The sidewinders are pretty cool, they went from accidentally locking on to the sun in Vietnam to being able to take down frontal aspect targets (meaning coming in from the front or the enemy craft)
Great video, but one small correction: missiles don't run low on fuel by the time they get close to their target. Any non-ramjet missile will burn through its fuel in seconds. It will speed up and climb to a high altitude using the trust from the engine and when it runs out of fuel it will 'coast' to its target using that speed and altitude to get where it needs to go. Because a regular rocket engine burns through all its fuel in one quick go a missile that uses this type of propulsion will have a finite amount of energy. This is why you can evade such a missile by making it turn as this will bleed energy quickly. Ramjets or dual pulse missiles are much harder to evade because they can use their engine to keep their energy high so they can still maneuver in the terminal phase
You do have to note that these hypersonic missile extreme ranges won't work exactly on stealth aircraft as stealth aircraft will use their stealth to get close enough to get in range of their own smaller missiles, so triple digit ranges will not be too common, infact due to stealth maybe the exact opposite with dogfights will happen due to stealth advancing.
It's rather difficult for a radar-emitting aircraft to hide and still maintain its operation. That's why there was a comment about using long-range missiles to take out enemy AWACS and refueling aircraft.
A few things to add/correct: (17:38) AMRAAM or any other rocket-powered medium/long range missile will only have its engine turned on for a brief period after lunch.... The missile goes high (and fast) to get as much kinetic energy and it will bleed this energy every time it has to make trajectory corrections to hit the target. AMRAAM and any other one-stage rocket powered (medium range) missile will be out 100% fuel when they are close to target. This is why there is not such thing as a missile to continue to follow a target after it initially missed it. Short range missiles are a different thing since most modern missile use their rocket engine actively for the entire duration of the flight and thus they can have off-bore sight capabilities... Now this limitation can be overcome by missiles that have a second stage or have a RAM jet as propulsion engine (METEOR). A missile using 2 stages can be launched from medium range against a fast moving jet and use the second stage rocket engine actively to track and kill its target, however, this will not hold true if the second stage is used mid flight just to extend the range... a RAM jet would make the missile controllable from lunch to hit however there are some limitations...If you want to have the engine active you will need more fuel, which make the missile bigger and heavier alternatively, and also due to limitations of the RAM jets you need to either launch the missiles from very high speeds (Mach 1.8+ maybe Mach2) or have a booster rocket because RAM jets do not operated with low intake pressure (i.e. low initial speed)
What I'm wondering, amidst all these new missiles in development and older missiles being upgraded to new standards, is this: Could particle beam/directed energy weapons render missiles obsolete, or if not obsolete at least reduce them to a lesser, more mission specific role? I have been hearing about big breakthroughs in onboard-aircraft power production that has sufficient punch to push a laser or microwave beam with sufficient force to blow enemy fighters out of the sky, and also to do the same with their air to air missiles. If this is in fact a technology that is close to fruition, it could be a huge game changer. Directed energy weapons need lots of power, but once that issue is solved, they do not suffer from the problems that plague fighter jets carrying missiles: As long as the power is there, beam weapons do not run out of ammo. Theoretically, a jet carrying directed energy weapons could do away with all missiles that hang out on rails and create crazy drag and weight. A good beam weapon could turn most or even all of our jets into clean platforms which would result in pretty substantial fuel savings as well as longer range and optimum performance (speed, agility, acceleration) for the now-clean jets. Energy based weapons have the advantage of moving the kill from multiple minutes after firing in BVR, to _immediately_ upon firing. The speed of light is WAAAY faster than any hypersonic missile. It's basically target lock, fire, splash. Next target, repeat. You don't run out of ammo, and the beam weapon can be used to destroy incoming enemy missiles. What this would do (provided that any directed energy weapons which actually get mounted on fighters and taken into combat are sufficiently compact to enable internal mounting without some gigantic, drag demon of a mounting structure hanging on the jet that wrecks it's performance more than racks of missiles on rails would do) is change the entire way that aircraft perform and prosecute missions/targets. Fuel efficiency, range, and the ability to fly your jet at maximum performance at all times as needed with no worries about weight on the wings, unbalanced loads from firing some but not all missiles, and most of all the ungodly cost of hi tech missiles that get one shot & done. God that is expensive. Particle beam, shoot, kill, shoot, kill, incoming missile, defend and kill in seconds, go back to business, and the weapon stays on the jet, recharges, and fires again and again. Supposedly the NGAD or whatever the 6 gen winds up being named, is slotted to have particle beam weapons. If so, air combat could be in for another huge change. Maybe?
It's not peregreen, it's peregrine with an "inn" sound at the end. As in the peregrine falcon, the fastest animal on the planet, and shown in my avatar.
If I had committed to a Trillion dollar investment in a stealthy fighter that was harder for enemy fighters to detect I might be inclined to get a bit closer to the enemy and carry a lot more missiles.
It is really smart for the air force to make large missile for fourth gen and smaller missile for 5 the gen. It can take advantage of both systems strengths while covering their weaknesses when working together
The newest version of the Eagle is basically a missile platform. Slap on several of these long range missiles and they can target whatever the newer stealth planes/drones find and take them out even before they get in range of the eagle.
The little dots on the frontal section of the peregrine look like attitude control motors (ACM), reminiscent of the patriot PAC-3, which would make sense since it is also a hit-to-kill missile. So peregrine might be a mini air launched patriot pac-3
The Aim9x and AMRAAM are already somewhat behind newer models like the the IRIS-T or Meteor. Not because US engineers are bad, but because the newer designs have newer technology, whereas the US had the technology first - but must now retrofit and upgrade.
Yes, US did researched ramjet technology first. However they didn't use it for their next gen BVRAAM. If I'm not wrong, they wanted instantaneous acceleration, hence why AIM-260 uses dual pulse propulsion similar to PL-15. But they did use a solid rocket-ramjet hybrid propulsion for their their next gen AARGM-ER.
The Cuda missile looks small enough to be used in the Army's Avenger anti-air unit, which would be a huge improvement over the Stinger they currently carry.
That is a good observation! Although i wouldnt be suprised if with the continuous development of systems like the Patriot or other CIWS’s it might disapear all together. The doctrine might no longer require it!
might be better to just license starstreak or something similar; the stinger is old and that missile I recon is still too big for a manpad. Though it is hard to judge the dimensions from that photo
Hell, those Peregrine missiles and their small size could theoretically be equipped on attack helicopters, like the Apache. At that size, it could be carried into battle on Humvees.
U suppose to avenge, after the aircraft has already bomb the target and is egressing. You shoot it in the ass. Lol no but that’s pretty much all it can do to fix wings. It’s suppose to take out helos and other slow aircraft that patriot sams can’t see.
The smaller missiles with medium range capabilities are very interesting idea. The fact that you can double or triple the capacity of the jet is absolutely mindblowing. Maybe there would be some kind of a hybrid design when one bay would have 2 AIM-260s and the other would have 4 or more smaller missiles.
The Navy could load a bunch of these on Superhornets to thin out swarms of incoming cruise missiles before the carrier's escorts need to expend their own missiles.
With smaller missiles like these, we might eventually reach the stage when the sci-fi concept of a mirv-like AA missile is doable, with a long-range booster carrying several smaller missiles to the fight from afar, which separate and engage single or multiple targets as a swarm, significantly reducing evasion options.
Raytheon and loockheed are developing a ramjet artillery shell that's tiny. A missile will always need length until they can figure out how to miniaturize a ramjet engine that's able to produce big boy thrust and distance . May not be possible .
That's the kind of thing we need to be thinking about and that their product managers should have their teams exploring. From there, such a platform could carry multiple AA missiles or a a mix off AA, AtG, and/or anti-radiation loadouts for example
Yeah it's like, we already have ballistic missiles that go at sub orbital speeds. A hypersonic cruise missile is still an impressive weapon but it doesn't fundamentally alter the state of play
The peregrine and CUDA missiles seem very likely as the amraam successors, with the other long range missiles being likely more for initial engagements or area denial
I think a cool new possible armament option for fighters would be carrying the amraam sized long range missiles while also carrying smaller than amraam sized medium range missiles with similar to amraam capability. Having a lot more missiles can be a game changer in BVR since as long as neither side wanders into the MAR, a lot of missiles can lobbed with none hitting.
CUDA missiles are a dogfight missile that stands for cylindrically fired depleted uranium dart armament. Basically it explodes and sends small depleted uranium darts 360 degrees against enemy aircraft. They're designed to be stored internally with up to 12 taking up half of one Aim 120 rail, which in block 4 can carry 6. Standard loadout will be 4 AIM 260s and 4 CUDAs after block 4
Fascinating! I can see the F-35 or NGAD out front finding targets, legacy fighters firing off these long range missiles, the missiles getting targeting data en route from the F-35s or NGADs, and switching to in board guidance for the last leg.
@Phillip Banes missiles are VERY much affected by launch altitude and speed. Flying through thinner air, not having to fight gravity, and adding more initial speed to a usually constant DeltaV all can over triple the range of, say, an AIM-120, when launched stationary on the ground (Ex. SLAMRAAM ~30-50km) compared to a high altitude high speed launch (Ex. 120C-7 range of ~100km) despite being almost the exact same missile.
@Phillip Banes That statement hardly seems possible? How can the altitude and speed of the launching platform NOT be a deciding factor in the speed and range of the rocket? The faster your launching platform, the faster the thing you launch is, no? (As long as we are not talking about laser weapons with the speed of light being a constant.)
@Phillip Banes I don't get it. But doesn't matter, since you do not seem to be inclined to point out our supposed mistakes. Maybe we are not getting why physical principials do not apply in this situation, but since you do not enlighten us, I stay with physical principals.
Great video, as always. But just one correction: currently the F-35 can carry 4 AIM-120 internally, which will be increased to 6 in the block 4 upgrade. Moreover, the AIM-9s can only be carried externally by the F-35 (at least for the moment, maybe in a future version of the missile it will be able to be carried internally)
Hi Alex! Once again another super interesting and well-written video. I’ve been looking forward to something on the LRAAM! I’d love to see a full video on the upcoming F-35 upgrades and the upgrades they are preparing for if you can! And maybe some elaboration on the Lightning’s enhanced dogfighting capabilities that have been reported in more recent years?
Peregrine sounds like hit-to-kill akin to Cuda. It's all about the "rocket equation." With modern miniaturized electronics, no warhead means the missile is practically all rocket motor. It makes a much bigger difference than just cutting out the part of the missile that's filled with the HE and fragmentation or continuous rod casing because there's no longer that dead weight that needs to be accelerated so the missile just has to accelerate the fuel it's going to need for the rest of the flight plus the electronics of the guidance package.
Good video, but i have just one small correction: the F-35 actually cant carry the Aim-9 internally, only the 120's. The Aim-9 can only be carried on the outboard wing stations. What Lockheed is developing is the so called "Sidekick" system, allowing the F-35A and C to go from carrying 4 AMRAAMS internally, to 6.
Alex, it sounds like the DOD is getting smart and finally giving the F35 some weapons to actually do its job. Very intelligent and cheaper than building a bigger weapons bay.
Not only was Desert Storm over 2 decades ago, it was over 3 decades ago. BTW, how long before they deploy long-range Air-to-Air Missiles on cargo aircraft in a program called "Rapid Fraggin'"?
I've watched a few of your videos and found all to be factual and informative. As a result, I just subscribed. Please continue doing what you're doing.
It also begs the question, just how many of them has Russia actually managed to produce? Are they like the Su-57, which is a major threat on paper and basically a non-factor in reality, as the number of operational 57s is in single-digit numbers? The T-14, which is only slightly better in terms of actual operational units? How good your weapon is only helps if you have them in sufficient quantities to actually use them...
That is American brainwashing at its best. The Russian long range missiles are taking down targets over record distances. Fact! So they are real, in production and they work. What does the US have? We are developing…..That phrase means the US is behind. In fact in all missile technology the U.S. is well behind. So your comment could be better levelled at America. Fact is the U.S. has lost the arms race. Tsirkon has made the US carrier fleets obsolete at a stroke. Tiny Russian corvettes could take out far larger opponents, even carriers in safety, outside of the air cover radius. I mention that just to make you think a bit. Russia also has a layered air defence, the U.S. has ……Patriot ….a not very good system! It’s stand alone too. This idea that the US is just naturally way ahead with all tech is dangerous. Those days are long gone. You have been overtaken because the MICC got fat, corrupt and very lazy.
Thank you Alex. Very interesting and well done. I have been away from military aviation (Navy) since 1990. So, to see up to date information like this is something I can watch all day long. Thank you again and be safe.
With advances in IRST and Data Link, along with Lock On After Launch technology, I wonder how effective a BVR IR missile might be. A missile launched while in TWS, using Data Link to get the missile within pitbull, and that doesn't give off emissions for the enemy's RWR, could be seriously dangerous. The enemy wouldn't know it was launched, and wouldn't know they're being targeted, even in pitbull.
It’s likely that future missiles will have both ir and radar capability to do exactly that. No need for an amraam and sidewinder when one missile can do both jobs.
@@sailyourface except that missiles like that are not very well optimized for either engagement and are this pretty average overall. That's why the AIM120D is not replacing the AIM9X for close in. It's not as maneuverable due to weight and length.
Well stealth does sorta nullify the need for this. Getting a warning that an AIM-120C is coming for you when it is 40 miles away is very different compared to getting the warning when it is 15 miles away. Especially utilising the TWS on something like the f-16, you will see the lock from the plane but won’t get a missile warning until the missile turns on its own seeker. (Usually ca 4 miles away) at which point it becomes impossible to outmanouver the missile and almost impossible to jam its guidance...
Alex, your videos and commentary are the best on the web for sure, thank you for such exceptional work. Have our military planners ever considered that we may be spending way too much on these systems and that our enemies could be focusing on cheaper and more numerous drone and other systems that could nullify these costly planes and missiles? Is there something we should focus more on? It seems like we are just reacting to what our enemies create.
Theres always an offense defense contest and everyone is always reacting, the US is also working on cheap ways to counter cheap drones with things like electronic warfare.
I also be thinking about that. Irán has swarms of drones that will be very costly for the US if they try to kill them, just imagine the swarms going in on a aircraft carrier & the destruyers fireing off lots of misiles That each one costs a million or close to that, thats going to be real costly....🤣🤣🤣
@@mariatorres5563 The Iranian drones currently in production have proven to be not very "smart" hence the low cost, and therefore would be used more as a saturation attack rather than acting as a "swarm". Drones may even be too small of a target for a missile lock; I believe the counter for a drone saturation attack would be electronic warfare (potentially dropping them right out of the sky) and the CWIZ and deck guns as a last line of defense. Keep in mind that dumb drones would need to be guided all the way in, so the enemy would have to have a radar lock on the US fleet. Drones would also need to pass the defenses of at least 4 other ships before getting close to a carrier. Overall, the chances of a US carrier being in the range of a drone saturation attack is extremely unlikely outside of very specific scenarios like the straight of Hormuz or South China Sea.
Its a really simple answer, cheap drones wont fly that fast and will easily be taken out using CIWS. Some western CIWS’s have no difficulty shooting down mortar shells. (Mortar shells are very cheap hence why CIWS has been employed for this.)
The Sidewinder began development in the late 40s - it went into service in 1956, but it's history goes back almost another decade. One of it's first victories was when an early F-100 accidentally launched one at a hard-to-miss B-52. Ouch.
The LRAAM with a modular design looks like it has potential to replace all misses in theory. A short range middle would be set up (front to back) as seeker/computer/guidance pod, then stack as many fuel pods as you need, then finish up with the fin/nozzle/datalink pod in the rear. You may need the front fin pod in there somewhere but you get the idea. If you want longer ranges, stack more fuel pods. At that point, the range would be dictated by the effective range of the seeker or datalink, but not fuel. Sort of a “select-a-size”… like my paper towels.
You can put Sidewinder on just about anything that flies. It doesn’t require a separate onboard FCS (Fire Control System) because it’s built into the missile itself.
The Peregrine Missile might be one of the most important developments for 5th Gen Fighters as being able increase combat endurance while in full stealth loadout. The Biggest Handicap of the 5th Gen fighters is that they carry much smaller loadouts of AA missiles, meaning that the 4th gen fighters now mainly have an endurance advantage over the 5th gens in terms of payload carried, so if the 5th gen runs out of missiles before they run out of targets they need to run, since it is no longer a fight in their advantage, even with stealth is not a wise fight to take if the enemy still outnumbers you. Payloads that match those 4th gens payload would help make the 5th gen fighters much deadlier as at the end of the day, the enemy might defeat your missile and you will need to fire again, which means you need to expend more of your valuable few missile, the biggest thing is that you might be engaging an enemy flight and then another flight comes in to hunt you down, you might see them but with little ammo they can just run you off, the biggest advantage is carrying more missile internally for the 5th gens, and for the 4th gens getting that range advantage is the best way to stay alive, obviously if you can have more and longer range for a 5th gen fighter it makes it the most deadly in the airspace, but if you have to settle for one of them, depending on the enemy you think you are going to fight you will have to pick one of those two. In a fight against China I feel like a higher total payload is more effective for the 5th Gen platforms, while in a fight against Russia I would bet on range as the Russian Air Force is not really capable of operating in the numbers required to be a threat, while the Chinese have a very large Air Force it is mostly made up of 4th gen fighters and a very small fleet of 5th gens like the J-20 with only handful of squadrons operating the Fighter, one of which is always stationed around Beijing to protect the Capital's Airspace
might want to wait for there to be actual 'developments' rather that just Raytheon's announcement of its new wonder weapon that's magically smaller, stealthier, faster, cheaper and farther flying that everything else .. alchemy has always been a great idea as well - same with batteries that re-charge in seconds and mini-fusion reactors that magically power cities safely, cleanly and cheaply .. The problem is always in proof of concept. Thinking there's a reason why we've heard NOTHING from Raytheow since the 2019 announcement of the Peregrine's magical properties. Not a single announcement or article detailing a prototype let alone anything confirming that this thing might be real ..
Correction: the F-35 can currently carry 4 AMRAAM’s. With the Block 4 upgrade, it will be able to carry 6 AMRAAM’s or 12 Peregrine missiles just like the F-22 can
Another insightful and thoroughly enjoyed video, my friend. From my perspective, your video presentations offer the most data centered and highly researched videos on the RUclips platform. Thanks again for your plethora of information, my friend. May you and your family enjoy a safe and blessed Independence Day! With all of her faults, our beloved Republic, by the grace of God, is still the greatest country on earth and may it ever be. May our enemies from without and from within be dealt a swift and sound defeat.
You really deserve these nomination's for your out standing work in a aviation. Fingers crossed for you and good luck with everything you do in the future.
Hi Alex🙏.... Bro Iam Indian 🇮🇳 and just for Context I want to Tell India worked on Astra 1( a single pulse motor) based engine having 110km range.(Nothing new) Then have successfully made Astra 2 (with dual pulse motor engine) having 190-200km range.(good but not new) Then most importantly Why I wrote this.. India has successfully ground tested Astra Mk3 (An SFDR based Missile) A "Solid Fuel ducted Ramjet" engine Based missile. This New Ramjet time delayed Pulse Gives it exceptional Range around 300+km and In the world It's only second to Meteor Missile.. This would revolutionize the A2A market.. and Will Give us An edge over Chinese missile.
I also want to tell that The maximum range of the missile is Maped when the target is approaching.. Like Amraam 120C5 has 120km range for Approaching target, but for Target which is running off The range Significantly decreases.. as missile has to travel More to hit the target. Here dualpulse and SFDR are best for Running target. Though there is significant Increase in weight and length.
Using up existing stock No new development on the AIM-7 Sparrow. The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) is derived from the AIM-7, but decades of branched development means that it is a separate and different missile.
These missiles have been in development for sometime, for a decade on some cases. The Air Force has been waiting for adversaries to catch up to justify the expenditure; these systems just don't pop-up out of thin air...
It must be weird to train for missions in which any time you get painted, you could die in the next few moments despite all countermeasures. It seems things escalate much faster than on the ground where there's cover, fall back positions, suppressive fire, switching targets and non-fatal casualties ; in the air, there's few gradations of danger. Every pilot has to live like a kamikaze
I strongly wonder what datalink will do with these newer missiles - all this talk of semi-active guidance means handoff from one jet to another would be very doable, perhaps with a stealth jet staying dark with no launch signature being able to guide in a missile from another fighter further out. Obviously, this is tech that the NGAD seeks to replicate with drones, but I still wonder what the implications could be when combining the greater capability of human pilots.
It's probably more likely the other way around. Stealth is important enough you wouldn't want to have a radar on to guide a missile and missile kinematics are generally worse at range. You'd want a fighter further away doing the guiding for a fighter much closer and stealthy. That way the missile is unexpected and can come from a different attack axis than the tracking aircraft.
@@Whiskey11Gaming this concept already exists, it is called AEW&Cs (or AEWAC’s) And if you are launching missiles at close range, an IR missile might just do the trick too which won’t require radar.
You cracked me up with your pronunciation of the Peregrine missile the first few times you talked about it. I am glad to “hear” that you got it correct on the last try. But keep of the good work. I have always enjoyed your research into the new AirPower tech that is coming out in the near future.
How old is the Sidewinder? My Dad was an electrical engineer, he worked with a guy who was on the development team for the first generation version. He described it as using the tiniest little vacuum tubes you ever saw in its electronics.
Development of the Sidewinder began in 1946 and the missile performed its first intercept in 1953 and entered service in 1956. Given that the transistor had only been invented in 1947, I think your dad was correct in identifying that it used tiny vacuum tubes.
The sheer number of F-35's being built is more or less too much for any one enemy to contend with never mind if they become "5th Gen.+" after upgrades not to mention if they can carry 12 high tech mid - long range missiles. Not to mention an F-22 carrying 16-20 peregrine missiles.
F-22 is such a pretty plane. Not as good as Spitfire. Obviously, but it's a close second in my book. I was thinking 200miles as well. Thanks for the vid sir. Great work.
Actually only the F-35C will depend on stealth since it is the only current low observable aircraft the Navy has. The Air Force having several stealthy options elected to make their version less stealthy, and the V/STOL B model, the least stealthy of the family since it is designed for supporting troops.
Non-stealth aircraft have to fire missiles at each other to force a defensive posture. Without the need to fire spoiler shots, 4 missiles in a stealth aircraft is better than 6-8 on a 4th gen.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD true even more so when you consider the 35 can guide in missiles from other aircraft Sam’s ships etc that fire from a safe distance which keeps them defensive while not compromising the attackers stealth or using their ammo, it’s quite brilliant and honestly completely changes the game again
Thats where Laser weapons come into play. but 12 missiles on top of laser weapons on top of a gun. Overkill. Not to mention that in the future the F-35 and NGAD will fly with drone wingmen that will have thier own missiles. It will get ugly.
I think every missile needs to have some kind of ram jet ability where they could make a small missile that used air pressure to combust a small amount of fuel for fuel mileage.
People paying attention to the block 4 f35, especially the A model, know how nuts the plane is beginning to turn. The A model is getting a new adaptive engine, brand new tech that has already been flying. The block 4s computerization package is also flying. The A as far as i know still hasnt selected wether the adaptive engine will be GE's model or P&W, and its based off the f135
Ya that is the question. I think the problem with the GE engine is that they dont have one for the B model. So the A and C would have different engines than the B. Frankly I think they should go with the adaptive engines. One of the criticisms of the F-35 from teh navy was its range. I think they said the adaptive engines can get them %15 more range of something like that. I think the Adaptive Engines provide too many benefits to not use it but it always comes down to cost. An article I read a few months back said they would have to slow production of the F-35s to be able to start getting the GE engines for them. So if they are okay with a slower production rate it might be better. The p&w design is an upgrade to the already existing engine. So there are cost saving measures there. I do think they will go with this option. It would save money and make upgrading the F-35s we and are allies already have easier. One thing I am wondering is they could go with the GE adaptive engines if they plan on using them for the new NGAD planes. Having all their fighters using the same engine(excluding the B) could save money in the end and make logistics easier.
@AmeriToast that's the only problem I have with Canada getting the F-35 is the range . We are the second biggest country in the world with a very small population under 40 million people. For American can understand you could go for like the size of Texas and not one person lives there ,not one Airfield.
The western Pacific will require long range beyond-field-of-view missiles, undoubtedly. Russian weapons claims should be taken with a grain of salt, given how their platforms have performed vs Ukraine.
Do you understand the definition of similar you clown? Its "Resembling without being identical". So yes the AIM-9Xand AIM-120 are similar to the AIM-9L and AIM-7 because they were developed from them. They are upgraded versions of old systems so fall under the defintion fine. Try to know what you are talking about before trying to be a smartass.
@@cattledog901 What in any way besides appearance are the missiles similar. Seriously what a stupid fucking comment for being so arrogant. An AIM-120D has 4 times the effective range of the 7M, with every single system inside the shell of the missile being different, and being a Fox-3 not a Fox-1. And the AIM-9X has double the range of the 9L with way more flare resistance and G load, Thrust vectoring motors, and can be integrated with modern datalink systems. Seriously everything you just said is thoughtless, and you want to call me a clown? What point AT ALL would there be in saying that we field the same missile because it exists in a similar looking shell, when NOTHING else about the missile is remotely similar. They are not the same fucking missiles and the fact that you are trying to argue that is funny to me. It’s such a pointless argument. Compare based on capability not looks idiot. Arguing your point doesn’t have a purpose
the Sidewinder lineage goes back to at least 1946, which is roughly when the tech development/testing started. But the AIM-9X is still one of the best missiles available today.
@@LeonAustwrong. the seeker head was developed in 1946, and the missiles was designed shortly after. been slowly upgraded ever since. feel free to try to disprove that.
easy ...not one part of the AIM-9A or 9B resides in a AIM-9X totally new design. If that's ok by a bullshit token linage then I would call it a guided 5 inch Zuni rocket because that's where they got the main body rocket from to develop the original Sidewinder 1. ..........read its history@@SoloRenegade
Whatever happened to (if it existed at all) a2a missiles that could be pre-launched, loiter / glide at high altitude and then be given a target once it was acquired? Granted, pretty wasteful if a target is not acquired in a timely fashion. I'm guessing these would have been replaced (conceptually at least) by drones and loyal wingmen.
The F15 is the only fighter that can carry and use the AIM 260 because of its size. The F22 can technically carry em but only under the wings and ONLY on the most inner pylon closest to the fuselage. Again, because of size and weight. Using F22s with the AIM 260 kinda defeats the purpose of using the F22.
@@lilMungo .....my god.....I don't care if its only 2% bigger. The pylons themselves are not designed to carry/attach a missile and or bombs that are any larger than whats currently used. and the software and hardware systems would need to be upgraded or changed and also wouldn't be able to carry multiple missiles (260) even when you change all of this.....yes, by size and weight alone, those fingers can in theory support to carry the size and weight but not in practical use.....I know....research is hard for some people to do....
Consider doing the new F-15 EX. A notional design at this point, as are these missiles. Much larger wing. Many hardpoints. Great lifting capacity. Either a smart bomber, or a netcentric missile barge to add weight behind the stealth jets. And, naturally, and pure blood F-15.
Your opening statement made me lose all respect for you. According to you an AIM-120D is basically not much different than an AIM-7 Sparrow and the Lima Sidewinder is basically the same as an AIM-9X block II. Wow, dude. What are you on?
I think that might br unfair. While the AMRAAM is certainly not the Sparrow, it's profile remains essentially the same since it's introduction in the 1990s. The AIM-9X has essentially the same dimensions as the as first Sidewinders fielded in the 1950s. The motor, the seeker, and the warhead can all change, but they have to be packed into the same container, and that introduces an absolute contraint on development. With the new clean-sheet designs, the tyranny of the embedded base can be eliminated and 21st shapes can be used.
Russia and China are trying to catch up to current tech from the United States in regard to missiles...and they will. The new missiles coming online later will have us another two or three decades ahead ...as usual. Dont get me started on FA-XX, NGAD, or the B-21. D.A.R.P.A., USAF research Laboratory plant 42, and others will always keep us with a 30yr gap.
15:30 Correction. The F-35 as of right now can carry 4x AIM-120's internally, not just two obviously. That is in a pure BVR air to air setup.The F-35 can't carry missiles like the AIM-9X internally as these types of weapons operate differently to the AMRAAM's. Their rocket motors fire instantly, meaning that have to clear the launch platform immediately. This is currently not possible with how the F-35 is laid out internally. The F-22, for example, achieves this by having its AIM-9's mounted on angled prongs that come out when the F-22 opens its side weapons bays, allowing the missile to clear the F-22 safely. F-35's are most often seen flying with traditional wing tip pylons carrying the AIM-9X. These pylons aren't really traditional as they're particularly stealthy, a requirement as they of course wished for the ability to carry short range heat seeker missiles and at the same time preserve the oh so important feature of stealth. These pylons do of course increase the F-35's RCS somewhat, but not by too much and especially not compared to legacy systems. The future upgrades of the F-35 will see its internal carrying capacity, for AIM-120's specifically, increase from 4 to 6, the same number as the F-22. We might see some future developments that allow for the internal carry of shorter range WVR/heat seeking missiles, or as mentioned here, smaller but as effective replacements for medium/long range missiles that increase their internal carrying capacity to 8/12.
I wonder if the AIM-9 will get an upgrade with more thrust vectoring and maybe some features to make it a...*Growling* sidewinder =P The peregrine is really intriguing. How is Raytheon managing to make it that tiny? An F-22 armed with 12 of those things sounds like an absolutely terrifying thing.
That kind of performance jump in such a small platform, along with the fact that it's described as having a "new, high performance propulsion system" makes me suspect it's an air-breather. Some kind of small rocket-ramjet similar to that used by the Meteor missile. The mockup shown so far doesn't appear to have any features that would indicate ramjet operation such as visible (if covered) intakes, but the program hasn't been shown off yet so Raytheon may simply be avoiding telling the rest of the world how they did it. Ramjet propulsion has the advantage of being able to operate longer, which improves terminal kinematics enormously and also greatly increases range. The efficiency of a jet or rocket engine can be given by its specific impulse (ISP) which is measured in seconds and represents the total impulse available from a given mass of propellant or fuel. Impulse is force x time so a motor that produced 10,000 lbs thrust for 20s would have a total impulse of 200,000 lbs-s, and if it used 800 lbs of propellant in the process, its specific impulse would be 250s which is fairly typical for a low-smoke solid propellant motor. By using a rocket-ramjet design, the rocket accelerates the missile to a speed where the ramjet can ignite and because ramjets get oxygen to burn their fuel from the air, they can deliver much more impulse than a rocket which has to carry both fuel and an oxidiser. The Meteor's ramjet engine has a specific impulse 3x higher than an equivalent rocket motor so it gets a lot more out of a given mass and volume of fuel, which is why it seems the obvious choice to use a similar system for Peregrine.
Too new for this video is the AIM174(air launched SM6 variant). Will be able to take down jets, trucks, helicopters, tanks, buildings, ballistic missiles and frigging satellites
AIM-260 has a larger diamiter than that of the AIM-130 alowing it to carry more propelant in its rocket motor. I beleve the Parigrine does away with a warhead and uses its kinetic energy to smash targets.
Then it needs that much better maneuverability. Imagine trying to smack a thrust-vectoring Su-57 by ramming the missile directly into it rather than just getting a proximity fuse kill.
@@RUclipsuser1aa yeahhhhh with all the sanctions on Russia, that jet is one step above "vaporware" at this point. Still, same logic may apply to the J-20 and J-31 in China?
@@Ilyak1986 nope. J-20 are a more of a threat and China can produce more than a few for air shows 😅 It’s kind of sad if anyone really thinks Russia can do anything these days besides cyber crime and sit on unstable nukes 😂
Peregrine seems to use a blast fragmentation warhead. My guess is that it achieves such remarkable range and performance despite its small size by using an air-breathing engine - some sort of rocket-ramjet similar to Meteor. None of the mockup images seem to show anything like air intakes but they might not be the actual design to keep sensitive details under wrap.
@@bonedoc4556 I do think this is a valid question. On one hand we don't exactly know what difference a gen 5 and gen 6 would have until they're put into service. On the other hand the lightning 2 does have capabilites that other jets don't currently have. I'd say if some of the F-35s aren't 5.5 gen now, they can be in the future. Maybe a new future variant could be considered 6th gen as well. But who knows.
@@ferrous3262 Turns out that even the capability for supersonic flight is hardly ever needed in combat. During the Gulf War, the maximum speed attained by any US fighter was just mach 1.04 and even that was only for a short duration.
its not just our missiles, most of our airforce altogether is from the desert storm era . the f15 and f16 c and e models are from the 90s thats the bulk of our fighters and the E2 c5 and others are as well. the f22 is only in small numbers and the f35 barely ever stays in the air constantly being grounded for various problems
2 mistakes: The F-35 AA loadout isn't 2 aamraams and 2 sidewinders. Sidewinders can't be carried internally on the f35, they are rail launched, so an AA loadout with no external weapons is 4 aamraams, soon to be 6. Toward the end of the video you mention missiles being almost out of fuel when they reach their targets so maneuverable targets like fighters are tough to kill at long ranges. Long range engagements using rocket powered missiles involve a lofted, rocket powered initial flight, and then a coast to target. The missiles are likely almost out of ENERGY when they reach max engagement range, but they were out of fuel seconds after launch. The LREW would likely involve a similar rocket powered lofted launch, followed by the traditional coast/glide to it's interception point, where it would light off it's own onboard radar and it's 2nd stage engine to impart more energy and enable the missile to strike a target maneuvering to escape the kill zone.
Cupola mounted laser cannons will be the new chaff and flare. While laser weapons so far has been pretty crap against everything on the ground, testing against anything that flies has shown a lot of promise. That's one area where the US is miles ahead of any other nation. Friend or foe.
If the 5th gen fighters can integrate a disposable pylon/attachment point, they may still have a use for an under wing missile or two. At extended ranges, they would still have a decreased signature vs. previous generation fighters. If they become engaged, those missiles will be quickly expended leaving you with a now stealthy playform full of "regular" missiles. Honestly its the best of both worlds. Long range missiles early to dictate the engagement (plus the ability to knock out AWACS) and STILL having some amraams to further fight or defend if someone sneaks into your bubble.
The implications of this are pretty insane and will give the US an unprecedented edge over even near peer adversaries. They’re also fixing the capacity issues with the F-35 which is no small problem. In BVR you have to carry a minimum of at least 6 missiles to push an enemy. You’re not looking for your first missiles to get a kill in most scenarios. You’re firing them to force your opponent into a defensive posture so you can get closer where your missiles have a strong assurance of kill. This is why believe it or not the MIG-31 gives the Russians a strong defensive advantage. It has a big radar and Carries missiles with very long range to give it the legs that the US jets just don’t possess. Not even the F-15 with it’s amazing radar can track at those ranges so by the time the US jets can get close enough to make an effective kill the MIG-31 will usually kill them. What they’re doing is destroying that advantage and plugging a lot of holes at the same time. The US doctrine doesn’t support lone wolf engagements but you need to be prepared for any scenario and grabbing 6 missiles on an F-35 means is god a much better chance of surviving against multiple enemies whereas its current situation with only two means of it was even one on one with another fighter it would be bad but two on one would be a nightmare for the F-35. Could it pull it off? Possibly given its stealth but you wouldn’t want to test that theory ever
The sidewinders are pretty cool, they went from accidentally locking on to the sun in Vietnam to being able to take down frontal aspect targets (meaning coming in from the front or the enemy craft)
Actually the sidewinder dates back to the 50s and was used by the Taiwanese against the Commies over the Straights in 1958.
One day we'll have a missile that actually can take out the sun
@@z3iro383 Stupid sun, always glaring down at us like it's better or something.
F22 needed 4 Sidewinder 9X shots to kill 1 non-manuvering balloon.
@@z3iro383 A sentient thermostellar bomb perhaps.
This was the best episode of Sandboxx in the last year.
Great video, but one small correction: missiles don't run low on fuel by the time they get close to their target. Any non-ramjet missile will burn through its fuel in seconds. It will speed up and climb to a high altitude using the trust from the engine and when it runs out of fuel it will 'coast' to its target using that speed and altitude to get where it needs to go. Because a regular rocket engine burns through all its fuel in one quick go a missile that uses this type of propulsion will have a finite amount of energy. This is why you can evade such a missile by making it turn as this will bleed energy quickly. Ramjets or dual pulse missiles are much harder to evade because they can use their engine to keep their energy high so they can still maneuver in the terminal phase
You do have to note that these hypersonic missile extreme ranges won't work exactly on stealth aircraft as stealth aircraft will use their stealth to get close enough to get in range of their own smaller missiles, so triple digit ranges will not be too common, infact due to stealth maybe the exact opposite with dogfights will happen due to stealth advancing.
It's rather difficult for a radar-emitting aircraft to hide and still maintain its operation. That's why there was a comment about using long-range missiles to take out enemy AWACS and refueling aircraft.
these videos have the theme of a clickbait “military news” video and the quality of a netflix documentary. amazing
Great video buddy.
A few things to add/correct: (17:38) AMRAAM or any other rocket-powered medium/long range missile will only have its engine turned on for a brief period after lunch.... The missile goes high (and fast) to get as much kinetic energy and it will bleed this energy every time it has to make trajectory corrections to hit the target. AMRAAM and any other one-stage rocket powered (medium range) missile will be out 100% fuel when they are close to target. This is why there is not such thing as a missile to continue to follow a target after it initially missed it. Short range missiles are a different thing since most modern missile use their rocket engine actively for the entire duration of the flight and thus they can have off-bore sight capabilities...
Now this limitation can be overcome by missiles that have a second stage or have a RAM jet as propulsion engine (METEOR). A missile using 2 stages can be launched from medium range against a fast moving jet and use the second stage rocket engine actively to track and kill its target, however, this will not hold true if the second stage is used mid flight just to extend the range... a RAM jet would make the missile controllable from lunch to hit however there are some limitations...If you want to have the engine active you will need more fuel, which make the missile bigger and heavier alternatively, and also due to limitations of the RAM jets you need to either launch the missiles from very high speeds (Mach 1.8+ maybe Mach2) or have a booster rocket because RAM jets do not operated with low intake pressure (i.e. low initial speed)
Best birthday fireworks evar.
What I'm wondering, amidst all these new missiles in development and older missiles being upgraded to new standards, is this:
Could particle beam/directed energy weapons render missiles obsolete, or if not obsolete at least reduce them to a lesser, more mission specific role? I have been hearing about big breakthroughs in onboard-aircraft power production that has sufficient punch to push a laser or microwave beam with sufficient force to blow enemy fighters out of the sky, and also to do the same with their air to air missiles. If this is in fact a technology that is close to fruition, it could be a huge game changer. Directed energy weapons need lots of power, but once that issue is solved, they do not suffer from the problems that plague fighter jets carrying missiles:
As long as the power is there, beam weapons do not run out of ammo. Theoretically, a jet carrying directed energy weapons could do away with all missiles that hang out on rails and create crazy drag and weight. A good beam weapon could turn most or even all of our jets into clean platforms which would result in pretty substantial fuel savings as well as longer range and optimum performance (speed, agility, acceleration) for the now-clean jets.
Energy based weapons have the advantage of moving the kill from multiple minutes after firing in BVR, to _immediately_ upon firing. The speed of light is WAAAY faster than any hypersonic missile. It's basically target lock, fire, splash. Next target, repeat. You don't run out of ammo, and the beam weapon can be used to destroy incoming enemy missiles. What this would do (provided that any directed energy weapons which actually get mounted on fighters and taken into combat are sufficiently compact to enable internal mounting without some gigantic, drag demon of a mounting structure hanging on the jet that wrecks it's performance more than racks of missiles on rails would do) is change the entire way that aircraft perform and prosecute missions/targets. Fuel efficiency, range, and the ability to fly your jet at maximum performance at all times as needed with no worries about weight on the wings, unbalanced loads from firing some but not all missiles, and most of all the ungodly cost of hi tech missiles that get one shot & done. God that is expensive. Particle beam, shoot, kill, shoot, kill, incoming missile, defend and kill in seconds, go back to business, and the weapon stays on the jet, recharges, and fires again and again. Supposedly the NGAD or whatever the 6 gen winds up being named, is slotted to have particle beam weapons. If so, air combat could be in for another huge change. Maybe?
lasers don't have range because of atmospheric scattering, also weather and clouds affect it alot
🎉 Happy belated birthday Alex 🎉
I hope they’ll all fit in the F-35….
Edit - looks like the Peregrine has been engineered for the Lightning II.
Desert Storm....TWO decades ago???? I believe you'll find it's all but three! ;)
Wouldn’t it be much easier, to buy Iris T and Meteor missiles? Otherwise the US has to wait at least 10 years for the new missiles being adopted.
It's not peregreen, it's peregrine with an "inn" sound at the end. As in the peregrine falcon, the fastest animal on the planet, and shown in my avatar.
In Australia Cuda is short for Barracuda
The AIM 260 and Peregrine missiles will be dominant
Don’t bad talk the sidewinder .
Love the Pythons!
Peregrine's range is comparable to AMRAAM''s... but which variant? I doubt it matches the range of the D.
Do you hear about the Chinese talk openly about their weapons?
Is DCS gonna have missiles that you can shoot at targets behind you lol.
If I had committed to a Trillion dollar investment in a stealthy fighter that was harder for enemy fighters to detect I might be inclined to get a bit closer to the enemy and carry a lot more missiles.
they need missiles to be good for 1000 miles plus
It is really smart for the air force to make large missile for fourth gen and smaller missile for 5 the gen. It can take advantage of both systems strengths while covering their weaknesses when working together
Also, if you can deploy more unmanned drones for 6th gen, you're maybe working with more options for loadouts anyway.
Absolutely. Good point.
yup...stealth to find the targets, 4.5 gen fighters to carry missiles, 6th gen to exploit the chaos.
The newest version of the Eagle is basically a missile platform. Slap on several of these long range missiles and they can target whatever the newer stealth planes/drones find and take them out even before they get in range of the eagle.
@@Cyrribrae drones flying around confusing enemy radars while the stealth jet is about to launch a barrage at you... terrifying
The little dots on the frontal section of the peregrine look like attitude control motors (ACM), reminiscent of the patriot PAC-3, which would make sense since it is also a hit-to-kill missile. So peregrine might be a mini air launched patriot pac-3
Where do you go to learn about military affairs?
You seem to be talking about the Cuda by Lockheed, and not the Peregrine.
@@texasranger24 You're right. Cuda is the HTK missile. Though @12:46 shows Peregrine with ACMs too
That's almost certainly simply a fragmentation sheath.
@@WinkelmanSM-3 war thunder..
The Aim9x and AMRAAM are already somewhat behind newer models like the the IRIS-T or Meteor. Not because US engineers are bad, but because the newer designs have newer technology, whereas the US had the technology first - but must now retrofit and upgrade.
Well, the latest Block variants of AIM-9X and AMRAAM are still very good missiles
Amraam is much better then meteor
@@lilMungo well, F-35 and F-22 would certainly be able to get much closer to an adversary than, let’s say, Eurofighter Typhoon
Yes, US did researched ramjet technology first. However they didn't use it for their next gen BVRAAM. If I'm not wrong, they wanted instantaneous acceleration, hence why AIM-260 uses dual pulse propulsion similar to PL-15. But they did use a solid rocket-ramjet hybrid propulsion for their their next gen AARGM-ER.
@@johnsilver9338 AARGM-ER is rocket no ramjet
The Cuda missile looks small enough to be used in the Army's Avenger anti-air unit, which would be a huge improvement over the Stinger they currently carry.
That is a good observation!
Although i wouldnt be suprised if with the continuous development of systems like the Patriot or other CIWS’s it might disapear all together.
The doctrine might no longer require it!
might be better to just license starstreak or something similar; the stinger is old and that missile I recon is still too big for a manpad. Though it is hard to judge the dimensions from that photo
Hell, those Peregrine missiles and their small size could theoretically be equipped on attack helicopters, like the Apache. At that size, it could be carried into battle on Humvees.
@@Elthenar jltvs* The humvees are being replaced
U suppose to avenge, after the aircraft has already bomb the target and is egressing. You shoot it in the ass. Lol no but that’s pretty much all it can do to fix wings. It’s suppose to take out helos and other slow aircraft that patriot sams can’t see.
The smaller missiles with medium range capabilities are very interesting idea. The fact that you can double or triple the capacity of the jet is absolutely mindblowing. Maybe there would be some kind of a hybrid design when one bay would have 2 AIM-260s and the other would have 4 or more smaller missiles.
its kinda like how the r-60 replaced the k-13 and doubled capacity on many fighters
The Navy could load a bunch of these on Superhornets to thin out swarms of incoming cruise missiles before the carrier's escorts need to expend their own missiles.
As long as the asymmetrically loaded bays don't affect the aircraft's center of gravity
With smaller missiles like these, we might eventually reach the stage when the sci-fi concept of a mirv-like AA missile is doable, with a long-range booster carrying several smaller missiles to the fight from afar, which separate and engage single or multiple targets as a swarm, significantly reducing evasion options.
Raytheon and loockheed are developing a ramjet artillery shell that's tiny. A missile will always need length until they can figure out how to miniaturize a ramjet engine that's able to produce big boy thrust and distance . May not be possible .
That's the kind of thing we need to be thinking about and that their product managers should have their teams exploring. From there, such a platform could carry multiple AA missiles or a a mix off AA, AtG, and/or anti-radiation loadouts for example
Awesome video. Love seeing the future weapon systems that are being fielded. Keep it up.
Ukrainian MiG-29s have poor RWR, which also gives them some issues with the R-37. I would imagine Iraqi losses to the AIM-54 were similar.
Its funny, they whine about hypersonic missiles, but the Phoenix goes mach 5+ and was designed in the late 1960s.
@@jasonrhodes9726 hypersonic missile is just a buzzword now and most people don’t really understand. To me it’s just more a scare tactic.
Yeah it's like, we already have ballistic missiles that go at sub orbital speeds. A hypersonic cruise missile is still an impressive weapon but it doesn't fundamentally alter the state of play
@@Big_Red_Dork theres also hypersonic glide vehicles which make mid course interception much harder
@@WinkelmanSM-3 yea, but interception of MIRV's in ballistic missiles (with conventional or nuclear payloads) is basically useless as well.
The peregrine and CUDA missiles seem very likely as the amraam successors, with the other long range missiles being likely more for initial engagements or area denial
I think a cool new possible armament option for fighters would be carrying the amraam sized long range missiles while also carrying smaller than amraam sized medium range missiles with similar to amraam capability. Having a lot more missiles can be a game changer in BVR since as long as neither side wanders into the MAR, a lot of missiles can lobbed with none hitting.
CUDA missiles are a dogfight missile that stands for cylindrically fired depleted uranium dart armament. Basically it explodes and sends small depleted uranium darts 360 degrees against enemy aircraft. They're designed to be stored internally with up to 12 taking up half of one Aim 120 rail, which in block 4 can carry 6. Standard loadout will be 4 AIM 260s and 4 CUDAs after block 4
Fascinating! I can see the F-35 or NGAD out front finding targets, legacy fighters firing off these long range missiles, the missiles getting targeting data en route from the F-35s or NGADs, and switching to in board guidance for the last leg.
@Phillip Banes can’t get as high or fast as an F-15, severely limiting the missile’s kinetic energy and therefore range.
@@phillipbanes5484 All missiles are greatly affected by deployment altitude and speed of the aircraft launching them.
@Phillip Banes missiles are VERY much affected by launch altitude and speed. Flying through thinner air, not having to fight gravity, and adding more initial speed to a usually constant DeltaV all can over triple the range of, say, an AIM-120, when launched stationary on the ground (Ex. SLAMRAAM ~30-50km) compared to a high altitude high speed launch (Ex. 120C-7 range of ~100km) despite being almost the exact same missile.
@Phillip Banes That statement hardly seems possible? How can the altitude and speed of the launching platform NOT be a deciding factor in the speed and range of the rocket?
The faster your launching platform, the faster the thing you launch is, no? (As long as we are not talking about laser weapons with the speed of light being a constant.)
@Phillip Banes I don't get it.
But doesn't matter, since you do not seem to be inclined to point out our supposed mistakes.
Maybe we are not getting why physical principials do not apply in this situation, but since you do not enlighten us, I stay with physical principals.
Great video, as always. But just one correction: currently the F-35 can carry 4 AIM-120 internally, which will be increased to 6 in the block 4 upgrade. Moreover, the AIM-9s can only be carried externally by the F-35 (at least for the moment, maybe in a future version of the missile it will be able to be carried internally)
Hi Alex! Once again another super interesting and well-written video. I’ve been looking forward to something on the LRAAM! I’d love to see a full video on the upcoming F-35 upgrades and the upgrades they are preparing for if you can! And maybe some elaboration on the Lightning’s enhanced dogfighting capabilities that have been reported in more recent years?
He already put out a video on the new upgrades to the F-35 block 4 with tech enhancement for block 4.
The F-35's also has a sidekick rack that extends its internal missile count to six that wasn't mentioned in this video.
It was
I think a lot of this is top-secret because we don’t want them to know how far we can reach out and touch them
Peregrine sounds like hit-to-kill akin to Cuda. It's all about the "rocket equation." With modern miniaturized electronics, no warhead means the missile is practically all rocket motor. It makes a much bigger difference than just cutting out the part of the missile that's filled with the HE and fragmentation or continuous rod casing because there's no longer that dead weight that needs to be accelerated so the missile just has to accelerate the fuel it's going to need for the rest of the flight plus the electronics of the guidance package.
Yes, the AMRAAM has doubled it's range by shrinking the battery and electronics. The first AMRAAM was only 1/3 rocket motor, now it's about half.
Good video, but i have just one small correction: the F-35 actually cant carry the Aim-9 internally, only the 120's. The Aim-9 can only be carried on the outboard wing stations.
What Lockheed is developing is the so called "Sidekick" system, allowing the F-35A and C to go from carrying 4 AMRAAMS internally, to 6.
Alex, it sounds like the DOD is getting smart and finally giving the F35 some weapons to actually do its job. Very intelligent and cheaper than building a bigger weapons bay.
The AIM -260 is gonna be crucial for us
It's being fielded right now - and its a beast
AIM 260 currently will not fit in/on the F35s and F18s and F16s. The F22 can carry em on the wings but not inside the fighter.
@@nexpro6118 literally no one has said that
Not only was Desert Storm over 2 decades ago, it was over 3 decades ago.
BTW, how long before they deploy long-range Air-to-Air Missiles on cargo aircraft in a program called "Rapid Fraggin'"?
Rapid Dragon?
@@Cyrribrae Rapid Dragon is an air-to-surface concept.
Your humor may be a little too subtle. But, Bravo! I applaud you!
Alex! I love your videos. Please keep up the good work.
I've watched a few of your videos and found all to be factual and informative. As a result, I just subscribed. Please continue doing what you're doing.
Long range missiles on F-15EX with NGAD painting targets up front is what they’re planning, from what I understand.
When you say, “Russia claims…”, I take it as propaganda.
It also begs the question, just how many of them has Russia actually managed to produce? Are they like the Su-57, which is a major threat on paper and basically a non-factor in reality, as the number of operational 57s is in single-digit numbers? The T-14, which is only slightly better in terms of actual operational units?
How good your weapon is only helps if you have them in sufficient quantities to actually use them...
russia claims the earth is round is that propaganda
That is American brainwashing at its best. The Russian long range missiles are taking down targets over record distances. Fact!
So they are real, in production and they work. What does the US have? We are developing…..That phrase means the US is behind. In fact in all missile technology the U.S. is well behind. So your comment could be better levelled at America. Fact is the U.S. has lost the arms race. Tsirkon has made the US carrier fleets obsolete at a stroke. Tiny Russian corvettes could take out far larger opponents, even carriers in safety, outside of the air cover radius. I mention that just to make you think a bit. Russia also has a layered air defence, the U.S. has ……Patriot ….a not very good system! It’s stand alone too. This idea that the US is just naturally way ahead with all tech is dangerous. Those days are long gone. You have been overtaken because the MICC got fat, corrupt and very lazy.
Thank you Alex. Very interesting and well done. I have been away from military aviation (Navy) since 1990. So, to see up to date information like this is something I can watch all day long. Thank you again and be safe.
With advances in IRST and Data Link, along with Lock On After Launch technology, I wonder how effective a BVR IR missile might be. A missile launched while in TWS, using Data Link to get the missile within pitbull, and that doesn't give off emissions for the enemy's RWR, could be seriously dangerous. The enemy wouldn't know it was launched, and wouldn't know they're being targeted, even in pitbull.
It’s likely that future missiles will have both ir and radar capability to do exactly that. No need for an amraam and sidewinder when one missile can do both jobs.
@@sailyourface except that missiles like that are not very well optimized for either engagement and are this pretty average overall.
That's why the AIM120D is not replacing the AIM9X for close in. It's not as maneuverable due to weight and length.
Indeed, I hope Europe come up with an IR version of METEOR.
Well stealth does sorta nullify the need for this.
Getting a warning that an AIM-120C is coming for you when it is 40 miles away is very different compared to getting the warning when it is 15 miles away.
Especially utilising the TWS on something like the f-16, you will see the lock from the plane but won’t get a missile warning until the missile turns on its own seeker. (Usually ca 4 miles away) at which point it becomes impossible to outmanouver the missile and almost impossible to jam its guidance...
Alex, your videos and commentary are the best on the web for sure, thank you for such exceptional work. Have our military planners ever considered that we may be spending way too much on these systems and that our enemies could be focusing on cheaper and more numerous drone and other systems that could nullify these costly planes and missiles? Is there something we should focus more on? It seems like we are just reacting to what our enemies create.
Theres always an offense defense contest and everyone is always reacting, the US is also working on cheap ways to counter cheap drones with things like electronic warfare.
@@WinkelmanSM-3 m no k ko
I also be thinking about that.
Irán has swarms of drones that will be very costly for the US if they try to kill them, just imagine the swarms going in on a aircraft carrier & the destruyers fireing off lots of misiles
That each one costs a million or close to that, thats going to be real costly....🤣🤣🤣
@@mariatorres5563 The Iranian drones currently in production have proven to be not very "smart" hence the low cost, and therefore would be used more as a saturation attack rather than acting as a "swarm".
Drones may even be too small of a target for a missile lock; I believe the counter for a drone saturation attack would be electronic warfare (potentially dropping them right out of the sky) and the CWIZ and deck guns as a last line of defense.
Keep in mind that dumb drones would need to be guided all the way in, so the enemy would have to have a radar lock on the US fleet. Drones would also need to pass the defenses of at least 4 other ships before getting close to a carrier. Overall, the chances of a US carrier being in the range of a drone saturation attack is extremely unlikely outside of very specific scenarios like the straight of Hormuz or South China Sea.
Its a really simple answer, cheap drones wont fly that fast and will easily be taken out using CIWS.
Some western CIWS’s have no difficulty shooting down mortar shells. (Mortar shells are very cheap hence why CIWS has been employed for this.)
The Sidewinder began development in the late 40s - it went into service in 1956, but it's history goes back almost another decade. One of it's first victories was when an early F-100 accidentally launched one at a hard-to-miss B-52. Ouch.
Totally different weapons between a 1960s sidewinder and 2020 missiles
Putin pulling out his binoculars to watch the missile has me cracking up xD
The LRAAM with a modular design looks like it has potential to replace all misses in theory. A short range middle would be set up (front to back) as seeker/computer/guidance pod, then stack as many fuel pods as you need, then finish up with the fin/nozzle/datalink pod in the rear. You may need the front fin pod in there somewhere but you get the idea. If you want longer ranges, stack more fuel pods. At that point, the range would be dictated by the effective range of the seeker or datalink, but not fuel. Sort of a “select-a-size”… like my paper towels.
You can put Sidewinder on just about anything that flies. It doesn’t require a separate onboard FCS (Fire Control System) because it’s built into the missile itself.
The Peregrine Missile might be one of the most important developments for 5th Gen Fighters as being able increase combat endurance while in full stealth loadout.
The Biggest Handicap of the 5th Gen fighters is that they carry much smaller loadouts of AA missiles, meaning that the 4th gen fighters now mainly have an endurance advantage over the 5th gens in terms of payload carried, so if the 5th gen runs out of missiles before they run out of targets they need to run, since it is no longer a fight in their advantage, even with stealth is not a wise fight to take if the enemy still outnumbers you.
Payloads that match those 4th gens payload would help make the 5th gen fighters much deadlier as at the end of the day, the enemy might defeat your missile and you will need to fire again, which means you need to expend more of your valuable few missile, the biggest thing is that you might be engaging an enemy flight and then another flight comes in to hunt you down, you might see them but with little ammo they can just run you off, the biggest advantage is carrying more missile internally for the 5th gens, and for the 4th gens getting that range advantage is the best way to stay alive, obviously if you can have more and longer range for a 5th gen fighter it makes it the most deadly in the airspace, but if you have to settle for one of them, depending on the enemy you think you are going to fight you will have to pick one of those two.
In a fight against China I feel like a higher total payload is more effective for the 5th Gen platforms, while in a fight against Russia I would bet on range as the Russian Air Force is not really capable of operating in the numbers required to be a threat, while the Chinese have a very large Air Force it is mostly made up of 4th gen fighters and a very small fleet of 5th gens like the J-20 with only handful of squadrons operating the Fighter, one of which is always stationed around Beijing to protect the Capital's Airspace
Russian/Chinese extended range doesn’t matter when it can’t use it at those ranges because it can’t detect F-35/F-22 at those ranges
might want to wait for there to be actual 'developments' rather that just Raytheon's announcement of its new wonder weapon that's magically smaller, stealthier, faster, cheaper and farther flying that everything else .. alchemy has always been a great idea as well - same with batteries that re-charge in seconds and mini-fusion reactors that magically power cities safely, cleanly and cheaply .. The problem is always in proof of concept. Thinking there's a reason why we've heard NOTHING from Raytheow since the 2019 announcement of the Peregrine's magical properties. Not a single announcement or article detailing a prototype let alone anything confirming that this thing might be real ..
5th gen can carry the same as fourth gen if stealth is slightly negated.
Correction: the F-35 can currently carry 4 AMRAAM’s. With the Block 4 upgrade, it will be able to carry 6 AMRAAM’s or 12 Peregrine missiles just like the F-22 can
I didn't think F-35 could carry Sidewinder internally.
Another insightful and thoroughly enjoyed video, my friend.
From my perspective, your video presentations offer the most data centered and highly researched videos on the RUclips platform.
Thanks again for your plethora of information, my friend.
May you and your family enjoy a safe and blessed Independence Day!
With all of her faults, our beloved Republic, by the grace of God, is still the greatest country on earth and may it ever be. May our enemies from without and from within be dealt a swift and sound defeat.
You really deserve these nomination's for your out standing work in a aviation.
Fingers crossed for you and good luck with everything you do in the future.
I’ll have to watch again… I thought you said 6 but listed 5. Multitasking. I knew of 3 of them great to know there are more. Great job as always.
Hi Alex🙏....
Bro Iam Indian 🇮🇳 and just for Context I want to Tell India worked on Astra 1( a single pulse motor) based engine having 110km range.(Nothing new)
Then have successfully made Astra 2 (with dual pulse motor engine) having 190-200km range.(good but not new)
Then most importantly Why I wrote this..
India has successfully ground tested Astra Mk3
(An SFDR based Missile)
A "Solid Fuel ducted Ramjet" engine
Based missile.
This New Ramjet time delayed Pulse Gives it exceptional Range around 300+km and In the world It's only second to Meteor Missile..
This would revolutionize the A2A market.. and Will Give us An edge over Chinese missile.
I also want to tell that The maximum range of the missile is Maped when the target is approaching..
Like Amraam 120C5 has 120km range for Approaching target, but for
Target which is running off The range Significantly decreases.. as missile has to travel More to hit the target. Here dualpulse and SFDR are best for Running target. Though there is significant Increase in weight and length.
What happened to the SARH AIM-7 Sparrow? Aren’t they still using these, albeit phasing out?
they're probably retired now, fox-1's aren't useful anymore
Using up existing stock
No new development on the AIM-7 Sparrow. The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) is derived from the AIM-7, but decades of branched development means that it is a separate and different missile.
AIM 7 went away at sometime in the late 80s to early 90s.
Who tf uses SARH’s today for air to air lmfao
These missiles have been in development for sometime, for a decade on some cases. The Air Force has been waiting for adversaries to catch up to justify the expenditure; these systems just don't pop-up out of thin air...
It must be weird to train for missions in which any time you get painted, you could die in the next few moments despite all countermeasures. It seems things escalate much faster than on the ground where there's cover, fall back positions, suppressive fire, switching targets and non-fatal casualties ; in the air, there's few gradations of danger. Every pilot has to live like a kamikaze
I strongly wonder what datalink will do with these newer missiles - all this talk of semi-active guidance means handoff from one jet to another would be very doable, perhaps with a stealth jet staying dark with no launch signature being able to guide in a missile from another fighter further out. Obviously, this is tech that the NGAD seeks to replicate with drones, but I still wonder what the implications could be when combining the greater capability of human pilots.
It's probably more likely the other way around. Stealth is important enough you wouldn't want to have a radar on to guide a missile and missile kinematics are generally worse at range.
You'd want a fighter further away doing the guiding for a fighter much closer and stealthy. That way the missile is unexpected and can come from a different attack axis than the tracking aircraft.
@@Whiskey11Gaming this concept already exists, it is called AEW&Cs (or AEWAC’s)
And if you are launching missiles at close range, an IR missile might just do the trick too which won’t require radar.
*WRONG* the F-35A and C have the Sidekick rack and can carry 6 internal AIM-120's
The F22 can carry 6 internal. F35 can carry 4 internal and 2 side internal (sidekick) missiles.
You cracked me up with your pronunciation of the Peregrine missile the first few times you talked about it. I am glad to “hear” that you got it correct on the last try. But keep of the good work. I have always enjoyed your research into the new AirPower tech that is coming out in the near future.
The F-35 cannot carry sidewinders internally, it carrys 4 amraams internally
How old is the Sidewinder? My Dad was an electrical engineer, he worked with a guy who was on the development team for the first generation version. He described it as using the tiniest little vacuum tubes you ever saw in its electronics.
The name is old but the actual missile has had several versions. If they changed the name on each new variant people would not be complaining.
Development of the Sidewinder began in 1946 and the missile performed its first intercept in 1953 and entered service in 1956. Given that the transistor had only been invented in 1947, I think your dad was correct in identifying that it used tiny vacuum tubes.
The sheer number of F-35's being built is more or less too much for any one enemy to contend with never mind if they become "5th Gen.+" after upgrades not to mention if they can carry 12 high tech mid - long range missiles.
Not to mention an F-22 carrying 16-20 peregrine missiles.
Everybody gangsta till Raytheon comes out with their OpenGL missile
F-22 is such a pretty plane. Not as good as Spitfire. Obviously, but it's a close second in my book. I was thinking 200miles as well. Thanks for the vid sir. Great work.
Stealth cross section shape missiles could have greater fuel volume and range, as speed is less important if stealth
Making smaller missiles for stealth fighters is huge. I was always left wondering how just four was enough for the F-35 even with stealth
Actually only the F-35C will depend on stealth since it is the only current low observable aircraft the Navy has. The Air Force having several stealthy options elected to make their version less stealthy, and the V/STOL B model, the least stealthy of the family since it is designed for supporting troops.
The 35 is meant to spot for gen 4 missile trucks like the f18 and 15 while also using its weapons
Non-stealth aircraft have to fire missiles at each other to force a defensive posture. Without the need to fire spoiler shots, 4 missiles in a stealth aircraft is better than 6-8 on a 4th gen.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD true even more so when you consider the 35 can guide in missiles from other aircraft Sam’s ships etc that fire from a safe distance which keeps them defensive while not compromising the attackers stealth or using their ammo, it’s quite brilliant and honestly completely changes the game again
Thats where Laser weapons come into play.
but 12 missiles on top of laser weapons on top of a gun. Overkill.
Not to mention that in the future the F-35 and NGAD will fly with drone wingmen that will have thier
own missiles.
It will get ugly.
I think every missile needs to have some kind of ram jet ability where they could make a small missile that used air pressure to combust a small amount of fuel for fuel mileage.
People paying attention to the block 4 f35, especially the A model, know how nuts the plane is beginning to turn.
The A model is getting a new adaptive engine, brand new tech that has already been flying. The block 4s computerization package is also flying.
The A as far as i know still hasnt selected wether the adaptive engine will be GE's model or P&W, and its based off the f135
Ya that is the question. I think the problem with the GE engine is that they dont have one for the B model. So the A and C would have different engines than the B.
Frankly I think they should go with the adaptive engines. One of the criticisms of the F-35 from teh navy was its range. I think they said the adaptive engines can get them %15 more range of something like that. I think the Adaptive Engines provide too many benefits to not use it but it always comes down to cost. An article I read a few months back said they would have to slow production of the F-35s to be able to start getting the GE engines for them. So if they are okay with a slower production rate it might be better.
The p&w design is an upgrade to the already existing engine. So there are cost saving measures there. I do think they will go with this option. It would save money and make upgrading the F-35s we and are allies already have easier.
One thing I am wondering is they could go with the GE adaptive engines if they plan on using them for the new NGAD planes. Having all their fighters using the same engine(excluding the B) could save money in the end and make logistics easier.
I don't know 100% but I'm pretty sure Canada just order 88 and they're getting the most advanced version of the F-35
@AmeriToast that's the only problem I have with Canada getting the F-35 is the range . We are the second biggest country in the world with a very small population under 40 million people. For American can understand you could go for like the size of Texas and not one person lives there ,not one Airfield.
@@ameritoast5174 the C model has a variant designed with materials for naval operation and corrosion
@@angelicaflanagan3483 we are getting the block 4.
The western Pacific will require long range beyond-field-of-view missiles, undoubtedly. Russian weapons claims should be taken with a grain of salt, given how their platforms have performed vs Ukraine.
The term is "Beyond Visual Range" clown 🤡.
Lmao do NOT say that what we use today is similar to what we used in desert storm. AIM-9Ls and and AIM-7Ms are NOT AIM-9Xs and AIM-120Ds
Do you understand the definition of similar you clown? Its "Resembling without being identical". So yes the AIM-9Xand AIM-120 are similar to the AIM-9L and AIM-7 because they were developed from them. They are upgraded versions of old systems so fall under the defintion fine. Try to know what you are talking about before trying to be a smartass.
@@cattledog901 What in any way besides appearance are the missiles similar. Seriously what a stupid fucking comment for being so arrogant. An AIM-120D has 4 times the effective range of the 7M, with every single system inside the shell of the missile being different, and being a Fox-3 not a Fox-1. And the AIM-9X has double the range of the 9L with way more flare resistance and G load, Thrust vectoring motors, and can be integrated with modern datalink systems. Seriously everything you just said is thoughtless, and you want to call me a clown? What point AT ALL would there be in saying that we field the same missile because it exists in a similar looking shell, when NOTHING else about the missile is remotely similar. They are not the same fucking missiles and the fact that you are trying to argue that is funny to me. It’s such a pointless argument. Compare based on capability not looks idiot. Arguing your point doesn’t have a purpose
I love the channel. Thanks for making these videos!
the Sidewinder lineage goes back to at least 1946, which is roughly when the tech development/testing started. But the AIM-9X is still one of the best missiles available today.
No linage just in name
@@LeonAustwrong. the seeker head was developed in 1946, and the missiles was designed shortly after. been slowly upgraded ever since. feel free to try to disprove that.
easy ...not one part of the AIM-9A or 9B resides in a AIM-9X totally new design. If that's ok by a bullshit token linage then I would call it a guided 5 inch Zuni rocket because that's where they got the main body rocket from to develop the original Sidewinder 1. ..........read its history@@SoloRenegade
Whatever happened to (if it existed at all) a2a missiles that could be pre-launched, loiter / glide at high altitude and then be given a target once it was acquired? Granted, pretty wasteful if a target is not acquired in a timely fashion. I'm guessing these would have been replaced (conceptually at least) by drones and loyal wingmen.
wasn't the aim 260 announced as 2 stage? and i think its coming out this year
The F15 is the only fighter that can carry and use the AIM 260 because of its size. The F22 can technically carry em but only under the wings and ONLY on the most inner pylon closest to the fuselage. Again, because of size and weight. Using F22s with the AIM 260 kinda defeats the purpose of using the F22.
@@nexpro6118 f16 and f22 and f15 can carry it lol its only 8% bigger than aim120
@@nexpro6118 what?
@@lilMungo .....my god.....I don't care if its only 2% bigger. The pylons themselves are not designed to carry/attach a missile and or bombs that are any larger than whats currently used. and the software and hardware systems would need to be upgraded or changed and also wouldn't be able to carry multiple missiles (260) even when you change all of this.....yes, by size and weight alone, those fingers can in theory support to carry the size and weight but not in practical use.....I know....research is hard for some people to do....
@@nexpro6118 if a f16 can carry a 2000lb bomb on its inner pylons I'm sure f22 and f35 wouldn't have a problem carrying a 400lb missles
The F-35 can already carry four AMRAAMs in its bays. Block 4 will up that number to six.
Consider doing the new F-15 EX. A notional design at this point, as are these missiles. Much larger wing. Many hardpoints. Great lifting capacity. Either a smart bomber, or a netcentric missile barge to add weight behind the stealth jets. And, naturally, and pure blood F-15.
Your opening statement made me lose all respect for you. According to you an AIM-120D is basically not much different than an AIM-7 Sparrow and the Lima Sidewinder is basically the same as an AIM-9X block II. Wow, dude. What are you on?
I think that might br unfair. While the AMRAAM is certainly not the Sparrow, it's profile remains essentially the same since it's introduction in the 1990s. The AIM-9X has essentially the same dimensions as the as first Sidewinders fielded in the 1950s. The motor, the seeker, and the warhead can all change, but they have to be packed into the same container, and that introduces an absolute contraint on development. With the new clean-sheet designs, the tyranny of the embedded base can be eliminated and 21st shapes can be used.
Russia and China are trying to catch up to current tech from the United States in regard to missiles...and they will. The new missiles coming online later will have us another two or three decades ahead ...as usual. Dont get me started on FA-XX, NGAD, or the B-21. D.A.R.P.A., USAF research Laboratory plant 42, and others will always keep us with a 30yr gap.
15:30 Correction. The F-35 as of right now can carry 4x AIM-120's internally, not just two obviously. That is in a pure BVR air to air setup.The F-35 can't carry missiles like the AIM-9X internally as these types of weapons operate differently to the AMRAAM's. Their rocket motors fire instantly, meaning that have to clear the launch platform immediately. This is currently not possible with how the F-35 is laid out internally. The F-22, for example, achieves this by having its AIM-9's mounted on angled prongs that come out when the F-22 opens its side weapons bays, allowing the missile to clear the F-22 safely. F-35's are most often seen flying with traditional wing tip pylons carrying the AIM-9X. These pylons aren't really traditional as they're particularly stealthy, a requirement as they of course wished for the ability to carry short range heat seeker missiles and at the same time preserve the oh so important feature of stealth. These pylons do of course increase the F-35's RCS somewhat, but not by too much and especially not compared to legacy systems.
The future upgrades of the F-35 will see its internal carrying capacity, for AIM-120's specifically, increase from 4 to 6, the same number as the F-22. We might see some future developments that allow for the internal carry of shorter range WVR/heat seeking missiles, or as mentioned here, smaller but as effective replacements for medium/long range missiles that increase their internal carrying capacity to 8/12.
I wonder if the AIM-9 will get an upgrade with more thrust vectoring and maybe some features to make it a...*Growling* sidewinder =P
The peregrine is really intriguing. How is Raytheon managing to make it that tiny? An F-22 armed with 12 of those things sounds like an absolutely terrifying thing.
That kind of performance jump in such a small platform, along with the fact that it's described as having a "new, high performance propulsion system" makes me suspect it's an air-breather. Some kind of small rocket-ramjet similar to that used by the Meteor missile. The mockup shown so far doesn't appear to have any features that would indicate ramjet operation such as visible (if covered) intakes, but the program hasn't been shown off yet so Raytheon may simply be avoiding telling the rest of the world how they did it.
Ramjet propulsion has the advantage of being able to operate longer, which improves terminal kinematics enormously and also greatly increases range. The efficiency of a jet or rocket engine can be given by its specific impulse (ISP) which is measured in seconds and represents the total impulse available from a given mass of propellant or fuel. Impulse is force x time so a motor that produced 10,000 lbs thrust for 20s would have a total impulse of 200,000 lbs-s, and if it used 800 lbs of propellant in the process, its specific impulse would be 250s which is fairly typical for a low-smoke solid propellant motor. By using a rocket-ramjet design, the rocket accelerates the missile to a speed where the ramjet can ignite and because ramjets get oxygen to burn their fuel from the air, they can deliver much more impulse than a rocket which has to carry both fuel and an oxidiser. The Meteor's ramjet engine has a specific impulse 3x higher than an equivalent rocket motor so it gets a lot more out of a given mass and volume of fuel, which is why it seems the obvious choice to use a similar system for Peregrine.
Too new for this video is the AIM174(air launched SM6 variant). Will be able to take down jets, trucks, helicopters, tanks, buildings, ballistic missiles and frigging satellites
AIM-260 has a larger diamiter than that of the AIM-130 alowing it to carry more propelant in its rocket motor. I beleve the Parigrine does away with a warhead and uses its kinetic energy to smash targets.
Then it needs that much better maneuverability. Imagine trying to smack a thrust-vectoring Su-57 by ramming the missile directly into it rather than just getting a proximity fuse kill.
@@Ilyak1986 I don’t think anyone cares about the 57 at this point 😅
@@RUclipsuser1aa yeahhhhh with all the sanctions on Russia, that jet is one step above "vaporware" at this point. Still, same logic may apply to the J-20 and J-31 in China?
@@Ilyak1986 nope. J-20 are a more of a threat and China can produce more than a few for air shows 😅
It’s kind of sad if anyone really thinks Russia can do anything these days besides cyber crime and sit on unstable nukes 😂
Peregrine seems to use a blast fragmentation warhead. My guess is that it achieves such remarkable range and performance despite its small size by using an air-breathing engine - some sort of rocket-ramjet similar to Meteor. None of the mockup images seem to show anything like air intakes but they might not be the actual design to keep sensitive details under wrap.
is it fair to call the f35 a 5.5 gen? i mean no other gen of plane can do what it does? not even an f22
I think you'd have a good argument. I guess we won't know how to Guage it until 6th gen comes out.
@@bonedoc4556
I do think this is a valid question. On one hand we don't exactly know what difference a gen 5 and gen 6 would have until they're put into service.
On the other hand the lightning 2 does have capabilites that other jets don't currently have.
I'd say if some of the F-35s aren't 5.5 gen now, they can be in the future. Maybe a new future variant could be considered 6th gen as well. But who knows.
f-35 cant even supercruise
@@ferrous3262 so what, supercruise is a requirement for 5th gen now?
If so, what would you call the B2 and B21?
@@ferrous3262 Turns out that even the capability for supersonic flight is hardly ever needed in combat. During the Gulf War, the maximum speed attained by any US fighter was just mach 1.04 and even that was only for a short duration.
The music was a really nice touch in the opening, I approve
Got me all jacked up!
Rage against the machine, right?
its not just our missiles, most of our airforce altogether is from the desert storm era . the f15 and f16 c and e models are from the 90s thats the bulk of our fighters and the E2 c5 and others are as well. the f22 is only in small numbers and the f35 barely ever stays in the air constantly being grounded for various problems
Alex!!! " used in Desert Storm two decades ago" That was THREE decades ago my guy!
2 mistakes: The F-35 AA loadout isn't 2 aamraams and 2 sidewinders. Sidewinders can't be carried internally on the f35, they are rail launched, so an AA loadout with no external weapons is 4 aamraams, soon to be 6.
Toward the end of the video you mention missiles being almost out of fuel when they reach their targets so maneuverable targets like fighters are tough to kill at long ranges. Long range engagements using rocket powered missiles involve a lofted, rocket powered initial flight, and then a coast to target. The missiles are likely almost out of ENERGY when they reach max engagement range, but they were out of fuel seconds after launch. The LREW would likely involve a similar rocket powered lofted launch, followed by the traditional coast/glide to it's interception point, where it would light off it's own onboard radar and it's 2nd stage engine to impart more energy and enable the missile to strike a target maneuvering to escape the kill zone.
Cupola mounted laser cannons will be the new chaff and flare. While laser weapons so far has been pretty crap against everything on the ground, testing against anything that flies has shown a lot of promise. That's one area where the US is miles ahead of any other nation. Friend or foe.
At 10 minutes the engine and spinning propeller of the disintegrating target is wonderful. 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
Who was the photographer ? 😊😊
If the 5th gen fighters can integrate a disposable pylon/attachment point, they may still have a use for an under wing missile or two. At extended ranges, they would still have a decreased signature vs. previous generation fighters. If they become engaged, those missiles will be quickly expended leaving you with a now stealthy playform full of "regular" missiles. Honestly its the best of both worlds. Long range missiles early to dictate the engagement (plus the ability to knock out AWACS) and STILL having some amraams to further fight or defend if someone sneaks into your bubble.
So... we're definitely never going forward with pigeon-guided missiles? Axing for a fren.
Pigeons are way outdated, so now chickens are all the rage. Peacocks just too big, heavy and expensive. Stupid too.
@@francisbusa1074 Peacocks are also the antithesis of stealth technology. 🦚
The implications of this are pretty insane and will give the US an unprecedented edge over even near peer adversaries.
They’re also fixing the capacity issues with the F-35 which is no small problem.
In BVR you have to carry a minimum of at least 6 missiles to push an enemy.
You’re not looking for your first missiles to get a kill in most scenarios.
You’re firing them to force your opponent into a defensive posture so you can get closer where your missiles have a strong assurance of kill.
This is why believe it or not the MIG-31 gives the Russians a strong defensive advantage.
It has a big radar and Carries missiles with very long range to give it the legs that the US jets just don’t possess. Not even the F-15 with it’s amazing radar can track at those ranges so by the time the US jets can get close enough to make an effective kill the MIG-31 will usually kill them.
What they’re doing is destroying that advantage and plugging a lot of holes at the same time.
The US doctrine doesn’t support lone wolf engagements but you need to be prepared for any scenario and grabbing 6 missiles on an F-35 means is god a much better chance of surviving against multiple enemies whereas its current situation with only two means of it was even one on one with another fighter it would be bad but two on one would be a nightmare for the F-35.
Could it pull it off?
Possibly given its stealth but you wouldn’t want to test that theory ever
You shouldn’t exaggerate what you can do, Russia and China. The Americans might believe you.