The Secret Stealth Fighter that Could have Changed Everything 

The Extreme Deep Invader? 😅 What a silly movie… but the special effects and scenes with the planes made it worth watching.

Wonder if the son of blackbird will look a lot like Darkstar.😮 I just noticed, the send button for comments looks like a F-117 Nighthawk. Is that a stealthy send button Google? 🤔 😂

​@@SCFPV great sentence.

Tinman was designed by aviation enthusiasts with an eye to the future...

Yep NGAD or whatever the raptor replacement project is call has this popping up a lot

Test Pilots had stated the YF-23 was roundly superior to the F-22. The decision making process was wildly complicated, political (though not as nonsense as some things in Govt) and largely would have been solve simply by building both. But Russia and China had been very quiet in the 1990s, so only one would be chosen. I had come to the personal conclusion the YF-23 was just so much better, yet so different, they did not want to push too far ahead of the curve without need or having at least a vague idea what comers next. It would not surprise me if the YF-23 was aped heavily for the NGAD and F/A-XX. Or a heavily updated YF-23, with 360-degree Thrust vectoring was at least submitted. This as the YF-23 was determined to have, in hindsight, all the attributes desired fore sixth generation fighter. Longer range, better stealth, higher innate speeds with and without afterburner, and fairly easy to retool as a fighter bomber, not entirely unlike the F-14. Pretty much what is needed should war with China break out.

Lockheed was told they could either do the yf23 or b2, but not both.

@@LGB-FJB As I understood it 1) Northrop Grumman was already building the B2. 2 ) The Military did not want "all their eggs in one basket" and among other reasons chose the F-22 so Lockheed Martin would have a better chance of staying in business and if anything went wrong with NG, the Military would not be out BOTH their Stealth Bomber and Stealth Air Superiority Fighter. As it was, since there was no enemy to fight or at least stand strong against at that time, the Military did not see the need to have BOTH the F-22 and *F-23.

To me the air-force has a hard time picking planes outside the visual norms.

​@@DocWolph Both aircraft met requirements, but the YF-22 had thrust vectoring. Game over for that reason alone, obviously. Add to that taxpayers were paying twice for the B-2 since the original design performed poorly and Southrop had to start over. Add to that, Southrop was in trouble for delivering ICBM guidance systems with Radio Shack parts. The ATF program flight test data is classified. You never had access to it. If you did, you sure as hell wouldn't be blabbing about it here.

That how we got the F4 lmao.

Yes. This. The B21, F/A-XX, Xq58, mq25, and eventual sr72(or whever they eventually call it) will all be part of the NGAD program.

@@kidddogbites Don't get my hopes up for SR-72. I've been hearing about it since the 90s and I don't want to be let down again lol.

@Astovoc Azrro Look up the Darpa Falcon Project, HTV 2 and HTV 3, how it got rolled into Lockheeds blackswift program. Then project Meyham. Look all this stuff up. They keep developing the tech in the background amd constantly changing the program name to keep it up to date without releasing it offically so they dont start a new arms race.

@Astovoc Azrro Also look up the company IO aircraft.

@@kidddogbites I already saw Top Gun: Maverick so I'm well informed.

That's just a missile that launches smaller missiles! 🤣

We probably have Something mind blowing in testing or waiting for a reason. About 17 years ago I saw SOMETHING vaguely triangular hovering around Monterey, seemed right overhead. Thought I was imagining until my girlfriend asked if I saw those 3 lights moving around slightly, but no sound. (They weren't stars, they were moving too much.) Course, it could have been some sort of tricopter drone up higher, now that I know they and quads exist, but I've no doubt what we Know exists is only the surface.

Righto Tom cruise lol😂

Interesting. I assumed at high speeds it wouldn't do anything. I will have a look. Thanks.

@@Pharozos Exactly what I thought. At those speeds the pressurized air wouldn’t be able to break through the air stream barrier.

pretty sure this is similar to how the b2 spirit works

Bae Demon. I dunno about Coanda effect at supersonic speeds, but you could certainly pressurize the bleed air (at subsonic) as high as needed. Maybe you steer by adjusting the shock-front?🤪🤪🤪 I've been thinking about this, but have no idea how to make the FAA happy about fail-safes. Like, if your bleed air dies, do you need back-up flaps and slats, or do you just add redundant APUs?

@@icollectstories5702 I guess the FAA only matters when you acknowledge the existence of it. Or it stops being a military secret. An unbeleivable amount of drone testing happens in woomera australia now. It really is the middle of knowhere. The military will be less and less worried baout fail safes as they move away from pilot and towards AI/ drone swarms. Losing one or two doesn't matter so much then.

if you lose your engine in a dogfight , losing the ability to control it most likely is not the immediate concern. They would likely already be in the process of ejecting

@@bear76009 if you're dog fighting you're dead. all about integrated targeting networks with autonomous vehicles. I think "shield" drones and smart "formation loitering" munitions will be the new race. Keeping stealth as a main priority until a new radar shows up.

@@I69urmom I agree in a peer or near peer situation but that's not the case yet unless we fight ourselves.

@@I69urmom i dont think it will be a new radar that ends the stealth trend i think its gonna be an ai driven irst network solution that can track targets in the visual and beyond spectrum that will make stealth obsolete along with most modern countermeasures like chaff flares ew pods and rwr if this comes to be every military will have to scramble to develop a completely new doctrine for aerial combat those to be first will be the ones to steer the future of warfare

I don't think that will be until gen 7 and even then they'll have to drag the USAF kicking and screaming to get there. It will happen, but it will likely be the first time the USAF has had to swallow it's pride and do what it's told.

That shows how little you know about the F-22's design. That feature wasn't chosen to save money, but to limit a potential radar return. I doubt the NGAD gen 6 fighter will have thrust vectoring at all. I'm certain the gen 7 fighter won't.

And what problems specifically is the F-35 experiencing together with its variants (provide sources)? Only problem I’m hearing of is its slow speed which can be traced with the the fact that it only has one engine.

​@@kiro9257 The F-35 wasn't designed for mach flight. The problem is that the engine is having to power both the VTOL and conventional flight. It puts a lot of strain on the engine. Plus the inducted fan is so vulnerable to debris. Given time, issues can be worked out. It's only entered active service recently. You can only learn so much from tests and simulations. Real world operation will always surprise you.

Or failure of the thrust vectoring mechanics. Either way - no choice but to bail out….

@joeylawn Let’s be fair, failure of control systems in any fighter requires bailout…

@@Mobius118 true

It depends on the goal of the aircraft and the thrust potential of the engine itself. A single Pratt & Whitney F119 engine didn’t provide enough thrust to accomplish the goals and requirements of the F-22. However, the Pratt & Whitney's F135 was more capable and had enough thrust for the F-35 with just a single engine. A single Pratt & Whitney F135 engine has almost as much thrust as 2 Pratt & Whitney F119. It was made several decades later so there was a lot of advancements in engines since then. NGAD will probably have 2 General Electric XA100 engines, because this will be a giant plane. It will be designed to go very far and store the AIM 260 internally. So it will need far more thrust to compensate for its size and weight.

In terms of pure effciency for range and dwell times, less but bigger engines is always better. But i guess survivability is greater with two.

single engine is for a fighter, lighter and smaller airframe. 2 engines usually more of an inteceptor/fighter.

Actuality a single engine is solely about keeping the overall price lower. Ironically 2 of the most current F-16 engines are cheaper than one F-35 engine.

@@King_Dusty_Of_Pookytopia the F35 engine also produces almost twice the thrust of the F16's. And as for cost does that account for R&D and inflation?

Couldn’t agree more. Further production also drives down unit costs and helps with maintenance expenses as well. We definitely needed more of them, but it appears someone wanted the nation to be weak

@@Mobius118 Further production drives down cost... in a consumer space. Pretty sure the price wouldn't deviate much, in the military side of things. 😕 heh

The two sexiest fighters in existence

Often the ( dark channel across the board ) pays no attention to reality or truth! Often they seem like click bait!!!!!😮

@Michael Micah ??

I got done so fast due to rapid virtual prototyping.

BTW, they're going to give you their cookies whether you like it or not. Also, Chrome is going to read all your other browsers' cookies without asking permission first! Cookies are a damn free-for-all marketing orgy these days.

Yep, they've been saying dogfighting has been going away for decades and yet the F-35 has a gun. Something tells me dogfighting will be around for some time to come.

​​@@abikeanditsboy3449 only the air force has a gun the Navy doesn't. Air Force chose to keep the gun while the Navy chose not to, this goes all the way back to the f4.

@@geekmechanic1473 - I knew the idea went back to the F-4 but didn’t know if it went back further than that. The belief was that now that we have beyond visual range missiles and can kill the enemy before they ever know we’re there we’ll never be close enough to dogfight so who needs a gun. The problem with that turned out to be two fold. First, the planes carry a very limited number of missiles. If your missiles miss then you’re up there, unarmed, with enemy planes closing and your only option is to run and go home. (As the pilots of the F-4s discovered.) The second problem defeated the point of a BVR missile in the first place, having to have positive or visual confirmation that what you were shooting was actually an enemy plane. The rules of engagement have only gotten stricter over time because the US wants to achieve the impossible, zero “collateral” damage. With the closing speeds of warplanes, you literally give up the advantage of BVR and ultimately end up in dogfight range. The war planners were wrong about it in the 60’s and they’re wrong about it today because ultimately the decision about whether or not a gun is useful on a warplane is up to the enemy and how they choose to fight.

@@abikeanditsboy3449 yet the Navy had the same problems as the air force but didn't add guns. Instead they focused on better training with missiles and maintenance of them in turn creating top gun. The Navy ended having better performance than the air force as a result. Guns aren't everything and today we have ways to identify others besides visual.

It would explain the need for a dual-engine setup, as the weapons are powered off of electricity generated by the engines, and not from some internal battery bay.

@@TROOPERfarcry They can't use a laser,because it fails in bad weather,and different types of materials can dissipate the heat from it,they will have to think of something else.

It'd say we take something from EVERY iteration, design, development and testing we embark on, kind of the point.

Perhaps, but at the cost of stealth signature.

@Michael Micah -- thanks just mail it to me.

@Michael Micah -- now that the niceties are over please explain your comment.

Maybe?

Hell yeah... i know what you mean