F22 couldn’t be shipped overseas and therefore was not going to result in the huge payday for the military industrial complex and so it was canned in favor of a new jet fighter With potentially unlimited profits. At least that’s the way it always seemed to me.
While that is true, it was most certainly a 1990s style production line. Not large scale enough to be automated, yet complicated enough to be uber expensive. With a more modern approach to design and manufacturing you should be able to operate both faster and at a lower cost.
@@Alwsmith nah if the program would have continued they would have just made an F22-E that cut out all the best tech and exported that. It is a very common practice and the US has done it with tons of different platforms they otherwise would not export in their original configuration. For example the Abrams tanks that are being sent to Ukraine are not being sent with their normal armor plating which is an advanced alloy material and instead that armor is being swapped out for the more typical hardened steel.
@@Alwsmith: The F-22 production run was supposed to be 750 aircraft. If they'd done that, they would have had economy of scale, reducing the cost to produce those hundreds of planes for a lot less than the first few batches. On top of that, they would have been able to amortize the development costs over four times as many units. And they could have retired hundreds of high-flight hour F-15s that ended up getting more and more expensive to operate and upgrade.
The better question is not what it will cost to purchase but what it will cost to maintain and operate. If we had a fighter that cost a billion dollars each but required one tenth of the maintenance and upkeep of the F22 or F35 that would still be a far better deal in the long run.
One of the two prime contractors on the F35 program doesn’t consider “spare parts” to be accountable as far as serial numbers and property inventory. “F35 spare parts” includes a globally-managed supply chain among tens of countries, hundreds of sites and warehouses, and thousands of personnel from US service branches, foreign service branches, DOD agencies like DLA, and contractors. Spare parts includes everything from screws and fasteners to entire engine assemblies. Yikes.
It’s frustrating how many forget / never knew operational costs are the most VIP cost factor + whether or not it can assume and eliminate the roles of and need for other platforms.
Money now is worth more than money 30 years from now. A plane that costs a billion now will never make up for its up front costs regardless of how cheap it is to maintain. It would be obsolete long before it could recoup its costs even if those costs are zero. Assuming a rate of inflation at 3% (higher rates make it even worse for you) and a 30 year life span. 1 billion now equates to 2.4 billion in 30 years. You could easily buy and maintain 10-15 f35s for that price or probably 6-8 f22s.
Excellent video! You, as always, are making educated points that almost no one else. Decisions arent as simple as people make them seem on the internet
I'm a retired design engineer with roots in aerospace and NASA. Also a Vietnam era helicopter assault airman. I've come to see air dominance as an endless loop of defence contractor grift. We develop the next generation weapon, pay through the nose for the first run, then sell it at the new "at scale" reduced price to anyone who meets a list of prerequisites. Wait for them to either defect politically, or lose the tech on a battlefield. Then we need a new generation to replace it. A deterrent is only a deterrent if you are the only one who has it. And who is it we are deterring at this point? None of our interventions over the past seven decades have done anything to improve the status quo. It has improved the bottom line of contractors. But that seems to be it. Is the F35 deterring north Korea from developing nukes? Or anyone else? This is insane. But good work Alex. We need insight and the information to form opinion.
Really? Did World War 3 happen? Did we fight the Soviets in Europe? I think deterrence makes a lot more sense vis-a-Vee China then fighting the People's Republic of China. If you want peace, prepare for war. If you want war, look weak.
Well it's most likely deterring China to attack Taiwan and Russia to use nukes right now, that sounds like a good deterrent to me. Also money funding R&D is just money circulating inside your own economy, it's not really lost and it improves your overall tech.
The cost and grift is real, but there is also the benefit of all the R&D bleeding into other programs and eventually (depending on classification) into the civilian world. The arms race (including stealth and networking) is just as responsible for modern civilian technology as the space race. And technology has consistently been one of America's strongest assets. At this point, we could possibly make a convincing argument that military R&D spending serves as a tech-incubator for the rest of society.
Thank you for covering this issue so clearly and concisely, it's much appreciated. Excellent research, especially putting historic, current, and future costs into a common perspective so even techies like me can understand the bewildering world of gov't spending. :D
If Boeing gets it’s hands on the contract it may reach a billion a plane and be cancelled at five planes because of delays. The question is how much does it cost to not own the sky?
Neither of you guys are wrong about Boeing, and they do seem to be trying to bungle themselves into irrelevance, if not non-existence, but damn I hope Boeing pulls their head out of their fourth point of contact and turns things around.
That was a very good and thorough explanation. If only our politicians would talk to us that way maybe more Americans would be open to significantly increasing our Defense Budgets instead of knee capping so many projects that should've come to fruition. Especially since we are now facing war with China, Russia, and several other regions not talked about.
Ukraine is holding back the Russians, we should only worry if they take all of Ukraine and have Russian forces on the border with Poland. China has a lot to lose with invading Taiwan, I personally don’t see it as inevitable as others seem to. Did you know they import a majority of their food and energy? A naval blockade by the two most powerful navy’s (USN and JMSDF) could cripple the PRC economy and even cause famine.
i think if development going toward NGAD are thought of more as potential components toward other airframes, like stealth coating, radar, data-networking, etc, rather than being specific to one platform, it might seem a little less nuts. putting those components to use in other aircraft, whether those in development or retrofitting, it might help offset or justify the cost some.
Ya the F-35 may of went down a lot because of other nations buying in. But the NGAD going to be exclusive to US only like the F-22. Also F-35 they are making like 1700 of them and for NGAD pretty sure they are only going to order 200-300. So they probably will either end up costing $300 mil a piece or more. Probably depends how hard it is to implement the technology and build the plane. I assume based off the lessons they learned from f-22 and F-35 program should help them out a bit.
If a 5th generation ++ F/A-22 version for export were produced for allies like Australia, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Israel, Poland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada and the USAF it might be worth it. .
I'm Australian, and I'm with @arbelico here. Some of the divisions in the modern world are hardening, but the USA still has some very solid Allies. Australia has quietly had the F-18 Growler for a couple of decades now, and you're helping us with Submarines. Poland has a comparatively small economy compared to many of your partners, but if you look at their current Defence spending - They've chosen a side, and they're proving it. Yes, there are Security concerns, but the divide between the US and many of her Allies is smaller than the divisions within your own Country Politically.
@@arbelico2 I mean they are only planing on making 200, I’m pretty sure those 200 are for US only. Unless something changes. But who knows, I assume since this will be next coming of the F-22 they won’t export it, just like they didn’t export the Raptor. That’s why all other nations are buying F-35. But who knows, only time will tell. I’d be shocked if they made any type version for export.
If this plane is only used as a can opener (destroying radars and making way for the F-18’s) than it might be worth it. Small numbers and highly specialized.
@terrywilson4166 and comparing the base of the future to the 4.0 of an existing platform is always going to be silly. NGAD will be built upon in similar fashion to how the F-35 has, years from now when we compare versions 4 of each the differences will, in my opinion, be absolutely massive
If stealth worked - British Type 45 destroyers can "see" and track any stealth aircraft at the maximum range dictated by the curvature of the earth. And they aren't even the latest systems. Drop the stealth fighter programme - the future is drones. Cheap and lots of them - not trying to create a pilotless F-35!
@@patricklloyd1797 I think the NGAD will leverage existing technologies sourced mainly from the version 4.0 of the F-35, & use the F136 engines which are being developed. The airframe I'm pretty sure will be a updated tailless version of the F-22B.
The thing to consider. Every airframe America has made since WW2, has been top of the line, pushing technological boundaries. This will never change. They will also be like this, and as manufacturing upgrades with the capabilities and requirements of these aircrafts, they will remain largely the same cost. After all, really nothing about their position is changing. They are THE aircraft.
If 300 million times at least 200 jets is 60 billion. Government will recoups some with Taxes. This is a great deal if it acts as a deterrent to adversaries.
When I was in the USAF, I worked around the F-16 Reconnaissance aircraft out at Bergstrom AFB,but today I think that it's an International Airport and just the reserves are there.I also love the troops favorite for close ground coverage,the A-10 Warthog ! Love that aircraft.What a beautiful bird, with high turning capabilities and the cannon is the plane,the engines,and just the survivability of the whole thing is a great reason alone. Reason enough to get my attention and keeping alot of troops very happy 😊 😃.
Everyone knows the cost is going to go beyond 300 million, probably 600 or more. I'm reminded of an old joke from the 70's that at the rate prices were going up, eventually we would be able fo afford one super plane, used by the air force on even days and the navy on odd days.
So $60,000,000,000 for the 200 we are looking to buy. $ 60 billion isn't that bad especially for what it's roll will be which is the high in our high low.
I hadn't realised that the defense budget is less of the GNP than it was during the Cold War. It puts things in perspective, especially if you price war material from the past in 2023 dollars.
You have to consider the DOD budget historically compared to our current budget. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has added social programs that did not exist before. You also have to figure in the added cost Social Security and Medicaid require from an aging population compared to a younger population back then. As a percentage the DOD budget has shrunk but the Nat'l budget has grown considerably as a whole too.
We hear a lot about the astronomical debt, but it needs to be compared to our GDP to make any sense at all. When you just give the raw number it seems scary but our GDP is huge so we can support a large debt no problem. Debt to GDP ratio is what matters. Same goes for DOD spending as percent of total budget rather than a standalone figure.
@@smithnwesson990 The last 8 U.S. F/A-18 Hornets authorized in the FY23 defense budget are scheduled to roll off Boeing's line in 2025. The U.S. will have bought 698 Hornets by then. It's possible India will order some and they would continue the line till 2027. So soon the U.S.N. will be using the F-35 as the Hornets age and are replaced. I hope a new replacement will have 2 engines instead of the F-35 one engine.
The question is ROI Return On Investment. If the product costs ten times more than the competitor but produces twenty times more, it's a bargain deal. The J20 cost China about $250 Million each. If NGAD has a 20:1 kill ratio against them, as did the Ratpor against 4th Gen fighters, it'd be bargain deal.
I used to feel the same way but Alex kind of educated me. Don't get me wrong I still love the F22 and feel it was a mistake to stop production of them, but it's age puts it behind in the tech against the F22. In an isolated BVR or dogfight, sure it's gonna come out on top. Kind of like a heavyweight boxer in a prize fight. But in a street fight against a gang that is networked, that prizefighter might not last as long, even against lesser opponents. Plus I don't see how they could retrofit the tech that is lacking in the F22 into that airframe. IMO, both the F22 & F35 should be bigger for increased internal weapon capacity. The question is could they put the network tech into an new F22 airframe such that the F22 could leverage the unmanned loyal wingman drones to increase it lethality? Hmmmm
@@JohnMGibby I wonder if there could be a massive overhaul on the F22. Like not just a better radar and coatings, something big like a new wing and tail, weapons bay, etc.
@JohnFrumFromAmerica no , the problem is I understand that it would likey end up costing way more than predicted, be way behind schedule, half the the stuff they promised probably won't be on the jet till a block 4 or 5 version and then they will cut it short like f22. Don't get me wrong it would be a bad ass jet more capable than the f22 I just don't have faith in our government to deliver these days. By the way we are behind and way over budget on just about everything we do in this country from ships, to jets. The f22 we know how to do already, throw in newer radar, avionics, new coating, and those fancy engines we are working on and we'd be great for a good while.
I don’t think we should wait on the NGAD fighter to field these drones. Medium/large awacs-style aircraft, tankers, Bombers, naval ships, and globally distributed ground stations could all be control stations. We should move forward with these drone projects asap.
I thought US fighter design was moving towards smaller batches of fighters, with more frequent iterations powered by AI design and simulation. Hopefully once they get to the second generation of AI design and adaptive engines, the prices can come down.
@yzyz7779 F22 and F35 both took 20+ years from program start to operational. In that time, the US's main focus went from short range vs USSR in Europe, to COIN operations, and now to maybe needing long range in the Pacific. Plus software and computing advances so quickly, that having a human designed fighter means that it's already 10 years obsolete when it enters service, and it's not designed for current needs.
@@TGoat5 Ok, but good if gorv given job change to living soul, ,some rumors says China also build war ship with general Ai.She can design 1 war ship with entire water paiping and elektrical wirering plan just on 1 week ,need 1 year with few specialist if they use human.Wallahuaklam only Allah know the thruth ,and like another ship of course not unsinkable
300 million doesn't mean much. We print money like there is no tomorrow, and inflation adjusted this doesn't look too bad compared to others. The real question is if it can deliver the performance that matches the price tag. And with digital, modular design, 3D printed parts to be able to produce spares whenever you need them, vertical integration and a digital, integrated cockpit, it probably will do exactly that.
Digital design and agile, vertical integration may very well be the thing that saves us from the old joke that we can only afford a single fighter jet by 2050. 300 million might actually be cheap, compared to what the F22 or F35 would've been with todays dollar value.
Yeah, we've been having record breaking inflation for several years now. Officially it's just below record breaking because they changed how they calculate it, but effectively it's the highest in US history. If we just go by the price of gold, as a no-BS inflation comparison: $300m for a fighter in 2023 is not unlike $70m for a fighter in 2005. Making this DRASTICALLY cheaper than the F-22 was. Similar for the expected $600m price of the B-21. Of course at the current rate of inflation, by the time production is up & running, these numbers will be even higher. But it's not because of the planes themselves.
@@piotrd.4850 raw dogfighting power that'll burn off your ram coating, yes. But the NGAD is supposed to be more stealthy, possibly faster, definitely longer range, and affordable upgradability to always stay up to date. And it may have a lot more firepower with more longer ranged missiles as well.
@@piotrd.4850 So was the F-35. It currently costs more than a 30 year old F-15E to to keep an F-35A in the air, and that's with the F-15E flying more hours than the F-35A.
YES. That’s one of the reasons the USAF never went for such a fighter. In 2023 dollars the F-15C was about $55 million to acquire per jet, a real bargain for what the jet provided.
I have been wondering why no one ever reviews the Auxiliary support ships from the US Navy. I served aboard an AE (Auxiliary Explosive), and had specialized training to conduct underway replenishment operations. If you want to look into that area, the ammunition ships in particular, had a very exciting history. There is a story that one of the ships exploded in port at NWS Concord during the Vietnam "conflict"... according to the story, as I recall, one of the anchors was found buried in the side of a not to distant tall hill or small mountain. I'll leave you to determine if that was a true story or a lie.
I thought it would be cheap because how advancement in technology would lower the cost to build the airframe with 3d metal printing or new manufacturing, but I guest I'm wrong because how slow many company would not invest in technology that would change the production line.
There is talk of a Large specialized Stealth Fighter/ Interceptor that contains ridiculously powerful electronic's/data suites and power systems for laser/plasma weaponry as well as an ability too be manned or unmanned depending on Mission requirements. The Wingman technology is interesting as well as Swarming theories. The next 5 years should be quite interesting to say the least.
The new NGAD program is a deterrent which is expensive. In my opinion, we already dominate the skies but that Gap is shrinking. The NGAD, stealth wingman, B-21 Raider along with our existing fleet of aircraft. Should make the US and its allies an undeniable deterrent. If these new platforms can destroy the Chinese thousand-mile defense bubble threatening our aircraft carriers, they'll be no doubt. Stealthy tankers could be the key to that. 👍👍 🇺🇸🇺🇸 AMERICA!!!!!!!
@@johngrey9780 Not even close. Go read about the MALD-J and MALD-X. If you pick out a small target that seems to be a stealth fighter or a stealth bomber do you fire at it? If you see 20 of them, do you assume it's a bunch of decoys? What if it's 15 decoys and 5 real planes, you better fire or someone on your side is going to have a real bad day. Say the adversary develops the technology to sometimes be able to tell the difference between a decoy and the real thing and they stop wasting missiles on the decoys, you know what happens then? You swap out the ECM/jammer/spoofing payload and put in a warhead and they go hit some air defense sites or other juicy targets because the radar operators think they're so smart by knowing it's not a stealth fighter and it's not a cruise missile, oops! And when good interceptor missiles are $2-12 million a piece, shooting 30 of them at a few decoys spoofing an attack fleet of 15 in bound aircraft quickly runs your ammo supply dry, and even if you're Russia and have thousands stockpiled, it still puts a huge strain on your logistics chain having to resupply giant heavy missiles instead of other things they could be transporting like troops, meals, ammo, etc. Sorry, US dominates the skies and will continue to do so for the next 2 decades at least. Edit: Oh, and the F-35 has a deployable cable towed decoy stored by its tail that it can deploy behind it, so even if you detect it, get a target quality track on it, get your missile to home on it, and the F-35 doesn't defeat it through normal means available to every other fighter, your missile is still going to be wasted as it harmlessly explodes a safe distance behind the F-35. So your normal fire 2 missiles at every target to account for not having 100% probability of kill now sees you having to launch, what, 4, 6, perhaps even more at a single target.
The US spends gobsmackingly large sums on its nuclear deterrent, which arguably is pretty useless when it comes to preventing low level misbehavior and hybrid warfare operations by those that which to upturn the rules based order, so spending a comparatively smaller sum to have the benefit of a conventional deterrent of the same magnitude far exceeds the financial cost. The fact that even if it failed as a deterrent that it would still reduce the expensive loss of billions of dollars of ships, vehicles, and personnel means that regardless of whether it gets used as a deterrent or as a guardian of the skies it is an insurance policy that pays for itself, a no brainer.
@@johngrey9780 I generally agree with you. I have no doubt that Hypersonic aircraft were in the works, it's the only inexpensive way to deliver hypersonic munitions . Hypersonic bomber would not be able to deliver standard ordinance, the simple fact that it's moving at Mach 5 or greater create mini issues in itself. First off( the weapons being launched will need high temperature resistant coatings on the nose and leading edges of all extruding control surfaces) 2nd ( weapons would most likely be carried internally in a weapons Bay, like they are presently in the B1, B2 & B-52) That in turn creates major dilemma. The B1 is the only supersonic capable bomber in the US Arsenal and its max speed is only Mach 1.2. The Dilemma is, although the ordinance is moving at the same speed as the bomber carrying them, they're not being affected by atmospheric resistance & conditions( drag,friction,temperatures,etc) so how do you deploy them into a hypersonic airstream and maintain safety, reliability, stability & accuracy? No country to date has deployed a truly hypersonic missile.(that's a missile using an initial rocket, turbojet or aircraft to boost it to around Mach 3 which is needed for a ramjet or scramjet to operate) China and Russia's hypersonic missiles are all boosted to hypersonic speeds using ballistic missiles. Once at hypersonic speeds the warhead separates. The Russian Kinzhal is only capable of making minor adjustments to it's course. The other type is a glide vehicle. It's capable of more substantial course adjustments. They're not true hypersonics because they don't continue under their own power after leaving the Boost vehicle. (directed energy weapons and new terminal tracking systems will most likely make Hypersonic weapons obsolete long before stealth is) True Hyper Sonic weapons are estimated to cost a minimum 100 million dollars each. That's more than an F-35. Not Even the United States and China AR wealthy enough to maintain anything more than a small stockpile. That stockpile would most likely be used for extremely high value targets. Stealth and radar Technologies are another subject. Every technological advantage throughout the history of mankind has been bested by another technology. Developing a technology to overcome an opponent advantage is the primary driving Factor of mankinds rise to the apex species on the planet. It's unfortunate that mankinds default settings is power and dominance which in turn perpetuates War and so on and so forth.
@@johngrey9780 In my opinion, air dominance is and will always be the most important factor in any major conflict. Radar systems are inherently complex and expensive. There's no such thing as an impenetrable air-defense system. Finding the inherent weaknesses and exploiting them is exactly what stealth was built for. Stealth can be detected at long ranges. But you only have a vague idea that they're in your airspace. Air defense systems use long-wave radar to detect stealth aircraft. Tracking and locking onto a Target is done with shortwave radars. That's why stealth aircraft are specifically designed to deflect or absorb short wavelength.
@@msytdc1577 Great reply Do you find yourself frustrated just trying to explain the basic fundamentals of the extremely complex and ever-changing Dynamic situation that is inherent in the military defense of the country?
You have to understand that 1 of these expensive stealth plane would be accompanied with at least 2-4 wingman drones; I'd called the main warplane as the C&C fighter (command & control). If assuming each wingman drone cost roughly $50 million each and the C&C fighter has at least 3 wingman drones, then a total cost of mini squadron would be around $450 million or roughly average out to $112.5 million each plane (hypothetically speaking) and in bulk procurement and time could drop the price down bellow $100 million each. No sane battlefield commander would send a $300 million C&C warplane into an adversary' air defense zone and risk losing a human pilot. The C&C warplane would be sending the 3 wingman drones into adversary's zone to destroy the air defenses before an actual human pilot in a $300 million plane would fly in. Losing 1 or 3 wingman drones is fine and easily replaced, but losing a human asset is devastating. Hence, the $300 million price tag is worth every pennies if each of these stealth plane is accompanied with at least 2 wingman drones with advanced AI to protect the expensive $300 warplane. They've been working on wingman drones because this is the future air combat so that's what their goal. Do the math, analyze the situations, and stay ahead of air power dominance. The $300 million price tag is worth it.
I would expect the NGAD to be more like an automated AWACs that can defend itself rather than and actual fighter. Take an EA-6 with endurance designed engines that can go supersonic if needed, put a Vulcan Cannon on it and 4 rails for sparrows or sidewinders. The fighter would then serve as the hub for f-16's with dogfighting programs, F-15's with avionics that could be loaded to do dog fighting or mud moving. Both of the old fighters have production lines still in operation and as drones, they do not need stealth. With that done you can noe focus on developing the stealthy drones and figure out a cheap way to do it with 2 common airframes that would support fighter or attack functions. They would be modular so you would not know if the stealth attacker is a kamikaze drone carrier for advanced MALD's, or a SLAM truck. The stealth equipment would be focused on providing the SEAD and destroying the missile belts and batteries so the drones based on the old f-16 and 15 airframe based drones can get in.
It won't happen world war will start before this matures and the stealth programme will be exposed for what it is. F-15EX, F-16 and F18 will save the day while people are scratching their heads how to replace lost/broken F-35s.
You can OWN THE SKY once the jet is IN THE AIR. Getting your fighters in the air is the Achilles heel in the American military. The logistics and physical operating bases locations are not as impeverious to the enemy's actions as the NGAD fighter may be. The shutting down recently of the B-2 base runway due to a damaged B-2 on the runway, where THE ENTIRE FLEET OF B-2s are based is a good example. Our modern jets MUST ALSO OPERATE from an very clean and smooth runway, free of FOD objects. Such runways may not be readily available in a shooting war. If such vulnerabilities exist for our best NGAD aircraft, tactics, weapons, stealth, etc. in the air won't matter.
The Future of Aviation will be like in Macross Frontier... Where Luca Angeloni flies an RVF-25 with an AA/AS/SF-06 integrated radar that works as eyes on the battlefield and he is followed by 3 QF-4000 (AIF-7S) Ghost Fighters. In this case, the modern battles will be a single pilot followed by a swarm of drones, some with bombs, others with missiles, others with rockets, other with sensors, other with fuel (may be) and the pilot will be doing the decision making and the drones will do the job. Also, the job of the drones will be to protect the pilot.
I realize it isn't a direct 1-to-1 comparison, but I wonder how much cheaper, in the long run, it would have been, if in a Raptor Restart, the brought over most of the F-35's avionics/sensor systems, just targeted towards air-to-air for the Raptor, versus air-to-ground as in the F-35. I also wonder where we would be if we had adopted the FB-22, as a Strike Eagle Replacement, whether that would have kept the overall Raptor Production Line open, longer, or could have been reused, during or after the FB-22 Production Run, for new build F-22s.
That's what they are going to do - but put the new systems into large underwing pods as F-22's ancient systems are practically impossible to upgrade in place. They will isolate all legacy systems except flight controls and bolt on F-35's (next - ie post block 4) computing suite linked to a new glass cockpit. This kind of shows stealth is practically pointless. They are going to give up range, stealth and aircraft performance to gain better systems - this is where the advantage is - weapons systems - and it's why gen 4.5 accidentally turned out to be the right platform - easy to modernise and maintain - want the latest thing? Just bolt it on whereas adding a new capability to the hideously complex F-22 or F-35 means 3-5 years work - and then the new capability is obsolete by the time it's rolled out. When the next war starts F-16 and F-15EX will be the front line for the USA not stealth anything.
Do you know what metal fatigue is the F-22 are not going to fly forever and underwing pods on a stealth aircraft...............now that's thinking out of the box.🤣 There's no 2nd in a war, it's kill or be killed so let's give the warfighter a capability to win not lose.
@@LeonAust There's the "official answer" and the "unofficially answer". The "official answer" is that the tooling was locked in a storage area, and is secure there, in case it's needed again, whether for new F-22s or for making parts to fix broken F-22s. The "unofficial answer" is that we don't really know. Supposedly, some of the tooling was removed, to (possibly) be used for the F-35, others are missing and no idea where, and so on.
Incorporating the tech and construction methods from the F-35 into the Raptor would mean that you're not restarting production so much as developing a whole new production line. Properly integrating the potential improvements in the structure of stealth materials, adding greater power generation and cooling capacity for newer systems and ensuring it has the capacity to add things like directed energy weapons at a later date would require a total redesign to the extent that it would be an F-22 in name only. It could be done but it would be anything but quick or cheap.
Where they not just talking how we are done with the 20-30 year fighters? So we could now use cheaper fighters every decade from now on? Doesn't seem like that they said is matching reality, is this not suppose to be smaller more frequent advancements for lower cost???
They absolutely were JUST saying this not to long ago. The department is so big and bloated beyond believe they have zero chance of coordinating any kind of strategy.
they scrapped that idea/cadence a few years back, the early phases of NGAD were done with this idea in mind but they're going back to a more traditional fighter lifespan/cadence since ultimately you can do a lot of this with new blocks on the existing airframes. The F16 proves that you don't need to keep every part of the airframe identical as well, you can add new intakes + engines, or modify things as needed going forward, and just issue a new block
That was the whole theory behind the Joint Strike Fighter program (which became the F35). They wanted to reduce the cost of air platforms by creating a singular platform that the USAF, USN, and USMC could use thus creating savings by reducing the number of R&D projects (1 instead of 3) and order volume. But it ultimately failed because the limitations and compromises that are made to allow aircraft to take off from carriers and VTOL/VTSL are so great that it wasn't really the same airframe.
@Nelson_ Rebel The Rand wargames indicated that American long-range anti-ship missiles were the decisive factor in winning against China or not. B-21s can carry far more and are ideally suited to fire those anti-ship missiles. And if we must have new stealth fighters, then we already have two prototypes sitting in museums that could be updated and put into production: the F-22s competitor YF-23. It was arguably a better stealth fighter than the Raptor was anyway.
@@Chuck_Hooks Yes but you're always going to have a need for capability for aircraft suited for contested and contesting any airspace. B-2 cant do that despite it's better air to ground target capability. It's still a bomber and has limitations as such. Idk if the NGAD will be neccessary or not since we have the 35 and more 22's than any all other nations 5th gen aircraft combined. But It's still a good idea to develop a better aircraft if neccessary. 22 is limited because of it's design choices and range. It could be completely redisgned to work like the NGAD, but that sounds awfully expensive to update 20-30 year old airframes that have a short service life on them
The problem with the $300/NGAD plane is that there is a high probability it will balloon to $600M/plane. Boeing/Northrup buiilt NASA's SLS (big moon rocket) atter a 100% cost overrun and 100% schedule delay. Every large weapons program has had this problem, with no exceptions. The f/16 was developed because the f/15 was too expensive. We built 3 Zumwalt destroyers instead of 30 because it was too expensive and the cannon on the zumwalt fired 2M bullets. Alex does a great job of "promoting" the NGAD, but the problem is our overpriced defense companies don't know how to buid them at an affordable cost. There's hope. And that is in the drone fleet that would accompany the NGAD. The dorne fleet in fact will do the "detection" and it can carry the weapons for anit-air, anti-ship, and ground attack and some of the drones can carry fuel to top up other drones.. And why does it have to be controled by a person in the NGAD? Why can't it controlled by a crew in an AWACS (or the modern variant that uses a converted 737 airframe), or even via satellite.
Even if these new stealth fighters are invincible in the air it does not negate the fact that they’re sitting ducks on the ground for cheap missiles that adversaries like China could saturate our air defenses with. I don’t like the idea of us spending so much money on a platform so vulnerable unless our air defense saturation point is higher.
Ok, if the airfield is in the danger zone, it would likely be equipped with hardened bunkers for the aircraft to sit in. There would also be many layers of defense guarding an airfield holding any significant quantity of these. We're talking fleet units equipped with AEGIS, Patriot/THAAD, Iron Dome (the US is working on an equivalent system domestically), and MANPADS. You'd have to throw literal hundreds and hundreds of munitions at one airfield to have a chance of saturating the defenses.
Excellent review. What you didn't add in is the cost of training pilots and their on going cost. One of these aircraft and four drones saves four, eight, or twelve pilots being required.
This is why we're still producing new airframes of 50-year-old designs. Every new design has to be bigger and more expensive than the last. If you ask me, the 6th-gen fighter program is nothing more than Lockheed Martin's wet dream (and Boeing's, and Northrop Grumman's). They'll make a prototype, maybe half a dozen serial planes, and that'll be it, like the Su-57 in Russia. Even the US military's budget is not infinite. I guess here's to another 50 years of mostly 4th-gens dominating the skies!
Putting this in perspective: In 1970 dollars, the F-35 would cost ~$12.5 million per copy. Considering the F-14 cost 3 times that amount is staggering. The F-35 is a goddam bargain, and the NGAD fighter will be too. Now imagine how cheap the Gripen or the F-20 Tigershark would be if produced in the same numbers. And apparently the F-20 was supposed to be the F-35 of its time. I still think the US should contract a new, updated block of F-5s. They're cheaper and easier to maintain than F-16s, and just as flexible, fast, and have similar RCS signatures.
The F-35 is an SUV that is expected to do combat against exotic sportscars. We need the NGAD. It's like fighting a katana with the world's best swiss army knife.
hmm if its that costly then it better be Awesome... either that or the US should make 100 again and keep them like the F117 ready for strike or lethal defense in areas unknown..
And look how long it took to iron F-111 out - for it to become the plane it promised - F-35 is going through the same pain - except it's not as useful an aircraft to begin with!
How much would it cost if we eliminated the xxx% markup beyond commercial prices paid to defense contractors for simple parts? U.S. military downfall if WW3 happens will be the same as Russia in Ukraine. Getting 1 artillery shell for a price that could have bought a dozen. Needs to be fixed!
The question that needs to be answered is: What is the NGAD fighter being built for? What threat is it being built to counter that justifies its $300 million price tag? With Russia and China struggling to build stealth fighters in large quantities, the stealth fighters we already have are more than sufficient. How do you justify pouring money into building a weapon system to counter threats that don't exist?
The justification of the cost is dependent on how it is to be used. It’s good for the country to stay on the cutting edge of AirPower. I can see where a new high performance stealth fighter being Carrier based could be widely used to take out air defense systems to clear the way for less costly aircraft to come in or for 1 off missions of a delicate nature. At this cost, it’s not practical to own and operate a large number of these aircraft after air defense role has been eliminated. The other factor is the cost of the armaments. At 1 million dollars a missile is a huge commitment every time one is fired. Especially if faced with dozens of $5000 drones and the limited armament load out. At this same time, the possible accompaniment of smart drones at $150 million each is ridiculous. These should be considered expendable in protection of the controlling aircraft. That’s tough at this cost. Also, the control of more than a few of these by an already engaged pilot seems kind of impractical as well. Perhaps if these drones were to be controlled from a remote base or a stand off control aircraft… The cost of missiles and other armaments needs to be reviewed. Perhaps a bunch of affordable slightly less capable missiles should be considered with lower cost and a higher quantity a plane is able to carry into battle 😅 There is something to be said for numbers. An air defense system can reach a point where it can be overloaded, perhaps by a fleet of inexpensive drones. If you think about the inexpensive missiles Hamas has been using against Israel, they were effective at overwhelming the Iron Dome which is perhaps the most capable air defense system in existence plus they probably cost a fraction of each Iron Dome missile. This makes their use a game of attrition against a better equipped but more costly foe.
What are we even talking about? USA is printing their own money and the world is using that money as the main currency. It doesn't matter how much something costs.
Just from what was said in this video, high production rates like 1000+ units brings the F-35 cost down from $300M to $80M. However, only 300 NGAD units like what the military is projecting won't realize anywhere near the same cost reduction benefits. The video says that a new production run of 300 units (by substituting F-22s for NGADs) costing well over $260M per F-22. With 300 NGADS projected to cost not much more at $300M per aircraft that would seem to suggest that at purchase numbers of around 300 units we won't realize any additional cost saving. And nothing like the $300M down to $80M we see with a production run of 1000+ for the F-35. So without allowing for friendly countries to purchase the NGAD, we could be paying 2--3 times what we would by restricting its sale to US forces alone. Don't know if that's worth it or not. Just wanted to point it out.
300,000,000 is considered VERY cheap it should cost at least 500 millions as it is also BRANDED. The Drones should cost another 300,000,000 too and also consider Cheap.
The biggee the contract and procurement, the cheaper it is overall. New R & D is expensive, but having the ADVANTAGE OVER YOUR ADVERSARIES IS PRICELESS.
I think the most ironic thing about this, is that these fighters will likely decrease total cost in the long run given how it's primarily meant to be a control center for drone wingmen. This allows a large suite of aircraft that'd normally be unable to achieve.
F-22 production costs would have gone down considerably if they'd produced several hundred of them as originally planned.
F22 couldn’t be shipped overseas and therefore was not going to result in the huge payday for the military industrial complex and so it was canned in favor of a new jet fighter With potentially unlimited profits. At least that’s the way it always seemed to me.
While that is true, it was most certainly a 1990s style production line. Not large scale enough to be automated, yet complicated enough to be uber expensive. With a more modern approach to design and manufacturing you should be able to operate both faster and at a lower cost.
@@Alwsmith nah if the program would have continued they would have just made an F22-E that cut out all the best tech and exported that. It is a very common practice and the US has done it with tons of different platforms they otherwise would not export in their original configuration. For example the Abrams tanks that are being sent to Ukraine are not being sent with their normal armor plating which is an advanced alloy material and instead that armor is being swapped out for the more typical hardened steel.
@@ThatGuyKazz
I think that an export F-22 would make for the greatest 4.5 gen fighter of all time.
Or just go with the 23 being the export.
@@Alwsmith: The F-22 production run was supposed to be 750 aircraft. If they'd done that, they would have had economy of scale, reducing the cost to produce those hundreds of planes for a lot less than the first few batches. On top of that, they would have been able to amortize the development costs over four times as many units. And they could have retired hundreds of high-flight hour F-15s that ended up getting more and more expensive to operate and upgrade.
The USAF needs to hire Alex to explain and promote their budget-busting projects like NGAD. He does it superbly!👏🏽
🤣🤣🤣 Would love to see him in a white pinstripe suit doing a sales pitch to a panel of generals 🫡
I don't think that we should go there. 🤔
The better question is not what it will cost to purchase but what it will cost to maintain and operate. If we had a fighter that cost a billion dollars each but required one tenth of the maintenance and upkeep of the F22 or F35 that would still be a far better deal in the long run.
One of the two prime contractors on the F35 program doesn’t consider “spare parts” to be accountable as far as serial numbers and property inventory. “F35 spare parts” includes a globally-managed supply chain among tens of countries, hundreds of sites and warehouses, and thousands of personnel from US service branches, foreign service branches, DOD agencies like DLA, and contractors. Spare parts includes everything from screws and fasteners to entire engine assemblies. Yikes.
Easy to manage if you don't keep track. Makes more sense if you don't think about it.
Depends if they get shot down or not lol.
It’s frustrating how many forget / never knew operational costs are the most VIP cost factor + whether or not it can assume and eliminate the roles of and need for other platforms.
Money now is worth more than money 30 years from now. A plane that costs a billion now will never make up for its up front costs regardless of how cheap it is to maintain. It would be obsolete long before it could recoup its costs even if those costs are zero. Assuming a rate of inflation at 3% (higher rates make it even worse for you) and a 30 year life span. 1 billion now equates to 2.4 billion in 30 years. You could easily buy and maintain 10-15 f35s for that price or probably 6-8 f22s.
Excellent video! You, as always, are making educated points that almost no one else. Decisions arent as simple as people make them seem on the internet
Price aside thinking of the capabilities is just 🤤🤤
What does that mean. 'is just drooling blue stuff?'. Use your words.
@@billycarr7446 I found it pretty easy to understand.
Like the leopard tank' capabilities? 🤔
@@GegeDxD Lepoards are old tanks from 1980s
@@hphp31416 Leopard 2's I assume. Same with the M1 Abrams, but both chassis have been upgraded to high hell throughout the years
I'm a retired design engineer with roots in aerospace and NASA. Also a Vietnam era helicopter assault airman. I've come to see air dominance as an endless loop of defence contractor grift. We develop the next generation weapon, pay through the nose for the first run, then sell it at the new "at scale" reduced price to anyone who meets a list of prerequisites. Wait for them to either defect politically, or lose the tech on a battlefield. Then we need a new generation to replace it. A deterrent is only a deterrent if you are the only one who has it. And who is it we are deterring at this point? None of our interventions over the past seven decades have done anything to improve the status quo. It has improved the bottom line of contractors. But that seems to be it. Is the F35 deterring north Korea from developing nukes? Or anyone else? This is insane. But good work Alex. We need insight and the information to form opinion.
Really? Did World War 3 happen? Did we fight the Soviets in Europe?
I think deterrence makes a lot more sense vis-a-Vee China then fighting the People's Republic of China. If you want peace, prepare for war. If you want war, look weak.
Well it's most likely deterring China to attack Taiwan and Russia to use nukes right now, that sounds like a good deterrent to me.
Also money funding R&D is just money circulating inside your own economy, it's not really lost and it improves your overall tech.
The cost and grift is real, but there is also the benefit of all the R&D bleeding into other programs and eventually (depending on classification) into the civilian world. The arms race (including stealth and networking) is just as responsible for modern civilian technology as the space race. And technology has consistently been one of America's strongest assets. At this point, we could possibly make a convincing argument that military R&D spending serves as a tech-incubator for the rest of society.
@@yyyy-uv3po seriously doubt that anything other than retaliation with our nukes is stopping them.
@MeerKat Report I would counter by saying that "spinoff" tech is a good excuse for not doing the r&d simply for the peaceful advancement of humanity.
Thank you for covering this issue so clearly and concisely, it's much appreciated. Excellent research, especially putting historic, current, and future costs into a common perspective so even techies like me can understand the bewildering world of gov't spending. :D
If Boeing gets it’s hands on the contract it may reach a billion a plane and be cancelled at five planes because of delays. The question is how much does it cost to not own the sky?
Neither of you guys are wrong about Boeing, and they do seem to be trying to bungle themselves into irrelevance, if not non-existence, but damn I hope Boeing pulls their head out of their fourth point of contact and turns things around.
"The question is how much does it cost to not own the sky?" ask the Ukrainians. They can tell you.
Ukraine and Russia appears to be the best example of not owning the skies.
@@FoxtrotYouniformI remember going to Boeing recruiting event and the first thing that they asked me was "what makes you qualify?"
@@trplankowner3323 at least Ukraine has a good reason for not owning the sky, Russia on the other hand...
That was a very good and thorough explanation. If only our politicians would talk to us that way maybe more Americans would be open to significantly increasing our Defense Budgets instead of knee capping so many projects that should've come to fruition. Especially since we are now facing war with China, Russia, and several other regions not talked about.
Ukraine is holding back the Russians, we should only worry if they take all of Ukraine and have Russian forces on the border with Poland. China has a lot to lose with invading Taiwan, I personally don’t see it as inevitable as others seem to. Did you know they import a majority of their food and energy? A naval blockade by the two most powerful navy’s (USN and JMSDF) could cripple the PRC economy and even cause famine.
If war comes to China, it will be alongside North Korea. This couldn't be a worse situation. Not even mentioning Iran. Get your canned goods now.
i think if development going toward NGAD are thought of more as potential components toward other airframes, like stealth coating, radar, data-networking, etc, rather than being specific to one platform, it might seem a little less nuts. putting those components to use in other aircraft, whether those in development or retrofitting, it might help offset or justify the cost some.
Ya the F-35 may of went down a lot because of other nations buying in. But the NGAD going to be exclusive to US only like the F-22. Also F-35 they are making like 1700 of them and for NGAD pretty sure they are only going to order 200-300. So they probably will either end up costing $300 mil a piece or more. Probably depends how hard it is to implement the technology and build the plane. I assume based off the lessons they learned from f-22 and F-35 program should help them out a bit.
If a 5th generation ++ F/A-22 version for export were produced for allies like Australia, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Israel, Poland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada and the USAF it might be worth it. .
It’s not a matter of how hard it is to make, it’s a matter of how much the defense contractor wants to make on each unit
I’ll be surprised if the US orders 150.🧐
I'm Australian, and I'm with @arbelico here. Some of the divisions in the modern world are hardening, but the USA still has some very solid Allies. Australia has quietly had the F-18 Growler for a couple of decades now, and you're helping us with Submarines. Poland has a comparatively small economy compared to many of your partners, but if you look at their current Defence spending - They've chosen a side, and they're proving it. Yes, there are Security concerns, but the divide between the US and many of her Allies is smaller than the divisions within your own Country Politically.
@@arbelico2 I mean they are only planing on making 200, I’m pretty sure those 200 are for US only. Unless something changes. But who knows, I assume since this will be next coming of the F-22 they won’t export it, just like they didn’t export the Raptor. That’s why all other nations are buying F-35. But who knows, only time will tell. I’d be shocked if they made any type version for export.
I think the Ukraine war demonstrates plenty of reasons why control of the sky matters.
If this plane is only used as a can opener (destroying radars and making way for the F-18’s) than it might be worth it. Small numbers and highly specialized.
F-35 can already do the same task with very high confidence at a fraction of the cost
@@stupidburp The F-35 version 4.0 is a true 5.5 generation fighter, & can do 90% of what the NGAD fighter can.
@terrywilson4166 and comparing the base of the future to the 4.0 of an existing platform is always going to be silly. NGAD will be built upon in similar fashion to how the F-35 has, years from now when we compare versions 4 of each the differences will, in my opinion, be absolutely massive
If stealth worked - British Type 45 destroyers can "see" and track any stealth aircraft at the maximum range dictated by the curvature of the earth. And they aren't even the latest systems. Drop the stealth fighter programme - the future is drones. Cheap and lots of them - not trying to create a pilotless F-35!
@@patricklloyd1797 I think the NGAD will leverage existing technologies sourced mainly from the version 4.0 of the F-35, & use the F136 engines which are being developed. The airframe I'm pretty sure will be a updated tailless version of the F-22B.
For $300M+, these companies must create something perfect!
The thing to consider. Every airframe America has made since WW2, has been top of the line, pushing technological boundaries.
This will never change. They will also be like this, and as manufacturing upgrades with the capabilities and requirements of these aircrafts, they will remain largely the same cost.
After all, really nothing about their position is changing. They are THE aircraft.
Nobody does a better job of clarifying the most complex topics in military aviation. Thanks for another enlightening, informative video!
Thanks Alex that really puts the price in perspective compared to historical systems
yeah, like a new fighter program has NEVER gone over budget...this numbers are total BS
If 300 million times at least 200 jets is 60 billion. Government will recoups some with Taxes. This is a great deal if it acts as a deterrent to adversaries.
That’s a third of the entire budget for the USAF.
@@Rimasta1 🤯 I wish I had a better understanding of how my tax dollars are spent.
another great video, Mr Alex, keep-um coming . . .
When I was in the USAF, I worked around the F-16 Reconnaissance aircraft out at Bergstrom AFB,but today I think that it's an International Airport and just the reserves are there.I also love the troops favorite for close ground coverage,the A-10 Warthog ! Love that aircraft.What a beautiful bird, with high turning capabilities and the cannon is the plane,the engines,and just the survivability of the whole thing is a great reason alone. Reason enough to get my attention and keeping alot of troops very happy 😊 😃.
Everyone knows the cost is going to go beyond 300 million, probably 600 or more. I'm reminded of an old joke from the 70's that at the rate prices were going up, eventually we would be able fo afford one super plane, used by the air force on even days and the navy on odd days.
and the USMC on leap days every 4 years. Don't forget those poor guys, they are low not just on tasty crayons, but also airplanes...
@@texasranger24 What does that reference, Marines and crayons mean?
@@kennethng8346 Marines love to eat crayons. They are tasty. At least to marines. Google it.
Also I just wana point out how insane the inflation has been since the 90s. Fiat currency’s are garbage, the Gold standard needs to come back.
So $60,000,000,000 for the 200 we are looking to buy. $ 60 billion isn't that bad especially for what it's roll will be which is the high in our high low.
That new RAM will be great as long as we can keep ol Cheryl from sending the formula back to China.
Hey, love the content. Could you make a video on the navy, or the military in general on production and manufacturing issues, upcoming ships etc?
"As long as I'm not paying for it."
"Wait, what? I am paying for it??"
I hadn't realised that the defense budget is less of the GNP than it was during the Cold War. It puts things in perspective, especially if you price war material from the past in 2023 dollars.
You have to consider the DOD budget historically compared to our current budget. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has added social programs that did not exist before. You also have to figure in the added cost Social Security and Medicaid require from an aging population compared to a younger population back then. As a percentage the DOD budget has shrunk but the Nat'l budget has grown considerably as a whole too.
We hear a lot about the astronomical debt, but it needs to be compared to our GDP to make any sense at all. When you just give the raw number it seems scary but our GDP is huge so we can support a large debt no problem. Debt to GDP ratio is what matters. Same goes for DOD spending as percent of total budget rather than a standalone figure.
@@hifinswordtrue however our acquisition budget should grow by about 75 billion if we want to rearm seriously. We need a Reagan era build up.
@@smithnwesson990 The last 8 U.S. F/A-18 Hornets authorized in the FY23 defense budget are scheduled to roll off Boeing's line in 2025. The U.S. will have bought 698 Hornets by then. It's possible India will order some and they would continue the line till 2027. So soon the U.S.N. will be using the F-35 as the Hornets age and are replaced. I hope a new replacement will have 2 engines instead of the F-35 one engine.
The question is ROI Return On Investment. If the product costs ten times more than the competitor but produces twenty times more, it's a bargain deal. The J20 cost China about $250 Million each. If NGAD has a 20:1 kill ratio against them, as did the Ratpor against 4th Gen fighters, it'd be bargain deal.
Even with all that said I'm still in favor of a modernized f22 program restart.
I used to feel the same way but Alex kind of educated me. Don't get me wrong I still love the F22 and feel it was a mistake to stop production of them, but it's age puts it behind in the tech against the F22. In an isolated BVR or dogfight, sure it's gonna come out on top. Kind of like a heavyweight boxer in a prize fight. But in a street fight against a gang that is networked, that prizefighter might not last as long, even against lesser opponents.
Plus I don't see how they could retrofit the tech that is lacking in the F22 into that airframe. IMO, both the F22 & F35 should be bigger for increased internal weapon capacity.
The question is could they put the network tech into an new F22 airframe such that the F22 could leverage the unmanned loyal wingman drones to increase it lethality? Hmmmm
That's because you don't appreciate what these jets will be capable of.
@@JohnMGibby I wonder if there could be a massive overhaul on the F22. Like not just a better radar and coatings, something big like a new wing and tail, weapons bay, etc.
Lol what
@JohnFrumFromAmerica no , the problem is I understand that it would likey end up costing way more than predicted, be way behind schedule, half the the stuff they promised probably won't be on the jet till a block 4 or 5 version and then they will cut it short like f22. Don't get me wrong it would be a bad ass jet more capable than the f22 I just don't have faith in our government to deliver these days. By the way we are behind and way over budget on just about everything we do in this country from ships, to jets. The f22 we know how to do already, throw in newer radar, avionics, new coating, and those fancy engines we are working on and we'd be great for a good while.
You are one of the greatest reporters of you Generation Alex. 👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿 Thank you so much for your service.
🏆🤗🙏🇺🇲
Thank you for sharing
I don’t think we should wait on the NGAD fighter to field these drones. Medium/large awacs-style aircraft, tankers, Bombers, naval ships, and globally distributed ground stations could all be control stations. We should move forward with these drone projects asap.
I thought US fighter design was moving towards smaller batches of fighters, with more frequent iterations powered by AI design and simulation. Hopefully once they get to the second generation of AI design and adaptive engines, the prices can come down.
Why need design by Ai,but use human pilot ?lol, they should use human designer with Ai pilot.
@yzyz7779 F22 and F35 both took 20+ years from program start to operational. In that time, the US's main focus went from short range vs USSR in Europe, to COIN operations, and now to maybe needing long range in the Pacific. Plus software and computing advances so quickly, that having a human designed fighter means that it's already 10 years obsolete when it enters service, and it's not designed for current needs.
@@TGoat5 Ok, but good if gorv given job change to living soul, ,some rumors says China also build war ship with general Ai.She can design 1 war ship with entire water paiping and elektrical wirering plan just on 1 week ,need 1 year with few specialist if they use human.Wallahuaklam only Allah know the thruth ,and like another ship of course not unsinkable
No AI that is a horrible idea
to try to put some context on this, this is roughly the (list) price of a 787-9 Dreamliner.
Oh. So the military can afford $300 Million for stealth fighters but still has 2014 protection from cyber attacks. Good ole america......
Don't worry. Most of the money goes to research.
I would be more concerned about the fact that the military refuses to retire weapons that have been in use since Vietnam and WWII
Military Industrial Complex is from where the civilization sprouts from. Greetings from Estonia, glad to have you as allies!
That’s what they want you to think
Braindead take
Very nice work buddy. Love your channel.
300 million doesn't mean much. We print money like there is no tomorrow, and inflation adjusted this doesn't look too bad compared to others.
The real question is if it can deliver the performance that matches the price tag. And with digital, modular design, 3D printed parts to be able to produce spares whenever you need them, vertical integration and a digital, integrated cockpit, it probably will do exactly that.
Digital design and agile, vertical integration may very well be the thing that saves us from the old joke that we can only afford a single fighter jet by 2050. 300 million might actually be cheap, compared to what the F22 or F35 would've been with todays dollar value.
F-22 deliverd performance. NGAD is supposed to deliver long term sustainability.
Yeah, we've been having record breaking inflation for several years now. Officially it's just below record breaking because they changed how they calculate it, but effectively it's the highest in US history. If we just go by the price of gold, as a no-BS inflation comparison: $300m for a fighter in 2023 is not unlike $70m for a fighter in 2005. Making this DRASTICALLY cheaper than the F-22 was. Similar for the expected $600m price of the B-21. Of course at the current rate of inflation, by the time production is up & running, these numbers will be even higher. But it's not because of the planes themselves.
@@piotrd.4850 raw dogfighting power that'll burn off your ram coating, yes. But the NGAD is supposed to be more stealthy, possibly faster, definitely longer range, and affordable upgradability to always stay up to date. And it may have a lot more firepower with more longer ranged missiles as well.
@@piotrd.4850 So was the F-35. It currently costs more than a 30 year old F-15E to to keep an F-35A in the air, and that's with the F-15E flying more hours than the F-35A.
YES. That’s one of the reasons the USAF never went for such a fighter. In 2023 dollars the F-15C was about $55 million to acquire per jet, a real bargain for what the jet provided.
I have been wondering why no one ever reviews the Auxiliary support ships from the US Navy. I served aboard an AE (Auxiliary Explosive), and had specialized training to conduct underway replenishment operations. If you want to look into that area, the ammunition ships in particular, had a very exciting history. There is a story that one of the ships exploded in port at NWS Concord during the Vietnam "conflict"... according to the story, as I recall, one of the anchors was found buried in the side of a not to distant tall hill or small mountain. I'll leave you to determine if that was a true story or a lie.
This is a fantastic video. Thank you for doing the inflation conversions!
F-35: $80 million. NGAD fighter: $300 million. Foreign leader yelling, "What the %*#! just happened to my air force!?"...priceless.
I thought it would be cheap because how advancement in technology would lower the cost to build the airframe with 3d metal printing or new manufacturing, but I guest I'm wrong because how slow many company would not invest in technology that would change the production line.
There is talk of a Large specialized Stealth Fighter/ Interceptor that contains ridiculously powerful electronic's/data suites and power systems for laser/plasma weaponry as well as an ability too be manned or unmanned depending on Mission requirements. The Wingman technology is interesting as well as Swarming theories. The next 5 years should be quite interesting to say the least.
So if I win a Powerball jackpot worth over 1 billion, can I buy a plan and donate it to the service? They just need to keep up the maintenance. Lol
The new NGAD program is a deterrent which is expensive. In my opinion, we already dominate the skies but that Gap is shrinking. The NGAD, stealth wingman, B-21 Raider along with our existing fleet of aircraft. Should make the US and its allies an undeniable deterrent. If these new platforms can destroy the Chinese thousand-mile defense bubble threatening our aircraft carriers, they'll be no doubt. Stealthy tankers could be the key to that. 👍👍 🇺🇸🇺🇸 AMERICA!!!!!!!
@@johngrey9780 Not even close. Go read about the MALD-J and MALD-X. If you pick out a small target that seems to be a stealth fighter or a stealth bomber do you fire at it? If you see 20 of them, do you assume it's a bunch of decoys? What if it's 15 decoys and 5 real planes, you better fire or someone on your side is going to have a real bad day. Say the adversary develops the technology to sometimes be able to tell the difference between a decoy and the real thing and they stop wasting missiles on the decoys, you know what happens then? You swap out the ECM/jammer/spoofing payload and put in a warhead and they go hit some air defense sites or other juicy targets because the radar operators think they're so smart by knowing it's not a stealth fighter and it's not a cruise missile, oops! And when good interceptor missiles are $2-12 million a piece, shooting 30 of them at a few decoys spoofing an attack fleet of 15 in bound aircraft quickly runs your ammo supply dry, and even if you're Russia and have thousands stockpiled, it still puts a huge strain on your logistics chain having to resupply giant heavy missiles instead of other things they could be transporting like troops, meals, ammo, etc. Sorry, US dominates the skies and will continue to do so for the next 2 decades at least.
Edit: Oh, and the F-35 has a deployable cable towed decoy stored by its tail that it can deploy behind it, so even if you detect it, get a target quality track on it, get your missile to home on it, and the F-35 doesn't defeat it through normal means available to every other fighter, your missile is still going to be wasted as it harmlessly explodes a safe distance behind the F-35. So your normal fire 2 missiles at every target to account for not having 100% probability of kill now sees you having to launch, what, 4, 6, perhaps even more at a single target.
The US spends gobsmackingly large sums on its nuclear deterrent, which arguably is pretty useless when it comes to preventing low level misbehavior and hybrid warfare operations by those that which to upturn the rules based order, so spending a comparatively smaller sum to have the benefit of a conventional deterrent of the same magnitude far exceeds the financial cost. The fact that even if it failed as a deterrent that it would still reduce the expensive loss of billions of dollars of ships, vehicles, and personnel means that regardless of whether it gets used as a deterrent or as a guardian of the skies it is an insurance policy that pays for itself, a no brainer.
@@johngrey9780
I generally agree with you. I have no doubt that Hypersonic aircraft were in the works, it's the only inexpensive way to deliver hypersonic munitions . Hypersonic bomber would not be able to deliver standard ordinance, the simple fact that it's moving at Mach 5 or greater create mini issues in itself. First off( the weapons being launched will need high temperature resistant coatings on the nose and leading edges of all extruding control surfaces)
2nd ( weapons would most likely be carried internally in a weapons Bay, like they are presently in the B1, B2 & B-52)
That in turn creates major dilemma. The B1 is the only supersonic capable bomber in the US Arsenal and its max speed is only Mach 1.2.
The Dilemma is, although the ordinance is moving at the same speed as the bomber carrying them, they're not being affected by atmospheric resistance & conditions( drag,friction,temperatures,etc) so how do you deploy them into a hypersonic airstream and maintain safety, reliability, stability & accuracy?
No country to date has deployed a truly hypersonic missile.(that's a missile using an initial rocket, turbojet or aircraft to boost it to around Mach 3 which is needed for a ramjet or scramjet to operate) China and Russia's hypersonic missiles are all boosted to hypersonic speeds using ballistic missiles. Once at hypersonic speeds the warhead separates. The Russian Kinzhal is only capable of making minor adjustments to it's course. The other type is a glide vehicle. It's capable of more substantial course adjustments. They're not true hypersonics because they don't continue under their own power after leaving the Boost vehicle. (directed energy weapons and new terminal tracking systems will most likely make Hypersonic weapons obsolete long before stealth is)
True Hyper Sonic weapons are estimated to cost a minimum 100 million dollars each. That's more than an F-35. Not Even the United States and China AR wealthy enough to maintain anything more than a small stockpile. That stockpile would most likely be used for extremely high value targets.
Stealth and radar Technologies are another subject.
Every technological advantage throughout the history of mankind has been bested by another technology. Developing a technology to overcome an opponent advantage is the primary driving Factor of mankinds rise to the apex species on the planet.
It's unfortunate that mankinds default settings is power and dominance which in turn perpetuates War and so on and so forth.
@@johngrey9780
In my opinion, air dominance is and will always be the most important factor in any major conflict. Radar systems are inherently complex and expensive. There's no such thing as an impenetrable air-defense system. Finding the inherent weaknesses and exploiting them is exactly what stealth was built for. Stealth can be detected at long ranges. But you only have a vague idea that they're in your airspace. Air defense systems use long-wave radar to detect stealth aircraft. Tracking and locking onto a Target is done with shortwave radars. That's why stealth aircraft are specifically designed to deflect or absorb short wavelength.
@@msytdc1577
Great reply
Do you find yourself frustrated just trying to explain the basic fundamentals of the extremely complex and ever-changing Dynamic situation that is inherent in the military defense of the country?
You have to understand that 1 of these expensive stealth plane would be accompanied with at least 2-4 wingman drones; I'd called the main warplane as the C&C fighter (command & control). If assuming each wingman drone cost roughly $50 million each and the C&C fighter has at least 3 wingman drones, then a total cost of mini squadron would be around $450 million or roughly average out to $112.5 million each plane (hypothetically speaking) and in bulk procurement and time could drop the price down bellow $100 million each.
No sane battlefield commander would send a $300 million C&C warplane into an adversary' air defense zone and risk losing a human pilot. The C&C warplane would be sending the 3 wingman drones into adversary's zone to destroy the air defenses before an actual human pilot in a $300 million plane would fly in. Losing 1 or 3 wingman drones is fine and easily replaced, but losing a human asset is devastating. Hence, the $300 million price tag is worth every pennies if each of these stealth plane is accompanied with at least 2 wingman drones with advanced AI to protect the expensive $300 warplane. They've been working on wingman drones because this is the future air combat so that's what their goal.
Do the math, analyze the situations, and stay ahead of air power dominance. The $300 million price tag is worth it.
how much does the TR-3b cost Alex?
A couple of those coins from John Wick
I would expect the NGAD to be more like an automated AWACs that can defend itself rather than and actual fighter. Take an EA-6 with endurance designed engines that can go supersonic if needed, put a Vulcan Cannon on it and 4 rails for sparrows or sidewinders. The fighter would then serve as the hub for f-16's with dogfighting programs, F-15's with avionics that could be loaded to do dog fighting or mud moving. Both of the old fighters have production lines still in operation and as drones, they do not need stealth.
With that done you can noe focus on developing the stealthy drones and figure out a cheap way to do it with 2 common airframes that would support fighter or attack functions. They would be modular so you would not know if the stealth attacker is a kamikaze drone carrier for advanced MALD's, or a SLAM truck. The stealth equipment would be focused on providing the SEAD and destroying the missile belts and batteries so the drones based on the old f-16 and 15 airframe based drones can get in.
That 1.7 trillion will actually make it the most expensive project of any kind in human history.
It won't happen world war will start before this matures and the stealth programme will be exposed for what it is. F-15EX, F-16 and F18 will save the day while people are scratching their heads how to replace lost/broken F-35s.
You can OWN THE SKY once the jet is IN THE AIR. Getting your fighters in the air is the Achilles heel in the American military. The logistics and physical operating bases locations are not as impeverious to the enemy's actions as the NGAD fighter may be. The shutting down recently of the B-2 base runway due to a damaged B-2 on the runway, where THE ENTIRE FLEET OF B-2s are based is a good example. Our modern jets MUST ALSO OPERATE from an very clean and smooth runway, free of FOD objects. Such runways may not be readily available in a shooting war. If such vulnerabilities exist for our best NGAD aircraft, tactics, weapons, stealth, etc. in the air won't matter.
That's why we are buying a bunch of 4++ as well like the F15ex and the navy is looking at buying in essence superduper hornets too I've read.
The Future of Aviation will be like in Macross Frontier... Where Luca Angeloni flies an RVF-25 with an AA/AS/SF-06 integrated radar that works as eyes on the battlefield and he is followed by 3 QF-4000 (AIF-7S) Ghost Fighters.
In this case, the modern battles will be a single pilot followed by a swarm of drones, some with bombs, others with missiles, others with rockets, other with sensors, other with fuel (may be) and the pilot will be doing the decision making and the drones will do the job. Also, the job of the drones will be to protect the pilot.
I realize it isn't a direct 1-to-1 comparison, but I wonder how much cheaper, in the long run, it would have been, if in a Raptor Restart, the brought over most of the F-35's avionics/sensor systems, just targeted towards air-to-air for the Raptor, versus air-to-ground as in the F-35. I also wonder where we would be if we had adopted the FB-22, as a Strike Eagle Replacement, whether that would have kept the overall Raptor Production Line open, longer, or could have been reused, during or after the FB-22 Production Run, for new build F-22s.
That's what they are going to do - but put the new systems into large underwing pods as F-22's ancient systems are practically impossible to upgrade in place. They will isolate all legacy systems except flight controls and bolt on F-35's (next - ie post block 4) computing suite linked to a new glass cockpit. This kind of shows stealth is practically pointless. They are going to give up range, stealth and aircraft performance to gain better systems - this is where the advantage is - weapons systems - and it's why gen 4.5 accidentally turned out to be the right platform - easy to modernise and maintain - want the latest thing? Just bolt it on whereas adding a new capability to the hideously complex F-22 or F-35 means 3-5 years work - and then the new capability is obsolete by the time it's rolled out. When the next war starts F-16 and F-15EX will be the front line for the USA not stealth anything.
Do you know what metal fatigue is the F-22 are not going to fly forever and underwing pods on a stealth aircraft...............now that's thinking out of the box.🤣
There's no 2nd in a war, it's kill or be killed so let's give the warfighter a capability to win not lose.
@@LeonAust There's the "official answer" and the "unofficially answer". The "official answer" is that the tooling was locked in a storage area, and is secure there, in case it's needed again, whether for new F-22s or for making parts to fix broken F-22s. The "unofficial answer" is that we don't really know. Supposedly, some of the tooling was removed, to (possibly) be used for the F-35, others are missing and no idea where, and so on.
Incorporating the tech and construction methods from the F-35 into the Raptor would mean that you're not restarting production so much as developing a whole new production line. Properly integrating the potential improvements in the structure of stealth materials, adding greater power generation and cooling capacity for newer systems and ensuring it has the capacity to add things like directed energy weapons at a later date would require a total redesign to the extent that it would be an F-22 in name only. It could be done but it would be anything but quick or cheap.
@@trolleriffic But F-35 is already a dinosaur - particularly system-wise. Starting from scratch today would be cheaper and more effective.
Where they not just talking how we are done with the 20-30 year fighters? So we could now use cheaper fighters every decade from now on?
Doesn't seem like that they said is matching reality, is this not suppose to be smaller more frequent advancements for lower cost???
They absolutely were JUST saying this not to long ago. The department is so big and bloated beyond believe they have zero chance of coordinating any kind of strategy.
they scrapped that idea/cadence a few years back, the early phases of NGAD were done with this idea in mind but they're going back to a more traditional fighter lifespan/cadence since ultimately you can do a lot of this with new blocks on the existing airframes. The F16 proves that you don't need to keep every part of the airframe identical as well, you can add new intakes + engines, or modify things as needed going forward, and just issue a new block
That was the whole theory behind the Joint Strike Fighter program (which became the F35). They wanted to reduce the cost of air platforms by creating a singular platform that the USAF, USN, and USMC could use thus creating savings by reducing the number of R&D projects (1 instead of 3) and order volume. But it ultimately failed because the limitations and compromises that are made to allow aircraft to take off from carriers and VTOL/VTSL are so great that it wasn't really the same airframe.
Another fabulous presentation, Alex. Thanks !
250 B-21s would be a much better bargain.
Their overall capabilities dwarf any potential stealth fighters.
Especially with F-16 escorts
different mission platforms.
@Nelson_ Rebel The Rand wargames indicated that American long-range anti-ship missiles were the decisive factor in winning against China or not.
B-21s can carry far more and are ideally suited to fire those anti-ship missiles.
And if we must have new stealth fighters, then we already have two prototypes sitting in museums that could be updated and put into production: the F-22s competitor YF-23.
It was arguably a better stealth fighter than the Raptor was anyway.
But zero CAS capability.
@@Chuck_Hooks Yes but you're always going to have a need for capability for aircraft suited for contested and contesting any airspace. B-2 cant do that despite it's better air to ground target capability.
It's still a bomber and has limitations as such. Idk if the NGAD will be neccessary or not since we have the 35 and more 22's than any all other nations 5th gen aircraft combined.
But It's still a good idea to develop a better aircraft if neccessary. 22 is limited because of it's design choices and range. It could be completely redisgned to work like the NGAD, but that sounds awfully expensive to update 20-30 year old airframes that have a short service life on them
So what you’re telling is that rather than the 6th gen fighters being unusually expensive, the F-35 is abnormally cheap.
If this shocks you, you haven't been paying attention.
The problem with the $300/NGAD plane is that there is a high probability it will balloon to $600M/plane. Boeing/Northrup buiilt NASA's SLS (big moon rocket) atter a 100% cost overrun and 100% schedule delay.
Every large weapons program has had this problem, with no exceptions. The f/16 was developed because the f/15 was too expensive. We built 3 Zumwalt destroyers instead of 30 because it was too expensive and the cannon on the zumwalt fired 2M bullets. Alex does a great job of "promoting" the NGAD, but the problem is our overpriced defense companies don't know how to buid them at an affordable cost. There's hope. And that is in the drone fleet that would accompany the NGAD. The dorne fleet in fact will do the "detection" and it can carry the weapons for anit-air, anti-ship, and ground attack and some of the drones can carry fuel to top up other drones.. And why does it have to be controled by a person in the NGAD? Why can't it controlled by a crew in an AWACS (or the modern variant that uses a converted 737 airframe), or even via satellite.
I'd like this episode's discussion on the relationship between military capabilities & defense economics, which is usually not well examined.
Even if these new stealth fighters are invincible in the air it does not negate the fact that they’re sitting ducks on the ground for cheap missiles that adversaries like China could saturate our air defenses with. I don’t like the idea of us spending so much money on a platform so vulnerable unless our air defense saturation point is higher.
Ok, if the airfield is in the danger zone, it would likely be equipped with hardened bunkers for the aircraft to sit in. There would also be many layers of defense guarding an airfield holding any significant quantity of these. We're talking fleet units equipped with AEGIS, Patriot/THAAD, Iron Dome (the US is working on an equivalent system domestically), and MANPADS. You'd have to throw literal hundreds and hundreds of munitions at one airfield to have a chance of saturating the defenses.
Excellent review. What you didn't add in is the cost of training pilots and their on going cost. One of these aircraft and four drones saves four, eight, or twelve pilots being required.
Trump 2024.
That or DeSantis. Anything but sleepy Joe.
This is why we're still producing new airframes of 50-year-old designs. Every new design has to be bigger and more expensive than the last. If you ask me, the 6th-gen fighter program is nothing more than Lockheed Martin's wet dream (and Boeing's, and Northrop Grumman's). They'll make a prototype, maybe half a dozen serial planes, and that'll be it, like the Su-57 in Russia. Even the US military's budget is not infinite. I guess here's to another 50 years of mostly 4th-gens dominating the skies!
It’s honestly amazing how far F-35 costs have gone Dow, hopefully that happens with NGAD
Putting this in perspective:
In 1970 dollars, the F-35 would cost ~$12.5 million per copy.
Considering the F-14 cost 3 times that amount is staggering.
The F-35 is a goddam bargain, and the NGAD fighter will be too.
Now imagine how cheap the Gripen or the F-20 Tigershark would be if produced in the same numbers. And apparently the F-20 was supposed to be the F-35 of its time. I still think the US should contract a new, updated block of F-5s. They're cheaper and easier to maintain than F-16s, and just as flexible, fast, and have similar RCS signatures.
R U kidding? At this rate a snickers bar might soon cost $300 million.
Profits for the owners of the military industry complex is always the amswer.
The F-35 is an SUV that is expected to do combat against exotic sportscars. We need the NGAD. It's like fighting a katana with the world's best swiss army knife.
hmm if its that costly then it better be Awesome... either that or the US should make 100 again and keep them like the F117 ready for strike or lethal defense in areas unknown..
Just for fun I checked how much the f111 would cost in 2023. From 15.09 million in 72 to 109.8million in 2023. For late 1960s technology
And look how long it took to iron F-111 out - for it to become the plane it promised - F-35 is going through the same pain - except it's not as useful an aircraft to begin with!
How much would it cost if we eliminated the xxx% markup beyond commercial prices paid to defense contractors for simple parts? U.S. military downfall if WW3 happens will be the same as Russia in Ukraine. Getting 1 artillery shell for a price that could have bought a dozen. Needs to be fixed!
Another great video!!! Thank you.
Yes, 300 million is too expensive for a fighter jet.
We are 30 trillion in debt. We need to take care of that first
why does the air force keep on talking about only 300 f35s when they are ordering almost 2000
The question that needs to be answered is: What is the NGAD fighter being built for? What threat is it being built to counter that justifies its $300 million price tag? With Russia and China struggling to build stealth fighters in large quantities, the stealth fighters we already have are more than sufficient. How do you justify pouring money into building a weapon system to counter threats that don't exist?
The F35 isn't the most jet ever. It's not even the most expensive military project ever. It's quite simply the most expensive ANYTHING ever.
That new spray-on ceramic RAM developed in Raleigh (NCSU)... is looking really impressive.
Deterrence is expensive but a bargain compared to what a shooting war would cost.
The amount for the F35 is nothing when you consider there are 3 variants. Air Force, Navy, Marines…. Now they don’t need multiple types of aircraft.
The justification of the cost is dependent on how it is to be used. It’s good for the country to stay on the cutting edge of AirPower. I can see where a new high performance stealth fighter being Carrier based could be widely used to take out air defense systems to clear the way for less costly aircraft to come in or for 1 off missions of a delicate nature.
At this cost, it’s not practical to own and operate a large number of these aircraft after air defense role has been eliminated.
The other factor is the cost of the armaments. At 1 million dollars a missile is a huge commitment every time one is fired. Especially if faced with dozens of $5000 drones and the limited armament load out.
At this same time, the possible accompaniment of smart drones at $150 million each is ridiculous. These should be considered expendable in protection of the controlling aircraft. That’s tough at this cost. Also, the control of more than a few of these by an already engaged pilot seems kind of impractical as well. Perhaps if these drones were to be controlled from a remote base or a stand off control aircraft…
The cost of missiles and other armaments needs to be reviewed. Perhaps a bunch of affordable slightly less capable missiles should be considered with lower cost and a higher quantity a plane is able to carry into battle 😅
There is something to be said for numbers.
An air defense system can reach a point where it can be overloaded, perhaps by a fleet of inexpensive drones. If you think about the inexpensive missiles Hamas has been using against Israel, they were effective at overwhelming the Iron Dome which is perhaps the most capable air defense system in existence plus they probably cost a fraction of each Iron Dome missile. This makes their use a game of attrition against a better equipped but more costly foe.
I’m fine with the price tag what we need to focus on is cyber security we spent billions to research this it don’t need to fall into Chinese hands
Your universities are rammed full of Chinese spies - they've already got the plans! Modern political correctness will destroy us.
How much it costs to build is one thing but the value doesn't come from its cost but its capability.
Cutting-edge technology is expensive and that's why each "state of the art" aircraft cost what it did when they were top dog.
Great video as usual! 👍
300 mill for a stealth fighter .....not that much when you look at the price of an elite sportsman’s contract 😂
FANTASTIC financial breakdown on the real aircraft costs.
Way Inflation is going $300M sounds like a Bargain
What are we even talking about? USA is printing their own money and the world is using that money as the main currency. It doesn't matter how much something costs.
Just from what was said in this video, high production rates like 1000+ units brings the F-35 cost down from $300M to $80M. However, only 300 NGAD units like what the military is projecting won't realize anywhere near the same cost reduction benefits. The video says that a new production run of 300 units (by substituting F-22s for NGADs) costing well over $260M per F-22. With 300 NGADS projected to cost not much more at $300M per aircraft that would seem to suggest that at purchase numbers of around 300 units we won't realize any additional cost saving. And nothing like the $300M down to $80M we see with a production run of 1000+ for the F-35.
So without allowing for friendly countries to purchase the NGAD, we could be paying 2--3 times what we would by restricting its sale to US forces alone. Don't know if that's worth it or not. Just wanted to point it out.
The F-14 adjusted to modern inflation would cost around 240-260 Million, so it isn’t expensive
Great episode......again!
300,000,000 is considered VERY cheap it should cost at least 500 millions as it is also BRANDED. The Drones should cost another 300,000,000 too and also consider Cheap.
The biggee the contract and procurement, the cheaper it is overall.
New R & D is expensive, but having the ADVANTAGE OVER YOUR ADVERSARIES IS PRICELESS.
Don’t worry some shmuck will steal and sell it to the Chinese, remember they don’t do any R&D and just steal technology.
Slow down we haven't used our 5th generations against anything besides a balloon 😅
Well done Alex!
Yet another exemplary video Alex! Keep 'em comin'!
My big takeaway is the inflation is a bugger.
I think the most ironic thing about this, is that these fighters will likely decrease total cost in the long run given how it's primarily meant to be a control center for drone wingmen. This allows a large suite of aircraft that'd normally be unable to achieve.
Best video to date Alex! Thanks for information… and perspective!