The REAL Truth About Next Generation Air Dominance 

Two Russian taxi drivers sat in a cafe in Paris watching the tanks roll past. One says to the other it’s a shame we lost the propaganda war

and PowerPoint domination

As Ward was going on about the new tech, I kept wondering, "Whatever happened to ADCAP?"

USA! #1 for military acronyms! I actually like them, but man, it gets confusing sometimes.

That's pretty impressive, considering our competition has miles more experience in propaganda.

Okay that's good

Like it!

Sharp

That sounds like a Stark Industries product. Tony Stark - Iron Man. Maybe Musk or Bezos will be the real world Tony Stark.

@@BilboCameron I think we can leave Bezos out on this one -- he and his companies seem to be more interested in litigation to get their way instead of innovation to set the way, at least lately.

I find Ward and Sub Brief both are very good folks to get info from.

@@jonathanbair523 I’m not particularly into firearms, but Anvil (Mark Novak) is a former Sub guy that does restoration work on classic firearms but he reminds me and I hold him in the same regard as Ward and Sub Brief

My sentiments exactly.

Well said

Kind of lost me when endorsing manned aircraft, drone aircraft are the future of aviation if for nothing else besides the fact they will have much higher physical maneuvering and mission risk acceptance limitations when a meat sack is not inside. Talking about manned aircraft at this point for the next generation fighter program is like boasting about who has the best horses and cavalry / dragoon corps in the days leading up to WWI, or who has the best battleships going into WWII. This can all be a moot point considering space is the new high ground though.

Too bad Canada never does this kind of project anymore

I hear Australia with planes and then imagine those planes covered in venomous spiders. Seriously though, what a great and skilled nation to be allied with!

Australia didn’t design Wedgetail, but only developed the maintenance logistics solution for the system. All the design work took place in the US.

Australia is a sMaLL nAtiOn you said?

@Andrew Wilson too bad you drink Fox News brand Kool-aid

The original supersonic ejection system for ATF was cut due to cost spirals. It had an encapsulating design to protect the pilot from supersonic ejections where limbs and head/neck are typically torn from the torso. That initial Raptor canopy sounds like a naughty little witch for sure. JSF canopies are nothing like that.

A poor craftsman blames his tools.

Apparently someone didn’t like my reply and reported me as bullying and got my reply deleted. Well guess what, I can do that too! I was bullied! 😢 hahaha

Good description of being in seat shop..on mondern fighters...45 years ago I was in the crotch..6062...VMA-214...Working on Bakers..good seat for the time..for A4M...was simple straight forward seat..it had some growing pains..it was I believe the 1st seat of baker designs..with zero-zero cap.we had tech reps..that always keep us up to speed..of design changes..or improve ments so it wasn't a nightmare to work with..even when doing a 210 on it...and it did save many pilots lives during it use...with a considerable lower injury rate at high speed ejections..it was in short a pilots best friend when it was time to git out...!

Oh complete canopy for A4M cost in 1976..175,000.00

This would require leadership and strategy. LOL

The present administration is too ignorant, too elite, too blind, to give us the least bit of leadership.

Hahaha your enemies and main threat is basically changing every decade. 😅 But one thing will never change. You'll always fear Russia, in any kind or form it exists.😂 You can change your focus on China now, but China has the same strategic interests as Russia. So you will always have to deal with Russia!

@@foshizzlfizzl Nope.

@@mikemiller7946 Wow, your comment is so full of arguments that I don't even know what to chose from, to change my opinion immediately 😂😂😂😂 you're such a clown sorry

The only reason why they thought it worked because it worked vs. the USSR. The main difference, however, is that Chinese people are businessmen by blood, and ideology and business are united in their minds, unlike the Soviets.

Agreed. But our political process is so heavily influenced by our business sector, I don’t see that happening.

Air dominance??? It ain’t gong to work….if our generals go behind the President and make phone calls to the generals in Communist China. Kooks in the wire

There is the problem, the government has so much power through regulations that business spend much of their resources to either placate or influence politicians vice making competitive products. In the 50’s, nobody could compete with our products, cheapest with highest quality. Now are economy has been hallowed out, and the only truism from then to now is increasing size of government. The decreasing size of private enterprises that must support this leviathan is certainly bad for manufacturing.

@@skybattler2624 the over 1,000,000 Muslims and Christians in Red China’s reeducation camps would disagree

Two stops over from you to the East, Airbus Defense & Space (with Dassault and Indra Sistemas) are developing the FCAS (Future Combat Air System). Interesting times ahead.

I wouldn't hold your breath on those EMALS. They forgot to put the upgradability into the contract, so it'd be a tall order now. Those carriers are severely compromised.

Lmao that last part has to be some stupid joke you feel for.

Correct - BAE will employ the Digital Trinity = There Is No Spoon - specifically Digital Engineering used for 6G NGAD Networked AI Assisted Multi-Platform System of Systems also for Tempest development replacing time consuming + costly physical tech demonstrators with a Virtual eFighter to collaborate + innovate + test + evaluate + verify dozens of eSystems of a System of eSystems using eTools - the reason Tempest first flight is planned years sooner than FCAS that won't use Digital Engineering...

Sadly, the Tempest won't survive the next Labour Government

no one care, the quality of the planes dosent matter, its just a game of money flow to the 'rigth pockets'

It's a really good book. I'm getting Punk's Wing next month and looking forward to reading it.

Thank you!

Simple: Move it to the big wing or the nose like some A-12 Avenger II concepts depict.

I expect QR codes to start showing up

Maybe - But the FAXX ain't going to be operational before the 2030s Its already just not far enough on in development - Which is kind of between the lines in what Mooch is saying.

Totally agree the meat sack in the cockpit is the largest hindrance to being able to maneuver and accept aerial losses. Anyone who isn't making mass produced drone fighter aircraft will be severely behind especially when it comes to close air support. This is all ignoring the fact space is the new high ground. What aerial warfare was to WWII having control of space will be the defining factor in any future conflict.

oh? America arrived in Europe in 44... after 5 years of war. with a claim of 260k war dead in the western front that also includes french, canadian, and commonwealth forces grouped in as the contributors of the German forces war dead. 260k out of 4.6 million is nothing

@@mitri5389 42 North africa.. and even before that the Navy was involved.. American industry kept UK and other allies a float even before pearl harbor

and there wasn't the same kind of people and bullshit going on inside the military either? I implore you to look into the M16A1 programs during the late 50's and early 60's to see the kind of bullshit that the US ordinance department pulled for the sake "traditions"

@@mitri5389 you must admit that we had some pretty good weapons technology and we didn’t have to go anyway. The Germans could have easily taken over Europe except for Russia had USA not stepped in. I know most of Russia is Asia but Moscow is generally considered Europe.

@@JR-kc8jx the lack of history and perpetuation of myths is astonishing in American society. but again what else is new in America, the most arrogant and proud to be ignorant people ive met, a land of fakeness where people put on a smile without good reason and are social distant, where everything is about money and giving large companies and politicians everything without a 2nd though.

The technology is advancing so fast that by the time it’s completed it’s already obsolete. That was a big problem with Fat Amy, obsolescent technology and trying to incorporate too many mission sets into one system. Very similar to the Bradley IFV and how they kept changing the parameters & then blaming the developers for the cost overruns.

Well said. Both red aircraft programs are also much more comparable to the F-22 in mission and scope. At least, that's from a joint force perspective. The USN would've seen the F-35C as tip of their aviation spear and in that context been understandably alarmed. While the JSF rightly deserves criticism for its delays, in the larger counterair context (particularly A2A) I'd argue its impact is more of a fiscal nature. Funds consumed by the delays in the JSF could've been better used elsewhere to maintain a lead (Ie. more Raptors, moving certain AAM programs left), though there's no guarantee those funds would've been directed in such ways.

Thanks for the explanation! Do you have any idea why it can only stay in supercruise for 40 minutes? That seems WAY too long for something that's slowly losing speed, but also pretty short for something that's flying at some sort of "CruiseSpeed+" (well, at least to a n00b like me😂)

@@MrNicoJac it doesn’t have enough reserve fuel to go back to base if it flies for more than 40 minutes in supercruise away from base

@@MrNicoJac Fuel burn. The F22 burns 25% more fuel at supercruise than at high subsonic speeds. Still significantly less an using afterburner but certainly limiting in regard to combat range.

@T.J. Kong the YF22 wasn’t that good, but the F22 is a very different machine compared to the YF22 that many believed should have lost to the YF23. The F22 now excels further where the YF22 was strong, and made significant gains towards matching the YF23 where once lacked. Now, the YF23 is born to be an interceptor-like aircraft, and no F22s without a major redesign can match that, but air force knows better to bet money on another interceptor, and chose YF22 to be the foundations to be dominant in every aspect from dogfighting to BVR.

@T.J. Kong also do you realize how much more money Northrop Grumman and McDonnell Douglas was charging per airplane more than Lockheed Boeing General Dynamics? Yeah the USAF ended affording less than 200 Raptors, imagine half that number in Black Widow IIs.

Well said, 100% agreed. You get it, RE: Elon's motivations.

I can't see it either, at all. I find it highly unlikely he'd ever want to get involved in producing weapons. If he somehow did, the first thing that would have to go was the pilot, then the carrier...

Elon wouldn't do it because it would destroy his Iron Man image (no longer a weapons manufacturer).

And that's how Musk met his deadline and landed on Mars in 2018. And launched his solar trucks in 2019. And made autonomous, underground, 150 mph pods a reality in Vegas this year. He could teach the Pentagon so much about delivering projects on time and under budget, it would make your head spin,

I think he said the design is 1000 times harder than the manufacturing also

The tic tac UFO?

Rene Sauce, It remains to be seen if it is the aircraft is a fully integrated weapon system. It could be just a simple airframe and powerplant combination. It must obviously be using an existing engine because no one seems to be able to design a "good" next-generation engine without a lot of effort. (Just ask the Chinese or Russia - who is ahead of the former.

@@DrsharpRothstein Yup. These days, airframes and engines are pretty easy. Sensors are much harder. The software that drives the sensors is a real bear.

@@Hammerli280 Engines 'are not' easy. It is an area where Russia 'has' never been able to catch up and China is even further behind and has to rely on Russia. Even India has to send its engines for the Su-27 variant(s) back to Russia for rebuild.

IMO… after listening to Ward, I believe the “tic tac” was another generation of aviation we won’t know about for 30-50 years.

I’m not sure that the money needed to develop this would actually save money in the long run. But it could realistically be designed by a guy in his garage. But it will cost general dynamics a cool Billion to make it

Exactly, almost everything he says anoys me. And he way over exaggerates the J-20, the normal BS that everything China makes is gold, and all the US projects that are currently thriving are a failure.

@@electrolysisresearch8013 These clowns always tell us that US tech sucks (even though history says otherwise) and that everyone else's stuff works flawlessly and as they claim (even though history tells us otherwise). We are seeing a prime example of how well Russia's "stuff" works right now as they fail to beat a tiny 3rd World neighbor..

He has no clue what he's talking about, he's another narcissist boomer who thinks his decades old knowledge is even remotely up to date

Hypersonic means hot- infrared missiles should be able to defend against them.

@@DonMeaker we have hyper sonic patriot batteries already?

Agreed Unless there is something I am missing, I don’t see how they will hold up with large hypersonic vollies

Guessing wildly ............ Presumably it *could* be done (Take out the pilot & ejection seat you've a lot of room and weight saved to load computers etc) The limiting factors are most likely around suitability. How do you make an F16 stealthy enough, give it the range with supercruise ............. Not a lot of point hiding your FAXX or whatever in the midst of a swarm of less stealthy kit?

Thanks for watching, Pete!

Cheney,Rumsfeld,Wolfowitz and their masters, in addition getting a good number of people killed, helped kill the F-14D Quick Strike, A-6F Super Intruder, the S-3B, P-7A, and the ES-3A.

ST-21 was a non-starter. DoD already knew in the 1980s that the future force for TACAIR all needed to be VLO platforms. Tomcat RCS is huge, which means even with the greatest Radar, its ability to get first-look was questionable at-best, and almost useless in practice, especially against smaller fighters emerging like the J-10. Then you get the back-end weight of a twin-engine hangar queen with mechanical and electrical complexity that limits your sortie generation rates while keeping the mx people up all night, barely able to get some sleep in the day, and with very specialized training specific to that platform. The real failure was not capitalizing on the investment into the A-12, and how A-12 was managed. There were major technical problems with the A-12 with weight/dimensional uniformity for the composite airframe sections, which would have wreaked havoc on production. As to missiles, the only missile in the world right now with the longest recorded successful interception of a high performance aerial target is the AIM-120D, fired from an F-15C. That isn’t to say the PL-15 can’t reach its maximum WEZ, just that it hasn’t been demonstrated. USAF and USN launched the AIM-260 as a result, which is funded and quietly being developed. AIM-260 fits inside the JSF family and Raptor weapons bays. China has several modern AAMs that need to be considered though, not just PL-15. They have: * PL-8 Licensed copy of the Israeli Python-3, which was a devastating IR guided missile better than any pre-AIM-9X, better than R-73, extremely high pk in WVR * PL-10 (copy of IRIS-T IIR dual focal plane seeker). This is a closer range IIR missile but still has BVR capability like the R-74, AIM-9X Blk2, IRIS-T, and ASRAAM * PL-12A/B/C (knock-off of the AMRAAM with better range, seekers, guidance, and data link than the Russian monkey model RVV-AE) * PL-12D knock-off of Meteor * PL-15 Extended range BVRAAM * PL-XX LRAAM * PL-21 Ultra Long Range AAM

Is F35 really a boondoggle. New tech takes time to develop properly . F35 is the most advanced fighter platform in the world .

It was probably a designed boondoggle to filter billions from one account to another.. It wouldnt surprise me at all at this point!

@@donlarsen4841 It's still TBD. As you said, the F-35 is full of new tech that has taken time to develop. A lot of systems from the F-35 and F-22 which were brand new and untested when introduced will probably be transferrable (in an upgraded form) to the NGAD fighter. Having systems that are iterative upgrades of existing systems instead of entirely new concepts should cut down on the teething issues. Hopefully these two projects also taught us some good lessons about the manufacturing and supply chain processes, as well as ease of maintenance which can be applied in the NGAD program. The OP makes a good point about controlling the "pork" aspect of procurement, but that's unavoidable to some extent.

@@bluemarlin8138 TBD ? Don’t let Red Flag exercises and former Gen 4 pilots tell you otherwise .

My memory is a bit hazy, but the failure of the F111B was the single greatest thing to happen to the Navy... it gave them the most advanced aircraft in the world for nearly two decades. Of course I'm taking about the F14. :)

@@Whiskey11Gaming - Absolutely agree... The Navy initially gave the Tomcat an A/G capability but then dropped the requirement because the Intruder was still a thing.... I still think the Navy chose the wrong platform to upgrade....

I was thinking similarly, that the YF-23 had a lot of the super cruise capabilities Ward was talking about. Maybe use the YF-23 as a drone. It’d likely be a contender for meanest drone on the planet. Not to mention we already have the plans. Am I wrongly prejudiced in thinking that the F22 is still a contender against the planes Ward was talking about from China and Russia? I remember a guy at work telling me his buddy got a nasty ticket in a Corvette for doing 124 mph and was not sure about being able to keep his license. I chortled a little and said jokingly what’s the big deal with 124 in a Corvette? The owners manual of my at the time diesel Passat wagon said it’d do 124 too… lol technically they both could do that speed but everybody knows that wagon was no match for a Corvette on the track!

@@tbthedozer The YF-23 would be awfully expensive to use as a drone, and a lot of space for pilot-centered systems would be wasted, but some of the design concepts could certainly be used in a drone. The F-22 is still the premier air superiority fighter in the world, and individually is more than a match for a SU-57 or J-20 (which have mainly front-aspect stealth, and it's debatable whether the J-20 even has that with those canards). However, the gap has narrowed significantly, as the Russians and Chinese have improved their radars and IRST, and developed long-range missiles. Now, the SU-57 and J-20 can't track or hit an F-22 or F-35 from anything close to their missiles' maximum range, or even from inside the AIM-120D's max range, but it's not the F-22s and F-35s that are the concern as much as it is the AWACS, B-1s, B-52s, and 4th-gen fighters that are flying behind them. We want to be able to shoot down SU-57s and J-20s (or whatever else) as far away as possible from our more vulnerable assets. That's why we're bringing in the AIM-260 in the next couple of years to match or exceed the PL-15's performance while still fitting in the F-22 and F-35 weapons bays, and the Peregrine to double capacity for AMRAAM-range missiles. And of course, we're developing the NGAD fighter to regain a decisive edge over Russia and China and stay ahead of whatever they come up with next. This is basically what we've been doing since the end of Vietnam, when we started taking air superiority fighters seriously again.

You mean HR's resume-scanning *algorithms* throw out resumes based on word games...

Huge, huge absence of talent at defense contractors

Gotta meet those diversity quotas.

I'll be happy if Elon can get me Starlink by the end of the year, like I was promised back in March when I ordered.

yeah but....a missile strike on one of those drone -laden jeep carririrs and the whole concept falls right to pieces and your second seater will be so stripped of his system he wont be able to react/relate without his drones to fight with. Seems like a very fragile concept if you dont have an effective missile defense system and NOW we do not have one as the Chinses have superior missile tech and also the advantage of massive numbers of missiles-- we would take years to catch up with. We are solidly screwed -- just too stupid to see it i'm afraid.

Part of the problem is the lack of different contractors. They have a financial incentive to milk problems for a whole career to keep them employed through retirement. There is very little accountability, and managers and engineers don't tend to get fired for making rookie engineering mistakes like they would in the automotive industry.

Thanks, Dan.

Excellent comment. There are similarities between the US / Soviet paranoia that existed in the post war period that led to the arms race, and the threat now of another nation, namely china, generating a similar amount of paranoia. I don't think China's intentions are to wage war with the US, and perhaps its time the US start to realise they cannot continue to dominate the world militarily just to 'feel safe'. The French, British, Germans and other nations have all had their time and been surpassed by other nations.. i feel we are moving towards the US being overtaken by China is inevitable and they need to find an alternative to spending billions on military hardware to maintain peace and stability.

Plenty of countries acquire weapons that have never been fired in anger. What has the F-22 achieved? It became the world's best air superiority fighter. Nothing bad about the fact that it never had to kill anyone.

@@chiselcheswick5673 China has already seen its high water mark. The miracle has run out of gas for them. They are being treated as an adversary in every respect. They will not be quietly stealing intellectual property anymore. This is where Xi Jinping looks like he's played his country's hand too soon. They aren't as powerful as they seem, but they are every bit as dangerous. I think that it's important to be specific with the threats China poses now, like the guy who made this video. What's happening to China's economy is extremely important to factor into the equation here. What does "China surpass the US" mean? What? Overpriced real estate changing hands is NOT wealth generation. The US' wealth gap vs. China is widening, not shrinking. There's a difference between wealth and GDP. I'm an accountant by trade. You ought to pay attention to what is happening in terms of them violating CGAAP (no surprise, but the scale of the fraud is massive and pervasive). They have a BILLION extra people to feed. They're less productive per employee than the US. They have major water shortages. They are unable to deal in truths. Edit: The whole "Chinese Century" myth was propagated by academics who wanted to sell a lot of books and appear on TV. It sure looked that way in 2008, and again even in 2018. But right now? China is facing its biggest set of crises since the 70s, I'd argue. It's not smooth sailing for them anymore. Whatever American disadvantage you're perceiving, is it based on the most rational look at the issue? China is a far bigger military threat than a cultural and economic threat. American companies run almost every internet hub that the world uses. No one likes China. They are the black sheep of the world right now.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD I agree. Theres an old saying. "If you want peace, prepare for war". It still rings true. If the development and procurement of these items, deters another nation from an aggresive act. Then thats not a bad thing. The cost of military hardware as a deterent is far cheaper than the cost of war. Monetarily and in lives lost.

That's the price of progress.

Trust Skynet Allan - - - - - - - Allan Grazier future human resistance commander

I work with machine learning and "ai" . I was at a conference here in denmark a few years ago where we tried to define what defines an ai. Så dont hold your breath :D

people often confuse ai and machine learning.

If you flip-flop policy from one extreme to the other, depending on which of the 2 shot off (partisan) feet you rely on, It makes no difference if the "rear" gets in motion. It will be a stumble and tumble. I don't know what i should criticize more. The two-party politic system , or the fact that both of these parties will screw over everyone, who doesn't adhere to their policy. It is almost like the civil war is still in full swing. Just with influence and money, instead of guns and bullets.

@@Gunni1972 It's called a free country.

But what about my tax cut ?

We are doing well, militarily, and technologically.

Having closely followed SpaceX's progress for many years now, I'd have to say that I can't see Elon being interested in getting involved in that kind of project. Jeff Bezos, however, I absolutely can see him going for that. Except the fact that his company, Blue Origin, seems to work exactly the same way Old Aerospace does. As in, being only interested in charging big for contracts upfront then delivering late and milking the government as much as they can. For example, see the delayed delivery of the BE-4 engine to Unite Launch Alliance, or the continuous string of lawsuits meant only to delay the progress of NASA's lunar lander contract because they bid too high and were utterly unprepared when they got undercut by SpaceX.

giving starlink to ukraine means he has no issue

He doesn't have skills. He has money and a vision. He hires people with skills to achieve it.

Well, as they say, the more woke you get, the more broke you go! They have to stop that political correct hiring process, and get back to basic engineering. On the other hand, the F16 program was to cost 5 billion. Costs ballooned by an additional 7 billion to 13 billion. F16: R&D 13 billion (1973 dollars). F16: R*D 83 billion (2021 dollars) F35: R&D 80 billion (2021 dollars). However, for that same price, they did build 3 airframes, and including the challenge VSTOL model. Now, are these costs high? Yes, they sure are, and I don't have a solution. However, it would be unfair to re-write history, and suggest the F16 program was all rainbows and peaches. From above, and converted into 2021 dollars, we can actually make the case that the F35 program was LESS for development then was the F16 program - and that would be 3 airframes for the F35, and one for the F16. And what is with this new "total life time cost" quote they are tossing around for the F35 program? (1.5 trillion???). I mean, they spent less then 400 billion so far, and that includes the above R&D, and also delivery of just over 600 units. I mean, if we REALLY going to play numbers this way? The lifetime cost quote they are tossing around? Number of airframes x cost per unit + 66 years x number of units x cost to run per year. Want to really do that???? Ok, F16: program cost: 3.1 trillion F353: program cost: 1.5 trillion so it is all oh so easy for people to lament the cost of these programs (they are really out of line). I fully accept that these programs are huge cost! However, based on the above, and converting costs to 2021 dollars? Sure looks like the F35 is getting the bad rap here - and we should really try doing the same with the F14 program cost in 2021 dollars!!! Now the above does NOT make any of this high cost hard to swallow - it just don't! But then again, how did they manage to build 3 F35 airframes and a VSTOL model for less cost then the F16 program? that is quite a mystery to me? However, it does show that the cost of the F35 and the R&D program was not really any more out of whack then say what the F16 program cost was. In other words, these programs are out of whack, and it not only the F35 that suffers from this looking at the above numbers.

As elon musk put it, building a prototype is easy. Building an entire supply chain and ramping up manufacturing is the hard part. Yes china and Russia have built similar prototypes, but so far they are no better off as far as deployment in mass as we are. As much as I hate bloated military contracts, let's not forget the f35 is the first 5th gen fighter deployed at scale. So yes the f35 has its problems, but we've always taken away a lot of lessons from the program. The complexities of the f35 far outweigh the previous generation jets, so you can't really compare deploying an f35 to an f18.

@@Albertkallal This dollar to dollar comparison is highly misleading. The development of the F-16 took place during a period of double digit inflation. During the few years it took to develop that aircraft, the price of candy increased from 10 cents to 35 cents for a single bar. I don't buy candy any more, but I'm certain the price of a candy bar hasn't even doubled across the decades it took to develop the F-35.

@@ThatsMrPencilneck2U Well, we have to use some means and metric to compare I mean, a car back then was what $3,500 dollars. So a $20, 000 car today is high? No, they are about the same. We have to use SOME means. just telling me that the F35 is expensive? great - throw rocks from the armchair. I mean, we have to use SOME set of numbers. And if the inflation rate was LOW during the F35 period, then that means I am NOT using all that much inflated dollars for the compare, am I? I mean, lets agree that the few years of high inflation from the 1970's is not all that fair (I don't agree), but lets go with some lower rates compare. We can STILL argue that 3 models of the F35 were built. So, in place of say 80 billion, what do you want to pick. ? I am HAPPY with say lets go with 60 billion. Well, the F16 was 83 billion based on the USA government CPI (cost price index of living). But, lets hack that down by a HUGE amount - say from 83 billion down to say, gee, i don't know about 60 billon? Even if you want some BIG wiggle room on the two costs, we STILL have to admit that 3 very different F35 models were built. And that includes the challenging F35 B VSTOL model. So, we can wiggle a GOOD amount down the F16 cost, but we ALSO would have to wiggle down the cost (or remove) the cost of the B VSTOL program - and that model was NOT cheap nor low cost to develop. I will also point out that a number of quotes put the F35 R&D program at 54 billion, and NOT 80 billion. And perhaps wonders of wonders, that 54 billion quote is for JUST the F35 A model - I don't know!!! but, no matter how you spin this, even if we chop down the F16 adjusted cost based on different (or lower) inflation indexing, we STILL get two numbers very close (I either take the other F35 quote of 54 billion, or I simply state and claim that the F35 program included 3 different models, and it is ONLY reasonable to afford some considering to that fact. I don't think anyone would suggest that the F35 does not have a VERY full feature set of systems from stealth, to ETOTS to DAS to ASEA radar, and a VSTOL model. So even if you dropped the F16 cost way down from 83 billion to say 50, or 60? You STILL get at least as good or a comparable number for the F35 R&D program if we JUST compare against the F35A model, and not all 3 models that I claim here were developed for the same cost as the ONE F16 program. So I am VERY open to some suggesting that we adjust the F16 number down. But then again, I also have multiple narratives and points that would ALSO suggest it only fair to pull down and reduce the F35 number, since it included 3 aircraft and the F16 only was one model. And if I was being a real jerk, I would have used the 54 billion quote for the F35, but I took the 80 billion and the higher number. I mean, the more we look, and even attempt to construct a fair cost compare? Amazing how close the costs compare between the two programs. On the other hand? We should try and run the F14 numbers. They were blowing wads of cash back then, since they had the money to spend. That was one just get it done, and build what you need. the f14 was as a result a stunning leap forward that we rare see in our industry - but it did not come cheap!!

@@Albertkallal You can easily produce grotesque overrun numbers from anything developed in the 1970's, because annual inflation rates of 14% to 17% make all planners look like fools. I'm not defending the F-16, because I'm so taken with the platform, but comparing cost increases and overruns from the 1970's with more modern projects is complete garbage, without some PhD level mathematical studies.