To add: the F-35 has 4 plumbed hardpoints (2 5k lbs, 2 2.5k lbs) that can make use of the tanks. Given the LDTP is a "program" rather than a single tank, its possible that multiple tanks of different sizes come out of it to extend the range of multiple aircraft.

@MostlyPennyCat

5 ай бұрын

I was just about to ask that question, thanks!

@MostlyPennyCat

5 ай бұрын

Does tanking refill both the internal and drop tanks?

@forzaelite1248

5 ай бұрын

@@MostlyPennyCat Usually it does, though the fuel system likely prioritizes internal tanks first in case they need to dump the bags

@thanhtong2281

5 ай бұрын

@@forzaelite1248- then take off weight shouldn’t be a problem at all. Just take off with empty drop tanks. Fly to tanker at outer edge of internal tank range. Top off both internal and drop tanks. Wouldn’t this double the range?

@jeffbenton6183

5 ай бұрын

​@thanhtong2281 MTOW doesn't only factor in how much weight the plane's wings can carry - it also considers the load that the plane's structure itself can carry. It's safe to assume that if a given load is greater than the MTOW, than it's not going to be able to carry it. That said, the F-35A/C can already carry more than 20,000 lbs. of fuel and munitions on its weapons stations - what more could you ask for?

Sandboxx drinking game: Watch 3 hours of Air Power and take a shot every time Alex uses the phrase, "I want to be clear." 😂

@JSFGuy

5 ай бұрын

In the gravel voice (eye mallix hawlinnnz).... Ann thisss sizz air power..

@jamesogden7756

5 ай бұрын

Jussst try eyed thisss. Issa Gooood game. 😅

@user-bw5ib8ds1e

3 ай бұрын

Or says "went ahead and" instead of just 'did'.

@jamesogden7756

3 ай бұрын

@@user-bw5ib8ds1e .... how's your hangover? Or are you dead? 🤔

@user-bw5ib8ds1e

3 ай бұрын

@@jamesogden7756 Shhhhhhhh………….every time you tap your keyboard it hurts.

What really makes this a game changer is combining these new drop tanks with getting aerial re-fueling from Stingray, etc. The Osprey also has aerial refueling capabilities and there is also buddy tanking from an F--18 or other F-35

@sohmingjian

5 ай бұрын

E stingray is low-observable

@natehammar7353

5 ай бұрын

And the mission can be planned for the refueling to happen on the way back instead of on the way out. There are risks associated with doing that, but risking a squadron of F-35s, while expensive, is preferable to risking the carrier itself.

@rontate7719

5 ай бұрын

What about the kc130s ? Could they be in area ,even modified for some type of stealth..?? they already refuel.. 12.22.23

@thearisen7301

5 ай бұрын

@@rontate7719 Yeah one of the big tankers could do the job very nicely. KC-46 is the newest tanker (It's based on the 767) & it has countermeasures & limited EW capability.

@hifinsword

5 ай бұрын

@@natehammar7353 Carriers can do both, out and on the way home. Carriers can also tank the tankers to extend the combat range even further.

Glad to see they haven't given up on the raptor. Thanks for the update.

The US Army just chose General Dynamics and Rheinmetall as finalists for the 4000 Bradley replacement IFVs. Could you do a Firepower series video about this program, the two finalists and the other three that dropped out. Or more generally the current state of IFVs (Bradley, CV90, Puma, Lynx) and their most likely future. Maybe even including anti air IFVs like some CV90 variants and SkyRanger.

@michaelinsc9724

5 ай бұрын

I'd certainly be interested in this.

@uku4171

5 ай бұрын

Just not giving up huh?

@bigt6665

5 ай бұрын

bro every video 😂

Alex, keep in mind that the F-35A/C will get longer range & payload weight capacity as part of the F-135 Engine Core Upgrade.

@Jakezillagfw

5 ай бұрын

Yes but at its core it wasn't made to be an air superiority aircraft.

@tealshift2090

5 ай бұрын

I dont think the core upgrade is expected to get much range and such. Sadly they didnt go with the GE alternative engine as well that would have been a generational jump in engine capability.

@My_initials_are_O.G.cuz_I_am

5 ай бұрын

@@Jakezillagfw *Dedicated air superiority aircraft. As any good multirole fighter, it can excel in the air superiority role, when required to do so.

@FallenPhoenix86

5 ай бұрын

​@@Jakezillagfw Nobody said anything about air superiority.

@terryritter7065

5 ай бұрын

@@tealshift2090 The GE option would have been logistically challenging (and the F-35 ALICE/ODEN has its challenges already) and questionable in the reliability department. It's the future but likely not ready yet for a single engine maritime application.

A video about the AAS / FARA (armed scout helicopter) program would be cool. Sikorsky has the S-97 Raider compete with the Bell+Textron 360 Invictus. The Raider has troop capacity while the Invictus does not, but that gives the Invictus better stealth properties, just like the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche had. Not sure why Sikorsky abandoned that design, as they first came up with it. Just to push a common scout and transport design when they already lost the Blackhawk transport replacement to the Bell V280 Valor?

@defective6811

5 ай бұрын

Comanche was abandoned because the fight of the late 90s and 2000s did not require an extremely expensive stealth helicopter. There were also major cost overruns and issues with certain technologies in concurrent development upon which the platform relied, iirc

@michaelinsc9724

5 ай бұрын

Definitely would be interested in hearing about the new aircraft, Alex.

@SurBlox

5 ай бұрын

fara still hasnt chosen a winner yet

add the fuel pods and then do airborne refueling too, crunch those numbers for range.

Admiral Richardson said a lot of things about operating inside the range of hypersonic anti-ship ballistic missiles. Basically, he said the carrier is far from defenseless and he thought they were very survivable in these areas. He kind of scoffed at A2/AD lines. But of course the best way carriers survived in WWII is not being detected or being out of range. So long range combat aircraft is a very prudent and welcomed capability.

@cubed0724

5 ай бұрын

The US military likes to be comfortable versus safe and they don't want to assume anything, being able to engage China's defense from outside their max range is a great capability to add on even though it may not be necessary.

@44R0Ndin

5 ай бұрын

There's a survivability pyramid at work here, just like there is for armored vehicles. At the top level is always "Don't get detected". (this level is where things like the B-2 fight at) Next is "Don't get fired on" (this is the level that stealth fighters are expected to operate at, against a near-peer enemy). Next is "Don't get hit" (that's what chaff/flares, towed decoys, and other "get this missile off of me" countermeasures are for). Next is "Survive the hit", (the A-10 is built to exist sort of at this level with it's "armor plating bathtub" design cockpit that can survive 23mm cannon fire, as well as many other "survivability enhancing" features. The Russian WWII era IL-2 was built along similar lines, for a similar purpose, using the tech of the time.). And all the way at the bottom of the pyramid, the reason combat aircraft have ejection systems: "Save the pilot, even if it means losing the aircraft". At this level, all pretense of being able to complete the mission has been discarded, and further levels down, if they exist, are solely in the "Damage Control/Containment" department. The whole point of this being a pyramid in the first place is to convey that the higher up you can stay in it while completing the mission, the better designed your strategies and equipment are. So to say that "Carrier groups are survivable" is to fly in the face of all that, because it right away throws out the idea of "Don't get detected" and "Don't get fired on" and places the entirety of its ability to complete the mission on "Don't get hit" or "Survive the hit". I personally think of anything further down than "Don't get fired on" as entirely in the realm of "Contingency planning". And with that, the whole point is to avoid the contingency that triggers the plan in the first place. So the LDTP program is needed. Even if the carriers are "survivable". Because it puts you higher up in the survivability pyramid.

@thomasromanelli2561

5 ай бұрын

Emphasizing the survivability pyramid summarized by 44RONdin, the USN needs to keep deploying technologies that keep pace with advancements in PLAN capabilities- in the near future, the Chinese may be capable of building a very resilient kill chain anchored by satellites with improved/faster optics, longer-range missiles and decoy measures to frustrate the air defense network of US career groups.

@777Outrigger

5 ай бұрын

Agree with above replies to my comment. To repost from my comment above. .... But of course the best way carriers survived in WWII is not being detected or being out of range. So long range combat aircraft is a very prudent and welcomed capability.

@douginorlando6260

5 ай бұрын

China sees military ships from orbit. There is no way to hide from DF-27

Great video! Thanks!

Alex, you’re my favourite KZreadr at the moment! You inspire me to want to work in defence companies. I think this is exactly what our side needs right now.

The F-22 will be around longer than people think. Just like the A-10, it has a specialty that no other fighter can match, and as with all weapons programs, the NGAD will take longer than planned to make operational.

@mikeharvey9184

5 ай бұрын

I have a hard time thinking the F-22 will be retired as soon as the NGAD enters service. Even once the Air Force has mostly finished transitioning to the NGAD (in, what, 2040?), they'll probably move the F-22 to the Air National Guard.

@ateslabattery115

5 ай бұрын

I was under the impression that the only reason the A-10 is still here is because congress is likes it

@Thetequilashooter1

5 ай бұрын

@@ateslabattery115 The army and marines like it too. Nothing beats it for CAS.

@kilmer009

5 ай бұрын

@@DeadManWalking-ym1oo What this guy said, and I hate it. F-22 is so beautiful, just an incredible bird. So pissed at it's entire history and how it ended up being hamstrung. If the funding for it was never cut as it was, and more were made, and if they could be upgradable, they'd be the king of the skies for decades.

@TheNanotag

5 ай бұрын

In my opinion, granted it's pure speculation, but I think the AF will keep it around in the same capacity as the F-117's.

Thanks Alex.

I was on the F-22 Flight Test Team at Edwards AFB in CA. Awesome aircraft.

Thanks. !!

Thanks Alex🇺🇸

How awesome. Stealthy extra range and possibly a stealthy "beast mode" as well. The F-35 just keeps getting better and better.

Thanks!

concept idea: "loyal wingman" is a thing, I think? Drop tanks are certainly a thing. Instead of totally losing drop tanks when they get dropped for air-to-air combat action, it might be interesting if the drop tanks were ALSO fighter drones, that way if plane does have to lose drop tanks, those drop tanks can continue using the fuel left in them to drone fight and force multiply as a disposable drone since if drop tank only, it would have already been disposable, so, why not add drone abilities to drop tank for that little extra something where 1 plane becomes 3, or more?

@randogame4438

5 ай бұрын

That's an interesting concept!!

Amen, Alex

I love your show on USA Fighter Jets! ✈✈✈✈✈✈✈

Having installed a LOT of F-35 pylons. I do not see anyway that you can make this work and have NO pylon left behind. You would have to have a pylon of some kind, that is bolted on with 3 massive bolts. It's either that or redesign the wings. A new "specialized" pylon would be required. But with enough money, anything is possible.

At 1:15 I was going to say they are certainly working on stealth drop tanks then you said it for me. Great video as always. Keeping several top notch videos out every few days, you definitely deserve the success you’ve been receiving.•

I love the poster behind you!

That book on the bottom shelf, The Art of Clear Thinking is a gem. It was in my dads bookcase.

The final range calculations ignore the impact of MQ-25. Able to deliver at least 16000 lbs of fuel 500 nmi away, a single tanking could completely fill a 2 ship flight 500 nmi from the carrier. This gives at least an additional 500 nmi of range for a total of 2660 nmi or a radius of 1330 nmi. In addition, takeoff and climb is fuel intensive so the added range would likely be more.

You redecorated the studio! I always look for the award you got in the back.

I love AH’s passion. Great channel

Good stuff

Awesome 👍

Really interesting!

I really hope the chrome coatings work out. Gotta style all over the badguys! As an aside, it's always been such such a mind-bender to me how the most lethal weapons platforms of war, are also some of the most aesthetically pleasing things that humans make.

I'm kinda surprised stealth tanks weren't developed 20 years ago.

@DocWolph

5 ай бұрын

Yeah, that they were not developed along side the F-22 and YF-23 or the F-35 and YF-32. Our military needs to think ahead a bit further.

@burt2800

5 ай бұрын

Me too, I've had this idea for a while.

@user-bw5ib8ds1e

3 ай бұрын

They were. You just didn't see them.

Thats why I was really surprised the Navy went with a single engine bird

The F22 is my favorite fighter. Such an awesome plane.

Always interesting.

The defense system looks incredibly top-heavy on these ships. Either the ship needs to be bigger or the defense 📡 system needs to be sleeker and of smaller design.

Interesting, this video can make one remember the Tomcat. I always love seeing an F35 going to the catapult.

I can see it now, the race to go recover those drop tanks!

You can also launch without full fuel load to increase the weapons load and then tank midair.

i dig it, developing upgrades and components that can be utilized on other platforms. i suppose the tricky part of this is making stealth components we can consider expendable.

They've cracked the plumbing issue. There is probably a retractable/self-healing fuel tank connection that doesn't compromise the Raptors' stealthiness. Of course we don't know whether provision for that capability was built in from the start. It might be a proposed mid-life wing upgrade for part of the fleet. Kinda surprised they didn't go the conformal route...

It should be noted that the combat radius is really the planes combat radius plus whatever missile it drops. This can be over a 100 mile difference..

The aim-9x they carry is also coated in a radar absorbing material.

@Orbital_Inclination

5 ай бұрын

It isn't, and it would be pointless to do so as it's housed internally

@whalehands4779

5 ай бұрын

@Orbital_Inclination Sorry for the confusion, I was talking about the ones the f-35 carries

I don’t see any way to drop off cleanly without using a smaller set of doors, similar to the weapons bay or landing gear, on a micro scale, to close up after dropping the tanks. It seems that would work.

I’m a veteran, retired fighter pilot and I approve of your channel.

I strongly suspect that the DF-ZF has been massively overhyped by the PLA, one thing that needs to be kept in mind is that the DF-ZF's target has be successfully detected and tracked in real time which is a lot easier said than done.

Alex. You are a national security asset. Keep up the good work. The GenZ needs to be fed information like this. Thank you for your hard work!

@ChasingDifferentAdventures

5 ай бұрын

Alex had just announced a Classified Directive. On the scene from 3:17 .Giving potential enemy a Heads-up... this is to be know to commanding operations officers and Pilot, in the event of use of operation.

@biggnasty989

5 ай бұрын

@@ChasingDifferentAdventures The goal of announcing information like this or allowing it to be known to the public is to further our national security. Doesn't sound like you've ever had an actual intel briefing. Technologies that I'm privy to during my time in the military are still not known to the public which makes me sleep like a f****** baby at night.

@forzaelite1248

5 ай бұрын

​@@ChasingDifferentAdventuresIf adversaries weren't already planning on such a thing given the aircraft were marketed with the capability being possible eventually they're not worth taking seriously. Also if this really is classified shouldn't it be down by now?

@ChasingDifferentAdventures

5 ай бұрын

@ChangeEvery14Days For the information announced on 3:17 should not have been released.

@ChasingDifferentAdventures

5 ай бұрын

@@forzaelite1248 DOD may not have followed this video source. The information on 3:17 should not have been announced.

If we were in a real peer to peer war, these tanks and weapon pods would definitely be used. Because you want to have as much weapons and fuel on board as you can especially at the beginning when it's a full of target rich environment

"Loyal Wingman" drones can fly into the 'danger area' while its F-35 commander stays outside the combat area and lessen the need for fuel drop tanks. The Loyal Wingman is a system allowing one F35 to command and have several drones flying with it. (M-28)

Yet the typical F 14 had a range of 2400 miles. The fleet guardian has yet to be replaced. The vid just brought this to mind to me...

Your tone, demeanor and enthusiasm but you a cut above the rest. Thanks!

Thoughts on a B-2 modified to perform tanking for F-22’s when the B-21 comes on line? I’d also think that our carriers will stay well away from threat areas until Chinese capabilities are beat back significantly.

@mrkeogh

5 ай бұрын

That's not a bad idea at all... I mean the Raider or Spirit crews will f*cking hate playing tanker, but if it means the US gets the drop on Chinese forces in a conflict, then 🤷🏻‍♂️

@JMurph2015

4 ай бұрын

​@@mrkeoghThe B-2 is FAR too expensive to operate to use as a tanker. We would probably be better off just buying a few more B-21's configured for tanking than trying to convert B-2's. The B-2's operating costs are already some of the highest in the fleet.

There is unlikely to be a silver bullet that prevents WW3, but add in a stealthy fuel tank, some longer range missiles, drone swarm capabilities, some rapid dragon, a hanful of more regional bases and you have the making of a deterrence strategy so you don't have to fight. But you do have to make all of the systems credible.

Also great idea for Australia's F-35A with their large land mass the RAAF F-35A needs all the range it could get. These pods must reduce the RCS of the F-35 but by how much? and is it worth the reduction? also could they be fitted to USMC F-35B and launched STO from a USN LPH and vertical land?

In flight refueling is very resource intensive, and has lots of moving parts that can break. Drop tanks are better, but reduce other payload and aircraft performance. The best solution is to design planes with the needed range on internal fuel.

Ha. The concept has wings. Subbed

The F22 jetisons the pylons even for the current tanks.

@kathrynck

5 ай бұрын

Yeah, this news story is somewhat backwards. It's more that they're adapting F-35 tanks to the F-22... Although it does look like they have an upgraded tank from the program, and are back-porting it to the F-35.

yep Fighter ranges kind of suck full stop, like stealth tank be stealthy yo which is a win in my books. Saying that what would be cool is a version of the stealth tanks that are intended to be dropped every time on a sortie. So they would be smaller tanks capacity wise with enough fuel to get the jet to the area of operations so that they can go into to combat with a full internal tank, you just send out a refuelling drone or plane to top up for the return trip.

Skunk Spunk will save the day! A cluster of F-22s could serve as specialized wingmen: ordinance, extra fuel, and close defenders while the F-35 serves mainly as a control and command center. Too, along the way land air bases could provide peripheral services keeping the carrier just outside missile attack range. Presumedly the primary attack zone would be well weeded by wicked weasels.

I heard something about the new jet engine that is tested for the new 6th gen fighter(s) to be used on the Raptors too, so why not on the F-35?.... that could solve the problem...

The apparent plan that I see for the F-35 is, take off with a full weapons load internal only, with half fuel, rendezvous with a MQ-25 refueler and fill the the tanks completely and then fly off towards the targets.

Could you do a video about the future of Shorad? Will short range air defense provided by the laser stryker? Will the Bradley replacement IFV XM30 function as an anti air cannon? Should the US look at the SkyRanger / Skynex / millenium gun system? And will there be a Stinger replacement with a better battery, targeting, and most importantly more affordable? Or is this affordable future the APKWS guidance upgrade for the cheap and plentiful Hydra 70mm rocket? Should we slap that on Avenger Hummvees? Or IRIS-T?

@texasranger24

5 ай бұрын

I think the US should really invest into a new shorad air defense system. Laser Stryker is cool, but i am talking anti air tank (or IFV, really). Team up with german Rheinmetall and get the Millenium gun/ SkyRanger. Slap a 35mm airbust cannon aka longrange shotgun onto Strykers and Bradleys (or their replacement) plus 2 or 4 Stinger misslies. Or the bigger IRIS-T. Hell, develop a new Stinger, and make it 5 times cheaper. The battery on the current ones suck and their age shows. Good shorad weapons need to be affordable and plentiful, not some rare and expensive thing nobody really can get.

@jonathanpfeffer3716

5 ай бұрын

@@texasranger24Even current DEWs can handle most targets out there and they outrange guns. I don’t see why you would go for guns in a future warfare situation.

I just don't understand why the Navy seems to hate the F-35 so much. It would appear to solve a lot of their capability problems. But they are ordering so few and have been slow rolling the production for years.

Also here's and idea: build air refueling pods for B-2s bomb bays. They'd be able to both give and receive fuel, becoming Victor like tanker. 2 B-2s could be continually on station, even behind the edge of contested airspace with 2x15=30 tons of fuel not counting 2x80=160t internal fuel.

@tylerparker4010

5 ай бұрын

There's not enough B2s to warrant something like this. Maybe for the B21. Better off just building a stealth refueling drone.

@JMurph2015

4 ай бұрын

B-2's are far too expensive to use for this. They only go out a few times a month as it is, and even that much use costs like $100k / hour. Blowing a ton of hours using them as tankers would just be a gigantic waste of money, better to build all-new planes with more maintainable coatings at that point.

Love the stats and doing some common sense math to assess the capability of these new Jets. Bravo Sir.

2:07 if you skip frame by frame it looks like the ship starts exploding before the warhead arrives.

Another factor is that the CCP probably is overstating the maximum range of the DF-ZF. And, at its absolute maximum range it's going to be out of energy and unable to maneuver any more, and so, easier to avoid. That means the carriers could probably go in another hundred miles or so at minimal risk.

@nunya3163

4 ай бұрын

I suspect that people are also underestimating the ability to target carriers with these missiles. They would first need precise data on where exactly the carrier is, and then fire the missiles almost immediately. Once the missile reaches the area, it will have a very narrow window in which to find, identify, lock on, and engage the carrier.

ALEX: Now, I am wondering the true maximum mission radius, if BOTH, the re-fueling drone AND the proposed drop-tanks were employed, on the same sortie. Let the drone tag-along, for as far as it can, while topping off all tanks, on the combat aircraft (crewed or not).

I hope that we'll see low observable conformal fuel tanks on the sides of the F-35's spine in the longer term as well, since these induce less drag, if I'm not mistaken. And less drag in general means more range and/or better performance and would free up external wing stations should beast mode (or the LO enclosed weapons containers mentioned) be required. Combined with a variable cycle engine and taker drones...

@jeffbenton6183

5 ай бұрын

The conformal tanks intended to be used by the Super Hornet actually increase lift - so it wouldn't surprise me to learn that something similar could be done for the F-35.

@Pincer88

5 ай бұрын

@@jeffbenton6183 So more induced drag rather than less. I had no idea the effect on the Rhino was so severe. Too bad. That's probably the reason we haven't seen any Rhinos and Growlers with CFTs operating yet. Could it be that CFTs - depending on shape and volume - have less effect on the blended wing-body of the F-35 (unlike the F-18E/F), which already causes partial lift? The F-16, also having a blended wing design does frequently feature CFTs, hence the idea.

@jeffbenton6183

5 ай бұрын

@Pincer88 More lift then clean configuration, but also less drag then under-wing tanks. There's basically no disadvantage (since they usually need external fuel anyways). I think the CFTs weren't taken because the powers that be don't want to spend money on things other than F-35 and F-15, for some reason (F-22, F-16 and F-18 seem to be getting fewer upgrades)

@Pincer88

5 ай бұрын

@@jeffbenton6183 Thanks. Yes, I think you're right in suggesting that 'legacy' platforms get less upgrades. In light with the possibility of a slugging match in the Pacific, Pentagon priorities likely have shifted to the latest, most advanced platforms with the longest lease of life and production volumes ahead and the most potential in terms of range and over match, such as the F-35A and C, F-15EX, B-21 Raider and the respective Air Force and USN NGAD contenders. Whether that is wise, I cannot say for certain. On the one hand I often think you'll have to fight with what you have, not what you would like to have in sufficient numbers. So keeping 'legacy' platforms as relevant as possible doesn't seems a waste of resources. At the other hand, budgets are n't limitless and investments in future requirements need to come from somewhere. So damned if you do, damned if you don't. Glad I'm not in the planning department.

@Mokimanify

5 ай бұрын

You can already. The IDF has them.

The (eventual) combined cycle engine upgrade would give an extra boost to the F35s combat range as well.

@jeffbenton6183

5 ай бұрын

I'm afraid that Pratt & Whittney lobbying has killed any chance of that before 2030, but I agree. After NGAD Flys, it's only a matter of time before F-35A/Cs are reengined.

This is why bases in south korea, japan and phillipines is so important.

the king of the skies. nobody can compete.

Thanks for the info! I am glad you are getting this info out and hopefully the younger generations will start to understand just what our tax dollars are being spent on! While so many are so critical of where it is spent so few understand and respect all the technology that we as a nation have invested in and how much it actually costs us to field this tech. Hopefully it gets to the right ears and the younger generation will start to be intrigued with flying these beasts as well as designing them and supporting them!

Adding Conformal Fuel Tanks would increase range and not change the radar signature. But the tanks changed the performance of the aircraft - F -15,16,18 - to such an extent it was not worth the testing and changes needed to the aerodynamics that it was not deemed not worth the extra range. The extra mass was brutal on the Hornet catapult and capture. Getting off and back on the carrier is real important to the navy. The navy is planning on purchase of 72 Boeing MQ-25 Stingray aerial refueling drones.

what would be the combined range once you consider long range standoff weapons?

@jeffbenton6183

5 ай бұрын

I was wonder why he didn't cover that. I suppose all you have to do is add the range of the cruise missiles themselves.

China: We have a hypersonic missle that can hit your (stationary) aircraft carrier 1000 miles away. USN: Um, we're going to carry more gas.

Engine upgrades help with fuel economy too, but there's at least 2 other benefits to the LDTP program. 1. The NGAD will almost certainly be adjusted to be able to make use of it, after all, what's not to like about the idea of the already long legs of the NGAD being given just that little extra bit of a boost by the extra fuel? 2. As you mentioned, weapons pods are an option, but what if we go further than that? I wonder what advantage a stealthy refueling pod could grant? Seems to be easy enough to fit a pop-out RAT for the refueling pod into the front of it (has to be a pop out type to be able to keep the stealth, because I don't know of such a thing as a "stealthy propeller"), then the hose reel in the middle (axis of hose reel aligned with long axis of former drop tank, to solve the "how do you fit that much hose in there" issue), and the aft end of the pod would split apart to allow the hose to exit, as well as stowing the drouge when not in use (again, to maintain stealth).

@piotrd.4850

5 ай бұрын

I say: rebuild B-2 to stealth tankers.

@44R0Ndin

5 ай бұрын

@@piotrd.4850 Why stick with the B-2 when we could turn the B-21 Raider (which has now had at least one test flight) into a tanker aircraft instead?

6:51 wowzers. Talk about distraction 😂

Earlier this year the USAF announced the F-22 would soon be retired

I just noticed Zoey Is Too Drunk For This Dystopia on the shelf behind you. I've loved this series' modern take in the cyberpunk genre.

Make the drop tanks so that they float, and have a small motor so they can go to a predetermined location after being dropped in the ocean. Have a special ship that collects these for reuse.

@TonyChan-eh3nz

4 ай бұрын

That will just decrease range, put a ship in range of the enemy, and all to save what the government spends in a second during a war.

DF-26B anti-ship ballistic missile has a range up to 4,000 km (2,485 miles) and it can sink aircraft carriers but SiAW missile can destroy the DF-26B missile launcher and other targets of A2/AD area. The SiAW is intended to attack relocatable targets including theater ballistic missile launchers, cruise and anti-ship missile launchers, GPS jamming platforms and anti-satellite systems. It will have a shorter range than standoff weapons, being fired by an aircraft after penetrating enemy airspace. The SiAW will fit inside the F-35 Lightning II's internal weapon bays.

Enclosed weapon pods go as far back as original FAST pods for F-15s and Boeing had shown weapon pod for F-18E few years back. Though question *really is*: is F-35C cleared to carry 2t/4000lbs GBU-28 equivalent on single hardpoint under each of the wings? How will it affect take-off and recovery mass? Structure life?

@kathrynck

5 ай бұрын

Inboard wing pylons are rated to 5000 lb. Outboard wing pylons are rated to 2500 lb. You could take off with 2 big drop tanks, AND 2 tomahawks if you really wanted to (plus internal load). Although at that point, the catapult might want help from a couple JATO's (not sure). It's _still_ lighter than the F-14, and has similar thrust.

So, does the newest jet engine upgrade affect the standard range? And as such would the additional tanks would solve 2 problems? Nice report as usual Alex.

@140theguy

5 ай бұрын

The engine core upgrade is supposed to come with a slight thrust and fuel economy increase. I believe it's a 5-% or maybe 10% increase.

@JonMartinYXD

5 ай бұрын

@@140theguy I believe the main goal isn't so much the little bit extra power but the extra reliability/longevity that comes from being able to run the engine at a lower rate but still get the same power. The biggest problem the P&W F135 currently has is not fuel economy or lack of power (though the F-35B and C are right at the limit) but high maintenance load from being run so close to 100% power so much.

I liked the Metal Intro

I'm faithful to my F-16 but I have to say the F-22 is best jet fighter ever created, to the point that china, Russia, japan are coping the design. F-22 should be the sole focus in these time we are living in.

The F-22 has the same issue all fighters suffers from, air frame life span. The low production number means that the air frames are reaching that limit faster than originally expected. Upgrades keep them equal to the current generations capabilities for electronics. The facts are simple the more entanglements the F-22 has to deal with the faster we need a replacement.

Another factor is that the Chinese have the range, but they may not have the detection or targeting capacity. The Pacific is a big place, and the US Navy is known for pursuing EW and Noise Reduction technologies and practices. Just because the Chinese can fire that far, doesn't mean they can actually know what's out there. Let alone get a decent enough target resolution to achieve target acquisition and then maintain it for the time needed for the missile to arrive.

question can a drop tank be refueled from an air refueling plane along with the main fuel tank

The most glaring drawback of stealth fighters aside from range is offensive payload.

Good! Now we need this to be extended to pylon mounted weapons bays with 3 missiles internally. Edit: just finished watching the vid and you mention exactly this.

If it does happen then by the time it's in service the Chinese will announce they have a new carrier killer missile that has a range of 2000 miles. And not to mention that the further the carrier is away from it's target the longer it takes aircraft to get to the target and back.

I doubt PRC's targeting abilities on a MOVING target for their HGV weapons......hitting a stationary target is FAR different than tracking and pinpointing for final targeting a moving target from several hundred miles away

That f14 picture in the background ❤ I need that ! Where and how much? Thanks 😅

Sounds expensive. Both because disposable items coated in RAM sound expensive, and because letting the PLA get their hands on a disposable covered in stealth material is going to be a concern.

Hi Alex, your usual another easy to follow update. However i have a question. With what are China going to detect a US carrier, gain and maintain a weapons grade lock? As far as I am aware they do not have the satellites ( of dubious utility anyway) or the AWACS type aircraft or Submarines that could remain undetected long enough. And finally the glide part of a DF17 (even IF its performance claims are true - plywood, sheet aluminum and paint can do wonders) will be deaf, dumb and blind for the majority of its final approach at mach 10 -20, and with a turn raduis of maybe 150 miles, not what I'd call maneuverable. A video on this would be great, as to be honest, the results my searches turn up, are all too often mutually exclusive.

Oh, oh, oh.....No pylon left behind!

External stealth ammunition pods WOULD BE a game changer. For REAL.

If only we had a Naval fighter that was fast, had a large payload and long range.........maybe it would look like the one in the picture behind you?