big, fast, long range, bristling with stand-off weapons, sounds like a tomcat…

@edfleming9600

Жыл бұрын

Sure does....

@fredbecker607

Жыл бұрын

Hopefully, the US has better technology and capabilities than the 1960's. As good as f14 was, there has to be better.

@roryoconnor4989

Жыл бұрын

@@fredbecker607 but the mission hasn’t really changed

@LaikaTheG

Жыл бұрын

@@fredbecker607 Yea sure but how the hell did Boeing design the Super Hornet with engines that have half the power of the super cruise engines on the AST 21 but with the same fuel burn rate? The “1960s” tech had better engines at least. Also just letting you know the f15 came out a year after the f14 and then the f16 a year after that and neither had a fox 3 until the 120A which, reportedly, was so bad pilots asked for aim7s instead.

@RUSTON51EVADP

Жыл бұрын

Yes sandb more more more newz ??? CAN A FUEL USED MAKE A FUEL TO CONSUME FROM ITS EXHAST NEEDS CONV ERTABLE ENGINES BUT WE DO THAT LIKE WITH MY HOME GENERATOR NAT GAS TO LIQUIFIED Gas flick of switch. NOW LETS GO YANKEE GENIOUS

Say what you will about American supercarriers, but the fact that they can easily move as fast as a speed boat is damned impressive.

@lindapowell117

Жыл бұрын

Jim Powell speaking. I was in a navy fighter squadron during Vietnam. Not much has changed about how an aircraft operates since 1969 when I got out. What has changes is the aircraft and the technology they possess. In fact the South China Sea is where our navy operated from during the Vietnam war. The ocean is a very big playground. To put a carrier air group into a battle position can be done quickly. We have aircraft carriers that operate in that region. Probably two carrier battle groups in or about the South China Sea. So, a lot of ships plus submarines are in close proximity to China.

@airsrock2.053

Жыл бұрын

@@lindapowell117 Would the US Navy have been better off with the Super Tomcat 21? If ya’ll got it instead of the Hornet. I watched a very compelling video by Wood Carrol about this.

@chrisd2646

Жыл бұрын

If you haven't already done so, it's worth checking out video of Ford performing high speed turns. It's really impressive...

@Dr.Westside

Жыл бұрын

@@airsrock2.053 no they would not have been better off with the super tomcat . It would have been just like the F-35 program were it had too many moving parts and the service would have asked for it to do too many things at once which would have made it too complicated .

@airsrock2.053

Жыл бұрын

@@Dr.Westside what’s your thoughts on the Boeing F-32 platform? It was great for budget and the upgraded model painted black doesn’t look ugly.

This FA-XX subject is so interesting. It seems to be a very hard thing to figure out. Love to see more, Alex.

@snizami

8 ай бұрын

Aerospace Industry: So, what are the must-haves for your next-gen aircraft? US Navy: Yes. Seriously, only way I imagine they're going to get; higher speed; higher-speed supercruise; more range; more stealth; carrier compatibility, more advanced weapons, more sensors, more countermeasures, super maneuverability; more electrical power, more upgradability, etc etc etc is if all the missiles and perhaps some other major systems are moved entirely off-board and onto a stripped down stealth twin that flies alongside it. I can't imagine how it'll be able to do all that's required unless they have to buy two+ crazy expensive aircraft that work in tandem: one providing the core capabilities and the other holding its proverbial beer as it does so.

The functional range of the aircraft is still somewhat greater than stated, the main affect is on weapons capability and sortie turn-around. Drop tanks and in flight refueling can definitely stretch things out, although it's more at the cost of pilot fatigue once planning extended missions. Thus some things could still be in reach, just that any aircraft attempting it wont be loaded for bear.

@michaelkendall662

Жыл бұрын

in the case of the F-35 external stores of anything (fuel or weapons) also come at a cost of observability

Good for the Navy. The US Navy is the force projection arm of the military which will contact almost any enemy first and its needs are unique. The Navy deserves the best, not a compromise with the other branches.

@nexpro6118

Жыл бұрын

US has and continues to need a massive carrier fleet because without the US carrier fleet, the world trading will fall and cause chaos....its because the US carriers protects world trade through oceans, is why countries can trade and make the world economy go round and round. Without the US, the world economy will tank. It's juat historical fact....take 5 min and research it. Not saying you specifically lol.

@kokofan50

Жыл бұрын

The US is traditionally a land power, even though more wars have started because of the ships than on the land, and our intuitional thinking reflects that.

@kathrynck

Жыл бұрын

Regardless. If you're spending 12 billion for a carrier, plus billions more for a carrier strike group, plus all the support and maintenance and training involved. Not just for the planes, but the whole naval strike group. This is an enormous financial, manpower, and asset investment. Basically an air force fighter might have a ground support head count of say 50 people and millions of dollars. A carrier plane's "total" ground support head-count is in the thousands, and billions of dollars. So just to leverage your assets, the cost of a carrier plane itself should be a "money is no object" proposition. 95% of the cost is in the ships. They need to be VERY well equipped. Going from a "pretty good" cost effective plane, to a "fantastic" but expensive plane only changes the total carrier strike group cost from like 40 billion to 41 billion, but might double your air power projection. "Penny wise but pound foolish" logic applies, to an extreme degree.

@andrewpizzino2514

Жыл бұрын

Constitutional requirement for a standing Navy recognizing America is a maritime power

@conman1395

Жыл бұрын

This is so true if it were 1970 or earlier

Aircraft design is an iterative process with tons of tradeoffs. The result is always suboptimal. The goal is that the suboptimal final design accomplishes a specific mission and counters as many threats as possible. The biggest concern I have is the time it takes to finalize the design when compared to the threat time horizon.

@airsrock2.053

Жыл бұрын

That’s the case with everything. It’s no different to big business. Unrealistic capacity and deadlines.

@actionjksn

Жыл бұрын

You make good points and I think trying to make one jet that does too many things just compounds that whole suboptimal thing. I think this is one of the main reasons the F-35 has not worked out that great, they tried to do too much and do it with a single engine jet that probably isn't even big enough to do everything.

@yeoshenghong4802

Жыл бұрын

It should not be hard just increase the size and us f15 turbine engine which thrust engine. The problem is it want high fuel efficient and high thrust engine. I believe is speed they want

@cmdrcorvuscoraxnevermore3354

Жыл бұрын

@@airsrock2.053 Hi Airs Rock, that is so true. Requirements creep is a real thing, everywhere. Have a good evening and weekend, be well.

@yeoshenghong4802

Жыл бұрын

@@actionjksn I believe is payload, the internal bay weapons is constraints. It can only carry one JASM and two AMRAM

great breakdown! I'd love to see another edition covering this huge problem the Navy is dealing with.. It would be great to compare the combat range of the F-14D with post launch top-off(and Phoenix missiles).

@smokeylovesfire1589

Жыл бұрын

I agree. The Navy gave up the F-14 as it too expensive. But it was a interceptor. That’s what they need now so I’m wondering if these knew fx ideas will be more expensive than the tomcats.

@KanyeTheGayFish69

Жыл бұрын

@@smokeylovesfire1589 they should just use the yf-23 navalized variant

@rgloria40

10 ай бұрын

Priorities were set. Russia had a fast jet... Now the threat is a hypersonic missile. In fact, Russia who is supplied by China while also provide consumer goods to the US, have been using drones, cruise missile, ballistic missile and hypersonic missile on cities and military target in cities... Looks to me a one on one dog fight where one sneaks up on the other is minute. Most of US NAVY jets cannot reach Mach 2 for successful hypersonic intercept...Relying on US Air Force jet equals...budget cuts for the NAVY...That is just how it is...Senior management need to get their head out of asses...

Alex, of course we want more info on this fighter....glad to see you getting credit for your reporting from other content creators also...great job!

Another "band-aid" solution could be the use of subs to launch cruise missiles, especially if they could be modified to launch the AGM-158, at anti-ship missile sites.

@icollectstories5702

Жыл бұрын

I don't think the issue is missiles; I think it's about putting a pilot over a target. There are certainly a lot of things you can do if you eliminate the pilot, but we seem to think it's important to have a pilot while conducting certain types of missions. That's why we bother with carriers instead of just missile frigates. The US can win a ship-to-ship shooting war, but it would be very difficult to eliminate all truck-mounted anti-ship missiles, just because they are relatively cheap and easy to hide.

@tmann153

Жыл бұрын

As the carriers are such a valuable asset, keep them outside the 1000 mile bubble until the enemy's ability to reach out that far is largely degraded. That could be done with a storm of our long range offensive missiles launched from subs or fixed sites in mid Pacific islands or Australia. We need a real threat to Red China as a deterrent to stop it starting a war. Once started, we all die as it will become nuclear.

@thelittlestmig3394

Жыл бұрын

SSNV's are the only way.

@metatechnologist

Жыл бұрын

There's another "band aid" system on the way i.e. Rapid Dragon.

@w8stral

Жыл бұрын

All your comment really shows is that Sparky, back in the 80's was right. All ships in the modern navy should be submersibles. Not submarines, submersibles. Pop-up, do your thing, and them semi submerge as this is the only stealth at sea. All hatches on ships today are already water tight at submerisble pressures. Only ship that that would have to change all that much is the aircraft carrier.

Outside of developing a whole new aircraft just to get extended range, I think we should also consider weapons with better range. An F-18 Super Hornet with a JASSM-ER could hit targets over 1,000 miles away from the carrier. The same F-18 with the JASSM-XR could hit targets 1,500 miles away from the carrier. The F-35C armed with those same weapons would add about 200 more miles to the ranges quoted above.

@UniversalPlaysPage

Жыл бұрын

F35 can internally carry JSM's which is a smaller JASSM... and also long range bombers can deploy a shitton of them out of harms way and destroy those missile batteries. so what would china do? move their Missiles more inland which gives our carriers safer passage to strike the coast. 1 weapons platform that has not shown its ability to do what it even says. Cannot make the weapon of the last 100 years obsolete. plus the df21 and df17 have yet to even be combat tested or proved to even hit a moving target to the publics knowing. take it all with a grain of salt

@bluemarlin8138

Жыл бұрын

I’d like to see a stealthy version of the Block V Tomahawk (which is anti-ship capable) with a 1,300 nm range. It could fit in existing VLS launchers and would be more effective against modern air defenses. I’m not sure the JASSM’s range can be increased that much more without decreasing payload or severely restricting capacity. We can extend the range by a couple hundred miles just with aerial refueling and/or by launching them from F-35s in non-stealth mode. The Navy is working on a hypersonic missile that can be fired from a Super Hornet (maybe a HAWC variant?). But assuming all the targeting/guidance issues can be figured out, the USAF could have a potent anti-ship capability with the AGM-183. The Air Force is even working on a way to fire long range missiles from the back of C-17s and C-130s, which would be a great advancement. For air to air, the AIM-260 will massively increase fleet defense range. And the Meteor May be an option as well.

@likeorasgod

Жыл бұрын

We also forget about the whole reason there is a carrier group, they are there to protect and defend the carrier. Many of them having multi antimissile and sub systems. Than you go into cruise missile strike force to take out those missile batteries. How long did it take the allied joint task force to wipe out Iraq at the time 4th largest military in the world in the first gulf war? Two days pretty much and it was over for them. A country that was also battle harden, unlike China that hasn't been in anything major in how many years? China-India Skirmishes is about it and they got there arse handed to them by India troops in that area.

@bighands69

Жыл бұрын

Better to have the aircraft as well.

@TheLAGopher

Жыл бұрын

@@UniversalPlaysPage You are correct. The solution is a joint service strategy where USAF bombers,B-2's and B21 stealth bombers, and B52s and B-1s with standoff missiles,team up with F-15EXs,Navy P-8 Poseidon,martime patrol/strike planes, and air force,Navy and Marine Corps F-35s operating out of expeditionary airbases in the first island chain,with drone refueling support, and submarine launched cruise missiles,to threaten the Chinese missile batteries along their coastline and force them to be pulled inland. At the start of hostilities, the carrier borne Navy fighters would focus on being able to operate over Taiwan from far out at sea. Direct attacks on the Chinese mainland would have to come from standoff platforms such as bombers,Subs,ground forces firing from seized islands, and surface ships armed with long range missile systems.

Love the channel, Thank you.

Yes please do another video on this, it is an extremely important topic!

I like to think the F/A-XX design fundamentals will somewhat mimic the Super Tomcat 21. Based on the advantages of faster longer range travel and the ability to house multiple longe range weapon systems - of which is the goal of the F/A-XX program. Only more improved and modernised I imagine.

@williamzk9083

Жыл бұрын

It needs to be a large aircraft to hold stores and fuel internally. Everyone was warning that this was the achilies heal of the F-35 "all eggs in one basket" solution. F-35 range is so short it can't even be refueled without placing its tankers at risk. It's not just that it exposes aircraft carriers to risk. The aircraft may be fantastic in other ways but it can't do the job.

@kevinmccorkle7476

Жыл бұрын

Also the A-12. Dedicated, fast, long range, stealthy attack.

@bloodyspartan300

Жыл бұрын

Assuming the military can function after being vaxxxed and woke to death, leading to a exponential expansion of robotics and AI driven Military Hardware and Control.

@mittens4385

Жыл бұрын

You’re acting like the F-35 doesn’t have one of the longest ranges on internal fuel, lol

@airsrock2.053

Жыл бұрын

@@mittens4385 Looks like you need to have a chat with *William zk* above about that.

Awesome report as always but, as a former F-14 aviator, I patrolled distance plus weapons reach (Phoenix 90 mile reach) for fleet defending. We drank fuel sure but we were on station with refuel for long periods of time. If the future aircraft can add a Phoenix type weapon or be a drone platform, lightweight, refillable and throw in stealth coating, it could bust the 1k bubble. That is until the threat then exceeds 1k range, then all we are doing is playing catchup and then our carriers are no good anymore someday. I would enjoy seeing what you have on the FA-XX program in a future video. Thanks

@Holler_Rat

Жыл бұрын

Is that Phoenix data still classified?

@briancclevenger

Жыл бұрын

@@Holler_Rat I believe so, otherwise our enemies would be building them and using them against us. Such a waste of research dollars and not keeping it in the arsenal.

@LaikaTheG

Жыл бұрын

I’ve said this in other reply sections but the Super Hornet actually burns the same amount of fuel as the super cruise capable engines on the AST21. Like idk what Boeing was thinking when they decided to use those engines but whoever decided that needs to be fired. So I think the fuel burn rate on the old Tomcats looks pretty nice when you put that into perspective considering you have twice the thrust capability when comparing even the old engines before the A+ upgrade plus the added internal fuel storage

@briancclevenger

Жыл бұрын

@@LaikaTheG My F-14 was amazing on fuel usage after the Pratt and Whitneys were replaced with the GE's. I flew longer before tanker and the HUD didn't vibrate anymore. I would think any designs would be an improvement, but sometimes it the ole "one step forward, 2 steps back" thing. When I left they were adding more punch to the Tomcat, making it into a Bombcat.

@LaikaTheG

Жыл бұрын

@@briancclevenger Well they went even further after that too. That successfully added amramms but just didn’t bring them into service with the tomcat and then the tpod. Plus I think Grumman said they were able to fix many of the maintenance issues and fixed the maintenance panels. They also upped the alpha it could pull by getting rid of some stuff like the glove vanes.

Great video as always, and we definitely need another video about the FA-XX.

outstanding analysis. Thank you.

We didn't have these distance issues back in the days of the F-14 and A-6. -- VA-115 Eagles, USS Midway 1986-1989. No F-14's on CV-41 but our KA-6D tanker's kept those first gen F/A-18's flying longer than they normally would otherwise.

@bloodyspartan300

Жыл бұрын

@@stymie09Yes but he had help from corrupt weaklings and useful idiots.

@AA-xo9uw

Жыл бұрын

@@stymie09 The fate of the A-6 was sealed before Cheney became SecDef. Lehman - an Intruder BN no less - and NAVAIR ensured that when they put all of their eggs in the A-12 basket. Cheney simply lit the candle on the already baked/iced cake.

@georgegu3374

Жыл бұрын

that's because u.s. never faced air supremcy issue before. the role of highly centralized platform like carriers will be drastically changed in fights between peer opponents

@Clean97gti

Жыл бұрын

It's very telling that the A6 variants lasted as long as they did. The KA-6D and the EA-6B Prowler will still outlast the Hornet variants that replaced them. More range and/or loiter time. It's funny that the second the Hornets landed on carriers, they immediately became the limiting factor in flight operations because they had no legs. Navy tried to get everything in one package with the F/A-18 and tried again with the F-35. Maybe they'll get the hint that its not gonna work out so well, especially since the Hornet came of age when China didn't have a real blue water navy. Now they do and they are flexing it out.

@FLMKane

Жыл бұрын

@@georgegu3374 uhhh... Not since Vietnam. The us never achieved air superiority back then

The USN does need a new long range air superiority carrier interceptor that was the F-14's role as a fleet defender.

@dongately2817

Жыл бұрын

A lot of the F-14’s ability was due to it carrying the Phoenix missile system. He gives a lot of data on systems here but mentions tactics very little. A marginal weapon properly deployed beats a more “state of the art” system that is not used to effect every time - see WW2 Germany for reference.

@nexpro6118

Жыл бұрын

Strategically, it's usually best to have a mixture of different capabilities of aircraft for an air/ground war. The fighters that jam enemy radars and signals fly behind the squadron of Stealth fighters and the Stealth fighters transfer target data to the Gen 4 fighters that carry way more munitions to launch at targets from a safer distance behind the Stealth fighters. Using all of the different capabilities of all types of aircraft in the correct way, is usually always the better option. What gets me is, a lot of people think the word, "detection" means that is the distance the ground system can lock on and stay locked on and fire at the aircraft with a high probability of a hit....nope! Lol detection is just that....detection....russias S400 system can detect 200 plus miles away, but....can only accurately track and lock and keep lock on the US Stealth aircraft and then launch with a high probability of a hit at just 20 miles and closer. US Stealth aircraft can launch anti radiation missiles/bombs at the ground defense systems long before 20 miles. The only real asset of the S400 system detecting Stealth aircraft at 200 plus miles is to alert the enemy aircraft to intercept, hopefully before the US aircraft launches its missiles/bombs. I mean.....too many people with zero training and zero experience and have done zero research always love to at their 2 cents of "knowledge" on a topic they think they know anything about, because they saw Top Gun or some other movie lol.

@dongately2817

Жыл бұрын

@@nexpro6118 You mean Top Gun wasn’t a documentary?

@TamagoHead

Жыл бұрын

😂🤣

@nexpro6118

Жыл бұрын

@@dongately2817 wait....it wasn't? Lol

Great explanations and great job. Thanks Alex.

Great discussion video. Well organized and fascinating. Thanks.

Considering how large the distance becomes if you can reach over 1500 km from your carrier, as was briefly alluded in this video, being able to find the target really becomes the most important point. Weapon ranges themselves after all can always be extended further, we can fling 20 tons in to low earth orbit for under a 100 million dollars, even if you don't recover the rocket. This tells us that in principle even the ports themselves can be shot at if some one was determined enough to try. But no matter your range, if you can't manage to target the opponent and then still have enough weapons left to get through their missile defense array, then it's ultimately a failure. Which means hindering your carrier to be found in those vast areas of the ocean will become even more important, just as active intercept systems for when it briefly is found, so as to gain time to become lost again.

@jtjames79

Жыл бұрын

Elon said he is cool with Space Marines on Starship. A militarized Starship could lay down crazy accurate artillery. If they go back and give Dragon the ability to do powered landings back, you can put boots on the ground seconds after the artillery hits. The artillery would also serve to shield the Dragons from anti-air fire. Marines could even do a Halo jump from the capsule. It's about time we replace the parachute also. I'm thinking something like a backpack quadcopter. It doesn't need to fly, just stop you before you hit the ground, so the battery can be tiny. Probably just use super capacitors, and those can be charged on the way down using the rotors as generators, same way regenerative braking works. By adjusting the amount of generation and feathering you could get a decent "glide ratio" compared to normal free fall, more like a wingsuit. Could drop robots the same way, lots of militarized robot options these days.

@doggo_woo

Жыл бұрын

@@jtjames79 Artillery on starship? I am fairly sure that would go against the Outer Space Treaty. Otherwise, weapons in space would be possible already. With your parachute idea, you left out one main thing: Weight. A soldier is not the same weight as an average human. They have to carry equipment, sometimes weighing nearly 30-40 KGs, or even more.

@jtjames79

Жыл бұрын

@@doggo_woo I'm aware of the weight. My step dad was a PJ. I also know parachutes aren't very light either, and super unreliable. I just overly simplified how I would actually design it, for the sake of brevity. They already exist, some French dude was flying around on one like Green Goblin. Same kind of concept but a backpack with fly by wire, AI control. It's Marines we are talking about so it has to be idiot proof. No offense. Marines are just very good at breaking things. The Marine would use a augmented reality displayed pick a landing point and the backpack would do the work. That way the Marine could rootie tootie point and shooty on the way down. Because it's not really for flying just for stopping it needs a lot lot less hardware. To actually fly a human you either need a lot of motors or you need big ones otherwise they overheat. But if they only need to run for a few seconds you can use a very small motor way above it's normal rating. Less motors less weight. Less weight less batteries. Less battery weight means you can use even lighter motors etc. The military has severely underutilized multirotor technology. If you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a ball, the multirotor parachute replacement should have come before the flying suit/board/seat/whatever. It's actually a lot easier. By "artillery" I mean iron rods, with a little PICA-X painted on them. The trick is to drop them very accurately. I'm also convinced space has already been militarized. Everyone is just pretending to abide by the treaty.

@snsproduc

Жыл бұрын

if they're hitting ground targets that can be targeted with satellites. Than yes you can use the full range of the JASSM ER that is shot out of a F-18 super hornet at the end of its range. I don't know what missile defense system has the range of the JASSM ER, where you could just shoot it before you get into the missile defenses range. Also the Tomahawk with a range of 1550 miles can do this with easy (on ground targets/ maybe maybe ships with the new block 5). A destroyer could risk going into the Chinese anti ship missile range and we have a lot of those.

@doggo_woo

Жыл бұрын

@@snsproduc Also, JASSM-ER missiles try to stay below enemy radar, so unless you have your radar actively looking for a JASSM-ER heading for you, you'll be in for a bad time.

As a boat builder I worked with guys who had been on carrier projects. They said that that when they went out for sea trials they turned off the speed read out once they crossed 50 knots but were still accelerating.

@Dr.Westside

Жыл бұрын

Anything past 35 knots is considered classified . That's why the top speed say 35+ knots . I don't know if it's more impressive that the carrier can keep up with a fast attack submarine or if it's more impressive that the fast attack submarine can keep up with the carrier .

@robertbates6057

Жыл бұрын

@@Dr.Westside Anything THAT big moving that fast is freaky.

@richarda996

Жыл бұрын

The lack of knowledge makes any opposition to guess. Otherwise they would know the operation area and could place minefields, subs or missiles at the best time for Maximum damage.

More on the XX please! Thanks for the good work.

Yes, Please do another update on the FA XX!

The have added pilotless stealth tankers to their profile. The tanker can loiter just out of radar range so the F35's can tank up on the way in and on the way back. At least doubling it's range. Expect in war for the tankers to be guarded with pilotless fighters for protection too.

@mkyhou1160

Жыл бұрын

That’s exactly it, it makes a lot more sense to put the fuel tanks on a drone than to make a compromised and heavy long range interceptor.

@ridgefieldjohn9041

Жыл бұрын

If the tanker has to refuel the strike fighter on the way to target plus refuel defensive fighters plus supply its own fuel needs that's a lot of fuel! How many per carrier would be required? Each one would replace a strike fighter.

@AA-xo9uw

Жыл бұрын

The MQ-25 has yet to launch from or trap on the boat. Let's wait and see how it performs when it finally embarks operationally aboard TR in 2026 before we start putting that tick mark in the asset ledger.

USN: So guys, now that we've ditched the Tomcat for the Hornet, we've come to realize, we need something with massive range, high speed, stealth, and precision multirole capability. Grumman and the Tomcat 21 iterations: Are we a joke to you?

@piotrd.4850

Жыл бұрын

Or NATF....

@bigbigmurphy

Жыл бұрын

Blame the ATA program failure. It burnt everyone.

@cb2000a

Жыл бұрын

A stealth fighter with supercruise. It sounds like they are describing an updated Tomcat.

@verdebusterAP

Жыл бұрын

Yes you are The F-18 was still the right decision Just as the F-14 went as far as it could, the F-18 has reached its peak and its time for it to be replaced

@Fng_1975

Жыл бұрын

@@verdebusterAP No it wasn’t. The Navy had a choice; either the new Sup Bug or a new Sup 21 Tomcat. The Navy admiralty never liked the F-14 because they argued that it took money away from their budget for more ships. Hence why the Navy refused to finish the development for the engine that was originally designed for the 14, and instead kept the TF30 which was only meant to be used during the test and evaluation portion of the airframe’s development until the the new engines were ready. The Navy also concluded that it was cheaper to lose F-14s and their crews to engine related accidents, as a cheaper alternative to newer engines. Which is discussed in the book “Fall from Glory: The Men Who Sank the U.S. Navy.” The Admirals were even hesitant to tryout and purchase the new GE engines even after the USAF did all of the heavy lifting on that project. Why, because the admirals hated the F-14. Most of the Admirals were surface ships or sub commanders and they despised naval aviators for superficial reasons. Very rarely did a aviator become an Admiral back then. Refer back to the book for context on this battle of wills within the Navy between aviators and ship commanders. The Sup 21 Tomcats were new builds with all of the fly by wire, advance avionics, sensors, ECM, increased payloads and range. The Sup Bug choice was political and not based on capabilities. Dick Cheney, for reasons that we can only speculate on, hated Grumman when he was SECDEF and made sure that the 14s were quickly retired, when he become Vice President. I refer to Ward Carroll’s (retired F-14 RIO) channel for context on this subject. The pilots knew they were getting hosed, but the Admirals didn’t care, and the politicians were getting paid. Aka, Randy Duke Cunningham who advocated for the Sup Bug over the Sup 21 Tomcat. Btw, he went to jail for receiving bribes from defense contractors. Regardless, the Navy brass chose wrong, and now they are paying the price of that decision. The airframes they have know, to include the SH, lack range and payload capacity needed for long range fleet defense and long range interdiction/strike missions, which they lost when the 14 was retired. Even the Sandboxx creator discussed on one of his videos how a retired senior Navy pilot sent him a completed Naval report on how the Navy made a bad choice.

Hey Marine... Thank you... great information and quite a mind boggler when trying to obtain the "1,000 mile" mission range...going forward for the new replacement...Just spitballing here...single engine means smaller, lighter and with the newest engine you talked about may or may not give the desired perimeters..i'm a fan of lighter, faster better performance, but that may not work for range, speed and munitions capability... yeah...go ahead and dive deeper... AD-3, HC-1 1974-1978

I love your channel!! Thank you!!

Important to keep in mind that the grip of the fighter mafia has waned, probably in large part thanks to the overwhelming success of the missiles that they were such skeptics of, so pure dogfighting is no longer being uncompromisingly pushed as a requirement allowing other priorities to be emphasized.

@lophilip

Жыл бұрын

I agree. Looking at this new FA-XX program, this plane is going to be similar to an interceptor: fast and long range, but not very maneuverable.

@the11382

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, missiles will be good enough to hit a carrier anywhere around the globe. I think range is the wrong tradeoff.

What happened to the simple idea of having medium sized aircraft? The US Navy had Skywarriors and Vigilantes that were larger and longer ranged. Both had ranges of around 2000 miles.

@professinalweeabootrash5254

Жыл бұрын

Maintenance to flight hour ratio, most likely. It’s what had a hand in sundowning the f-14, along with foreign sales

Great video. You've done all the research I need for a book I'm working on.

😮Very informative and helpful to the lay man and the military personnel. I like watching the program everyday.

I'm just some random dude on the internet, however, it seems to me that the most possible short term fix would be to improve the tanker/drone piece of the equation to give the other components time to achieve fruition.

As usual, an absolutely outstanding analysis that is lucid, easy to follow and well-considered. And one gets the point completely about how essential an F/A-XX may be to assuring carrier survival, w/it's prospective combat radius of 1k mi. But as pointed out here, the current maximum range of Chinese anti-ship missiles is 1800 mi. It doesn't seem improbable that by the time the US finally brings an F/A--XX to IOC-- an event that is no doubt still many years away-- the Chinese will have had ample time to refine any terminal guidance issues so as to be able to reliably hit targets well-beyond the 1k operating envelope of the F/A-XX. Yes? In short, it is difficult to share in the sense of hopeful optimism seen here. Another issue one wishes might be discussed on the question of carrier ability to survive on the modern battlefield is this: what is the efficacy of cavitating torpedoes? Little attention to those is seen in open media, so whether or to what extent they are a genuine challenge is unknown, but one is forced to wonder.

@TzunSu

Жыл бұрын

Cavitating torpedoes is a meme, they have massive guidance and targeting issues, turn for absolute shit, and are only somewhat effective with nuclear warheads.

@jonathanpfeffer3716

Жыл бұрын

The fighter might have a 1k mile range, but a stand-off weapon fired from it will have a much longer range when fired at the edge of its operational envelope. Improved terminal guidance isn’t relevant when taking about extreme range missile shots. The difficult part there is mid course guidance.

I would absolutely like to hear more about the FA-XX So true that the Air Force always gets 1st pick at whatever they want and the Navy and marines are always having to share what's left over. That's happened in many cases. I would really love to hear more about it. Pros and the cons. Definitely loved and appreciated the truth of it all 🕊️

@zaco-km3su

6 ай бұрын

The Navy always gets what it wants. Don't lie. If they want a fighter, they will get it. The Marine Corps does often get rejected equipment.

@RagsDCS

6 ай бұрын

@@zaco-km3su Just like they were going to get the f-15 but you add 20k lbs to the landing gear there goes 2 pylons. Laser on another there's only 3 left. The USAF f-15 is not suitable for the salt water environment. The f-15 requires 2 bags of fuel at all times, sometimes 3. The Navy never gets everything that it wants. The restrictions on a carrier and a marine attack ship minimizes its ability to acquire the things that it wants. I do love the f-18 C legacy hornet. But even so nowhere near the F-14. They took a competition that lost out to the F-16 out of the warehouse revamped it. No worries fast but the logistics are better. Much better. They don't get first round. The USAF always gets first round. Being privy to some of the issues and understanding that the USN requires very expensive internal parts to withstand the weather ie the salt air that destroys everything. Very expensive. I don't understand where you come up that the navy gets whatever it wants. The Black ops gets everything. It wants all the new toys for the STs. But that's about it. We go in and fight with what we got. TIA

@zaco-km3su

6 ай бұрын

@@RagsDCS Stop lying, they never were going to get the F-15. That's why they had the F-14. The navy ALWAYS GETS WHAT IT WANTS. The US navy gets first round. Look up when the F-14 entered service. Nice try, you fail. The F-18 was developed because the F-16 had just 1 engine. The navy bought the F-18 because they saw what the US Air Force did with the F-16 and wanted their own multi-role fighter.

@RagsDCS

6 ай бұрын

@@zaco-km3su Yes they got the F-14 with awesome engines after the A model when they worked out the bugs. They got the wings sweep as they wanted for the purpose of interception. Then Congress ! And the DOD was not cost efficient ! As far as maintenance and maintaining it in theater. After that they pulled out the cobra. Did the mods on it called it the hornet. The TWR between the F-14 and the Hornet took a 50% hit. Since the F-14 well let me put it this way. To cut out all of the unnecessary argumentative discussions. They come up with the JSF. No matter what it is that was picked it would be it. Last that I seen I believe was only 50 or 60% at readiness. I have no reason to lie. Though to be true I am biased for the Navy without doubt. Skunkworks is primarily for the USAF and NASA included. You cannot deny that. They had come up with a totally new integrated model of the super tomcat. That would be easier to maintain and all hands were on deck to verify. They even came up with a stealth model. They got stuck with the Cobra / Hornet, now they have the super hornet of course which got no more TWR than the legacy. Due to the weight and size? They got no more distance. All they got out of that was 2 more pylons. The black budget the majority of it goes into ? All the agencies put in but they feel that they need then behind closed doors are decided. They decide what the current status is, then from that point, who can make the greatest argument? Maybe got the super hornet which was no difference than the legacy C model. Not happy with the f-35 single engine being over the ocean to have a backup. Get all back on deck. There are no norms to decide what we're talking about other than the fact that the USAF is always in the forefront of the competitions. THAT IS FACT

@zaco-km3su

6 ай бұрын

@@RagsDCS A lot of bs. Nice try. The USAF is NOT at the forefront of ANY COMPETITION. What is you wrote IS FICTION. You consider fiction fact. You have issues. You have plenty of reasons to lie. The Navy gets what it wants. They don't have to wait for the air force to get it. Get over it. You're wrong. You have PLENTY of reasons to lie. Nice try.

New engines for the F35 and F18 would partially negate the range problem. 15-20% is doable given current state of the art. The navy also needs to work on the defensive side. There is plenty of room in VLS cells for ESSM block II to gain a booster( about half the length of the VLS cell infact ) to drastically increase range. Since the ESSM block II is self guided ( it uses the latest AMRAAM radar/seeker) that would extend its range by 40 to 60% roughly. That's ~ into the 70mile range. Altitude capability would extend it usability into terminal SRBM defense.......and all in a package able to be quad packed in a VLS cell. It would be perfect for frigates like the FFG(x) and allied nations frigates given their more limited VLS cell counts.

Maintenance was the biggest headache when I was in the Navy. Getting parts ordered for my sub was a pain sometimes. The older boats from the 60’s at the time I was in during the early 90’s was even worse.

@hillbilly4895

Жыл бұрын

We can get you the parts...any parts. The problem is all the crap between us and your bin.

@pauljs75

Жыл бұрын

Validation was one of the issues. You could have 10 different part numbers from over a dozen manufacturers, QC to the same effective spec, just happened to be put into different applications. Yet they're all something like the same damn exact same hand operated globe valve. I remember having fun combing through stuff and getting things either standardized either to one common spec or at least having a proper cross-references designated to allow for interchangeability. (Issue isn't always parts availability, but making sure there was a common standard. Could have bins full of the part needed, but the approval system was the thing that needed sorting out before supply would issue it out.) Happened to be the prototype of nuclear carriers (I'm sure you know which), so there was definitely the fair share of shipalts and stuff like that to sort through too.

@hillbilly4895

Жыл бұрын

@@pauljs75 My view is it comes down to accountability in the event of a failure...no one wants it. Whether it's the design, the actual part/system, installation or even use. And no, I don't have a better alternative to the system in place other than taking accountability for it all myself.

SO glad the Navy is going with their own F/A-XX program as opposed to joining the Air Force's NGAD program. The Navy and the Air Force have vastly different needs and you can just see the F-35 as an example of what happens when you try to make a one size fits all fighter; you end up with a fighter that's "ok" for everyone and "great" for no one. Looking forward to seeing the son of Tomcat out there lol.

@kameronjones7139

Жыл бұрын

The f35 still outclass anything the air force or navy has so it is definitely more than just "ok"

@33moneyball

Жыл бұрын

Yep…the 35 will ultimately prove to be an excellent plane but you get the best stuff when the two services are allowed to design separate jets based on their own criteria. Like the F-15 and F-14….two legendary platforms built in large numbers for decades.

@Yorkington

Жыл бұрын

The F-35 is significantly better than ''ok" lol

@Llyrin

Жыл бұрын

@@kameronjones7139 I disagree. Only the USAF has the F-22, and that fighter outclasses anything in the entire world.

@GowthamNatarajanAI

Жыл бұрын

@@Llyrin F22 is an air superioty fighter. F35 is multi-role. Among multi-rile F35 is the best.

Yes please! Do an in-depth video on the FA-XX

Wow . Whew . That was a lot to process . Great Video .

Amazing coverage as always👏 The X37 has good range. Its unarmed.. But I wonder what it could be arming?

Thanks Alex, I really appreciated that summary. I would be very interested in the mechanics of planning an offensive mission with in-air refueling, approach and route planning, etc. Looking at the complexity of the Black Buck missions to the Falklands it would be interesting to understand how much things have changed and developed in the last 40 years.

@phantomechelon3628

Жыл бұрын

The logistics of the Black Buck missions were just crazy! Even more so when you remember some of the aircraft had to be pulled out of mothballs and upgraded specifically for those missions.

@jackw467

10 ай бұрын

@pault1289 .. yes.. and the people trying to kill us would be very interested in our approach and route planning, etc.

Been thinking for awhile the Navy needs a long range air superiority and fleet defense air craft with limited air to surface/ground capabilities. I would go twin engine, and to be honest, I would go with that newer engine the AX-100 I do believe it is. (Consequently I would adopt it for the F-35 as well. Making all fighters on a carrier using the same engine simplifies logistics. The F-15 & F-16 both use the same engine.) In the limited air to surface/ground, if it only uses the Jassm ER and LRASM, that is perfectly fine. Preferably carrying the stores internally. There are a few other tweaks and ideas that could be added, however this could be a good starting point.

God I love your videos. It absolutely blows my mind that you don't have millions of subscribers yet.

As capable as the F/A-18 and F-35 are, the Navy really does need something to fill the roll the Super Tomcat would have.

@snsproduc

Жыл бұрын

F-15 and F-16 have the range that is required to break that thousand miles off Chinese cost. I wonder why we don't make a carrier version of one of them.

@SoloRenegade

Жыл бұрын

@@snsproduc to ruggedize them for carriers and add folding wings would require the effort of a clean sheet purpose built design.

@snsproduc

Жыл бұрын

@@SoloRenegade oh okay, thank you.

@linusa2996

Жыл бұрын

@@snsproduc The F/A-18E is the enlarged and extended range development of the YF-17 the competitor to the YF-16 which became the F-16C. Essentially the Navy is having to create a new, stealthy F-14. a stealth aircraft capable of speeds up to mach 2.5 but still able to land at 110knots. And no the F-22 can't land at 110 knots.

@khandimahn9687

Жыл бұрын

@@snsproduc Yes... with drop tanks. But what the Navy wants is a plane that has the range without tanks or needing refueling. Plus the Navy did evaluate the -15 and -16 back in the day... they chose the -14 and -18 for various reasons.

Carriers are the platform most vulnerable to hypersonics. The high efficacy and relative low cost of subsonic cruise missiles make it difficult to justify spending tens of millions or more on a single hypersonic weapon to deliver a conventional payload. However if you can truly threaten a 13 billion dollar carrier that houses billions worth of aircraft the cost becomes worth it.

@nexpro6118

Жыл бұрын

US has and continues to need a massive carrier fleet because without the US carrier fleet, the world trading will fall and cause chaos....its because the US carriers protects world trade through oceans, is why countries can trade and make the world economy go round and round. Without the US, the world economy will tank. It's juat historical fact....take 5 min and research it.

@ajr993

Жыл бұрын

Hypersonic missiles are very expensive. The most modern ones cost 100 million a pop. And remember when they get to the actual carrier they've slowed down considerably particularly if they need to maneuver since the aircraft carrier is moving so fast itself. You would need a swarm of hypersonic missiles with good targeting data to sink a carrier, and the carrier would never put itself in that situation. The carrier would know way out that there was a drone or something getting targeting information

@linusa2996

Жыл бұрын

@@ajr993 Not to mention that the carrier strike group has ECM available if hiding the group fails.

@thomaszhang3101

Жыл бұрын

@@ajr993 plasma screening will disappear at around Mach 8, meaning the warhead can be guided by its own sensor at that terminal speed and a maneuvering warhead at Mach 8 is still pretty fast.

@DragNetJoe

Жыл бұрын

Fixed targets are way more venerable than carriers. Kadena AFB (Okinawa) is a tad over 400 miles from China, and it doesn't move. Pretty much all of Japan and Korea are inside of 1000 miles.

Pretty amazing that they can get a ship that size to go 40 mph. Those thing are like a floating city. We can build some pretty cool stuff when we try.

In theory, they could make a link between drone refuelers with drones refuelling drones to extend their range + with important missions a drone is expendable because it has no crew so they can ditch it in the ocean without worrying about it having enough fuel for a return trip ( this also extends its range )

Interesting, very interesting actually. I would like to see more on this as well as information on applying existing technology used in the F22 and other systems to accomplishing the same goals. A simple example of this would be super cruse. Engine runs at cruising thrust compressed by a carbon nozzle focusing and even maybe vectoring the thrust achieving a higher speed and/or maneuvering. While using the normal fuel consumption.

Sandbox - Will this inevitably lead to UAV's on carriers performing the fighter/intercept role? Removing the pilot (person, ejection seat, cockpit instruments, environmental systems) from the vehicle frees up massive room for added fuel or weapons, not to mention improved aerodynamics or stealth.

@Justanotherconsumer

Жыл бұрын

Other thing drones can do is 9+g maneuvers. No squishy human.

@knoahbody69

Жыл бұрын

@@Justanotherconsumer I mean everyone knows that UAVs are the future.

More please. This is good stuff.

NGAD and FA/XX is going to have to be the size of something between the F-111 and F-15 for the reasons you mentioned, fuel capacity and weapons load. If we are looking for a stealthy refueling aircraft look no further than the B-2, instead of retiring it, give it a stealthy refueling system and convert the bomb bay into a fuel tank, that would give it a fuel load close to what a KC-135 is. They could be based in Guam, Okinawa and elsewhere in the Pacific.

So, between the world's two largest air forces (the US Air Force and the US Navy) both pursuing new _separate_ fighter programs, I guess we can agree that however competent the F-35 JSF may be, the "joint" portion of the concept was a failure.

@jamestimlin856

Жыл бұрын

Corporate welfare was the number 1 goal. Lives are expendable.

@mylesleggette7520

Жыл бұрын

Oh, a total failure. The Marines and all of those foreign customers really hate the F-35B, they're so upset that it provided a quantum leap forward for STOVL airpower. If only they were still using Harriers, at least that way they could stick with a non-stealth platform that's 40 years old.

@Justanotherconsumer

Жыл бұрын

The JSF is a strike fighter, it’s in the name. NGAD is probably not going to be “not a pound for air to ground” but it’s a different role. Fat Amy was never meant to be an air superiority platform, it’s just something that she can do reasonably well because of the level of tech involved.

@leechowning2712

Жыл бұрын

Ground attack like the strike fighter is much less specialized of a role. The Air Force is never going to spend the money and time to build the ridiculously overbuilt undercarriage that the Navy requires, nor will they build aircraft designed to nearly cross the Atlantic on their own. That's just not in their playbook. At the same time Air Force Air superiority Jets will have to include higher levels of stealth, greater ability to climb to intercept things like that. The Navy doesn't include the same need for interceptors because the number of targets are much smaller for them. Against the possible threat of a second Cold War the Air Force platforms are going to be upgrades to the f-15 eagle, while the Navy is more honestly needing a new generation of the tomcat.

@tmsmqwx

Жыл бұрын

History has repeatedly shown that joint USAF/USN aircraft programs are problematic, and yet for some reason we keep going back to that well. The potential cost savings are attractive to politicians, but military folks know it doesn't work.

I'm surprised that the navy isn't leaning more into the use of manned-unmanned teaming to reduce the weight of weapons on the main craft. I was under the impression most 6th gen fighters were looking to incorporate this into their designs and this would reduce the weight of the F/A-XX, decreasing size and increasing range. If the unmanned craft could be fit with the kinds of weapons the Navy is looking for, that seems like a good way ensuring increased range, I think

@luffirton

8 ай бұрын

I think your onto something, why not create UAVs with very long range that can carry the mentioned long range weapons. These UAVs wouldn’t have to be stealthy they are expendable in terms of cost and should be created as cheap as possible to do there job. They could then swarm the air space and go towards there target, send long range weapons and hopefully destroy the target. The F-35 and FA-18 could then stand back controlling or giving targeting information to the UAVs.

@Mournful3ch0

7 ай бұрын

@@luffirton Attritable aircraft are a good idea and seem to be the way the defense paradigm is shifting, but also consider that a deployed CVN has limited hangar bay space and might not be able to afford to keep losing airframes

Yes, please do some more on the FA-XX. Thanks 😊

Please do more content on F/A-XX! Ur videos are da best

Sounds like a next generation of F1-11. Super long range with massive payload capacity and the ability to fly very quickly at very low altitude.

@CharlesFosterMalloy

10 ай бұрын

Exactly. There was a carrier version that got scaled down into the Tomcat.

There is a BIG difference between full speed and flanking speed. I was stationed on board the USS Nimitz in the 90's, and can confirm that the flanking speed is, in fact, classified, and the average sailor (officers and enlisted) are not cleared to know what that is, but pretty sure we were going well over 35 knots at points...

So wise , Thank You.

More videos on this would always be great.

Maybe what they need more then a long-ranged large manned fighter is a long range drone that can do the same thing.

More faxx please!!! Also I have a question: what about an externally conforming stealth stand off munition? The idea is something that hugs the f35 to keep the stealth lines but detatches and does it’s whole pop out wings and long range ram jet. Standardized warhead bay could make it conventional or nuke. Think it could work?

Interesting Compelling Detailed With great delivery

It seems like it would always be easier to develop a longer range anti-ship missile than to develop a carrier-based aircraft that can strike a target from safe stand-off distance.

@peterkunka3031

Жыл бұрын

Yes and no. I feel like something the video is forgetting is that the Navy and US military in general have been developing point defense systems to deal with missiles for decades now. And considering that the videos online are possible the worst versions of said systems, they will be the more important aspect of carrier based operations. Said point defense systems tend to work well against long range missiles on set calcuable courses, but not F/A platform planes. So it's a series of trade offs. The US relies on its planes so much because 1 our long range missile systems tend to not be as useful against potential civilian saturated targets, and 2 the majority of them are an ocean away from potential targets. Instead we use F/A planes and drones to strike more accurately relatively speaking. They also provide more utility in that they support ground troops, target hard targets more easily, and can deliver a more cost efficient warhead. So we focus on two things tactically, 1 get our planes and carriers to have as big of an operating range as possible in order to minimize the threat of saturation attacks, and 2 develope incredibly advanced point defense systems that allow us to knock the missiles that do make it through out of the sky. Non of this is even considering the fact of stealth capable fighters coming into play allowing us even more strategic ability. Or the fact that we already have the 13 carrier fleets set up both logistically and materials wise. It would be an incredible waste not to keep advancing the capabilities of said fleets. China has taken an entirely different approach in its military meta strategy. They've invested heavily in land based defensive platforms. This makes them hard to hit but also gives them less force projection. The US is the opposite. A strong force projection force allows us to touch 99 percent of nations on the planet. The really stupid thing about this discussion is that none of it really matters. There's no chance the US ever tries to do anything to China other than flexing our muscles every once in a while. Both nations possessing nukes means any Flashpoint probably ends in mutually assured destruction. So our carrier fleets are more important in the proxy wars we have to deal with every decade or so.

A mach 3 capable stealth F-14 where the WSO operates drones with a VR headset. I could see that being a thing.

Great info. Let's hear more in-depth about the F/A-XX and the carrier vs. hypersonic missile.

That's a badass CGI representation of the f/axx concept

There's an interesting study from 1990 that talks about the possible need for a 215,000 ton Super Carrier in the future. So large because it would launch the same number of aircraft. However, they would each be individually larger. This required a larger aviation fuel storage on the carrier itself, larger deck and ability to land larger aircraft.

@Kriss_L

Жыл бұрын

With current technology, smaller carriers should be the Navy's future. It's too easy to hit one now and loose too much capability in one attack.

@jaredgarbo3679

Жыл бұрын

@@Kriss_L Or we could go full on Project Habbakuk so getting shot means nothing

@otm646

Жыл бұрын

Those technical and volume limitations are likely why you've seen the push since the late 2000s in the sea water to jet fuel tech.

@keirfarnum6811

Жыл бұрын

If we’re going to build a Super Carrier, I want it to fly dammit! MCU-style!

@CMDR_Hadion

Жыл бұрын

@@otm646 Huh, I thought that was BS at first, but that's actually a real emerging technology. Neat.

Love the FAXX content, NGAD gets a lot of attention but I’m interested in continuing to hear your thoughts on the FAXX as well

I would think you could design a smaller, perhaps sacrificial, fueling drone that would immediately mate up with the F-35C and B after launch. This is well outside detection range for land based strikes and would extend the range to stealthy MQ-25 refueling. After initial refueling, the drones either RTB or are jettisoned as sacrificial (perhaps recoverable) pods. But, of course, now you are dedicating a substantial portion of the space on the carrier to launching drones - or building more big deck amphibs to fulfill this role.

@haakoflo

Жыл бұрын

If there's a war near China, you can have the MQ-25 planes land on Taiwan or some Japanese island, and then go on operating from there, while the F-35's continue to fight from the carrier.

Awesome video!

It would seem that a new, more energetic, fuel mixture would solve some of these issues. If you can get more thrust (let's say 20-30% more thrust, for the sake of argument) from roughly the same weight in fuel then you've increased your range significantly. Now I'm no chemist, and I have no clue if that's even a viable option, but it just seems like that should be (and probably already is) looked into.

@bighands69

Жыл бұрын

Systems are already at maximum efficiency based on technology available

@jeffjessen3073

Жыл бұрын

might be able to, but then it likely becomes explosive/unstable in storage. all that jet-a is already a huge danger. Also bear in mind they use kerosene for rockets! energy density may not be that easy to upgrade.

We definitely want a video on the fa-xx. Would the avenger have been able to fill this roll had they fully developed and deployed it?

Outstanding presentation, my friend! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻 I would welcome another video devoted to this particular subject. Thank you and have a great week, my friend. 🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸

The likeliest threat are Kamakazi drones flying to an area at wavetop level to then pop up for a few seconds to pick a target. Drones have 2000 - 4000 mile ranges because they won’t be coming back home! They could also be launched off a civilian merchant ship which will play havoc with the Geneva convention and US military’s rules of engagement.

That F/A-XX @ 15:04 really does resemble the YF-23 Black Widow! This video really makes me wonder how much the F-21 Tomcat variant would have helped the current situation. The upcoming rotating detonation engines may be the missing ingredient for necessary carrier aircraft range.

@Clean97gti

Жыл бұрын

I think if the Tomcats were still in service, we'd see serious consideration for new build ASF-14s or AST-21s as possible upgrades to the F-14Ds. The USAF is doing something very similar with the F-15EX. They've realized the F-22 is too expensive and just isn't needed to counter most of the enemy fighter aircraft they're likely to encounter. The Tomcat has been retired for 16 years at this point and I believe most of them were stripped and scrapped. The only ones left are in Iran. The few F-14s in museums were permanently disabled.

People forget that range does not mean it can actually track a target and keep track of target at said distance. It can detect at that long distance, but detection does not mean track and target. Same with the anti air missiles of Russian S400 system. They can detect our Stealth aircraft at 200 miles but again, detect is not track and target.....US Stealth fighters are not made to be invisible....its made to make it to where it's harder for anti air missiles to track and target the aircraft. Could care less about detection. S400 system can detect at 200 plus miles but can't accurately track and target and shoot down with a high level of a hit until within 20 miles.....but that time, the US aircraft has launched its bombs and or missiles already.....

@snsproduc

Жыл бұрын

That's what I thought. The JASSM ER has a bigger range than the S-400 to fire upon it.

Also, do a video dedicated to the practicality of bringing back the To cat in the way the Eagle II was brought to production with modernization as a missile truck with massive range

Yes. Another video definitely. I need more.

QUESTION- I’m not an expert by any means when it comes to navy operational procedures but I thought the stingray was on the stealthier side of drones with the capability to refuel 4th and 5th gen platforms. So is it possible that the carriers would stay out of range and use these tactics until an enemy’s anti-ship capabilities are destroyed? Obviously you can’t destroy all of them but to significantly degrade their capability lowering the chances of being swarmed or saturated by enemy missiles? Is that a tactic that is possible for the near or short term? You might have even answered this because I’m only half way through the video. edit: HA I wasn’t far off lol

@nexpro6118

Жыл бұрын

US has and continues to need a massive carrier fleet because without the US carrier fleet, the world trading will fall and cause chaos....its because the US carriers protects world trade through oceans, is why countries can trade and make the world economy go round and round. Without the US, the world economy will tank. It's juat historical fact....take 5 min and research it. It's why the US cannot move away from having carriers

@lagrangewei

Жыл бұрын

each refuelling take like 10 minutes to perform, and they prevent you from travelling at your top speed, by the time you reach the enemy, the enemy's missile would have sunk the carrier, you have to ask yourself, is it a good trade, to lose a carrier for a destroyer. so there is no real way to use fighter to counter missiles, for the simple fact that missiles are way faster than fighter. it not really a range issue at all, it is a speed issue, and unless you can cap the destroyer before the missile hit your carrier, it pointless. to put the math on the table for the range discuss in the video, if the fighter doesn't need to refuel, and is already airborne, and can supercruise at mach 2, it would still take the fighter 30 minute to reach it target, a solid motor powered missile from the opposing destroyer to the carrier can make that distance in 18 minute. and of course you can't supercruise if you are refuelling. to understand the range of these missile, they are design to hit as far as guam. and if your carrier need to be further than guam to be safe, is there still a point to use a carrier at that range? also if you are using 4 refueller to support 1 fighter (it not a one way trip, they have to be refuel to return to the carrier), you are only going to have room for 1 squadron on the carrier. the rest of the deck would have to be occupied by refueller drone. does that even make sense? at this rate I will suggest you abandon the fighter altogether and just use the refuelling drone as suicide drone on the enemy. u will probably get the job done faster. =)

Imagine an aircraft with variable sweep wings ((to aid (lower) carrier landing speeds, increase theoretical range and decrease interception times)) long range, large payload, twin engine reliability, new (current, best tech) radar and day to day mission reliability. Say F-14 with stealth tech included. This ac will make f-18 and f-35 redundant overnight.

@jayrod9979

Жыл бұрын

Dick Cheney killed the Super Tomcat. I suppose Northrop Grumman did not bribe him enough. He favored Boeing for military jets...and we are still paying the consequences as Boeing has fallen from the once mighty engineer driven company to a mega corporation run by accountants dependent on bloated government contracts.

@siyz250

Жыл бұрын

@@jayrod9979 yep. From all I've been reading Grumman fell out with Congress and or visa versa. Politics ha 🙁 We need send videos like these to his inbox.

@jacobdewey2053

Жыл бұрын

Variable sweep wings are dead and have been for at least 20 years and would only compromise the stealth ability of the aircraft. This is without mentioning that variable sweep wings are inherently less reliable and more maintenance intensive than aircraft without them. The mechanism is also incredibly heavy and thus takes away from fuel and payload capacity. Yes, the F-14 had a large payload but it was also a massive aircraft compared to the F-18 and F-35 meaning you can't carry as many and the ones you do have are available less often to due maintenance requirements. The F-14 was never going to be a stealth aircraft and while it was a damn fine aircraft it is obsolete in the modern battlefield no matter how much you fanboys bitch about it

@blvckl0tcs750

Жыл бұрын

Never works happen because it's the expense. I also wouldn't say it's making the F-35 redundant. That jet is yet to be perfected.

If one thing is for certain, it seems that stealth in all forms will be the long run goal of any air platforms, as technology extends range, increases speed and maneuverability, decreases weight and size, etc. etc. It will all be about, can a weapon see you by any means.

Yes Please !!! The more knowledge you drop the better !!!!

Sounds like they need an Aardvark

I would enjoy hearing your take on the Space Force and Americas efforts to disrupt Chinese satellites (and vice versa) because so many weapons systems depend on satellites for targeting information.

@bryanbowling1857

Жыл бұрын

first rule of Space Force: you do not talk about what Space Force can do.

@garymccann2960

9 ай бұрын

The 300 kw lasers should be able to blind a satalight in low orbit. And I would not be surprised that they can produce 1 mw. China brags the US hides its true capabilities.

What about Skunkworks' fusion engine on the new Navy fighter?? That would seem to solve all the problems mentioned, if we can get the fusion engine to work. Also, sub-launched hypersonic or even subsonic missiles would probably be a first wave of missiles intended to take out DF launch platforms and storage bunkers...

YES Another video please

I'm really enjoying the channel, thank you. That said, you seem fixated on the DX-"ZF" threat. I can guarantee you that the US military complex has been on this for quite a long time. That system is extremely vulnerable, in the BOOST phase. For the vehicle launched to achieve its "design" attributes, namely maneuverable high Mach glide, it has to go into space, even if just briefly. The time needed for that is an eternity when compared to reentry. We have been working on a solution that problem for almost 2-decades. The solution is simple, shoot them down in the boost stage. Just a few Aegis capable destroyers off the coast of Japan could take care of that. That vulnerability is one of the reasons why the US hypersonic approach has been one of ramjet/scramjet air launched vehicles. With good reason because the more dangerous scenario is that China (or anyone for that matter) shooting a bunch of boosted vehicles into space all at the same time could be interpreted as a nuclear ballistic missile strike and trigger an immediate nuclear response. They are not dumb; they know that's a real possibility.

@chrisdoulou8149

Жыл бұрын

What’s to stop the Chinese from launching their first wave of AShBM from further inland with the purpose destroying the screening destroyers. All of these problems you mention are fairly obvious to you or I on a KZread comment feed so we can assume the Chinese took them into consideration as well. China isn’t North Korea, there’s only so close a surface action group can get to the Chinese coast before it gets overwhelmed by their more conventional anti ship missiles. We talk about the DF-21D and DF-26D and for good reason as they are revolutionary weapons, that said their YJ-18 and YJ-12 anti ship missiles are some of the worlds best and a gaggle of Arleigh Bourkes with their AEGIS systems powered up hunting for AShBM would provide no problem for the PLAAN to get a solid targeting fix and overwhelm their defences. Also no one does launch on warning anymore unless their target tracks show them heading either at your ICBM silos or your early warning radars. The risk is too high, as long as those two are not the targets you can sit back and wait till the first warheads impact, check for nuclear detonation and then retaliate at will.

@tiagodagostini

Жыл бұрын

The problem on that is that by definition the aegis cruisers must be way inside the range of anti ship missiles to be able to intercept them on the boost stage. That makes them the primary target in a conflict. They gain time for the carrier strike group, but it is not a magical armor that will keep the fleet safe forever. These missiles are way cheaper than cruisers and carriers. Soon china will have enough of them to brute force the cruisers away and target the carriers.

@FLMKane

Жыл бұрын

@@tiagodagostini that's true but it's also a 15 year old solution . It's possible to use other weapons systems to intercept ballistic missiles in the boost phase. Specifically, fighter launched anti orbital missiles are a possibility. All you'd have to do is have anti orbital missiles loaded onto patrolling aircraft, then nail the launch window for successful interception. You might even be able to put the interceptor warhead into indefinite loiter in low earth orbit

@tiagodagostini

Жыл бұрын

@@FLMKane Not easy at all to do your last that for a lot of issues. A missile with payload and guiding systems and DV enough to intercept an ICBM is heavy. to put it in orbit is like putting a whole Apollo 11 or more in orbit. Second ICBM use very low suborbital paths, that means you cannot use a high orbit interceptor (nto even dream about a geostationary. That means you would need to create a network as dense or DENSER than the GPS network, but of much much heavier satellites) That is economically unfeasible. The patrol aircraft is more feasible but it is still absurdly costly to keep a constant cap of at least 1, possibly 2 planes for every enemy launcher always in flight. Might work on NK level of threats, but nothing larger than that, and not even dream of something like Russia.

These are all valid points. If Peter Zeihan’s lastest book if even a little bit right, the US simply cuts off the energy supply at a place of their choosing and the West stops buying / doing business, hitting their economy.

Yes! More!

the other problem I see, is the phase out of the ships with higher cell launcher count for smaller ship with fewer launchers. Thus it might be easier to saturate the air defense? Thus it is even more important to try to stay out of easy strike range of enemy.

YES, I want another video about the f/a xx! We basically need the equivalent of a 21st century p51 mustang for speed, crossed with a 21st century b29 for range and load. The future is going to be interesting!

Is there any hopes they actually give the ASF 21 or the modded version ASF22 (Tomcat with some shapes of the F22) a go? The Tomcat was way superior to the Hornet in every way and had a longer range, also thinking making a parallel of huge weapon platform (Phoenix) and the fleet defense need once more, I hope some admirals are thinking about the Tomcat and what it could bring to the future. I know it’s a simulator, but in the right hands the F-14 is still very capable in DCS against a range of newer fighters. That has to mean something.

@cwf_media9200

6 ай бұрын

No

Excellent!

Excellent would like more 😊

Yeah, as much as you’ve got on this subject will be watched. It seems to me though that a Standard Missile modification to take on hypersonics should also be a priority. When the hypersonic is fast enough to generate a radar obscuring plasma wave, it’s also generating a lot of heat. Adding an IR seeker and more maneuverability to the SM could let it kill even a maneuvering hypersonic.

"US Navy fighters need a big boost in range." We had the Tomcat, which had more range than just about everything short of an actual tanker. The Tomcat 21 ASF would have had far better range yet. Besides which, it would have extended Tomcat's already superior payload capacity. Instead, we doubled down on the Hornet which already had inferior range. We all knew this was going to be a problem decades ago.

@knoahbody69

Жыл бұрын

One of the reasons the Tomcat was retired is Iran has a lot left over from the 70's. They even shredded the ones in storaage. Until those tomcats are accounted for, the tomcat is a liability.

@AA-xo9uw

Жыл бұрын

@@knoahbody69 "One of the reasons the Tomcat was retired is Iran has a lot left over from the 70's."(sic) The IRIAF Tomcats played no role in Cheney's idiotic decision to kill the F-14 in 1991.

@knoahbody69

Жыл бұрын

@@AA-xo9uw Whatever, negative doody. What did then? 🤔

Great video. If the navy wants range it'll need to be a drone platform. In addition, the platform may be designed to accept an integrated manned module, similar to how conforming fuel tanks work. Best of both worlds. Flexibility 👍👍

Slick vid keep it up 😉

Well a good way to fend off the DF-21D/26 is placing THAAD systems in ROC controlled territory. Penghu Island is perfect for THAAD deployment so that the U.S. could accurately intercept those ICBM's.

@touchme211

Жыл бұрын

China is gonna throw another temper tantrum 😂

@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle

Жыл бұрын

@@touchme211 "OH NO U.S. IS ADVANCING TO INVADE CHINA!!!" -Chinese Foreign Ministry Representative

@verdebusterAP

Жыл бұрын

Even better way is to smoke them with ARRW

@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle

Жыл бұрын

@@verdebusterAP wait that has the ability to do that

@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle

Жыл бұрын

@@verdebusterAP I thought that was an offensive weapon not a defensive weapon