Shut up about the F-35

Compare news coverage. Spot media bias. Avoid algorithms. Be well informed. Download the free Ground News app at ground.news/lazerpig
==
In the first 10 years of operation. the F-16 was costing the American Taxpayer around 18 million per airframe. 143 had been destroyed, and 71 of its pilots were dead.
The A-10, 17.2 million per airframe, 59 had been destroyed and 26 had died through miss-identified friendly fire incidents.
The F-35, at 50 million per airframe has now been flying for 15 years, and is one of the most controversial planes in existence. Critics constantly cite it's spiraling costs.
And yet, in 15 years of flying the F-35 has lost 4 airframes, and killed one pilot, making it one of the safest planes flying today.
But if so why is the plane so controversial?
In this video we briefly examine the Woozle effect, the effect by which the media, and those that cite the media, simply quote each other as a source without ever truly fact checking if what they publish is genuine or not, and have, for years, been unintentionally broadcasting Russian propaganda as factual claims about Americas new fighter jet.
Credits:
Kevin MacLeod - Kool Kats
• Kevin MacLeod: Kool Ka...
Central African Republic: military parade for 60 years of independence
• Central African Republ...
thehistorysquad - How a Lightweight Medieval Crossbow Works
• How a Lightweight Medi...
RoyaltyFree - Rainy City Night - Royalty Free Stock Footage
• Rainy City Night - Roy...
PexBell - Free Stock Video Footage
• Artist Stock Footage -...
Stock Shop - Free Stock Footage
/ stockshopfreestockfootage
Growling Sidewinder - 5th Generation Dogfight Su-57 Felon Vs F-22 Raptor Dogfight | Digital Combat Simulator | DCS |
• 5th Generation Dogfigh...
Aviation Videos & Wildlife FULL HD - Incredible Unrestricted Take off F15 fighter jet RAF Mildenhall 28Oct16 321pm
• Incredible Unrestricte...
patrickkorf - fire background one hour
• fire background one hour
Aviation videos archives part3 1950-1975
/ @aviationvideosarchive...
Skyes9 - Phantom Pharewell - USAF F-4 Phantom Last Flight
• Phantom Pharewell - US...
thedanward - Dan Ward FIRE Presentation
• Dan Ward FIRE Presenta...
sydney getzin - Dan Ward Simplicity Cycle #EMCDojo Meetup
• Dan Ward Simplicity Cy...
Dafydd Phillips - MACH LOOP AMERICANS (4k)
• MACH LOOP AMERICANS (4k)
World Army Club - F-15 Eagles European Theater Security Package B-roll • Bulgaria
• F-15 Eagles European T...
Bridget Bosch - 148th Fighter Wing F-16 B-roll
• 148th Fighter Wing F-1...
Armament Facts - U.S. Air Force F 16, B-roll video footage 2022
/ watchv=xikp8z_steu&t=2...
Jasonmbro - John Boyd Patterns of Conflict Part 1
• John Boyd Patterns of ...
Brenda Konkel - Pierre Sprey: F-35, PFAS, Truax and You - A Forum
• Pierre Sprey: F-35, P...
Neil Murray Music - Superhero Epic Ident | Neil Murray | Royalty Free Music
• Superhero Epic Ident |...
Craig Riley - Topic (various from the Old Timey TV music album)
/ craig riley - topic
Well There's Your Problem Podcast
-Live show
• UNLOCKED | It's the fi...
-Quoted Podcast: Episode 38: V-22 Osprey
• Well There's Your Prob...
Mauzer - Russia and China / Shanghai Cooperation Organization power / Modern Combat zapad 2021
• Shanghai Cooperation O...
Welcome to Modern Combat
• Welcome to Modern Comb...
Piggy Springer title card reading - CoobyPlz
/ coobypls
References:
/ woozling_history_a_cas...
The F-15 Origins and Development:
media.defense.gov/2012/May/16...
Dan Ward: Simplicity White Paper
www.thedanward.com/resources/S...

[@mikestanmore2614]

Every time I hear the term "suicide drone" I imagine a small drone that hovers next to enemy troops and whispers "Kill yourself."

[@Professional_Lolicon]

Call of Duty: Mental Warfare

[@trolleriffic]

"Everybody hates you" "You're a failure and you'll never amount to anything or find love" "Here, I got you this bottle of pills. Why not end the pain..." Smart weapons are going too far!

[@thewizard1]

LowTierDrone

[@danbackslide2957]

Drone that has a silver platter hanging down from it attached to a string, on the platter is a handgun with one bullet loaded and a note that says “do it, pussy”

[@speedman69420]

@@danbackslide2957 okay *grabs gun and shoots drone* hey i have a gun now nice

[@warrenschrader7481]

Complaining that the F-35 can't dogfight is like saying modern soldiers can't fight hand-to-hand anymore. They CAN fight hand-to-hand and they do train for it. But if they find themselves actually needing to use it in battle, then something has gone very VERY wrong.

[@OhNotThat]

Its more like complaining that modern artillerymen perform very poorly in hand to hand combat compared to 16th century men at arms and pikemen. Therefore we're weaker than we ever been because overall most soldiers and people who work in the military are less "combat capable" than they were before. Ignoring the fact that if you're having the mechanics in the motorpool or your pilots or your medics, actually have fist fights with our geopolitical adversaries like Russia or China or Iran means something has gone catastrophically wrong.

[@patchouliknowledge4455]

Not just CAN, it accels at it! God, that insane AoA that's better than the F-18 paired with the most powerful engine ever put on a fighter to get the plane back up to speed very, very quickly unlike some other Russian 5th gen that still uses old engines

[@jloiben12]

Excuse me sir. We don’t do that facts and logic thing here

[@eleventy-seven]

F35 can't turn, can't fight can't run. If it can, put it up against any I mean any of it's competition in a real world exercise. That wont. They cant.

[@patchouliknowledge4455]

@@eleventy-seven @Jordon 1) F-35 can turn, it has the best AoA of any American fighter, even beating out the F-18. The main reason why people think it can't turn is because they always cite the test where a F-35 without it's software upgrades to allow more freedom of movement fought against an F-16, which both pilots knew that the F-35 was never gonna win. But with the new software upgrades and hardware upgrades, the F-35 has proven that yes, it can dogfight, especially since it has the most powerful engine put on a plane which allows it to accelerate very quickly unlike all russian jets that can pull the useless cobra. You want to ask all the nations that have pitted it against F-15s, F-16s etc? 2) The F-35 can fight. In many exercises, a newish pilot in an F-35 managed to save a very experienced pilot in an F-16 many times by the fact that the F-35 is incredibly simple to use and the RCS makes it almost invisible. The F-35 is the plane that puts the least amount of stress on the pilot, as it has the best sensor integration and fusion of any fighter. Plus, the F-35 also has built in ECW abilities, which puts it on par with the E-18G has shockingly the navy decided not to extend the life of their growlers after buying the F-35. 3) The F-35 can run. While it does have a lower top speed of mach 1.6-7, it still has the ability to super cruise like most fighters! You do have to remember that even though many fighters could reach over mach 2 in the Vietnam war, no combat aircraft was even recorded to go over the mach 1.6 barrier! So yes, the Mach 1.6 top speed of the F-35 IS enough. 4) I don't know if you've never bothered to check, but with all the nations that bought the F-35, countless nations have in fact used the F-35s in exercises and found them to be one of the best jets that they've used. And if you say oh, NATO countries don't count since they're on the US's payroll, let me give you an example: the Singapore airforce, the RSAF, who most recently had a joint training exercise with the Australian airforce and 17 other nations in Exercise Pitch Black over at Darwin

[@ChimaeraTom]

"it doesnt even have a gun!" really pisses me off as a criticism of the F-35. the A variant (airforce, traditional runway) does have a gun mounted inside the wing. While the B and C variants (STVOL and Carrier) don't have one, preferring to save weight but can take gun pods mounted underneath. When was the last time an aircraft actually got an air-to-air kill with its gun? i've found mostly uncited sources of 3, 2007 an f-16 shot down a MiG in Syria, and 2 gun kills ironically by A-10s on Mi-8 helicopters in desert storm, 1991. That's 3 "gun kills" in 20 years, as far as i can google anyway. Before that it seems the Falklands, 1982, was the last time aerial combat with guns was a semi regular thing, over 40 years ago. And the last time it was common would have been Vietnam 50-70 years ago! Imagine using WW2 tactics in the 2nd gulf war. I always found it wild the accusation that the F-35 "can't dogfight". Even if its true, which it isnt, who needs to dogfight when you can take out 8 enemy planes simultaneously when you're 100km away while acting as a mini awacs for other planes, while having a RCS the size of a golf ball.

[@Frserthegreenengine]

I think maybe a Sea Harrier damaged a few Argentine Aircraft with their cannons? But only when they either ran out of missiles or when they were too close. The Shars used their AIM-9Ls whenever possible.

[@trolleriffic]

I believe the last confirmed guns kill in a dogfight between fighter jets was in 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. The last time a US aircraft needed a gun to settle a dogfight was in 1972 over Vietnam and even back then it was missiles which were getting most of the kills despite being pretty awful by modern standards.

[@brianjones8673]

Ironically we've made an air to air kill with an air to ground bomb more recently, but the guns do make people shit themselves on the ground.

[@Corristo89]

Keeping a gun around as a backups isn't a bad idea, but when you're in the situation where your F-35 has to use its gun in order to shoot down an enemy plane, then you should never have been in that situation. Kind of reminds me of the Warhammer 40K saying "If you can see the Tau, then they're losing" (the Tau being heavily focused on extremely long range, highly accurate firepower and generally passing off close-quarters fighting to one of their client species, i.e. the Kroot).

[@bear3616]

Aren’t guns usually just used for air to ground combat.

[@theoduckett6396]

"Jack of all trades, master of none" that quote always has the last bit cut off: "-but better than a master of one".

[@TheGreatThicc]

It's amazes how fucked sayings like that get. Another fun one is "Curiousity killed the cat". Nobody ever says the second half of that one, "but satisfaction brought it back"

[@vincentheartland2088]

"Blood runs thicker ... than water" is actually "The Blood of the Covenant runs thicker than water of the womb". It literally means as much the opposite as can be to how it's often used: "Your loyalty to your battlebrothers and devotion to your Holy Order and duties should be stronger than even the most sacred familial bonds between you and your own mother"

[@bismuth_eater]

"Jack of all trades master of none" was the original saying. "but better than a master of one" was added on later to make people who were masters of none feel better about themselves.

[@vincentheartland2088]

I feel like a the word "often" being left out of this phrasing is crucial too - A jack of all trades is more *often* better than a master of one, because, y'know, sure he's not great at that one thing, but then he's statistically more likely to do lots of different things and will always be 30% good at it, compared to the "master's" 10% in a field in which he's not specialized.

[@dojelnotmyrealname4018]

"The customer is always right in matters of taste"

[@alexross1816]

I, somehow, have fewer military analysis skills than Mr. Spray. My assessment of the F-35 is that it is better than the F-16 because it is a bigger number. Of course, none of them could compete with the Ford F-150.

[@trolleriffic]

Your military analysis skills are clearly far better than those of Mr Sprey.

[@internetbodhi1009]

I'm putting my truck into Low earth orbit just for you.

[@grigss3027]

Your method of guessing whats bwtter works perfectly with soviet tanks and aircraft, just dont look into the armata

[@gust0o]

This is good to know, as it should mean that Ford F-500 will retain our defence advantage for years to come, given the Russians are only just talking about the SU-75. We're at least 425 ahead, well done Western world.

[@qylanberry1825]

it's a well defended secret that the B52 was a placeholder until Ford could finish their F8000, our true jewel of the defense network

[@tumage8592]

"the S400 nullified theF35" it doesnt even nullified the ukranian air force

[@kalashnikovdevil]

And early model MiG-29s aren't exactly 5th gen.

[@HMN134]

S400 probably wouldn't be that bad, if it wasn't the Russians using it Still get ratioed by F35 though

[@tumage8592]

@@kalashnikovdevil ThEiR dOgFiGhT-cApAbIlItIeS aRe To GoOd To GeT dEsTrOyEd By UnMaNeD mIsSiLeS

[@eliasziad7864]

The S-500 does.

[@Im_TheSaint]

It never was going to.

[@faolan1686]

I read something from an RAAF pilot about the F18 vs F35. The Hornet is the better dogfight plane. The Lighting doesn't have to dogfight. The out 5 F18s in the sky then sent a F35 up to hunt them. It took out all five with simultaneous missile clock on all five F18s without not only presenting a target but the pilots of the F18s didn't even know it was in the air or where it was when it got lock. 4th gen vs 5th gen is like a swordsman fighting a sniper. It's not even a fight.

[@joshuahadams]

It’s a cavalry charge against a Maxim gun.

[@TomoHawKzZ]

@@joshuahadams And the Maxim gun is behind them hidden in a foxhole.

[@agent7176]

Wikipedia's article on Pierre Sprey now cites this video. > Claims of his involvement in the design of these Aircraft are considered by many to be dubious.[2] That citation links to this video

[@Frixworks]

It's still up!

[@DuplexWeevil337]

Damn

[@createstadler]

hahahaha thats honestly so fucking funny

[@alaeriia01]

Doug Winger has more of a claim to the design of the A-10 than Pierre Sprey, which is hilarious because Doug Winger is better known for creating the genre of furry porn known as "hyper" and also something about the Space Shuttle.

[@thomaswalmsley8959]

Jesus wiki needs a better citation filter. Lazerpig is correct, but that should not actual be passing as support for a claim

[@ashscott6068]

Pierre Sprey in 1982: "We don't need home computers! Just use an abacus!" Pierre Sprey in 2020: "I invented home computers"

[@sombodythatyouusedtoknow9046]

I can't watch gay furry hentai in a abacus

[@RedRider1600]

Sprey thought the F-15, by far the most successful fighter aircraft in history, was an "overstuffed turkey". His idea of the perfect fighter aircraft for modern times, was a basic stripped down F-16, or an F-86 Sabre, or P-51 Mustang.

[@charlesc.9012]

@@RedRider1600 An f-104 of sorts. The man lives in 1940, where engines haven't reliably exceeded 1000 horsepower

[@Silverauren]

​@@RedRider1600The funniest part is that, by it's fly by wire *technology* the f16 almost flies by itself. And still Sprey would want to take the computers out of the jet.

[@haventthoughtofanameyet6364]

​@charlesc.9012 many engines in planes put our over 1000 horsepower in 1940, but i know what ya mean xD

[@Deathman271]

As a Military Expert, the F-35 is a plane.

[@UD503J]

Your experience is much appreciated.

[@portablecar5328]

welp there goes more classified info.

[@thatguy4828]

??? I got multiple sources saying its a butterfly

[@mechagoji9129]

Academy awards, give them all to this guy

[@Andy-iq9pz]

clearly more propoganda. according to the top analyst in the world, pierre spray, it is a turkey.

[@cpuuk]

I am the real designer of the A-10, Eurofighter Typhoon and both US and Russian F-35. I did all this whilst backpacking round Gondwanaland during a gap year.

[@dylangabriel2703]

Wow well done lol

[@donlunn792]

Well done. How much did you get paid?

[@markc1548]

So you didn't help with the Mighty Dragon ?

[@lucashenry6281]

Russia doesn’t have a stealth anything.

[@gunfumaster1024]

I'm just sad I might not be able to see the F-22 wipe the floor with Russian and Chinese MiGs like an angry grizzly bear chases a hiker that got in between her and her cub.

[@Speedy2619]

"Would you intercept me"

[@prestonjones1653]

"I'd intercept me."

[@frankpolly]

So a big controversy happened with the F-35 here in the Netherlands which swayed a lot of public opinion against it. During the formal receiving of the first F-35s here, the Fire department had set up firetrucks next to the taxi lane. So when the F-35s were rolling on the taxi lane, the fire trucks would spray/mist water over the aircraft to give it a sort of fancy spectacular entrance. One of these trucks though, accidentally sprayed water with extinguishing foam on one of the planes which damaged it. The public quickly went on on how the government was stealing our money to buy expensive planes that couldn't even handle a 'bit of water', ignoring the fact that this was not water, but the infamous extinguishing foam which is famous for destroying electronics. The public also ignored the fact that would this have happened to our love child, the F-16, it would have also damaged it.

[@Destiny1G]

lol thanks for telling this story, wouldn't have heard of it otherwise.

[@TazyBaby]

Thank you for that detail, I heard about it but never heard that its known for destroying electronics and would have damaged other fighters. They left that part out

[@WalterWhiteFootballSharing]

Clickbait bullshit headlines is a global thing. The fine print wouldn't make it a fun story about evil stupid govt buying useless american weapons; when they could be solving poverty and building more schools (left) or increasing police and giving large tax cuts to the wealthy (right).

[@juanmanuelpenaloza9264]

JUSTICE FOR MAH BOIII!!

[@euan565]

What's even funnier is the reason the f35 got doused in foam is that a f16 had a emergency landing just before the f35 landed, F16 causes it all

[@axson8]

"If you asked the consumer what they wanted, they'd have just told you that they wanted faster horses" -Henry Ford

[@fakecubed]

That's true, but in the case of the F-35 they did ask their three different customers, who all had wildly different and contradictory demands, and then they tried to satisfy them all. By some miracle, they managed to, more or less, meet all three customers' demands. But at least two of those customers have now realized their demands didn't make as much sense as they initially thought and now they're both going their separate ways with separate procurement programs to get much more specialized planes.

[@trolleriffic]

@@fakecubed The F-35 program didn't make the mistake of creating a single plane to satisfy the demands of all those customers. Although the A, B and C variants look almost identical, there are a lot of differences in their design which in many ways makes them three separate aircraft based on a single concept and sharing most of their technology. Creating three genuinely separate designs would have been far more expensive in both development and manufacturing cost, and likely taken even longer.

[@GigasGMX]

To be fair, the world would be a MUCH better place without personal motor vehicles.

[@roadent217]

So the automaker's response was to... take a horse-drawn carriage, and take out the horse. wew lad, such genius, much wow, what a paradigm shift! Henry Ford is a revolutionary, and totally came up with all the radical new automotive technology on his own!

[@sonnguyenvan1599]

@@roadent217 What's your point?

[@charlesrichardson8635]

When a pilot who flew F16 for most of his career then went to the F35 and said he would never go back by choice, YTer Hazard Lee. He said he had to be careful, but the fusion and situational awareness was unchallengeable.

[@howardpayne4128]

You can only fly an F16 for about 8 years any more and you'll mess up your spine F16 pilots have each vertebrae scanned every year. 9G is not good on your body.

[@epiblue2]

"You can't just keep upgrading legacy aircraft" b-52 *enters chat* may i introduce myself

[@ieuanhunt552]

I'm pretty sure The Space Federation in the 25th century will be using Grandpa BUFF.

[@oliviersavard8676]

or the c-130

[@darkleome5409]

​@@ieuanhunt552 I mean, space bugs aren't gonna blow up by themselves. We need every plane we can get

[@Shaun_Jones]

Pierre Sprey: “The military is building aircraft that are nothing more than expensive death traps!” Also Pierre Sprey: “Let’s delete the ejection seat!”

[@justsomehaatonpassingby4488]

Who needs an ejection seat when you can just open the canopy at supersonic speed (which you can't) or shoot through and hammer the canopy ww2 style (which is asking for a debris shower to your face at supersonic speeds)... we should subject these people to eject at supersonic speed without an ejection seat lol

[@Mrterminus]

I can get behind some of the things he wants. But removing IFF ? What’s the advantage of not knowing if you are targeting a friend or a foe?

[@justsomehaatonpassingby4488]

@@Mrterminus the advantage is that it frees you from guilt of accidentally shooting down an ally since 1.) you can just blame it on the ally for being there/in the pathway of the missile. 2.) You didn't know you just shot down an ally

[@patricksweeney3382]

He wanted a cheep death trap, obviously.

[@unclejoeoakland]

again- that's the point. Insist on something that nobody in their right mind would attempt, and you can criticize them till the end of time for failing to explore all options, and while this will never demonstrate you as being correct, it will certainly mean you are never proven wrong.

[@11energize]

Ah yes, Pierre Sprey, the man who said the US should ditch the M1 Abrams and just build more M48 Pattons. You know, the tank from 1952

[@Neion8]

I'd say he was planted by the Soviets, but I don't think even they would be so obvious about their desire to weaken America's millitary...

[@chrissierra-5633]

1952? I don't want the USA to be north korea

[@Nmille98]

I think it was M60 Pattons, but yeah.

[@crowe6961]

This man simply does not understand that an army cannot sustainably operate under the presumption of nigh-infinite manpower, especially in an even halfway legitimate democracy. There are arguments to be made for the likes of the F-36 Kingsnake to be put into production alongside the F-35 and whatever becomes of the NGAD program, but that's still a very real upgrade from the F-16. It does, however lack stealth coatings because they're temperamental, expensive, and unnecessary for most combat missions against inferior forces. They would make fine interceptors and export aircraft.

[@dononteatthevegetals2941]

@@Nmille98 Nope, it was specified. Sprey wanted us to build M48A3s and A5s.

[@johannfrederichk3473]

There are two types of fighters: Stealth fighters and targets -military dude I couldn’t care less about remembering his name

[@datboi2250]

Funniest thing is that this reformer F-15 redesign wanted to focus on dogfight capability but it states that they want the pressure suit (G-suit) removed. And I don't think (but i'm not an expert) that dogfighting in a modern jet without a G-suit would be very pleasant... Or doable at all

[@TheDisgruntledImperial]

After hearing so many snarky comments about the F35 budget from so many military youtubers, I've been waiting for someone like LaserPig to give me a better idea of why it is or isn't a waste after all.

[@alack3879]

As a humanist, all military spending is a waste if we could just create a world without assholes. It's very fortunate then that weapons are probably gonna be necessary for doing just that

[@shovel1353]

​​@@alack3879 how am I gonna take a shit then?

[@alack3879]

@@shovel1353 asshole in English as a curse word when referring to an individual describes an intolerable or belligerent person who makes life around them harder. Not referring to the Anus.

[@RainKing048]

Remember, the "very expensive" F-35 will be produced in the thousands, whereas Russia takes years to build a squadron's worth of "cheap" Su-57

[@LazerPig]

From a General who worked in procurment on the spiraling cost of the F-35 "We used to pay in Blood, what we now pay in money"

[@KyoOnTheInternet]

So let me get this straight, I listen to 35 minutes of saying the media and “military analysts” are unqualified, and then get treated to the worst singing of let it go I have ever heard? Quality content, def subscribing

[@Mrjcraft00]

Welcome to the LazerPig channel

[@skizarcana]

I think you meant to say the *BEST* singing of let it go you've every heard.

[@jasonirwin4631]

Not to mention that singing pig was at some point involved with British army intelligence.

[@BiigiieCheeese]

Military analysts spent millions to see why sailors kept crashing navy ships and found out that they lacked training and sleep, something any sailor below E6 would tell you. So yeah military analysts are pretty much worthless.

[@NorroTaku]

ngl this is exactly what I wanted lol

[@_.incredible_magnum._291]

I love how the hate for the f35 comes from a simulated dog fight between a stealth fighter and a 40 year old dogfighter. As if fight planes dogfight that often🤣

[@trolleriffic]

A dogfight where a pre-production F-35 was artificially limited in its performance as part of the development process.

[@_.incredible_magnum._291]

@@trolleriffic 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@jtbrown51]

The F-35 is a maintenance nightmare. Mostly because every piece of equipment is a maintenance nightmare in the military. Because it turns out, maintenance nightmares in the military are as old as mom and apple pie.

[@justalpha9138]

I've heard that the F-35 is tough to maintain, but it is a complex, yet highly effective machine. Still though, I'm about to join the Oregon Air National Guard, and I'm really REALLY hoping that someday Oregon will get F-35s that way I can fix my favorite jet. Maybe one day I'd be fortunate enough to pilot one, but for now, just being able to maintain them is good enough. Seriously though, I'd love to pilot the F-35 someday. :)

[@ZESAUCEBOSS]

The F16 was designed to be dynamically unstable in its flight characteristics and was the first true fly by wire fighter jet to be mass produced- the idea that it was not “complicated” is laughable- it’s very interesting to watch you point out just how little some of these “experts” really know

[@Jacob-tn8st]

MORB-35

[@colbunkmust]

The design of the F-16 changed drastically from its initial theoretical development to the first actual production from the factory as well. It was never originally developed as a multipurpose platform.

[@josejimenez896]

Don't they have like three identical fly by wire computer systems for redundancy because holy hell good luck even attempting to manually fly this thing without computer assistance

[@ZESAUCEBOSS]

@@josejimenez896 it might even be four on the newer ones. I’m honestly not sure- my background from an engineering prospective was/is more launch vehicles than aircraft and I’ve never worked for Lockheed Martin or general dynamics

[@wirt2663]

​@@Jacob-tn8st I LOVE MORBIUS

[@emilmlodnicki3835]

I went to college with a younger man that became a A-10 pilot. He won the DFC for actions he took in Afghanistan. He's now a very young LTC and flies the F-35. He likes it much better than the A-10.

[@kostakatsoulis2922]

I mean compared to the A-10 id imagine the F-35 just feels more like its actually flying, while the A-10 might feel more like a brick with wings(insert Master Chief joke here). I know nothing, but I'm guessing that something like it

[@thelvadam2884]

@@kostakatsoulis2922 For a brick , it is flying pretty expensive

[@VikingTeddy]

The weird A-10 worship started as a joke some years ago. I watched it develop on military history and aviation forums. People back then who cared about such things knew that it was obsolete. The gun is cool and it was just funny to go BRRRRT and make memes of it. Then Poe's law happened and more and more people started praising the A-10 because their friends did. And here we are.

[@404Dannyboy]

@@VikingTeddy i remember when the only thing people said about the a10 was, "The gun sounds cool and the plane is kind of ugly."

[@AnimeFreak40K]

@@VikingTeddy I've been a fan of the A-10 since the early 90's because of a couple of video games and toys/action-figure "accessories"; I just thought the plane looked all kinds of awesome. Later, not long after the first Gulf War, it was pretty clear that the A-10 was built for a war that never happened, nor was it going to happen...which was only further solidified after I joined the Army. While I was saddened to be shown, definitively, that the A-10 is just...not all that good (especially on the modern battlefield), my love for it has not diminished because, well, I just think it looks all kinds of awesome. Oh, and the memes give me a chuckle.

[@JP-fr6by]

Osprey was right why would you need radar when you have a mini map that shows you where the enemy is

[@ashkebora7262]

Point of argument: KISS does NOT fall apart with complicated systems. In fact, that's exactly where it shines. KISS does NOT say "get rid of the fancy stuff". It just says, "Do what you need to do without over-doing it." it means don't make all of your systems inter-dependent. it means don't make important operations require an entire daisy-chain of systems to function. It means don't conflate reasons between the various systems. KISS is the foundation of so many important principles, and that goofball completely misunderstood it if he was even attempting to say it didn't need encrypted radio and the like.

[@ploppyjr2373]

That very much depends on your definition of simple, nothing is simple anymore, which makes sense

[@ashkebora7262]

@@ploppyjr2373 Simple is always relative. That's the point. You aim for solving the task in the simplest way possible, even if the task is something insane like, "use crazy advanced interferometry with our crazy advanced radar dish so we can spot the weird radar holes that are stealth aircraft even over the horizon.". The military and the ever-present unknown nature of "the enemy" gives rise to quite the advanced list of requirements, yes, but that doesn't mean the systems need to have ever increasing part counts and maintenance budgets. I mean, outside of necessity, but if you keep in mind to 'keep' it simple, that should include refinement and optimization when technology shrinks or gains mass production. Or the neat tech gets easier, like solid state LiDAR and I'm sure a huge list of secret crap the military has. I'm sure they don't have to reinvent the wheel to throw together quite the crazy stuff. The principle's kinda' generally applicable when you realize it means "keep the task simple", not "never make something complicated". For a counter-example: All of the car companies covering up a bunch of crap in the engine compartment with plastic panels just for aesthetic and who the hell knows what other annoying anti-maintenance reasons. Completely counter to KISS when things would be simpler 'and' lose no functionality without those details.

[@Philitron128]

@@ashkebora7262 Did you write this on a cell phone or a computer?

[@BlockieBoy_and_Trevor]

While I agree with your principle, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by all the specific points about the f-35. Being able to share information with allied units basically negates any possibility of friendly fire, and that first point actually goes against your second, where the f-35 can act as a small AWACS for other friendly units, meaning that they don't need " an entire daisy-chain of systems to function." The f-35 has external missile hardpoints for extra ground attack when SAM systems and other planes are no longer an issue, it has an electronic warfare system it be used against radar systems, and it also has a brilliant radar that can be used to find and lock onto enemy planes, which does compromise the stealth, but when you out range your enemies by 25 miles, and you're only broadcasting your radar signature for about 10 seconds while the missile switches to its onboard radar, it doesn't matter anymore. The f-35 was built to be multi-role, and these systems allow to to fight as part of a unit, completely invisible while guided by an AWACS, or on its own or part of a small group tasked with performing CAS. You are right in the fact that you shouldn't over do anything, but when the DOD wants a plane to be used by all branches, in all weathers, for all missions, and sold to all NATO countries, suddenly all these systems have a use.

[@ashkebora7262]

@@BlockieBoy_and_Trevor I'm not sure what you've read from my post since the entire point was _not_ that these features are bad, but that they need to be designed in non-fragile ways. "Don't over-do it" is NOT about sherking entire features that limit capability, but not making those capabilities multiply the platform cost.

[@bryonslatten3147]

The most amazing technology that I’ve heard about F-35’s is that if any two of them from any country meet in the same battle space at any time they can immediately network all of their sensor data together and provide 360 degree look-around views to both pilots. The pilots don’t even need to speak the same language because the aircraft do the communicating for them. Insane.

[@shira_yone]

Datalink is OP and terrifying, I couldn't begin to imagine group of F-35s going full send.

[@almabatekert_villanykorte3387]

I know i'm just splitting hairs,but wouldn't it be required for both of them to speak english?

[@XX-qo5ny]

@@almabatekert_villanykorte3387 NATO allies using the F-35 do not universally teach English to all their pilots.

[@almabatekert_villanykorte3387]

@@XX-qo5ny But aren't all pilots supposed to know english?

[@bryonslatten3147]

@@almabatekert_villanykorte3387 to coordinate their activities, yes, but not to share data.

[@AngryKittens]

I grew up in an era when the F-117 and the Harrier seemed like magic. Imagine how I feel seeing the F-22, and now the F-35.

[@lostalone9320]

Man, I went back and re-read Red Storm Rising recently. That book doesn't even have the F-117, because back then not even Tom Clancy was allowed to write about it, instead writing about the genuinely fictitious F9.

[@termitreter6545]

You ever played DCS? Its got a realistic simulation of the F-18, which could give you an idea of how modern integrated sensors and networking works.

[@senorpepper3405]

​@@lostalone9320 awesome book. Kinda like ww2 with 80s tech.

[@formerhunter2]

nice pfp, bro.

[@darmansbar7900]

​@@lostalone9320 wait, wasn't the F-17 "Frisbee"?

[@christophermiller2075]

Love the Well There’s Your Problem reference…I love that podcast….and I just recently found your channel and I love it despite me knowing NOTHING at all about military tech, but I’m enjoying the exposure. Keep up the great work!

[@cbotable6227]

There's a reason American jets are gray and Russian jets are green, cause the gray helps camoflauge against the sky. And there's NO way any russian jet is going to stay off the ground.

[@b.w.22]

Good grief, I love this guy. The point that it wasn’t that the “experts” were wrong about Russia but that they weren’t experts is so incisive.

[@krissteel4074]

Yeah, there's a lot of them on their twotter accounts back to pan handling for for appreciation as the useful idiots they are. They're more or less up there with the same cretinous morons that claim 'war never changes' and haven't really noticed the last 2 decades of war changing, its a high tech nightmare of people getting zapped by crap out of nowhere and doctrines being rapidly over run by technology that no one has yet to quite figure out an operational or tactical counter to them- Ideally, you don't want to be the zapped in a defense situation. I think the most destructive aspect of agi-prop is that it generally takes more time to disprove the unfounded lie to begin with and really should be just countered with the onus back on the liar to begin with and leaving the rest of us to shitpost in peace about tv shows and boobs.

[@jordansmith4040]

Multiple US generals and policy makers were also incorrect about the Russians. Partly I think because it's wiser to assume your enemy is competent and not completely corrupt from the top to the bottom.

[@TheOfficalBiggestBird]

@@jordansmith4040 But Russia is corrupt from top to bottom and they aren’t competent. I think it’s: “Assume your enemy will do what they say and prepare”

[@mikehik7716]

@@jordansmith4040 bold to assume those ppl are experts

[@FlameDarkfire]

And the full phrase is “Jack of all trades, master of none; still better than a master of one.” It’s meant that a breadth of knowledge is still superior to being the best as only one thing. After all, when all you have is a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail.

[@finnnolan-bennett1045]

The last time I said the F-35 wasn't that bad, the response I got was from someone who learnt the Latin Trivium off by heart and was immune to logical fallacies and rhetoric weapons. Be careful

[@spitfire_flyer5659]

"I don't have gay, useless arts degree" *procedes to say he has skills taught by an arts degree

[@zinthos0019]

Wait… people think the f-35 is bad?

[@boymahina123]

@@zinthos0019 The "Reformers" aren't people.

[@andrewlechner6343]

@@zinthos0019 Yes, the media put it through the wringer throughout its development and early years. The hit pieces have largely stopped within the last couple years but the misinformation they spread has unfortunately become treated as common knowledge by a large part the public, hence the reason this video is getting made.

[@darwinism8181]

"Not that bad" is a far cry away from good, though

[@Vanguardw]

I'm on a binge of your videos and this is another banger

[@Voidkitty_]

Man i just watched a 40 minute ground news ad And loved every second of it

[@Waryan1]

Dude, lazerPig…. I’m a former USAF JTAC and I’ve been telling people for years the tech in these jets are insane. Thanks for telling the truth

[@Thesupremeone34]

indeed yes. the proper place to have this discourse is the war thunder forums. especially if you have the classified specs

[@ChickentNug]

@@richpryor9650 lmao i remember hearing about that. What vehicle was it again?

[@richpryor9650]

@@ChickentNug Literally everything/

[@InsTance888]

@@ChickentNug Three vehicles so far have been stupidly declassified. Choinese(RIP leaker), French and British tank

[@janm7163]

@@ChickentNug the challenger 2 tank, the Leclerc tank, and a ballistic data sheet on the Chinese standart APFSDS tank shell I don't know what exactly got leaked about the western tank, but I remember hearing it was armor specs for the Challenger

[@totalnerd5674]

"Can't turn, can't climb, can't run" "Just a ground attacker" "VTOL makes terrible fighters" And yet here we are...

[@tylerclayton6081]

It can actually do all of those things. The F-35 is very maneuverable and has a great thrust to weight ratio, the best of any fighter jet. It’s more maneuverable than an f-16 even though an F-35 will most likely never engage in a dogfight it still has the capability to do so.

[@totalnerd5674]

@@tylerclayton6081 That's what I meant, sorry.

[@Lucas-lq9cn]

@@tylerclayton6081 yeah and an operator with 6 hours on the airframe shot down 20 jets during a red flag event

[@darwinism8181]

@@tylerclayton6081 Lol it'll likely never engage in a dogfight because the US strenuously avoids fighting anyone with comparable militaries, which has let us invent horribly vulnerable weapon systems that are good at shooting people who can't shoot back

[@NautilusSSN571]

I wonder if they said the same thing about the Harrier

[@johnleonard9102]

Once went on an attachment to the marine base in Yuma Arizona, and the Marines said that they loved their f-35s mostly because it was the first time they got something brand new instead of hand me downs, but also because of how well and easy these jets could communicate autonomously to each other without the pilot so much is touching a button.

[@IsfetSolaris]

I think the biggest issue is that people REALLY want the F-35 to be an air superiority fighter when that's not what it is and not what it ever has been. For example, the whole "but the F-22 is better" argument. The 22 is the best ASF in existence. But the F-35 isn't a fucking ASF. It CAN perform air to air combat, but that's not its only job.

[@GerinoMorn]

Russia: spends fortune on propaganda to paint F-35 as a flying barn door. Poland: buys F-35 to fly them in Russia's face

[@harrisn3693]

They haven’t flown against them yet. Let’s see when they are actually used.

[@tremedar]

@@harrisn3693 They have, the US has. It doesn't have to be a shooting war in order for their tech to come up against our tech. Their junk has intruded into the air space of everyone nearby to their borders, and been intercepted and in some cases shot down because keep the fuck out of my air space. Given the performance of Russian junk in Ukraine, the whole Russian air force will be a debris field if the Poles actually do start shooting at them before they even know they're in a war.

[@dickstryker]

@@harrisn3693 Russia can't wvwn establish air superiority over Ukraine against obsolete versions of their own planes. NATO is going to use Russia like a fleshlight. China gonna get some too.

[@sanynava9160]

Because what is poland gonna buy ? The su 27? They got no choice but to buy the flying best buy

[@seventh-hydra]

​@@sanynava9160 Uhh. F-15, F-16, Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale, Mirage 2000, HAL AMCA, KAI KF-21?

[@picklepepper900]

Finally, someone will actually talk about how the f35 isn't "shit". If it was, why would it be getting so many export contracts to all these NATO boys.

[@drksideofthewal]

Hypohystericalhistory also had a great video on that if you haven’t seen it. The F-35 is madly underrated.

[@zachrich7359]

To be fair, greasing the right palms can get a lot done in the world of the military industrial complex.

[@goddepersonno3782]

"lmao bro US government corruption, they're paying out NATO to take their shitty aircraft my dude it's all a front for CIA drug operations"

[@picklepepper900]

@@drksideofthewal I have not, I will check it out, thanks for the recommend

[@ThermicLight]

@@zachrich7359 - Absolutely! F104 was sold to west Germany despite experienced pilots advised against it. Ended up killing a lot of pilots because they weren't trained properly for it.

[@scatterbraindonor]

I don't care what anyone says, F-35 is a downright sexy plane. I'm not even a huge plane person but there's just something about its design that I love to death.

[@mr_jimmmmmmm]

They should have just kept upgrading the Biplane and never improved. Just keep sticking more upgrades to the Fokker E.I

[@samhenson8177]

My great grandfather worked at Lockheed as an engineer for…well basically his entire life, and while he was there he designed something for the F-16 (everyone in the family says it was the guidance system). He told me, “the most important thing about an aircraft is wether it looks cool and fast. If it looks cool and fast, it will scare the commies and they won’t want to fight.” The F-35 looks super cool and fast, therefore it’s a good aircraft.

[@gregscrabshack2307]

yup your grandad was cool

[@hujron]

If you paint it red, it goes faster - Ork proverb, Warhammer 40k

[@dillonh321]

F22 looks coolest but the the drawings of NGAD look amazing. I hope that’s really what they look like.

[@murphy7801]

​@@dillonh321 the navy or the airforce ngad. Because the airforce ngad looks thiccc

[@iliadnetfear2586]

I disagree. Because I think the J-20 LOOKS cool, but am fairly certain it's probably a piece of shit.

[@cormacmckinney1223]

I am studying aeronautical engineering and I have worked on quite a few projects such as designing new landing gear from scratch. I love how these people just assume engineering just works all the time and that just because they can think it then it can be done. If it was that easy my granny would be building f35s on her pension.

[@marcoapollo2466]

Same! generally people don't understand how much thinking and problem solving goes into an expensive engineering project that has teams of experienced engineers tasked on optimizing one specific component and that goes for all parts of the project. These aircraft, buildings, bridges, or whatever the projects may be are designed to last years into the future.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

The most logical explanation is that your granny is a shit aeronautical engineer and DIY jet fighter designer, not because it’s not difficult. Does your grandmother even know how to operate a mill? Just kidding, I’m sure she is at least as competent as “Lucky” Pierre or Dan Ward.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

@Zonked Toaster You sound like a person that has never tested his limits. If you never test your limits, you never discover where they are, and are free sit on your couch and fantasize about how limitless and unbounded you are as you pull your pud. Repeating annoying slogans from Fast Company (“work smarter, not harder” or “think outside of the box”) are not actually valuable lessons that successful people apply to their lives or their work. They’re empty phrases that signify you’re aspiring to be a marketer or a project manager.

[@mechanomics2649]

@@MarcosElMalo2 You sound like a person that is unbelievably triggered lmao

[@Cecil97]

when i first played VTOL VR i realized how clueless the aircraft without hmd and datalink were(i had much less situational awareness despite there being map that tags active contacts other people see and the other assist mechanics in the game), those 2 items are far more powerful factors than hard performance of the aircrafts.

[@theuncalledfor]

Oh my gods. That sponsor segment is BRILLIANT.

[@hektonian]

Finland was choosing it's next-gen fighter plane and tested pretty all available fighter non-Russian jets (Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Saab Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon, an of course the F-35). The amount of shit people gave the F-35 was amazing. "It's too expensive", "stealth is useless", "it's not reliable enough", etc. They ended up picking F-35 because it was the only plane out of all of candidates that met all of the criteria, and in some cases exceeded them by a great margin. So no, F-35 is not shit. At least according to the Finnish airforces.

[@DruidEnjoyer]

Some of those like Rafale and the Typhoon weren't tested against F-35, as they didn't pass the minimum supply chain and industrial requirements, and were dropped from the competition before it really even started. So we don't exactly know how well they would had fared against F-35.

[@theothertonydutch]

@@DruidEnjoyer Well, they are fuck old by now so uh...

[@shabut]

@@DruidEnjoyer they wouldn't fare without parts

[@aflyingcowboy31]

@@DruidEnjoyer So those planes are pretty useless to other countries then, seeing as supplies and logistics are the most important part for an aircraft, those plane makers fail at a fundamental level and I am surprised they are even advertising their planes to allied countries if they can't even guarantee the things a country needs to keep their plane flying.

[@alaindao7374]

@@DruidEnjoyer Who cares how they would have fared if they can't fly for lack of parts?

[@johnnyenglish583]

It's very simple. If the Russians are making a concerted effort to persuade everyone that the F-35 is crap, that fact alone means it's an amazingly good fighter.

[@pokerone6489]

muh Russia bad.

[@danielblair2684]

@@pokerone6489 yes

[@madkoala2130]

For Russians its better to spend their military budget on propaganda and luxury staff then developing and mass producing something to counter it.

[@johnnyenglish583]

@@madkoala2130 in fact, Russia was VERY effective at "hybrid" war - undermining the EU and member state governments, promoting nationalist right-wing parties across Europe, stimulating the COVID crisis, supporting the Brexiteers, organising the migrant crisis etc. Hybrid war takes longer but there was a point when European unity was truly endangered. Then Russia seems to believed its own propaganda and started a real war. The results are out there to be seen: after a year of heavy losses, the biggest achievement the Russian forces can hope for is to capture the ruins of a minor city with a pre-war population of 70 thousand (Bakhmut)...

[@BrapBrapDorito]

@@pokerone6489Yes. Yes it is vatnik

[@bookofchanges64]

It's curious that the F-35 got all the negative press while the F-22 got a fraction of the blowback.

[@hondansx1000]

It is a highly capable jet for sure and the sensor suit alone fitted to it is remarkable. The main problem with it is that Lockheed Martin really dropped the ball during the design process. I mean forgoing producing series prototypes and putting it straight into production in order to save cost for one thing is utterly ridiculous and as a result loads of modifications are already needed to fix problems that have been found in the early airframes. I've had the privilege to meet an RAF pilot who's flown both Typhoon and currently flies the F-35 and even he said that if he had to go to war, he'd pick the F-35. Once the problems have been ironed out, I'm willing to bet it'll be a fantastic aircraft.

[@howardpayne4128]

I think the design parameters were changed at least 3 times during development causing most of the delays.

[@ErwinPommel]

"I've had the privilege to meet an RAF pilot who's flown both Typhoon and currently flies the F-35 and even he said that if he had to go to war, he'd pick the F-35." You realise this does not actually support your argument at all, right?

[@imperialinquisition6006]

But that’s fairly normal? I’ve read about quite a lot of programs where the manufacturer has gone straight into production prototypes rather than spending time with traditional prototypes, it’s not a new concept and generally saves costs.

[@trolleriffic]

@@imperialinquisition6006 It's completely normal, even if it was done on a greater scale and in a more formalised way with the F-35. Look at any combat aircraft and in nearly every case the early versions of those aircraft were underperforming and horribly unreliable, often with tragic results for those having to fly them. The F-35 is remarkable for its exceptionally low accident rate and the fact that v1.0 planes are as capable as they are.

[@petersmythe6462]

"Radarless" So, instead of invisible, they want the plane to be blind.

[@MajorBookworm100]

"They can't see me, I can't see them!"

[@kostakatsoulis2922]

@@MajorBookworm100 tbh thats is probably what he was thinking

[@RipOffProductionsLLC]

"We won WWII without any if these fancy new toys, so we don't need them" the reformers mindset in a nutshell.

[@davidty2006]

@@MajorBookworm100 sounds like a sub...

[@trolleriffic]

@@RipOffProductionsLLC Forgetting of course that radar was one of the most important and game-changing technologies of the war, with inventions like the radar proximity fuze being absolutely vital to the Allied war effort.

[@dannyboi328]

A note on simplicity in engineering: I’m just starting my career as a mechanical engineer, and something I’ve noticed about simplicity is that it is almost universally desired, because it almost always results in a cheaper, easier to manufacture, easier to operate, and easier to maintain design solution. That is with the incredibly important caveat: Simple is better, as long as it meets THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. When we engineers think we’ve found an elegant, simple solution, it may still appear quite convoluted and that is because the requirements are inherently complicated. Even more so in the world of modern fighter aircraft, simplicity is relative.

[@samno911]

I'm also an engineer and I was going to throw in that K.I.S.S. gets a little funky because it doesn't look simple when you apply it to a design as a whole, it really works best when you apply it to individual components and sub systems, although sometimes a Rube Goldberg approach is a necessary evil

[@ArtietheArchon]

go research why the F-15 doesn't have leading edge slats (it has conical camber instead)

[@Ikbeneengeit]

Well said. The art of engineering is knowing when the scope creep is worth the extra cost.

[@ellagrant6190]

There is an engineering maxim that I find good applying to a lot of things in life. It's essentially what you are talking about here. 'Make something only as complex as it needs to be to do it's job.'

[@TheEvertw]

The point about KISS is that you should only add complexity if you have proven that there is no simpler solution. As Einstein has said: "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler".

[@patrickmulder2450]

I know a good E for that FIRE acronym. How about Effective? Guess Dan didn't want his aircraft to be effective or never cared much about the effect a piece of war machinery has, just how elegant it looks on a poster.

[@janw839]

You, Sir, are absolutely hilarious. Every time I watch you and you're excellent advertising for sponsors, it makes me feel like I saw you in the 80's/90's in some sci-fi Hollywood trash in the background of some scene...😂

[@ladybuzzkillington2072]

I used to be in the "Why make an F-35 when the a-10 does just fine." Until i started learning more about the situation. Its incredible what learning does.

[@fulcrum8583]

The same for me. It's not just about learning, but about not hinging one's identity to an opinion about something, but being able to change one's opinion when confronted with new facts and better arguments.

[@City1Tiger]

A10 is garbage

[@thatguy4828]

@@City1Tigervery good at shooting friendly troops though

[@morthiumcz1204]

@@thatguy4828 Well every plane, tank or weapon is, if u have misidentified target. (or a trigger happy gunner)

[@daexion]

@@morthiumcz1204 I believe what they are referencing actually is an issue with the A-10 and has nothing to do with misidentified targets or trigger happy gunners.

[@thehurtfulllama2659]

The F-35 is definitely a very good aircraft, but it was made in a time of relative peace, and that makes small brained people not understand how good it is without a kill count

[@Spinikar]

That's a good point. I hope the F-35 never gets a kill, and peace can last, but I'm also kind of hope it does, because I think its going to be a terrifying platform.

[@Redavv]

@@Spinikar even the F35 gets a kill nobody will know not even the enemy hehehe

[@tkr2975]

So send the F35 to Ukraine?

[@Redavv]

@@tkr2975 What for ?, war is profitable they want to keep it going why send advanced weapons even Russia does not send Su57

[@tkr2975]

@@Redavv I was joking

[@klegendm2819]

I think the simplest thing I can think of to dispel atleast some of the criticisms of the F-35 is that “if it’s such a piece of shit, then why are foreign country’s lining up to buy them by the squadron load? Because if it is as big of a pos as its critics say it is then done you think the Israelis or the danish, or the British would have come out publicly to support the critics?

[@lamia197]

I love it when people use "Jack of all trades, master of none." to describe machines and ignore the purpose the machine was built for. When people use this to describe a machine, lets take the f-35 for an example, what they mean is: F-35 can't beat a aircraft purely made to gun dogfight in a gun only dogfight. F-35 can't carry more bombs than a B-52 Stratofortress. F-35 can't fly faster than the SR-71. F-35 can't be stealther than a aircraft made to be as stealthy as possible and nothing else. You see the problem? Yes, my Hyundai veloster can't beat a Jet powered funny car in a drag race. Yes, my Hyundai veloster can't beat a F1 in a track race. Yes, my Hyundai veloster can't beat a Forumla off road race truck in a cliff climbing race. But my Hyundai veloster isn't built to do that.

[@albino3360]

I agree wit u 100% and completely understand but u couldnt have chose a better car than a veloster for this analogy😭

[@warlynx5644]

Plus everyone forgets the other part of the saying which goes along the lines of “A Jack of all trades is a master of none, **but oftentimes better than a master of one**” So feel free to use that whenever people start joking about how the A-10 will forever be the best CAS aircraft because all the other ones are a “Jack of all trades, master of none”

[@st4rlightr4v3n4]

I think we were just expecting more from it to justify its cost. We got the F22 for something like 24 billion, F16 for 19 billion, F/A18 for 40 billion, etc. Even adjusted for inflation that's all combined less than 15% of program cost to date of the F35. So like, yeah I kind of expect it can do all of the things you mentioned. Might as well have designed, built, and fielded 5+ new specialist aircraft (in equivalent numbers) otherwise.

[@damienblackburn5459]

Most people who use the quote "Jack of all trades, master of none" don't know the full quote. "Jack-of-all-trades, Master of None, often better than a master of one." It's better to be good at many things rather than be superficially proficient at many and with expert-level skill in one subject/field.

[@robertforster8984]

Hyundai’s are unsafe tin cans.

[@marcoschagas9646]

A10 might be "good" at striking tribals in Afghanistan, but it would never be able to penetrate an area full of modern radars and anti-aircraft missile systems. It's ridiculous to think that it could peform the tasks of an F-35 in a modern warfare

[@jeffneinenstein5923]

That’s where SEAD comes in. The practice has been used since 1965, before the A-10 was even conceptualized, and it has been used to great effect ever since. The US wouldn’t send in fully-laden A-10s or an F-35s into a combat zone filled with Tunguskas and S-400s, or Type 95s and HQ-9s. Doing so would be suicide, regardless of the plane. Hence why SEAD exists. That said, you’re right about one thing. The A-10 can’t perform most of the F-35’s tasks, because the A-10 was designed for only one role, that being CAS, while the F-35 is a multirole. While the A-10’s effectiveness is questionable, it’s pretty unfair to compare a multirole to a CAS plane when there’s so many things different between them. It’s like comparing a Kia Sorento to a Lamborghini Aventador, or comparing Golf to Football. You would obviously compare the Kia Sorento to the Toyota Highlander, or you’d compare Golf to Baseball. A much fairer comparison for the F-35 would be against the F-22 Raptor or F-4 Phantom, which are both multirole fighters, in which the F-35 is obviously a better choice. I wouldn’t recommend comparing the F-35 to the SU-57 though, since it’s pretty unfair to compare an advanced, modern fighter that has seen a great deal of commercial success, to something that hasn’t even been produced yet.

[@jamesdykes517]

Agreed.

[@neglectfulsausage7689]

Thats why you either run thousands of planes at once, or destroy the modern radar site first. You're right. When faced with the multi-layered defense, you dont send in specialists. But we still use anti-tank missiles in spite of the multiple layers of defense tanks have before a grunt even gets close enough to see the tank with a naked eye.

[@LTV746]

Agreed. A fork is not a knife. A10 is infantry support/patrol and is so good at its job (Once integrated in joint command) it’s lifetime continued to be extended. Against a last gen jet, nope.

[@LTV746]

@@jeffneinenstein5923 great comment . I believe the F 35 will , hopefully never see, success in multi national missions, where encrypted data is shared and pilots trained about what to do with that data through a language barrier. Imagine nations working like that.

[@mirroredrealities1639]

The original quote was "Jack of all trades, master of none, but often times better than master of one." People just cut the last part off to better suit their argument.

[@hi41000]

no the original quote was just "Jack of all trades". Both master of none, and often times better than a master of one were later added on to the phrase well after it was coined.

[@hughgordon6435]

The top gun factor? Nobody gonna say the majority of kills in the end "dogfight" were missile kills? And guns were hardly used?

[@treyaldridge1757]

My favorite part about all of this is that the F-15 became everything Pierre Sprey campaigned against. It's now just a missile truck that carries an ungodly amount of guided weaponry and fuel so it can have forceful intercourse with it's enemies from the next county over . The F-15 killed dogfighting, firmly put air dominance back in America's hands, and disproven literally everything the reformers have ever said about air combat while never taking an air combat loss. An F-15E even reported an air to air kill against a helicopter using a fucking laser guided bomb. Read that more slowly. An F-15 shot a helicopter out of the sky with a fucking bomb. There will always be detractors from modern military tech, and most of the time they have a point. But when countries all across the world are coughing up billions to field a jet, it's probably because the jet is worth billions

[@aymonfoxc1442]

You make so many good points friend but those who would detract from every platform produced by the West until a newer better system comes out (at which point, they change their tune and claim there was no need to replace our previous brilliant system), would simply claim that countries only buy Western aircraft because of some tyrannical Western hegemony that forces them too...

[@jonathanbaird8109]

"The F-15 killed dogfighting" I mean, not really. There's still no certain, infallible method of determining whether an aircraft is friend or foe in a complex environment which means taking the merge for VID which means WVR fights will continue. That's especially true considering the Eagle community still has to deal with the fact that they murdered 26 friendlies in the 1994 Blackhawk shootdown incident because they (and the AEW crew, though fault ultimately lies with the people pulling the trigger) fucked up the VID. That's hardly the first time a misidentification has occurred nor was it the last. Another example would be an incident in Allied Force where an EA-6B was declared outlaw while squawking a bad mode 4. NAEW was so concerned that it directed retrograde and sent Vipers after it. During the recovery of Dale Zelko, Vipers providing SEAD for Sandys closed with the A-10s for VID. There's been no significant advances in this area since then that I'm aware of so it all still holds true. "firmly put air dominance back in America's hands" Not hard to do when most of the aircraft you're fighting are equipped with pulse radars and no RWR gear. "An F-15E even reported an air to air kill against a helicopter using a fucking laser guided bomb. Read that more slowly." A matter of coincidence since the helicopter was dropping people off. It's not like it point-tracked it and guided the GBU while the helicopter was flying along at 100 knots. This isn't a knock on the F-35 by the way, I just believe in Viper supremacy.

[@treyaldridge1757]

@@jonathanbaird8109 you won't hear me argue that the Fighting Falcon (which is a much better name based on what the plane actually does in my opinion) is a better plane. But I was specifically addressing Spreys attempted changes to the Eagle so it's kind of a moot point.

[@eliasziad7864]

Intercourse

[@cockatoo010]

That was a hilarious incident, really. The plane was on a scud-hunting mission when the AWACS said "hey guys, you've got some Special Operations forces out there being chased by Hinds near you, can you go help them out?" And since they were on a ground strike mission, they only had 2 sidewinders for A-A. So anyway, they turned to find the helos and they did find them but since they had landed to let troops out, they were unable to get a lock with their AIM-9s. So the WSO started lazing the Helo and dropped a GBU-10 2000LB LGB. But then the helicopter took off. They decided that since the bomb was already on its way, to continue lazing, and the bomb tracked. It impacted the helicopter from above, went through and detonated below it, vaporizing the helicopter and the infantrymen it had just dripped.

[@frankyq1757]

I love the part where Pierre advocated for hardware-store grade radios. How's that working out for Russia?

[@Humorless_Wokescold]

The Russo-Ukrainian War should be the death of the Reformers.

[@noahgray543]

Hard to say. It certainly is an improvement over their other plan, which was sending letters but worse. So you could argue that, by comparison, hardware store radios have been a massive success for Russia.

[@kingsnakke6888]

So successful that their frequencies keep getting jacked and plans leaked.

[@ararak7132]

Oh, good old opening days... chanting prays to Omnissiah on ruzzian channels was really fun. "ALMAZ, ALMAZ, FLESH IS WEAK, ALMAZ" kekw.

[@nixles2577]

Dudes are literally consuming fake propaganda by the ton and just pouring venom around them. Is it because you're still angry about 5,000 downed planes in Vietnam?

[@lillygardens1]

ok, but....ok but.... It's missing now in mid air, with no pilot in it. Have you seen our F-35? 🤣😂🤣🙄🤭

[@macmac0712]

i hate when people wont shut up about how expensive the F-35 is, when in fact the F-14 that they love so much was massivelly more expensive (~221 million for the F-14A to ~ 75 million for the F-35A )

[@theduke7539]

i used to be in that camp, and i stil sort of am because its not the unit cost that bugs me, but the extreme cost overruns in the development and charges of corruption at lockheed. but with just how many F35s are being cranked out and how theyve adapted air combat strategy really made me rethink the plane and the per unit cost is coming down, its honestly incredible just how many are rolling off the assembly line considering how complicated they are to produce.

[@zachrich7359]

For me, it was the cost overruns. I *hope* the F-35 will prove to be capable but I was worried for many years that the massive cost overruns was the symptoms of a bad design having money thrown at it to try and justify the already massive expense.

[@hresvelgr7193]

@@theduke7539 NGL the price over runs etc aren’t a huge deal for me. They are bad but in comparison to the gaping money pit that is the US healthcare system it is pretty irrelevant. Comparing the % of GDP that goes towards healthcare between the US (about 20%) and other developed countries (an average of about 10%) shows how absurdly terrible the US healthcare system is. The US could save about 2 trillion a year (more then the estimated lifetime cost of the entire F-35 program) by changing their healthcare system to something similar to what other countries use

[@tylerclayton6081]

@@hresvelgr7193 The US has the most efficient and largest economy in the world. I’m pretty sure they know what they are doing. For example Germany has a population 4 times smaller than the US but the US economy is 5 times larger than Germany. So the US is even more efficient than Germany. Whatever the US has been doing over the past 100 years they have been very successful to say the least. I just hope they keep it up and keep being a leader for our western civilization. The US is the backbone of our civilization both economically and militarily

[@invertedv12powerhouse77]

@@theduke7539 remember, the F35 isn't one plane, but more like 3 different ones

[@rhedges9631]

This dogfighting obsession with some critics is somewhat ridiculous given even in WWI, most air to air kills were accomplished with sudden ambushes rather than drawn out duels between pilots.

[@Predator20357]

I remember when I used to think you needed Cannons on an Air to Air Fighter until someone handed me a list of the kill list as well as my own research about how Vietnam, the place where people go to justify using old equipment (even though they like to ignore how absolutely devastating the new technology was to the Vietnamese Population and it took Extreme Will and suppression of media to make the North Vietnamese fight on for decades.) where it turns out the Cannons took out so few Jets compared to not just the old missiles but the new outdated ones.

[@ArcturusOTE]

Honestly most of my few A2A kills in WT were also ambushes

[@rhedges9631]

@@Predator20357 I still think it's a good tool to have in a fighter jet, like a bayonet.

[@Predator20357]

@@rhedges9631 I think cannons have a use in that they can be a somewhat cheaper option to use on soft ground targets if a fighter needs it and especially if immediate help is needed and the fighter doesn’t have any missiles ready. Until the future comes where tiny rockets can be fired out in quick succession and track onto the pointed areas, Canons are never going to be just thrown out, especially if a jet is going to be multi-purpose.

[@Shaun_Jones]

@@Predator20357 we are already there. Laser-guided Hydra 70 rockets are in an advanced stage of development. I’ve actually given thought towards the possibility of going back to the F102’s bay door rockets for the F35.

[@LeakyTrees]

“Jack of all trades master of none will often be better than a master of one” is the full (probably a bit off” quote. Anyone can say anything if you leave out half their words

[@guardsmanhansvonkrieg4862]

24:52 Do people just ignore the rest of the saying? Jack of all trades, master of none, but better then a master of one. The F-35 is that. Better then a master of one.

[@thomasdevonshire1569]

Oh my… now all that’s needed is a video on the F-111. As an Australian that would make me feel… a certain way.

[@420JackG]

I like that you get to sit next to your buddy, they need to bring that back.

[@asgodandheinleinintended2398]

VARK VARK VARK VARK!!!!!!!

[@benjaminschollnick4051]

I'm ready to wait as long as it takes our dear pig to make the F-111 video. I hope it's hours long. ❤️

[@SpitsAreTheBest_Mk.IX_61]

VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK

[@falconmclenny7284]

Dump and burn baby

[@gabethedespote-1105]

We’re still going to incessantly ask for that F-111 Aardvark video.

[@johnaltman6671]

I was about to comment the same thing until I saw this

[@Marc83Aus]

Aardvark my beloved.

[@kyleshape8645]

Plot twist: This IS the Aardvark video.

[@gabethedespote-1105]

@@kyleshape8645 that would be amazing.

[@MCFrenstar]

Aardvaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[@McZarya]

a 6 minute ad read is f*cking crazy

[@zacksmith413]

Brother, it's really a 40 minute ad read lmao. The f35 thing is just an example

[@BladeLigerV]

I love the A-10. But I fully accept that its likely past its prime. I fully understand and can accept it. Why? I am also a fan of steam trains.

[@aidanpysher2764]

I've been an F-35 egress technician for the past 3 years, as well as working with F-22s, 16s and T-38s. Over the last year, I've been working with an avionics flight in an Aircraft Maintenance Unit as in-house egress, and to add on to your wisdom - much of the 35 is even classified to the people *WORKING* on what makes it classified. These are subject matter experts on the Lightning, and they don't even have full access to the data of the F-35. The 35 is a modern marvel of military aircraft technology, and it's actually quite nice to work on in the maintenance department as well. The 16 is stupidly complicated in terms of avionics, but the 35 is much more tidy and physically accessible. Some of my favorite recent memories are of launching out F-35s with their crew chiefs, as well as having one go full-throttle right above me while riding my motorcycle at the end of Luke AFB's runways.

[@martijn9568]

I mean it does make sense. Why would you know everything about the radar and other sensors when you specialise in its engine.

[@aidanpysher2764]

@@martijn9568 the section I was in *did* work on the radar and sensors, and was not privy to what the systems could actually do, as it's classified.

[@Boeing_hitsquad]

A highlight of the last decade was getting to poke my head into an early LRIP B model's bay, sit in the cockpit and then go get a demo on the (pre-recorded) DAS sitting on a stool beside a plastic folding table from Northrup Grumman. Only topped by riding the weapon elevators all day on the Ford to shoot some B roll. "WEEEEEEEEE!!!! oh no the camera shifted.. that's unusable, better do it again!"

[@dragonsword7370]

I also bet that having a the F35's EPU not use Hyrdazine based fuel is a huge plus too?

[@aidanpysher2764]

@@dragonsword7370 I had a few Hydrazine close calls at Kunsan.

[@Boeing_hitsquad]

Between 1980-2000 over *300 F-16's from the USAF alone were completely written-off* due to mishaps and accidents. Guys in the Airforce quit when assigned the Falcon during the height of its crashing. It was called the electric coffin, lawn dart (carry over from F-104), etc ... Guys who didn't quit faced divorce and death. It topped out with over 30 lost per year... 4 years straight. Being over budget, the f-35A's portion of the JSF budget is about $4-5 billion total .. the F-16's airframe and engines(plural) topped out at over $80 BILLION which is an estimate because many issues used discretionary and black funding. THIS IS $80 BILLION ... vs $5 billion. It's NOT EVEN CLOSE... And how many USAF F-35A'S have been lost? Because HUNDREDS of F-16's had been lost at this point in it's history. RE: early LRIP Block F-35A's not being combat coded and too expensive to do so because of concurrency -- F-16A's were trashed in even higher numbers and it was concurrently designed too .. a block 70/72 viper is nothing like a Block 10 F-16A. Early block F-35A's are already being DOWNGRADED to represent adversary aircraft from China and Russia and shipped to bases as ground crew training airframes.(or more accurately Groundframes).. and as ground crew training needs to outpace pilot training and employment 50 to 1 these Groundframes are immensely important, invaluable and required in large numbers. (Just like the adversarial squadrons being given the early LRIP frames)

[@augustuslunasol10thapostle]

It's terrifying and funny how the US needs to downgrade planes just to represent what Chinese and Russian aircraft are like

[@bradhartliep879]

Not exactly true .. I worked on F-16s and F-15s from 1985 to 1990 .. the A&B models of both were powered by Pratt & Whitney F100s, an engine designed specifically for the Fighters and far more advanced than the J57s and J33s and J75s and such installed in F4s, F106s, T-33s, KC135s, B-52s and SR71s - we had a separate AFSC that wss specifically for the PW F100 and an additional F100 specific school beyond the initial Jet Engine School - and then I was sent to a THIRD Advanced P&W F100 Jet Engine School after I finished the F100 Jet Engine School - and then received additional training from the Pratt & Whitney Tech Rep on Flexscope Inspections [which, at the time, only the Tech Rep was allowed to do] and some "unofficial" maintenance procedures which technically weren't allowed outside of the factory, but which he personally authorized me [and only me] to do - no one else in the Squadron was allowed to them .. in 1987, after working on PW F100s for two and half years, the Air Force sent me to the GE Factory in Evandale Ohio, where I was trained by the GE F110 Engineers on the F110 - and then I went to Kunsan AB, South Korea and trained all the P&W F100 Jet Mechs there, as Kunsan was transitioning to the GE F110 Powered F16 C&Ds from the Pratt F100 Powered F16 A & Bs .. I also trained the Jet Mechs from Tucson ANG, who were buying our F16 A & Bs to replace their A8s .. and I also trained two new-hire GE Tech Reps fresh out of College .. the GE F110 was introduced in the F16 C&D Models in 1987 .. The GE F110 was very similar to the PW F100 - they were disassembled and reassembled in very much a similar but not identical fashion .. the difference was .. the CORE Compressor section of the F110 was bascially the exact same core that was in the B1B Bomber - which is what it was designed for .. and almost immediately after the First F16 C & Ds arrived, we started having engine failures and lost three F-16s and three pilots .. the compressor blades were stretching and digging into the compressor case and seizing up in flight .. we grounded the fleet .. GE sent a modification .. I pulled all of the engines .. I disassembled all of the engines .. I hand filed down the tips of the compressor blades a few 10 thousands of inch [ using a power tool would burn the metal and destroy the blades] .. reassembled all the engines .. ran them on test cell .. put them back into the airplanes .. restored them to flight status .. and a few weeks later more engine seizures .. I believe it took four teardowns and filing down the blade tips before we finally got rid of the blade stretch digging into the compressor cases .. not all F-16s were lost due to "mishaps and accidents" -- some were lost because of engineering and design errors that had to be corected in the field ..

[@bradhartliep879]

And, yes, we called it the "Lawn Dart" - even had t-shirts printed up with an F-16 stuck into the ground like the old lawn dart yard game .. it was a stress-reliever to be able to joke about the 16 hour work days 7 days a week , and all the crashes , and all the lost pilots that we had to go search and recover ..

[@SuperRootUser]

@@bradhartliep879 These are the stories I like to hear about. I remember stories about planes that had less than 50% readiness. It was only later in life I realized that these things aren't cars that can't be run till they don't work. You need a lot of people to make them work. It's not just pilots, and in all the movies, I've only seen one that gave ground crew a spoken line, and a music video by Hootie and the Blowfish.

[@andrewpizzino2514]

During the same time period the Israelis did very well with the same aircraft

[@KittenisKitten]

Just started watching your channel, Its awesome. I remember being told that "jack of all trades master of none but better than a master of one" was the full quote.

[@honeybadgerbomb4469]

Why is the F-35 in the thumbnail lookin' like an F-34 if you know what I mean

[@ryuukeisscifiproductions1818]

You know the funniest part of all this and the Reformers constant desire to chase the ultimate dogfighter, is that even in WW2, the vast majority of air to air kills where achieved by pilots using boom and zoom tactics to ambush their targets. The vast majority of air to air kills, the plane being shot down, never saw their attacker coming. Even Japanses Zero pilots, whom pop history portrays as the best dogfighters ever, preferred to boom and zoom unaware enemy planes rather than get stuck in to a turning dogfight. But dogfighting has stuck in pop culture because its more cinematic, even though, even in WW2, if a WW2 pilot attacked an enemy plane and ended up getting stuck into a turning dogfight, they fucked up. Because a good pilot, the aces, killed their targets without being seen until it was way too late. So yeah the tactic of Stealth planes killing enemy planes without ever being seen, its not new in the slightest, it was actually the dominant tactic in WW2, even if radar stealth didn't exist back them. And really, the biggest bondogles of the F-35 where in its procurement and development process. The Idea of, lets start manufacturing production line planes before all the bugs had been worked out was not a smart decision. Now that all the bugs have been worked out the F-35 is a very good plane, but they really shouldn't have tried to rush production out before they had all the bugs ironed out. I mean, just look at the gaming industry and the constant modern habit of pushing games out the door half finished and buggy as to why that's a bad idea.

[@kostakatsoulis2922]

*Cries in Halo Infinite*

[@hawkeye2816]

It's almost like turn fighting is complex and easy to mess up. Besides, modern "dogfights" would end up with both planes shot down after the first turn because HOBS missiles are pretty much everywhere and nearly impossible to defeat unless you're simply too close. The mere existence of these missiles makes it virtually suicide to actually push to a merge. Not to mention that as soon as you shoot down your opponent, all his allies that were holding fire for fear of killing their buddy are gonna launch on you while you're at a low energy state.

[@joeyjojojrshabadoo7462]

It's not *just* WWII romanticism. There was a brief period in the cold war where missile technology and stealth wasn't living up to it's initial promise (dodgy and half finished as you would say) but dogfighting as an art form mature to the point simply having the fastest planes in and best pilots really was deciding factor in many air battles. Of course by the time next generation of fighter planes got designed and approved things changed again.

[@hawkeye2816]

@@joeyjojojrshabadoo7462 Even in Vietnam, most air-to-air kills were missiles. When the Air Force put a gun on the F-4, their performance barely changed. The Navy didn't put a gun on their F-4, but they trained their pilots and maintainers on how to use and store missiles and their performance improved dramatically. It's WWII romanticism.

[@Patton1944]

I just had a realization: dogfighting is exactly like melee kills in csgo. They're incredibly rare and if you into a game with the intent of getting one on purpose you're gonna get yourself killed. But very, VERY rarely, there'll be a moment in match where you're behind someone that doesn't know you're there and you actually remember you have a knife, and the crowd goes wild because that kind of thing is exciting. But there's a damn good reason why you're not supposed to get to that point.

[@leonhighwind2305]

The F-35 comes equipped with the Eye of Sauron in Radar form, along with ten million other networked sensors that give it supernatural 360° vision, has the RCS of a rather small sparrow, can lock-on to targets behind it AND after firing a missile, and it can summon three hundred missiles from a fleet of ships beyond the horizon with its mastery of the electromagnetic spectrum. The A-10 has a big gun.

[@honda6353]

The reality of guiding and summoning a murder of missiles really makes me afraid of the F-35.

[@GIHD]

And the F35 can also go brrrrttt with its 25mm Gau 22/A

[@Overdrawn_]

BIG GUN BIG GUN

[@kevinhenrique4256]

*MURICA STYLE:UNLIMITED MISSILE BARRAGE*

[@GIHD]

@@kevinhenrique4256 Kaputt

[@CTdbird]

I’m 12 minutes in and I haven’t learned anything

[@Div1ne_1]

Lazerpig videos aren't educational lmfao, they're opinion pieces occasionally buffed with some questionable unsourced claims

[@briang7030]

Another axample of modern air warfare. Indiana Jones scene when guys pulls out a sword and swings it all around (low range dog fighter) Indiana Jones pulls out a gun (long range high tech jets) and shoots the guy at 50x the range of the dog fighter

[@MrOrgeston]

"Jets need to be able to dogfight." And I suppose we still need horseback cavalry. One of the most effective military units in history, right?

[@himoffthequakeroatbox4320]

Swiss pikemen have entered the chat. The 28th (North Gloucestershire) have entered the chat.

[@singularityraptor4022]

This mentality is similar to Indians using War Elephants. It USED to be effective but as warfare changed elephants got creamed. Our ancestors learned it the hard way why that's a bad idea.

[@hedgehog3180]

@@singularityraptor4022 Well except for that one time the Indian Air Force made their helicopters look like elephants which was an amazing idea and I think they should do it again just because they looked cute.

[@andrewstiegel9730]

It's the old F4 argument. Originally the F4 did not have a gun on it when it came to Vietnam because the services thought the new missiles developed would be able to shoot down any enemy fighter well before it got in gun range. They were wrong of course. But that was then and this is now. Superior tech not maneuverability can carry the day.

[@vincivan8163]

@@andrewstiegel9730 The F-4 suffered not because of the lack of a gun but rather from the fact that they did not know how to effectively use and maintain the missiles. The Navy’s F-4 phantoms performed better than the Air Force’s when they realized this. This comes directly from the F-4’s document in the Vietnam War.

[@TheBinarygenius]

“A Jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one” the F15 is an awesome plane

[@martinjrgensen8234]

The missile truck is awesome. There isn’t the ordinance it can’t carry. And with the EX they are about to pump out, it can data link with the F-35.

[@F.R.E.D.D2986]

This isn't an attack on you, I hate that all trades master of one quote though. That quote of all trades is retarded. You're telling me that someone who researches 4 or 5 different things would know more about something than someone who researched one thing for their entire life. Fuck all the way off with that. You're telling me that I should listen to Bill from the office, because he researched war for four days, but also can play ping pong, I should listen to him rather than a historian who has researched it for years? Bullshit

[@normallymute0131]

@@martinjrgensen8234missile trucks always have a place on the battlefield, you don’t need manoeuvrability if you can beam a 4 enemies from ~100km away. The F-4 Phantom II was a good middle grounder as it had air-air capability with some SARHs and IRs while retaining full functionality as a bomb truck. F-15 was just the next step. A true multirole fighter as it were.

[@theta3404]

"Not a pound for air to ground" my ass, not even 15 years later they made it multirole.

[@natespurgat6245]

@@normallymute0131 my understanding was that the f-4 was originally designed primarily as an interceptor, and only became an air superiority fighter and fast bomber out of necessity in places like Vietnam and Korea. which explains how it struggled in korea against the mig15 in maintaining air superiority

[@fluppet2350]

Simplicity is important, that’s why the government has spent so much time and money to simplify the F-35 as much as possible while still having the necessary capabilities. A plane is much simpler without wings, engines, control surfaces, weapons and landing gear but they are nessesary to get its damn job done

[@mnFlatLander]

I personally like that this whole video is essentially a stealth ad for Ground News.

[@EliasMK46]

I had my mind changed about the f35 when I (a lowly fueler) got the chance to try on one of their helmets. This was during its development, so it was still not even fully developed. That single moment opened my eyes to what that plane can actually do.

[@kousand9917]

This reminds me of the Put on these glasses and enter the world of the game meme

[@SuperCatacata]

You are so lucky. I've always wanted to see what those helmets look like from the inside.

[@natem1579]

@@SuperCatacata I've always imagined it being like the Iron Man HUD, and I don't think that's far off...

[@natem1579]

@@SuperCatacata I've always imagined it being like the Iron Man HUD, and I don't think that's far off...

[@Variety_Pack]

pilots get all the attention, but they can't fly without fuel. Maybe they could fuel themselves, but you are taking the responsibility off of them so that they can focus on their job. Don't discredit your position just because you aren't in a position that gets movies. Do your best and move up, my guy!

[@drdoody]

I'm a paramedic and I listened to this on a long call today and now, an 85 year old woman in East Texas with dementia wants to curbstomp Pierre Sprey.

[@viper_7712]

LOLLL

[@bravo6959]

God bless her

[@ToabyToastbrot]

How can you say "This plane needs to dogfight like a WW2 Plane! With guns!" and then have a list of things it shouldn't have that includes "bulletproof glass cockpit"?!

[@MWSin1]

The F-35 is a failure because the pilot can't drop grenades over the side of the cockpit onto the troops in the trenches below.

[@sothisisbasicallyhow4696]

I like Ace Combat as much as the next gal but I really feel like people who complain about and clown on the F-35 don’t really understand that an AIM-120D fired above San Diego can hit a plane on station over Mexicali within around 90 seconds. The age of the dogfight is all but over, and my inner child is mourning, but war has changed.

[@jamesdykes517]

Until the counter measures catch up. Also, what is the kill rate on the 120d? No offense, but cannons as a backup is great, and dogfighting a still essential skill. Against the average maybe not necessary, against the best, important. Tactics will change, and air forces will adapt. You're not really wrong, but not quite right. Glad you have an interest in aviation but there's a hair more to capabilities than what you're fed by the defense industry on paper. The AIM9 was hailed as an incredible achievement, but it's numbers in combat were obscenely lower than what was disclosed to the public. Same with Sparrows and AMRAAMs. Plus what happens when entire air groups are engaged there's a chance that these capabilities will fail at a higher rate. Better to have that cannon and the skill to use it than to not.

[@TrangleC]

The data just doesn't support that, sorry. In reality the hit rate of the AIM-120 against targets BVR ("Beyond Visible Range") is like 13% or so and most of those hits have been scored against easy targets like helicopters (unfortunately a bunch of friendly fire accidents where US F-15 shot down US Black Hawk helicopters) or out of date soviet era jets without proper missile warning systems. BVR as a combat concept remains unproven and unfortunately there is very little you can do to change that. People assume newer, better missiles must surely do better than the ones used in Operation Desert Storm or the campaign against Serbia in the 90s, but that isn't really the case due to the nature of air to air missile use. The thing is, the missile uses up its fuel in a very short boost phase that takes only seconds and then it glides to the rendezvous point with the target on inertia alone. That is why it is so important that the firing aircraft provides it with as much additional energy as possible. That is also the weapon system's biggest weakness and the advantage the target has. The missile can't do much anymore once the boost phase is over. Giving it better electronics and better sensors can only do so much. The point being, the newest "D" variant of the AIM-120 isn't some huge "quantum leap" in technology and capabilities that will make it significantly better than older versions of the missile. Seeing the target a little better and calculating the path to it a little better doesn't make the fuel last longer and doesn't make the missile more aerodynamic and use up its energy at a slower rate or anything like that. Fighter jets and the warning systems they use have advanced much more than the air to air missiles have, in the time since those statistics for hit ratios were collected. All that means that the 6 AMRAAMs a F-22 can carry in its weapon bay are statistically not enough to reliably score a single hit against a target BVR. The F-35 has a even lower chance to pull off the "shooting enemies before they see you" trick. Fighters still need to "energy fight", use basically the same air combat maneuvers in close combat "dog fights" WW2 fighters needed to use to force a enemy into a low energy state where he becomes a easy target for a missile. All that is why they decided to make the successor to the AIM-120 much smaller. Increasing the number of missiles carried and having more shit to throw at the wall in the hope something sticks, is basically the only way of making those "5th Generation" stealth fighters more combat effective.

[@jamesdykes517]

@@TrangleC hahaha forty seconds apart we post the same shit.

[@TrangleC]

@@jamesdykes517 Oh, yeah. I hadn't seen your comment because it took a while to type mine.

[@sothisisbasicallyhow4696]

@@TrangleC admittedly I’m no expert on military tech (AIM-120 example was just number crunching from available public data, I’m not a pilot or anything) and I’m definitely not against the idea of having pilots who know how to dogfight and shoot a gun. Just saying that maneuverability and maximum G’s start to matter less and less when we’re dealing with advanced stealth aircraft and BVR missile strikes - to say nothing of the EW capabilities of the F-35. Damn thing is the modern day equivalent of a Growler and then some, even without missiles.

[@ArmaliteSpade]

Watching the F-35 run through its air show routine and knowing it is neutered for the public makes me question the whole "it can't dogfight" thing. Watching an aircraft manuever under total control while basically stalled out will never get old.

[@trolleriffic]

What you've done there is you've used your eyes and brain to come to a sensible and logical conclusion based on unambiguous evidence, which has led you to question claims you might have previously believed... People who make noise about the F-35 don't generally do that sort of thing.

[@luminescentlion]

At the end of the day the plane doesn't need to maneuver, the plane needs to minimize it's cross section, contain the electronics that can actually protect it(because maneuvering no longer can), the weapons it needs for it's mission, and the ability to fly with a range that makes sense.

[@dutchthespitfire3204]

Why would you need to dogfight in a hypermodern stealth fighter which can shoot down targets before the target knows he is there

[@Utubesuperstar]

@@DingDingTheKZbinBuddy all modern fighters do

[@Utubesuperstar]

Yeah the most powerful single engined fighter ever thrust wise

[@aminmian7291]

The Reformers: "Let's stop making guns, ships, planes, vehicles, etc. ; instead, lets give our troops rocks and our elite forces a string for slingshot"

[@danielgaisford2920]

I just rewatched this for reasons . Anyway, good video and all that, but what stands out most is that the ad read/promotion is probably one of the best i've ever seen, lol. Good stuff..

[@mwikan01]

I'm in this business. Now they've worked out the kinks, the F-35 is a hell of a Platform. Extremely capable, extremely stealthy, extremely lethal. If you are dogfighting an SU-27 in visual range in an F-35 you have done something exceptionally wrong as a pilot. An F-35 should be able to detect, engage, and destroy up to 6 simultaneous 4th generation aerial targets without ever being detected. It's also fully networked, so it can talk with and control unmanned platforms.

[@hamster2845]

I seem to remember the F-4 phantom being simply a missile truck to destroy bombers. Then in Vietnam it was tasked as a dogfighter. Something it was not designed for. War will always throw up a wild card.

[@mr_clean91]

F-4’s problem was it’s weapons, not so much the airframe. They didn’t have any good close-range tools. AIM-4 was useless, AIM-7 couldn’t track targets closer than a mile, and AIM-9 underperformed

[@skull1161]

@@hamster2845 Every time someone brings up how advanced the F-35 is in beyond visual range combat. There is always that other guy who tries to draw a relation to the F-4 Phantom in the Vietnam war. The truth is that the F-4 had very early missiles that underperformed their already underperforming test runs. Missiles nowadays will almost never not be the better option to guns. For example, if in the early say... 16th century, I had a musket in my hand. I boasted about how I could kill a man from over 100 feet away, so you know what, I don't even need a sword, let me just leave it at home and go to war. But oh no, I missed my shot, let me reload for the next couple minutes while this warrior runs at me full speed with a sword in hand. Maybe it was a little too early to rely on the gun too much, right? Instead lets put that scenario in the 21st century, I have an automatic rifle, with a 100 round drum mag, what's the point of carrying a dang sword? It weighs me down. The penalty of having to carry around a piece of long metal far outweighs the slight advantage I would have in the near impossible situation that I miss all my shots and I somehow can't reload my gun in time or just simply take out my secondary small arm pistol. You can't liken the failure of the missiles onboard the early phantoms to the missiles on the F-35 today and somehow expect that to prove that making a plane that focuses on dog fighting is the right idea. Why should I put a heavy gun on my F-35 that I'm likely never gonna use in the next 1000 combat sorties. All that performance I lost could have helped me in those 1000 combat sorties. And even if I somehow don't shoot down the enemy aircraft in BVR, and I somehow don't kill them after the merge with the sidewinders, it still won't matter because I have a bunch of wingmen with plenty of missiles to fire at the slow enemy aircraft currently doing some idiotic cobra maneuver to try and get a gun shot on me like this is the 1950s.

[@koi_krapfen]

@@skull1161 The F35 also has a gun for the worst case, but modern short range IR-seeking missiles are crazy deadly. I guess people are expecting dogfighting to be like in DCS where for fun the don't shoot until they merge. Today you would take a AIM9-X straight to the face.

[@3BlueHaze]

wow it only took over 1.7 trillion dollars and 25 years to get it working? it most be a real pro business to work with such a small budget and time frame.

[@matteusvirtanen392]

The finnish fighter procurement program did very extensive testing of most available modern fighters and came to the conclusion that the F-35 was overwhelmingly the best. At the end of the HX challenge the F-35 scored something like 4.8 out of 5 and the runner up was 3.6 I think and it's rumoured that the fighter in question was the F-18 super hornet although that's never been confirmed.

[@StalkTheHype]

It was the gripen who came in second, and far behind it it was the Mirage. The F-18 was not in the tender past the first few rounds as it failed to meet certain criteria.

[@castor3020]

@@StalkTheHype Mirage was not part of the competition, I think you mean Rafale. This all sounds like hearsay and rumors again

[@SpheroJr3289]

Finnish public be like: Hmmm yes i sure enjoy going to the lake and swimming in the foamy substance called water! Definently water!

[@arealbaguette5210]

@@castor3020 this doesn't sound right. the Rafale came first in most of its competition before, maybe it just doesn't respond to Finland's needs.

[@laracroft938]

@@StalkTheHype Absolute bs. They didn’t officially publicize what came second but all sources say it was super hornet

[@Recordspin]

It would make sense if Sprey really did design the A-10, considering they both throw bullshit at the wall until something sticks.

[@RayRayReddington]

I’m new to your channel and I’m really enjoying your work. I never realized that the German tanks in WWII were not that great. Your take on the F35 is really interesting too. I’d love to know your opinion on the move of the USMC away from artillery and armor. Thanks

[@jarvy251]

My head spun when I heard "The F16 is simple" because the only thing I actually knew about the F16 was that it's NOT simple. I had some vague notion that it was aerodynamically unstable for some reason and that instability was computer-corrected. This notion was basically correct but I didn't know why, and looking up the reasoning was fascinating and all, but that some moron that apparently is PAID to spout nonsense actually had the temerity to refer to the F16 as "simple" left my jaw on the floor. Thank you for the serenade at the end, as usual

[@Seth9809]

Indeed. Maybe people think the plane is simple because the cost to make and fly is decently low?

[@avroarchitect1793]

Fighter Aircraft are anything but simple

[@bengrogan9710]

Minor correction - the F-16 is "relaxed" stability. That means it is stable in free flight but with enough control input can force itself into becoming unstable. The fly by wire system is to recognise when the break points of these hand overs happen so that it can prevent the unstable regime from entering unrecoverable flat spins

[@12345fowler]

First off, anyone using the term "aerodynamically unstable" shows very little understanding of the whole concept of stability.

[@bengrogan9710]

@@12345fowler please feel free to elaborate on that as the term is widely recognised and used in several flight training manuals

[@DimosasQuest]

The cant dogfight thing from the F-35 comes from when it lost to the F-16 somewhere around 2016. What those articles forget to mention that the F-35 was only using the first iterations of the flying software, and they had not gotten to perfecting it yet. Right now the F-35 wins almost every fight even before the F-16 can even detect it's under attack.

[@JoshSweetvale]

Dogfights are for biplanes. All modern fighters need to be is a stealthy missile platform.

[@marvinjohnson2488]

It's very hard to dogfight someone when they've already sent a missile up your butt from beyond your sight. The F35s job is to sneak up and stab their enemy in the kidneys. It's not fair,not nice,but effective.

[@codyraugh6599]

Part of the compounding of it is the soft factors that make the F-22 one of the most annoying jets to the USAF ground crews, and all the enlisted who were/are going "if it's so great then just give us the damn thing already rather than wasting the money that could have been going to my Healthcare on redesigning the thing from the ground up...again." because early F-35... yeah having whole air wings that are suddenly scrapped is frustrating when you have a president who denys you your paycheck for two months while simultaneously doubling the budget for the plane's development. Which note none of that (besides ground maintenance) reflects AT ALL on the plane's actual air performance. But still you garner a bad rep among the enlisted through that, and then certain grifters feed off that to line their pocketbooks.

[@rylian21]

It also didn't have its stealth panels on for that exercise against the F-16.

[@codyraugh6599]

@@rylian21 its almost like the US tests to avoid the survivor bias issue, and tries to point by point show why each piece of equipment improves upon the weapons platform, and the US has only finally taken that idea and turned it to "well how do we do this but in a extremely cost effective means?" Cue the V.A.M.P.I.R.E. and Dragon weapon systems.