If an F-35 is in a dogfight with an aircraft that can actually see it and is in range to engage, something has gone horribly wrong.

@shadypark78

11 ай бұрын

Exactly.

@adepressedcatwithabadnicot246

11 ай бұрын

so if hypothetically when we do go to war with a peer nation, and things always do and will inevitably go "horribly wrong", what next? the cold war had the same thought of interceptors replacing fighters, but well, that didn't last.

@caffetiel

11 ай бұрын

​@@adepressedcatwithabadnicot246there are no peer nations. Near-peer used to mean the 'USSR' but they collapsed in 91. It doesn't and can't mean 'China' yet. Regardless, in the situation you describe the F-22s or -18s will be assigned to that problem.

@LinKongDa

11 ай бұрын

stupid clickbait with no trial head on head data

@aayanscreativelab1786

11 ай бұрын

I’ve been having a stroke tryna read this

I think people forget that the F16 was literally designed to be one of the best dogfighters out there. Its raiding capabilities are absolutely insane giving it the power to dominate most jets in guns only fight if its able to stiff arm them into a two circle fight, even giving the f22 a run for its money.

@SP-fc9bx

Жыл бұрын

Add to the fact that if you're dogfighting in a jet that can see and shoot down any opponent it will face well before that jet knows they're there; you're probably not a very smart or good pilot.

@Just_A_Random_Desk

Жыл бұрын

raiding? you mean rating?

@maxwellguarente

Жыл бұрын

Have to agree f16c was nicknamed the viper because of it ability to circle another plane like a snake

@brimfire

Жыл бұрын

@@maxwellguarente ... That's not why it was nicknamed the Viper. It was nicknamed the Viper because it resembled the Viper starfighters from Battlestar Galactica which was on the air at the time the jet came into service.

@BARelement

Жыл бұрын

RAIDING? 😂

Back in the 80's my wing was transitioning from F-4Ds to F-16s. During air defense exercises we had relatively new 16 jockeys going up against Phantom drivers who had combat experience in Vietnam and constant flights since then. The F-4s kicked butt consistently. Pilot skill and experience is a big factor.

@davidbrandenburg8029

6 ай бұрын

nothing beats experience hands down!.

@sidneygriffiths5737

4 ай бұрын

Lol put me on a track in a Super car, Lambo, Ferrari etc against a professional in a European fast hatchback a VW Golf GTI, Ford Focus RS, or a US equivalent Ford Mustang! I have no doubt who's going home with the win, as long as the straightaway is not Mulsan, Nurburg Ring long I don't stand a snowballs chance in Hell of winning! Theoretically point proven! Saying that I'd probably lose on those tracks also!😢😢😢😅😂😅

@ussindianapolis487

4 ай бұрын

​@@davidbrandenburg8029 not anymore. since F-14 times technology always beats the pilot.

@bhbluebird

4 ай бұрын

Were you stationed in Korea also at that time? I remember when our F4s got replaced.

@ericbunker6242

4 ай бұрын

@@bhbluebird We changed over around 1988 . Never been to Korea.

The simple fact is that most of these scenarios are done with the newer plane being restricted from using certain features. This helps create doctrine for the plane should certain systems go offline as well as determining if a failure occurred because of the plane, the pilot, or pure coincidence. It’s worth reminding everyone that there were similar stories about the F-22 losing to an F-14, or when the F-16 lost to a Mustang. I don’t think any of us would consider replacing the bulk of America’s air power with fighter jets from the Korean War.

@Ezekiel903

8 ай бұрын

the first F4 were without canon, bcs they already knew the time of dogfights are not more in use, they had to install a canon, but that was in the 60s, today dogfights are extremely rare!

@steffen2165

7 ай бұрын

The military does this with many exercises. This is why “in military exercises China wins a war vs America” is often stated but nothing further about the simulation is brought up

@tappajaav

6 ай бұрын

@@Ezekiel903 Yeah canons were reserved for SR-71s. F4's had to do with nikons

@BBBrasil

6 ай бұрын

You meant to say operational envelope instead of doctrine. F-35 doctrine is to not engage in dogfights, it is to be a force multiplier, such as scout ahead and paint targets for other platforms. That doctrine exclude the necessity to have vectoring trust, supercruise or sustained afterburn in its operational envelope.

@davetasos

5 ай бұрын

extremely rare? sorry no@@Ezekiel903

I remember an interview on danish radio several years ago, where the danish test-pilot flying the F-16 explained the whole thing. The F-35 was a prototype and had artificial restrictions in place to ensure not to overstress the plane, which is normal for unknown planes you step up step by step to ensure it is capable of handling the stresses. You don't want to go the other way around and risking the plane and the data gathering.

@glowiever

Жыл бұрын

sounds like cope

@chrisE815

Жыл бұрын

14:40

@daniloalmeidadotcom

Жыл бұрын

they shouldn't have competed then

@TohaBgood2

Жыл бұрын

@@daniloalmeidadotcom They didn't compete. This was explicitly an internal test of various systems. The F-35 actual first fighging tests were at Red Flag in 2017. In 2015 they were still testing an unfinished prototype vehicle. You don't expect anyone to field a fighter aircraft without doing a ton of internal testing of the airframe in various stages of completion, do you?

@daniloalmeidadotcom

Жыл бұрын

@@TohaBgood2 fair enough

Excellent job of setting the record straight. I remember in the mid-70s many self-proclaimed experts claimed the F-14 & F-15 were only marginally better than the F-5. Later air combats proved their claims wrong.

@captainboose8788

Жыл бұрын

Even by todays standards, both are still very capable birds

@Snipergoat1

Жыл бұрын

This is just speculation but it does seem natural that a well know platform that the pilots know how to squeeze optimal performance out of would hold an advantage over one that even with presumably better tech pilots did not know as well nor had the exact and full flight envelope been fully explored.

@mk6315

Жыл бұрын

I would still buy a surplus F5 if I could, beautiful plane

@richardthomas598

Жыл бұрын

During the 1980s, ANG and AFR pilots routinely defeated active duty USAF in dogfight exercises, despite their older fighters, because 1) they were often much more experienced pilots with Vietnam era combat time on the books; and 2) it was a dog fight. The story was somewhat different in BVR engagements. What we have here is a remake of the same story.

@gazof-the-north5708

Жыл бұрын

And the F-15 weighs more empty than the F-5 does fully loaded!. The F-15 and F-16 are both just awesome.

Honestly, the “glaring red flag” for me was that it was written by David Axe who carved out a niche for himself as against the F-35 early and as often as possible. It was really like he’s an adherent to the Pierre Sprey school of “simplify everything” and “modern is bad”. There were lots of us ridiculed for even the suggestion that maybe the flight software was creating artificial limits and that would be worth investigating as a possible cause.

@pyronuke4768

Жыл бұрын

Reminds me of a guy who was a member of the fighter mafia and loved nothing more than to rail on the F-22 for being an untested waste of expensive resources that would fail once it saw combat. Then in 2014 the Raptor began operational missions and was providing itself quite capable, at which point this person pulled a 180 harder than a Fast & Furious chase and claimed it was the fighter mafia's genius that made the plane so effective. (It might've been Sprey who said it, though I'm not 100% positive on that)

@andremrh7690

Жыл бұрын

​@@pyronuke4768 It was Sprey.

@pyronuke4768

Жыл бұрын

@@andremrh7690 thanks

@HrHaakon

Жыл бұрын

Pierre Spray is a name that awakens a lot of negative emotions in me. He was responsible for the A-10 shitfest, whose only redeemable aspect was the propaganda...

@thomashayhurst6547

11 ай бұрын

​@@HrHaakon not even that. The A10 was designed by Alexander Kartivelli. Sprey was working at Grumman at the time the A10 was being developed as a statistician. Whatsmore, Grumman never submitted a design for that contest

The F-35 has been in service for so little time that instructors are still teaching themselves to fly it as it can be flown. I loved that you pointed out that one of the most valuable look and shoot attributes of the F-35 was not available to the pilot in the heat of the battle. Thank you for sharing everything in this episode and the details about the software and stealth shielding not being functional because I never picked that up before. It was like the poor F-35 pilot was flying with his pants down around his ankles. LOL The F-16 is also like a second layer of skin to its pilots after being in service for so long. Awesome investigating and fact finding, keep on digging for the details we love from all of you guys at Sandboxx. 🤘😁👍

@goochipoochie

6 ай бұрын

Cope more

@maundamartin59

6 ай бұрын

I honestly think that FIGHTER JETS and the UBER EXPENSIVE PRODUCTION OF these fighter jets along with the AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. IS more of a FIGUREHEAD as opposed to serving a LEGIT purpose. The odds of SOME TYPE OF "AIR" COMBAT WAR, AMERICA AGAINST SOME powerful country would be A TRUE MESS ON BOTH SIDES. AND WONT LAST LONG which is the PURPOSE of these JETS. Especially, the potential of RUNNING OUT OF FUEL if these dog fights LAST FOR HOURS. OR THE POSSIBILTY of these jets being in close proximity to other jets CAUSING unlimited JET WASHES. HEY, IM JUST SAYING. Im no expert.

@amazin7006

4 ай бұрын

​@@goochipoochieThere is no cope, f35 is a superior fighter in every single way to EVERY aircraft on earth besides maybe F22, and even then F22 only has one scenario to win and that is guns only- aka never gonna happen.

@amazin7006

4 ай бұрын

@@JimCarner f35 can carry aim9x internally what the hell are you yapping about kid

Wildcats couldnt beat a Zero in a dogfight either. But we used other methods to down them and wound up with a 6.9/1 kill ratio by mid war.

@PlumSack79

Жыл бұрын

Well said. If agility is all it takes gymnasts would be dominating MMA.

@nicolas_ai

Жыл бұрын

@@Future-Preps35 it might also be known as "boom and zoom", effectively going for quick boom attacks and running away, because the zero lost a lot of manouverability past like 500kmh, whereas the wildcat would excel there.

@BARelement

Жыл бұрын

1.5 Gen fighters are nothing when talking about 3rd Gen/4.5-5th Gen.

@david834

Жыл бұрын

The main reason Wildcat kill ratios were so high: The US finding a Zero fighter on Akutan island in 1942, bringing it into flying condition, and determining that it had three serious flaws that could be exploited: First, it was nearly impossible to perform rolls at moderately high speeds. Second, a poorly designed carburetor caused the engine to sputter badly when the plane was placed into a dive at a high rate of speed. Third, it rolled more slowly to the right than to the left.

@andrewcockburn7484

Жыл бұрын

@@david834 l

The F-16 is among many fighters that perform well beyond human endurance tolerances. In fact, Most fighters designed even in the 50s and 60s perform beyond human endurance tolerances. One of the top Vietnamese aces during the Vietnam War was defeated because he blacked out in the cockpit giving the American pilot The kill shot. So at this point in fighter evolution it’s more about the bells and whistles of the weapons and sensor packages on the vehicle than it is the actual performance of the vehicle.

@valenrn8657

Жыл бұрын

Swiss F/A-18C is the 9G varaint.

@Snipergoat1

Жыл бұрын

I was somewhat surprised to find out that even in WW2 there were many planes that could and did exceed pilot tolerance and loss of aircraft due to passing out or the like was a problem. Not the fancy new end war German jets. The early war prop planes were doing it. No one knows how many dive bombers lost were not lost to gunfire, but to loss of pilot consciousness. Seems around that 9 G mark people go lights out real quick and these planes would hit that in an age before pressure suits.

@ajaxx9492

Жыл бұрын

@@Snipergoat1 that is exactly why the Stuka had a mundane recovery system that would engage once the bombs were released

@winoodlesnoodles1984

Жыл бұрын

I understand your argument but will have to respectively disagree. There needs to be some effort put into newer fighters to allow those manuvers without putting as much stress on the pilot. This may mean we need to cockpits with some lateral play to reduce the stress. Basically, we need to think outside the box to improve aircraft more than just bells and whistles. However, the military establishment tends not to think outside the box, so, for them, your point holds.

@SethOmegaful

Жыл бұрын

​@@winoodlesnoodles1984 OR we could just use unmanned aircraft. :)

This channel SERIOUSLY knows its stuff, and makes its information easy to digest as well.

That is why i struggle to have a good discussion about the f-35 with many people over the internet. The f-16 was an absolute pinnacle of engineering and is one if not THE best dogfighter out there, and now seeing all the development of the f-35 platform now is extremely impressive, and as someone who constantly talks to veterans I've had the opportunity to talk with a couple active duty airmen who have flown the f-35. Though the conversation was limited (obviously) they both held massive respect for the aircraft and acknowledged that it was designed for a completely different form of combat. Thank you for a great educational video, I hadnt actually heard of this article before and it was very insightful. Keep up the good work!

@amazin7006

4 ай бұрын

I hate this term "designed for". It makes it sound like the aircraft is incapable, like a car is not designed to float. The F35 has a gun for a reason, it is meant to close the distance and fight, and its damn good at it. It can dogfight any aircraft on earth with ease besides the F22, and even then it has a fighting chance. 1.2+ thrust to weight and control surfaces like that make it even harder to fight than a superhornet.

@shenmisheshou7002

4 ай бұрын

You are right, and this kind of aircraft will likely never be used against a major power in large scale conflict. It is fine against tier 3 opponents, but a war with Russia or China will be a war fought with missiles. The F-22 has never been used in air combat against anything but a Balloon, and the US has not shot down a Soviet, Russian, or Chinese plane since about 1970, and will likely never be used in a large scale military action against any country with nuclear weapons. (The B1 has never actually performed the mission it was purchased for. President Carter killed the B1A because he said that there was no need for a supersonic nuclear bomber. Congress, hungry for the jobs, raised the B1 from the dead by saying that it would be used as a low level penetration bomber, and in its entire service life, it has not once been used in that manner, instead, just becoming another dump truck like the B52. The B2 has never bombed a Teir 1 enemy, as is the case with every other US airplane made since 1970. We are spending trillions of dollars for aircraft that will likely only ever see use in these small wars that would be easily managed by aircraft like the F15, F16, and F18.

@amazin7006

4 ай бұрын

​@@shenmisheshou7002 What the hell are you on about? Every word you said is hilariously wrong. America shot down Iraqi Mig29s and Mirage F1s in the gulf war, even our F-111 shot them down. Secondly, F35 can destroy any aircraft on earth, including F22. It has a stronger radar and better RCS than any aircraft on earth, even better than the F22. Its radar is a whole generation ahead and its RCS is better. Lastly, THATS THE WHOLE POINT. The whole point of a powerful weapon is to scare everyone enough to not want to ever see it used. Nobody will ever challenged the F22 because they fear it. That means it is doing its job. China knows its unstoppable, so they won't touch any of our allies that have them in their arsenal.

@shenmisheshou7002

4 ай бұрын

​@@amazin7006 Those were not Russian planes. Russian planes are flown by Voenno-vozdushnye sily Rossii, which is the air arm of the Russian Federation. Chines planes are flown by People's Liberation Army Air Force. Soviet planes were flown by Voenno-Vozdushnye Sily Soyuza, the air force of the Soviet Union. The US has not shot down a plane from any of these air forces since 1970, The planes you are talking about were Iraqi planes. Iraq is a third world country with a small air force, limited air defenses, poorly trained pilots, and very poor integrated Air Defense Network. I would think you would know the difference between a Russian plane and an Iraqi plane.

@amazin7006

4 ай бұрын

@@shenmisheshou7002 There is no difference, you can pull these coping mechanisms all you want lol. A soviet plane is designed by soviets, cope more. If you want to use this excuse, then Russia/ussr/China has not shot down an American plane since 1960 and that was a U2 not even a fighter jet.

In Red Flag, the F-35 was put at a disadvantage it'd rarely encounter in real life (to challenge the pilots for training). It still had a 20-1 kill ratio against 4th gen. The old reports of testing an F-35 prototype against an F-16 to tweak its control laws were all about beta testing F-35 software restrictions to see where they needed opening up. That's all that was.

@dr.bright3081

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for saying this.

@Lontracanadensis

Жыл бұрын

I've heard that in addition to it merely being a test of software restrictions, the specific control law they were trying to tweak was one that only applied in a scenario where the F-35 was already at a severe and nearly unwinnable disadvantage. That being, the F-35 was to fly 35 degrees alpha at steady airspeed and altitude, then the F-16 was to come in behind it and get a gun lock. From that lamentable position, a start signal was given, and the F-35 was to try various maneuvers to break the lock and win. (And then the reverse, the F-16 was to fly steady, and the F-35 was to come in below and behind it, 35 degrees alpha, get into a position to establish lock, and wait for a start, then try to hold lock while the F-16 tried to break it.) Another F-16 would have always lost in that scenario too, except for one thing: the F-16 can't reach 35 degrees alpha in the first place. The reason it was 35 degrees is that was where the early testing showed the F-35 had an uncommanded roll-off problem (i.e., if you're at 35 degrees alpha or more, and command a pure roll to starboard, the airframe also yaws to starboard, pointing the nose starboard and down). To prevent pilots from losing control from that unexpected extra twist, the plane was made (in software only) exceptionally sluggish at high alpha to allow the pilot to catch it and compensate. But pilots now train in the F-35, and they know about the roll-off and expect it - it doesn't take them by surprise now, and they can use it as a maneuver that's almost impossible for any other plane to follow. My understanding is forcing a roll-off was actually the energy-bleeding maneuver that allowed them to win one "fight." The testing was to determine to what extent they should allow high-alpha snappy rolls and the resulting roll-offs back into the plane's envelope.

@stuarthutt3740

Жыл бұрын

The F16 flown against the F35 had external fuel tank which lowered its capable G load.

@coolgamerpal6681

Жыл бұрын

shuddup DOD shill

@stuarthutt3740

Жыл бұрын

@@coolgamerpal6681 The F16 had external fuel tank for the flight which lowers permissible Gs and increases turning radius.

One other thing to keep in mind when people complain about the price of an F-35 is that the price is a "Program" price which includes all spare parts, maintenance and fuel for 50 years. Too many people compare that to the old "Unit" price of an aircraft which does not include the spare parts, maintenance and fuel.

@dadthelad

Жыл бұрын

True, but it is well known that the hourly cost to run an F35 is well above a lot of other lesser quality fighter jets. That's just the thing though, they are lesser quality. It's a balance, the F35 is a phenomenally effective machine that wipes the floor with 4th gen fighters, but damn it costs a lot to run and maintain. However, obviously, the expensive machine that wins is actually cheaper than the cheap machine that can't even see the 5th gen fighter that turned it into a fireball when they go head to head. Truth is, the US (and various allies), have realised that a mix of the F35's and cheaper 4th gen planes actually makes sense. You can use the F35's up front to do most of the damage, then mop up the remainder with 4th gen fighters following up from behind, and carrying the extra munitions required. Upgrade the 4th gens with modern electronics and you have a formidable mix.

@michaelryan5973

Жыл бұрын

plus it is adjusted for inflation

@hf117j

Жыл бұрын

@@dadthelad It's also a matter of you can only carry so many weapons internally. Send out some electronic warfare planes with data links as well as a bunch of 4th gen missile trucks and cruise missile carriers and you have the smallest required force for maximum payload delivery in safe margins. Data linked 5th gens can do the targeting and get closer with internal weapons for defense, as well as jamming up whatever enemies they can depending on the plane. Not to mention. Right now the anti stealth solution is different missile type or stronger radar. When that stops working and missiles are no longer viable. Guess what? Full circle, back to vis and dogfights. For now though, stealth isn't the biggest necessity. Neither is dogfighting capability. It's balance. While the F35 by no means should be a replacement for every plane, it does have the niche I just mentioned of being a good precision strike plane and a good missile truck data link

@RobertBalejik

Жыл бұрын

fuel for 50 years?? really

@fredmdbud

Жыл бұрын

@@hf117j Once air dominance is achieved, the F-35's stealth becomes secondary and it can be outfitted in "beast mode" aka the flying bomb truck.

From what I've read/heard about the F-35, it seems like they took the same approach that the Red Baron had that made him so dangerous: it was designed to operate in groups with such close-knit systems between the planes that enemy fighters couldn't get a good shot off at one without making themself entirely vulnerable to the rest.

@TessaractAlemania-hd7tv

Жыл бұрын

So the f35 needs a mobster team to win against only one enemy fighter? ^^ Not convincing me

@johnfkennedyinanopentopcar8976

Жыл бұрын

What you've heard is most likely not accurate because a lot of the information on the plane is highly classified

@Ceece20

11 ай бұрын

Yep, F35 is for strategic strikes and air command. It can get into dogfights, but at that point, you’ve already had to go through several F22s who are actually designed for dogfights. F35 has strong capabilities in long range missiles and speed. They will just detect you from far away, coordinate who should intercept/act, and stay at distance.

@neooblisk0084

11 ай бұрын

​@@TessaractAlemania-hd7tv think about it like this. A flight of f35s can stay in formation and be safe, if other fighters want to take them down even if a flight them want to attack f35s they need to make themselves vulnerable. However the f35s can stay safe and secure while attacking others. And remember planes are practically never by themselves so solo preformance is less important. Basically the f35 does not have to take the same risks to engage an enemy that others do to engage an f35

@Shaun_Jones

10 ай бұрын

Bingo. Modern military technology is not necessarily designed around being better than the enemy one-on-one, but to work together in an integrated system to give an advantage and take that advantage away from the enemy.

If it comes down to a close in turning battle the F16 can always dump and pump. Meaning, it can evade (dump speed) via it’s buttonhook escape turn, then re-engage (pump) to get the advantage. The F16 has the tightest turning radius of all the US fighters even versus the Raptor and even versus the YF17 that later became the Hornet. Col Boyd, EM theory, and so on and so forth.

If you're dogfighting and you're in the F-35, it's because the alien invasion force you're fighting has beaten its way though the 17 other layers of air defense that are networked through the F-35's amazing capabilities and, frankly, all is lost to begin with.

@keirfarnum6811

Жыл бұрын

Resistance is futile.

@angrydoggy9170

Жыл бұрын

@@ArchSight When was the last actual dogfight engagement between jets? When did a jet get shot down by cannon fire lately? Not saying an auto cannon isn’t a good thing as a last resort measure, but nearly every aircraft shot down is due to missiles. As for stealth, that doesn’t make the aircraft invisible for radar, just more difficult to detect and more importantly to get a weapons lock.

@macwizer

Жыл бұрын

@@angrydoggy9170 Iraq war was last US air engagement, last guns only was Vietnam, my era. So if the lady flying the F35 is doing AWACS, EW, OA, DA being better at multitasking than a guy she will still have time to defend the Mig31 dropping R37’s on her

@SailorRob

Жыл бұрын

​@@macwizer, if she needs to gun down an enemy aircraft, she'll just ask one of her escorting UAVs to do it. Rather than an intense knife fight inside a phone booth, it'll be a minor annoyance for the pilot. This is the future of air warfare.

@kennethluedtkejr1903

Жыл бұрын

@@SailorRob you sure got that right. 6 th Gen fighter was held up in part due to the pilot no pilot debate. All Mech Military Terminator here we come.

The ending shot with the A-10, F-15 & F-35 flying together was beautiful! 😍

If you ask seasoned pilots what their favorite jet to fly outside of combat situations. Like just for fun. It's almost always the F-16 . There is a reason why it's the most preferred jet for show teams to pull stunts for an audience. It responds very well to pilot input.

@amazin7006

7 ай бұрын

Well its also the lightest weight jet we have. Just like with race cars, lightweight=fun. We're gonna have to wait a few years for F35 pilots to start retiring to hear then sing its praises. It weighs just about a ton more, however has far more thrust, chassis stiffness, and better computer controlled stability.

@BOZ_11

4 ай бұрын

@@amazin7006 Nah, nominal thrust is not the metric. The thrust to weight ratio of the F-16 is far superior to the F-35

@amazin7006

4 ай бұрын

@@BOZ_11 Not really, this is a misnomer that stems from the fact that the f35 can carry more internal fuel than the f16 can with external tanks. Thats 14,000 pounds of fuel. When fuel is equal, f35 is a rocket that is more maneuverable than any jet in the US arsenal besides f22. Plus f35 makes up for slightly more weight with its huge control surfaces and much superior flight computer

@BOZ_11

4 ай бұрын

@@amazin7006 it's not my opinion F-35: Thrust/weight: 0.87 at gross weight (1.07 at loaded weight with 50% internal fuel) F-16: Thrust/weight: 1.095 (1.24 with loaded weight & 50% internal fuel)

@amazin7006

4 ай бұрын

@@BOZ_11 Why are you counting as 50% internal fuel when i already told you F35 holds way more fuel??? 50% of F35 fuel is 10000 pounds. 50% of F16 fuel is 3500 pounds. This is obviously dishonest. At 7000 pounds of fuel F35A has 1.22 thrust to weight ratio, F16 has 1.12. Not to mention F35 has other advantages like larger leading edge flaps than a superhornet, a lifting body, huge control surfaces, etc. F35 even out-accelerates the twin engined SU35s with EASE at subsonic speeds. You people are spreading RT-tier disinformation.

Awesome video. I’ve heard these bits separately and it’s nice to have them all wrapped up together. People saying “the F-35 sucks” because it literally wasn’t allowed to do what it was designed to do in the first place. I’d go so far as to say the Axe report was done out of context and in bad faith.

About 2-3 years ago I was listening to an Aviation Week podcast with an F-35 test pilot, and he mentioned when the software 'shackles' were taken off, this was a deadly aircraft.

@TessaractAlemania-hd7tv

Жыл бұрын

only propaganda of the companies that build this harmless slow jet, weaker than the f16

I was at one of the red flag events a few years back (mechanic on B variant). The F35 absolutely dominated. I believe we were something like 33-1, and that 1 loss was from a SAM site and the word going around was that one of the rookie pilots just made a mistake.

@daniloalmeidadotcom

Жыл бұрын

I was there. I was the SAM site

@TessaractAlemania-hd7tv

Жыл бұрын

Are your Red Flag Simulations realistic? There is a rumour, you yankee pilots have loose a lot of airfights against the russians in military competitions, even against swiss pilots!

@zagreus5773

Жыл бұрын

@@TessaractAlemania-hd7tv Lol, where did you read that "rumour"? RT? Telegram? Russian pilots suck ass, that is well known. It's not their fault though, they just don't get enough training. They also keep shooting each other down in Ukraine. Apparently Russia shoots down more Russian planes than Ukraine.

@theamericancristero7390

Жыл бұрын

​@@TessaractAlemania-hd7tv with the average number of training hours between US and RF pilots, I'd say that's just a rumor.

@jj4791

Жыл бұрын

@@TessaractAlemania-hd7tv Name one case where the Russian air force flew against US Air Force in competition within the last 20 years.

Thanks for the video. You're doing great work.

I love your clear thinking. No games, analysis that bores through the head games most engage in. Thank you. I am grateful.

Wow! No RAM, Alpha-release software, no helmet cueing, no high-bore off axis, hell why not add luneberg lenses to the F-35 to completely disable all worthwhile functionality. Excellent coverage as always, Alex. Thank you.

@madkabal

Жыл бұрын

So it couldn't turn couldn't climb and couldn't run because of limited software. Must bee a dynamic test of something else then.

@TheJTcreate

Жыл бұрын

@@madkabal AF02 was flying with block II software as well as every F35A that year. The F35A was still in development and would not hit IOC phase until 2017, after the release of BLock III. Block III was touted as the upgrade that would unleash most of the F35As advance flight handling characteristics. Up until that point, the only F35 that was not that flight restricted was AF01, which got torqued for pulling 9.9g turn in one of its flight tests. It was actually an accident. The plane can actually maneuver well, but it fights more like an F18 than an F16. In fact it’s been shown to have better AOA nose pointing authority than the F18. What’s changed in modern WVR tactics is the favoring of quick nose pointing authority (F18, F35) over the gradual sustained turn (F16). No it’s not the most agile plane out there, and that’s actually ok. but it’s agility Is still very good and well within the ballpark where a good pilot can make the difference, even without the advance bells and whistles.

@donkoh5738

Жыл бұрын

It would be interesting to know if the 20:1 win ratio advertised was largely from BVR contests, or actual dogfights with the F35 equipped with a pair of underwing heat-seekers, as well as a gunpod if the B/C variant. And if said win ratio consisted mostly of BVR engagements, then by deduction one might suggest the requirement for better passive sensors to be integrated into frontline US 4th gen aircraft as well as more capable stand-off AAM munitions - either dual seeker type, or simply adapted with a sufficiently modern passive seeker. That way, US frontline 4th gen tacair will be able to remain more competitive with modern tacair of the adversary.

@TheJTcreate

Жыл бұрын

@@donkoh5738 it’s both, but a lot of it was WVR engagements. Btw, not all WVR engagements are actually categorized as ACM or dogfighting. Dogfight is a specific close quarter knife fight and there haven’t been as many in the history of air combat as many people think. In fact, most losses in a WVR engagement occurred with the loser not seeing the attack coming or losing sight of their opponent. Fights aren’t as close up as you see in movies like top gun. Half the time, your trying to Keep track of a speck in the sky while maneuvering against it which is not easy. We’ll, if you can’t easily spot an F35 in the sky, and your instruments can’t locate it, you are at a serious disadvantage and won’t see the attack coming until it’s too late.

@donkoh5738

Жыл бұрын

@@TheJTcreate - Thanks for your reply and I fully understand your point of view. However, if within say a 10km WVR, one's modern IRST and/or Sniper pod, as well as AESA should be able to sufficiently cue the pilot's awareness to said speck and it's relationship to the fight. In fact, it will potentially be the Blue Force F-15E+ (with AESA + IRST) that would be able to track a Red Force F35, before a Blue Force F35 would successfully track said Red Force F35 ? Regardless, the main point was that the opponent also gets a vote, as to whether a WVR fight becomes a close-in dogfight and possible gunfight and thus any F35 possibly engaging in a WVR aerial duel should be equipped properly with underwing dogfight rounds as well as yes, a gun.

I did wonder before you went into details how much of the disparity was due to the fact the F-35 was relatively new and only just coming into operation compared to the F-16 which is a well established aircraft and has no doubt had most of its weaknesses ironed out over the course of its service career.

@adriankovac1943

Жыл бұрын

I thought it was because it was still a prototype production on the f35a did not begin untill 2016

@quarreneverett4767

Жыл бұрын

@@adriankovac1943 the video does include impirtant details about why :)

@Mythos1981

Жыл бұрын

New? It's been in development for 3 decades i think?

@quarreneverett4767

Жыл бұрын

@@Mythos1981 i dont know much about that. But to be fair the me 262 was designed and in planning before ww2 even started but various beurocracy and stuff got in the way almost like what happened with the fw190. But worse.

@Mythos1981

Жыл бұрын

@@quarreneverett4767 project was launched in 1995 or 1996. Either way the F22 was a much more capable aircraft.

Thank you for the video and analysis. Any platform that is rushed and sees its cost increased is doomed to have problems and issues that might take time to resolve.

F-16 was my first love, then that horrifically beautiful A-10 snuck in and took advantage of me while I was passed out... that's a touch you don't forget.

You can also go back to early WWII in the Pacific and high losses of inexperienced US pilots who tried to dogfight the Zero. As soon as pilots learned to avoid the Zero's turning strength and go for high-speed 'slashing' attacks, the kill ratio began to reverse.

@dadthelad

Жыл бұрын

If I remember correctly, the Zero also had a savage flaw in that it couldn't pull up from a full high speed dive?

@Ananamitron

Жыл бұрын

@@dadthelad It also didn't have self-sealing fuel tanks, so one errant bullet lit them up.

@hf117j

Жыл бұрын

@@dadthelad That wouuld be compression if I remember correctly. Given the materials they were made from it's no surprise that happened. They were very limited but they were also cheap, light, belligerent and numerous.

@iexist.imnotjoking5700

Жыл бұрын

@@Ananamitron Nope, it was likelier to catch on fire, but it wasn't "lit up by one errant bullet." The amount of hyperbole surrounding the Zero has really washed away what actually happened.

@iexist.imnotjoking5700

Жыл бұрын

You forgot that the Zero pilots themselves became inexperienced, while the US pilots became more experienced. That is the actual reason why the kill ratio began to reverse. Not to mention that the F4F was still inferior to the Zero.

It's like taking a modern computer, disconnecting it from any network, removing all USB ports and then pointing out that it doesn't compete well with a typewriter when it comes to printing letters on paper.

This is actual journalism. Refreshing...

So the 2015 F35, was basically a development mule, only half complete and G-limited.

@LA-ep2nr

7 ай бұрын

Exactly

To add to what you reported. 31 Pilots of various combat aircraft that have flown the F-35 after experience in another jet were interviewed in April of 2016. The interview was conducted by 25-year Air Force veteran John Venable. Venable has 4,400 total hours of flying time and more than 300 hours of combat time over Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan. These pilots had an average flying time of 1467 Hours. They were asked to compare the F-35 to their former jet and rate it on various performance aspects. Of the 31 pilots interviewed, 5 of them were former A-10 pilots with an average flying time of 1,420 Hours. And these pilots were not ordinary A-10 pilots. 1 was a test pilot graduate, 2 were A-10 instructor pilots, and the other 2 were instructor pilot plus** pilots. 20 of the pilots interviewed were F-16 pilots with an average flying time of 1,441 hours. Of these 20, 6 were Top Gun/Test pilot* pilots. 11 were instructor pilots and 3 were Instructor pilot plus** pilots. 4 of the pilots were F-15E pilots with 1,850 hours of flying time. 2 were in the Top Gun/Test pilot* category, 1 was an instructor pilot, and 1 was an instructor pilot plus** pilot. 2 of the pilots were F-15C pilots with an average of 1,085 hours flying time. 1 was in the Top Gun/Test pilot* category while the other was an instructor pilot. * Top Gun is a Weapons Instructor Course graduate. Test Pilot is a Test Pilot School graduate. **Instructor pilot plus have a higher level of certification such as Package/Strike Commander, Sandie, etc. At the time of the interview, the F-35's control laws were still limited to 7 G's. Even with this limitation, the F-35 was chosen over the jet it was replacing. The F-35's that are flying today no longer have the 7 G limit. They can execute maneuvers in excess of 9 G's. I have provided a link at the bottom of the page to the full article. These 3 charts give an overview of the pilot's experience and how they rated the F-35 versus the plane they used to fly. www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/infographics/2016/08/bg3140/bg-f35a-overview-appendix-table-1-825.jpg www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/infographics/2016/08/bg3140/bg-f35a-overview-chart-1-600.jpg www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/infographics/2016/08/bg3140/bg-f35a-overview-chart-2.jpg John “JV” Venable, a 25-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force who served in three combat operations, is a senior research fellow for defense policy at The Heritage Foundation. During his career in the Air Force, Venable served at 16 locations around the world as a forward air controller, fighter pilot, staff officer, and commander. He is the former commander of the celebrated Thunderbirds. He has flown the F-16 fighter jet throughout the United States, Europe, the Pacific, and the Middle East. As the F-16 wing weapons officer for the Air-Land Composite Wing experiment at Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina, he was nominated for the Claire Chennault Award for his work developing “killer scout” tactics, techniques, and procedures. Venable served as staff officer for nuclear policy for Headquarters Air Northwest at Royal Air Force High Wycombe, United Kingdom, from 1996 to 1998. He was heavily involved with the Partnership for Peace program that led to the expansion of NATO. He then was selected to serve as operations officer of the Air Warrior Program at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, providing close air support for the Army’s signature force-on-force exercise at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California. Venable was selected in 1999 to command the Air Force’s Aerial Demonstration Squadron (the Thunderbirds) and was on point for every practice, deployment, and air show for the 2000 and 2001 seasons. Following Air War College in 2002 and 2003, he served on the staff addressing issues that were before the Air Force’s Joint Requirements Oversight Committee. In 2004, Venable took command of the 379th Air Expeditionary Group, Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, the largest combat operation in the Air Force at the time. He led 16 squadrons and 1,100 personnel, flying seven types of aircraft in support of ground and air operations during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the course of a year, Venable’s team flew 27,000 sorties, delivering 200,000 passengers, 40,000 tons of cargo, 38 million gallons of fuel to 9,000 airborne receiver aircraft, and dropping bombs on 311 targets -all “without gap and without loss,” as the Air Force says. In his last assignment on active duty from 2005 to 2007, Venable served as a principal adviser and briefer to the Air Force’s chief of staff and director of operations in their roles on the president’s Joint Chiefs of Staff. He retired in June 2007 as a command pilot with more than 4,400 total hours of flying time and more than 300 hours of combat time over Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Venable was born in Birmingham, Ala., and grew up in Alabama, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. He received a bachelor’s degree in business management in 1981 from Ohio University, where he also was a distinguished graduate of Air Force ROTC. He holds master’s degrees in aeronautical sciences from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and in strategic studies from the Air War College. Venable also holds diplomas or certificates from Georgetown University, the Air Force Fighter Weapons School, Air Command and Staff College, Joint Forces Staff College, and the NATO School in Oberammergau, Germany. Source: www.heritage.org/defense/report/operational-assessment-the-f-35a-argues-full-program-procurement-and-concurrent?_ga=2.245119046.2139509302.1533535266-717266456.1533535266

@BlyGuy

Жыл бұрын

Dave "Chip" Berke said without a moment of thought that he'd take the F35 over any jet he previously flew into a combat scenario and this guy is the best of the best and has flown Vipers, Hornets, Raptors and Fat Amy, so he would definitely be someone to trust (unless he's on Lockheeds payroll, which is always a possibility I suppose)

@Jojooooooo

Жыл бұрын

Don't have a source but remember someone talking about the f35 in the demo having the wrong alloys in the tail making it heavier than the current one so that might be another factor in the dogfights.

@dennisyoung7363

Жыл бұрын

No offense, but do you work in the industry? Australian test pilots said the F35 had a wing overload. They said the F35 couldn't hide, couldn't dogfight and couldn't run away. They preferred the F18 Super Hornet, even after sinking billions into the F35 program.

@mharley3791

Жыл бұрын

@@dennisyoung7363 he provided sources for his statements that seem pretty legit. I would love to see your sources about Australia

@stevenhoman2253

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for your clear and precise data.

Loved seeing the A-10 flying in formation, it's been one of my favorite jets since I was a kid. I hope they don't decomission it.

@pyronuke4768

Жыл бұрын

Unfortunately all good things must come to an end. I love the A-10 too and I hope that it continues to serve with distinction, but I also have to acknowledge reality and that things like the 2K22M1 and PGZ-09 exist, which some people seem to forget while fanboying over her.

@grantdeisig1360

Жыл бұрын

@@pyronuke4768 yup, your right there.

@snakeeyes9246

Ай бұрын

​@@grantdeisig1360you're*

Easiest thing to say is the f-35 was actually missing half or more of its maneuverable capabilities that make it a superior fighting machine whether it's air-to-air or are

My brother Mike, a professional photographer posted a pic he took of an F-35C at the Air Show at NAS Oceana a couple of weeks ago. In describing his photo, he wrote the following, in part: "Early in its test phase, the F-35 was determined to be quite a dud as a fighter. Tested against a 4th-generation F-16, it could barely hold its own in a mock dogfight against the Viper, but what few knew was its capabilities were reined in, much like holding a racehorse back from what it was born to do… run. There was another problem that was unforeseen… pilots of the new F-35 had all previously flown 4th-generation, and they brought with them habits that did not apply to the new system’s stunning flight characteristics. They were just figuring out they had to unlearn what they had trusted for so long flying F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s, also known as Legacy fighters, because the Lightning wasn’t just capable of making mincemeat of any adversary, it was a gamechanger with immediate power, faster response to pilot input, an incredible angle of attack (AOA), and an ability to slow to less than 100 mph rapidly while still maintaining controlled flight to rapidly swing its nose to a target. The funny thing is, that as new pilots graduate flight school without the habits of the older pilots, they’re learning more about what the Lightning can do. All variants of the F-35, A, B, and C models have advanced integrated avionics (sensor fusion) giving enhanced situational awareness not just to the pilots, but to every Lightning aircraft on a given mission… what one knows, they all know. Red Flag is somewhat like the Air Force’s version of Navy’s Top Gun, but there’s more to it than what the movie portrays. A Marine pilot new to the program in 2016 was preparing to take off in an F-35B from Luke AFB for a Red Flag exercise… it floored him how much information it provided him from the other members of his squadron who were already airborne. He had a Gods-eye view of the fray before he even left the ground. Since then, 4th-generation fighters are now taking part in that sensor fusion data… the weapons they carry can be slaved by F-35s to specific targets. From a pilot’s own perspective at Red Flag: "You never knew I was there," he said with a smile. "You literally would never know I'm there. I flew the F-35 against 4th-generation platforms, and we killed them, and they never even saw us." "If you were to engage an F-35 in say, a visual dogfight capability, the capabilities of the F-35 are absolutely eye-watering compared to a 4th-generation fighter. So, if it's a long-range contact, you'll never see me and you'll die, and if it's within visual-range contact you'll see me and you're gonna die and you're gonna die very quickly." "I can tell you that it is by far the best platform I've ever flown in my entire life, and at that, you would have to take me on my word." - Maj. Gen. Scott Pleus, former CO of 56th Fighter Wing at Luke AFB. 24 years flying the F-16." If you're interested in seeing Mike's photo, look here: www.flickr.com/photos/snapdraggin/52493627310/in/photostream/

@hf117j

Жыл бұрын

Ok. Again with multi page comments. This is why I don't frequent aviation youtube. Cool. Your bro took a pic and wrote an article. That doesn't mean you know everything about aircraft

@Dr.Doof_in_SteinsGate

Жыл бұрын

@@hf117j I'm pretty sure he isn't wrong, and is very much correct. I don't have to explain any further if you just read the whole thing.

@BravoCheesecake

Жыл бұрын

@@hf117j Either you have the attention span of a fly or literally can't read.

@NationChosenByGod

Жыл бұрын

Yup, the F-35 can smoke every other 4th gen and there is not doubt about that. However the same didn't happen when it came face to face with the J-20 at the pacific.

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

@@hf117j You're literally a demoralization agent. "This is why I don't read comments" who cares? Seems like you're the kind of person who serves as an example of what not to do.

I worked for LM on the F-35 from 2013-2020. Your content is correct. I deployed with the Navy to Fallon NAS where students in Top Gun were required to go up against a fifth gen fighter(F-22 or F-35) before graduation. The F-35 and F-22 are undefeated against every pilot in Top Gun. The F-35 software has now caught up with the hardware. It's not even fair. The F-35 watches you in your 4th gen fighter and takes you out without so much as a reach around. You remember the end of "Silence of the Lambs"? Clarice with a loaded gun in a dark room going against the serial killer wearing night vision goggles? THAT is what it's like for a 4th Gen fighter attempting to go against a F-35 or F-22. Now IF you can see the F-35 outside your cockpit you might have a fighting chance. Lastly the gun in the F-35A is a joke. It's nothing like the A-10. Great video. Brought back memories.

@mkvv5687

Жыл бұрын

Colorful.

@saquist

Жыл бұрын

That's not what the video article was about. This is about Dog fighting...not missile lobs from 80kms

@WJV9

Жыл бұрын

@@saquist - Dog fighting today is mostly about missles, Vietnam was over 50 years ago.

@mkvv5687

Жыл бұрын

@@saquist Even dogfighting I'll bet the F35 is fine. Pilots will be trained to compensate for any shortcomings (lookup "Thatch Weave" sometime). The F35 pilot can look down "through" the fuselage, lock on, and, with the nose pointed way off in a different direction, fire, track and hit a target. In the meantime, the enemy has just fired a missile at your decoy drone.

@saquist

Жыл бұрын

@@mkvv5687 The Aim 9X only has and Off bore sight of 90 degrees, so maybe bellow you but not behind you. That's 360 degrees. And remember just because you can fire doesn't mean you'll hit because even the Aim 9x has a minimum turning radius that can be exploited.

thank you for this informative video. Yes. i would love to see a detailed analysis of what went wrong with the air war in Vietnam.

In these industrialized wars, a very important factor is cost. How many fighters can you produce? How much does it cost per hour of flight? How much maintenance does it require? Will you exhaust your resources before your enemy does? Also important, how difficult is to train new pilots? It might be the perfect plane for a country like the states with a massive industrial capability and plenty of resources. However, smaller countries like Italy or The Nederlands can find it too expensive to operate. Probably, a modernized version of the F-16 will be a better fighter for them.

The F-16 beat the F-35 in the sense that a tank crew will die to a single infantryman if said infantryman is on top of the tank about to throw a grenade in the open hatch. I mean, sure, but holy crap does a lot have to go wrong before this defeat becomes a reality

@avroarchitect1793

Жыл бұрын

More like trying to use a tank as a mortar. It can work but it is not meant to engage in the fight in this manner, and if it is then many things have gone very wrong in long order.

@cattledog901

Жыл бұрын

@AVRO Architect Tanks aren't used as "mortars" ever and can't fulfill that role dumb dumb. They are direct fire weapons and their main cannons are too high velocity to achieve the arc required for mortar fire.

@MrGallade475

Жыл бұрын

@@cattledog901 if you fired a tanks cannon into the air, the projectile will in fact fall back down to earth. it will SUCK but it is physically possible. just like trying to assess a stealth fighters capabilities when they did not equip it with any stealth and barely any fight

@avroarchitect1793

Жыл бұрын

@@cattledog901 let's just say I know a guy who tried and it barely worked. He used a HE shell

@cattledog901

Жыл бұрын

@AVRO Architect Sounds like BS. No MBTs cannon even elevates over 20-25° which means it's impossible to use a tank as a "mortar" and achieve high angle fire.

The thing that always stands out to me is how conservative and cautious test pilots and test programs in general are when establishing the performance specifications and training standards for brand new jets. Using AF-2 was probably deliberate as they put the F-35 through an establishing program of BFM, to ensure that they don't have more F-35's make fiery potholes in the desert while pilots are trained and the air data is acquired. Compared to F-16, which has has had literal decades of hard flying data and pilot experience to inform it's specs, I am not surprised. Likewise, look at the history of other fighter programs, and the number of air mishaps as they worked out the kinks... I'm definitely on the side of letting F-35 take the slow climb to reaching it's potential.

@StrikeNoir105E

Жыл бұрын

I mean people tend to forget that the F-16 wasn't exactly an immaculate aircraft in the beginning: there were so many crashes of the aircraft in its first decade or so of service that it was called the "lawn dart" (sharing the moniker with another aircraft before it, the F-104). And as the decades rolled on, F-16s have been upgraded to the point where a first rollout F-16 would be significantly inferior in all aspects to a modern upgraded one.

@jasonrhodes9683

Жыл бұрын

The Lightning looks racy so it should fly well, unless its power to weight ratio is too low. With its super cruise engine I can't see how that should be a problem. AF2 is really little more than a proof of concept aircraft. It probably has a G limiter that wouldn't let it turn and burn like it should it. It was a Corvette on passenger car tires. That is why the dangerous maneuver the F35 used for its only kill was something that threw the plane temporarily outside its intentionally limited flight envelope. Bravo for the pilot. Probably a test pilot that could have won every fight if he had been allowed.

@thedeathwobblechannel6539

Жыл бұрын

You guys also need to remember they probably said the same crap about the F-16 when it was new they did say the same thing about the m1 Abrams as it was coming into production it's the same people saying the same crap that these new products these new weapons are garbage until they get all their bugs worked out in the cruise in the pilots and the operators get really good at using it correctly it's the same old tune it's junk 10 20 30 years in it's the best thing going

@thedeathwobblechannel6539

Жыл бұрын

@@jasonrhodes9683 I expect from the program to develop lifting bodies which led to the space shuttle the up 35 has some chunkiness in the middle of it that is also part of that lifting body technology that's why it's got little wings but it still flies just fine just throwing that out there

@jasonrhodes9683

Жыл бұрын

@@thedeathwobblechannel6539 all US 4gen fighters are lifting bodies, F14, F15 F16 and F18. Both of our 5th gen fighters are lifting bodies. Their wings are more for stability and roll control than lift.

Great video!

Great segment Alex as per usual!

Thank you for the thorough explanation here. Really makes sense of what was thought to be a bad situation.

Where I work the F35 has little trouble "winning" engagements against anything, including F22's. It's upgraded engine has given it the ability to rival the F16 in speed and agility in those engagements. Typically, when they are beaten, it's because the playing field was levelled by attaching wing pylons, which makes it very visible. They do the same thing with the F22, and that's why sometimes you'll read how some foreign Air Force jet won. When they do stuff like that it's not to make it a contest. It's to give the agressor pilot training and experience. Something he/she wouldn't get if they just got "shot down" every time they went up. It also gives the F35/F22 pilot training and experience in being defensive.

A wise man once said "appear weak when you are strong."

The F-35 was still in the block 1 software. The Block 4 modernization program is set to upgrade the Lockheed Martin-made F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with more powerful computing systems, software updates and new weapons and equipment. Block 1 was a watered down version, not even considered an upgrade. It was set deliberately until the F35 was ready for the next levels. Slowly but surely, the software and hardware upgrades is getting there

Not only did the F-35 have both of its digital wings tied behind its back it still went up against a F-16 a fighter built specifically to dogfight its literally a light fighter which the F-16 has very good rating capabilities

@Utubesuperstar

Жыл бұрын

And the 35 is built as a 1 circle fighter so a turn fighter not a rate fighter the 16 is an unmatched rate fighter however rate fighting is completely useless in a hobs fox 2 fight the modern dogfight is a one circle cause that’s the best way to jam the wez and get a shot off and the 35 excels at one circle so in a proper fight it would absolutely smoke a 16

The F16 is one of the all time greatest dog fighter of all time. The F35 would remove it from the sky without it ever even knowing the 35 was there.

Good video. I'll also point out that the whole point of stealth is not invisibility like a Star Trek cloaking device, it's to have the F35 see the target before it sees them. Presumably, if a close in dogfight happens, that stealth has somewhat failed. So having the planes start the fight NOT in contact so that they'd have to find the other aircraft would presumably allow the F35 to fire a missile or two before the enemy even knew there was a fight.

The F-35 basically moves like 5th Gen Charlie Hornet with excess power. It is not a "rate" fighter like the F-16, as it pertains to BFM. It's an "AoA" fighter, because "rate" fighters are obsolete in the age of HOBS/HMDs. Because of it's power and huge control surfaces, it can "do whatever it takes" to get a firing solution first, or jam the WEZ of another fighter (and weapons) if jumped. Although thermally limited to lower supersonic speeds, it's power gives it acceleration in tight maneuvering within the subsonic/low supersonic regime that has been seriously underestimated.

@scootiepatootie7721

Жыл бұрын

The rate fighter isn’t entirely obsolete

@ryanestes7331

Жыл бұрын

@@scootiepatootie7721 of course, nothing is ever truly obsolete, just it's not the best strategy anymore

@ray32245mv

Жыл бұрын

@@scootiepatootie7721 Use case? Spiraling to the floor over a modern battlefield is certain death imho. If a J-20, or Su-35 decides todays the day during an intercept, theres no time to rate.

@saquist

Жыл бұрын

F35 isn't even a AoA Fighter because while it can bleed off it's speed to pull lead it can't gain it back because it's low thrust to weight.

@ray32245mv

Жыл бұрын

@@saquist It has the almost exactly the same thrust to weight as a F16C with full internal fuel and combat load, more raw power than a F18C. The "underpowered F35" is a myth, full stop.

I think you should have gone into more detail about the software limitations on the flight performance. There’s a video of a female F35 test pilot saying that the software limitations in that test were adding delay to control inputs and limiting max angle of flight control surfaces and limiting max G’s. I’ve also seen accounts from F35 pilots saying it basically flies a bit better than an F16 in terms of turn rate and roll rate, but with smooth as fuck stability. One said it was like playing a video game with how smooth and stable the F35 was flying. That it would quickly get its nose on target and do it with zero turbulence or deviations. The lifting body design that they drew from previous NASA projects and research contributed greatly to the ability to make the F35 small but have good lifting surface square footage

@vasjaforutube1

Жыл бұрын

Comparing F-35 manoeuvrability with Thunderbolt? Really? That's one of the greatest pieces of data massage, I've seen in my life. Why don't they compare it to P-51 Mustang then? (uh, oh, I know why - because the comparison would be unfavourable for F-35...)

@Warhamsterxxx

Жыл бұрын

"Smooth as f@%*". I could never understand this expression. It kinda contradicts itself, an oxymoron, if you will. Isn't coitus usually an intense and rough physical activity?

@mappies123

Жыл бұрын

@@Warhamsterxxx but it's still got to go in smoothly otherwise it's just gonna hurt both parties

@Warhamsterxxx

Жыл бұрын

@@mappies123 this discussion is going south real fast.😂

@hunnybunnysheavymetalmusic6542

Жыл бұрын

Funny how they had to intentionally handicap the A-10 and cheat the results on their highly prejudiced fly-off because the F-35 can never maneuver at 1000 feet, can never bank and roll into and out of tight canyons where the enemy will hide from supersonic fighters, and the new HUD means nothing where a missile lacks the wide turning radius it needs to fire at tangential to obtuse angle targets. On top of that, it still has little effect on moving ground targets, especially on undulating terrain with obstructions, be they mere brush, or as opaque as stone fences and small buildings. When you get to ACTUAL URBAN combat, the F-35 is a PURE liability. It CAN NOT FLY through tightly grouped buildings. ALMOST no plane can. The only one known for this to any extent is the A-10 because it requires you fly slow enough to have reaction time and broad winged stability to ensure a sudden accidental twitch of the flight stick doesn't jink the plane into a building by mistake.

A lot of people fail to consider that the F-35 has internal weapons and fuel. The older jets have to hang everything from their wings and their internal fuel is pretty limited. So with an actual combat load, the F-35 would likely kick the F-16's ass or at least it would run it out of gas and then chase it away.

As I recall the dogfight you reference was 5 to 10 years ago. Closer to 5 years I think. The F-16 is a light weight 9G dogfighter. The F-35 was still in development with a Control Law limiting maneuvering to 5Gs. Easy to pick the winner. Why even have stealth if you do not use it. Why strip the F-35 of it’s powerful advantage unless….?

You also have to remember that the quoted top speed for the F-15 and F-16 is without missiles and external fuel tanks. In a real world config they are going to be much slower.

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

@Phillip Banes Tanks are not ejected until the fight progresses to a point where there's no turning back. You need fuel for ingress and egress so your speed is limited in most missions. You can engage from a position where ejecting the tanks is not necessary. Tanks do not grow on trees either so your commanding officers will want you to bring them back most of the time. External ordnance causes massive drag. Even in subsonic speeds aircraft use flush rivets because small dimples are enough to create tons of skin friction. Missiles hanging off the wings are like flat walls at supersonic speeds. All max speed figures you see are for unarmed and low fuel aircraft trying to score the highest value and get a fair comparison.

@saquist

Жыл бұрын

And the F35 is only going to achieve 1.6 Mach on 25% fuel so imagine how outclassed it will be on 4th gens with full internal fuel and a couple of missiles

@moalboris239

Жыл бұрын

Typically it's actually the reverse of that. Most of the time the stated airspeeds is actually lower than the max to make it harder to get a read on capabilities. So in general assume if you are given a number the real number is likely higher.

@saquist

Жыл бұрын

@@moalboris239 I've seen some comments on Qora that make the case for 1.8 mach based on certain flight envelopes...which seems very obvious with T/W but there would still structural limits which the GAO is implying the F35 has already reached because of tail damage on B and C since it can't accelerate fast enough to limit the plumes heat damage on the stabilizers. Taking longer to get to mach 1. Inertia is a Bastard.

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

@@phillipbanes5484 Yes. You're still not meant to jettison tanks until strictly necessary. A dogfight is already a dire situation. You already messed up.

Quoting Out Of The Shadows: RNLAF experiences with the F-35A - Combat Aircraft Magazine May 2018 specifically against David Axe's leaked Y2015 report. _Knight divulged a little more information about flying basic fighter manoeuvres (BFM) in an F-35. 'When our envelope was cleared to practise BFM we got the opportunity to fight some fourth-generation fighters. Remember, back the rumors were that the F-35 was a pig. The first time the opponents showed up [in the training area] they had wing tanks along with a bunch of missiles. I guess they figured that being in a dirty configuration wouldn't really matter and that they would still easily outmanoeuvre us. By the end of the week, though, they had dropped their wing tanks, transitioned to a single centerline fuel tank and were still doing everything they could not to get gunned by us. A week later they stripped the jets clean of all external stores, which made the BFM fights interesting, to say the least_ ---- 1. *Lightest empty weight F-16A MLU air-superiority* model needs to be clean (no weapons, no external tanks) to make visual range dogfight interesting against combat loaded F-35A Block 3F. 2. Dutch has acknowledged early F-35 Block builds being beaten by F-16s with external fuel tanks which are NOT applicable for F-35A Block 3F build. Don't use Block 2A/2B/3i numbers!

I see the F-35 as another tool in the toolbox, it doesn't render the rest of the tools useless it just does a new thing that is perfect for certain situations, which is why the older aircraft will continue to be in use for the foreseeable future, they do things the F-35 can't, and vice versa.

Really good video, first time watching but I appreciate the information density and the essay like structure. Too many channels just seem to ad lib and try to fill up time. Keep it up.

People don't want to admit that smart avionics use and situational awareness is what makes good fighter pilots.

@Gabriel-oq8gs

Жыл бұрын

That's because a lot of people seem to be stuck in the mindset of WWII. Not realizing just how much war has changed since then.

that bucket of old flares was something that the aim 9X never expected to run into... that shit made me giggle out loud

Would love your take on the modified F-16 flown by an a.i. recently. Great video, thank you!

I've always thought there's more to the story but never actually researched it, this video finally settles it and confirms my skepticism. Absolutely brilliant video and narration.

The best way I can describe the f-35 is it is a long range stealth standoff platform, actually designed more to act as a airborne command and control integration aircraft in a much smaller package with ACM capability remember this aircraft carries more sensors than it does weapons and it's very good for what it is actually designed to do

@alekonicolacakis7002

Жыл бұрын

exactly the f22 is the kill everything plane, the f35's are to make sure everything stays dead at least thats how i understand it

@wilfdarr

Жыл бұрын

Ya, it's almost more of a miniaturized AWACS than it is a traditional fighter. Which is why as a Canadian, though I love the F-35, I just don't think it's right for us: pair it with F-15s, 16s and 18s it's a genuine force multiplier, but by itself as Canada intends to run it, besides the propaganda value, I think we'd be better served with super hornets.

@valenrn8657

Жыл бұрын

Nope. Quoting Out Of The Shadows: RNLAF experiences with the F-35A - Combat Aircraft Magazine May 2018 specifically against David Axe's leaked Y2015 report. Knight divulged a little more information about flying basic fighter manoeuvres (BFM) in an F-35. 'When our envelope was cleared to practise BFM we got the opportunity to fight some fourth-generation fighters. Remember, back the rumors were that the F-35 was a pig. The first time the opponents showed up [in the training area] they had wing tanks along with a bunch of missiles. I guess they figured that being in a dirty configuration wouldn't really matter and that they would still easily outmanoeuvre us. By the end of the week, though, they had dropped their wing tanks, transitioned to a single centerline fuel tank and were still doing everything they could not to get gunned by us. A week later they stripped the jets clean of all external stores, which made the BFM fights interesting, to say the least ---- 1. Lightest empty weight F-16A MLU air-superiority model needs to be clean (no weapons, no external tanks) to make visual range dogfight interesting against combat-loaded F-35A Block 3F. 2. Dutch has acknowledged early F-35 Block builds being beaten by F-16s with external fuel tanks which are NOT applicable for F-35A Block 3F build. * Don't use Block 2A/2B/3i numbers!*

Love your videos, you always go so much deeper than other airpower videos on KZread. Love the indepth look at this issue and other issues you cover. another epic documentary!

Gentlemen, I'm thinking This is our Panther tank

Visual perception and the high intensity of radar beams at short range negate the advantage of a lowered radar cross section during a dogfight. The main advantage of stealth technology is that it allows the stealth aircraft to strike from surprise, at the time and place of the pilot's choosing, and potentially attack and withdraw without being noticed.

That was 6 years ago. The Block 3 upgrades have eliminated these issues. Now the F-35 has upgraded the software, engine performance, and helmet integration is well beyond any 4th generation plane.

@larsjrgensen5975

Жыл бұрын

"Engine performance well beyond any 4th gen" On paper maybe, but a lot of other jets are faster F-14, F-15, F-16, Mig 31, SU 27, SU 34, SU 35, Gripen, Viggen. This is not even half of the aircraft that are faster then a F-35. Some of the ones listed are designed 50 years ago and if the F-35 somehow managed to reach the same speed by magic of software and engine improvements, it is going to burn its own skin off doing so.

@sgt.grinch3299

Жыл бұрын

@@larsjrgensen5975 the new ceramic coatings are able to withstand the heat for longer periods of time while retaining their stealth characteristics. The engine performance is upgraded over the previous generations. Dog fights are not fought at Mach speeds. Most are around 350 to 400 knots depending on the airframe. Some prefer lower speeds, such as Eurofighter and others prefer higher speeds such as the F-16.

@larsjrgensen5975

Жыл бұрын

@@sgt.grinch3299 The paint is the magic, trying to coat the paint to have higher durability would make the ceramic coating the outer detectable layer instead of the paint surface underneath. Change the coating and you will change the radar signature. Dogfights: look at airshow footage, the F-35 is in afterburner 80% of the time and more sleek aircraft like the F-16, Gripen or SU-27 use afterburner 20-30% of the time, indicating that the F-35 needs a lot more thrust during acrobatics. The planed engine upgrade will help, but the engine upgrade was mostly invented because the F-35 did not live up to the specs promised about durability and electrical power and heat management, so they may only slightly pass the promised numbers at this point.

The F-16 can also take off-botesite shots using it's own Helmet Mounted cueing system, JHMCS. I'm sure the Fighting Falcon wasn't using JHMCS either. The F-15 and F/A-18 have JHMCS too and the F-22 would have had it too if the Raptor program didn't get so extensive.

@redslate

Жыл бұрын

And there it is...

@adjustings673

Жыл бұрын

As I understand it, the Raptor hasn't been upgraded to HOBS slewing because the -9X would be held in an internal bay & the seeker head can't be slewed to the target before launch, sort of defeating the purpose.

@the2ndprotectstherest582

Жыл бұрын

@@adjustings673 makes sense too

@redslate

Жыл бұрын

@@adjustings673 That is true, but they tested that on a 35. "Trapeze" system, 9X blk II

@the2ndprotectstherest582

Жыл бұрын

@DeadManWalking if they don't go put the stuff system in cockpit blanking, yes they can. Well you can't actual see the THROUGH the cockpit but you can see your MIDS and other tracks. The F-35 can't actually see through their cockpit either unless you have a sensor turned on, like FLIR.

Excellent knowledge base - you know your stuff JR

You did a great job at explaining the rest of the story. Thanks.....

The F-35B wasn't designed to be a dogfighting machine. It was designed to shoot down enemy aircrafts from beyond the visual range.

@saquist

Жыл бұрын

I wish he had made the point in video. There are people here that think he refuted the BFM trials and he clearly didn't.

fantastic video, I would love if you did one diving deep into the dogfights of the vietnam war and why they didn't go as planned

@sooyster4033

Жыл бұрын

Listen to "Jocko Podcast" episode on the founding of Top Gun. The guest speaker has insights into it.

@jessISaRicePrincess

Жыл бұрын

The US basically put all their eggs in the missile basket. Basically early AA missiles where unreliable

In any case, concepts like Raytheon's Peregrine air-to-air missile which would double the F-35's internal carriage capacity seem like a brilliant move. Limited maneuverability is a moot point when all the aggressors are dead.

Thank you! That was very clarifying!

The same things happened to test F-22’s but for different reasons. Test pilots have said F-22 can’t dogfight much better than current gen fighters but the DoD won’t allow pilots to truly push the jet due to the fear of even allies learning about their capabilities.

@Spaced92

Жыл бұрын

Updated F-22's were getting regularly beaten by Typhoons, it's just an outdated way of looking at fighter performance.

@imawsomeandyournot6108

Жыл бұрын

@@Spaced92 source: i made it the fuck up

@valenrn8657

Жыл бұрын

@@Spaced92 *USAF sources say that the Typhoon has good energy and a pretty good first turn, but that they were able to outmaneuver the Germans due to the Raptor's thrust vectoring. Additionally, the Typhoon was not able to match the high angle of attack capability of the F-22. "We ended up with numerous gunshots," another USAF pilot says* Both Eurofighter and F-16 have a similar angle of attack capability.

@maverick8697

Жыл бұрын

@@valenrn8657 "Typhoon has good energy"- Energy retention or recovery?

@nickthompson2023

Жыл бұрын

@@CaptainDangeax there’s numerous sources online you’re free to look up if you don’t believe me.

I remember having this argument with a fellow sim pilot and once the truth about the software holding back the F-35 and basically castrating it, there was no denying the intentional mismatch that was created. The F-35 is a BEAST of an aircraft and we're fortunate to have it. When all 3 versions get their gun operational, it will be even more devastating.

@tastywaves6043

Жыл бұрын

All three versions have had operational guns. CTOL's is internal and STOVL/CV have gun pods.

@debbiestimac5175

Жыл бұрын

@Growseth Jones It originated in 1914, during World War One and a cherished descriptor, paying homage to those that fought and died in the skies before us, forging the tactics and techniques still used today. Might as well demand the United States change it's name. Or is that on your list too?

@liberalhere3731

Жыл бұрын

I suspect the real point behind the exercise was to identify fundamental weaknesses in the plane. The limits merely focused and magnified those weaknesses. Individual pilot strengths and weaknesses were minimized.

@Truex007

Жыл бұрын

@@debbiestimac5175 Well... we're anything BUT united now...

@hf117j

Жыл бұрын

@@Truex007 Yeah we're more or less the I'm stuck with these idiots states

8:40 In essence, it was a training maneuver, NOT a combat maneuver.

F-35 is a long-range killer, and if an enemy engaged in gun range, then the pilot did something very wrong.

Great video and great information as usual, without all the internet BS. Thanks for always finding the truth about what is really happening!

Unfortunately when this test was performed the helmet had not been fully integrated into the flying platform. It was still in development

The lack of the ability to use hightech targeting systems in a dogfight that is reliant on maneuverability does not change the fact that it lacks the maneuverability necessary in a dogfight to be able to get its nose on target and engage threats effectively.

Two totally different mission objectives. Stealth vs. Anti air defense.

Best Military hardware channel around. I look forward to watching them.

@oddy1637

Жыл бұрын

Lol no

@MeMyselfI_69

Жыл бұрын

@@oddy1637 Who do you recommend?

@Ilyak1986

Жыл бұрын

@@MeMyselfI_69 if you haven't familiarized yourself with him yet, Ward Carroll's channel is phenomenal. Not making a comparison as both channels are fantsatic.

Another interesting and informative video Alex! And yes, I would like to see your airwar assessment in Vietnam!

Vertical landing is such a boss move

Great video. Great info ✌🏼👍🏼

Alex, I always enjoy your content, but this one is a real stand-out. Setting up the context of this exercise and the subsequent report has been missing from the public enthusiast realm for way too long. Yes, these aircraft are expensive; America has run that way since WW-II. Every new platform from the F-4 onward has had significant teething pains, and the Lightning II is no different. Thanks again for content that really entertains and educates, and BTW, you have some fabulous videos as background to your commentary!

@blazesaber5991

Жыл бұрын

Reminds me of the teething pains the F-16 had. Test pilots nicknamed it the lawn dart after some of the early models would randomly plunge into a nosedive and crash gear up.

14:05 modern F-16s also have an HMCS and the pilot can also fire the aim9x off-boresight. I'd say the F-35 is rather designed with the premise that modern aircombat isn't decided in close air combat, but beyond visual range, where its superior radar and of course its stealth capabilities are major advantages.

Hey Alex, Love your content and picked up on you from HLC. I am an old Av8B mech and a Desert Shield/Storm Vet. I must say for full disclosure that I have been an F35 detractor. The boondoggle that has been for this platform and the Osprey has me jaded. I must say with all honesty that you have given me a new perspective of the F35 and its capabilities. For that I say thank you. However... The Osprey... can you change my mind? I was selected to be an aircrewman and thankfully must say I turned it down. If I hadn't I probably wouldn't be here today.

@ericmyrs

7 ай бұрын

It's obviously more complicated than just pure losses, but I'd take a look at the loss data of the Blackhawk from when the Osprey entered service and compare. All rotary wing aircraft are dangerous, same goes for the Osprey.

Putting the F-16 and the F-35 into a dogfight and drawing conclusions out of it was like putting a rooster and an eagle into a cockfighting ring. The rooster is likely to win the match in those circumstances, but put the rooster out on a field and he'll be eagle lunch before he knows it. The F-35 was not designed to dogfight but to blow up the enemy *before* they even realize they're in a fight.

Thank you for this, as I get so frustrated by people who read an old report and think they know everything. A few other facts to keep in mind, that F-35 mentioned in the 2015 report was using SIT v1 software, over a year ago SIT v5 was installed and they probably are on v6 or greater by now. With SIT v5 software they found that the F-35 could obtain super cruse (Something it was never design for), could perform a 9.9g turn, compared to the F16s 9.0g turn and can carry 20,000 of weapons compared to the A10s 15,000 pounds.

@kalashnikovdevil

Жыл бұрын

Let's be real, most of them don't read that report.

@MauricioBarragan

Жыл бұрын

@@kalashnikovdevil😂😂 facts.

@saquist

Жыл бұрын

Why don't you get more frustrated with the comparison of a BFM (within Visual Range) Trials with a Red Flag (BVR) Exercise? I didn't see anything here that directly contradicted those Trials. So it was software limited on maneuvering? That's not quite the same as what the pilot said was wrong which was "Energy Management Issues". That was never contradicted and a Red Flag Exercise isn't a measure of those abilities.

The F 35 was not meant to be a dog fighter interceptor it is meant to be an Strategic platform that works over the horizon using a net work approach with other F 35s in concert in a layered situational awareness Node And to work with his little radar signature as possible and stealth mode

@valenrn8657

Жыл бұрын

F-35A can execute a 9G dogfight at Block 3F state.

Dogfight days are over son, you would get an AMRAM in the chin before you even know it

Let everyone underestimate the f35. When they see it in combat they will not live to tell the tale. It’s better to be underestimated.

I wanted to be a fighter pilot when I was young…eyesight wasn’t that good (wore contacts) so I became a Corpsman in the Navy. But watching these videos just brings back those memories of me dreaming about flying a fighter plane…beautiful planes.

@twelvestitches984

Жыл бұрын

A corpsman with bad eyesight? Uh oh... Careful with those needles.

Although it's not a fighter jet I still miss seeing the SR-71 fly. I grew up in the hills above Beale's Air force base and got to witness some of the most amazing jets. I also got to see the Stealth bombers and fighters being tested long before most people ever heard of them. There is still one jet I can't identify it had a rotating canard wing that rotated in front of the pilot's canopy. It was super narrow and looked a bit like a narrow rocket, it was painted white and flew right over the top of our house and I saw while standing behind our house on our property. We lived out in the country on close to 10 acres of land. I only saw that particular jet once and I'm assuming it must have been a prototype of some kind. I don't think it was a drone since it had a pilot's canopy and this was in the mid-1980's. I never saw any U2 spy planes since they would increase elevation so quickly. However when the SR-71s flew by they were leaking fuel like crazy and tons of smoke, after take off they were still relatively cold before their skins would heat up and expand. I love jets and planes of all kinds, certainly they are an incredible weapon but there is also real beauty with them much like how you can admire a shark even though it's an incredible predator.

@johnnyboythepilot4098

Жыл бұрын

Did the mystery canard Jet look like the Rockwell HiMAT by any chance? It was a remotely-piloted scaled demonstrator with a fake canopy that tested concepts for fighter maneuverability. Sounds a lot like it. There's also the Grumman X-29, another canard prototype/test plane.

@milododds1

Жыл бұрын

@@johnnyboythepilot4098 the canard was smaller and built into the actual nose cone area. The jet was also much narrower and smaller than the Rockwell. The nose cone also rotated or so it seemed but the again it could have been the body of the plane also rotating. I have seen lots of interesting planes fly but by far this has always been the most mysterious of them all. I also remember timing the Stealth Bomber when it would fly in a circle, every 6 minutes it would fly inverted at the exact point in the sky. I knew at that point it was flying by computer. It would change from gray to black based on how they painted the bottom and top. At the time I tried to explain to my parents what I was seeing. I knew it was military and not a UFO, growing up near Beale’s Airforce Base was such a extra bonus. We knew two of the SR-71 pilots, these guys never needed plastic surgery. The G-forces on their faces made their facial skin super tight, and these guys were super fit.

@milododds1

Жыл бұрын

The other cool thing about growing up in Grass Valley was having Chuck Jeager as part of our community, him and his wife lived off Highway 174, he was a neighbor of my school friend Dino who he interviewed Mr. Jeager for his 6th grade report of a famous person. I did my report on Robert Goddard. As you can tell lots of us were into planes and rockets. The actor who played Slider in the original TOP GUN, Rick Rosovich also grew up in Nevada County. Their extended family were heavily involved with 4-H and FFA. Such a great place to grow up.

@RamadaArtist

Жыл бұрын

​@@milododds1 It sounds a lot like you're describing the XB-70, but the last flight for that was in 1969. Unmanned drones have been used for target vehicles going back to the '50s, so it's very possible that what you saw was simply some kind of missile or rocket with extra telemetry equipment mounted in the front giving it the same characteristic bulge we see on current UAVs. Afterall, the MQ-1 had its first flight in 1994, and one could easily expect companies to have been producing similar one-off prototypes a decade before anything finalized for production came to the table.

@milododds1

Жыл бұрын

@@RamadaArtist it looked very much like a Mig-21 with the canard, it wasn’t curved like the XB-70 nor that large. I remember it’s nose canard rotated in front of the canopy. It looked more like a rotating rocket. It was very narrow and was quite small in comparison to other jets.

Another problem with the "war is boring/f35 can't dogfight" claim... Normally when 2 planes dogfight they will use the manoeuvres that their plane is best at (while avoiding situations where their opponent's plane has an advantage). But in the given study the 2 planes were engaged in a set of pre-determined manoeuvres. So the f35 (instead of using what it was best at, even in its crippled state) was forced to contend with situations which favored the f16.

This is essentially a prototype corvette on a test track with 4 tiny donut spare tires.

Thanks for taking the time to properly research and then present the information about this. As always, your videos are excellent. And, yes please, I'd love to hear your analysis of the air campaign during Vietnam. Thanks!

Well, this puts me more at ease with this aircraft. Thank you. I was very concerned before, having long since read the Arthur C. Clarke short story, "Superiority", and old enough to have seen such military blunders take place in the past.

@MrJdsenior

Жыл бұрын

Have faith, the engineers and military folks that produce requirements, for, and design and produce these weapons are NOT stupid. I know, because I was one of those designers, and the guys I worked with on multiple programs were brilliant, most of them. This entire test, the purpose of it, and the design phase that plane was in at the time made the media argument beyond stupid. No doubt in combat the F22/F35 WILL be found to have some deficiencies, EVERY weapon does, especially fighter aircraft, but overall it will perform spectacularly. I can't guarantee that, but I have virtually no doubt it will be true. Oh, and yeah, stupid crap DOES occur, believe you me. One time my boss gave me an assignment to check up on something I already knew the answer to. He asked me later if I'd done it and I answered "no". "Why not?", he asked. I said because I was too busy trying to get real work done, and just as a smart ass aside, I added that sometimes I had to protect him from himself. He laughed. Not all of my bosses had a sense of humor, but he did. There are definitely some known problems with HIGHLY stealth aircraft, one being the enormous maintenance required, but one of the worst offenders, as I understand it, was just improved upon dramatically, the absorptive coating(s?), in terms of longevity. That was just via general reading, I am retired so I have no window inside anymore, at all, but something that looked at least very promising. The media running with this was just silly. I can design a specific test in one second off the top of my head where the F16 will have literally ZERO percent chance of winning. Paint a box 20 feet wider and longer than the aircraft and require the two jets to exit and return to that box, without touching any other area. Does that mean the F35 has infinitely more value than the F16? Only if that is a requirement of that mission. The test this video is referring to was about that same level of usefulness, because obviously there are MANY missions where vertical takeoff is not a requirement, at all, and that one derivative capability COSTS the F35 in some performance parameters over the versions not so equipped. And in the real world F35/F16 case, the F16 is highly unlikely to get anywhere near the F35, before it is splattered, and there were restrictions on the test, even beyond the lack of a finished, ready for production F35. I am a fan of Clarke, and Asimov as favorite SciFi writers. I don't remember reading that short story, but will look it up. One reason I liked Clarke and Asimov is that they were actual physicists, and while they took the license of prescience (literally pre science, or science FICTION :-) ), they operated within real world physics when there was no reason not to. A lot of science fiction today (and then) is just irritating, they can't even get the units to make sense (the Kessel run in 12 parsecs kind of stuff). Star Wars was fun, but good grief. When he said it I had one of those record scratch moments. If you've never read Jule's Verne's "Trip to the moon", give it a read. And then look at when it was written, and what technology was present at the time. Some of it is silly, sure, but some of it is amazing, taken in context, I think. He obviously wasn't a physicist (hopefully anyway), but he had a great imagination and he wasn't THAT far off on some of it, considering. He even had a book he wrote that depicted Paris in the 21st century that nobody would publish because it was too far fetched. He actually had gasoline powered vehicles, skyscrapers, and mass transit written in....LUDICROUS! Not too shabby for a lawyer.

@vilefly

Жыл бұрын

@@MrJdsenior Interesting. I keep forgetting to get some Jule's Verne in my library. Oh, wikipedia says this about the short story: "Superiority" is a science fiction short story by British writer Arthur C. Clarke, first published in 1951. It depicts an arms race during an interstellar war. It shows the side which is more technologically advanced being defeated, despite its apparent superiority, because of its willingness to discard old technology without having fully perfected the new. Meanwhile, the enemy steadily built up a far larger arsenal of weapons that while more primitive were also more reliable. The story was at one point required reading for an industrial design course at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.