally carry AIM-174 or other long-range missiles. Using kill webs, it could receive targeting data from forward-deployed Raptors or Lightnings to shoot down enemy fighters. The drone swarm, along with its own sensors, will be an extension of that (I think)
Glad you mentioned the canards, I get how they can help massively with maneuverability but they absolutely destroy stealth. Going with a wider lifting body design would give them the low speed capabilities they need for carrier landing without the sacrifice. Something they should know already with their experience with the F-14. Many of them made it safely home after wing damage or with their swept wings stuck in the high speed position thanks to its wide body. While wide bodies suck for footprint on the limited flight deck, their benefits for low speed performance as well as fuel efficiency make them a great design choice.
I really enjoy these videos. The quality of the content as well as the quality of the animations used is a sure way to engage the viewer. Thanks for sharing with us, military aviation enthusiasts!
This channel is pretty mid only slightly better than the AI channels. There are much better ones out there like Millennium 7 and sandboxx just to name a couple
Also interesting to see if the drones have models with pilots too..in a swarm, noone will know between manned, unmanned, sensor, missile, missile truck, or drone truck
One says "long-range" B-21. BUT drones are not long range, nor are any supersonic. Will be interesting to see how DOD planners marry up short range drones to longer range bombers'.
Those are incredible options! Just imagine the Air Force going all in on long-range, low-observable C2 platforms for vast numbers of CCAs infused with Project Skyborg technologies, while the Navy funds a carrier capable, long-range, low observable, omnirole tactical fighter aircraft, that could, if need be, be acquired by the Air Force as well ….. if battlefield realities dictate that decision. The USA 🇺🇸 would for the first time in decades really leverage economies of scale, and cover all its bases in a really cost-effective way.
The F-35 cockpit is like two hand controls, a screen, and some pedals. You can put that in lots of things. The sensors for integrating the helmet operation might be tough. Imagine if the NGAD simply had multiple large screens and a helmet screen triple the current FOV.
OK-------. The only advantage the N-GAD would have over the F-35 and the F-22 after its electronics/computer upgrades is its extreme long range. Without that range and large weapons load, the N-GAD is a waste of money.
This is a case where the navy and air force could have a joint project where both can get most of the features they want. The Phantom had a similar role and was used by both services with success. The F-35 was very difficult because of the need for 3 different variants with a lot of commonality. This was extremely difficult. Mainly for the F-35B requirement that put major limits on the A and C. The B had much less room. due to the huge lift fans. The Navy, carrier, F-35C, mainly required a larger wing. Another problem for the F-35 was the revolutionary capabilities that required a huge amount of development. Pushing the limits of modern technology. Ahead of its time. The F-35 is now reaching major goals and capabilities. And with ongoing technology growth. A poor understanding of the F-35 capabilities led to a low estimation by many people that wanted a dogfighter. Both the USAF and Navy need a large fighter with long range and good weapons load. They could also share a lot of F-35 technology. The problem for the USAF is that they want another revolutionary fighter with far more tech than the F-35. The F-35 systems could be a starting point but put into a much larger airframe with 2 engines and powerful APU. The F-35 systems with upgrades and larger sizes for sensors. Navy requirements will be a strong airframe, tail hook, reduced maintenance, maritime protection. All of these would still be useful for the USAF. Tail hook easily removed. Another Navy requirement may be a multirole capability. As in the F-35. This could also be useful for the USAF. Another useful feature could be a second seat. The second seat could be used for a commander organizing the armed UAV/wingman drones. Or just assist as the copilot or sensor weapons operator. I still think an extra pilot in a 2 seat NGAD could be useful in sharing workload. A defensive pilot and an offensive weapon operator. Both the Navy and USAF could use a high speed, super cruise fighter, with good high altitude performance. As well as an extremely high stealth airframe. High maneuverability is not a priority. Missiles can now be very high G with good of boresight performance for close range fights. With a helmet cueing/aiming capability. A gun could be swapped for a laser.
I want a blended wing and body refueler with three GENx engines mounted on top of the rear body. If they want smaller engines to decrease size then four engines are fine. I just want more than two for no good reason, and that blows up the budget.
My problem with b21 as drone operator for air superiority is what happenes when you need to rapidly intercept incoming supersonic fighters/missiles. A slow b21 is far worse than a mach 2 fighter. My other concern is that enemy force will invest heavily in jamming to disrupt datalinks between b21 and drones it operates. That could cause big problems.
Probably has something to do with how most conflicts are overseas and sprouting up everywhere that the Navy can reach. Just a guess. Also the F-15 got upgraded.
USAF just announced they are reviewing total airframes planned for B21. Not sure if they can use the B21 for counter air if there are not enough frames
The B-21 will be interative. Batches of variants will be produced instead of one super model for long term production. DOD said they will never do that again.
I think every branch of the military should be equipped with the same jet's and plenty of them, and work together as one during war and that means lot's of training between each other.
The capabilities of our military platforms, land, sea or air, depend on the military's ability to integrate ALL aspects of their capabilities to operate inside a threat zone, and project FORCE successfully. Whether it be stealth, BVR ID, ECM/ECCM, decoys, loyal wingman, long-range missiles, or long-range tanking, they will all have to work together to be effective. That capability to project force and maneuver successfully, depends on the ability to support and allow them to function in a fully integrated way. But there are some very concerning vulnerabilities that have nothing to do with the capabilities of the aircraft we depend on for war. No doubt our enemies also see these vulnerabilities too. The recent arrest of Chinese nat'l Fengyun Shi trying to board a 1-way flight to China, after taking pictures of multiple military bases in the Hampton Roads area and the Newport News shipyard using an off-the-shelf drone, while attending college at the U of Minnesota, is just the tip of the iceberg. Only a crash of his drone in someone's yard, called in to the police, revealed his spying activity. The closing of Whiteman AFB for 9 days in Dec 2022 due to the only runway at the base blocking ops for our entire B-2 stealth bomber fleet is a vulnerability we cannot afford. Iran's commandeering of a T/S drone a few years ago shows our communications with such platforms were, and maybe still are vulnerable. Chinese hacking and exploitation of our web can not only bring logistics support to our military to a complete halt, it can also completely disable access to everyday simple financial transactions each of us depend on, not to mention crippling the entire banking system!
The AF should just go with B-21 drone controllers and swarms of stealth drone fighters. The Navy can provide cover during the technological transition with the last manned air superiority stealth fighter.
The plane is the power plant. Never skimp on engine technology, but also look to make it cheaper and simpler. The larger the airframe the more it costs, so if you’re going with a small or medium sized airframe I guess single engine is OK. If we are just going to massively rely on refueling then may we should spend more of this money on better tankers or more of them.
Am Glad the US Navy has its own program again. Separate from the US Air Force. In the 90’s they were pushed into accepting the Joint Strike Program. While it’s a good Jet. The Navy still needs something that will replace the F-18. It needs an Aircraft that can Fly Far, Fight and Return to Carrier.
Wait i have an idea!! What if we just build three different versions of the same aircraft? We could save on scale by having essentially the same bird for all three services that fly, with just a few minor modifications of course 😉 but i mean what are radically different loading stresses on the frame on take-off and landing which requires completely different architectures, a blower fan or two, and different mission requirements between friends? 😅
The reason the Air Force can’t afford NGAD is because of the insane cost overruns on the next generation nuclear ICBM’s. The weapons system itself isn’t much over budget, it’s the new construction required to house the new ICBM’s. According to several articles in various media, they didn’t foresee the cost of the housing for them being so expensive, along with the cost of the contractors to build them. So it’s likely that NGAD as we knew it will be downsized, or as Tog stated they’ll be changed to UAV’s.
The Air Force pausing thr NGAD program, only to conclude that they do indeed need something stealthier, more networked, bigger payload, longer range and works with CCA
@apolloaero wait I think you forgot some steps. The AF will conduct a long and expensive review of the program, decide some wild stuff based on God's knows what, cancel the program and destroy the early test planes, the dies and tooling to pursue unmanned, spend another x billions of dollars on an unmanned program that turns out to he worse in every way than the original program so it dies a slow painful death, before another long and costly study determines the first guys were crazy and the AF needs those capabilities asap, so the program is restarted at great expense. And my hope in this scenario in which they cancle the program is that they find that the decision to scrap NGAD is wrong through a costly study, and not through a far more disastrously expensive war that is either outright lost because of it, or best case still won but with a much higher cost in blood and treasure than was needed to be expended.
The Navy has said it needs speed and range... sort of a modern, stealthy, marinized XF-108 Rapier. On the other hand, remember the ill fated A-12 Avenger II... the flying Dorito that was supposed to replace the A-6E Intruder... That had stealth, and range, but not speed (it was also overweight, THE leading cause of death for aircraft designs), but a revamped F/A-12, with 30 year newer tech might be an answer... Don't need / want to dogfight in a stealth "fighter". You want lots of range, lots of payload of advanced, long range fire and forget weapons, probably a two person crew. Look at a revamped A-12 and you might see hints of a carrier capable mini B-21 that can strike, or quarterback... Let the cylons do the dog fightiing, not the humans.
this is a good video, i just discovered this channel there are many interesting things about this channel, american planes are always leading in technology with the world. especially with china 🙂🙂🙂
Why would anyone think that the Navy's program, which is higher risk and further behind - is less per unit than the Air force? The AF has either taken the program dark, or has reassessed the mission and is diverting technology and funding to a different platform.
Why are they not building the same aircraft together!!??? They both need basically the same aircraft with the same features. There is no USMC VTOL version to screw it up like the F-35. A USAF version with beefed up landing gear and folding wings simply makes it more suited to dispersed deployments. Or delete those features on the USAF model to save weight. Build the same aircraft so the cost per unit comes down. Bring in a couple international customers if possible like Japan maybe?
They Air Force should start building drones I think it has enough stealth fighters, it’s cheaper to configure its current fighters to be paired with four drones each and use the B-2 bombers to be paired with 12 drones each.
Navy should develop FA-XX first, AF should finish B-21 and build NGAS before coming back to NGAD (F-22 is getting an upgrade and we have a good F-35 pipeline for now). The Navy should also consider building a F-15EX equivalent for the Super Hornet with more range and ordinance; but everyone needs more drones ASAP!
The USAF is at a crossroads for sure. The main issue with the budget is with the aging ICBM that they are forced to replace. B-52 and F-22 are undergoing massive upgrades. It doesn’t help that the budget was split up for Space Force so they are having the same issues they created when they separated from Army. US Navy to committed to a longer range airframe. They see the issue with China and their boats would be in range of the long range weapons. Aircraft carriers need to get in closer to launch aircraft because current F-18 & F-35 just do not range like the Tomcats did. This would be a mute point if they just Made VF-1 Valkyries 😉
Maybe if a sandwich bag worth of bushings didn’t cost the air force $90,000, the airplane wouldn’t cost $300,000,000. Seriously, there was a congressman complaining about this last year. He held up a small bag of “bushings” that he said cost $90k. You could probably buy similar ones at grainger for $200. It’s because anything government related is horrifically inefficient, and has absurd regulations to meet.
The Air Force should peruse the drone technology first as they could also be spread out through the navy and marines and Air Force. Give that some time followed by a traditional fighter later by possibly 2035-40
Costs soar not just from inflation, but from the desire to pay dividends to investors vs buying the best for the least as a non profit need to defend the nation we all live in and have those fighting for it be able to come home in one piece.
Considering CIA and the Navy created the SR serie and the Air Force had to ask for it, after it had served for a few years and the Air force had too go the white house complaining, we want that. I would really not be surprised if they have a new model. How fast technology have moved these last 10 years, and that's the official sector, the US military are at least 20-30 years ahead of any other military on earth, so about 40 - 50 ahead of society. 6 gen air planes are seriously another level, it's close to going from WW1 planes vs F-16. If you doubt what im saying please look into how 1 F -22 soloed multiple F-16 , they couldn't even target the F-22 once and that is a 5 vs 4.5 gen.... seriously looking forward to seeing a 6 gen airplane.
Australia started the CCA strategy with F35 coordinating MQ28 Ghost Bat, NGAD is just a longer range version of the strategy. If you want a really long range version, how about E7 Wedgetail coordinating MQ28? Didn’t the US just agree to purchase the Australian E7?….and was testing the MQ28? Interesting
I believe it's in the name NGAD. How and what apponent are you dominating? US air is dominant presently and progressively, but US naval aviation is in a critical stage and must be addressed.
Navy leads in $billion boondoogles--LCS, Ford Carriers, Zummult stealth destroyers, F35C VSTOL fighters. I left aerospace after AX-12 Avenger II was scrapped.
NGAD giving up range to cut cost would defeat the entire purpose of it existing, it's supposed to be long enough range to strike China from Guam, Japan, or the Philippines, they may as well just cancel it in that case. They'd be better off going for a purely unmanned NGAD, or perhaps best of all, redirecting NGAD's funding towards attritable long range drones. Stealth fighters too expensive to produce in the numbers to adequately cover the amount of air space that USAF needs to maintain air superiority over is basically useless, and drones are pretty much the only technology that can disrupt the cost of air combat right now.
To be honest with the cost of both aircraft soars to new heights ( no pun intend 😅). It might be time for America to look for new partners to aid in the development of these new 6th generation fighters.
The West needs to find a better balance of technological superiority vs volume. We won WW2 b/c we were able to produce more in numbers faster than the Axis powers. The Axis had more sophisticated tech but couldn't replace them as fast as they were chewing through them. What good is a Tiger 1 or 2 if there are a dozen Shermans for every Tiger? We've built some really expensive tech-advanced fighters but Ukraine shows how fast such assets can be consumed by the war grinder: in a blink of an eye. In war, people learn fast and we need to shorten up our development cycles so that the lessons from the battlefront can be incorporated as quickly as possible. All this means stuff that is much more cheap and flexible. We beat the Axis powers through better manufacturing capacity and a can do attitude. The West has to bring that capacity back to our shores. If that means tariffs and trade protection, so be it.
I’m an Army guy who pays attention to new weapons and needs of our military, the Air Force just got a new bomber, the navy’s need should be met now, the navy projects power and the navy has more fighter jets than the Air Force, it would be wise and cost effective to let the navy lead and get the fighter it desperately needs. The Air Force has two stealth fighter already and it’s the fault of its leadership choosing the wrong fighter jets.
Us armchair warriors have a deep disadvantage, we do not have the information on what is driving the USAF & USN in their decisions. 100 years from now some nerd will look back on the NGAD and write some snarky comment that will be it's epitaph. I would love to know what it will be.
From a purely cost analysis basis, when you remove the human pilot from the platform, you open up a wide range of capabilities and capacity that is lost when you have to support a live human being in a cockpit. The Navy's current approach to blending UCAS and manned aircraft will pave the way to eventually having no pilots inside the platform. More payload, more fuel, less risk. The technology must be solid to make it happen and initially won't come cheap. The Navy still needs to also plan and fund it's surface and sub-surface platforms of the future. Unfortunately, they've managed over the past two decades to waste billions on the Zumwalt Class DDGs and the LCS which has severely impacted the Navy's operational capabilities to fight open ocean War-at-Sea scenarios for which the Fleet should be geared toward.
They will always need Pilots even though Drones are being used successfully but no one knows what will happen in a World War 3 situation which will be on several fronts. Not to mention satellites being shot down so Yea we will always have what we have now in Pilots. Also Drone operators are Pilots and sure AI will take over Drones and do what needs to be done. We also have Faraday Cages around our computers so EMPs won’t affect our newer Jets & drones. If there is a Drone Operation Center in Texas and it gets bunker busted no one knows how bad this will be but Nukes will cause Mayhem so I think Pilots are our best bet unless EMP fall out from a huge Nuke may affect our AI computers above ground and below. We will always need Pilots and turbo Prop planes for back up. I think they have built jets to have faraday protection but no one has ever seen a major EMP event besides in New Mexico but I don’t think they test with Nukes like The Satan 2 /Sarmat 2 .
exept as visualize in those rendering its flaud on the most basic and most visible area that is pilot seating and 360 degree exterior visavility - i hope the rendering is wrong in accuracy and this area is different for the real aircraft or we will be having another f-4 phantom situation in our hands in close air combat with near peer adversaries with even inferior aircraft in a multy aircraft small area battle space
I put all the blame on Boeing and the wildly over budget sentinel ICBM program. No one was talking about abandoning or downscaling NGAD until Boeing stole all the funding that the Air Force had allocated it
Why not just create a more stealth version of the F-18 and F-15 at a fraction of the cost? Plenty of artists have created stealth versions of these planes and they look quite realistic.
I wish I were American, would join the air force straight away. It's sad , at least to me, that a considerable portion of Americans don't appreciate the country they are citizens of.
🎮 Play War Thunder for FREE! 🎮 playwt.link/pilotphotog24
New and returning players who use my link in the pinned comment or video description will receive a bonus pack with premium vehicles, the "Eagle of Valor" decorator, 100,000 Silver Lions, and 7 days of premium account-available for a limited time only!
You can now also play on mobile: wtm.game/pilotphotog
Yes, NGAD is needed n has already flown a demonstrator so all this news about NGAD being canceled (I kno that's not* what your saying;) is making me mad😐
war thunder so good
worldsmasterofspiritsknightsofchrist,tm* ngad is alive and well but what if there where 2 yes 2 onespace ie spaceforce and 1 airforce low and high ,money this is your problem i would not worry about money we always find it
Honestly, the Navy should be prioritized for a new long range, air superiority fighter.
If it costs too much then just wait longer until technologies mature nuf to drive the cost down. No need to rush. It's not like F35s need to be replaced urgently.
@@TellenJones NGAD is meant for air superiority, not multirole. It's meant to replace the F-22, not the F-35.
The thing is Chinese anti ship missiles currently outrange carrier fighter combat radius, which means without a long-range fighter the Navy couldn't safely engage a Chinese attack on say Taiwan.
@@sethb3090 Navy doesn't have to engage China over Taiwan to begin with.
@@sethb3090 It will always be the case, even with slightly inferior tech. Whole problem is overreliance on carriers - ships, which once had job to go in harm's way, carrying fire- and staying- power to the enemy are now to precious to send them in combat.
Back in the late 50s and early 60s, the Navy-led F-4 Phantom project led to one of the most successful fighter programs of all time. This is largely because it's easier to retrofit a carrier plane for ground ops than the other way around. This is why the F-111B program failed, and led to the creation of the F-14 Tomcat. In the next decades the Navy and Air Force would pursue separate fighter programs, which resulted in the F-15, F-16, and F-18. The F-35, likewise, is three separate planes with common core technologies. The Air Force adopting a Navy plane and just removing the tailhook would be far cheaper than two separate airframes.
I suspect you are MUCH closer to what will ultimately happen than most realize… Regardless of how JSF fleshed out, the idea of shared, open architecture is still a BIG mover in DOD. Don’t be surprised if we see a JSF MkII approach. The F-4 is superb example.
They'd actually keep the hook and swap the heavier carrier landing gear for lighter gear. Or just do what Canada did with our hornets and just keep all the hardware and disable the carrier launch bar.
@@avroarchitect1793 Either way, the point stands - it's easier to remove capabilities than shoehorn them in after the fact, and with the Air Force facing a budget crunch, they would be smart to let the Navy have this one and work around the carrier landing equipment.
@@alexv3357 yes except the USAF and USN don't work together on these things ever.
@@avroarchitect1793 Which is why I'm suggesting that the Air Force would adopt a Navy platform wholesale. If they don't have the budget to develop their own sixth-gen tactical aircraft, they could save what money they do by buying the Navy's already-complete one and modifying it lightly. You're right, in real life the Air Force almost certainly won't and will most likely just scale back their ambition for the NGAD program, but the F-4 was a huge success and is still an object lesson in procurement.
I wonder if the real reason the Air Force is talking about abandoning NGAD is because a decision has been made that we simply can't afford both NGAD and FA-XX, so we have to pick one of the two. The Navy is the service most in need of an upgrade, and they made do without any air superiority fighter for all 20 years since the Air Force got their F-22s in 2005. So, it makes sense that if only one can be afforded, the Navy should get their needs met first and the Air Force will just have to make do with whatever the FA-XX turns out to be. Think about it. How awful would it have been if, back in the 70s and 80s, the Air Force had to make to with F-14s because we decided we simply couldn't afford both F-14s and F-15s?
Maybe..but the. fA-xx won’t be “an air superiority fighter”. It will be multirole and designed to replace the F/a-18. And frankly, I’m not sure what the FA-18 super hornet can do that the F35C cannot. so it would make more sense to me that they just invest more in that program. But the truth of the matter is none of us know what the situation is with the technologies involved. It could very well be that advances in AI and drone technology are such that the Air Force is looking to abandon their program in favor of utilization of drone wingman with current F-35 to achieve air superiority; we just don’t know
@@KawaTony1964 it actually would have been kind of awful. Lol The f14 was insanely expensive and maintenance heavy.
No it’s the government not wanting to pay 300 million per fighter, they want a cheaper version.
@@mikeck4609I am not sure if they will completely abandon it for drones but I definitely think they are revaluating how it will fight with those things
You may want to add the skyrocketing cost for the minuteman missiles
Grumman needs to get that Navy contract, we need a Cat back on deck.
Call the new gen the Black Cat (plenty of stealth / night time / spooky / historical maritime good luck innuendos to support that name) and call the loyal wingman / drones Alley Cats…
Or Shadow Cat
So this is why Northrop got out of the NGAD program months ago
They knew it wasn't happening
I like Tomcat 2, they are talking about a high speed, long range fighter/attack fighter ... the Tomcats bailiwick.
Tomcat II is something I’ve been saying for a couple years, that’s what seems like the right name.
Hellcat II
I know some would disagree, this would be a smart move especially for refueling around the carriers. It would take the load off a human pilot to do this task in my opinion.
B21 should have modular bomb bay area for a refueling pack, so it can operate as a multi use platform: Bomber, Refueling Tanker, Electronic Warfare Growler, and Central Command Fighter Coordinator(Think Starcraft Protoss Swarm Mothership)
I think the B-21 is a fighter bomber, or more correctly a bomber fighter. Bomber role is obvious. But, with vastly more capable air to air missiles, the B-21 will destroy any other aircraft. Sounds like a fighter role to me. Dogfighting isn't necessary. Also drones can do that. AA missiles also do all the dogfighting that might be needed.
@@brianboye8025 Absolutely! I think with a few AIM 170 racks in its bombay belly, that could be definitely be an AWACs and Tanker killer with a forward F22 hunter killer role. Still would love to see what an NGAAD would look like that they are testing even if they don't buy the NGAD and convert the B21 as a cerebral hub for drones. China would be toast, especially if the AIM170 still retains its anti ship capabilities besides being a long range air to air missile.
Would it be able to carry enough extra fuel to make it worth it? Seems like we have dedicated refueling tankers for a reason.
@@RyTrapp0 Yes, but when you need to go on a strike mission to China, they will see you coming and have fighters ready to shoot down down tankers and AWACs. Especially if you are refueling stealth fighters that cannot alert the adversaries which cannot see stealth fighter strike packages but can see tankers. A large modular pack in the belly would be a stop gap to the new stealth tanker they are going to build. Sooner or later they will need a stealth AWACs as well, though once they activate their radar, they can be honed in. It would still allow them to appear out of no where. I think the area in the belly could be converted if it is large enough. Heck, they have other fighters with external packs to refuel other fighters, why not an internal conversion pack for the B21. They can have a modular pack for EW or refueling. Just thinking scenarios.
I'd say, B-2 should do it. They will cary more fuel and are more than adequate to loiter even in contested airspace.
If the Northrop Grumman proposal wins the F/A-XX program I hope it gets named the Tomcat II
Nah call it the Alleycat.
10:42 ouch lmao
i almost spit out my drink when i saw that
I literally laughed when he said that, and I don't even watch Gridiron Football, either.
The B-21 could also be ideal for the air superiority role as an arsenal ship, being one of the only planes big enough and the only plane survivable enough to internally carry AIM-174 or other long-range missiles. Using kill webs, it could receive targeting data from forward-deployed Raptors or Lightnings to shoot down enemy fighters. The drone swarm, along with its own sensors, will be an extension of that (I think)
Glad you mentioned the canards, I get how they can help massively with maneuverability but they absolutely destroy stealth. Going with a wider lifting body design would give them the low speed capabilities they need for carrier landing without the sacrifice. Something they should know already with their experience with the F-14. Many of them made it safely home after wing damage or with their swept wings stuck in the high speed position thanks to its wide body. While wide bodies suck for footprint on the limited flight deck, their benefits for low speed performance as well as fuel efficiency make them a great design choice.
Stop gap plan. B-21 Raider with AIM-174s and forward deployed UAVs for long range sensors.
B21 might be filling some previously unforeseen roles...
I really enjoy these videos. The quality of the content as well as the quality of the animations used is a sure way to engage the viewer. Thanks for sharing with us, military aviation enthusiasts!
I truly love your channel. Keep doing the best work.
This channel is pretty mid only slightly better than the AI channels. There are much better ones out there like Millennium 7 and sandboxx just to name a couple
Also interesting to see if the drones have models with pilots too..in a swarm, noone will know between manned, unmanned, sensor, missile, missile truck, or drone truck
It makes sense to prioritize the Navy for a 6th gen acft given that China is across the Pacific. . and the USAF received the B-21
One says "long-range" B-21. BUT drones are not long range, nor are any supersonic. Will be interesting to see how DOD planners marry up short range drones to longer range bombers'.
Turning the B21 raider into a drone controller makes me think of like the Arsenal Birdn in Ace Combat 7
I am not sure if they want to take the risk of turning the b21 into a drone or at least until AI becomes more mature
@@kameronjones7139 re read the comment, drone controller
hes referring to the arsenal bird aswell since it deployed drones (A LOT of them)
@@D9fjg I miss read it as drone conttolled instead of drone controller
@@D9fjg
Birdn?
Those are incredible options!
Just imagine the Air Force going all in on long-range, low-observable C2 platforms for vast numbers of CCAs infused with Project Skyborg technologies, while the Navy funds a carrier capable, long-range, low observable, omnirole tactical fighter aircraft, that could, if need be, be acquired by the Air Force as well ….. if battlefield realities dictate that decision.
The USA 🇺🇸 would for the first time in decades really leverage economies of scale, and cover all its bases in a really cost-effective way.
The F-35 cockpit is like two hand controls, a screen, and some pedals. You can put that in lots of things. The sensors for integrating the helmet operation might be tough. Imagine if the NGAD simply had multiple large screens and a helmet screen triple the current FOV.
OK-------. The only advantage the N-GAD would have over the F-35 and the F-22 after its electronics/computer upgrades is its extreme long range. Without that range and large weapons load, the N-GAD is a waste of money.
Yes, and if we took away the F22's stealth, it too would be a waste of money🤷
This is a case where the navy and air force could have a joint project where both can get most of the features they want. The Phantom had a similar role and was used by both services with success. The F-35 was very difficult because of the need for 3 different variants with a lot of commonality. This was extremely difficult. Mainly for the F-35B requirement that put major limits on the A and C. The B had much less room. due to the huge lift fans. The Navy, carrier, F-35C, mainly required a larger wing. Another problem for the F-35 was the revolutionary capabilities that required a huge amount of development. Pushing the limits of modern technology. Ahead of its time. The F-35 is now reaching major goals and capabilities. And with ongoing technology growth. A poor understanding of the F-35 capabilities led to a low estimation by many people that wanted a dogfighter. Both the USAF and Navy need a large fighter with long range and good weapons load. They could also share a lot of F-35 technology. The problem for the USAF is that they want another revolutionary fighter with far more tech than the F-35. The F-35 systems could be a starting point but put into a much larger airframe with 2 engines and powerful APU. The F-35 systems with upgrades and larger sizes for sensors. Navy requirements will be a strong airframe, tail hook, reduced maintenance, maritime protection. All of these would still be useful for the USAF. Tail hook easily removed. Another Navy requirement may be a multirole capability. As in the F-35. This could also be useful for the USAF. Another useful feature could be a second seat. The second seat could be used for a commander organizing the armed UAV/wingman drones. Or just assist as the copilot or sensor weapons operator. I still think an extra pilot in a 2 seat NGAD could be useful in sharing workload. A defensive pilot and an offensive weapon operator. Both the Navy and USAF could use a high speed, super cruise fighter, with good high altitude performance. As well as an extremely high stealth airframe. High maneuverability is not a priority. Missiles can now be very high G with good of boresight performance for close range fights. With a helmet cueing/aiming capability. A gun could be swapped for a laser.
Drone/UAV got problem with enemy jamming systems
Kenny the snake Stabler was a great Raider quarterback!
What the MAIN PROBLEM is...there is only 3 or 4 Defense Contractors!🤦♂️😬 That make the price tags! We need more competition!💯👌
I want a blended wing and body refueler with three GENx engines mounted on top of the rear body. If they want smaller engines to decrease size then four engines are fine. I just want more than two for no good reason, and that blows up the budget.
Only thing that bothers me about the concept art are the intakes being flush with fuselage. YOU DRAGGING BRO.
My problem with b21 as drone operator for air superiority is what happenes when you need to rapidly intercept incoming supersonic fighters/missiles. A slow b21 is far worse than a mach 2 fighter.
My other concern is that enemy force will invest heavily in jamming to disrupt datalinks between b21 and drones it operates. That could cause big problems.
"we´re so back with this one" - Navy
NGAD fighter when viewing the entire current situation just does not make sense anymore
Great video!
13:25 tell em’ bro 🗣️
Probably has something to do with how most conflicts are overseas and sprouting up everywhere that the Navy can reach. Just a guess.
Also the F-15 got upgraded.
USAF just announced they are reviewing total airframes planned for B21. Not sure if they can use the B21 for counter air if there are not enough frames
The B-21 will be interative. Batches of variants will be produced instead of one super model for long term production. DOD said they will never do that again.
I hope so!!😅
Airforce might need numbers, and navy needs range
I think every branch of the military should be equipped with the same jet's and plenty of them, and work together as one during war and that means lot's of training between each other.
How about retractable canard if they are an absolute necessity for carrier take of and landing.
The capabilities of our military platforms, land, sea or air, depend on the military's ability to integrate ALL aspects of their capabilities to operate inside a threat zone, and project FORCE successfully. Whether it be stealth, BVR ID, ECM/ECCM, decoys, loyal wingman, long-range missiles, or long-range tanking, they will all have to work together to be effective. That capability to project force and maneuver successfully, depends on the ability to support and allow them to function in a fully integrated way.
But there are some very concerning vulnerabilities that have nothing to do with the capabilities of the aircraft we depend on for war. No doubt our enemies also see these vulnerabilities too.
The recent arrest of Chinese nat'l Fengyun Shi trying to board a 1-way flight to China, after taking pictures of multiple military bases in the Hampton Roads area and the Newport News shipyard using an off-the-shelf drone, while attending college at the U of Minnesota, is just the tip of the iceberg. Only a crash of his drone in someone's yard, called in to the police, revealed his spying activity.
The closing of Whiteman AFB for 9 days in Dec 2022 due to the only runway at the base blocking ops for our entire B-2 stealth bomber fleet is a vulnerability we cannot afford.
Iran's commandeering of a T/S drone a few years ago shows our communications with such platforms were, and maybe still are vulnerable.
Chinese hacking and exploitation of our web can not only bring logistics support to our military to a complete halt, it can also completely disable access to everyday simple financial transactions each of us depend on, not to mention crippling the entire banking system!
The AF should just go with B-21 drone controllers and swarms of stealth drone fighters. The Navy can provide cover during the technological transition with the last manned air superiority stealth fighter.
The plane is the power plant. Never skimp on engine technology, but also look to make it cheaper and simpler. The larger the airframe the more it costs, so if you’re going with a small or medium sized airframe I guess single engine is OK. If we are just going to massively rely on refueling then may we should spend more of this money on better tankers or more of them.
Yesssss a new ngad FA-XX video
Am Glad the US Navy has its own program again. Separate from the US Air Force. In the 90’s they were pushed into accepting the Joint Strike Program. While it’s a good Jet. The Navy still needs something that will replace the F-18. It needs an Aircraft that can Fly Far, Fight and Return to Carrier.
As far as I remember, what the USAF talked about starting with the ATF program is AIR DOMINANCE over air superiority.
Northrop Grumman and Boeing are the same company. I say the YF-23 upgrade could be the F/A-22 of the sea. Make the Black Widow 2 fly.
as an aerospace engineers prospective I CAN CATAGORALLY STATE it is "other technology" .
Wait i have an idea!! What if we just build three different versions of the same aircraft? We could save on scale by having essentially the same bird for all three services that fly, with just a few minor modifications of course 😉 but i mean what are radically different loading stresses on the frame on take-off and landing which requires completely different architectures, a blower fan or two, and different mission requirements between friends? 😅
Like the F35?
The reason the Air Force can’t afford NGAD is because of the insane cost overruns on the next generation nuclear ICBM’s. The weapons system itself isn’t much over budget, it’s the new construction required to house the new ICBM’s. According to several articles in various media, they didn’t foresee the cost of the housing for them being so expensive, along with the cost of the contractors to build them. So it’s likely that NGAD as we knew it will be downsized, or as Tog stated they’ll be changed to UAV’s.
Also the drones are relatively slow, so no need for Mach 2
The Air Force pausing thr NGAD program, only to conclude that they do indeed need something stealthier, more networked, bigger payload, longer range and works with CCA
@apolloaero wait I think you forgot some steps. The AF will conduct a long and expensive review of the program, decide some wild stuff based on God's knows what, cancel the program and destroy the early test planes, the dies and tooling to pursue unmanned, spend another x billions of dollars on an unmanned program that turns out to he worse in every way than the original program so it dies a slow painful death, before another long and costly study determines the first guys were crazy and the AF needs those capabilities asap, so the program is restarted at great expense.
And my hope in this scenario in which they cancle the program is that they find that the decision to scrap NGAD is wrong through a costly study, and not through a far more disastrously expensive war that is either outright lost because of it, or best case still won but with a much higher cost in blood and treasure than was needed to be expended.
@@scottlangley5596 the most likely and realistic scenario. Let me live with my fantasy, 5 year delay and a $3 billion dollar report
The Navy has said it needs speed and range... sort of a modern, stealthy, marinized XF-108 Rapier. On the other hand, remember the ill fated A-12 Avenger II... the flying Dorito that was supposed to replace the A-6E Intruder... That had stealth, and range, but not speed (it was also overweight, THE leading cause of death for aircraft designs), but a revamped F/A-12, with 30 year newer tech might be an answer... Don't need / want to dogfight in a stealth "fighter". You want lots of range, lots of payload of advanced, long range fire and forget weapons, probably a two person crew. Look at a revamped A-12 and you might see hints of a carrier capable mini B-21 that can strike, or quarterback... Let the cylons do the dog fightiing, not the humans.
this is a good video, i just discovered this channel there are many interesting things about this channel, american planes are always leading in technology with the world. especially with china 🙂🙂🙂
Why would anyone think that the Navy's program, which is higher risk and further behind - is less per unit than the Air force? The AF has either taken the program dark, or has reassessed the mission and is diverting technology and funding to a different platform.
Why are they not building the same aircraft together!!??? They both need basically the same aircraft with the same features. There is no USMC VTOL version to screw it up like the F-35. A USAF version with beefed up landing gear and folding wings simply makes it more suited to dispersed deployments. Or delete those features on the USAF model to save weight. Build the same aircraft so the cost per unit comes down. Bring in a couple international customers if possible like Japan maybe?
That was one of the things that hurt the F-35 program and got it so expensive.
From a military intelligence point of view… the use of a Raider Quarterback was a terrible decision 😂
They Air Force should start building drones I think it has enough stealth fighters, it’s cheaper to configure its current fighters to be paired with four drones each and use the B-2 bombers to be paired with 12 drones each.
Great reasoning
Navy should develop FA-XX first, AF should finish B-21 and build NGAS before coming back to NGAD (F-22 is getting an upgrade and we have a good F-35 pipeline for now). The Navy should also consider building a F-15EX equivalent for the Super Hornet with more range and ordinance; but everyone needs more drones ASAP!
1. USA doesn' have naval equivalent of F-22 2. FA-XX could very well serve as NGAD - while other way round it wil be difficult.
The USAF is at a crossroads for sure. The main issue with the budget is with the aging ICBM that they are forced to replace. B-52 and F-22 are undergoing massive upgrades. It doesn’t help that the budget was split up for Space Force so they are having the same issues they created when they separated from Army. US Navy to committed to a longer range airframe. They see the issue with China and their boats would be in range of the long range weapons. Aircraft carriers need to get in closer to launch aircraft because current F-18 & F-35 just do not range like the Tomcats did. This would be a mute point if they just Made VF-1 Valkyries 😉
Maybe if a sandwich bag worth of bushings didn’t cost the air force $90,000, the airplane wouldn’t cost $300,000,000. Seriously, there was a congressman complaining about this last year. He held up a small bag of “bushings” that he said cost $90k. You could probably buy similar ones at grainger for $200. It’s because anything government related is horrifically inefficient, and has absurd regulations to meet.
Boeing: NGAS, F15ex
Northrop/Grumman: FAXX
Lockheed/Martin: F35,F22
Airforce: B21, F15ex,...
Navy: FAXX,...
Haaaaaaaaaaa..... YOU MENTIONED MY THOUGHTS & OPINIONS ABOUT THE CANARDS......
Looking good
The Air Force should peruse the drone technology first as they could also be spread out through the navy and marines and Air Force. Give that some time followed by a traditional fighter later by possibly 2035-40
Costs soar not just from inflation, but from the desire to pay dividends to investors vs buying the best for the least as a non profit need to defend the nation we all live in and have those fighting for it be able to come home in one piece.
Aight now.,.🕺
Navy gets progressively shiter and more expensive ships but also gets world dominating future aircraft. What is this branch even supposed to be 😭😭😭
They're such an absolute mess right now lol
Their ships are very effective. Arguably, carrier aircraft aren't even relevant anymore because there's so much high quality air defense
Considering CIA and the Navy created the SR serie and the Air Force had to ask for it, after it had served for a few years and the Air force had too go the white house complaining, we want that. I would really not be surprised if they have a new model. How fast technology have moved these last 10 years, and that's the official sector, the US military are at least 20-30 years ahead of any other military on earth, so about 40 - 50 ahead of society. 6 gen air planes are seriously another level, it's close to going from WW1 planes vs F-16. If you doubt what im saying please look into how 1 F -22 soloed multiple F-16 , they couldn't even target the F-22 once and that is a 5 vs 4.5 gen.... seriously looking forward to seeing a 6 gen airplane.
Australia started the CCA strategy with F35 coordinating MQ28 Ghost Bat, NGAD is just a longer range version of the strategy. If you want a really long range version, how about E7 Wedgetail coordinating MQ28? Didn’t the US just agree to purchase the Australian E7?….and was testing the MQ28? Interesting
This is an amazing fighter jet!
I believe it's in the name NGAD. How and what apponent are you dominating? US air is dominant presently and progressively, but US naval aviation is in a critical stage and must be addressed.
The USAF is not necessarily stopping NGAD they're redesigning the fighter jet.
Navy leads in $billion boondoogles--LCS, Ford Carriers, Zummult stealth destroyers, F35C VSTOL fighters. I left aerospace after AX-12 Avenger II was scrapped.
NGAD giving up range to cut cost would defeat the entire purpose of it existing, it's supposed to be long enough range to strike China from Guam, Japan, or the Philippines, they may as well just cancel it in that case. They'd be better off going for a purely unmanned NGAD, or perhaps best of all, redirecting NGAD's funding towards attritable long range drones. Stealth fighters too expensive to produce in the numbers to adequately cover the amount of air space that USAF needs to maintain air superiority over is basically useless, and drones are pretty much the only technology that can disrupt the cost of air combat right now.
How is the 'glide slope' on those pointy Stealth planes. 😶 not good😳
Drones will replace 6th Gen fighters!
Just the FA-XX man!
To be honest with the cost of both aircraft soars to new heights ( no pun intend 😅). It might be time for America to look for new partners to aid in the development of these new 6th generation fighters.
The West needs to find a better balance of technological superiority vs volume. We won WW2 b/c we were able to produce more in numbers faster than the Axis powers. The Axis had more sophisticated tech but couldn't replace them as fast as they were chewing through them. What good is a Tiger 1 or 2 if there are a dozen Shermans for every Tiger? We've built some really expensive tech-advanced fighters but Ukraine shows how fast such assets can be consumed by the war grinder: in a blink of an eye.
In war, people learn fast and we need to shorten up our development cycles so that the lessons from the battlefront can be incorporated as quickly as possible. All this means stuff that is much more cheap and flexible.
We beat the Axis powers through better manufacturing capacity and a can do attitude. The West has to bring that capacity back to our shores. If that means tariffs and trade protection, so be it.
Why control drones from B-21 Raider when you can control them from a US base or carrier?
5:37 technically JP-7 / 8 is not gasoline but Kerosene. So better NKERS 😅
I’m an Army guy who pays attention to new weapons and needs of our military, the Air Force just got a new bomber, the navy’s need should be met now, the navy projects power and the navy has more fighter jets than the Air Force, it would be wise and cost effective to let the navy lead and get the fighter it desperately needs. The Air Force has two stealth fighter already and it’s the fault of its leadership choosing the wrong fighter jets.
Us armchair warriors have a deep disadvantage, we do not have the information on what is driving the USAF & USN in their decisions. 100 years from now some nerd will look back on the NGAD and write some snarky comment that will be it's epitaph. I would love to know what it will be.
USAF: Hey, maybe we should slow down a bit.
Congress: Sounds good, maybe you and the Navy should-
Navy: NOPE, you're not gonna 'Vark us again!
What was the reason for slamming the Tomcat as “infamous F-14”???
From a purely cost analysis basis, when you remove the human pilot from the platform, you open up a wide range of capabilities and capacity that is lost when you have to support a live human being in a cockpit. The Navy's current approach to blending UCAS and manned aircraft will pave the way to eventually having no pilots inside the platform. More payload, more fuel, less risk. The technology must be solid to make it happen and initially won't come cheap. The Navy still needs to also plan and fund it's surface and sub-surface platforms of the future. Unfortunately, they've managed over the past two decades to waste billions on the Zumwalt Class DDGs and the LCS which has severely impacted the Navy's operational capabilities to fight open ocean War-at-Sea scenarios for which the Fleet should be geared toward.
The NGAD sounds more like a supersonic B21.
They will always need Pilots even though Drones are being used successfully but no one knows what will happen in a World War 3 situation which will be on several fronts.
Not to mention satellites being shot down so Yea we will always have what we have now in Pilots.
Also Drone operators are Pilots and sure AI will take over Drones and do what needs to be done.
We also have Faraday Cages around our computers so EMPs won’t affect our newer Jets & drones. If there is a Drone Operation Center in Texas and it gets bunker busted no one knows how bad this will be but Nukes will cause Mayhem so I think Pilots are our best bet unless EMP fall out from a huge Nuke may affect our AI computers above ground and below.
We will always need Pilots and turbo Prop planes for back up. I think they have built jets to have faraday protection but no one has ever seen a major EMP event besides in New Mexico but I don’t think they test with Nukes like The Satan 2 /Sarmat 2 .
Retractable canards make sense .
exept as visualize in those rendering its flaud on the most basic and most visible area that is pilot seating and 360 degree exterior visavility - i hope the rendering is wrong in accuracy and this area is different for the real aircraft or we will be having another f-4 phantom situation in our hands in close air combat with near peer adversaries with even inferior aircraft in a multy aircraft small area battle space
Hahaha, love the dig on the raiders
I put all the blame on Boeing and the wildly over budget sentinel ICBM program. No one was talking about abandoning or downscaling NGAD until Boeing stole all the funding that the Air Force had allocated it
I thought that this entire plan was scrapped to expand munition production facilities?
Why not just create a more stealth version of the F-18 and F-15 at a fraction of the cost?
Plenty of artists have created stealth versions of these planes and they look quite realistic.
smaller, cheaper, drone warfare is looking like the future
I wish I were American, would join the air force straight away. It's sad , at least to me, that a considerable portion of Americans don't appreciate the country they are citizens of.
They are so powerful I like
The AF has the B-21.
Ironic that today WT announced its first stealth plane in the game.
wait what?