Angry Planet - Everything We Know About Fifth Generation Fighters

Episode Date: May 16, 2018

Why did the United States stop building the F-22, a fifth generation fighter the Air Force loves? Especially if the F-35 program is very much up in the air - pun intended - with each batch of fighters rolling off the line at least slightly different from previous batches? And are China and Russia having better luck with their fifth gen programs? Tyler Rogaway of The War Zone joins us to shed some light.You can listen to War College on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play or follow our RSS directly. Our website is warcollege.co. You can reach us on our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/warcollegepodcast/; and on Twitter: @War_College.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/warcollege. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Love this podcast. Support this show through the ACAST supporter feature. It's up to you how much you give, and there's no regular commitment. Just click the link in the show description to support now. But the F-35 is built to go in and take out large buildings and headquarters and do what the F-117 did, a capability that we lost in 2008, and we've, at least in the white world, in the unclassified world, we don't have. You're listening to War College, a weekly podcast that brings you the stories from behind the front lines. Here are your hosts, Matthew Galt and Jason Fields. Hello and welcome to War College. I'm Jason Fields. And I'm Matthew Galt. For decades, the F-16 was the state of the art. In fact, the fighter bomber still makes up a huge percentage of the world's air forces.

It's fast, it's maneuverable, it carries a decent payload, and it's, um, whole generation out of date. This week, we're talking about the generation of planes designed to make the F-16 look like a Sherman tank, the fifth generation. Joining us is Tyler Ragoway. He's the editor-in-chief of the Warzone, which is part of the website The Drive. Thanks for joining us, Tyler. Hey, great to be with you. Can we just start off with you telling us what a fifth-generation fighter is and compare it to what a fourth generation fighter is and does? Yeah, you know, it's one of those terms that's probably heavily misunderstood. And the reason why is it's really not a, you know, one rubric that makes a fifth generation

fighter and another one, not a fifth generation fighter. Generally speaking, it has to do with low observability. So a high component of stealth. So not just not being able to be tracked by radar, but also other forms, well, including emissions control, and even in some cases, infrared signature control. And then sensor fused avionics. So where instead of a federated system of avionics, where you have your radar and a radar warning receiver and multiple different forms of sensors on board that kind of all do their own thing,

and the pilot has to fuse them in their own head with a fifth generation aircraft, that that information is fused together and displayed kind of in a godlike view. So the pilot can become a little bit more of a battle manager than just an actual old school pilot, you know, flying an aircraft. And with that also is, you know, advanced fly-by-wire control system. So they don't, once again, don't have to put their time in their mental capacity invested into actually flying the aircraft and more into the tactics involved with winning the battle in the skies. And of course, as well, there's other areas, including an ASA radar. That's an active electronically scanned to radar. And that's a huge leap.

That's probably the biggest avionics leap that, you know, modern fighters have. And older fourth-generation fighters can have those as well. They can be retrofitted or they can be born with them off the line. But it's definitely a feature when it comes to fifth-generation aircraft. It's an absolute must. Well, what is it? Sorry to interrupt, but what is it? You said ASA radar?

So an ASA radar is basically instead of a mechanically scanned a radar radar where a dish has to move in the nose of a fighter jet, back and forth quickly to scan and sweep the space. An ASA radar actually uses electronic scanning, so it doesn't physically move at all. It makes it much more reliable. It also allows it to scan extremely fast and not just in one form. It can scan one sector, concentrate in one sector while also doing a wide scan and even updating missiles as they fly toward their targets. And it can also interlace air-to-ground modes so it can map the ground and look for targets. And it can also do air-to-air at the same time.

Where in the past, even the multi-role fighters that we grew up on, you just mentioned the F-16, it's widely one or the other. It's the mode situation where it's an air-to-air mode or an air-to-ground mode. So AISA radars have a ton of advantages and also just detecting small radar signature targets, flying low over the ground. They have better range, better sensitivity. They have better non-cooperative target interrogation where it can look at an aircraft at very long range, potentially, and know what type of aircraft it is without having a visual signature on it. And so there's a lot of good things about them. And on top of it, they have an electronic warfare capability that is kind of quietly, you know, latent. It's not talked about a lot.

But where it can send pencil-sized beams of very powerful electromagnetic energy at certain targets and potentially, you know, adversely affect at least disable temporarily or maybe even permanently, the sensitive electronics on those targets. So lots of things going on. Other stuff also, like a helmet mounted site, which is also available on fourth generation aircraft. That allows the pilot to look far off the nose to target aircraft, or now it's really augmented reality.

So they can see what their sensors see around them outside of the cockpit, and that can help a lot in situational awareness and making the aircraft more deadly. So that's kind of the baseline. Now, at top of that, originally, that the kind of the fifth generation idea was super performance, which included super crews, which would be cruising at the speed,

over the speed of sound without the use of Afterburner, so a much more efficient way to fly at high speeds during tactical operations. And super maneuverability, which is kind of explains itself, it's slower speeds. It has a much deeper envelope and can outperform other fighters. But those requirements, as the F-35 has sort of emerged as the go-to fifth-generation fighter, those kind of requirements that came out of the advanced tactical fighter program,

that's where the F-22 emerged from, they kind of melted away. And now the fifth generation doesn't really have those super high kinematic performance requirements associated with it. So who else is making fifth generation planes? It's not just the United States, right? Right. Yeah. You know, things have changed a lot in the last decade.

And now where stealth was a proprietary sort of monopoly that the U.S. had and low observable aircraft, especially fighter-sized aircraft. Now you have China, which has, you know, the J20. that's their large fighter-bomber interceptor that they have, a unique aircraft that is impressive, quite impressive. You know, and then you have Russia, which has built, designed and tested, and it's sort of now in low-rate production. The SU-57, which was formerly known as the T-50, some of your listeners would probably be more familiar with that term. And that's what Russia claims is a fifth generation fighter as well. But the problem is that there's not like, once again, a set rubric where it has to be so stealthy

or have such a level of sensor fusion or sensor technology. Really, every country is going to look at their ability in the ability to design and actually procure an aircraft technologically and affordability-wise. And it's going to balance that against, you know, what? it can do and what's possible. So they're not all created equal. It's a very loose term, but it's basically, you know, it does encapsulate kind of this next generation of fighter aircraft that in addition to the U.S., now foreign entities are

now fielding or at least are in the process of developing. So talking about fifth generation fighters and one of the earliest ones to actually hit production, if I understand properly, is the. F-22, an American plane. We made 187 of them and then stopped. Can you tell me a little bit about the plane and also tell us why we stopped making them? Yeah, I mean, this is quite the saga. When it comes to defense procurement, there's very few decisions that have been more lamented

on all different levels than the shutdown of the F-22 production line after just 187 operational examples were built. I mean, total to 194, including the pre-development aircraft that were built. So you're talking about a $70 billion program. I think the development costs were around $30 billion, and we

ended up with 180 of these aircraft, basically. And what's important for your listeners understand is when you hear 180 aircraft, it sounds, oh, that's a lot. You know, that's 180 of anything sounds like, you know, quite a bit. but the reality is is that only 120 to 125 are combat coded at any given time,

meaning that they have the software and the capability to actually go into combat as the Air Force sees fit. And considering the F-22 is a very unique thoroughbred aircraft and it's very maintenance intensive, as a result of that 125 number, only about 50% of those are actually flyable, at any given time. So really, you've got an operational standing fleet that can fly, let's say, today, or whatever you want to, however you want to say that, it's really, you know, 65 airplanes. When you talk about a pure state conflict, which is kind of what this aircraft was designed for, you know, taking on Russia, even China at the time was rising in the 19, late 80s, early 90s, when this aircraft was in development, And the reality there is that we don't fight from home. You know, we fight expeditionarily over long distances that require tanker aircraft,

mini tanker aircraft to fly and to create a tanker bridge to put an F-22 into place, say over a certain area, you know, like the Taiwan Strait or any hot spot, especially in the Pacific region or even Europe to a certain extent now. you need to have aircraft that can stay on station for a period of time. When you only have 65 airplanes or whatever, you know, some number around that area available at any given time, keeping just a handful of them up over certain areas very challenging. So we have a numerical issue with the F-22 and that there wasn't enough of them built.

What it does, why it's important and why, you know, it's not just, hey, we have an F-35, that program is highly invested. We're building a ton of them. Why the F-35 is not an F-22 is kind of an, well, at least originally, it was sort of an and the kitchen sink program. You know, I mean, it was like a 100% solution where performance and low-observable stealthiness and even sensor fusion has a high degree of that even, no, was developed, you know, beginning 20, 25 years ago, 30 years ago. 30 years ago and before that. The aircraft has higher performance. It can fly at 60,000 feet.

It can carry more missiles, air-d-air missiles. It has, and it's better optimized for the air-to-air realm with its avionics in some ways. And once again, it can super cruise. It can fly at Mach 1.5 without using Afterburner. So these are just a few areas. and that is super maneuverability too. There's also an issue that people believe that the F-22 and how the pilots fly these aircraft and the tactics and procedures that are built around them that they'll never see any other

airplane in combat, you know, that this is, that it's all beyond visual range air-to-air warfare now, and who cares if it can turn. And there's a certain extent I agree with that, but you talked to an F-22 pilot, and they know that with eight missiles on board, you know, which is more. Not a lot, considering that you're going up probably against a larger force, a drastically larger force. You know, they're not going to be able to

just stand off and beyond visual range and chuck missiles at each other or kill the enemy. Eventually, they're going to want to use everything they've got to take as many aircraft out as possible based on on how many aircrafts are in the air. F-20s are in any given time.

So, some of these benefits like super maneuverability, they're not necessary. and they're becoming less important, but they're still worthwhile to have around if the aircraft is already designed with it. The F-22 has all that. So that's kind of what you get. You get a higher-end, higher-performance fighter, one that is better, that is a lower signature than the F-35, that is a little bit earlier, not as far as a fifth or fourth generation, but it's the first-generation fighter we're filled in. So technologically in some areas, it's inferior to the F-35, but in an air-to-air realm, it is far superior.

And with only 180-some aircraft, very few of them to go around. Well, let's continue down this line of thought. If you don't mind. Do you think the F-35 is a better plane than the F-22? I mean, I can't. I think those comparisons aren't worthwhile. because the F-35 is great in a lot of things. You know, it's for a strike platform,

it's optimized as an attack aircraft. Its sensor fusion is, you know, there's no peer to the sensor fusion that that aircraft has. It has unique sensor systems that the F-22 was never built with, especially in the electro-optical bandwidth, you know, the area where it can know what's going on around it without even using radar or passive radar frequency sensors, it can use the optical range with its distributed aperture system

to have a sphere of situational awareness around it, which is very interesting. But F-22 is not built to go and strike large targets with 2,000-pound weapons as kind of like a deep strike role. It can carry a thousand-pound J-dam. That's a joint direct attack munition. That's GPS-guided. bomb or six small diameter bombs.

So it's an effective tool for, especially for destruction of enemy air defenses. It can go in and kill planes and also take out radar sites and service air defense nodes. But the F-35 is built to go in and take out large buildings and headquarters and do what the F-117 did, a capability that we lost in 2008. And we've, at least in the white world, in the unclassified world, we don't have. have the ability to penetrate with a tactical aircraft deep into enemy airspace and drop a 2,000-pound bomb on a target. We lost that capability in 2008. Only the B-2 can do that.

And there's only, you know, 20 of those, and of which 11 are operational in about 11, are operational in any given time, less are even flyable. So we have this deficit, the F-22, but the F-35 was built to fill. And it's going to be, I mean, listen, the aircraft, I've been, you know, very critical of it. It's not like the aircraft is never going to be effective. I mean, that was never a question. It's just, what's the opportunity cost that we invested into this platform that we could have done other things with, which is absolutely massive, massive, largest defense program in history, okay? and on top of that

you know it was this at a time where unmanned technology is really moving to the forefront was putting all these eggs in one basket on a fighter that has a 550 mile combat radius which is not far

especially in today's terms where the enemy is pushing us way out farther and farther in basing and whatnot or could have that Deep Strike role and some of those other non-aird-air roles be used or be furnished by other aircraft, including unmet combat air vehicles, stealthy drones? So this is a very complex subject. As far as an air to ground platform, the F-35 is far superior than the F-22 in many roles. As far as an air-d-air platform, it doesn't even come close. It doesn't mean it's not effective.

it doesn't mean that it isn't very capable and you know it can shoot down another aircraft you know with a good sense of certainty but it's just not a thoroughbred air air fighter like the f-22 was built to do how's the f-35 program doing now as you said you've been critical you're hardly the only person who's been critical of the program are they on track at this point i mean there's two f-35 programs there's one that the public sees then there's the the reality on the ground. Right. The problem, one of my biggest issues with the F-35 program is it's been just loaded with propaganda.

And the people that make a paycheck from that, whether they're on the line building the aircraft or they're in some role in managing it, they'll defend it all day, and of course they will. And that's good. I don't think there's anything nefarious about that. That's a common reality. But at the same time, without people being a critic of the program, it probably would have have been in a much worse place because those stories are what changed it,

what helped get it back on track, especially in the press. Today, the aircraft is, you know, it's developmentally in a better place. It has to be. I mean, look at the money that's thrown at it. At the time and the effort. I mean, it better be able to bomb a target on the ground

after it's been flying for a decade. I mean, the bar has been obliterated. There is no bar now for like, what, you know, it's like, oh, it works, to a certain degree. in certain ways. So, you know, jokes on you, buddy, if you were ever critic of it. It's like, of course it works.

I mean, if it doesn't, then we're so inept at this that we need a massive sea change and how we develop anything, any weapon system. But today, you know, it has basic austere capability. We really get, the only really best insight we get are from Congressional and, like, Pogo reports on what the deficiencies of the aircraft are. The program office has been very, very, closed off as far as those issues over the years. And it still has a massive list of problems that need to be solved.

And you have kind of fleets within fleets because they built the aircraft concurrently. And that's been really the biggest problem. Instead of saying, okay, we have this F-35, we believe in it, we want to buy a ton of them, right? Let's test it. Let's get it to a place where at least the basic testing, I mean, it didn't start operational testing yet. It just came out of its core test program after 10 years, over 10 years. And even though it just came out of its flight test program, we've built like 260 of them or something. I don't have it in front of me.

But I believe the Air Force, I believe the Pentagon owns 200 of them alone. So what you end up with is fleets within fleets. And this is always predicted by myself and other people in the defense journalism industry, you know, space. We said, listen, you're going to end up with billions of. billions of dollars in hardware of aircraft that probably are going to have a very short lifespan and are going to be too expensive to ever upgrade. And that's what we're seeing. And actually a report came out just this week of the training center at EGland that does

the training for the F-35. Their wing king, their boss said, hey, this is critically bad. We have aircraft that are old representative software blocks where pilots cannot easily go from here to an active squadron and know what the heck they're doing. We have a very low availability rate for the aircraft we have. There's no parts available. So they built all these airplanes and then, you know, didn't build the parts to support them. So now the fleet is in this huge deficit where they're sitting and waiting to be,

A, reworked and rebuilt to a new standard in Depot. And they need all these parts that, you know, are critical for daily operations. So there's a lot of work to be done on this program yet. The pretty picture that you see painted by this iron kind of triangle with industry and the Pentagon about this because it's too big to fail, it's just not accurate. And I've pushed for years to say, listen, it's not that it's a mess. It's that you're not open about it. And you act like it is that it's going great and that it's no issues instead of just being open about it and talking to the American people and expressing kind of. expressing kind of the issues it has and how you're going to deal with it.

Very controversial program. It has a long way to go. There's no doubt that it will be, you know, it has some great benefits and it will be a, you know, decent aircraft. But, you know, 30 years or 20 years, is it going to be relevant? I don't, I personally don't think so compared to the unmanned space. And there, you know, the idea, if we built enough F-22s that can kick down the enemy's door, do you really need 2,600 F-35s?

You know? If we build enough long-range strike bombers and other systems and unmanned combat air vehicles for deep strike that are much cheaper and have much longer range, do you need 2,600 F-35s? No, by all analysis, I can do.

Absolutely not. But, you know, the prevailing wind says otherwise and it's here. It's not going anywhere. Let's make the very best out of it, I say, and really hope for the best, so it can become a good asset for the United States and its allies. 2,600? Yeah. That's a total we're supposed to build?

So I don't have the numbers in front of me, but 1,750, I think, for the Air Force, another, you know, 800 or something, and 900 for the Navy and Marines, somewhere in that range. But total with export orders, you're talking around 3,000. jets right now and that will probably go up i mean for the export customer it's a good deal they're not paying for really the research development costs on it and they can you know buy into it get a a low observable aircraft that has you know very good capabilities and you know they don't need to have a super high-end air-to-air f-22 type fighter you know to do most of the roles not a bad deal for some of them that have you know a peer state or a real aggressive potential enemy out there.

Now, for others, you talked about the F-16 when we started, like, the F-16 is an incredible platform to the stay. It's only getting better. They're putting an A-SER radar in that airplane, and it's going to change the F-16 dramatically what it's capable of.

And there's been A-SER radars in, like, the Block 60 F-16s that went to the UAE, but those were earlier aircraft, earlier radars now. The technology is way more mature, more reliable. It's less expensive. So the F-16 still has a lot of growth, you know, and for the majority of coalition air operations

where the U.S. is going to be kicking down the door, the F-16 is a known, affordable, reliable, highly-capable platform, and it's still very relevant. The F-35 is not making the F-16 non-relevant to the modern air warfare domain in any way. And really, you know, what I've argued for for a long time is, you know, a high-low mix. If you can build enough F-22s or whatever, you know, a high-end platform or a family of platforms that can kick down the enemy's door, then you can, instead of buying, you know, $115 million F-35s, etc., you can buy F-16s that costs a third of that. And they can do a lot of the bread and butter work that that F-35, you know, just doesn't need to do.

There's no requirement for its capabilities. And it's not, let me also say this, too, just so your listeners can kind of get a bigger picture on this. It's not just about the cost of the airplane. That's what we hear about all the time. Like, oh, this cost, this unit cost is $100 million on this, and this one's $200 million or $75 million, whatever. The real cost comes in sustaining these fleets over time, over 50 years. And if an F-35 costs $50,000 an hour to fly or $60,000 an hour to fly, which the F-22 costs that, and the F-16 today, that it's widely replacing the Air Force,

and the Harrier and the Hornet in the Navy and Marines, too, costs around $20,000 an hour to fly. And those are older platforms that are aged, and they're a bunch of less, you know, should be less reliable. How on earth is the Pentagon going to be able to forward that? So we're not just talking about what it costs to buy it. That's the cover charge. Once you're in the club, what do the drinks cost?

You know, that's kind of the issue. And so these are some of the issues surrounding F-35. It's a complicated situation. There's good and there's bad and there's so much emotion. tied up into it with people. But today it's here. It's not going anywhere. It's going to be part of the Pentagon's portfolio and many other air arms.

So my goal in my writing and what I talked about is, how can we make the best out of it now? What can we do to enable it to be the very best it can be so at least we get some sort of positive return on our investment? and we can realize some, you know, new capabilities that we didn't have in a really positive light. So that's sort of where I'm out with the program. Well, is the Russian effort going any better or China's? I mean, might as well round it out. Yeah, I mean, that's fair. No.

You know, these are hard to develop. China is surprisingly, from what we know, you got to remember this is a very, when we talk about other aircraft capabilities, regardless of what you read on the forms and if you go there or whatever the combat aviation forms, et cetera, and the chatter that we hear all day, these are even to our intelligence services, the exact capabilities of these aircraft

are fairly opaque, okay? So like China in particular, the J-20 and their J-31, also the FC-31, which is a medium-weight fighter that's being developed largely for export, we think. And it's in its second generation flying now and testing.

So China's got two stealth fighters in development. One fielded, the other one still deep in development. There's no way that China has the sensor fusion capabilities, the sensor capabilities, the material science, the quality of manufacture, et cetera, that the aircraft that the United States Air Force has bought in the last couple decades. generation fighters have. Just not there. So anybody that says it, it says there's nothing to support that.

But you don't need a hundred percent solution or an exact opposite to be very concerning strategically and tactically on the battlefield. There is a risk reward to any weapon system with China. If you can build enough of them, you're giving them a capability that they've never had before and maybe it's it's not as low observable as an F-22 and it's not you know can't do the things an F-22 can but it's still hard to spot on radar at long distances and stealth is not invisibility man that is something that it is a cocktail of measures designed into an aircraft and then a layer of tactics and procedures placed on top of it that allow the aircraft to survive better and

contest environments. So when we talk about even like radar stealth at its most basic, on a fighter jet, it changes from any angle you view the aircraft, that radar return, that radar signature and cross-section is going to be different.

But if you just take an F-22 head on at the exact same sensor at the exact same range and then put an F-22 there or excuse me, a J-20 there, maybe the F-22 is detectable at 10 miles, okay? maybe the J20 is to tent about 25 or 30 miles.

Okay. But that doesn't mean that that isn't very worthwhile for the J20. Because now you've got an asset that can sneak around active integrated air defense sensors and can lob long-range missiles attacks at strategic assets like tankers and early warning aircraft and networking nodes that the Air Force and our Air Arms and the United States Air Arms rely on heavily for their advantage. So it's a very unique mix. No, they're not up to stuff.

Russia has the T, the S.U. 57. That aircraft is nowhere near, especially in the stealth realm, even where the Chinese are at. Okay. But Russian designers aren't. stupid. They know what their capabilities are. So they say, okay, we want a fifth generation airplane. We can potentially even afford a few of them, right? We need to build it somewhat cost effectively, and we need to have it have certain capabilities that can offset where it lacks against United States Air Force or United States designs. So when they built the issue 57, it's loaded with unique features and things that help hedge that.

where it can it you know it yeah it's not as stealthy at all and especially from other angles a non-head-on angles but it has certain characteristics that maybe um american and chinese aircraft don't have um and so you end up with a balanced asset the best that they can do at a certain price um that's still effective it's still super relevant and aside from apocalypse you know world war three U.S. fighters going against Russian fighters and like a European scenario. You know,

it's a very effective asset. It's going to be more capable than any any SU27 derivative they have. So it's worked there a while and it's not something to be joked at or to be laughed at. It's something to be looked at and tactics and procedures need to be designed to

help counter it. So a lot of times you hear like, oh, the Russian, SU 57, that was a joke, it's not stealthy, this and that. Yeah, okay, it doesn't have the same features that American fifth generation aircraft has, but that doesn't mean that it's not relevant.

And it's not something to be feared for its own use. And that's for any any tactical aircraft. A mid-21 with an Israeli jamming pod, has a small visual, small radar signature, and some very high-tech electronic warfare capability on it,

is a threat to an F-15. Okay? So it's not just about which plane is better. And no U.S. aircraft fight, especially, in a vacuum where it's like, oh, an F-22 is going to take on an SU-57. There's networking, there's support assets. There's an ecosystem there to allow the pilot or the air crew to win, to enable them

to win beyond what the aircraft packs itself. So you can't just talk about plane versus plane. You also got to talk about the ecosystem that that plane was designed. to build and fight in. And that's a huge impact as well. So I think we can take away from this that despite the technical superiority that we may or may not have in the United States, we can still go to better freight. Yeah. I mean, why?

I think being looking at the enemy, the potential enemies that the U.S. has and thinking, oh, discounting their capabilities has been something that has gotten us in a bad position. It's the reason why there are 180 whatever F-22s. Okay. That's the why. Because Bob Gates mainly said, hey, you know what? You know, I want to focus on Iraq and Afghanistan. That's understandable to a certain extent at that time. That was obviously the major issue.

And China, it's going to be the 2020s before China ever even flies a, you know, stealth fighter or whatever, you know, discounting those capabilities. North Korea, we saw the exact same thing. We said, oh, there's no way. There's no way, you know, that they're 20-some years away from this or that, you know, intercontinental ballistic missile, et cetera. Never underestimate an enemy that is less resources that maybe has to take an asymmetric view of things and do their very best to create real threats and real war-fighting ability on a much smaller budget and with far fewer resources.

If we do that, we end up where we're not ready to fight the next war, and we have a fleet that is ill-equipped to confront the threats that will not exist today, but will exist tomorrow. And we just talked about an F-35, you know, that's like a 50-year airframe, at least. So it's not like, oh, that can take on a J-20. That aircraft needs to be relevant in 30 years, because we can't afford to replace all them every decade. Not even close. We can't afford to replace them in 30 years. Ty, thank you so much for joining us. Hey, thanks, guys. No worries. That was fun. So. That's this week's episode. Thank you so much for joining us. War College is me, Matthew Gulp, and Jason, Jason Fields.

If you like the show, please like and subscribe to us on iTunes. It helps others find the show. If you leave us a review, we just might read it on the air. You can also find us online. on Twitter at war underscore college, on Facebook at facebook.com forward slash war college podcast, and online at warcollege.colle.com, where we have begun to get transcripts of the episodes out. It's a dangerous world out there. Stay safe until next week.