"Shut up about the F-35" | Kip Reacts to LazerPig
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 авг 2024
- Fellow Legends, welcome! Today we dive into a wild one where we have Lazerpig breaking down the F-35 for us. I personally have no prior knowledge of avionics or military aircraft, this was incredibly hilarious and I loved every moment of this. I highly recommend you go and check out the original video to show some support for the source material!
Original Channel: LazerPig
Original Channel Link: / @lazerpig
Original Video: Shut up about the F-35
Original Video Link: • Shut up about the F-35
Please keep all comments civil and respectful, thank you!
=Kip's Other Channels=
Kizuna Kip (Original Content) - / @kizunakip
Kizuna Kip TV (VODs) - / @kizunakiptv
TactiKip (Firearms & Military) - / @tactikip
Kip YGO (Yu-Gi-Oh!) - / @kipygo
Professor Kip (Pokemon) - / @professorkip
=Social Media Links=
Discord: / discord
eMail: kizunakip@gmail.com
Instagram: / kizuna_kip
Linktree: linktr.ee/kizu...
Tiktok: tiktok.com/@kizunakip
Twitch: twitch.tv/kizunakip
Twitter: kizunakip
Twitter (SFW): kizunakipseiso
=Support Kip=
Ko-Fi: Ko-fi.com/kizunakip
Patreon: patreon.com/KizunaKip
If you want to know why the reformers are worth laughing at watch "The Bradly wars" another lazerpig masterpiece
0:38 he's right, the a-10 is really good at it's job, if that job is friendly fire.
The idea that we should be designing aircraft specifically for machine gun dogfighting, in the modern age of advanced guidance systems and missiles, is absolutely absurd.
They shouldn't even be carrying guns and ammo. Theres literally no point. Just bombs fuel and a camera crew.
@@npc2153better to have it if you need it. Don’t want another situation where we try and rely on missiles when it’s not enough, y’know, ala Vietnam era, where we did just that.
@ronaldmcreagann6343
Vietnam the problem was mostly with doctrine rather than a lack of guns, that's another reformer myth. The issue was mostly that in the early war US planes were ordered to visually confirm all targets before engaging, which completely negated the advantages of their missiles. You'll notice the Navy had the same increase in air combat successes despite never bothering to fit internal guns to their F-4s.
@@CruelestChris It was also due to the poor maintenance and storage of missiles, where groundcrews were treating missiles like dumb bombs.
Oh no it's Vietnam all over again
35:32 the US military does not use blitzkreig tactics at all, they use shock and awe tactics, deploying way more resources than necessary in order to crush the opposition as soon as possible. But we only use those tactics against enemies that are inferior to our military by a wide margin. We would use significantly different tactics in a war against a more powerful country such as Russia or China. We would never use “blitzkreig” because it’s incredibly ineffective and dangerous, especially now that everyone in the fucking world knows how blitzkreig works and how to counter it. Sorry kip, don’t mean to come off mean, I love your vids, I’m just a military tactics nerd.
correct. Desert Storm and Shock-and-awe tactics only worked against Saudi Arabia because they lacked GPS. They didn't have the technology to even see the Americans coming, let alone respond appropriately. The Saudi's expected the American tanks to come from the south and fight their dug in positions head-on. They didn't know that, thanks to GPS, the Americans could approach from the western deserts and hit them in the flank. Their tanks often didn't even have hydraulics, meaning that even when they realized they were aimed the wrong way, the Americans could safely steamroll them before they could bring their weapons to bear. Shock and awe has a place. But against someone with comparable technology, it wouldn't work.
@@Sai.Hottari Iraqi*
@@Sai.Hottari Settings ng up an entire decoy operation help up a lot.
@@Sai.Hottari fast foward today. Russian jets with off the shelf civilian Garmin Navi GPS's .. I'll continue laughing at our "near" peer foes.
Fun fact. Blitzkrieg do not exist. It is propaganda term made by Nazis, for people who do not understand modern combat. What become popular only because Germans barely win with Poland, who almost kicked they ass, before they were backstabbed by Soviet (and surprise, guy on horse with AP rifle and grenades is super dangerous and shock mobile) and collapse of French. What was entirely they fault, as they folded, because no one listen to De Gaulle, about importance of mobility. Not to mention that people forget that Rommel was actually spanked in Africa. After British finally stop relying on static defences and actually start using thing known as Strategy.
Simple>Complex weapons. Aight, throw the good modern missiles in the trash, Time to dust off those Unguided Air-to-Air nuclear rockets.
Eeeeh... Guess you haven't heard about how the AIM-9 came to be... Also, don't you disrespect the Genie. It most definitely will screw up your day.
The ground rule is KISS and "simpler is better," but then there's of course a balance that has to be struck. Also, a multi-million dollar weapon system can be expensive because it's very well machined and generally overdesigned to take out any kind of need to be overly mindful of tolerances or specific application, is supposed to be high-powered but not just specialized, yada yada... OR it can be because it's freakin' complicated and has oodles of boards and readers shoved in there which will crack and fail at exposure to actual combat, controls and gizmos because the Pentagineers crammed it through some procedure to get jobs in Minnesota... I mean, just stating the obvious, but...
And then there's the flip side. People who stupidly shit on the M1s drivetrain, for instance, when it was absolutely well-suited for its purpose. Or on the flip side, one might point out that the Strv103 actually has a way more complicated drivetrain than the M1 - but not complicated in an unmanageable way, and enabling it to generally do things that the Abrams never could. Always, tradeoffs and technicalities, and things as small as how to format and where to put a little damn harness bundle and contactor can make or break a whole design... And in the end, it absolutely has to come down to some critical engineering target function, which in turn absolutely has to be real combat effectiveness vis-á-vis cost - which is damn hard to figure out in a time of no major wars.
Whatever. My point really has to be... I don't think that the F-35 is a good plane, but that is entirely of and for its own reasons. Not because "Dehur I wan de BRRRT." I think that in terms of performance, as a replacement for the Harrier, it looks absolutely stellar. And I don't doubt that the A-10s vaunted image is likely inflated - just as an aside, did you know that the rounds coming out of that GAU-8 are actually SHORTENED variants of the same shit we put in the JA-37 back in the day? And the Gripen could still spit them out at 1700RPM - But at the same time, from an engineer's perspective, the thing looks like a whole big bundle of compromise.
That's the thing that gets my goat. All that compromise, and trying to squash it into the same thing, never bodes well. In my experience, it is the worst way of going about, trying to take a whole bunch of novel things and cram them into a conventional design to get some kind of enhanced capabilities. Rather, the thing that has a track record of doing way better on all sides and in all militaries, is to come up with a novel design more purpose-orientated toward carrying out the task, and then trying to get as much solid and known engineering and parts into that as possible.
What is the F-35s job? STOVL-capable "watchdog" multirole airplane with good enough speed but more importantly with serious BVR capability and some SEAD capacity. Okay? Sounds like you want a "hopper" with some easy FAB maintenance there, hopefully a very robust driveline, plenty carrying capacity and maybe some wink wink nudge nudge "The manual doesn't recommend, but the plane can do it in a pinch because it's so solid" factor for carrying both conventional and unconventional armaments or groundhugging, etc. Basically, something like the JAS or the F16, just with pad takeoff capacity added in - which hooo boy is already a biggie in design terms - and then a fully modern electronics suite and then... Wait hold on, you want this thing designed for stealth, dedicatedly, right out of the gates? You know they even reactivated the Nighthawk, right? You want it to have sixteen bathtubs of internal weapons bay?! With a single engine and big single hover fan in the same space?! I thought you said this thing was gonna do SEAD? You know the format of those weapons? AND you want it to...? Oh god, my head hurts...
The irony of that statement is that that unguided nuclear rocket is far more complex of a weapon than the guided AAM, simply by nature of being a nuclear weapon. See how dumb the reformers are? They also tag onto the F16 because "hurr durr dogfighting, simple, cheap", while ignoring that tue F16 literally needs a computer to keep it in the air because to obtain that maneuverability, it needs to be aerodynamically unstable. Also, they latched onto the F14 after the failure of the F111B because "hurr durr it has a gun, dogfighting" while ignoring that the F14 was literally everything they claim to hate, namely expensive, complicated and heavy. Granted it was pretty damn maneuverable for its size, especially the F14B and F14D, but that wasn't why it was so successful. The reason why it was successful is because it had the most powerful radar fitted to any fighter jet in the world at the time, and held onto that for quite a while. It could shoot at things it couldn't see with an AIM-54 Phoenix missile, and with extreme accuracy. It was a long range assassin, and pretty decent in BFM/ACM as a bonus
Damn. Your chat's really coping hard. The F-35's only competition is the F-22. Not the 15, 16, or 18--those jets are good, with the Super Hornet being my favorite jet next to the 35.
It is the best jet on the planet today. If you don't believe me, ask the numerous other countries chomping at the bit to get one.
F-22 is outdated in comparison to the F-35. not just the gigantic age difference. It's also way way more advanced.
@@Shinobubu F22 is the ONLY Competitor even if it is that old.
@@ShinobubuNo shit they haven't really upgraded it in all this time.
Once they upgrade the flight systems, it will be far superior to the f thirty five in every way.
No matter how well you make something if you don't upgrade it in twenty plus years, it's going to become obsolete.
The best? No, no it is not, but it’s almost good, far, far cheaper and we’ll actually sell it, haha. Now that’s not saying it bad. But be honest. f-22’s will win every time in air combat. A B-2 is a far better bomber, and equal to better stealth, or just costs more to make, and maintain, and we won’t sell those either. The B-21 solves a lot of the cost issues, supposedly, but we’ll see, we also won’t sell those, we keep the very best for ourselves, and sell the second or third place to everyone else, haha. Granted our second and third place is still world class, the best ever made, if not for our own, better that won’t seel for at least another 50 plus years, when any major power can hope to produce more a handful of what we had 20 years ago…
@@Plastikdoom True enough, but there's only one category that the F-35 is solidly beaten in, and that's in stealth by the B-2. I'm not saying that the 22 isn't a beast, but it's a beast that was hyperspecced to fight other aircraft.
You wanna know what the 35 was built to fight? Hostile SAM sites and enemy warships. Y'know, those things with radars leagues more powerful than any skyborne craft out there. If it was less stealthy than the 22, it wouldn't be able to do its job as effectively as it can.
Oh, and as for things like maneuverability (discounting the fact that BVR and modern missiles renders such a thing as, well, less than relevant)? There's this funky little thing called aerodynamics that, when utilized properly, can help aircraft mimic or even surpass the characteristics of those with thrust vectoring. It's always gonna be more efficient to make the air go where you want it to rather than brute forcing through it.
Add onto that the fact that it's ground attack/CAS capabilities are unmatched, it costs only a bit more than an F-16 (80 million to 63 million per, which is a fucking steal tbh) is capable of crunching leagues more data and info than the 22 as well as giving all that to the pilot, is able to let the pilot see through the plane (some real Ace Combat type shit), is cheaper on the logistics/maintenance side than the 22, the fact that it was built to be improved upon for the future instead of damn-near impossible to upgrade without huge costs and, well.
You get the best jet in the sky today: the F-35. It might be beat out in individual areas, but when it comes to fighter jets, that really doesn't matter compared to the whole package.
Lazerpig's Legend of Piorun and the Great Ocean Liner Duel are both magnificent. On a related note, The DUMBEST Russian Voyage ever is another good one either by BlueJay (for a short comedy concisement) or Drachinifel for a more thorough look into the craziness.
DO YOU SEE TORPEDO BOATS?!?!?!?!
Drachinifel's is better just because it really hammers home how stupid the russian military is
Simple weapons are best.
Thats somewhat true...
But let me ask you, who wins? 3 soldiers with a MG3/MG42, or 200 guys with nice simple sticks?
Imma bet on the MG
Also, in WW1, the most effective pilot was Manfred Von Richtofen, the red Baron with a total 80 confirmed victories/kills. What was HIS PREFERED technique? Fly high and out of sight, come down fast and use accurate machine gun fire to take them down before they can react. EVEN IN the 1910s, Stealth and not being spotted was playing a major role in who would win
We already know the answer cause that actually happened in 1900. 1 US Marine Private named Dan Daly went up against 200 Chinese rebels, he was using a machine gun they were using muskets, swords, spears, and clubs. Dan Wiped them all out.
the awe you have during his rendition of "Let it Go" was exactly how I felt the first time I watched this video
glad to see the word of the most lazer-eyed pig on RUclips be spread to so many new minds
truly a day for celebration
Yep the "I say, therefore it is" is basically the equivalent of a of "It came to me in a dream."
no, it came to me in a dream has a chance of being divine providence. A near 0 chance since it requires 1. God to be real 2. The right God to be real. 3. Him to reveal it to you in a dream.
but thats not 0, I say it therefore it is is literally nothing. XD
Also much more importantly it came to me in a dream sounds cooler.
"My source is that I MADE IT THE FUCK UP!"
In general, if I want to find out how good a thing is, there are only really two kinds of people I will consult: the end user, and the one who maintains the thing. Every one else will have a stake in it, even if it's just to make sure they don't look *_STOOBID._*
LazerPig video is great and funny to dispell the myth of modern combat and politics! But there is an issue I have with LazerPig specific in his F-35 video. Well, not an issue per se, it's just something that need footnotes.
LP: "How helmet based system (specifically Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) for F-35), have meant that a plane no longer needs to point at whatever it wants to target."
Yes, but this depends on the missile boresight angle. Let's take a look at visual-combat. There’s a massive shift in visual-combat with the introduction of off-boresight (HOBS) missiles that can be cued 90° to either side of the nose, essentially eliminating the need to get behind enemy’s 6′. Modern off-boresight missiles like AIM-9X can easily engage a target over the shoulder. Today's real world visual-confrontation isn’t dictated by who is more maneuverable, but who has better off-boresight missile to take the first-shot. This itself assuming the missile would immediately gain lock to whatever the position hostile aircraft is.
In F-35, since the search-and-track itself is slaved to HMDS plus receiving data from Distributed Aperture System (DAS), the F-35 can cue a missile 360° spherically in any direction. But not on 4th gen. In this video, the words he use, "a plane" and "helmet based system", implying broad (not limited to F-35). There is no 4th gen fighter that have the same situational awareness as F-35.
You should pause the video when you comment or turn the volume of the original video down because most of the time one can not understand what you are saying when you are talking over the original voice track.
Yeah. I love Kip, but at some points Kip was literally saying things that the video was refuting or grossly misquoting what was said because he was talking over the video and ended up not paying attention on what was being said
Regarding FIRE, there was an adage my engineering professor shared with the class. "There are three goals of production: Good, Fast, Cheap. You can only ever get two of those."
"Oh yeah? And what branch did YOU serve in?"
"Lockheed Martin."
Idk if people have complained about you stopping the video before, but any time you spoke while the video was playing, I couldn't hear you, and I couldn't quite focus on either thread. Something to consider.
I've heard mixed reviews, people said I paused too much in the past so I tried to accommodate. I'm at such a backlog in uploads I'm going to start taking them a little slower and pause for better audio
@@KipReacts@ Kip Reacts I suggest that you pause when talking so you don't have to worry about being heard or missing anything in the video. People will complain regardless of whether you pause or not so why not ensure we can understand you and that you don't miss anything.
@@evilstatistic1994I'm new here but i agree more from yhe standpoint of in order to feature yourself you need to eliminate distractions. If people complain you pause the video to make YOUR point in YOUR video let them complain. They can go watch the video themselves if they want it uninterupted.
@@awsgeneral Agreed. Never understood why people whinge about pausing in a REACTION video. We want to see said person react to the content and they can't react to something if they miss it.
One big difference between the F22 and F35 is the F35 has a tailhook and is a little more versatile, meaning it can be carrier based. The F22 on the other hand is specifically designed for air superiority combat, meaning the F35 can handle a broader mission set but the F22 is all about dominating the skies. The F22 is often sent up with drones or slower lumbering aircrafts like the AC130 and the B52, which is why it just doesn't have many air interceptions. Although, with Syria, the Houthis and Hamas starting to fuck around, I'm sure the F22 will be part of their find out education. Also, on the A10, allied forces during GWOT absolutely ADORED that aircraft, it was literally a flying fuck around and find out for whenever allies ran into armored patrols, I still think it would be a huge mistake to retire it without something that can accurately and effectively accomplish that mission set as well if not better than the A10.
You had me at big gun go brrr.
More Lazer pigs 🤣
I never understood the bomber hate. Shit like BUFF just picking an area of the battlefield and just removing it is AWESOME. And doing so without anyone knowing you were there is why the b-2 is like my second favorite military aircraft. Second only to the sr-71.
Heavy bombers are replaced by missiles these days. Fighter-bombers have _one_ job; Turning at-the-moment air superiority into ground attack.
Finally another reaction channel who has found the PIG OF LEGEND!!!!
(15:23) Well I've heard it is cheaper than the F-22.🤔
Love this stuff!
That's literally the Swedish tactic of 'gå på' or go on
It seams that F-16 replacement Forbs was talking about is the FA-50. A Korean armed trainer jet, what do mostly the same stuff as F-16 (not as good, but good enough for tasks not done by F-35), but is way cheaper then Gripen.
I'm going to sgow my unner child and use the word "woozle" more often in my daily life.
I looked up my cousins wiki and public air force records to see if he helped build / come up with any planes after seeing this and I'm sad to say he didn't. It would have been funny if he helped with the a-10 after this part in particular tho lmao 5:31
Tho seeing as we have secret aircraft none of us know shiz about who knows.
The F-35 is not at all a terrible aircraft. I just dont think it should replace everything in the airforce. Haveing airframes that cover all roles well dose sound nice, though haveing one specifically designed to do a certain task perfectly is better. Hover as one would figure, makeing a different aircraft for ever job costs a lot of money. So a better approach is have some aircraft that can do multiple missions to fill in gaps, well still haveing aircraft that are made to do air-air, air-ground, air-sea, bombardment, electronic warfare, and stealth. Which is what America is doing.
The F-35 is slated to work as the backbone multi-tool supporting the US's next generation of fighters and bombers such as NGAD, F/A-XX, and B-21. Since it can do everything reasonably well (or extremely well if we're talking electronic warfare), it can fill a multitude of tasks as needed. However, it will be working in tandem with more specialized aircraft which can do those same tasks better. Fits into what is called the "High-Low" philosophy. Having all high-end equipment is too expensive for anyone to do in sufficient numbers. Having all low-end equipment will yield you too great a loss count or make operations harder despite having sufficient numbers. Therefore, the idea is to have a large base of low-end equipment supporting a core of high-end equipment. In the coming years, F-35 is slated to be the low. NGAD, F/A-XX, and B-21 are slated to be the high (even though F-22 was originally slated to be the high back in the 90's).
@@Registered_Simp I agree useing more advance aircraft in tandom with cheap aircraft is the way to go. Will have to a bit more research my self as im not as well versed in the F35 intricate details. Compared to my know of other platforms like the F15 and A10. Even though i love the F15 and A10 at some point an upgrade is mandatory. Nothing lasts forever even if it hurts. The only potent flaw I see with the F35 is the hover feature and the gun. I know not ever aircraft can have a powerful gun, it simply will not fit. Against air craft and light vehicles its perfect. Heavy vehicles you can just use bombs, though I just would like a fall back plan. Strike aircraft like the A10 had this, but I gess the gun is being fazed out. Sad really, I found the noise of heavy guns so soothing. Gess im just getting old, or just a bit old fashioned. The hover system takes up a lager amount of the airframe and with moving parts problems are bounded to happen. I just don't see the big advantage of have ever aircraft equipped with one. They can land anywhere but, the only place you'll land is at an airfield or a aircraft carrier. No ones landing on an active hot zone with one it just would make you subject to automatic fire. Thanks for you response I've been out of the loop on proceed plans for the airforce as of late. College is a pain.
The US Air Force never intended them to replace all of the current "workcraft"; as can be seen with the USAF ordering more F-15EX Eagle II; which is a fancy way of saying, "we need a cheaper aircraft with similar technologies as F-35". I agree with Alex Orr comments here. Military procurement, especially with new technologies, is never been intended to "replace" something outright; they phases out older aircraft and slowly replacing it with newer standards.
And yes, F-15EX can do what F-35 can do, with lower operational & maintenance price.
@@thegreatestshowfox As far as the VTOL system is concerned, that is specific to the F-35B version intended for the Marines as a replacement for the AV-8B Harrier ll. They will operate off of smaller assault carriers which cannot field conventional aircraft. This does of course come at the cost of maintenance hours and range, but what you get in return is well worth it. Of course, some issues with the VTOL are bound to happen as the aircraft is still relatively new. Happens for every service aircraft. I have no doubt that all issues with it that aren't due to poor maintenance will be ironed out.
As for the cannon, the F-35A version for the Air Force still has a 25mm internal cannon. The B and C versions are also capable of mounting an external cannon pod if the mission calls for it. However, the gun itself for fighters is once again being called into question. Missiles have gotten so advanced now with stuff like the Aim-9X and Aim-120D. These missiles effectively create a range by which, if you enter it and get shot at, you just die. Given this, it's reasonable to see why the relevancy of a fixed internal cannon is in question
@@KentLavisMW Currently, the EX is more expensive, but I'll chalk that up to the economics of scale. Given the specific frame the EX was based off of (the strike eagle), it appears the reason for its introduction was sheer carrying capacity. With missiles like the Aim-260 JATM currently in development with insane max range possibly exceeding that of the aircrafts radar itself, this brings in the expanded possible use of network-centric-warfare. Given the F-35's industry leading systems (like god damn, not even close), and low radar cross section, it would very much be possible for an F-15EX loaded down with missiles way behind the main line to volley missiles off at targets illuminated by F-35's in front who aren't able to be detected yet. Scary shit for anyone who isn't the USA
Fast
Inexpensive
Realistic
Expectations
There you go. Ditch elegant.
Reformer cope
And the comments go wild on my jet i have to work on daily
F.I.R.E basically the ak serise of weapons
AKs can't hit things very well at long range. The damn M4 _carbine_ (shorty) is more accurate than it!
@JoshSweetvale who cares about accuracy if ak is king in urban warfare or cqc plus who ever using dosent care about civilians in the first place
If simple is always better, then the obvious winner to the "spear vs lantern shield" debate is "rock I found along the way". :P
Lazerpig!
Would love to see you react to LP's A-10 videos. Part 1, I think is Fighter Plane Mafia, Part 2, is the plane itself.
bro i cant understand what youre trying to say cuz the view is louder than your voice lol
More Lazerpig Reactions!
It's been a while, I definitely need to again!
Molle gear is highly effective as it easy to customize your loadout for whatever mission you are going on. There are basic loadout requirements, but you can always add to those requirements and set it up for how it best works for you. Every mission I went out on in Afghanistan, everyone had a similar setup, but each one was unique to that individual person. Molle gear is far better than what the army used to use, which is LCE gear developed in the mid 1950s and phased out in the late 2000s.
WHOOOOOOOOOOO!
Reformers never heared of the following phrase.
Everything has a cost. Time, money, effort, pick two.
They're not idiots.
They're liars.
In my country , one general proposed reform the convined arms warfare doctrine and adopt bliztcrieg in a mountain country only using foot soldiers 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ and no armor vehicles or any kind of ground vehicle 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️.
The F-35 also known as the Live Service aircraft.
"I say, therefore it is."
OK. I, Judas Alexander Merrick, am the Lord Eternal of Jupiter's Big Red Spot. Dare to refute my majesty.
/s
Oh, oh, oh.
*I DARE!*
Im a penny soldier
This is how you do advertisement, get an angry Scotsman to rant about a plane to sell your news subscription
I read Infowars... It is hilarious and not to be taken seriously.
I read InfoWars too. And I occasionally share the links to my Discord server to see what response my server denizens have.
Unfortunately you are in a minority of infowars consumers.
The irony being that Infowars probably has a more accurate track record than LazerPig does.
...Which, granted, isn't saying much.
@@matchesburnIt doesn't.
@@CorporalCookie
Oh, sweet summer child, you don't know about LP's latest public meltdown he had with the Chieftain, do you?
lightning war, simply put is just trying to win before the enemy can respond in a reasonable fashion russia tried this shitly with ukraine and realistically they failed because ukraine was propared enough to stalll there advance until they could get there men into key defensible posistions
707 like
Dude through most of the video I can't even hear you. Balance, please.
I will say this Dan ward, has very minimal parts, I believe he is partially correct in, what we make and use, should obviously accomplish what we need and want. But he as cheap and fast as possible to make said thing that works and accomplishes the mission and I also fully advocate the use of the cheapest, most simplest weapon system that we can, to accomplish what we want and need. And we are pretty damn good in those areas, all said and done, as the only nation that fields 5th gen aircraft, and making 6 th gen, now, wen no one else can make effective and cost effective 5th gen…lol. Our old shit is still decades ahead of every one else in capabilities and use. How effective it is. Like others have said the F-35 is supposed to replace many other aircraft, in a modern peer war. But even more that it, it is the ultimate, final test bed, of can we do this, and can we make it possible for all our NATO Allie’s to be able to do the same, because we can figure out a 5th gen joint strike aircraft capable of naval. Bombing. CAS, air superiority and make it affordable, most of the cost and delays are related to making it mass produced.
Here's a problem: if no one but the experts are qualified to speak on a subject, what happens when the experts make shit up to further a goal? I'm not an expert. But the statistic that "the A-10 has killed more friendly troops than any aircraft in history" is obviously hyperbole. No _way_ a WWII platform doesn't win that "prize". It's source is a USAF report given to Congress during a meeting in which the USAF was trying to defund the A-10. The A-10 is almost certainly obsolete, I've finally come around to saying that (it still has a place in COIN operations, but it can be replaced with a literal cropduster in those theaters). BUT, a government watchdog program has released an article pointing out the fact that that USAF source is _also_ biased, misrepresents the real numbers provided _in that source_ by emphasizing raw numbers over rates (the "rate" would be blue-on-blue casualties per sortie, for example), and conveniently chooses different cutoff dates for blue-on-blue fire and collateral casualties (blue-on-blue goes back a full decade (IIRC) beyond the collateral damage cutoff). One thing commonly mentioned by that article is the fact that if you move the cutoff date for collateral damage back by one year, the B-1 suddenly takes first place _overall_ in that category. The article also says that the A-10 is the second _safest_ CAS aircraft, based on the report that condemned it, when measured by rate.
But that article is also gone. No idea why. An article on the same site links to it, but has not been corrected. It still exists on the Wayback Machine. Maybe it contains references to classified material, who knows.
The A-10 has killed the most because of the role it has, it operates extremely close to friendlies and shoots either a missile or a lot of very high calibre explosive bullets from a very inaccurate gun and with no sensor equipment, meaning the pilot had to use sight, meaning some pilots straight up shot at friendlies because they couldn't identify them correctly.
dunno being far away from the things you're trying to kill when you kill them has lots of application in everyday life...just saying.
Some constructive criticism for you. I can't hear you talking over Lazer pig. When you talk without pausing, my ears continue to listen to the video, therefore missing your commentary. There's no reason to watch a reaction, if I can't hear the commentary. It's audio overload. Come on. Your reactions to fat electrician pause when you talk. Why can't you do that with Lazer pig? 😢
Hey, you're cute :3
Who is this femboy
Cant watch.... Kip's comments are fine. How-be-ever when he attempts to comment without pausing th eunderlying commentary it is totally washed out. Kip's comments are unhearable, wile LP's become harder to hear.
Commentary = good
production = bad
This is actually on my list to re-react to down the line due to the audio issues present. There were pc issues at the time and I'll be correcting this at a later date.
@@KipReacts Cool beans. I would like to hear your commentary.
@@KipReacts I look forward to it.
alright, Lazerpig does bring up a good point, however, I do have a question, HOW IN THE LIVING HELL IS A FIFTH GEN FIGHTER WITH THE ARMOR RATING OF A PAPER BAG SUPPOSED TO DO THE A-10's JOB OF-and I can't stress this enough-CLOSE AIR SUPPORT, does it cause casualties, yeah, no shit sherlock, it comes with the territory, YOU try flying that thing and being accurate while also being silent until the moment of attack. Also, I just did a few searches, Even with the modern price to build one, it still costs less than the F-35. IDGAF if the modernization package costs more, Last I checked, the F-35 doesn't have a titanium tub strong enough to stop a point-blank strike from a T-72 battle tank.
Short answer is probably that it just outright cant do the job as well as the A10 can. Maybe on a modern battlefield, as it can actually manage to penetrate deeper inland without being detected by every radar site within 400km of the frontline, but we arent fighting sophisticated defenders here. we are fighting people whose best pieces of military equipment comprise of 1970s Yugoslavian AKMs and 2004 Toyota Hilux's. For things like that, the A10 is most likely better. For these jobs we need low and slow, rugged systems that can shrug off light anti-aircraft fire, and can get the crew back home, or at least let them survive.
Besides, when the statistics are accurately and fairly portrayed, the A10 is actually among the safer CAS aircraft we have in service.
@@firedeath1154thank you, my point exactly. Also, love the pfp, Sabaton for life.
The F-35 can just launch a missile at the enemy from beyond range, which is what the A-10 mostly does, as the GAU-8 can't penetrate the T-72, the A-10 is also ridiculously antiquated sensor wise, needing to rely on binoculars to spot targets which is why it needs the ridiculously expensive refit package
@@edwardbrown3721 This in a future possible war any jet that needs to visually confirm targets will not be working fast enough to do it's job, If you need something to stay in the area and provide close in fire support then any type of jet is not the answer, your gonna use what ever future analog we will have for the AC-130
The F-111 killed more tanks and flew more sorties than the A10 in desert storm
Imo we are spending too much on these planes when america is literally crumbling
Your opinion is uninformed.