Lockheed vs. Boeing: The Battle for the Skies in the NGAD Fighter Program
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 май 2024
- This year the Air Force will decide who will build their Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter. It comes down to Lockheed vs. Boeing - who will win? Watch the video to find out and comment below as to who you think will get the contract.
PilotPhotog Merch Store!
shop.pilotphotog.com
Join this channel to get access to perks: / @pilotphotog
OR
Support me on Patreon: / pilotphotog
Channel Members and Patrons get early access to videos, sneak previews, and other perks
Follow me on other social media:
📸 Instagram - / pilotphotog
📖Facebook - / pilotphotog
🎙 Podcast: pilotphotog.buzzsprout.com/
🐦Twitter - / pilotphotog
👾Twitch: / pilotphotog
Credits/Attributions:
"The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
Department of Defense
Northrop Grumman
Lockheed Martin
Boeing
Raytheon
Pratt & Whitney
General Electric
All animations are produced by me Tog and are property of this channel. Now you know!
If you actually read this far, comment Yellow 48!
Recent challenges: KC-46 Pegasus having all sorts of issues, 737 Max issues, Starliner space capsule issues.... Boeing has been a friggin mess ever since merging with McD.
x-32 had its issue meeting spec and was ugly.
Nope, DEI hiring is to blame!
McD burned their reputation, bought Boeing’s, then immediately started lighting matches. A tragedy.
No. They were a mess in the late 70's... when some moron ignored what Airbus was doing with the wide body A300, the trend towards twin jets .. and the increasingly larger high bypass tubojet engines. And the biggest of all screw ups ... with the 707, 727, 737 ... having the same size narow body fuselage .. whereas the 747 was the only large wide body Boeing had.
And in the late 70's ... the geniuses from Boeing ... decided to develop the 757 and 767 ... for the same long ran routes .. and the same pilot ratings... to replace the trijet 727 and compete with the trijet widebodies. The 757 ... has the same size fuselage as the 727 & 737 ... but tall landing gear for the larger more efficient high bypass turnbofan engines. Only the 767 .. should have be competing with the A300, and the wide body trijet. The 757 ... should have bene developed ... to replace the 737 ... as a small jet ... but with a slightly bigger fuselage, flybywire glass cockpit, and tall landing gear fo the the larger turbofan engines. So by 1988 when Airbus introduced the A320 ... Boeing should have had the 757 dominating the small jet market ... the 767 dominating the medium jet market .. and the 747 dominating the large jet market .. and .. had begun developing the 777 to replace the 747 by the year 2000.
So no. It was not in the late 90's when Boeing started to screw up. It goes way back to the late 70's when they were developing the 757 & 767 .. ignored the A300 .. and the trend towards twin jets ....with tall langind gear .. and large high bypass tubofan engines. And also the stick control flybywire with the F16.
I initially thought u meant they teamed up with McDonald's without douglas
Boeing really didn't design the F-15 of F/A-18. They just inherited them. I hope they don't pull another X-32.
Northrop Grumman designed F-18 right?
I liked the x32. Call it the guppy. :)😊
X-32 would have been a good aircraft, especially if the VTOL requirement were absent. NGAD is kind of the opposite of the JSF program, where it is aiming to do one thing (go really far, really quiet, really fast, carrying fast computers and fast missiles) as opposed to trying to appease three different use cases from three different branches, so I'm interested to see what a focused Boeing design will be, especially since all their renders look really unique. Even Lockheed struggled a lot with VTOL integration.
@@elijahprasad7884 for the most part, F18 is a derivative design of the F5
@@avd1697 no it is not 😳😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I can already tell that Lockheed is going to win.
You seem like an expert 😂
yes...BUT will it be "maintainer proof"!😜😜
What in the F22 was inferior to the Widowmaker are you referring to? 😂
Yeah, especially if Boeing brings back X-32 smiley design
They usually do even when simulations tell them the competitor offering is superior. ahem Blackwidow.
I wouldn't be surprised if one of them (Lockheed, or Boeing)gets the contract for the manned airframe, and the other gets the CCA contract. Another thing that wouldn't surprise me is that Lockheed probably already has a CCA derivative of the F-35 at the Skunk Works.
Probably go something like the JSF contract went. Even though Lockheed Martin's X-35 won over Boeing's X-32, Boeing still manufactures a large part of the F-35's fuselage. So they didn't come away totally empty handed. NGAD will probably be built from a conglomeration of all the main players building certain parts.
Given the current Boeing situation, I will be surprised to see them getting the manned airframe. Confidence is low against Boeing now. Having said that, Boeing already has the Ghost Bat with the Australian.
Boeing will supply it's Aussie built loyal wingman/ Ghost Bat , Lockheed will supply manned airframe and everyone will be happy accept the Russian's and Chinese
@@seifer918 With all due respect, I think all of this concern about Boeing is HYPER SHORTSIGHTED. Boeing has been at the forefront of aviation for so long that many forget how many wins they have in their column.
BEST WISHES.
@@ncrawford1488Boeing was essentially a passenger plane builder,it’s through the ownership of McDonnell Douglas that introduced it to fighter/bomber sphere.
The problem mentioned about Lockheed being the only company making USAF jets could be solved with what they did during WW2. The government licensed other companies to make parts or the vehicles/planes themselves at their own factories, speeding up production and diversifying the supply chain. Many WW2 weapon systems were built this way.
Oh, but that won’t pay off the right political contributors.
If you think this is only about technology, I’ve got a bridge you can lease…
@@Justanotherconsumer With the technology being licensed to other companies, the pork fat would be spread over more districts and more people would get rich off it instead of just one company.
@@swordmonkey6635 Lockheed has a well-greased pork barrel delivery machine.
Boeing is still building the F-15 for the USAF and has begun delivering the T-7A Retail trainer to the USAF.
your wrong, that would get even more cronies payed@@Justanotherconsumer
I hope they do an X-plane documentary like they did with the JSF program.
given the levels of secrecy, that might not happen for another 20yrs
@@SoloRenegade You’re exactly right. I don’t see that happening with NGAD. Technology has advanced too much. Put it on a non-controlled disk, and China will have it in hours… :(
@@SoloRenegade Not necessarily. They'll need to drum up support. Support = more tax dollars. We'll be seeing this thing easily within a decade, probably sooner.
@@johng.2321Less, next 6 years.
As long as it's a twin engine fighter, not just a single engine fighter
I'm pretty sure that whomever wins, the others will be given contracts to build components and maybe complete airframes. Everybody gets a slice of the pie on this one.
My understanding of the adaptive cycle engine is that is has less to do with afterburning vs non, but is an engine with a variable bypass ratio allowing relatively higher bypass for efficiency, and lower bypass when additional power is desired.
I think you mean less bypass for higher speed. Bypass can generate a lot of thrust at lower speeds but thrust is limited at higher speeds due to the reduced exhaust velocity.
@@JohnFrumFromAmerica Bingo!
Kinda sounds like the jet engine equivalent of a CVT transmission. I want a pulse detonation engine so we can have a hypersonic jet.
@brianawilk285 dual cycle jet engines such as Chimera are able to sustain Hypersonic speeds using of the shelve components at a far cheaper budget.
The following looks likely considering that the USAF has to achieve two major goals - develop a world beating NGAD system of systems, while at the same time diversifying its supply-base:
NGAD manned platform: Lockheed Martin
Engine for manned platform: GE
NGAD “loyal wingman”:
Boeing and some junior partners (like Anduril)
Avionics & C2:
Northrop Grumman and some junior partners (like Anduril)
Next generation air dominance NGAD. I dunno why he’s pronouncing like ngat
It would make the CCA program so much simpler if they just committed to the Boeing MQ-28 design as the "mid level" option
You forgot to mention the primary objective which price gouging the US tax payer and enriching their boards and bureaucracy with systems that will never find any use on the battle field. Just like F-22 and F-35, these aircrafts will fly, show off, run some training drills and never see actual combat before retirement.
Anduril will absolutely be involved here.
@@Aerrow62 it is a little weird to me to criticize defense companies for the fact that we haven’t been in a war, recently, that necessitated the use of our most advanced equipment. And frankly, if our capabilities are acting as a deterrent to prevent war with a near peer nation is that not part of the point? I don’t understand the argument here.
With the consolidation of defense primes, I think what will happen is NG will just do the B-21, Lockheed will do the NGAD, and Boeing will get the F/A- x/x
I agree, what I think will be really fought over is who gets to make those 1,000 CCA drones.
@@jacobbaumgardner3406 Agreed Boeing will bow out to Lockheed for NGAD to get a drone contract. Northrop Grumman with pump out the real F-14 replacement considering the B-21 program is actually on track, or at least compared to the B-2 when the were about to sell the F-23 (still think USA should green light selling that design to Germany and Japan considering the players in those regions). All the while orbit is the new high ground so all these folks are arguing over who will make the best battleship when we in a time where the carrier is king.
@@anydaynow01 I agree, though the YF-23 wouldn't be sold. It's too old and if they wanted a similar perofming airframe they'd just design it themselves. Airframes are not expensive, all the systems and their integration are. The aerdynamic design is good, but the materials science of a third of a century old design just wouldn't be up to date.
Lockheed will "blow the doors off" the Boeing.
I see what you did there. Well played, sir.
I feel like a fighter like this should be a two seater for the sole purpose of the WSO in the back controlling the drones rather than a sole pilot managing many different systems at once.
I believe that the secondary pilot will be a very advanced AI.
I actually just heard somewhere that one of the supposed designs did look like their might be a backseater or WSO! That would be cool, the pilot doing his thing and the WSO running the EW and weapons employment!
The issue with a two seater isn't so much of the workload for the pilot as computers can handle much of that. The real issue is "growing" a pilot, that's about a 24 year process. The services are experiencing difficulty in retaining pilots now.
@@thunder11757I've read that's the goal....but software is hard. If the AI thing doesn't work out as planned, having a human controller would be a good backup
The ‘USO’ will be either an AI built into the UCAV, or a human operator in a building on home soil. With satellite relays the operator doesn’t need to be in the same airspace.
I'm much more excited for the FAXX program.
I think it's going to be the spiritual successor to the F14.
And I have a feeling that Northrop and the YF23 are going to be heavily involved.
YF23 is handled by Japanese for future aircraft projects
@@fqeagles21 that's only speculated, not confirmed, and that doesn't mean anything for Northrop. It's still their aircraft. They can use whatever they want from it.
i kinda wonder if the Navy's focus will be more on stealth and range, not so much aerial maneuverability and air/to/air dominance. They have made such a big deal about needing long range to cover vast Pacific Ocean distances, perhaps something larger with more fuel/missile capacity is in order.
Agreed. I also think that the FAXX is going to have a more critical role in the struggle to control the skies in the Asia Pacific
@@deansmits006 that's why I'm betting the YF23 is involved. Northrop's history in naval aircraft plus the YF23's performance in categories you mentioned make it the perfect starting point for the FAXX.
It had comparable maneuverability at slow speeds and better at high speeds because of the V tail, more range, greater top speed, and better stealth than the F22. Using YF23 platform as an initial design then refining all of the traits that the Navy requires will be a nasty fighter.
This reminds me of the YF-22 vs YF-23 competition. I look forward to seeing the documentaries on it someday.
The YF-23 out flew the YF-22 but McD was not selected as their management style was known to be weak. McD had great engineers and workers but poor managers. I know, I was there for 42+ years.
Hmm… boeing does not have that tech capability to build though
Finally someone who can properly form the sentence of the title of their video.
Agree with the prediction
Thanks for spending the time to create and share this content 🤙🏾
Given the state of Boeing currently, they are the last company to whom I'd award a contract. It's not just the 737Max debacle. It's the 787 and 777 problems too, plus their NASA contracts for the Starliner are now 5 years behind schedule. If it's Boeing, I 'ain't going!
Throw the KC-46 project on the problem bonfire too. I'm not even sure Booeing can survive the decade consider how terrible their management is.
If Boeing wasn't such a dumpster fire (and provided they have a good design) they might have had an inside track to win the contract. Given the time/cost over-runs at LM and that they have plenty of work as it is, the air force may have been more inclined to go with Boeing. But since Boeing *is*, they are probably going to have to have an excellent design to have any chance.
🎯
Boeing does have a severe management issue, they tried to bring in assemblies from contractors and snap the aircraft together not realizing their name (Boeing) is on the side of the aircraft. Boeing needs to get back to "Engineering" their platforms.
They're building a nuclear powered spaceship that's impressive
Agree with you on the engine, GE, but I’m not sure DoD will have all fighters made by the same company (F-22,-35 ,NGAD)
Adaptive cycle sure, however it should also contain circular pulse detonation wave after burners.
The other question is what will the stealth covering be: coatings or ceramics
Neither, it cloaks by bending light like the UFOs they've had for 80 years. 🤫
Finally! An aerial swarm platoon. The future is crazy!
Ace combat 7 is looking pretty realistic now.
"Lockheed has a perfect track record".
Dying of laughter when he said this.
In getting contracts, they’re doing great!
Just ask the Germans…
Also when they said legendary f22
@@amri3816 >> If no-one wants to fight it, it’s pretty legendary.
Lockheed invested in generals and congressmen better than anybody
Boing has problems with keeping the doors on their passenger jets. That would make DOD question their quality control.
I don't think they're making passenger/commercial air liners at the same factory and to the same level to detail as military aircraft, completely separate parts of the company. Not trying to root for boeing here, just stating facts. Yeah it's not good PR, but the same production issues wouldn't be found in something meant for military service, civilian aircraft have less scrutiny than military aircraft.
@@nicholaspowers4901 I don't know if the refueling planes for the military are built with the commercial ones but they have had problems with them. The space division also has had massive setbacks/delays. I don't know if it's a culture thing throughout the whole company but it doesn't look good, that's for sure.
That's because of DEI
Diversity and anti white programs caused those
Just dumb.
It's crazy how much money is at stake for arms developers!
Yeah, can't wait to see what Northrop Grumman comes out with for a new air supremacy fighter "Cat" for the Navy (Blackcat, Lioncat, Bearcat II, Alleycat!). The F-35 is nice but they need a true F-14 replacement, the Super Hornet is extremely capable but they need a dual engine long range fighter with stealth capabilities badly.
@@anydaynow01two engines isn’t really needed these days, the early jet engines were unreliable and redundancy was necessary for safety.
The F-14’s role was as a BVR interceptor focused on delivering the AIM-54 against threats to the carrier.
Given updates to missile technology and radar, it no longer takes a dedicated airframe to do that and the F-35C provides everything an F-14 successor would do for that role in the fleet.
Obviously an F-14 successor in the sense of a specific weapons system that requires a dedicated airframe could happen, likely some sort of directed energy weapon at this point but maybe as the first stage of a hypersonic something?
An F-14EX missile truck might be a consideration, though.
Especially since our government allows these compaines to bleed us dry.. we should be askimg why they are charging us 15k for a valve that costs may be 1k..
Great video and analysis
Thank you!
Why is the mockup always depicted in afterburner mode? The supercruse feature?
GR8 vid PP! Many thanx 👍👍.
Yellow 48.
I wonder which design you watchers like more? Lockheed or Boeing version from this video?
Boeing, that lockheed one is ugly XD
Boeing inherited "just good enough for government work" and maximizeng share price " management ethos from Mcdonell Douglas hopefully they can work to purge that since maximizing safety will also leed to increased share price as well.
Boeing
You watchers 😂
This is a very good analytical review of the strengths and weaknesses of each design and the corporation behind them. After 30 years in the defense and space industry I have watched many game changing contracts awarded to those with inferior design and less than stellar corporate business practice. After all is said and done, politics comes to play and sometimes the effectiveness of our national defense suffers for it. Great review.
You said Grumman is "working" on B-21 - but isn't it in service already? Or they're polishing it after entering production like we do with Su-57?
More speed, more range, more payload, thrust vectoring, and lower cost. Take both is option especially if they have their pros in stealth and agility like the F23 and F22 had.
I would be shocked if Lockheed got the Airframe contract. The US government is very concerned of over saturating a single company. They usually like to spread contracts out. Lockheed has the F35 which will be manufactured for decades. Boeing doesnt have anything like that. I suspect Boeing will get the main airframe and Lockheed will get the drone despite Boeings quality issues lately. I think you're right about the engines tho. GE seems to be in a better position rn.
I worked for the FAA for 32 years dealing with LOCKHEED (LMART) and a few other companies and I can assure you, the government has no problem whatsoever relying on a single company. LMART was there biggest contractor the entire time I worked there. I can't remember a year where LMART didn't have have a major project going with the FAA. I worked with some of the same LMART guys for 10 or 20 years. LMART always did a pretty damn good job. I wouldn't want to see Boeing get the contract.
@@mgcmail2002 unless it's a way to give Boeing a "bailout".
Lockheed Martin🇺🇸 vs Boeing🇺🇸 Let the Dual begin!
Glad to see the Navy⚓️🇺🇸 has its own thing going on. Separate from the Air Force
One thing that I want to ask: will all of this be too much for one pilot in one jet? They seem to want a lot from these aircraft and thus the pilot too, so I wonder if using single-seat fighters for these will even be feasible.
I've heard that NGAD is less a fighter and more like a armed, supersonic AWACS jet. So, wouldn't a twin-seater or multi-crew version be more accommodating for things like drone control or EW suites? I could be wrong on this but I think a multi-crew variant even as a separate aircraft would have some value.
I am just disappointed that Northrop dropped out to focus on the Navy F/A 18 replacement. They are the best at this stuff and effectively build the F/A18 and F-35
If Boeing comes with anything like its last stealth project, Lockheed is going to get another contract. 😂
The X32 was a Pelican, just a hot mess
or even some of their other planes lately example the max
X 32 should have been a wake up call that Boeing needed an intervention.
We need to remember that the X32 that we watched in the runoff was not the final design. They had already altered it significantly, but weren't able to bring the new upgrade to the table in time for the competition.
But it was indeed fuggly as heck, yet flew well according to test pilots.
@@elricofarmer1561 I view the X32 as a tech demonstrator, they got to test a lot of ideas with that prototype. Especially new manufacturing technology, with that one piece delta wing etc…
from your intro they should call the first 6th gen fighter the Highlander
That's actually a really badass name.
Your right they need to utilise the strengths of each company, to get the best outcome, no one company can do it all.
You are spot on!
I still think it’s VERY curious that the NGAD renderings we’ve seen over the last couple of years look so much like the 1980s Testors “F-19 Stealth Fighter” model kit. Just lost the vertical stabilizers and throw in a little YF-23 DNA and whaddya know??
If I’m reading the tea leaves correctly - LockMart will take the USAF NGAD contract and Northrop Grumman will be the Navy’s primary for NGAD. This has as much to do with program management and spreading defense contracts around as much as it does with the actual airplane design. Lockheed still has the F-35 and needs something new to keep their shareholders happy. NG is just starting to get the Raider line going…they can wait a little while before they “need” a new design to keep them going. Plus NG just has a MUCH better relationship with the Navy. Kelly Johnson’s distaste for the USN was legendary, and that kind of influence never completely goes away.
I'm guessing at some point they'll develop a much faster interceptor, which you would think is due with the NGAD or perhaps a spin off or further development will be.
I think it will rather be a question of who will get to build the maned system and who will build the unmaned system
practical part is that both should build it fly it test it and better one shuld continue with winning contract and production line oprating
Lockheed *should* win .
Lockheed has vastly more experience with stealth and connectivity, where as Boeing could not even get color screens for the KC-46's VS... Boeing *maaaybe* should get F/A-XX, but even then I hope NG wins.
With the last original thing they tried, they cut MANY corners... That's why the X-32 lost.
The best plane should win. Though honestly I would say that both should be used. Just imagine if we had both the F-22 and YF-23
The "Area 51 of Modern Aviation".....
Is the actual Area 51 🫥
I’m not sure the winner is necessarily the one that will build it. The design and production contracts are separate?
3:06
Commercial expertise = remembering to tighten all the bolts
The sick part is that Northrop (the real masters of stealth) are not even in the running. Given the endless graft of Lockheed I imagine they will get the contract.
I thing NG is just more focused on F/A-XX. Not to mention their B-21 load.
Northrup has the shoe in on the Navy FXAA program. They've always been better at Navy than Lockheed and Boeing...
@@mikekopack6441 yeah….. they had the shoe in on the STA21 program and the A12 till a few career lawyers got involved. Still there are reasons to be optimistic. Northrop and the flight deck are like peanut butter and jelly.
@@mikekopack6441you hit it right there,f18 was split into two,the navy version was built by Grumman and the airforce version by McDonnell Douglas,now owned by Boeing.
Grumman has been the Navy's goto for their air supremacy for a long time. NG lost out with the F-23 program on the technicality that the B-2 program was lagging, the Super Hornet was a "good enough" F-14 replacement, and LM was gaining a sizable foothold in the lobbyist space. All that being said the B-21 program is much better managed and on track so their next gen navy air supremacy fighter program is essentially green lit.
Lockheed should use some of that alien tech they supposedly have.
why you think we never got an SR72
@@NaturalPrimex Because it was never needed
@@RyTrapp0 but a new generation F35 is always needed
didn't they separate the phases: one co gets the design; a second gets manufacturing; a third gets sustainment. The concept of NGAD is relatively small fleet sizes that are superseded regularly as tech advances, rather than a design trying to survive 50 years, the build blocks of 200-300 aircraft every 10 years, with the oldest block being retired say every 30 years. The core electronics, radar, CCA, sensor fusion will be shared, etc. Did anyone else hear this or am I way off. (as for engine, I'd go with quarterhorse to get to Mach 5 ... but again, wishful thinking)
I think your analysis on who will win is correct. Even though I do like Boeings design a bit in the way that it looks to be able to turn faster. Then again, I'm not sure that's the key goal when you have the unmanned wingmans...
CCA fancy way to say missile truck
looks like future of ace combat 3 electrosphere futurisitc sci fi fighter jet.
Lockheed also has a proven track record of tightening bolts all the way and successfully using technology like blinking lights to indicate sensor failures rather than alerting the pilot by flying the plane directly into the ground.
I think you have your air frames mixed up. Lockheed sillouet has the tail sting and the more diamond shaped wing
I don't understand why the NGAD designs seem to ignore mounting the engine inlet above the wing vs below the wing. Even a shoulder mounted inlet would minimize the radar cross-section. I understand why mounting under the wing is helpful for maintenance, but stealth should be paramount! Maybe the designs presented here are not what we will get.
I think it has something to do with where the high and low pressure areas on the plane are during a turn.
@@cjmunnee3356 I guess having the inlets on top for stealth only makes sense for stealth BOMBERS not FIGHTERS. In a dogfight, the inlets could get blanked out in a turn and stall an engine.
@@cjmunnee3356 correct.
In a bank too much air pressure would be forces into the intake and stall the engine but it probably wouldn't be too bad to have a high and low variable intake.. balancing pressure.. mind you you'd have to redesign all other avionics around the manipulated air pressure. But I could see it having amazing stealth capabilities
Lockheed will eventually get the airframe for NGAD, Boeing will of course get the loyal wingman, while GE will get the engine. While Pratt &Whitney, and Northrop Grumman will get the navy version of the NGAD, or FA/XX.
I agree with you. The only change I’ll add is that Boeing won’t be the only company on the loyal wingman program. It will be Boeing and one of the many smaller companies developing medium size stealth UAVs.
With the video alone...I'm liking the boing design a lot more
First strike capability and ease of maintenance as well as multiple role abilities will be key in the future of this program. Granted unmanned combat drones accompanying a single manned fighter aircraft will be almost impossible to defend against even with advanced ground to air defense systems. If stealth is key, then invisibility will be the standard. Using adaptive camouflage is what will change and dominate the battlefields of the near future. Ground, air, and sea drone units will be cheap invaluable assets for soldiers and front line units.
Maverick (Top Gun Movie) : “It's Not The Plane, It's The Pilot.”
Or AI pilot....if your tesla car is driving itself today the military already had the tech at least for 50 yrs
@@jbloun911 but there must be malware in all of this, a sophisticated system, if there are military hackers like in the film Fast Furious, any vehicle can have a system error
@@edutaimentcartoys pilotless aircraft... most commercial flights use autopilot
the biggest issue i see in modern US aircraft, is the lack of total range. the F-35 has a range of only 1500mi. the SU-35 is 2200mi. the F-18 is 1,275mi. wile the Su-33 is 1900mi. and the Eurofighter is 1800mi. The new F-15EX has a total range of 1582mi. the F-22 just at 1800mi.
If the US is looking to tackle china or russia, then being able to actually GET there is the issue now.
From the northern main island most point of japan the the closest beach of russia, its about 100 miles. from the closes JASDF base to the nearest Russian base is 345mi. From US Kadena airbase in japan to closest russian base is 1,200~ish miles. thats outside of combat and return range.
China would be a bit easier, but if Mongolia complies, then it should be easier.
That’s exactly what both NGAD hope to achieve along with being able to hold bigger air to air missiles and more. I suspect these jets are going to be a lot larger than current US 5th generation aircraft.
The US has bases all over the world and uses the largest most technologically aircraft carriers on earth.
Fighters dont need to venture far from home 😉
@@jbloun911 the F-35C and B have smaller ranges than the F/A-18E/F. The F-22 having the logest range in US stock cant make the trip to the nearest russian air base from the nearest US airbase (located in japan).
The only way this would all work, is the US claimed sea dominance. Used aircraft from Japan and the super carriers to cover a landing force, to then construct an field airfield. or a FOAB.
But such a thing is highly avoided as russia is legally allowed to use nuclear weapons on their own soil in defense. or that matter, use nukes on their own warm waters.
The entirety of a US/Coalition/NATO strike on Russia or China will have to come from cruise missile saturation strikes.
No boots, no small aircraft.
But, a large cruise missile force is run by B-2s and B-52s, these forces are saved for use in deeper cruise missile strikes. where sea-born cruise missile strikes cant reach. or the new hypersonic artillery the US is developing.
These aircraft need escort.
You have the airframe mixed up. The Lockheed silhouette has the tail sting.
Impressive video. I also think Lockheed has the upper hand, but either proposal will be very impressive. I wonder if I'll still be alive when 7th gen is produced.
Well done Tog! Bravo Zulu!
Ok so I’m commenting before watching the video.
I have the feeling that when it comes time for manufacturing this might end up a joint project. Ok, now I’m going to watch.
I agree cooporaztion is key to stay in front!
Lockheed are so far ahead in things we don't know. For all we know they have saucers in their collection.
Actually Avro Canada did the flying saucer back in the 50's and 60's.
Probably time to revisit that actually - DFCS would solve a lot of the issues the prototypes had.
@@unknownuser069Canada 😅 they can't even make or invent their own rifle
Boeing has gutted top engineers from McDonald Douglas when they bought them out. Actually, the bean counters from Douglas took over and gutted the engineers from both Boeing Commercial and Douglas, so both sides now suck. Go Lockheed and this is from a St. Louis native who knows the NGAD could bring lots of jobs, but I want the best plane for our pilots.
This RUclips transcript provides an in-depth analysis of the upcoming decision by the U.S. Air Force regarding the construction of the new sixth-generation fighter jet, referred to as the "NGAD" (Next Generation Air Dominance) fighter. The competition for this contract has come down to two aerospace giants, Lockheed Martin and Boeing. The NGAD represents a significant advancement in fighter aircraft design, aiming to surpass the capabilities of the F-22 Raptor.
**Key Points Discussed:**
1. **The Competition**: Lockheed Martin and Boeing are the final contenders, with Northrop Grumman having withdrawn due to commitments to other military projects.
2. **Boeing's Prospects**: Boeing's strengths lie in their history of innovative designs, expertise in commercial aviation, and cost management. However, recent challenges like the 737 Max issue and less experience in stealth technology might work against them.
3. **Lockheed Martin's Prospects**: Known for their stealth technology expertise and proven track record with fifth-generation fighters like the F-22 and F-35. However, concerns exist over their high cost profile and the risk of over-reliance on a single manufacturer.
4. **Advanced Engine Competition**: The NGAD project also includes developing an adaptive cycle engine, with Pratt & Whitney and General Electric as the key competitors. These engines are designed for high performance across various speeds and altitudes, offering a balance between thrust and fuel efficiency.
5. **Additional Components**: The NGAD fighter is part of a larger system, including collaborative combat aircraft (drones) and advanced avionics. This system requires the integration of AI, machine learning, and sophisticated human interfaces.
6. **Predictions and Insights**: The host predicts Lockheed Martin might win the airframe contract due to their stealth expertise. General Electric could secure the engine contract because of their innovative technologies. Boeing could contribute to drone technology, and Northrop Grumman might be involved in avionics development.
7. **The Future of NGAD**: The program is seen as a significant collaboration among industry leaders, each contributing their strengths to develop a fighter that will dominate the skies for years.
The transcript also emphasizes the revolutionary aspect of the NGAD program in military aviation and the excitement surrounding its development. The host encourages viewers to share their thoughts and predictions on this topic.
-- *_Pros & Cons ... Nice!_*
I remember the YF-22/YF-23 Flyoff. Northrop's YF-23 was faster and supposedly superior in stealth characteristics, but the water cooler talk was that they didn't get the contract as a punishment for cost overruns during development of the B-2 Spirit, as well as not wanting to centralize stealth aircraft production with one company. Given the F-35 program and the issues it's had, plus Lockheed producing the 22 and 35, I'd actually think Boeing has the edge in winning this one if only because of trying to avoid centralizing development within one company.
As for Boeing's issues, the last couple generations of 737 have been a dumpster fire, but IMO they should have gone clean sheet on that design several generations ago, so being forced to go clean sheet on this might be in their favor.
My bet would be Boeing getting the fighter, Lockheed getting the drones, and Northrop Grumman getting the Navy/Marines
NGAD might be the last manned fighter.
They're not trying to decide, it's multi Companies, that's building it.
Each company is doing something different for the same project.
Hardly unmatched in the current air battle space. Everyone is making good jets these days but having huge fleets is prohibitive when one Jet costs 100 mill.
The future of all battles and wars will be AI+Drones+TSMC chips. Unmanned drones are smaller, cheaper and better
"The stakes could not be higher." Sure they could.
You are on point. This is my feeling as well, unless, US wants to delay this project by another 20 years to distribute the cost more evenly.
Cannot see what is new,the NGAD is just a double delta wing.
Looks a bit like the Saab35 Draken on steriods
I'm ready to bet by Lockeed!They are the best!
You forgot 1 thing, GE engines are regarded to be more reliable than P&W
I wouldn't mind seeing both, they look pretty good.
These fighters look surprisingly similiar to the YF-23
We need an NGYAT fighter.
Shut
Up
Pick both. Deciding between yf-22 & yf-23, means we all lost.
The YF23 was the best plane that unfortunately didn’t get chosen.
I really hoped the Japanese would turn the YF-23 into a world beater, but I haven’t been keeping up with that program.
@@mitchjames9350 you'd telling the same about yf22 if they choose yf23
does the Boeing use a 2-engine configuration vs the Lockheed single engine design? If so, what are the survivability/reliability benefits of 1 vs 2 engines against the added weight of the 2nd engine? I flew with the 282nd AHC out of Marble Mountain Air facility/DaNang.... UH-1D slicks. I was a door gunner. My prediction is that the Skunkworks will win the airframe comp building on their history with the SR-71/72. Thanks for the video.
As for GE and P&W, both companies will be there no matter what company wins NGAD. They may well be primaries for each different group in the competition. When it comes down to the production, the engine company that fell to the losing side, will become a second source when it gets to production. It has always worked that way. This is how the government has always made sure that both companies are always viable for the future. Both of these companies are national treasures, and both are necessary to maintain our technological advantage in the world. One of our lesser known facts.
Northrop Grumman needs to win NGAD with upgraded F-23.
At least there’s no doors on a fighter jet… so they got that going for them.
Not gona lie dude, your guesses seem very solid! Lockheed airframe with Northrop brains sounds terrifying tbh
You forgot about how Pratt & Whitney and GE Aviation run their production lines. PW production lines are based on standard production management levels (workers, supervisors, inspectors, managers). With that said, PW has unions. Unions can be problematic. GE uses the "teaming" for engine production. Teaming is like teams building engines and competing internally with each other. Teaming can cause problems like rivalries with self-sabotage. This is due to egos and a high school-like atmosphere. My prediction will be PW for the powerplant on the NGAD.
The question is whether the AF learned their lesson with the ATF program. The correct solution with NGAD is to buy SOME OF BOTH!
It'll probably be Lockheed, they don't cut corners and make amazing aircraft. Boeing as of late has decided to fill its board of directors with accountants instead of engineers, from my understanding, that has affected their products. They worry more about the bottom line. Look at Starliner. The 737max problems, software, and hardware. McDonald Douglas made the F-15 and F-18, and Boeing is happy to take the credit for those who don't know that fact. For the country and bragging rights, I hope it's Lockheed. But, I digress, time will tell.
I was hoping you would say GE for engine. The have an adaptive cycle engine I do believe. I'm familiar with the GE J79 in the F4. Airframe I'm hoping for the Boeing.
Did you not watch the video….? That’s exactly what his prediction is because of that very reason.
They will both get contracts for aircraft in the end. What the video said is very true. You need at least 2 companies in order to create competition and innovation. Those both drive technology and performance. Ironically war has always pushed the limits of technology far more than peacetime competition has.
Weapons? Maybe someone else has asked this question, but will there be weapons besides the missiles shown? Guns? Lasers? I hope we don't wind up like we did in Vietnam, when the F-4 had only missiles that missed a lot, until a gun pod was provided until cannons were finally fitted internally.
Hopefully the leap is as big as the F-15 to F-22 that would be awesome. Technology has advanced a lot since the 90s so we’ll see.
As was demonstrated with the Abrams tank.and the F22 programs sometimes the weapon that wins the contract is not the best most capable competitor. The politics of corporate lifelines and popular sentiment towards a particular manufacturer plays.a bigger role than actual capabilities
They should take the best from each and combine them into one perfect design NGAD. That is if you can get all the companies to Cooperate and share in the profits equally. So no NGAD perfect design is ever going to be a complete design of all facets.
Are those renders based on anything known about the candidates? Or did you just make them up? If it's the latter, you did a good job. If the role of the NGAD is going to include managing swarms of unmanned vehicles, would it not make sense for it to be a two-seater? I know sensor fusion and AI and all that, but if you're dealing with multiple drones with comprehensive sensor suites, that's a lot of information that needs to be distilled down into something a pilot can deal with while flying. It sounds like a two-man job, as putting all your faith in AI seems premature.
Lockheed definitely has more experience with stealth fighters, while Boeing has a lot of experience with UCAVs, including developing the MQ-28 loyal wingman that the Air Force has said it was interested in procuring. I imagine NGAD will require supersonic wingmen, though. If the US wants to maintain a choice of capable suppliers, they'll have to give something to everyone. Companies that aren't actively working on military projects lose their ability to do so, and you end up with consolidation by attrition as companies bow out of the sector for good, at least at the high end. The US is down to three companies that can even consider bidding for these types of programs. Picking one company to do the same thing generation after generation does allow them to specialize and build experience, but they also end up being your only choice. Northrop has the B-21, Lockheed has the F-35 (and a rumoured recon plane), Boeing is still stuck on 4th gen aircraft. If they don't get NGAD or FAXX, it could be their last time bidding for frontline fighter contracts in the US. Maybe the US government is okay with that.
My biggest complaint with Lockheed Martin is the continued reliance on "cradle to grave" field service support. They intentionally limit the ability of Active Duty to maintain, troubleshoot and repair without contractor support and proprietary applications. Military didn't but the F-35 or the F-22... the rented them.