Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millennium-7-history-technology Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7
@shashibhushan-wd4fl
3 жыл бұрын
Smaller transistor size processors don't run Hoter at same clock speed With smaller transistor size u can pack more translations in a area which allows for higher frequencies (smaller connection b/w the transistor allows to meet hold time and other parameters for higher frequencies ie less time). Therefore it depends on what kind of performance you want from your processors.
@GonzoTehGreat
3 жыл бұрын
Would you say that these upgrade limitations justify the JSF as a replacement?
@ryanc00p3r3
3 жыл бұрын
well the Philippine air force is now planning to buy F-16 Block 70 Viper or The SAAB JAS 39 Gripen C /D. not so sure what planes they could get, they are also waiting for the KF-21 if the next president isn't stupid. which one is the better? F-16 Block 70 Viper or JAS 39 Gripen C/D? in cost and combat ability. The F-16 Block 70 said it will deliver at 2027 and only 12 + 2 F-16 block 50(old),but the Air Force need it ASAP. The Gripen C/D will be at 2024 and it will get twice the number than F-16 B70. also why SAAB didn't offer the E/F?
@GonzoTehGreat
3 жыл бұрын
@@ryanc00p3r3 Below is the current (as of 02 June 2021) state of the negotiations: _"Status: PAF TWG selected F-16C/D Block 70 Viper on August 2019. PAF approved selected on September 2019, and DND approved selection on 30 October 2019. Despite approval, it appears that pricing issues has stalled negotiation with Lockheed Martin and re-opened the line of communications with Saab. As of June 2021, DND is said to prepare submitting proposal to Malacanang based on Saab's offer, which was selected due to pricing and delivery schedule."_ Source: www.phdefenseresource.com/2020/01/multi-role-fighter-aircraft-horizon-2.html The same article also discusses the conclusion of the Slovakian Fighter Competition which had a similar choice to make: _"The JAS-39C/D Gripen was found to be be less capable in carrying load and equipment, lower fuel capacity, lower tactical range, lower endurance, lower climbing ability, and significantly lower acceleration compared to the F-16 Blk 70/72. The Gripen was also found to be using older generation of avionics like radar (non-AESA), early warning and protection systems, etc, which doesn't meet current and future air operation requirements of the Slovakian Air Force. The Gripen was found to not have significant improvement over the older MiG-29 despite being a new aircraft."_
@GonzoTehGreat
3 жыл бұрын
@@ryanc00p3r3 _"also why SAAB didn't offer the E/F?"_ A good question as the E/F is supposed to be even cheaper and supposedly significantly more capable... However, production only started in 2020 (in Brazil) so availability could be the reason.
@havinganap
3 жыл бұрын
The content of this channel is excellent; all killer, no filler. You should make a course on communication for engineers. The skill you have developed in that area, is extremely rare, and underrated, in our profession.
@maximilliancunningham6091
Жыл бұрын
Agreed.
@bodan1196
3 жыл бұрын
When designing the J35 Draken, a small space was reserved for the possibility of moving the engine forward a bit, in case the centers of gravity and lift were found to be unsatifactory after flight testing. As it turned out, the centers were where they were designed to be, and this space was not needed. However, a new version of the Avon engine were developed, with a fan disk added as a new first stage. (a "zero stage"). This new version of the engine was of course a little longer, and the space reserved in the Draken design, was the exact length for this new engine to fit... as if designed for it. Luck should have no place in aircraft design, but still...
@scottyfox6376
3 жыл бұрын
Very interesting insight.
@justforever96
3 жыл бұрын
A fan stage added? That would make it a turbofan Avon, which I have never heard of. I assume you mean an additional compressor stage.
@bodan1196
3 жыл бұрын
@@justforever96 Correct. My mistake. A "zero-stage" compression fandisk(?) added.
@dsdy1205
3 жыл бұрын
@@justforever96 Aren't most fighter engines low/medium-bypass turbofans nowadays? EDIT: Oh wait the Draken, nevermind
@subtlewolf
2 жыл бұрын
Flexible design is not simply luck.
@festol1
3 жыл бұрын
Thank you sir! PS: the audio got a lot better now :) Great videos, please keep 'em up. Videos like this are hard to came in YT, experts like you are a rare beast in this plataform :)
@buzekohi
3 жыл бұрын
As airplane enthusiast, I like every video of yours because you explain it very well and the topics make sense. Looks like you listen to your audience.
@Jib60
3 жыл бұрын
I see, now I understand why the Mirage family can stretch 3 generations despite looking almost identical externally.
@polentusmax6100
3 жыл бұрын
Mostly changed the engine, nose and material of structure, shape is the same
@854gabryel
3 жыл бұрын
Are there other Mirage planes besides 2000?
@Jib60
3 жыл бұрын
@@854gabryel of course. The Mirage III is legendary ! The Mirage V Then there is the Israeli versions like the Nesher and Kfir, there is also the South African Cheetah The Mirage IV is a twin engine strategic bomber/recon aircraft The Mirage 4000 is a prototype F-15 like heavy fighter (basically a twin engine mirage 2000) The Mirage F-1 is a non delta mirage (so it’s not very hard to tell apart from the other mirage) The Balzac and Mirage IIIV are VTOL prototype ( not very good, but still to this day the only Mach2 capable vtol ever build)
@Dexter037S4
3 жыл бұрын
@@Jib60 Don't forget the Mirage G, which was a Swing-Wing F-1.
@nuclearwarhead9338
3 жыл бұрын
@@Jib60 how does Mirage 4000 prototype "F-15 like" aside from having twin engine? 🙄
@spoddie
3 жыл бұрын
I really hate it when I park my F-35 and it tells me not to turn it off as there's an update to process.
@Millennium7HistoryTech
3 жыл бұрын
😆😆😆😆
@marcbrasse747
3 жыл бұрын
Brilliant!
@alf3071
3 жыл бұрын
@@michaelkeller5008 I wonder if something like this really happens
@deth3021
3 жыл бұрын
@@alf3071 yes it does arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/f-35-radar-system-has-bug-that-requires-hard-reboot-in-flight/
@deth3021
3 жыл бұрын
I suggest you read up on the f35 alis then you will know that, an sw update would be the least of your problems. www.airforcemag.com/f-35-program-dumps-alis-for-odin/
@trumanhw
3 жыл бұрын
OUTSTANDING explanation of the infrastructure (we take for granted) and the contextualization of even minor changes.
@trumanhw
3 жыл бұрын
If you consider making a follow-up ... given how counterintuitive & interesting the topic is. CPUs become more efficient & if a computer uses 2kw, then, it must exhaust 2kw of heat. Usually, tech is made in cutting edge industries like F1 or in the military where gov has $$! Aircraft all do similar tasks (in diff. envelopes) yet, gov. ignored making an OS / framework. PCs, gamers, android & iOS has for 20y what the military only began working on in 2000s
@Ni999
3 жыл бұрын
Perfect picture at the beginning after the question! BTW - MIL-STD-1553B does include more than the Manchester biphase encoding (physical protocol) but also software protocol for message header, device addressing, data length and polling frequency. The issues putting new devices on are no plug and play (you touched on this) and also message frequency. Modern software designers expect on-demand network capability but the old 1553 system was a fixed polling system. You didn't use to have to make your own TCP/IP, you needed to make your own alternative to it. Again, your TCP/IP example was fine - but if anyone reading has TCP maintenance experience and thinks that the metaphor wasn't that scary, think again lol. Great video as always!
@vickydroid
3 жыл бұрын
Funny your picture of the SU54 and MIG-25 this morning got me thinking about upgrades too. They both have a very similar central role, I don't think air superiority or interception any more , I believe it is the interdiction of big air assets, Tankers, CCC and ELINT platforms but the Foxbat besides having a tonne of space has an additional kinematic aspect that makes it interesting and valuable as a platform for new high speed weapons. So for that function, unless another Mach 3+ plane is in development, may give it more service life than its replacement. Nevertheless, another thought provoking video, bravo.
@trumanhw
3 жыл бұрын
Very intelligent (articulate) statement.
@michaelgeffner3622
3 жыл бұрын
He's always right on with perfect questions. Good man
@muchadoaboutnothing6196
3 жыл бұрын
I just discovered your channel and I’m so glad I did! Most KZitem channels discussing military topics are complete trash but your videos are very well informed and incredibly interesting. Great Job👍
@hangie65
3 жыл бұрын
Excellent video. You do a very good job of taking a rather complex subject, such as this video's, and braking it down into "digestible" pieces. Great work!
@evilrobots
2 жыл бұрын
I love your content. Great videos. The music between segments is a little too loud, though. Keep up the great work!
@awathompson
3 жыл бұрын
Great show, keep up the good work! Side note, Air mass flow was not talked about. Like why the F16c needed a bigger air inlet when a new engine was added. But again, good job!!!
@Millennium7HistoryTech
3 жыл бұрын
Great point!
@justforever96
3 жыл бұрын
He did sort of, I thought. I thought that was what he was talking about when he said it needed new bulkheads and perhaps changes to the fuselage. Because you can't change just the inlet, you need to do the entire intake, perhaps widen the entire engine, probably the jet pipe as well.
@mortified776
3 жыл бұрын
Well don't feel all clever now knowing what TCP/IP is 😁. (Not that my network admin skills are anything to boast about!) It's worth mentioning that a lot of this also applies to submarines. If you want to make any major change to internal arrangements you basically have to do a major redesign. This is what the Royal Navy's _Astute_ class fell victim to. It was originally conceived as a relatively modest update to the _Trafalgar_ class. However, the navy wanted Rolls Royce's newer more powerful PWR2 reactor instead of the PWR1 which was pretty obsolete by the mid-90s. However the PWR2 is significantly larger and this set off a whole chain of issues that resulted in an entirely new boat. Even with all that work however, there were still problems getting a gear set designed for a 5200 tonne boat to convert the turbine output into shaft revolutions to push a 7400 tonne boat up to tactically required speeds.
@matthewgribble939
3 жыл бұрын
Well thought out and delivered again. Thanks.
@KirkParro
3 жыл бұрын
A very well rounded explanation of the problems associated with installing new features on an existing airframe. One thing occurred to me, however. Upgrading a the existing F-16 airframe has many problems that might be avoided if the folks looked at a variant- the F-16XL. That aircraft has a greatly expanded internal volume that might provide the room to accommodate most, if not all, the desired upgrades.
@GonzoTehGreat
3 жыл бұрын
13:40 The funny thing about this hypothetical is that pretty much the same thing applies to upgrading an old PC 😁
@razony
3 жыл бұрын
Building the plane around the engine vs engine around the plane. Thank you my friend for your hard work.
@thefrecklepuny
3 жыл бұрын
Engine changes remind me of the British F-4's which swapped J-79 turbojets for wider Spey turbofans. More power and better fuel economy vs higher drag and lower top speed. The speed reduction due to widening the fuselage and the inlets to accommodate the wider powerplants. But then the Israeli Kfir which swapped the original Atar for the J-79 certainly benefitted in every aspect.
@justforever96
3 жыл бұрын
Yes, one can swap engines. But as he said, it usually requires basically redesigning the plane. Widening the fuselage and inlets of an F-4 to accommodate more mass flow was not a simple task, which is one reason a British F-4 cost several times what as US F-4 cost.
@pogo1140
2 жыл бұрын
@@justforever96 No, The F-14 was built to accept an PW engine that never showed up, so it was built with the PW-TF-30's from the F-111. A few years later the Navy asked PW to adapt the F-100 used in the F-15 and F-16 for the F-14, PW said no because the F-14 used analog controls while the F-100 was digital. The Navy then looke at the GE engines and asked them about the the engines from the B-1 bomber and was currently being developed for the F-16 and F-15. They one into an F-14A and made and and flew it, later they took another spare engine and put that on as well and the first F-14A+ was born. They then ordered the GE engine to be fitted into the F-14A's and for the F-14D. For the F-14 they took parts from the F-15E radar to upgrade the F-14's radar, a new cockpit displays, sensors and an IRTS system
@garyhilson7220
3 жыл бұрын
Wow just put me back in the classroom studying aerodynamics and Aero Dynamic structures this is more a engineering discussion than entertainment extreme informative keep it up!!!!
@chandra_himanshu
3 жыл бұрын
Wonderful explaination.
@sikandaadnakis2785
3 жыл бұрын
Hello Mr. Millenium may I ask you if it would be a terrible idea to take an existing design and make it 10 - 20 or 50% bigger and then make the neccessary adjustments, and if so what would be the issues? Thank you very much. Very appreciated videos.
@Millennium7HistoryTech
3 жыл бұрын
The issue is that structural stress doesn't scale linearly, that lift scales with the surface but weight with the volume etc.
@tommotto4643
Жыл бұрын
Exception and interesting technical explanations!
@Millennium7HistoryTech
Жыл бұрын
Thank you very much!!
@rickblackwell6435
3 жыл бұрын
Very well explained. Thank-you very much.
@rickblackwell6435
3 жыл бұрын
I was thinking also about sensors. Do the F-22 and F-25 not have more sensors embedded in wings/fuselage that would be difficult/impossible to retrofit to an existing airframe?
@genericdynamics6618
3 жыл бұрын
Very interesting video, when things get theoretical you know it is a good video 😉 Regarding what you said between minute 09:00 and minute 10:00 i'd say is something would require more time on screen. Software is most probably the least explored part of defense technology, let alone concepts like monolithic applications in defense industry. I would love to hear more, that's for sure.
@cannonfodder4376
3 жыл бұрын
Have been looking forward to this video. A clear and relatively concise explanation regarding the limits of the F-16's upgradability. I can see the same happening in Russia with the Fulcrums. There is not much left in the Fulcrum that the Flanker's can't readily be adapted to take on with ease and that's not even taking the smaller budgets into account. One must accept the limitations inherit with smaller, lighter aircraft, for now they will forever remain second fiddle to the bigger heavy fighters despite a manufacturers best efforts. Going to be interesting seeing how things go from here.
@Noisy_Cricket
2 жыл бұрын
Light fighters have one advantage though: they're cheaper. Although this arguably does not matter as much because pilots and training capacity are always limited to a degree outside of a total war scenario.
@tolson57
3 жыл бұрын
F-4 Phantom, McDonnell Douglas's proof to the world that with enough thrust, even a brick can fly.
@GolfZulu67
3 жыл бұрын
Partially true. This is somewhat a cliche. However, if you read the book "Loud and Clear" by Iftach Spector, there is an astonishing description of a 1 vs 1 dogfight between an Israeli F-4E and a Syrian Mig-21 in 1973, where the Phantom outmaneuvered the Mig in "scissors" at extremely low speed and altitude, theoretically the worst case scenario for the F-4, leading to the stall and crash of the Mig. My point is that, in the right hands the (slatted) Phantom was and still is in some countries, a very agile and maneuverable plane. Additionally, in Vietnam some pilots pulled 12 g trying to dodge SAMs, something that you simply cannot do today with the Fly-By-Wire systems.
@mickeyg7219
3 жыл бұрын
@@GolfZulu67 It's also ironic that the F-4 actually have a lower wing-loading than the F-16.
@LRRPFco52
3 жыл бұрын
The F-4 was actually a very excellent aerodynamic design and was capable of reaching its stated maximum mach values while combat-configured, even with EFTs, not that this was every tactically-relevant. It had a really strong wing design and how it was joined to the fuselage, and a stores carriage arrangement that allowed for full A2A loads to be carried without being impeded by A2G loads. That full A2A load included 4x AIM-7 and 4x AIM-9. The Typhoon is the closest thing to it in that regard, since the Typhoon also carries its BVR missiles in recessed stations under the wing/fuselage. We mandated that the F-15 be able to carry the same A2A load as the F-4, which also influenced the stores capacity of the ATF program. The F-4 was a pivotal fighter design on the teen series, with influences carrying over to the F-14 and F-15, and by extension, the Su-27, Typhoon, Rafale, and F-22.
@slmyatt
3 жыл бұрын
Say a video interview of F106 pilot that said his jet could supercruise, but shut my mouth, it's a secret.
@slmyatt
3 жыл бұрын
Explanations not too simple, not too complex.
@Elysian_Angel_
3 жыл бұрын
Excellent explanation, thank you! 🙂
@kastallion
3 жыл бұрын
The best channel, gj!
@BBBrasil
3 жыл бұрын
First, kudos on almost 30k! Second, yeah, ppl don't think how integrated a fighter jet has to be. If they do, and this video glimpses on it, it becomes quite clear. I remember Brazilians saying -so what, the Gripen has advanced communications? Lets put it on a cheaper plane! But they realized SSAB slogan "what one sees, all of us know" is more than just marketing, it is as the Gripen E/F was designed around the sensors, and not the other way around.
@BillWilsonBG
3 жыл бұрын
Not necessarily related to this video directly, but I recalled just now a question. In the previous F-35 videos, what do you mean by that they can't afford to be lost in combat (or something roughly to that effect)? Is it the lose of the aura of invincibility that the F-35 has, or is it purely their massive monetary costs? If so is, isn't an issue with all advanced newly produced western fighters with their cost being near the same price wise with the F-35?
@scottsauritch3216
3 жыл бұрын
All f16 in US fleet are planned to be upgraded to the f16V i believe. i know as of 06/25/21 as many of 80 USAF F16C's have been upgraded with APG-83 which is basically a squished to fit in nose of f16, APG-81 of the f35 which is an CONSIDERABLE UPGRADE! But it's only half or really less than half the f35 avionics that make f35 so dam impressive like what make up DAS(Das or DASS?) giving it 360* IR coverage for hundreds of miles etc...
@masterhypnostorm
3 жыл бұрын
If you are interested TCP/IP operates on level 2 of the 7 level model. TCP/IP has two main versions that are used IP v4 and IP v6. Most programming uses the presentation levels 6 and 7 and calls the operating system to access the other levels. I believe that this is correct but I have not worked in IT for 20 years, so I might just be telling you the status on the playmate of the month.
@crescenzopersico6907
3 жыл бұрын
dear sir . i ask you about the opposite process . if the main problem of f35 come from stealth , built an f35 without the stealth skin, simplifig construction maintinence and reducing costs too
@blackcat3383
3 жыл бұрын
I was thinking the same thing..also about the F-22.
@sarabjeetsingh6450
3 жыл бұрын
You are getting fit I see❤️❤️
@goodputin4324
3 жыл бұрын
You're, not your
@sarabjeetsingh6450
3 жыл бұрын
@@goodputin4324 auto correct bro 😂😂😂
@sarabjeetsingh6450
3 жыл бұрын
@@goodputin4324 grammar Nazi
@TurboHappyCar
2 жыл бұрын
Great video! 👍 It's a great point that small changes can be made, but at some point, they become big changes. Aircraft are so highly optimized that any extra space or weight in the design is just a decrease in performance.
@recoswell
3 жыл бұрын
interesting - have to check back on this
@STGN01
3 жыл бұрын
Or reevaluate the cost-benefit analysis of avionics in the F35. After all, that kind of thinking is what brought us the F16.
@GonzoTehGreat
3 жыл бұрын
Indeed, a pertinent question is whether the information technology data link capabilities of the F-35 are required for EVERY fighter aircraft, especially as remote controlled unmanned aircraft will be more common in the future.
@rubenhakopian
3 жыл бұрын
Thanks for great video! Would like to see explanation on why are fighter jets are so expensive to operate. What needs to be done after each X-number of flights, etc?
@Nestor71
3 жыл бұрын
In the case of a purchase of a new platform instead of upgrading you should not only consider the fly-away price of a plane but the additional cost of the whole infrastructure, spare parts etc you will not have to pay for if you upgrade an existing platform. F-35's flyaway cost may be close to 100m right now, but if you check several contracts that took place, the price exceeds 150m per plane. For instance, HAF is upgrading its F-16 Block 52+ & Block 52+ Adv to the V variant (Block 72) for less than 20m per plane (84 planes in total). Although F-35 is of course much more advanced, with the same amount of money spent, less than ten places would be purchased and such thing would not make sense. At the same time, logistics concerning all the rest of the parts except to the new avionics remain the same. Of course Block 52 is a relatively modern block and not everything has to be replaced for the upgrade, but this case shows that things are not black or white and the upgrade sometimes really makes sense.
@josiehinton4351
2 жыл бұрын
There was that F16 VISTRA experimental plane in the 1990s. It ended up being used as a trainer later in it's life because they could program it to fly like almost any other jet with the thrust vectoring engine it had. Not stealth at all but why some degree of thrust vectoring control was never upgraded to other F16s doesn't make any sense.
@Millennium7HistoryTech
2 жыл бұрын
Interesting. Do you have any detail?
@josiehinton4351
2 жыл бұрын
@@Millennium7HistoryTech kzitem.info/news/bejne/uZCHqquIhHp0hoY This footage was from it's early days. Later it was put in storage. NASA got it later again and had to rebuild parts of the electrical.
@maximilliancunningham6091
Жыл бұрын
At the same time, astonishing miniaturization of electronics constitutes a paradyme shift. Good point about cooling though, with larger and large density, comes greater heat dissipation.
@henrikwannheden7114
3 жыл бұрын
I understand that you don't mess with the aerodynamic profile without doing much redesign to everything.. but, how do that account for the proliferation of conformal fuel tanks? They are essentially bolted on as an afterthought on perfected aerodynamic profiles like the F-15, F-16 and Mig-29. But it seems to work out great, so much as these modifications are permanented in later variants, like the F-15EX, F-21 and Mig-35.
@andreabindolini7452
2 жыл бұрын
And this is why, for example, US Navy got rid of the F-14 instead of pursue the Tomcat 21 or something. Not only a matter of politics. Excellent and informative video as usual. Good year from Italy!
@pogo1140
2 жыл бұрын
The ASF-14 tomcat or Advanced Super Tomcat as some called it would have been faster than the F-35 at Mach 2.4-2.6, and could cruise at M 1.3 with 8 AIM-120's and 2 AIM-9X, a greater radar range than the F-35 with a built in FAC mode (US Navy FAC-A is a 2 seat mission so FA-18F are assigned to it not F-35's) , longer un-refueled range. What it would not be was stealthy, though you could bring the RCS down to close to or below F/A-18E levels by altering the intakes and installing a screen. Maintenance wise, it would probably be somewhere between the F/A-18E and the F-35C, the wings will still be a source of concern though that can be reduced by going to an all electric servo design.
@andreabindolini7452
2 жыл бұрын
@@pogo1140 Wet dreams. You're talking about a plane that doesn't exist except in Grumman commercials.
@LRRPFco52
3 жыл бұрын
We've been using the AFTI F-16, F-16 DSI, and F-16 LOAN testbeds for ATF and JSF technology test and integration from the early 1980s through 1990s before ATF CALF/SSF/ A-X designs were even proposed. Just like we used the F-8 and F-4 CCV to test fly-by-wire systems by 1974, even with coupled canards on the F-4 CCV, we use previous generation aircraft to develop the next. F-4 was a great, robust airframe with better multirole stores capacity than any of the teen fighters due to the semi-recessed AIM-7 stations. So why not just put the new avionics in the F-4? Maintenance access panels and its 1950s wiring harness architecture were tiresome to deal with for starters. 2 engines magnified maintenance and operations costs. Combat radius was really limited at around 370nm, about half of the A-7D. F-15 & F-16 offered much greater range, mx-friendly access panel architecture, superb pilot interface, improved radar size for F-15, and single seat crew that cut the demands on aircrew training fleet-wide. The cost/benefit analysis to upgrade or produce new F-4s with fly-by-wire avionics, new radars, new engines, canards, composites, single piece wind screen, new cockpits, etc. didn't fully solve the fundamental problems of range and 2-crew. That rear guy in back was no longer needed and would be best-used for more fuel. We converted Tactical Air Command from F-4E units to F-15A/C and F-16A. The 2 crew F-4 was still relevant for the F-4G Wild Weasel until it was eventually replaced by the F-16CJ and now F-16CM.
@BennyCFD
3 жыл бұрын
Terrific video............
@hamilashah
3 жыл бұрын
Sei un Maestro! Grazie mille
@nickbrough8335
3 жыл бұрын
The logical reason for not using the F-16, is that there's been quite a lot of materials and aerodynamic development since then and a new airframe would allow these advances to brought into service giving a 4+++ generation replacement for the F-16 which can remain in service for 10s of years. Im surprised that the same thing hasn't been done for the F-15 as well, but I guess the requirement driving the upgrade programme doesn't allow an extended timetable. The USAFs mistake was thinking Stealth would be required for all new aircraft. They didn't allow for the peace dividend impact on how fast Stealth roll out has happened. I do wonder, given the proliferation of Chinese Stealth designs in or near service, whether investing in less Stealthy airframes make senses in the longer term though. If a short term replacement for the F-16 is needed them it might be cheaper to make the Gripen E/F under licence with US electronics as a temporary measure.
@nickbrough8335
3 жыл бұрын
I guess another alternative would be to resurrect and modernise the F-16 experimental delta wing design ?
@Ni999
3 жыл бұрын
The Gripen electronics are a big reason it performs so well.
@LRRPFco52
3 жыл бұрын
Because of stealth and the responses to stealth, all new fighters and bombers will require it. If you show up in a 4.5++++++ airframe to the sensor and missile fight designed to try to deal with stealth, you’re out-matched even more. Detection ranges are much greater on legacy high RCS platforms now. Missiles are more accurate and lethal against legacy airframes, while struggling to deal with VLO technology. The biggest, most over-looked aspect of this is in providing precise guidance solutions for RF seeker missiles, as well as IR seeker missiles, because people don’t realize that stealth also includes the IR spectrum. The US has spent billions on reducing IR signatures on the F-117A, B-2A, F-22A, and JSF series. Helmet-cued HOBS missiles don’t really work against 5th Gen, and IR SAMs don’t either. As the threat nations address this problem, it will make the lethality against non-stealth aircraft even more devastating. So stealth is a mandatory baseline moving into the future. China knows it. Russia knows it. UK, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, and Sweden know it. China is the only other nation with 2 new stealth designs that are actually flying, with one in full rate production in the J-20B. Russia has not produced a true 5th Gen stealth aircraft with the Su-57, but it does have Low Observable qualities that make it a step above the Eurocanards and teen series no matter how you upgrade them. Any money spent on further developing teen series and Eurocanards outside of the projected O&M and life upgrades is a waste of money and sets one up for failure in the emerging IADS nets.
@davidsuzukiispolpot
3 жыл бұрын
This video explained why it is expensive to add individual upgrades to older platforms. However, the F-16 was the first fly-by-wire so it obviously had computers and even simple computers sucked a lot of power back then. It is not obvious that new avionics would violate the power capabilities of an F-16 merely by inspection. ( We can assume heat and cooling goes along with power requirements since wasted power is turned into wasted heat). It it was easy, I assume that the suppliers would have suggested it, but it is not the dumbest idea. Simple computers back then took some space also. I agree it would likely not be practical, but a complete replacement of avionics is not the same as adding components with all of the added integration issues. I think the best way forward is for the open architecture avionics to get reused into new designs. The avionics seems to take a long time to develop and debug.
@mrrolandlawrence
3 жыл бұрын
moral of the story... should have bought the gripen with the open architecture ;)
@wildripeach1
Жыл бұрын
I agree with what you recommended in the video but perhaps the F-35 like systems and avionics can be introduced in the Next Gen F-16 BlockXX or a redesigned F-21? Or perhaps we will have to wait for the NG F-16XL or the F-36 Kingsnake? Perhaps much cheaper than the F-35 but with 85% of the capability, specifically for EW.... I believe that the Gripen E/F already does this at a very low life cycle cost...
@Subbacultcha100
3 жыл бұрын
Perhaps you can explain how Saab was able to design the Gripen to be so easily upgraded. Maybe you already discussed that in your Gripen videos but I can’t remember. Thx, great videos.
@WJV9
Жыл бұрын
A real-time, multi-tasking, executive operating system software package that isolates each program and weapon control software in it own memory space and time slot allocation. If you add a new weapon software/hardware package it has no effect on the other run time software modules other than requiring a bit more CPU time. Each software module can be assigned a task priority so that it gets serviced by the OS at regular intervals often enough that target acquisition and tracking computations maintain required accuracy and data is not lost. If one of the software modules would happen to fail or get hung waiting for an event, it has no effect on the other software modules since each software task is only allocated a 'time slice' of the cpu(s) time. This is similar to how Linux and other modern operating systems are designed using 'structured programming languages' that use a modular design to isolate each software task from the other tasks and increase system reliability and ease of software maintenance.
@Robwantsacurry
3 жыл бұрын
Interesting to see aircraft avionics mirror the development of personal computers, my first computers everything was passively cooled, a stamped piece of aluminum over a few components was all that was needed, much like an aircraft's skin. My latest PC is a mass of fans and vents with liquid cooling to stop it frying itself, all because of clock speed. My mind was blown to see those intakes just for the avionics bays.
@Millennium7HistoryTech
3 жыл бұрын
Well said!
@asganaway
3 жыл бұрын
Well it goes along with the increase of the transistors density (in any type of chip) and if you take into account the for the 6 generations they are going to integrate GPUs (or similar hardware) to execute AI models inferences it's exactly the same happening in your computer generation after generation Edit: I was writing the comment and Mr Millennium just mentioned the Tempest
@Robwantsacurry
3 жыл бұрын
@@asganaway Yes, while transistors have gotten smaller chips are generally way larger and contain literally millions more components than the early days of integrated circuits.
@jimc1654
3 жыл бұрын
The air intake on the f35 bottom is to cool the engine and not for the avionics. The next hottest part is the radar.
@jakobcarlsen6968
3 жыл бұрын
I worked on modifying F-16's for 13 years. Putting F-35 tech into the F-16 should not be a problem. Outcome may not be identical, but should be good non the less. Norwegian F-16s went from block 1 to block 50++ and they are not finished yet
@pogo1140
2 жыл бұрын
They forget that the F-16 has been an ongoing upgrade program for years. Everything from RCS reduction, engine upgrades, alternate engines, radars. Not to mention that almost all the systems in the F-35 including it's engine intake, were tested using an F-16.
@nilselgenstierna3282
3 жыл бұрын
You are spot on. The F16 is a superior aircraft but lagging behind because of it's upgradability, or rather it's potential upgradability. Just comparing to the Gripen lauched about 10 years after the F16 it's software upgradebility is inferior. Though the Gripen F hss major hardware upgradings, new engine, wider wings and more hard-points, it still remains the same aircraft. The difference is software architechture which seems to the F35s. Just consider why Boeing chose SAAB as a partner for the new USAF trainer T7 trIaner? Like all other manufacturing; it's no longer about the hardware but about the software. The F16 will reign the skyes with new software. ..
@LRRPFco52
3 жыл бұрын
When they did MLU on the European F-16A/Bs built in Netherlands and Belgium (built from 1978-1982), each aircraft MLU process took 5 months and $37 million in mid-1990s dollars for the reasons discussed in this video. If you take the sunk costs of F-16A/B production from the late 1970s/early 1980s, add the MLU process in the 1990s, and calculate for inflation, you get an F-16A MLU bird that would cost $103 million today. F-35A costs $77.9 million and exceeds the performance of an F-16MLU in every relevant metric. F-16C Block 40-52s after CCIP cost even more due to all the additional features they get over an F-16AM. There’s a $462 million contract being filled right now for F-16CM just for the EPIDSU/EPIDS pylons to increase survivability marginally.
@LRRPFco52
3 жыл бұрын
@@henrikg1388 Those kinds of money-laundering schemes played by the big boys are with much larger sales of forbidden weapons, narcotics, human trafficking, and illegal activities to governments not allowed to have those things. Embargo means the price goes up. A mesley upgrade contract for F-16s among authorized partner nations doesn't even meet the bar for entry into Panama Papers type corruption.
@LRRPFco52
3 жыл бұрын
@@henrikg1388 It's really beyond the scope of discussion in relation to this video though.
@none941
2 жыл бұрын
Modern electronics typically use less wattage than earlier designs. Where active electronics like radars are concerned, you're on your own!
@MattyC62185
3 жыл бұрын
Yes there already is because Lockheed Martin (who makes the f35) now has the rights to the F-16 When they purchase general dynamics they have a version of the F-16 that has all of the electronics from the F 35 it’s the block 70 And also the F 16 was designed to be easily upgraded from the get-go
@rs232killer
3 жыл бұрын
This statement is objectively false.
@MattyC62185
3 жыл бұрын
@@rs232killer Look up the F-16c block70 Has a lot of 22 and 35 technology inside of it most of it being electronics
@rs232killer
3 жыл бұрын
@@MattyC62185 I was referring to your statement in your original post which said "the F-16 that has all of the electronics from the F 35 it’s the block 70..." If you had said "a small number of the electronics elements will be common with the F-35" I would cut you some slack.
@MattyC62185
3 жыл бұрын
@@rs232killer That’s what I meant Lockheed Martin makes the F 16 blocks 70 for nations who want electronics or fifth generation fighters but do not have the cash to spend on an F 35 like Bahrain for example
@rexmann1984
3 жыл бұрын
If they're going to have an upgraded F-16 then we might as well go for the F-16XL made from composites.
@brucebaxter6923
3 жыл бұрын
well, i do think about a modular system with sensors weapons fuel etc all is pod based and the airframes dont matter with just a flight control and pod interface display, like each pod has an internal web page.
@DavidLee-df888
3 жыл бұрын
A different engine will negatively affect the overall aircraft? Nah, just look at the British Phantoms... ermm...
@FireAngelOfLondon
3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, lower top speed in spite of having more thrust and THREE TIMES THE COST of an F-4J. They were also slightly harder to land on a carrier because the Spey has a poorer throttle response than the J-79. This was a slight difference but men who flew both from carriers were unanimous. The F-4K and F-4M did have better subsonic and transonic acceleration, but the ridiculous cost had far-reaching effects on RAF force size. If they had just bought F-4J Phantoms they could literally have bought twice as many planes and still spent substantially less than they did over the lifetime of the F-4 in the RAF and Royal Navy.
@DavidLee-df888
3 жыл бұрын
@@FireAngelOfLondon It seems British pride/politicians insisted on local engines in the American airframes for no better reason that to give Rolls Royce something to do with the Spey, a perfectly fine engine that just wasn't the right fit for the Phantoms. Even the notoriously nationalist French kept the F-8s more or less stock. And the Germans simplified their Phantoms quite a bit, but kept the engines even if they had other problems. And later on the British did the same with the Apache... but with less compromise in performance/price/etc. It's all very well supporting national interests and industry, but is it worth it if the results are a dubious improvement at best?
@FireAngelOfLondon
3 жыл бұрын
@@DavidLee-df888 Overall there was no real improvement in the Spey engined F-4s. They gained some advantages yes, but they lost as many and the ridiculous price was a disgusting waste of money. British companies could have been propped up just as effectively by license-building the engines and avionics and having stock F-4J Phantoms. If the law was what it ought to be then the politicians who made the decisions that led to the F-4M and F-4K would have gone to prison.
@DavidLee-df888
3 жыл бұрын
@@FireAngelOfLondon I agree, that was my point. I'm all for supporting British industry, but this was an almost complete waste of money. The government might as well have not bothered ordering the modified Phantoms if the intention was to replace the TSR.2 to save money, good job there! Should have stuck with standard Phantoms, or paid General Dynamics to finish development of the F-111, or even restart/continue developing the TSR.2 if the tooling had survived. Or even the P.1154
@justforever96
3 жыл бұрын
He didn't say it would 'negatively effect the overall aircraft' (although one could argue that the Spey _did_ do so to the F-4). He said it isn't so easy as just bolting a new engine in, it usually requires extensive changes that add a lot of cost and difficulty to the project, so in addition to the avionics problems, it isn't much cheaper than just designing a new plane. Unless you find an an engine of the exact same diameter, length and size, you will need to redesign the bulkhead frames, perhaps the fuselage, you will need to relocate a lot of equipment to bring the weight distribution back to the correct limits, rewire and replumb all the associated connections for the engine and relocated equipment. Obviously a plane can be re-engined, it has been done many times. The F-16, the F-14, the Vulcan, the F-4, the U-2, the F-18, etc, etc. In some of those cases the engine was specifically designed to fit in that application to start with, so it was less of a problem (the F-16), or the plane _was_ basically redesigned (U-2, F-18), or they just decided it was worth the expense anyway. He is talking about modern fighters though, the F-16 in particular. It was already re-engined once, and it is unlikely that they can find a way to fit an engine of significantly increased power or economy without basically redesigning the fuselage. When the added expense of this is taken in consideration _with_ the added expense and difficulty of trying to upgrade to modern avionics, the total cost is not much less than just designing a new jet.
@doncalypso
3 жыл бұрын
Guess I have to give up on the fantasy of a beefed-up F-16 powered by the Pratt&Whitney F119....
@LRRPFco52
3 жыл бұрын
Some of the most important features of the F119 motor come from the airframe it’s mounted inside. 5th Gen designs don’t have federated subcomponent systems like a 4th Gen aircraft. The AESA radar is part of the engines, which are part of the DFLCS, which is part of the VLO management software, which is programmed into the central brain, where everything connects. There’s a GE F100-GE-132 for the UAE Block 60 Desert Falcons with 32,000lb of thrust, meant to lift all the extra weight they packed into the F-16E/F. UAE bought those for $200 million each. After a few years of operation, they signed a peace deal with Israel so they could order 50 F-35As.
@LRRPFco52
3 жыл бұрын
@@unknownuser069 It didn't compute when that statement was made by F-35 developmental pilots either, since my framework of understanding was based on systems architecture from the teen fighters, primarily the F-16 & F-15. If you look at the low pressure cold fan stage of the F135, it has heat exchangers integrated into it, which are an integral part of the IPP, which is integral to the radar power amps and other hot systems. Additionally, these are all integrated with the IR signature reduction systems, which are many. It's not what I originally thought it was. I expected to see a relative balance of federated physical sub systems "integrated" via fiber-optic connections with streamlined harnesses and basic layout like a Viper. Nope. The physical subsystems are integrated, eliminating the legacy E&E, APU, EPU approaches and creating something entirely different. It's revolutionary just from power generation, gas turbine engine, and flight control systems engineering, as well as maintenance access points. I assumed many things, but studied before drawing conclusions. At every turn, the JSF variant lay-outs are a series of inspiring engineering solutions. I am forced to recognize how brilliantly-executed the systems design is. Examples include the Electrohydrostatic Actuators with fly-by-light and fuel mass cooling, the radar back-end systems and EOTS accessible through the nose gear bay, the fuselage common inspection and service components accessible through the weapons bays, the RF antennae embedding all over like a Raptor, only done more efficiently, the cockpit with just a few switches for start-up and pilot-configurable Panoramic Display, the IR concealment systems.... It's radically different from a Viper in every way, all of them formed by hard lessons-learned on the teen series, F-117, & Raptor.
@LRRPFco52
3 жыл бұрын
@@unknownuser069 I’ve merely re-stated what the test pilots have openly mentioned regarding systems connectivity and how it differs from the previous generation of design. I haven’t taken the "wrong implications". You might be used to dealing with children who don’t have any relevant background to this, but I’m not one of them. Of course the F-35 isn’t a single component. It has systems integration that is on a totally different level than 4th Gen fighters, as I described. X-35 was a different airplane. Different cockpit, engine, structures, no weapons bays, with some of the evolved systems from the AFTI F-16 and NASA F/A-18 that were developed for JSF, the EHAs and IPP being just 2 examples. F-22 was a radical departure from the F-15 as well, but they’ve been really tight-lipped on anything associated with it. Even if you knew someone on F-22 CTF, you couldn’t call over there just to chat. I know the IR concealment systems on F-22 are such that when you try to acquire it with JHMCS and AIM-9X, it doesn’t work. From there, you could work backwards and see how the airflow is managed through and around the TVC nozzles, coatings, structures, heat-sinking, etc. They were’t screwing around when they said VLO.
@LRRPFco52
3 жыл бұрын
@@unknownuser069 I see where one of my statements was confusing and have amended it. The one about subcomponent systems. Of course there are subsystems, but the way things are integrated are much more intertwined than I originally assumed, before I dove deep into the F-22 and F-35 systems architecture. That’s the point I was trying to make. They didn’t just take 4th Gen systems design and pack them into 5th Gen airframes. They took decades of lessons-learned from performance, maintenance, modularity, upgradeability, and sustainability and incorporated that into the physical structures and systems in ways I’ve not seen done on the teen fighters. I was tracking what they were doing with the AFTI F-16 at Edwards since the early 1980s, and most of those systems went into JSF, some even into ATF before. If you look at the AFTI F-16, it had 2 pre-LANTIRN pods built into the wing roots. We knew that JSF would have an integrated FLIR/LST pod built into the airframe somewhere, as opposed to a bolt-on unit like LANTIRN/SNIPER/LITENING. We also knew that AESAs were the future. My initial expectations for JSF were a small airframe with a little AESA, integrated FLIR, with a VLO airframe. It is so much more than this because of the inertia of technological progression in each area of systems development, and the way they were all integrated together.
@videomaniac108
3 жыл бұрын
I have always thought that the F-16, a great idea and a great plane, should have been kept and progressively upgraded with the latest engine, weapons and avionics available. I never thought that the Air Force's changes to the plane to add attack capabilities, in the form of lots of heavy air to ground munitions, made any sense. All changes should have been made to improve it's abilities as a lightweight WVR air superiority fighter. The voice to add conformal tanks was a mistake in my opinion, their extra weight and drag cannot be jettisoned as external tanks can in an emergency.
@papaburger
3 жыл бұрын
will the next 4.5+++ gen US plane designs have thrust vectoring ?
@adibar9066
3 жыл бұрын
We can only speculate, my own speculation is no unless its VTOL capable, the US isnt looking for the same thing the russians do. The US dont have the need in super maneuverability and it is regarded pointless in any plan for air superiority and mostly redundant in gen 5 fights. The fight as it is now relies heavily on system fusion, datalinking, and force integration. The USAF relies on a united force of organized aircraft using a GCI to direct as it always did, the main difference that was made since the 90s was how much autonomy the flights have, considering the new systems they have more freedom of movement and less pressure on the GCI which allows for a fluent and flexible strike force.
@Marechalkev327
3 жыл бұрын
Great video as always. I have a question. How do the bombers of WW2 compare to modern multirole fighters in terms of bomb load? If you could make a video on this, it would be very interesting.
@LRRPFco52
3 жыл бұрын
There’s no need for a video. One can simply look at the payload capacities. The tiny little F-16 crushes the B-17 in this regard. Even the minuscule F-5 and under-powered Gripen can carry far more than the B-17 could dream of. B-17 payload: 4,800lbs (chuckle) F-5E: 7,000lbs Gripen C/D/E/F: 11,700lbs A-10: 16,000lbs F-16C: 17,000lbs F-35A/C: 18,000-23,000lbs
@politicallyunreliable4985
3 жыл бұрын
@@LRRPFco52I don't think it's as "crushed" as you make it look. Yes, those are specs for the listed apples and oranges. However, keep in mind the additional personnel, weapons and comm equipment the B-17 was also carrying. Not to mention all the fuel needed for it's mission. When the B-17 was designed, it was expected to not just deliver its payload, but to travel into, and back out of, hot zones unescorted. In the mid-to-late 1930's, when the B-17 was designed and purchased, there were no truly capable (range, fire-power, speed and maneuverability) escort fighters. I really don't know why no one developed/implemented drop tanks before The Great Patriotic War.
@LRRPFco52
3 жыл бұрын
@@politicallyunreliable4985 It’s an unfair comparison in every way obviously. The 17,000lb payload of an F-16 and the F-16’s ability to bomb so precisely, as well as be an offensive fighter that can also self-escort for real (not like the B-17), just illustrates how absolutely it crushes 1930s and 1940s tech, as it should. It’s a good way to help people understand how far technology has come if they have a reference point of the WWII bombers, but most of those people are dead from old age now.
@Marechalkev327
3 жыл бұрын
I think it would be a very interesting video indeed. As a previous reply showed, there are huge differences in tech, crew, comms mission etc. But this is what is interesting. We know a B-17 is obsolete today. But how obsolete? I think a B17 wouldn't do bad in a CAS role today but thats why the Spectre is there I suppose. Again. Would be interesting! Please consider this for a video. Much love
@justforever96
3 жыл бұрын
@@Marechalkev327 The B-17 would be totally slaughtered in the CAS role, in addition to being totally unable to drop bombs on a target less than a couple of miles in diameter. If a 4 engine WW2 bomber would be good at CAS, they would have just developed a 150mph turboprop bomber and put a big bomb bay on it. You think that you are that much smarter than all the engineers and tacticians since WW2? You are letting the fact that you _like_ the B-17 totally obscure reason and logic. Such a plane has no place in modern warfare. Even ignoring the total obsolescence of piston engines and their unreliability and high maintenence costs, the same job could be done just as well by a turboprop twin, if all you needed was a big, slow plane with bombs. Not that the B-17 could carry much bombs. We don't need a long range bomber for CAS. Machine guns are worthless for defense. An A-1 Skyraider would be a much, much better choice, since it was faster, carried more bombs, had more than enough range and was much harder to shoot down. A B-17 would just be a big, slow, lumbering target in the CAS role. I cannot think of any reason that idea would make any sense at all. Hell, lets just use the B-52 as a CAS aircraft, it carries lots of bombs and can fly a long way too!
@kathrynck
3 жыл бұрын
Good video (again!) :) The F-15 is somewhat more updateable than the F-16. It was designed to counter a somewhat unknown threat from the latest Russian air superiority fighters, so it had more in-built space, more modular design, and more excess of electrical generation, in order to be more easily upgrade-able. The F-16 was designed to make a smaller, simpler plane which largely just competed with the F-15 at short range (a more known quantity), and at low cost. So it's less modular, and has less future-proofing in internal space clearances. Swapping a radar into a plane isn't too bad, provided there's sufficient radome width. The radar weight is rarely an issue due to the trend of shrinking electronics size, this also helps offset the space needed, apart from the radome itself. Phased array plates used in modern radars also tend to help with the space and weight issue, since a moving dish in gen 4 designs tended to require more space to operate. Power definitely can be an issue though. I think GD really missed the mark with the F-21. It's a re-design of the F-16, and frankly I'm shocked that they didn't go with the F-16 XL wing layout for it. Ultimately, I think any new gen 4++ should incorporate the large all-moving V-tail, hanging back behind the engines. It's just a lot more control with less drag. Not that I advocate a new 4++ fighter design... it would be far easier to "modestly" update an existing gen 4 design, or create a reduced-feature F-35 design. Whatever they end up doing, there's no such thing as a plane with all of the F-35's internal features, at a cheap cost. The internal features are the lion's share of what makes the F-35 expensive to operate. (and make it an order of magnitude more effective than gen 4). There is an argument for having a design which is far less distributed in production though. Currently you need a team of lawyers, diplomats, and translators (and 1 engineer) to make even a minor change to the F-35. It's just far too outsourced to allow for a smooth tweaking process, and that's the main thing driving it's refinement woes. Also, "design while you build" really deeply constrained the design refinement process. I would hope that the USAF (and other branches) never EVER again fall for the "on paper" cost savings sales pitch of "design while you build". They've fallen for it several times now, and it has NEVER realized a benefit. Actually, your video (without being directly aimed at this topic) rather succinctly outlines why and how it's a flawed approach. PS: loving the new videos sir! Once in a while I may nitpick, but it comes from having a sort of nerdy appreciation of what you produce. Your videos are always excellent.
@kathrynck
3 жыл бұрын
@@henrikg1388 No... by "modestly updated gen 4" I'm refering to the F-21 and F-15EX, which are both already developed and ready to ship. As for a "feature-light" F-35, taking things out of a plane is actually a lot easier than adding things in, so it doesn't really contradict the points in this video either. I think we got our wires crossed on what I meant by "modestly updated". By "modestly" i didn't mean trying to put F-35 features into gen 4's. I just meant the versions which the makers developed on their own which are for immediate sale, but which are more updated than the planes in inventory.
@LRRPFco52
3 жыл бұрын
All you need to do in order to realize the benefits of how the JSF program was approached is compare the total losses of 427 airframes from the F-14, F-15, F-16, A-10, F/A-18, and AV-8 within their first ten years of service, with 147 fatalities. Every time I see people critique the 3 different JSF variants for tiny little glitches that every single fighter and bomber go through, I realize they didn’t live through or gain any historical background of all the issues we faced with the teen fighters, Harrier, and Warthog. You could throw the F-117A on top of that since it was developed and produced at the same time and the airframe losses and fatalities would increase a few, although it was relatively safe since you had to come from another fighter before going into the Nighthawk. I was kinda shocked they didn’t crash anything during JSF X-plane tests, especially the STOVL model. Then I was certain we would see them crashing in the first few years, but nothing. I wondered, “Are they even flying them that much?” Then looked at total fleet hours hitting 100,000, then 200k, then 300k. It was just crazy. Finally, after 12 years of production, the first F-35B crashed during fighter conversion training out of MCAS Beaufort in 2018 (someone installed a fuel tube incorrectly or it was made wrong). My bets were on either the Marines or the Navy to be the first to put one into the dirt/ocean, with the hazardous nature of carrier operations leaning towards the Navy. It’s just insane that the Navy has found a way to smash one yet into the deck. They had an aerials refueling mishap with an F-35C where it ate the steel basket off a Hornet configured tanker. The F-35C recovered on the carrier, whereas the Tanker Hornet had to divert to a base on land. Remember, the first F-14 prototype crashed on its maiden flight, and later killed the test pilot, who barely survived the first crash. The F/A-18 saw 100 (ONE HUNDRED) total airframe losses from crashes in its first 10 years, with 20 fatalities. These are real people with families, not just numbers. Harrier was the same. ONE HUNDRED total airframe losses in first 10 years, 20 fatalities. We’re 630 airframes into the program, have been in production since 2006, approaching 400,000 flight hours, operating among 10 different services around the world, USMC, USAF, UK, and Israel have been using it in combat since 2017/2018/2019, and we only have 1 fatality? Israelis have been shot at by Syrian SAMs over 100 times as of 2018, and are very tight-lipped about operations. News has gone from, “A strike package of F-16Is hit targets in Syria.” to, “Explosions erupted in Syria, destroying cache and missile sites.” But yeah, I hope the USAF never again uses this approach. What a failure of epic magnitude! Flawed approach for sure. /Sarc Stop and think people before posting about the F-35 and what a failed program it is. Black is white, left is right when it comes to 99% of the media I’ve seen on the F-35.
@LRRPFco52
3 жыл бұрын
@@henrikg1388 Laughs in Gripen. Look at how many of those they've crashed.
@LRRPFco52
3 жыл бұрын
@@henrikg1388 10 major incidents with Gripen. 1 fatality. Multiple crashes were caused by pilot induced oscillations with the faulty flight control system, 1 from uncommanded ejection from the pilot's G-suit slowly working the ejection handle loose when it inflated. It's like reading a clown show. All 4 JSF crashes have been immediately reported in international media, starting with the 1. F-35B out of MCAS Beaufort, 2. the Japanese F-35A that was controlled flight into the ocean/disoriented pilot, 3. the F-35A piloted by a former Strike Eagle crew who left the speed hold on and bounced one off the runway at over 220 knots, then ejected, and 4. The F-35B that mid-aired with a KC-130 during new pilot aerial refueling training over SoCal. Out of 620 JSF variants delivered, it's an astonishingly safe record. 10 out of 271 Gripens is pretty bad. There are no production Gripen Es or Fs. They've been strangely quiet about the F, which you would think would be the first model to deliver.
@appa609
3 жыл бұрын
The late block vipers are way too fat. They get better engines but not more wing so the new ones can't turn anymore. F-16 always was an A2A design at heart. For a bomb truck you can take a phantom or F-111.
@pratikpal5565
3 жыл бұрын
Then it means bigger heavier fighters would last longer. We can see that the f15 got an ex version while the f16 got shelved
@LRRPFco52
3 жыл бұрын
F-15EX is just Qatari F-15 off the line delivered to USAF with a new paint job. F-16 is on F-16V.
@Mediiiicc
3 жыл бұрын
F-16 isn't shelved but it is made by the same company that makes the F-35, it makes sense that Lockheed would only offer F-35 and not F-16 to customers.
@LRRPFco52
3 жыл бұрын
@@unknownuser069 They’ve been making changes to TEWS and the EW suite on the F-15 for decades, and have kept pretty quiet about it until EPAWSS. F-15S, F-15SG, F-15QA, and F-15K all have GE F110 motors since F-15E airframe was strengthened for all the excess weight. No matter what they do, it won’t be worthwhile if it’s between the capability of F-35A and F-16V. I’d like to see a Graphene airframe JSF series with next gen VLO surfaces using programmable signal RF waveform attenuation to meet the threat radar freq. That’s what they’re working on now.
@LRRPFco52
3 жыл бұрын
@@Mediiiicc F-16C Block 50/52 built by the actual company, General Dynamics, will be around for a long time serving through the next 2 decades. F-16s are still being delivered to Foreign Military Sales customers.
@Mediiiicc
3 жыл бұрын
@@LRRPFco52 Lockheed only offers F-16 when it is not possible to offer the F-35, usually for political reasons. Canada and Switzerland are in the process of selecting a new fighter jet, Lockheed has offered them the F-35 but has not offered to sell them the F-16.
@henrikerdland578
3 жыл бұрын
How can it be that the F-15 platform still can be updated? The new F-15 EX as not in common with an old F-15A. As fare as know the sensor fusion computer in new F-15 EX can read more code-lines than the one in the F-35. You have to make a video on the new F-15 EX
@VuLamDang
3 жыл бұрын
there is simply more room in the F-15 air frame than in F-16 air frame. Vipers are designed as lightweight fighter, so everything nonessential is striped down. In the beginning, the concept even called for a radarless, VFR only gun only fighter. On the other hand Eagles are designed as a air superiority fighter, and house more avionics from the beginning. So upgrading F-15 make way more sense, although the reduction in electronics size had benefited Vipers greatly
@henrikerdland578
3 жыл бұрын
@@VuLamDang I still wonder how they cope with cooling issue. - So in future a bigger two engine platform would be ideal to cope with later updates. However, I am impressed that the old eagle platform still are evolving after nearly 50 years.
@VuLamDang
3 жыл бұрын
@@henrikerdland578 that's a big part of the problem and where the Eagle have the most advantage imho. A lot of the cooling power lay in how much fuel you carry - fuel is a greatest heat sink that actually need to be heated up and also not exposed to heating by air friction and shockwave at high subsonic to super sonic speed. The Eagle simply carry more fuel that can act as heat sink for the new avionics. 2 engines also provide way more electrical power, so that's another advantage too. I think F-22 platform will have the same upgrade potential as we currently seeing with the Eagle
@christianpatton9364
3 жыл бұрын
i remember when the Australian Navy tried to stuff 21st century tech into the 60's era Seasprite helicopter , epic fail!.
@Stinger522
3 жыл бұрын
Did it crash a lot?
@PeterThorley
3 жыл бұрын
@@Stinger522 As an aside, we sold the kit to NZ just after we finally got it working(over a decade late). NZ is happy with their ASW helicopters.
@swordsman1137
3 жыл бұрын
While F-16 block 70/72 is almost as expensive to buy as F-35, the maintenance cost will be cheaper than F-35 isn't it? The engine is more familiar, logistic chain and maintenance worker only need slight change etc.
@Pincer88
3 жыл бұрын
OK, that all makes sense. But how about a complete redesign of the F-16 more or less similar to what Boeing has done with the Super Hornet/Rhino or what Saab has done with the JAS-39E? I realize that it would be a complete new aircraft in most aspect except superficial appearance. I ask, because I think that the basic layout of the F-16 is so sound, that a redesign and the addition of off-the-shelf avionics, engine and so on might deliver just what general Brown is looking for. If I'm not mistaken, the JASDF adapted a design based on the F-16 (the Mitsubishi F-2) with heavy input then by General Dynamics, but with slightly larger wings/tailplanes, a slightly stretched fuselage, larger intake and wider nose, that increased payload-range performance and agility, while adding the use of composite materials and room for addition of more advanced technology later on. Of course I have to admit immediately that the ensueing programme was not the hallmark of cost efficiency in relation to improved performance. But do these examples not illustrate that there's possibly still some potential in the old design? I'll admit readily that I have an emotional stake in the case: I just love the looks of that aircraft. And well, looking at one in a museum is not quite as gratifying as seeing them in their natural element. But, if the teacher says no... (I'll just weep in silence).
@Mediiiicc
3 жыл бұрын
Why would Lockheed redesign the F-16 when they can just sell the F-35 instead? You need to think about it from a business perspective.
@mickeyg7219
3 жыл бұрын
@@Mediiiicc I mean Lockheed is still producing and selling F-16, they'll still make a profit regardless. However, the problem is that even the newest F-16 is still a mediocre aircraft compared to other modern fighters, it couldn't hope to compete with Grippen or Rafale. And F-15 is the only aircraft offered by the US manufacturer that still use a center stick, which make it more time-consuming to train the pilot to transition to other aircraft.
@ericvantassell6809
2 жыл бұрын
"gratitude forever" seems like a lot to ask. Could we compromise on "gratitude as long as the B-52 remains in service with USAF"?
@lawrencewillard6370
3 жыл бұрын
There is a LOT of anti F35 talk around. So, considering these people, the aircraft must be VERY good one.
@johnparrish9215
3 жыл бұрын
I wish they would take a look at an airframe we already have, the NASA version of the F16XL. It has Super Cruise, outstanding range, and weight lifting power.
@blackcat3383
3 жыл бұрын
I was thinking the same thing!
@Mediiiicc
3 жыл бұрын
This video goes over why upgrading a plane is not so simple, reactivating a retired experimental airplane would be even worse. A clean sheet design just makes more sense.
@blackcat3383
3 жыл бұрын
@@Mediiiicc F-16 XL is not an experimental fighter, was used in the 1984 in the competition against the F-15E. The F-16 was designed with a modular wing scheme, and the XL was a option.
@Mediiiicc
3 жыл бұрын
@@blackcat3383 You're opinion differs from the facts.
The F-15 SA/QA/EX still showed us, that the right platform can be brought from the early 1970s, well into the 21st century with a fraction of the cost of a new platform and the lifecycle costs are also a lot cheaper, because most ground infrastructure and trained personell can be used to operate it. But I think that the F-15 is a unicorn and such endeavor makes not sense with many other platforms.
@peterhuys2413
3 жыл бұрын
su-27 😉
@alvaropenen2118
3 жыл бұрын
Just for clarification, in the real life "there is no free lunch", lol
@parrotraiser6541
3 жыл бұрын
Electronics upgrades will probably result in a reduction in size, weight and power consumption today. There's also a standard protocol suitable for communication in aircraft, called CANbus.
@Millennium7HistoryTech
3 жыл бұрын
Actually CAN is typical of automotive industry. As far as I know it was never used on aircraft.
@parrotraiser6541
3 жыл бұрын
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Not yet, perhaps, but a simple open standard backed by experience on commodity hardware with millions of users over decades is likely to replace complicated and brittle proprietary ones. A military aircraft can be viewed as a network of controller devices going somewhere quickly in formation, a 3-D version of 2-D automobiles.
@Millennium7HistoryTech
3 жыл бұрын
@@parrotraiser6541 To be honest, today there are already standards available for that, without using the CAN. It was in the 70's and 80's that they were not developed enough to allow for an easy upgradeability.
@rashadarbab2769
2 жыл бұрын
Ok but the big thing you didnt mention here is that avionics gets smaller and smaller over time. When the F16 came out a computer was the size of a building now my iphone has an order of magnitude more compute than the apollo missions did.
@Millennium7HistoryTech
2 жыл бұрын
True, but that is a one sided view. Antennas and power components do not become smaller because there are physical limits. Moreover smaller and more powerful digital electronics mean also higher thermal loads and cooling systems are not becoming any smaller either.
@rashadarbab2769
2 жыл бұрын
@@Millennium7HistoryTech when I say smaller I mean at the transistor level a modern MacBook Air has more compute than desktops 3 years ago and has no fans. The key components like the radar keeps getting bigger but the computers themselves that analyze data from sensors get smaller due to inherent advancements in computer technology.
@davidtennien2806
3 жыл бұрын
The issue of the F35 is not the cost per unit now. It's the cost of maintenance. The F15EX is more expensive than the F35, it's the cost of keeping it in the air.
@SKD1716
3 жыл бұрын
Looking Handsome 👍
@motorbreath22
3 жыл бұрын
Well, there is the upgrade, and then there is how long it actually takes to field a brand new clean-sheet design and certify it for combat operations and building up supply chains. Where-as you can have a "proven" airframe, engineering mistakes have already been mitigated, maintenance crews are familiar with the type, ready supply for spare parts, pilots intimately familiar with flight characteristics, so less training necessary on that front. While it cost more for improved performance, most of the other associated costs from a brand new airplane have already been paid for.
@JMiskovsky
3 жыл бұрын
I have idea. How about unification of SW and HW between f 18, 16 a 15. Like common computers, screens etc.
@JMiskovsky
3 жыл бұрын
@Brandon _37 i agree. But if more upgrades come then common base would be great.
@ptitrainrouge
3 жыл бұрын
hey man, it seems that you know in deep all of these subjects; do you work in aerospace industry ?
@Millennium7HistoryTech
3 жыл бұрын
No, I work in IT but I have a master in aerospace engineering, I served in the Italian Air Force and I try keeping up to date.
@trumanhw
3 жыл бұрын
@@Millennium7HistoryTech I kinda figured you either worked on these kinds of projects ... or even assisting a professor. Impressive degree of continuity and deep knowledge.
@blackcat3383
3 жыл бұрын
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Scusa, ma sei italiano? Mi piacciono molto i tuoi video, conosco e capisco abbastanza bene inglese..ma in caso sarebbe interessante se tu facessi qualche video in italiano!
@blackcat3383
3 жыл бұрын
@@Millennium7HistoryTech About the 4 Gen updating, what do you about the Eagle? Is it good enough to fight against the Flanker family, like the Su-30 or/and the Indian and Chinese versions?
@Millennium7HistoryTech
3 жыл бұрын
@@blackcat3383 Eh, sarebbe molto facile, ma invece di essere 30K saremmo 3K, forse. E se cosi' fosse non avrei quel rivoletto di fondi che mi consentono di comprare l'equipaggiamento, i libri ed abbonarmi alle riviste. Comunque grazie per il supporto!
@buzekohi
3 жыл бұрын
Are you going to make some videos about role and Impact of stinger missiles in Afghanistan Conflict?
@joshcrys
3 жыл бұрын
A redesign like the F/A-18 may be the solution, or the F-16XL. A clean sheet design will have to many teething issues to save any money, it seems like a reason to employ engineers rather than a way to save any real money.
@wiryantirta
3 жыл бұрын
And probably add to the fact that F16 airframes when originally designed were shrink wrapped around minimal electricals/electronics. And from the group of people who ‘hated’ the idea of complicated avionics.
@koldulobaratx9859
3 жыл бұрын
You are my frend.! Thanks (budapeyt)
@houssamassila6274
3 жыл бұрын
I loved the joke :D everything else is your usual awesome crash course that I like listening to.
@johnssmith4005
3 жыл бұрын
I have a question would a Rocket Fighter / Interceptor like the WW2 German Komet make sense in this day and age , the rocket technology is way more advanced and imo it would also be way cheaper but I might be wrong
@Omniseed
3 жыл бұрын
no, they have little to no endurance and are a pain in the ass to recover if you're talking about a whole air force worth of them. possibly a rocket-powered/assisted vertical take off system could be engineered, and it would probably be simple enough to design some sort of rocket-assisted braking for short landings in the process. A system that's not meant to replace the flight engine, just something to let the plane operate from tiny carriers or allow a reworking of deck space so that larger carriers can launch and recover smoother and faster.
@polentusmax6100
3 жыл бұрын
@@Omniseed i really think rocket pods can be used to help jets in some aircraft carriers with ramps.
@sidharthcs2110
3 жыл бұрын
Fuel consumption is very high. You run out of gas really quick
@ConstantineJoseph
3 жыл бұрын
Most likely they are going to totally revamp and replace the F16 C/D with F16V and the F36 Kingsnake which is a highly modernized version of the mothballed program F16XL.
@mostlymessingabout
3 жыл бұрын
That's a crazy cost to upgrade
@maximilliancunningham6091
Жыл бұрын
Where does that leave the B-52 ? It's likely to fly through the 100 year service mark. Anything is possible, it's a matter of economic viability and diminishing returns.
@jonnekallu1627
3 жыл бұрын
I'm pretty sure that the military electronics follow the same heat/power/performance curve as normal consumer electronics and thus upgrading old computer systems into modern one's will produce less heat, demand less power and give higher performance.
@havinganap
3 жыл бұрын
Power density is the issue. That always goes up.
@MonMalthias
3 жыл бұрын
That's not quite right. Moore's Law is basically dead at this point - transistor density will be less than double from this point on going forward. The cost of going to more dense "nodes" is going up quadratically. When going to a more dense "node", designers can choose EITHER more performance for the _same heat and power_ OR the same performance, for _less heat and power._ There is no magic compromise that promises less for all 3, unless you are willing to throw away more than half of the performance gains. Secondly, a lot of performance gains have actually come from instructions per clock increase. That is to say, making each time the processor does stuff to information, each "tick" does more things. This more than anything is why marketing in the form of raw frequency increases has been effectively dead as of...the 2010s. Basically AMD Athlon and Intel Core times. It is more efficient to make each "tick" produce more calculation, than simply making each "tick" go by faster and faster. Thirdly, military grade processors are at least several nodes behind in terms of individual transistor size. This is due to the needs for EMP hardening and the increased exposure to ionising radiation especially at altitude, as well as electronic noise from the radar and enemy aircraft. If consumer electronics are at say 5nm, chips for the military might still be stuck at 30 or 40nm for this reason. Smaller and smaller transistors become much more sensitive to electronic noise and ionising radiation. For this reason, military processor architecture designers might elect to focus much more on instructions per clock increases and architecture tricks like increased caching, instead of die shrinks and raw frequency gains. These gains require a _lot_ of investment in R&D and engineering though. It also has to be said that IPC gains are very hard fought and have diminishing returns. At some point there is no alternative but to shrink. Each time they do though, implies a massive capital outlay of completely retooling lithography machines and fab assembly lines which might only produce several hundred thousand chips instead of several hundred million. With low production numbers also comes high unit cost. Add on the fact that lithography machines are only really produced by 2 or 3 countries with extreme demands, and the prospect of military chip die shrinks further recedes. This is why it is not surprising to me that a plane like the F-35 uses liquid cooling for what is basically a late 90s, early 2000s era processor. If benchmarked today, I would wager that an individual F-35 processing chip might be comparable to the Intel 3000 series. There are multiple reasons militating against biennial die shrinks the consumer industry enjoys, for military hardware.
@justforever96
3 жыл бұрын
For the same performance, yes. For the huge power of _newer_ equipment, no. Perhaps all the industry techs are just lying between their teeth, but from everything I have heard, lack of cooling is the main problem with upgrading old jet.
@brodieboy3
3 жыл бұрын
@Millennium 7 - I'm hoping you will do a video on the new F-15 EX which is a legacy platform that seems to have successfully gone through the long & expensive upgrade process that you describe. Lucky for the US, Saudi Arabia & Qatar paid to develop the new fly by wire avionics, software & computer upgrades, certain structural upgrades, and the new digital cockpit, etc. The EW system is new, but the AESA radar had already been upgraded. From what I've read Boeing has done a lot of what Saab has done in creating an easy to upgrade mission system that's separate from the avionics. The result seems to be a much more capable and future proof plane building off of a top notch legacy platform that has almost unrivaled performance characteristics re speed, agility, load.and range, etc.
@LRRPFco52
3 жыл бұрын
Saab hasn’t done any such thing of the kind. They copied the Rafale F4 Integrated Modular Avionics architecture that is common in airlines as well, and it still isn’t developed. Saab has been developing the Gripen E/F for the last 14 years, and it still is nowhere near ready for production. They don’t have IRST on it, and haven’t flown it at night for some reason. That program is staring to look more and more like a scandal.
@brodieboy3
3 жыл бұрын
@@LRRPFco52 Non-responsive .. My comment discusses the F-15 EX and you're making some point about the Gripen .. I don't get it.
@LRRPFco52
3 жыл бұрын
@@brodieboy3 You mentioned how Boeing has done what Saab has done.
@socotroquito2007
3 жыл бұрын
I want the Silent-Viperrrrr
@tolson57
3 жыл бұрын
I think that limiting your discussion to the F-16 creates a self fulfilling argument. Replace the F-16 in your argument with the F-15 and you can see a different outcome. Stuffing the F-35 avionics in the F-15 airframe is much more doable. Your concerns with power and cooling are mitigated by the twin engine design along with the an already existing robust cooling system. I worked Avionics for the Tomcat for 20 years and over that time we saw many upgrades to systems. Those upgrades were difficult because we were trying to make new stuff work with old stuff. In the case of complete replacement of Avionics and Fire Control systems, that is not a problem. The majority of the work will be in teaching (reprograming) the flight control computers the new airframe.
@Millennium7HistoryTech
3 жыл бұрын
True, the F-15 is easier to upgrade. Larger and more powerful fighters have the edge here.
@Mediiiicc
3 жыл бұрын
F-15EX cost more than F-35.
@nostromokg
3 жыл бұрын
Ciao from Serbia...
@Snaskenkeiwk
3 жыл бұрын
why does the pilot have the AMRAAM mounted on the wing tips and the AIM9s mounted under the wing...? The amount of flex on the wingtip bothers me
@ChucksSEADnDEAD
3 жыл бұрын
Because the added mass and center of gravity moved forward makes for better flutter suppression. kzitem.info/news/bejne/knqBk659hX1neoY
@justforever96
3 жыл бұрын
It is a 9G fighter and you are worried about wing flex? You' better go and explain to all those engineers what this missed, and how they should fix it. Good thing we've got sharp eyes on KZitem watching out for this stuff!
Пікірлер: 366