The F-35: Better Than You Think
The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is surrounded by controversy regarding not only it's potential capabilities in battle, but also its affordability. Taken out of context, this is true - however, in today's episode, we take a sledgehammer to those allegations in order to prove that the F35 is more capable than you'd think.
Got a beard? Good. I've got something for you: beardblaze.com
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
Love content? Check out Simon's other KZhead Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Warographics: / @warographics643
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Into The Shadows: / intotheshadows
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Casual Criminalist: / thecasualcriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: / @decodingtheunknown2373
"F-35 can't dogfight" is as ridiculous as "military sniper would lose in a boxing match against former heavyweight champion George Foreman."
Too true lol
Except the F-35 has proven it can dog fight, but as a military sniper, I know I’m not standing a chance winning against even the worst professional boxer in a boxing match
Except it's an being sold as the ultimate jack of all trades multi role fighter.
@@joeyjojojrshabadoo7462 to be fair, in the multi-role fighter arena it’s largely delivering
Nearly every military sniper would loose badly to any retired pro heavyweight boxer.bad example budd
"If you asked the consumer what they wanted, they'd have just asked for faster horses" -Henry Ford
Considering where the planet has ended up due to automobile culture, I consider any quote from Henry Ford to be a cautionary tale.
@@ImpactWench Transportation is only responsible for 15% of greenhouse gas emissions. Electricity production is the main source.
@@ImpactWench Nice to see you don't even ee as far as the end of your nose.
@@fukkitful Yeah, and what do you need that electricity for? Transportation creation methods? you see the flaw in your "labelling"?
@@garyleibitzke4166 That Electricity is used by what? Production, transportation, or fuel for Tesla Automobiles? LOL
I'm a retired US Navy Officer and I'd love to share a comment and a suggestion for a new show. Not only is the F-35 a really good plane--on its own--but I'd suggest that it is the most revolutionary naval aircraft in history, by a large margin. The Naval variant of the F-35, with VSTOL technology, is so good and so versatile that it has redefined naval warfare. Before the F-35, navies with jump-deck carriers were limited to planes like the Harrier. They were super cool for their time (the 1970's) but were slow, had limited range and were no match for even a 1960's F-4 (ask the RN about the fun they had in the Falklands). With the Harrier, modern navies could have a fixed wing air arm on paper, but God help them if they ever encountered a real air force. The F-35, on the other hand, can take off from a jump deck and actually perform like a real fighter. Even better, it can use it's VSTOL capability to take off and land from a completely flat deck of an amphibious ship or even a large destroyer! Think about that. Any navy with F-35's and a large, flat deck ship suddenly has a pretty capable fixed wing fighter force. Now, they use a lot of fuel taking off and landing like that, and there are some other performance limitations, but they are still pretty damn good, fixed wing, stealth, 5th generation planes. Suddenly, Australia, Spain, The Netherlands, Japan, Good Korea (South Korea), and any other US ally with a large flat decked amphibious ship potentially has a small but very powerful naval air force. This changes everything.
I appreciate this comment, you make good points. thank you
Uh a couple corrections The F-35C is the carrier version of the aircraft (Navy) The F-35B is the SVTOL version (Marines)
You don't need to be a Navy Officer (not that it is a qualification that would make you an expert) to say the basics you just did. Goldman Sachs is a million times more powerful than your fighters. The change they bring hardly makes up for the changes that happened around the world. Countries are not as welcoming to hosting US rapists on the mainland anymore and the US has to spend more time on their ships. How many girls have you raped yourself in the "good" Korea you brainwashed simpleton? Good old times are gone. You can play with your f35s on deck and eat canned food :D
hero, you there? or did I get shadowbanned for offending your holiness
@@janrozsypal7079 wrong
due to the many published articles knocking the F-35 I now realize that I have completely misunderstood what an F-35 really is all about. Thanks Simon as I stand corrected now
it doesn't matter if it can't dogfight if nothing can detect it and it can detect EVERYTHING else on the battlefield within like 100 miles and engage and destroy all of it.
@@tacotown4598 you mean to tell me not all jets are dog fighters in the 21st century?
@@Lancer_0010 yes.
For a historical context both the F-16 and F/A-18, along with many other fighters were heavily criticized when they entered service. But as we know now both fighter are highly successful designs.
Oh yes that will be Fat Amy
@@Preciouspink Leave your mother out of this.
We don't talk and The Reformers
The key difference is that they weren't criticised ON SOCIAL MEDIA. Both were established, successful designs long before that shitshow rolled around. For those that don't know, the F-16 was killing pilots in crashes a good decade after its' introduction at a fair old rate (although, to be fair, that was partially due to the large numbers that were in service), and the F-18 has design flaws now so entrenched that the operators just train the pilots how to avoid flying in a manner that will cause problems, rather than fixing the issues
@@talltroll7092 I live in Phoenix, Arizona near Luke Airforce Base which trained F-16 pilots. It was so bad out here that people morbidly called it the F-16 Lawndart.
I remember when the F-15 was starting to come online and critics, including members of Congress, complained that it had only a single mission, it was too expensive, and too complicated for the average maintainer to work on. The F-15 has come a long way and is still a potent aircraft.
F15 over its history has had 105+ kills and zero losses. Against sub-par third-world militaries of course (as the cold war thankfully never turned hot) but still a great showing nonetheless.
1 argument was you could by 2 f16 for 1 f15. Both have become the nest investments of all time. Right up there with the C130 and C47
@@MoizRafay I dont think the Israel pilots would agree with that.
LM has been in this business for a long time now... "As of December 2020, the only combat-ready stealth aircraft in service are the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit (1997), the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor (2005); the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (2015);[12][13] the Chengdu J-20 (2017),[14] and the Sukhoi Su-57 (2020),[15] " ...that's 2 out of 5...
A large number are now known as "bomb trucks"...... How times change.!
The workforce is everything. If you don't build these advanced aircraft, you will not have anyone who can. The cost of these projects is the cost of maintaining the knowledge and skills to create it.
Much less so these days. The rate of technological improvement is up, and the rate of new aircraft introduction is down. Look at the F16 vs F22. 25 years between entering service. And the materials used and assembly methods are quite different as well. Less of the craftsman's knowledge gets re-used.
@@normbarrows :) The craftsmen's knowledge is an evolving thing. It's not static at all. Your're correct everything is very different from prior platforms. But it could surprise you how little time is needed to lose the knowledge to do a process.
This is actually very fair.
@@mael6834 this is also very fair.
We learned that lesson with nuclear submarines. Yes the Virginia Class is a world beater but one of the main reasons the US military built the Virginia Class is to keep a workforce that can build submarines
A friend of mine is an F 35 pilot and over the course of a 10 day backpacking trip I heard numerous tales of its use in combat and his general opinions of it. Suffice to say, he raved about this aircraft and loves flying it.
Another piece of missing context from the "F-35 cant dogfight" report is that it was very early days of its flight control software package. This software was missing critical parameters regarding 'energy management' which defines best turning radius and speed parameters for the computers to target during dogfighting. Meaning, the F35 is now much better at 'pointing its nose'. That said, its clearly not designed as an air superiority fighter. As a multi role fighter its designed to replace f-16's and f-18's. F-22's and in due time, the NGAD will fill the air dominance role.
The age of dogfights is pretty much over. Hell, even the age of air to air kills is pretty much over. Air to air kills are incredibly uncommon, for example the AIM54 Phoenix missile built for the F14 tomcat was only ever launched 3 times in it's lifetime and it failed to hit anything each time. There has only been one air to air kill in the last 20 years and only about 10 air to air kills in the last 30 years. The military is always stubbornly far behind the times in terms of practicality.
@@rubiconnn they claimed that dogfights were over in the ‘50’s too. The Su-57 doesn’t give up on dogfighting capability, but the J-20 lacks an internal gun, suggesting that the Chinese are actually aiming for something like the F-35 that can probably dogfight if needed but does it as a secondary ability. Given that the Su-57 is basically unavailable with just a handful of planes built, it’s a question of… what’s actually out there that’s a better dogfighter than the F35? It can hold its own pretty well against the best of the 4th generation even if pushed into a fight. Usually 4th Gen will just evaporate at distance barely aware of what hit them against the F-35 though.
The F22 has absolutely no future since congress banned it's export. There's no point in aircraft that can't be easily used across nato
@@rubiconnn One, this is flat out untrue. While the US never did much with the AIM-54, the Iranians absolutely badtouched Iraq with them. In fact, the combat history if the F-14 in Iran absolutely blows away it's service in the US. Seriously, the F-14 did so much work for Iran that they should have put it on their flag in the 80s. Also, as I just said in a post I made, part of the problem with the reports on the F-35 is that said reports simply model the performance of the F-35 based on list numbers. The snag is that they tend to use the numbers for max fuel and max weight, which means it is loaded with bombs. If it's ever actually in an air to air dogfight, it would have less than 50% of it's massive internal fuel load and it's missile loadout is extremely light when compared to it's maximum bomb load out. In such a loadout, it's performance is quite decent and when combined with it's incredible helmet sight and sensor system, it can win a dogfight against damned near anything that flies. Welcome to the future boys
@@Justanotherconsumer The SU-57 is pretty much a paper airplane. It's highly likely that the only fight it ever sees was in Top Gun Maverick. The J-20 won't be nearly as stealthy as the American planes. They will present problems but F-35's should be able to kill them before they are seen in return. The biggest problem they will present is that they are probably just stealthy enough to get close and fire off long range missiles at our AWACS and refueling planes.
The whole "dogfighting vs. networking" thing reminds me of the cheesy climax of an action movie where the villain says "And what do you have that I don't?" and the hero(ine) says "I have FRIENDS!" and then the whole team busts in to save the day.
It's pretty much that, except it's an ass load of AMRAAMs from BVR and Loyal Wingman drones.
"I'm gonna kill you with the power of friendship" in literal sense
power of Friendship...and bombs, and missiles..
"...and this B61 I found"
Steamies vs diesels flashback anyone?
I’ve noticed that the air show f35 demos have become more snappy, showing off the nimbleness of the plane. And it is pretty damn impressive. Even after watching the f16s. It does things well.
As a French viewer I found really cute your pronounciation of the Dassault Rafale. You were quite right with Dassault but the e at the end of Rafale is silent. You made it sound like the firstname Raphaël which was really cute and fun to hear ;) And as proud as I can be of our home made Rafale, I am still quite happy we are allies with the USA :)
Allo allo
When you get old enough, as a military aviation enthusiast, you remember how EVERY new weapons system ever introduced has the same challenges and commentary. Even today new systems and capability are being added, worldwide, to systems that have served for a while.
And Pierre Sprey was involved in almost all of those controversies and negative commentaries.
@Ron Conte thats just patently untrue. Even when Iraq bought F-16's in 2014~2017 they were more expensive than F-35's are now. Iraq bought them for $105m vs F-35A's $77m and F-16's are much older and not even remotely as capable as F-35's.
I wrote an research article on that. No other weapon system which is comparable to this plane ever had so many and such extensive problems like F-35. While it is true that every other aircraft had many problems, they never had been this problematic. Usually minor adjustments and improvements done which always happen when introducing new vehicle. F-35 however was a dud 30 years after its introduction. Only now it had finally matured enough to be worth a purchase. Also, Ha ru. F-35 is more expensive. Its sticker price is manipulated and does not include things which you would normally expect. Furthermore, its maintenance and upgrades are far more expensive.
@@Haeruna pierre spraying hot air
@@Haeruna lmfao no. You need to add 430 million to the cost of that f35. Stop making shit up
Ok, so the complaint in the "F-35 can't dogfight" paper was that it couldn't win against an F-16 attacking from the rear? Neither can an F-16. That scenario is considered the most difficult dogfight out there. So much so that even experienced pilots are expected to lose if jumped from behind.
And even then, the F-35 that was being used in that series of tests was also still being tested in extreme maneuverability and still had software limiting it's maneuverability to 7G's stress on the airframe as further tests would require the software limits continuing to be adjusted with each new test, and it is now rated for 9+ G's, or in other words it has much better maneuverability than it did then.
At the time the f35 was made they were limited to 7 g and the pilots weren't allowed to go beyond that until more testing and bugs were worked out.
The F-35 can in fact win in that situation. It has a 360 degree missile firing arc.
@@kalashnikovdevil It can get a radar read on the F-16 behind it, sure, but unless they loaded the missile pointing backwards in the first place (and made it useless aggressively in the process, never mind that the missile probably isn't designed to be fired through its own plane's jetwash as well as other technical issues like that) then the missile wouldn't be able to fire at the F-16. It doesn't have a tight enough turning circle to actually connect with a bandit on its pilot's tail. This is something that might be useful in long range engagements, where the F-35 might need to dump ordinance before turning and running, but it's not useful at dogfight ranges.
So why spend the extra money you haven't got ?
The f35 can’t destroy a squadron of su57s, because there isn’t a squadron of su57s!
I work on the 35 As I have for around 8 years now. I've seen what they can do and the path forward for them in the next ten years of retrofits. I can tell you with upmost certainty, that where we did go wrong with some of the purchasing aspects, and some of the issues of the program as a whole (not to get too specific but many of the support programs have been worked on through the length of the program, or the Airforce is currently going in a different direction) The F35 was not a waste, and 5th gen as a whole is leagues above any generation prior. The problem I think where people have, was the marketing of Lockheed for proposed uses as a multirole fighter. Also the if you have not worked on Jets, you don't know that the program that the jet comes with, upon purchasing is so much more than just the bird. (it's support for parts, it's engineer access, pilot/maintenance training, AGE, and external parts, it's warranty coverage, it's future upgrade potential, it's the tracking of maintenance across the fleet, and so so much more.) It is phenomenally good at the role we currently use it for. I've been to red flag in Vegas and AK, and have put my bird up and seen the numbers it comes down with. Some of which are in the numbers of 18 to 1 and that's against 16s and 22s with more experienced pilots I've seen the numbers other fighters come down with. 90% of the media that you hear on the 35 is people who have not ever stood even near one. There are negatives, and from a person who has been in the program, has done nose to tail maintenance on avionics, crew Cheif, fuels, LO, weapons, is a Craftsman ( or 7 level that oversees many of the maintenance from others now) I can say that you can make a case that the negatives could out way the positives. But as far as the role as it actually preforms, it is the best bird any country has ever put in the air.
Exactly ... well stated. I was on the "JSF Program" before we even won the competition and thru all the "LRIP's" (Coming off F-22 in '97) ... all over the World. Hellava ride Cowboy !!! The Author fails to emphasis a key component concerning "light armament" ... correct in stating SEED ops but failed to really explain the multiple Arrows in her Quill ... she is, above all, a "Flying Computer" and has the capability to lase the target and send ordinance from "other" platforms ... like the following 4th Gen platforms, SAM sites, and even "higher" platforms ("Space Force" isn't there for no reason). Keep up the good work and thanks for your input.
Can I also comment here how I also worked on it? Lol
@@nexpro6118 35 gang. 😅☠️ Hate it more often than not but bird still dope
thank you for your insight! much appreciated
The burning question is whether the overall cost of the program would have been cheaper if they had designed the A, B, and C variant separately from the drawing board rather than a one-plane-fits-all design.
If I'm not mistaken, the air combat manueverability test was performed at a very early stage in the f35's initial operations, when the airframe was G limited to around a max of 7Gs. It was several years later when they finally approved the f35 to perform to it's max 9G+ limit.
The B-model is still limited.
kzhead.infocdp8IKJIqxA?feature=share
@@Gunni1972 I wasn't aware of that. I'm surprised, as I thought it reached initial operations capability around 2015. Perhaps the lift fan system isn't capable of taking loads as high as 9Gs?
@@Gunni1972 Well, if it could reach 8g it would be on para with most older fighters
@@Gunni1972 The B model is perhaps only 10% of the total buy.
It would seem people have forgotten to ask two simple questions. What was it designed to do? Does it do what it was designed to do?
yes
That's a good point. But many countries' air forces have just one type of fighter jet, and if their new F-35s are not great as air superiority fighters that is a legitimate concern in my opinion. Many countries are switching from F-16s to the F-35, and while the new one is probably better in many ways, the air forces /are/ going to lose some capabilities with the F-35.
.. and have requirements now changed? And, is there a better alternative?
@@zuurbekje3125 You better take out the entire enemy force , because the turn around time is no longer gonna be counted in seconds or minutes , but hours.
@@yujinhikita5611 Get behind enemy lines and knock out the SAMS for other planes to come in behind I; "clearing the road" to speak.
The biggest thing to keep in mind with the downing of the F-117, America made no efforts to recover or destroy the Aircraft, because the technology was already very outdated, and but we dredged the sea for the crashed F-35............That should say it all.
Love this format. It's refreshing to hear a nice counter to prevailing opinions on a given topic.
In the firstt point you also missed that the F-35 in that dogfighting test was electronically restricted in performance capabilities as they were still trying to sort the avionics and flight controls. It wasn't even a fully functioning F35.
If the flight control had problem, they won't conduct any test in the air.
No. In that test, the flight firmware was intentionally leashed. The firmware had not yet qualified for all parts of the eventual flight regime. Also keep in mind that fighters are never flown clean. A F16 carrying war load would be both aerodynamically dirty and G limited by external stores. The F35 is always clean.
@@joelau2383 the flight laws for the flight control system were still being refined. This resulted in less than full capability
@@joelau2383 That particular test he is referring to was a test to see where they could safely open up the F-35's flight envelop. When that test took place the F-35-A was limited to 7 G's. With tests like that the flight envelop was expanded and all F-35a's had their envelop expanded to 9+ G's with the 3I software. This was NEVER a dogfight it was a test to see where they could expand the envelop in high angles of attack.
“This isn’t even my final form!!!!!”
As an engineer who worked on F-35 and some other fighters, I often describe the jump in capabilities as going from a flip phone to an iPhone for the pilot.
From what I can gather the F-35's hud is basically your favorite jet fighter video game hud with all the fancy enemy markers and missles warnings etc finally made into real life.
Were you an aerospace engineer?
@@markloper5400 orrr he actually could be an engineer lmao
Never knock the flip phone! 🤣
An iPhone? As an engineer you should not compare the basic idea of a phone to a special brand. Apple's iPhone is nothing special but just another smart phone (with more expensive marketing).
Your analysis of things is really interesting. I really appreciate the amount of homework and information you provide. Keep up the strong work!!!
Excellent video! You brought up many excellent points. This video and Alex Hollings' video on his Airpower channel on what makes a fighter program successful are such a refreshing analysis of pertinent facts in contrast to so much of the fluff pieces out there.
Holy crap, fact boi. A 2-part series with debate topics?! Brilliant! Can't wait for part 2. This is the type of commentary that's dope with modern tech
Simon Whistler - the Internet's brain.
He’s been on r/NonCredibleDefense I take it. First makes a vid talking up the F-111 and now makes a two parter about why the F-35 is god tier and the A-10 is F tier
Israeli F-35s fighter jets enter Iran airspace for ‘secret’ drills; Evade Russian radars | Report kzhead.info/sun/gcuTqsh7noqPhJE/bejne.html
It's certainly a way to drive engagement with videos. In a good way
@@PeterMuskrat6968 I think the writing team caught a couple LazerPig videos.
The F-35 is an absolute beast... Also, the idea it can't dogfight was from the test you referenced that was a flight control systems test for the F-35. They were trying to identify the proper settings for the fly-by-wire systems, and the clean F-16 they were flying against was being used as the baseline to compare a "disabled" F-35 against.
That is not how it went. F-35 was supposed to be a prototype, but it was never established how that makes any impact. F-16 was in very unrealistic, overloaded configuration and it still had won against F-35.
@@REgamesplayer Nonsense. The F-35 is a fly-by-wire aircraft, meaning software is used to make the control surfaces adjust to achieve the result the pilot wanted. But, with fly-by-wire it's possible to literally rip the aircraft apart if the control surfaces are moved too far. There is a theory of what the settings should be but it's important to test those settings incrementally in the real world. This flight test was to calibrate the fly-by-wire systems by flying a series of maneuvers using an F-16 with unrestricted and known limits of operation. The point was not that they were flying BFM to fight each other and the F-16 "won" - they were testing the F-35 to see how maneuverable it was at the software settings it was operating under at that time. Those software limits have been relaxed and it is now at it's design 9G+ limit. As for the F-16 being "loaded" as though to imply it was heavily encumbered like that was intended to handicap it (or whatever conspiracy theory nonsense you're spreading): The F-16 was probably flying with a centerline fuel tank because unlike the F-35, it's usually going to need bring extra fuel along on external stores and a slick F-16 wouldn't have had the loiter time to complete the test. Here's the bottom line, someone told you something you didn't understand but really like repeating but the truth is much different: The F-35 has a RED FLAG record of greater than 20:1 in simulated combat - and that's on "the way in" while flying air to ground missions. So, no. Empirical proof of the F-35's capabilities more than demonstrates how capable it is, however much you may misunderstand that flight test you're referencing.
@@a24396 All modern aircraft have limitations placed on them. In a same way, F-16 has identic software. However, plane limits usually are a lit higher than pilot's limits. You do not seem to be stable individual. But I will try to get through you. F-16 fighting with fuel tank is as realistic scenario as F-35 fighting in its beast mode. Any pilot will drop fuel tank before entering a dogfight with enemy fighter. Pilots even drop armaments before a dogfight. This proves that a test was heavily skewed towards F-35, but it still could not win in such contrived environment.
@@REgamesplayer I'm a former military engineer and I can validate everything a24396 is saying... except one thing. The last reported value for the F-35's air-to-air kill ratio is 70:1, not 20:1... but he did say "more than" so he was technically correct. If you look at the pictures from the test you're referencing, you'll notice little round pieces of tape on both aircraft. These were the sensor reference points. The F-16 was being used as a control reference in the experiment. This was IOC (initial operational capability) testing that was taken out of context... as most of the IOC data was (brilliantly) taken out of context in a lot of the anti-F35 propaganda. I've never seen a war of misinformation so radically waged against military spending as it was the F-35. This is surprising because you should have seen how they slayed the AH-64 Apache when it was in IOC. It killed a bunch of pilots and "actually did" go over time and budget. It should be noted that it has been the undisputed king of the hill in it's class ever since. (Not any more, some say, after the Chinese Attack Helo began production. CNN was referring to the Z-10 converted civilian helo... which Pakistan rejected after they realized more than half of it's subsystems are inactive due to "ongoing development" since 2006, so they stuck with their AH-1s from the '70s. They also point to the Russian KA-50... which in reality is far inferior and only produced 8 working units.) Don't feel bad for believing the propaganda and repeating it though. The talking points were masterfully crafted and leveraged partial truths. In defense of the people who created these lies, they genuinely thought that the excessive cost of the F-35 was depriving children of school lunches and healthcare. Their politicians were to blame for spreading that ignorance. Only 13% of our budget is spent across all Defense Spending, where 44% is spent on Social Services. Most alarmingly, only 1% is spent on the Law Enforcement that those same politicians are so eager to defund. So, who was so adept at counter-intelligence that they were able to craft such lies? POGO (Project on Government Oversight) is a non-profit anti-military-spending organization funded by George Soros and other progressive donors (again, very well meaning people on the surface). The AP and other media giants use POGO above all other source of military procurement information. They consider the facts validated when they come from POGO, which is in this patriot's estimation, a serious breech of national security and an incompetence on the part of the media for not uncovering (their job?) the fact that they're blindly being used for the purposes of sedition against this country... however well meaning that sedition may be.
@@StrongHarm Well, we can start from you. 1) Made up position; 2) Lack of coherent sources; 3) Made up BS statistics. For the last part, those kill rates are here just for propaganda purposes. They make an impossible to win simulation with unrealistic aircraft performance scenarios and then claim that it kills million enemies to one of theirs. Those simulations are here just for PR as they are unrealistic, purposefully obtuse and vague.
The F-35 had it share of problems when it first went into service. But most if not all of them have long been fixed. The only real problem left for any fighter jet now is distance. All the jets are very limited as to how far they can fly. They are working on a solution to fix that somewhat, but it won't be fully addressed till 6th generation fighters arrive.
The F35s superior kill ratio pushes the cost per way down. Also, it serves as a force amplifier for friendly assets. It is an absolute bargain.
Living near a base with a F-35 squadron my only complaint is they are about 3x as loud as the plane they replaced. And about 5x as loud when taking off with afterburners
That means nothing for a battlefield setting when your engaging things 10s or even 100s of miles/kilometers away
I’m three miles from Gowen Field ANG base. Personally I find the roar of the F-15 about the same as the F-35. Everything with an afterburner is LOUD. I recognize this one man’s opinion
@@Idahoguy10157 they replaced Harriers at the base I am near
More powerful engines. Extreme noise is common to F22, Typhoon, F18E and F35.
@@kousand9917 no shit, did I mention any combat problems with the noise?
Actually several other caveats to that maneuverability report. 1) the F-16 was “slick” - no missiles, no targeting or jammer pods, nothing. The second you add all those things on (which the F-35 either has built in or inside the internal weapons bays) the max G load turn goes from 9G down rapidly to like 6.5G otherwise you rip the wings off. The effect doesn’t happen on the F35 when it stealth config because again everything is either built in or held internally on the main frame, not the wings). This also contributes to the price as you alluded to - you want an F-16 to be able to do jamming or laser targeted bombing, etc. - have to add that to the cost of the plane. Built into F-35 costs. 2) The F-35 used in that test fight was one that was early in the production run and running flight software that drastically inhibited the fight envelope due to early on safety restraints. Later software opened up the envelop considerably to the point where now the F-35 is MORE maneuverable than even a slick F-16. 3) never ever say that the need for a dogfight is dead! As adversary 5th Gen comes online, all these long range missile shots won’t do shit because of stealth. It’ll end up devolving back to a dogfight.
Agreed, dogfighting is going to be limited compared to say Vietnam but it is still going to happen. Fighting methodologies seem to have come around in cycles, due to how fighting tech development works.
Point number 3 I totally agree on. It should be capable of dogfighting even when that is not the primary purpose.
It's good enough for a dogfight in practice, if not on paper.
@@TheJchip Even if dogfighting is dead, it’s still good to be ready for it if everything goes wrong and you end up in a dog fight anyways.
Dogfighting isn't dead. Stealth makes it more relevant than ever before.
My battery thanks you for the dark background! Also love your content, keep it up!
This is a really excellent video. Simon, you did a great job addressing the three main criticisms I've seen of the F-35. I also appreciated your point that you're not trying to hold up the F-35 as an ideal platform, but rather that people should evaluate the aircraft against its designated roles -- not the roles of fighters before it. I do still think "one airframe to rule them all" is overly complex, compromises performance of any single mission, and locks the US into impractically long lifetimes for its aircraft to amortize development costs. Unit cost is an important metric, but it's not the only one: maintenance costs per flight-hour are another F-35 problem (particularly the stealth coating). But that doesn't mean the F-35 sucks, per se -- rather, it shows (IMO) the need to develop more specialized aircraft using leaner design cycles, and faster design iteration.
As a current Lockheed Martin employee working on the F-35, I approve of this excellent video! Thanks to the Host & Writers.
Me too. I’m proud to be part of the team.
And while the F-35 might be redundant in the US, it can almost be seen as vitally strategic to Europeans, who actually spent most of the money and could not afford the F-22.
@@goldenhate6649 the f-22 is not exported to other nations.
Well, at least you disclose your Bias. Commendable.
At the end of the day we are all coin operated. Thank you Mr. Patriot..
Also something to keep in mind was that the f35 during the dogfight maneuvers was extremely limited in power output, g limit, and was also using very old firmware and the computer system that controls the aircrafts controls
Omg!! The vibe of this video particularly at the end gave me goose bumps!! You Dave, are a frikin legend!! 🤘🤠
Thank you, Simon. I don’t work for Lockheed but I know this air system very well and it is an absolute monster. The level of built-in system integration is technically and operationally staggering and pilots across all three US services love it, as do the partner nations and FMS customers. So many of the criticisms of this jet are the same that were lobbed at the F-22, F-15 and F/A-18E wrt cost, complexity, and necessity. And critics ignore one of the biggest differences with the Lightning II vs. any other 5th Gen aircraft: It is being produced at a very high rate and is already fielded in substantial numbers, completely flipping the common belief that 5th Gen is too unique and too few in number to support the classic war principles of “mass” and “surprise”. This is a jet that can sit way back or get close in big numbers and wreak havoc. And it’s getting better with every production lot.
Too bad it sends all flight data to USA, essentially being an overpriced spyware. If one was ever to fight against US after having bought F-35's, I have a feeling those planes would not be able to even fly.
I know almost nothing about the field, but was pleasantly surprised they’re being produced at a rate of 11 to 13 a month. And the comment from someone about the aesthetics is ridiculous.
@@aburetik4866 did you see the other contender? That being said...an effective poop beats a pretty decoration
I've heard the F35's dogfighting deficiencies described as someone saying "This fancy new sniper rifle you gave me is absolutely useless as a CLUB!"
Honestly not too far off. Like complaining that a sniper can’t win against Dwayne Johnson in a fist fight. Doesn’t matter if you lose a fist fight if you can take the other guy out from miles away.
Except in this case that sniper rifle is, in fact, VERY effective as a club. An F-35 is not something you want to end up in a dogfight against.
@@wurfyy true. And the article didn't take a lot of accounts into consideration.
@@Crimsonking741 Recently there was a case where a clean configuration F-16 (Dutch iirc) lost a dogfight and the pilot was left wondering why the hell the F-35 then went on towards the target area, only to later learn that it had a JDAM in its bomb bay the whole time. The F-35 is scary as hell.
@@wurfyy that is the most badass thing I’ve ever heard. That’s like a man carrying boxes beating you up before you even knew he was there.
Btw, can i just say that the equitable discussing taking place on this channel is immensely refreshing.
What people fail to understand is that: 1 trillion involves maintenance, software, operator training, and other costs for its operational life until 2070. No "Legacy"/"Teen Series" fighter development (F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18) has been calculated this way. A capabilities insight: "Those situations highlight the fifth-generation capabilities of the F-35. We’re still able to operate and be successful. In a lot of cases we have a large role as an integrated quarterback,” said Lt. Col. Yosef Morris, 4th FS commander. “Our ability to continue to fuse and pass information to the entire package makes every aircraft more survivable.” During the first week of Red Flag, the F-35 pilots flew in a larger force of Blue Air in a counter-air mission. More than 60 aggressor aircraft were flying against them, blinding many of the fourth-generation aircraft with “robust” electronic attack capabilities. “I’ve never seen anything like it before,” Wood said. “This is not a mission you want a young pilot flying in. My wingman was a brand new F-35A pilot, seven or eight flights out of training. He gets on the radio and tells an experienced, 3,000-hour pilot in a very capable fourth-generation aircraft. ‘Hey bud, you need to turn around. You’re about to die. There’s a threat off your nose.’” The young pilot then “killed” the enemy aircraft and had three more kills in the hour-long mission. “Even in this extremely challenging environment, the F-35 didn’t have many difficulties doing its job,” Wood said. ‘That’s a testament to the pilot’s training and the capabilities of the jet.” "Hill Airmen, F-35 a lethal combo at Red Flag"-AF . The F-35, despite all the Woozle/disinformation effect on the fighter, will be the main face of Western fighter aviation for decades to come.
The "F35 can"t dogfight" has to be taken in context of this report being written about the level 1 flight control software. The latest F35 are using level 4 software, which allows for 9g maneuvers and high AOA. The latest reports show a 28 to 1 advantage for the F35 in ACM and a 90 to 1 advantage for BVR combat against 4 gen fighters.
Where did you get that number on the ACM odds?
@@kamraam1464 iirc it's from Red Flag and Blue Flag training exercises
@@forzaelite1248 Dude people see numbers like that on quora or reddit and swear by them. I don't buy the ACM kill ratio for a second, because while the F35 is a fantastic fighter, it does not compete with the others when it comes to BFM.
@@forzaelite1248 And the overall kill ratio for the 35 was said to be in the 20s-1 by the pentagon. Nowhere near 90 lmao
Mind pointing us to sources? I need to be able to pull these up whenever I see people making saying "f-35 can't dogfight"
I'm fairly content with Finland's decision to get 64 of these (F-35A) with the capability to do maintenance on them independently. 10 billion is quite a price for everything, but our earlier F-18 fighters were getting pretty damn outdated. I believe USA will also provide us advanced weaponry for them for a price. Now that Finland will join NATO, I imagine we become a fairly important ally for US because of our border with Russia.
The unasked question in this excellent documentary concerns the fact of it having only one engine. I believe that only the F16 of all the mentioned aircraft shares this feature.
@@johnallison4688 It's a good point. I believe (could be wrong) this was meant to be a cost-saving measure dating back to when the F-35 was envisioned to be a low cost fighter, on par with the F-16 (and indeed eventually replacing it.) Today's F-35 isn't expensive (esp considering all that you're getting vs. the competitors), but it's not an F-16 replacement any more. Might also have something to do with increased fuel tank & internal bay storage (desirable for stealth reasons), not sure.
Many European countries were ushered to choose for the F-35A with the associated overspending due to the threat from the East. Interoperability, even in NATO doesn't necessarily mean you need to buy the same aircraft as the US. Data-sharing is the key which can be done between different types of aircraft within the same alliance or for that matter within the different flying forces of the same country (USAF-Navy-Marines) that do not use the F-35 exclusively and never will.
@@karelgeerardyn240 You say "overspending"... the F-35 is actually on par with or even cheaper than many supposed latest gen "alternatives", while offering FAR more capability. When Finland made its decision, I believe both the Rafale and Gripen cost more. Yes, the F-35's flight hour costs are still high but there's every reason to expect those numbers to continue to drop. No you don't HAVE to buy exclusively F-35 but it doesn't make any sense to invest multiple top-tier fighters. Cheaper legacy platforms like F-16s, ok sure, although even that requires a lot of expensive infrastructure and training that may not be worth the bother. (The USAF and NGAD is a special case here. NGAD ain't gonna be for export, and even if it was other countries wouldn't swallow its price tag, which will likely and up being in the vicinity of half a billion.)
@@vigilante8374 In the fighter bomber role, the 35 is exceptional. The f-22 was 9 times as expensive, and is now being replaced by the F-15SE. Both the F-15 SE and F-35 have essentially the same price tag. Given russia’s performance in ukraine, the f-35 is most certainly overkill, and the using the f-15SE is like shooting a barbarian wielding a club.
Excellent analysis and I heartily agree. Cheers!
Brilliant series love the f35 article and so looking forward to the a10.
The SU-57 and J-20 both have significantly larger radar cross sections than either the F35 or F22. That's not a fair comparison.
Not even to speak of the SU-75 which is about as stealthy as a christmas-tree
@@Peter_Schluss-Mit-Lustig the su-75 is about as real as Santa anyways at the moment
well theyre the best that "the enemy" has. so id say its a perfect comparison.
@@littletweeter1327 I was talking price comparison. You get what you pay for. Even with stealing design data, the Chinese can't build a comparable aircraft. The Russians have never had the avionics capability either.
@@ronaldschoolcraft8654 You're selling Russia a little short. They had chops back in the day. I'm sure the SU-75 is at very least a decent capable jet fighter. All 8 of them.
I watched these everyday when I was working construction on a air force base and it is very impressive. The f-16's and f-15's werent even close. And I could tell all of this from the ground! We were working on a painting booth for these planes so we were within a rocks throw from all the planes. I miss that job :,(
It is a beautiful thing to behold. I recall all sorts of poo poo regarding the M1 Abrams....still regarded as one of the world's top tanks, even today. This was a very good video and puts to rest much of the bilge I have heard over the past few years.
It is 19X0. The F-15 is being derided as being too new, too reliant on these cutting edge technologies like RADAR and electronic fire control. It is 200X. The F-22 is being derieded as being too new, as stealth is useless and it's not focusing on the dogfight, because people still go WW2 and get in knife fights apparently.
You might mention that those early dog fighting evaluations were performed when the F35 software was limiting the 'g' loads and other performance factors, to prevent potential loss of expensive early versions. Over time, those software limitations have been reduced, allowing the F35 to more closely approach max maneuverability. Another consideration is, reports from the early development of 4th gen fighters was highly critical. "Why pay so much more for an F15 than for an F4 Phantom, when the Phantom was already so good and proven". There is a cottage industry criticising new fighter development, starting with the jet age, in the 1950s.
The F-35 has pretty standard maneuverability as seen in the air shows. It had amazing high alpha. Great slow speed maneuverability without thrust vectoring.
Air shows are low fuel, striped down and no plane would go to war in that configuration.
@@JL-cn1qi The F-35 has a thrust and maneuverability advantage irregardless of loadout. In reality with a dogfighting loadout of internal missiles it would have better maneuverability, less drag, more thrust, and an equivalent AOA of an F-16.
@@vlxxrd4866 F35 is heavy so even if it has the most powerful engine it will not be an advantage unless you put 2 of those engine in f35
@@jonlaurenzreyes1902 F-16 is heavy and single engine too, but no one ever complains about its TW That's because speed at the merge is going to be very high and it's how it retains its energy in turns that'll win the dogfight - at least for non high off-boresight aircraft. The HMD on both the 16 and 35 have high off boresight capability when paired with the aim-9x. In short, in modern ACM, whoever shoots first, wins. Compare the BVR capabilities of the 16 and 35 and the contest becomes very clear - the F-35 can enter the maximum engagement range of the F-16 and fire without being detected, forcing the F-16 defensive (if the F-16 pilot isn't suicidal) and allowing the F-35 to chase down and kill or turn and escape. We refer to this range as the minimum abort range - an F-35 has a much larger minimum abort range than the F-16 Strongly, strongly recommend watching Growling Sidewinder's videos on this topic as he breaks this down into lay way better than I ever could.
@@jonlaurenzreyes1902 Not quite. A normal loadout in an F-35 still has about the same thrust/weight ratio as other loaded jets, just with far less drag.
Anecdotal, yes, but I have talked to two F-35 pilots, as I work next to Hill Air Force Base in Utah, and they swear up and down by this fighter jet. They couldn’t say enough about how incredible it is. In a previous article published a few years ago at the same Air Force base, every single pilot would choose the F-35 over the entire field of fighter jets, with most pilots in that article coming from F-15, F-16 and F-18 backgrounds. 5th generation fighters are so far beyond capability of even the most advanced 4th gen fighter. The leap from 4th gen fighters to 5th gen is probably the biggest generational leap in fighter jet technology to this point. Red flag bears this out with a 20:1 kill ratio with the F-35 against 4th generation fighters. The technical comparisons to legacy fighters in real war scenarios don’t remotely do it justice, either. This is a technological marvel, and there’s a reason why nations are lining up to buy it. It will change the landscape of modern defense as we know it.
"Easiest plane I've ever flown," from carrier pilots.
I notice you didn't mention the F-22 pilots....what would they pick to play wargames....
Every single secondhand anecdotal story I've heard is the same. The sensors/radar/EW are great, the ergonomics of how the info is presented is fantastic, it was designed with teamwork in mind (network centric warfare blahblahblah) so it acts as a force multiplier for nearby Gen 4 fighters, and it's got plenty of fuel and a *lot* better maneuverability that most people seem to believe. The stealth is great, but people fixate on that too much. "Sensor fusion" sounds like dumb corporatespeak but in real combat situations it will save lives. A lot of lives. And you also need to consider it in light of coming tech. Even though it's not a bad dogfighter at all, and even though it has the stealth... once the newer block AIM-9Xes come out, it really will be the final nail in the coffin of 97&+ of dogfighting. It's all fire and forget, with missiles capable of lock on after launch and executing 60G maneuvers. (Yes, the obsolescence of dogfighting was prematurely predicted many decades ago, but this time it's really happening. The missiles are becoming just too damn good.) I'm not saying the F-22 would be completely obsolete for air superiority, (and I do love that plane), but the F-22's killer app features simply aren't going to be all that important for much longer. (Incidentally the F-22's "replacement", NGAD, is going to be a totally different concept: much larger, much stealthier, and much more expensive plane oriented towards long distance missions in the Pacific. Also probably commanding nearby drone buddies. ) I was skeptical for a long time but they just kept throwing money and engineers at it, and by God it worked. The F-35 really does seem poised to become the perfect Swiss army knife fighter-bomber that's superior than the alternatives for all but the most esoteric missions. And for a really competitive price. (especially if they manage to work out the logistics to lower the flight hour cost some more. But even without that, it's cheaper than several European fighters that don't have half of its cool features.)
@@MaverickBlue42 Major Kristin “Beo” Wolfe is the squadron leader of the F-35 Demo Team. She spent several years as a training instructor for the F-22 and flies the F-35 exclusively. “‘The airplane is amazing,’ Wolfe said. ‘It’s the latest and greatest fighter that we have out there. The fighter’s on the ramp right now. We just got them out of the factory line about six months ago, so it’s the best technology that we have.’” She sounds pretty enthused about it.
@@vigilante8374 Everything you said comes down to "the computer and sensors are great". But the same modern computers and sensors are getting put into the newest 4th trance Eurofighters and other modern fighters. So there is no difference there except the F35 has reduced radar cross section but then many 4.5 gen jets also have reduced radar cross section (but not that much as the F35) but thanks to them not caring about being stealthy all the time these 4.5 jets have no qualms about switching to active stealth, meaning fucking with the enemies radar like the newest Eurofighter radar upgrade can do.
I was US Army Artillery, we never expected to be involved in a Direct Fire situation unless something went "really, really wrong". But we still trained for it, because it did happen in DS91. Pilots of the F-35's NEED to train for ACM regardless if they expect to experience it or not.
From what I've heard, the F-35 is actually an excellent dogfighter among 4th gen aircraft, but the lack of thrust vectoring hampers it against 5th gens. It also needs saying that the F-22, raw and powerful dogfighting machine that it is, has a huge focus on BVR missile engagements, by the simple fact that its internal weapons bays carry 6 Fox-3s and only 2 Fox-2s. If the F-35 gets to the merge, something has gone wrong.
13:23 Probably not a great example, given that Pierre Sprey opposed the development of the F-15. Having said that, Sprey has been proven one of the most incompetent military affairs theorists in the post-World War 2 world time and again.
LazerPig did quite a takedown of him.
I don't think that kind of generic criticism really helps the issue. He's basically been proven right, repeatedly, based on his Wiki page in terms of market, design and mission, ie. the planes were not going to be built at all if they were too expensive and the broader the mission the more expensive the plane becomes and the longer the design and testing phase. The problem is that the user community (USAF, etc) has up-missioned the plane once it got through Congress and got out of the prototype stage. I.e. F-16, F-18, A-10 at least the planes listed there. The F-15 was a different beast, an extension of the F-4, an AF version of the F-14, flying pure air-superiority and as such designed with superior long-range radar *and* excellent thrust-weight ratio. It's still not a pure dogfighter like the F-16 and that distinction is wildly known now. So what happened, following the death of the F-14? All of the F-series fighters took on a ground-attack role. This ironically is the mission the F-35 was supposedly to take on from the F-18 and the A-10 and you can see how well that's going. An so ok perhaps some of the anti-Grumman blowback has affected this but still, we're not building pure AS fighters going forward from the F-22 because there's a limited market for such fighters. We can't spread the cost out among our allies for precisely the reason that they are OUR AS fighters. Ignoring all of the lessons of the Cold War, to do so. So the advantage of the LW fighter program is that we build the basic fighter (inherently cheap, light and highly-maneuverable) and let the customer add the avionics and weapons-systems of their choice. The alternative is to build an F-15 multi-role all-weather ground-attack fighter with AS capabilities and then strip the gear out, or just not install all of it. And with an armored plane, it's just as important to be able to replace damaged armor and flight-critical components as the fact that they are armored, effectively, in the first place. I mean, what's the big deal. Same end-result. It's not the F-22. It's also not replacing the B-1 or B-2 either. Nothing is going to be stealthy with a bunch of bombs and missiles hanging off it, and on ground-attack missions, stealth won't help you much. Not when you can be picked-up either visually or with IR, not when you'd be flying below the horizon anyway. Now sure. Perhaps he's been proven wrong, "time and time again" but it's not exactly clear how so. And in the long run, ultimately, technology matures. It's been 60 years since Vietnam started. We're running out of things to improve on fixed-wing aircraft. There will always be pressure to do more with less weight and cost. The funny thing is that manned aircraft and UAVs or drone shave the same problems when it comes to EW. Sure a pilot can observe directly but can they communicate any better than a drone? Can they even see better than a drone? And if they can communicate effectively then why not just call in a ground-attack or even ground to air from a remote source? Why pretend that the planes' offensive capabilities are limited by what it carries any more than pretending that target acquisition and targeting are limited by the pilots' eyesight? So even if "proven wrong many times" at the time, true, but not necessarily now or going forward.
@@touristguy87 He hasn't been proven right. That wall of text was not helpful and is wrong.
@@richardarriaga6271 ..why, because you can't read or because your reading-comprehension is poor?
@@touristguy87 I am a simple peasant before your knowledge. Fly the plane of your choice against an F-35 and show how to beat it. Sprey never was involved in the design of the F-35 and was not the creator of any plane.
F-35 is a Multi Role fighter that is the "quarterback" it sends data to other platforms to take out enemy's. As well as having the capability to handle missions on its own. The F-22 Raptor is the Air superiority fighter. That is terrifyingly good when it comes to dog fighting. They are different roles.
But the f22 is falling behind the f35 in nearly every metric
Easier way to put it is to just say it's a force multiplier
@@EddyA1337 How is that, at all, saying the same thing?
@@darrel7589 the f22 is not the best. It's still better than any nations fighter but lags behind the f35. It uses an older radar that just isn't as good as the f35. It isn't fitted with an IRST yet, doesn't have off bore firing capability like the f35. And doesn't have nearly the same data and sharing ability. I'm not saying it's bad cuz it's not and every issue stated above is being looked at for upgrades to the f22 currently
@@brabblemaster401 source?
Here's the thing. It's dangerous to state that dogfighting is obsolete. The last time they said that was with the F4 Phantoms where they thought modern battlefield conditions made dogfighting obsolete. That resulted in less than ideal kill ratios for the F4.
you seem to be missing the point homer, f35 don't fight fair.. knocks out opponent before climbing in the ring
That was a very long time ago. Cannons are great for strafing ground targets (which is why the A-10 is so venerated), but the idea of getting into air-to-air cannon range is pretty unlikely. All the old tricks of the past don't work anymore. Stealth only confuses identification and reduces the intervals at which radars can see the plane. It doesn't completely nullify modern radar-guided missiles. Missiles rein supreme, until laser and battery technology get good enough to shoot them out of the sky. That'll be when battleships and dog-fighting start to make a come-back, but I'm not sure we'll be around to see that.
No it's not dangerous. US Navy Phantoms did better than their Air Force counterparts despite never carrying guns in Vietnam. Missiles were also pretty terrible back then, being unreliable, likely to lose lock or go after the wrong thing, and some even required a direct hit to kill because they had no proximity fuze. Despite all that missile still accounted for 3/4 of kills and the Vietnam War was also the last time ever a US fighter scored a guns kill - that's 50 years ago and the last time guns settled a dogfight anywhere in the world was 1988. If a capability hasn't been required by your aircraft in 50 years, and hasn't been useful to anyone else in 34 years then its safe to say that capability is obsolete.
One criticism of the F-35 that I still agree with is when they tried to claim it could perform the close air support role as well as dedicated aircraft such as the A-10. (No, I haven't watched the video criticising that yet.) Frankly the requirements for close air support are very different than those of air superiority. I have to wonder what the result would be of an equivalent R&D program for a close air support aircraft.
I could go on for hours about this subject, but I'm gonna do my best to condense it because it's a can of worms. 1.) The A-10 was obsolete before it entered service and it's gun is horribly inaccurate and couldn't kill the tanks it was designed to fight. 2.) In any contested airspace the A-10 is in extreme danger to the point where the Air Force will not fly it as it is extremely vulnerable to MANPADS 3.) CAS is not only done better with PGM's as compared to gun runs, it's safer for both ground troops and pilots. Gun runs with the A-10 are the reason it has the highest amount and rate of blue on blue incidents of any aircraft in U.S. inventory. 4.) The A-10 flies less CAS sorties than the F-16 does, and when it is flying CAS, it's using PGM's, not its gun. CAS is a different doctrine, but one easily accomplished by multirole fighters and bombers with precision munitions. The A-10 needs to be retired and the only reason it isn't is that the ghost of John McCain still infests politicians who won't listen to Air Force on how it's expensive to maintain and getting more expensive to maintain and fly every sortie.
@@guynamedowen5165 At this point, pretty much anything an A-10 can do, an F-16 or AC-130 can do better, cheaper, and more accurately.
The thing that people need to remember about the F35 is that they didn't design just 1 fighter. The F35 program was a development program for 3 fighters, all using similar design specs. The only similarity between the 3 variants is the basic shape and avionics.
Oh, people remember. There is a term for that. Fraud. It was sold to congress as a single jet that would save money, long term. Especially on the logistics backend. The truth is just what you say, it is three jets with the same name.
Ya. Since most nations don't have Navies, let alone aircraft carriers I'm sure only the UK and France will get C variants. I'm sure many NATO allies will get the B variant though for the VTOL obviously. Good for mountain regions where long runways are hard to come by. The c variant just has too much weight added to the frame for wire arrest and catapult systems that it wouldn't be worth it. Literally only good for Carriers.
Can we also talk about the fact that due to inflation the total cost of the f35 is around 400 billion back when the inflation started? Now its 1.7 trillion but thats due to high infaltion. If we hadnt got these high inflations the total cost now would be 400billion
The F-35 was designed to replace the F-16, F-18, the Harrier, & the A-10. I could see it doing the job of the first 3 but doing the job of the A-10 would be a tall order.
@@newsieboys1171I disagree. The only real role of the A-10 in a peer-to-peer fight is to deliver MALDs towards SAM sites as bait and wait for the big boys to come in and finally bomb the heck out of those SAMs once they turn on their radars. If that’s the only role of the A-10 then, they got to kick it in the trash.
I’ve never once seen an interview with anybody who’s actually flown this air frame have anything but praise for it and who would know better
RAAF fly the ass off their aircraft. Their F-35’s annihilated their F-18’s.
Great video! Thanks Posh-Hipster!
Very interesting article. Well done
Another criticism often made is that the F35 has the most powerful engine ever installed on a fighter, yet it's top speed is only Mach 1.6. However, this doesn't take into account that it can do every bit of that with a full tank of gas and weapons. A fully loaded Viper can't even get close to Mach 1.6.
Correct. What these fanboys don't understand it the jet's VMax is set at 1.6 Mach. It can quite easily go faster. Both the USAF and USN wanted the VMax set at 1.6 and see no point in the jet going faster. In service nether the F-14 nor the F-15 ever got near 2.0 Mach let alone their stated VMaxes of 2.34 and 2.5. There is just no point. This is why the both the F-16 and F/A-18 are set at 2.0 and 1.8. By limiting the VMax these jets can be optimized as a fighter while using less expensive materials. If the F-35 was to have its VMax set higher several areas on the airframe would require more expensive and less stealthy materials. All for a capability that will never be used. By setting the jet to 1.6 Mach the designers could optimized the intakes for stealth and efficiency. But BLAH BLAH it sucks because it's slow BLAH BLAH BLAH.
@@dat581 There's literally no examples of aerial combat taking places at velocities above mach 1.6 - even above mach 1 it's pretty rare, and we had supersonic fighter jets in service for 70 years now. I'd also argue that operational range is far more important than being mach 2 capable. F-35 is a very good plane. No, it's not as cheap as the F-16, but like.. if you want a stealthy 5th gen multi role fighter with all the latest in weaponry, avionics, etc, it literally can't cost 30 million per unit. You can have a top of the line 5th gen plane, or you can have a cheap plane. You can't have both, so yea, in full agreement with you - we can look at things logically or we can go "F35 suxx and A10 is awesome cuz big gun go brrrt".
@@dat581 🤣 if you buy that I've got ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.
@@aaronsanborn4291 I love how you present no evidence whatsoever for your idiotic comment. Nor did you think particularly hard on whether your stupid claim is true or not. You have about as much credibility as Putin.
@@johnnewman1819 Exactly. It's a better CAS jet than the A-10 too but such a comment will make the fanboy's heads explode.
A good overview of the F-35. Another thing to bear in mind is that the F-35 is consolidating the roles of multiple different aircraft like the F-16 and A-10. Buying the plane is only one facet here, there's also the need to maintain the aircraft. This will allow Air Forces acquiring this fighter to reduce ground costs and simplify their aircraft inventory substantially. Having one single multirole fighter is considered a major plus over legacy fighters like the F/A-18 and Eurofighter.
Not to mention that it is so heavily purchased by foreign navy and air forces allowing those costs to reduce the domestic maintenance in our own country since the contract stipulates that with whomever develops the aircraft (In this case, Lockheed) and the US Government. We have 700ish currently developed, nearly 300 sold to foreign countries that fit under our alliance. United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Belgium and Singapore. More countries are opting into the program and this is in part why the current production for additional aircraft will exceed 2500. The procurement costs and maintenance costs will benefit the USAF and Navy operations of our own domestic fighters to a point where we would operate them free of charge if the number does start to reach that level. Something the guy in the video left out and is why we had no problem eating the incredible cost overruns of infamous development woes the F-35 had a decade ago.
F-35s can literally be shot down with an AK-47 so no as claimed CAS.
@@janus3555 ... and don't forget JSF was the first platform to have ZERO help from the Air Force/DoD in those developmental stages ... we had to purchase/lease all those testing sites/equipment (unlike all that came before with "Free Use") ... hence the Wind Tunnel Testing was done at Fokker/Netherlands ... couldn't even get a bid from USAF/Ames-NASA !!! So "pricing" was high up front ... and no free ferry on C-5's either. Then lay on the costs in LRIP ... also a first ... there were no "Prototypes" like we had with F-16 "FSD" ...
"dog fighting is dead" is true for now. As of now the sword is mightier than the shield, but in the future aircraft could have advanced point defense system that can detect and shoot down seekers coming tail end. In that case, an ol fashioned BRRRR will do the trick while missiles become air to ground weapons once more.
I mean if that exists, then just reconfigure it to shoot down jets and voila no need for a pilot to maneuver their jet. I mean what your describing is an omnidirectional weapon system capable of shooting fast moving targets which approach them, who needs maneuverability in that case. (Well, there might be some engagement but it certainly won’t be a dogfight)
Lol, brrrt has nothing on lasers.
It's not just stealth though... it's stealth, combined with EW and other things... while new tactics are being developed to optimize those features.
Trying to replace the A-10 with F-35s is a stupid idea. The A-10 is a jet designed for a singular purpose that it has always done better than anything else. Also because when the guys on the ground call for air support, they speak directly to the A-10 pilots, not some sort of central command, so those men will fight tooth and nail to keep them around. Which is why the military has decided to make a newer updated version of that jet.
Not really the case. Since the mid 90's the F-16C's is taking over for many missions the A-10 was relegated to
Wanna use an A-10 for CAS in a highly contested airspace ? Good luck with that buddy... it was good for war against terrorism & enemies with very limited air defence systems. A F-35 is not going to be used as an A-10... it has an unparalleled situational awareness and the capability to share it with troops on the ground. The JTAC will have access to the aircraft's cameras and sensors... a bit like the 'commander' mode in Battlefield. He gets all the informations he needs to take the best decision possible... and guide small diameter glide bombs (8 of those per F-35, internally) directly on various targets if needed.
14:45 the F-35 A and C have an internal rack upgrade that lets them carry 6 AIM-120s, or 6 AIM-260s, internally. So the number 4 is already obsolete
So the F-35 is expected to take over the role of the F-22?
@@pogo1140 the NGAD is taking over the role of the F-22, starting in around 2030. It's the F-22 replacement. The F-35 is replacing the F-16 and F-18 and F-15. Though there's been talk of another cheap fighter being introduced for more menial tasks, and the F-15 being kept as a missile carrier
@@moonasha The F-15 squadron that is providing CAP in Europe is on it's last deployment. When that last flight heads home to the US, it's 1st flight of that will be returning to the European Theater flying F-35's to take up counter air missions over Eastern Europe.
@@moonasha the F-15 is being replaced by the new model F-15
Can’t wait to see those AIM-260’s shooting down Chinesium J-20 “Stealth” fighters over the South China Sea from over 150 miles away
F-35 is also lightly armed because it works in tandem as the eye’s of a F-15 which acts as the missile truck while it says out of range
Was gonna bring this up as well. The f15ex is an impressive plane but its best attribute is that it can now carry something like 20 air to air missiles, which an f35 can use as back up weapons
Yeah. Admittedly, it's fairly good on its own, but no technology exists in a vacuum. It's the absolute best for its intended role and with the intended support, no contest.
you ever see the giant load out that can go on a F-35 if they want to drop the stealth aspect down its no F-15 but boy can it carry a lot of boom
@@MIASpartan408 it be cool if they designed an f35 missile carrying drone/mule.
@@gtd9536 Yeah I'm sure the military is working on it, modern Apache helicopters can fire hellfire missiles from predator drones flying in the AO, and seeing as how the F35 already has weapon link tech it's mostly about just building a platform for that role now.
Not even mentioned is the fact that the F35B can operate from escort, or helicopter carriers! It's straight-line performance may not seem impressive until you factor in that it can do what NO OTHER supersonic fighter, or stealth fighter can - literally fly off and land on the helicopter deck of any naval vessel, and conduct full flight operations from much less expensive escort carriers. While the supercarrier gets all the press, it's also the most vulnerable ship in the fleet with EVERYBODY planning to saturate it with missile fire. Now, with the ability to deploy large numbers of F35Bs from other platforms, the bad guys can't knock all our air assets out by sinking one carrier. Two or three small carriers cost a fraction of a super carrier, yet can deploy as many or more F35s while doing so faster and more efficiently. In my book THAT is a game-changer! Of COURSE the Navy opted for the F35C without vertical capability because it allows them to justify those gargantuan carriers. As for "dogfighting," that's always been about knowing your plane's strengths versus the bad guys. Of course it doesn't hurt that the F35 can fire missiles against an aircraft maneuvering on it's tail...that's a real crowd pleaser!
I just saw one takeoff near my house. It is a beast. I was mesmerized.
That is called afterburner, they all have it, does not make it a good jet.
Having heard what the pilots that started in other aircraft and moved over to the f35, they say it’s a beast.
What most people miss, is that the F35 is really a flying super-computer and sensor platform that gives the pilot a god's eye view of the battlespace. This is what gives the F35 an advantage over every other fighter, including any other 5th gen aircraft. Being almost invisible is just a added advantage.
Can we engineer a super computer,sensor package in a Mach 2 aircraft currently in production? 4th generation aircraft have stealth upgrades available.
Nailed it. People look at raw aircraft performance and think that that's what makes a fighter effective. The Top Gun days are pretty much dead. Lasers and hypersonic weapons will make handling characteristics and speed more or less meaningless. It's the sensor suite and data processing that makes the F-35 so well-geared for future conflicts. Its ability to pass data along to 4th and 5th gen aircraft helps keep them relevant and offloads tasks to mission-specific aircraft that can perform them more effectively
@@Preciouspink no, hence the insane cost of building an airframe around said supercomputer
Would it out perform a f-22?
@@Hehbbit Depends on the task you're asking it to perform
" ... For some reason, the J-20's development cost were much lower that the F-22 ..... for some ... strange ... reason ... ?" Yeah, that's got me scratching my head too ...
My brother is part of the British team working on the F-35, so I have my own opinions of the aircraft. While the Official Secrets act ensures he has told me nothing concrete about the fighter, he did suggest to my oldest daughter who is currently entering pilot training for the RAF to angle for F-35 if she can possibly get it. Which says a lot, at least to me. Really though, the most important thing you mentioned in this video is when you stated that judging military procurement costs is very, very tricky. To take the trillion dollar cost, I have seen that costing as well, but it was based on I believe 700 aircraft entering service, it was the R and D costs, the per unit production cost, and then the maintenance and upgrade cost of all 700 units for an estimated service life of thirty years. Assuming no wars, in which case that cost would actually increase due to greater wear on the aircraft and of course increased maintenance and ordnance costs! Part of the high cost of Eurofighter Typhoon for example is the often ridiculous procurement processes for many European militaries. Germany is the prime example here but not the only one. Yes, my brother worked on Typhoon as well.... A good video, I do not always agree with your assessments, but in this case I more or less did. As for the A-10, my father was British Army for 36 years, he has been on the receiving end of a blue on blue via A-10 Warthog. In his words, give me a fucking AH-64 anytime, at least those fuckers know who I am and can see me..... Yes the latest iteration of the A-10 has better recognition packages, but it lacks a back seat, which is still a major weakness, and the brrrrrrrt crowd can go fuck themselves, that aircraft has killed more friendly troops than any other Aircraft in the NATO inventory.....
To be fair, the military knew what they had with the A-10. They knew it would take relatively high losses and wasn’t the safest thing to be around. It was designed for the great invasion. When the Warsaw Pact would flood into Western Europe en masse. It would swoop in and cause as much armor damage as possible. When all parameters are met, it’s a devastating aircraft. But the high fratricide cannot be accepted. It’s a terror weapon. For both sides unfortunately.
It is a pretty damn nifty piece of kit. What it lacks on an individual basis, it more than makes up for with battlespace synergy.
Like the Sd stick that one Swiss Army knife has.
Yep. But we the public can't see that in a picture, and little of what makes it powerful is quickly explain. So, it'll struggle in the public eye. And that affects politicians, so it can impair a product with real merit.
Well put
Also the cost is mostly due to US wages, so an older aircraft is still likely to be very expensive.
@@Shirocco7 exactly, you cannot explain to the common public that Blitzkrieg is not a tactic but a term or you cannot explain that dog fighting/maneuverability/A-10 Warthog is all irrelevant this day and age since the explanations are long and complicated and the public wants simplicity so they can pretend to be the smart ones and be in comfort as the airmen gets vaporized by something that never pops up on their radar because the enemy hasn't even entered the country.
LazerPig’s hate for the idiotic popular fighter mafia folks has finally brought to light the truth enough that even Simon must add it to his library of infotainment
LazerPig had been a great source of content for these bigger channels recently. I hope he gets some more of the recognition he deserves
Love the pig🐷
@@JudoStev yeah it’s actually funny, well maybe not depending on how you look at it. There’s a heavily pro-Ukrainian channel called The Enforcer, that decided to do extra content and talk about government cheese, and like clockwork Simon talks about the same topic a few days laters. It’s blatant sometimes, I’m beginning to see how there were many cases of infringement prior to big record companies forming in the early recording industry in the early 20th century.
@@manofcultura there was a video a while back where whoever wrote the script for Simon straight up used terns from LazerPig videos that I'd never heard anywhere else until that point. I wouldn't go so far as to call it plagiarism, but it's very obvious they're looking for anything resembling trending and getting in on it.
Even this video didn't comprehend that the purpose of the F-16 versus the F-35 report was to test the F-35s control laws and restrictions. F-35 was basically a prototype. They've since opened the restrictions, and the F-35 now beats the F-16 in a number of maneuverability categories that pilots prefer, including AOA.
Excellent vid As always
All great points. I think it's hard for us to imagine the dynamics and doctrine for air combat with a peer country before it actually happens. A few months ago The Infographics Show did a China-US WWIII scenario that had bizarrely good insights into how we might use the F35 in conjunction with upgraded F15s and F16s. Basically, F35s would act as a smaller number of invisible quarterbacks directing the larger number of air-to-air missiles lobbed by the older aircraft.
This was basically the argument being made by the military in favor of the F-15 upgrade packages, including the one mentioned in the video; that the F-35 can stealthily scout for the older planes loaded with even more weaponry than the attack mode F-35 can carry, effectively allowing heavier strikes over longer distances.
@@carsonm7292 How would it allow strikes over longer distances? The older planes have their own poor effective range.
@@MoizRafay The new F-15EX can carry much heavier payloads than past models, including a new heavy long-range AAM that's in development for it to carry. In addition to its own improved radar and sensors, the Air Force is capable of linking sensor information between aircraft; in this setup, the F-35 flies closer to the enemy in a stealth configuration, identifies targets, and sends that information to the F-15EX, which fires its missiles over a much longer distance than is currently possible, reducing the risk of return fire for both craft. This new capability is part of the reason why the F-15EX program has its backers, in spite of its pricetag compared to more F-35s.
"I think it's hard for us to imagine the dynamics and doctrine for air combat with a peer country before it actually happen" So not really "hard to imagine", then. Just hard to predict accurately.
@@MoizRafay While I don't know that it's actually been confirmed, in all likelihood modern USAF missiles can be guided via datalink with other aircraft. In other words, it doesn't really matter what plane launches the missile, as long as it has range to reach the target. If an "invisible" F-35 has you painted, the missile will track to close enough that its own radar will find and seek the target.
The F-117A shootdown at the end of the 20th Century reminded me of the U-2 shootdown in 1960 in that the air defense assets used were heroic measures versus operational problems compounded by hubris. Luck played a factor--and the political fallout was more severe than the operational loss.
I usually use the figure of total cost to produce the 1st 100 production aircraft as as a cost figure for an aircraft. That gives a fairly easily comparable figure and is available fairly early for most aircraft though not the new SU57 which they have not managed to produce more than 7
Value seems to me to matter more than cost and total value makes more sense to measure once you have full service rather than first 100 birds. A bird that costs double of another bird for the first 100 but ultimately build 3x more than the other bird, lowering cost per unit significantly AND there's now more in quantity, spread among more allies, providing better overall attack/defense capability AND then if the bird that cost more during first 100 is also more capable than the other... Then value wins. It's more complex and my simplification here isn't very valuable of a statement so that's why I can also say your statement of first 100 isn't very helpful. Sorry. That's what I think. I don't know I'm right, just what makes sense to me.
Very well explained 👏
Another example of how the F-35 is under armed is that in a battle simulation against the 104-gun HMS Victory, in a standard broadside configuration, distance of 100 yards, at sea level and a speed of 10 knots, the F-35 severely underperformed.
It's never intended to get as close as 100 yards.
@@huwhitecavebeast1972 wooooosh (that's the sound of his joke going over your head)
@@huwhitecavebeast1972 it's a legitimate scenario that needs to be considered.
Or, to make a more believable metaphor: An aircraft carrier is going to severely underperform in a gunfight against a battleship. But there's a reason you don't see battleships any more.
@@Draxynnic ...because of stealth! I get it! and you though that you'd slip that one past us LOL Seriously no but you do see aircraft carriers, and you do see aircraft-carrier surface groups. Or "battle groups". Battleships still make nice gun platforms and have lots of deck space for missile batteries. Not saying that they are in use today but I wouldn't outright rule them out. Who knows what the hell is going to happen with the surface Navy going forward.
The sentence 'this is a thought exercise, not a bold declaration of objectivity' is one of my favorite things that has ever been said, and immediately earned my like and subscription
I wish more humans were as intelligent.
Im so embarrassed how people are today...even with Simon explaining context and facts....people are still fighting over the F35 on not being a superior dog fighting aircraft....lmao....jesus....it wasn't manufactured for dog fighting in mind and as a primary mission role.....good lord. Why is it, that today, so many people have this need and want to be 10000% right on shit that they don't even have training and experience in and even knowledge. People just use their own personal biased opinions as if it's facts and not a biased opinion....lol
You enjoy being lied to then. Propaganda shill with too many channels.
While I appreciate his humility, he ended up messing up the video in doing the most superficial research and missing context himself everywhere which he blamed critics for. This video is wrong on every point it tries to make. It is good that he was humble at the start and at the end, because as an outsider, he lacks crucial context to make any worthwhile insights. If you wish to know more, you can read my comments on this matter filtering comment section by newest. There will be three comments addressing each of his arguments.
"Dog fighting is dead." Simon, are we channeling the ghosts of the 1950s and 1960s? This declaration was made during both decades and yet it was found that we NEEDED aircraft that can 'dogfight' and ended up having to design F-14 (yes, the massive Tomcat), F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.
Yes, but what he's also completely wrong. The F-35 is considered a better dogfighter than every fighter it replaces. The notion that the F-35 was not designed to dogfight is based on US doctrine, not the aircraft's design. US pilots are trained to avoid dogfighting unless absolutely necessary, because if you have to concentrate on a target so much that looking away for a second could result in it disappearing from view, you're not going to notice the target's wingman coming up behind you. A dogfight is a situation in which the pilot is unable to make rational decisions because they lose track of the rest of the battlespace around them.
Lol I was waiting for the F15EX to be dropped in the comparison. The per unit cost adds up to actually 80m per unit. I believe it's gone up to 88m per but, still these jets have totally different purposes. F15 is for air support and ground attack. It has a high payload, great range, fast and low operating cost. Also very little training is necessary for pilots and mechanics. I'm a little partial to the jet because I build them😅
Doesn't change the economics as the F15EX spec'd with the latest advanced avionics and networking packages is still more per plane than the F35A. America got 40+ good years out of the F15...but it's definitely time to move on.
@@glamdring0007 What jet will replace its roll? I already explained why the US military place a contract on 80 units with more on the horizon. Qatar already asking for more and we haven't fulfilled the contract in its entirety. I don't think I can talk about the other contracts in the works. I believe 4 or 5 countries are negotiating contracts and I'm sure they have more inquiries. Boeing has been giving tours of the facilities. A potential new customers are walking around about once a quarter. Foreign nations can also buy F35s. Most of them are buying both because they sever 2 different rolls.
@@N3RF4LIF3 The F35 in full load out config isn't much behind the F15 in full load out as far as munitions. I just don't see the need for a less survivable F15 when F35A is more affordable in A spec, more survivable, and more network capable across all missions. But it wouldn't be the first time politics made a winner out of a second place finish so 🤷♂
@@glamdring0007 5 thousand pounds in max munitions is huge. That's over 20% more I payload. Not to mention how much that will consume in fuel, air speed, range, radar cross section, etc. That's like using a hatchback for moving dirt. Yeah it can do it but was designed to do what a truck can. The F15 is designed to be the fastest and highest payload. What really funny is that the F35 is like 20% smaller yet, weighs only 1k lbs less. Max takeoff weight is a 20k lbs difference. It's really simple the f35 can't do what the f15 can. That goes both ways
The F35 is sick. It can hang around in a fight even when its weapons have been exhausted and provide data and targeting support still.
you cant risk losing one at the cost per unit lol.. its a dumb plane and only exists because lockheed has all of congress bought.. and that means they can literally bully NATO members to buy lockheed martin instead of domestically produced alternatives. they literally had the DOD threaten all of NATO to not buy from avro back in the day.. the US did that to their "top ally" so no shit they would do it to all of nato
All modern fighters can do that. They all have Link 16 and modern sensors but realistically AWACS aircraft are much better at that and an empty F35 wouldn't hang around in the danger zone.
@@swunt10 The F-35 is far better than any other fighter when it comes to provide targeting ability. They already tested it in conjunction with an AEGIS Ship which can provide missile for it(all the SM and CM) and can enhance Ballistic Missile Defense of a fleet. The army also tested it using the Patriot missile and if I remember correctly it can guide a whole bunch of long range missile to target. An F-35 on stealth mode can be closer to target and giving vital time critical targeting information without fear of being shutdown easily. Just look at what happening in Ukraine. Russia can't sent their jet deep in Ukraine(they only operate at near the front) because air defense system can shot them down easily. They tried flying low but such tactics will reduced combat radius and make them vulnerable to Manpads(just like on SU-34 shutdown). Whether we like it or not VLO aircraft are far superior than Non VLO aircraft. Also on last note it was far easier to hide a small RCS aircraft than an aircraft with larger RCS using EW because you only need less energy to mask it.
@@eunwoocha4643 Again that is just modern computer and sensor stuff, all modern fighter get these systems, they can all link and share and target nothing unique about the F35. Every time a new fighter comes out it has the latest toys build in, that usually lasts about 2 days then all other jets get the same upgrade package or rather the new versions get the same tech. In the end the avionics (computers and sensors) can be dropped into a fucking Cessna and it would still work. None of the computer systems have anything to do with the air frame and it's capabilities A flying turd would still be a flying turd even with Link 16 and AI. That's simply no argument.
@@swunt10 actually you miss some key things for it to be put on other aircraft. Power Generation and Cooling. The amount of power and cooling that is needed for the system of F-35 to be put to lets say an F-16, F-18 or even the F-15 would be huge and can't be provided by their jet engine alone let alone the piston engine of a cessna as you claim. Their is a reason why the F-35 have a very powefull engine that provide alot of power and cooling and future system that will be integrated to it on Block 4 would need an upgraded engine or a new engine which needs to provide a mininum of 50% more power and cooling than the PW-135. Additionally no 4th generation aircraft have demonstrated such capability to the extent of F-35. Yiu can't just install an EODAS system on an aircraft without compromising the internal layout of it. Using Link 16 also make you visible from the ESM at long range and this is the reason the MADL was develop to overcome this(just read the MADL don't want to explain this because it would be too long) which will be useless to integrate to other NON VLO airframe because they can be seen on radar much sooner and at longer range than the F-35. Other thing to consider is COST and time to Integrate system. Alot of other aircraft already cost more than the F-35 and trying to integrate such system to them would need alot of $$$ and time to accomplish just look at the price of integration for a B61 Nuclear Bomb to Eurotyphoon that will cost Billions of dollars and nearly 5 years to integrate. Now you may point out on the German F-35 procurement which gives a price of $240M each because this include not only the aircraft but all things needed to fly the aircraft ranging from spare parts, training, upgrades to both aircraft(which is included in the DCSA) and base facilities, weapons(their are a hell lot of weapon for this) and other things. This is not even the final price this is the price ceiling of it which can be lowered by buying less items just like what Finland did which drop each aircraft FLY AWAY COST to $160M It seems the aircraft you calling turd is winning alot of competition at becoming the standard of western airpower.
Thank you Simon for solidifying my belief in the F35 for which I've always had a high regard and unlike you I've always believed the F35 is the best thing since sliced bread.
Hahahah
"Dogfighting is dead." They were saying the same thing in the early '60s. In fact, the earliest versions of the American F-4 Phantom were designed and manufactured with no guns at all - just air-to-air missiles, which turned out to be unreliable and inaccurate in engagements against the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21s of the Vietnam People's Air Force (VPAF; the North Vietnamese Air Force).
Insightful video.
An excellent short and simple critique and analysis of types/operational techniques and capabilities of stealth and not-so-stealthy aircraft systems. Well worth watching and absorbing.
The argument that the f 35 can't dogfight reminds me of that time that Saddam grounded the whole Iraqi air force after several planes mysteriously exploded while in flight. The Iranians had f14s equipped with missiles and radar that could fire very far out of visual range. These "reformers" as they call themselves thought that the A10, a notoriously ineffective aircraft was too high tech. Think the A10 is great? Imagine trying to spot and hit a house diving from a couple thousand feet without a visual aid.
@LazerPig is that you???
@@noneofyourbusiness4133 People don't think. They think what they think because someone once told them what to think...
@@noneofyourbusiness4133 a fellow degenerate
@@alexeigolik4516 Why don't you present a real argument instead of being mad that Lazerpig's talking points are being spread around, then? Oh wait, I already know the answer. It's because you're no better than the people you criticise and don't know anything lmao
@@Hafer_ I mean I could but and I have. Lazer never served a day in his life and all his info in second hand at best.
You are a very good videographer.👌🏻❤
@9:33, "The chinese development costs were much (pregnant pause) lower." nicely delivered😂
Oh no, why is Pierre Sprey even getting voiced here. Guys, please actually look into Sprey's history and controversy, his voice and thoughts mean nothing.
Gotta love Pierre Pray. "I was a super duper top secret designer on the F16 and A10, TRUST ME. I know I'm not on any of the documentation but I am an expert. And in my expert opinion I will always shit on the current generation of US aircraft or any aircraft in general that Russia Today will pay me to hate on."
The F-35 can dogfight when it has pilots who know how to use it. The simulated dogfight was very specifically constrained to within-visual range where stealth is of little use, especially when constrained to guns as in the simulation you cited. The real issue is how long can you remain undetected in an engagement, on this pilots trained on 5th generation fighters use them very differently than 4th Gen pilots. Those trained properly beat them every time.
Also as long as the helmet keeps working.
Suprisingly, I do believe that the F-35 can still dogfight, due to it being access high angles of attack, and being able to quickly regain its energy due to its high trust to weight ratio.
This is the best comment I’ve read. Great job in knowing the facts.
still it is not an F22, witch can dogfight
@@patricktho6546 well, yes, it's expected that a fighter that nearly costs twice as much and is specialized in air to air combat will be better at this
It's very ironic to hear Simon Whistler pointing at KZheadrs and other netizens trolling for views -- though I feel he's made valid points in this video, I remember several TopTenz videos he hosted which had ludicrously clickbaited titles and frequently inaccurate content. To the point that I wanted to watch this video series due to the content - but have put off watching any for weeks because I associate him so strongly with videos that are lazily researched and riddled with errors.
The section in this video about the dogfight capability is even more misleading, it's not just the fact that the F-35 is unlikely to ever get in a dogfight, but that the test that they cited as evidence that it couldn't dogfight had artificial limitations placed on the F-35, namely the flight control software installed would only let it reach a maximum AoA of 25 degrees, the same limit as the F-16, however with the handcuffs taken off, with it's full software, it can fly at 50 degrees AoA, double the F-16, which means it can point its nose off axis at the merge by double the F-16's, allowing instantaneous turn rates far higher than the F-16, and the fact it has more power and can fly without anything hanging off it, it has a higher sustained turn rate while still being armed with missiles, whereas for the F-16 to be able to same it would have to only have its gun.
2:35 actually I've heard that the F-35 performs better than the aircraft it is replacing, such as the F-16. This is due to superior computers controlling the flight systems, one of the most powerful aircraft engines ever built, and superior awareness of the battlefield
also, synthetic aperture observation capability: more aircrafts provide a greater detection range and accuracy, like synthetic aperture telescopes.
1. avionics are build into all modern fighter even as upgrade package, the F35 flight by wire is not better or worse than any other run of the mill modern fighter like the eurofighter 2. the F35 needs a very powerful engine because it has only the one and the aircraft is rather heavy and un-aerodynamic that's why the F35, despite having the most powerful engine, actually has a worse power to weight ration and slower top speed than most other fighters out there 3. "awareness" just means networking (link 16 which also all other modern fighter have) and it's on board computer sensor suit, which also all other modern fighter have or can get. You could literally install the computer of a modern fighter like the F35 or 4th tranche Eurofighter into a cessna and it would work just as well.
I just spoke to an RAF Officer (Engineering) at a wedding 2 days ago, I was asking him how much better the F35 was than previous fighters, he just looked at me and made the "You have no idea how awesome it is" face. From what I could tease out of him the Avionics and interface to the pilot are insane in capability. And for the last 10 years I have had serious doubts about the cost/value of the plane etc. His eyes lit up when I asked him, Just saying don't read too much into this.
@@swunt10 it has a worse thrust to weight ratio than other fighters because it is weighed down with computers, sensors, and other equipment that make it peerless. Also you have no idea what you're talking about, not all fly by wire systems are equal, it depends entirely on how powerful the computers are and how often they can update, and how well designed the software is that takes advantage of the airframe's entire envelope. The F-35 doesn't even use link-16 as its primary form of networking, which is a pretty much obsolete omnidirectional low bandwidth communication method. And again, not all computers are built equally, the F-35 is likely equipped with huge amounts of AI architecture for interpreting data from thermal, RF, and other sensors, which a eurofighter certainly doesn't have. Stop talking about things you know nothing about
@@moonasha I'm an aerospace engineer you moron so I have an actual idea and what I said is true. Also eurofighter has plenty of AI. but ok.. you can think what you like. God how I hate morons like you and to think people like you not only exist but also have the same power to vote is just unnerving to me. So many idiots out there and they all think they know best about everything... we are so fucked PS "F-35 doesn't even use link-16 as its primary form of networking, which is a pretty much obsolete " oh for fucks sake I get the urge to do unspeakable atrocities..
At first, all I had heard were the negative comments and outdated pilots ranting against the F-35. When I finally looked into it, I saw only the usual "breaking-in" difficulties for new technologies. It's looking to be a very good aircraft right now, and it's improving almost daily as the technology matures.
well considering the design is over 20 years already and already slated for replacement that is great news
@@touristguy87 With respect, where would a person find documentation supporting your conjecture? ThNk you!
@@Steve9312028 in a desk at Mar--a-lago
@@VAYNAX06 it's supposed to be an airborne 5G tower
@@VAYNAX06 dude they are all supposed to be replaced
4:14 The reason it was bad against the f16 was because one the stealth coating was gone and about 80 to 90% of its electronics wasn't activated, but a updated test in 2017 or 18 they did it again with the f16 with it in full production and got a 20-1 KD at the usaf and the marines got a 24-0 KD in a dogfight as yes dogfighting almost never happens the f35a can still dogfight if needed to.
Contrary point to the dogfight (credit to “longshot” on KZhead, not me). 4th gen fighters were all about beyond visual range missile fights. 5th gen fighters are moving largely towards stealth technology, meaning merges and dogfights have the potential of becoming more common again for 5th gen against 5th gen.
This would be interesting to see. I believe at some point though it would just be identical current modern 4th-gen. fighter jet engagements due to future advancments in computer signal recognition capabilities in correlation with sophisticated, trained AI, which can locate any target. I believe that stealth technology will follow “S curves” in effectiveness as time passes on.
Much of this is still correct, though malinformed. First off is that while the F-35 has the most comprehensive situational awareness suite, the F-16 and F/A-18 also utilize high off boresight capabilities. It is not unique to the F-35. The F-35 can dogfight, as has been proven in Red Flag exercises, beating F-16’s repeatedly, even while carrying air to ground ordnance internally. What the F-35 lacks is indeed energy maneuverability as stated in this video, but that is one of several aspects of the dogfight. The F-16 is what’s called a rate fighter. It keeps its speed up and “rates” around the circle until it’s on the tail of its adversary. In the high off boresight world this is not advantageous. The Hornet is what’s called a nose positioning fighter. It utilizes high alpha (AoA) capabilities to be able to point its nose at its opponent even when at low speeds. This allows for HOBS (high off boresight) weapons to be more easily deployed. This is the fight that the F-35 was designed for. The nose positioning, or one circle fight. It can most certainly dogfight.
Another aspect is that pilots say that it regains energy better than the F/A-18. That's a very dangerous combination.
I find it insane people cite 1 pilots report from prior to the plane being complete even. I think many many people still have this foolish take that it looks a little like an f22 at a glance and it must be bad cuz its newer and can't maneuver like the f22 or better.... space ships can't keep up with an f22 so it's a stupid bar for something that's concept was a joint strike fighter. What even happened to cause the tidal wave of bs on this aircraft is hard to pin down.
Bingo.
The miss in the video is that the origin of the "F-35 can't dogfight" was based on a dumbed down software.
The big difference between the high off boresight of the F-35 and other fighters is that the F-35 can use its EODAS to fire AMRAAMs off boresight, while other aircraft can only do it with short range missiles like the AIM-9X Sidewinder