F-35 actually does CAS better than the A-10 could ever hope to do and JTACS have already confirmed this. I've called in A-10s and worked with them, as well as F-16s in the CAS role in 2 different theaters of operation. I grew up with several family members working on these and other developmental programs relevant to CAS, precision strike, A2A, strategic nuclear strike, ISR, penetration, etc., to the extent I remember the A-10 still very much in the testing stage in the 1970s. The A-10 was designed specifically to fly slow so it could escort the new US Army Airmobile concept helicopter formations while still being able to carry ordnance in the weight class like an A-7D could. The A-1 Skyraider and other prop-driven CAS platforms could not carry the weapons weight to deal with the new self-propelled Soviet AAA systems like the ZSU-23-4, so there was a specific request to the Pentagon from the Army for a slow-flying CAS bird that could deal with those threats in order to protect the massive formations of vulnerable helicopters carrying troops from one part of the battlefield to the other. The USAF also wanted the aircraft to be able to do close range interdiction of armor outside of the FEBA, which the A-7D was better for because it had survivability and the precision bombing computer that actually worked. The A-10 in the CAS role relies on pilot eyeballs to discriminate between friendly and foe up until the A-10C, which is basically a networked and advanced FLIR pod-equipped Warthog with night capabilities and SATCOM with large MFD displays. The big problem with the A-10 has and always will be that it's underpowered and cruises along at 285kts. This is why most of our CAS has been pre-coordinated Reapers, emergency TIC F-15Es, B-1Bs, F-16Cs, F/A-18s, Super Hornets, and even B-52s. The A-10 really needed an engine upgrade so it could get to emergency Troops In Contact calls faster like the Su-25 can (copied of the Northrop YA-9 competitor of the Fairchild YA-10). The Su-25 can reach 526 knots, almost twice the speed of the A-10, making it more responsive. The F-35 can get to a TIC 9-Line faster than any of the above, have an astonishingly-clear picture of the battlespace before it even gets there, and start delivering more accurate precision munitions before it arrives, while exploiting the enemy disposition, comms, connectivity with other threat elements, and deliver weapons on them with the same bay door opening for separation. It can do this at night through bad weather with supersonic separation speeds.
agreeed! The main problem with the A-10 is the ability to quickly get on station or to escape threats when the shit hits the fan. However, I think the A-10's loitering gives it one really unique advantage when it comes to CSAR missions.
@@TheJTcreate Roger that. One of the mission profiles we had in the best unit I was in was CSAR, although it wasn't a primary. We were more focused on reconnaissance and surveillance, with terminal guidance and CSAR as secondaries. An A-10 on station is a comfort once they get there, as long as they aren't in a high IADS threat Weapons Employment Zone.
Best review I've see, the first time i have seen a review of someone with an opinion instead of all the rubbish you here salesman and soldiers ordered to say.
Are you kidding. He is a salesman. The danish journalists were allowed to interview him because their government were in the process of buying and testing the aircraft. The dude is probably on retainer with Lockhead.
@@connoreads1723 When you lose 6 of the A-10s in the first two weeks of combat (this happened) and potentially lose more lives and airframes in the CSAR missions trying to rescue them, and F-16s are getting blasted by SAMs like the Israeli F-16I did recently, the F-35 is clearly the cheapest option if you ever plan to use the aircraft in combat theaters where modern IADS nets are present. The F-35 really is a master of each of the areas or legacy mission profiles, while adding ones that were unimaginable for a fighter before. It humiliated F-15C squadrons since this interview in BVR A2A and surprised them in BFM, flown mostly by new F-35A pilots mixed with former F-16C and F-15E drivers who converted. It has been used to do things in CENTCOM that sound more like legacy strategic reconnaissance aircraft, while delivering precision strikes on ISIS and Taliban savages, and doing Defensive Counter-Air for F-15Es and Super Hornets. JTACs (USAF guys who call in CAS) say it does things in the CAS role that blew their minds, and is a new generation of CAS that hasn't existed before.
The analogy made here is great. You can own a pickup truck, a sedan, and a sports car if you can afford it. Most people pick just one car or two and use it for everything dependent upon their personal needs. That's why mid-size SUV's are so popular and have become so luxury and performance oriented. The F-35 is the Honda Pilot of fighter planes. Plus it's stealth.
If it's not broke, don't replace it... Upgrade it. The A-10 should get a little refresh and keep it going. It's low operational coast vs it's capabilities is amazing.
The only reason the A-10 was developed at all was to kill Russian tanks. That 30mm gun is way way overkill for soft targets. In a low risk environment the A-10 could be replaced with helicopters or the AT-6 Wolverine at a fraction of the cost. Or predator drones. Check this out!!! ruclips.net/video/1foKo4l_HAo/видео.html
If u done that then u would have to buy all new A10s because it's getting close to the air frame hours running out and the aircraft has to be retired for safety reasons.
I did an analysis of "What if we had F-35s in Desert Storm?" instead of the legacy single and multirole platforms. I compared the mission profiles using the post-ODS Congressional reports, USAF, USN, USMC, and US Army After-Action Reports, systems critiques and lessons-learned, partner nation experiences, order of battle, what worked and what didn't, with the following aircraft replaced by some JSF variant: USAF F-15C vs F-35A in OCA/DCA/CAP F-117A vs F-35A Stealth deep penetration strike of C4 nodes F-111F vs F-35A all-weather/night deep penetration, interdiction, strike F-15E vs F-35A all weather/night deep penetration, interdiction, strike EF-111A vs F-35A Penetration Electronic Attack Strike Package lead escort F-111D vs F-35A day penetration/strike F-16C Block 25/30 vs F-35A strike/CAS F-16C Block 40 vs F-35A night all weather strike/SEAD F-4G vs F-35A SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) A-10A vs F-35A for CAS and short interdiction ahead of the FEBA US Navy F-14A vs F-35C in Strike Escort, OCA/DCA, recon F/A-18C vs F-35C in multirole strike/SEAD A-6E vs F-35C in deep strike, mining A-7E vs F-35C in light attack/strike EA-6B vs F-35C in Electronic Attack/Penetration USMC F/A-18A vs F-35B in multirole strike, SEAD, CAS AV-8B vs F-35B in CAS/interdiction UK RAF Tornado GR1 vs F-35B Tornado F3 vs F-35B Outside of the sea mining mission of the A-6E, the JSF variants out-perform every single legacy platform in every single mission profile, but even better, the F-35 out-performs them in their primary mission while simultaneously doing several other missions without the pilot needing to do anything. The A2A single mission of the F-15C is simply out-classed by any variant of the F-35, with unquestionable solutions to the NCTR problems they had with a few merges with the MiG-29 and MiG-25s. The US Navy would also have gotten way more A2A kills had they had F-35Cs, or even if they had trained their former A-7E pilots to use the Hornet's radar/FCC in A2A mode. The multi-service JSF variants could have all contributed to the stealth penetration strike profile going into downtown Baghdad, then pivoted to AEW&C and BDA for follow-on sorties and do OCA on the way out. The F-111F/A-6E/Tornado GR1 missions on airfields could be done better with F-35s with more accurate weapons effects on the hardened shelters, taxiways, and runways while then having the ability to trap any fighters that were trying to recover and eliminate them in A2A with stored AIM-120s. The F-111F tank-plinking night missions (where the F-111F killed 1500 tanks and armored vehicles in 2423 sorties vs the A-10's 987 tanks in 8077 sorties) could have been done better by F-35s, with one less crew member to train or worry about. Once they expended their tank-busting munitions, they could then pop-up for Air Dominance, AEW&C, ISR, etc. The F-35A does EW/Electronic Attack in ways that would send shivers down the spine of a Sparkvark EWO. The F-14A's performance in Desert Storm is one of the most overlooked, ignored aspects of the war because they were basically reigned in quickly once it was seen that they had a lot of problems with IFF and RIO's working with their pilots well, resulting in zero kills for the Tomcat in the most TGT-rich environment for the Navy since Vietnam. All the technical problems that the F-14/AWG-9 had are solved while exceeding its capabilities in fleet air defense, escort, OCA/DCA with the F-35C, plus the F-35C has more combat radius than even a 2-tank F-14D (which didn't exist/deploy to ODS as they were still being developed). As you go down the list looking at effective combat radii, ability to fly anywhere in the Iraqi IADS net, ability to take out any Iraqi fighter, and attack any ground TGT with impunity, you start to see the brilliance of the JSF concept. You get all that capability with a common avionics core and propulsion system that is shared across the services, as well as our allies, with far more survivability for the pilots. You also get a quicker end to the campaign, which helps reduce loss of life all around.
@@angrysam5361 Thanks. If we had F-35s in ODS, the Iraqis wouldn't have been able to bury their MiGs because they would mostly have been destroyed so quickly, it would make their heads spin. Desert Storm was already a breathtaking demonstration of the US coalition's ability to rapidly decimate one of the biggest militaries in the world. The JSF concept would spiral that kill chain into an even tighter compression of events that would reduce the length of the war into an astonishingly short beat-down of immense proportions. This is why JSF is so feared and why Russia and China can only really deal with it by attacking launch and recovery hubs with missiles, while also targeting AWACS and refuelers. F-35 distributed nets don't rely on AWACS that much, and AWACS have JSF and F-22 protection, while other F-22s and JSF are targeting enemy AWACS platforms within the first hour of that type of campaign, built on the legacy of the F-117A anti-AWACS profile that we've been training for since the 1980s.
I love the journalist asking about multiple platforms that are specialists at one role. First off, you'd need at least 4-6 of each type per mission (12-18 total aircraft) as opposed to 4-6 total for the F-35 for the same mission. Spread out those savings over the course of a one or two year conflict and you're into the hundreds of millions of dollars with regards to cost savings. Money and logistics in-general are crucial components in a war and frankly, the F-35 is now demonstrating it's as good and in many cases better than any of the aircraft it's going to be subbing for. So really, you get a vastly cheaper air component with far greater capability.
Just the fuel cost difference would buy a few F35s a yr. The cost of F35s are coming down a lot in the next few yrs so thats a good thing. Everybody talks shit about the F35s but the pilots that flies them.
an A10 is golden if its shooting up insurgents or armies with lack luster anti air, not against near peer opponents like Russia which have comprehensive anti air suites.
The reality is that the F-35 is like the “Swiss army knife” of fighter jets and is stealth on top of that as well.... who doesn’t want that? It makes sense to go to war with 2-3 different types of aircraft that previously required around 10.... just like he said “if you have the money for it, then go for it” that says it all
Well, if you are going to approach it like that, actually the F-18, F-16, F-15E and AV8B are all swiss army knives. That is what the term "Multi-role" means. Yes, the F-35 takes a bit further but its still within reason. Saying that an A-10 will always be better at CAS than an F-35 really doesn't tell you how well an F-35 can still do CAS. The A-10 is better at CAS than all the fast movers the pilot mentioned. Yet, those platforms are doing the majority of CAS, not the A-10. So obviously, they must be highly effective. One thing is for certain, the F-35 is designed to be better at that role than all those fast movers. Enough said. ...Remember, CAS is a capability not a platform.
Yes totally - denmark had placed orders and were testing the F35. This was a PR exercise to drum up good publicity for the purchase. The pilot I would guess was on retainer with Lockhead. No conspiracy required .... just business. Why the F^&@ else would you invite journalist to interview a pilot ?!?
So, if you ask the boots on the ground, what would they say? What can save more lives? Why has the A-10 been around for over 40 years and still viable? Jets don't win wars, soldiers do. Why is money even in the conversation when it comes to casualties? This dude is a cocky F-35 pilot. Go watch the videos about A10 pilots. They are humble and really care about the soldiers they support.
It's different than that as he goes on to say...you can buy multiple planes for each role they were designed for or get 1 f35 that'll cover all those roles?
Only problem is meanwhile Russia has continued to develop specialised air craft like the SU-57 and SU-35 both of which would eat the F35 for breakfast. Its like saying I don't need a phone, a laptop and a TV. I'll just get a tablet to do everything. Then your room mate buys the latest versions of all of them separately and makes you look like a moron.
Basically. The F-35 is capable of almost every mission combat aircraft perform in any capacity, and it is at worst average at each of its roles. In most of its roles, it's exceptional. For example: the only thing the A-10 has over the F-35A is that the gun fires somewhat larger rounds at a higher fire rate. Outside gun runs, the F-35 is better in every way, not just technologically, but physically. It can carry much heavier bomb loads much farther and much faster, while both passively and actively being far less vulnerable than any other aircraft in existence. In air superiority, I'm not sure the F-22 is actually better. I'm fairly sure this pilot hasn't flown the F-22, and while I have never flown either I have had abundant time to read the opinions of pilots of both aircraft and the facts of the aircraft as well as analyze what the F-35 program strategically set out to do. From what I can tell, there aren't many actual reasons an F-22 would perform better in air-air combat. It's not as stealthy as an F-35, it can't fly as far, and it does not have the spherical detection radius against any aircraft/missile/rocket/etc that the F-35 has. It does not have the electronic warfare capabilities of the F-35; virtually no other system does. In reality, having analyzed both aircraft as well as a civilian can, the F-22 and F-35 both have some advantages over each other, generally favoring the F-35. 1. The F-22 is more maneuverable in almost every aspect. 2. The F-22 has a higher maximum speed. 3. The F-22 has a higher maximum altitude. 4. The F-22 has two engines. This advantage is marginal and effectively irrelevant, even when speaking of modern naval aviation. 5. The F-22 can carry two AIM-9Xs in side bays the F-35 does not have, giving it a larger possible missile payload by two AIM-9s when both aircraft fly stealthy. Those are the F-22's advantages. 1. The F-35 has a longer range. 2. The F-35 can carry far more ordnance. 3. The F-35 has a higher critical Angle of Attack. (this allows you to point the nose of your aircraft farther away from the direction you're actually going, allowing you to point the nose wherever you want if, say, you want to fire guns in a direction that would normally be impossible) 4. The F-35 has a spherical field of view which can likely detect F-22s and other F-35s at least 50km away, with a stated range against 4.5th gens flying low with afterburner on (ideal conditions for detection) up to 160km away. 5. Unstealthily, the F-35 can carry more missiles than an F-22 unstealthily. 6. The F-35 has one of, if not the best flying electronic warfare capabilities around and has allegedly jammed the F-22's radar before without a problem. 7. The F-35 is stealthier, thanks to being a smaller aircraft, utilizing more advanced RAM, and stealthy airframe features such as the Diverterless Supersonic Inlets, which mask a massive amount of engine from radar. Generally, the single largest part of a fighter aircraft's forward radar cross section is the combination of intakes and engine. 8. The F-35A's 25mm gun has significantly better ballistics than the 20mm the F-22 mounts, but in air-air this is essentially irrelevant. 9. With the AEGIS Baseline 9 upgrade to many USN destroyers, JMSDF destroyers, and in the future possibly South Korean, Spanish, and Norwegian ships, the F-35 can guide long-range-surface-air-missiles for a ship. In essence, the F-35 can use the most powerful warships ever to sail as arsenal ships if it runs out of missiles itself. A cruise missile has already been intercepted in testing using an F-35 guiding an SM-3 with its radar to a target where the radar of the missile firing does not necessarily have the ability to see. In theory, a single F-35 could, with proper naval support, shoot down the entirety of any Air Force currently in existence single-handedly. I would be surprised if this capability was not expanded beyond the AEGIS platform, with integration for the Type 45s of the UK likely and, at some point, it would not be far fetched to integrate the F-35 this way with every relevant SAM a given military possesses, I.E. Patriots, THAAD, etc. Note that I'm just a bored high schooler and so far my connection and experience with this aircraft does not go beyond public knowledge and accounts like given in this video by actual pilots. I want to fly F-35Bs in the USMC one day, but that's about a decade off from now at best.
@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 Where on Earth did you get that the F-35 has longer range than an F-22? That doesn't make any sense given that the F22 has 2000 mile range on internal fuel vs an F35A that has 1200 miles.
@@SpecJack15 Where did YOU get YOUR numbers? Are you sure you're not confusing combat radius of F-35 with ferry range of F-22? F-35A carries 18,498lbs of fuel internally. F-22A carries 18,000lns of fuel internally. Only difference is that F-22 can reach 26,000lbs when it is utilizing unstealthy drop tanks. Conversely, the F-35 _also_ has external stations plumbed for fuel tanks, and a STEALTHY tank is in development once again. F-35 has one F135 engine. F-22 has two F119 engines. The F135 is a more powerful, more fuel efficient development of the F119. And looking at numbers I can find for F-22 _with_ the drop tanks, it still doesn't reach 2,000 miles in ferry range, which is just flying somewhere and not coming back. Ferry range at maximum with the drop tanks is given as only around 1,840 miles. The combat radius is tiny, as well. Only 529 miles clean and stealthy! The F-35B taking off from a rampless Wasp class carrier gets better strike combat radius than that! Lugging bombs internally an F-35B can strike at like 600 miles from a Wasp. And that's the version that only carries 13,000lbs of fuel and expends more fuel on takeoff because it has to use the lift fan a little to get off a Wasp... Not only are your numbers wrong, but the overall main weakness of the F-22 is range. In fact, the range is embarrassingly low. Only 115 miles if supercruising as is apparently so important for a 5th gen to do. My car can go four times that far on internal fuel. For reference: F-35A air-air combat radius 875 mi F-16 can go 340 mi with 4 draggy 1000 lbs bombs on the outside, ferry range 2,620 mi with drop tanks. Gripen C/D 497 mi combat radius Range is by far the biggest weakness of the F-22, and the F-35 is, excluding the F-15, the longest range fighter America has. F-35 was intentionally built to make up for the F-22's shortcomings, and so it did.
@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 No I am not confusing the combat radius of the F-35 with the ferry range of the F-22. I specifically left out combat radius of either jet as they're much dependent on the given mission load (air-to-air, dual-role, strike). My numbers come from Lockheed Martin themselves, stated 1,200 miles range (not combat radius). You must be shitting me to claim that a single-engine jet has sufficient internal space to carry more fuel than a twin-engine jet.
@@SpecJack15 It does. Look it up, literally nobody in the world except you that I've found disputes how much fuel the F-35 carries. The F-22 is not all that much bigger than the F-35 but has two extra bays on the side and another engine both to feed and taking up space. F-22 wings are also really thin relatively speaking and dont carry much if any fuel. F-22-35 hybrid proposals for the JASDF explicitly mention putting fuel in the wings to rectify this weakness of the F-22. Oh, and the F-35C has over NINETEEN thousand pounds. Looking at AF.MIL, they list F-35A range as "over 1,200 NAUTICAL miles" which is about 1,350 regular miles, and considering they dont list combat radius for air-air loadout or air-ground loadout or anything, that may very well be a simplification for regular people and actually be the combat radius. That'd fall in line with other given combat radii from other sources
Adding on from the previous poster...It's different than that as he goes on to say...you can buy multiple planes for each role, that are older and have high maintenance costs and they were designed for, or get 1 f35 that'll cover all those roles?
Company propaganda at its best. I feel sorry for these pilots. They openly recognize the F35 is not as capable as legacy fighters and keep touting its stealth abilities to go in places others can't as the magic bullet. Technology advances rapidly and certainly in radar and ways to "unmask" and detect stealth aircraft. When it does, none of those planes will be even as good as legacy planes apart from stealth. Without that they are flying coffins. Many pilots will die in those so called best fighters of the future. This pilot has been sufficiently brainwashed about costs. The legacy planes cost far less to buy, maintain than the f35 by far. The warthog even cheaper. So to argue it's about cost is nonsense and not even honest. What the air force wants is very few platforms to buy and maintain. So they need the funds from dedicated platforms too pool into they're jack of all trades platform. We have much better systems for what they are designed for and cheaper. Make NO mistake. Stealth will not survive much longer. Perhaps even before the next big war. And all it's fanciful promises are gone. Then what plane do you wish you were sitting in pilot?
I had a bad opinion of the F35 but it is early stages still - though it shouldn't be. Theres been heaps of "negative" reports about it. Though the plane is a stock build at the time no mods yet. And its main tech point is the integration with ground and sea communications. to give an overseer view of the battle field and more info at hand will win. It doesn't need to be a faster plane, or carry more weapons but use the air more effectively that wins the battle + mass production. I agree with the pilot money is the issue like 99% of most business issues. Its how to save more money. If you have 20 ok vs 5 very good weapon systems. Most of the time the ok weapon systems win just by number superiority and cost effectiveness. USA doesn't really need to be ahead of the pack in tech that much as it is now. It beats every military in the world I would even say put together by shear mass and fear. Its a gigantic system already. What I think is the 3 types are different planes that could have been with three different companies but they chose one only
Chris, good points. At this point, I put my money on the F-15, F-16 and F-22. Proven fighters. Just not sold on the F-35. It appears too bulky and large for it's small wings and it's one engine, that I hear runs too hot. The F-16 and F-22 at first glance, just seem like faster and more deadly planes. Any truth to the story that a Syrian 1960's ground based rocket hit a F-35 and the plane has been grounded? If this is true I am very concerned about how stealth the F-35 is to get into places the F-16 and F-22 can't. Foot Note: "Hot sections of the engine (combustor and high-pressure turbine blades specifically)ran hotter than expected".
4zmusic Its simple. Any jet would be dead until they knew the F-35 was there. Its called the R Max. The F-35 would see the target, and destroy it about 50km from the merge. Even a SU-35 would have zero chance In BVR engagements and no chance on sneaking up on the F-35. Its physics/math, PERIOD! Edit: And to go for the over heating in the F-35s engine. All jets have had over heating before in early service. It will get fix, trust the U.S Airforce, they know what they are doing.
Thanks, very valid points and I respect your knowledge and experience. I will wait a few years and after a few missions before . . . making any final opinions on the F-35. BTW, Do you know what kind of weapons capacity the F-35 has compared to the F-15, F-16 and F-22's? Thanks in advance for your response.
F-35 actually does CAS better than the A-10 could ever hope to do and JTACS have already confirmed this. I've called in A-10s and worked with them, as well as F-16s in the CAS role in 2 different theaters of operation. I grew up with several family members working on these and other developmental programs relevant to CAS, precision strike, A2A, strategic nuclear strike, ISR, penetration, etc., to the extent I remember the A-10 still very much in the testing stage in the 1970s.
The A-10 was designed specifically to fly slow so it could escort the new US Army Airmobile concept helicopter formations while still being able to carry ordnance in the weight class like an A-7D could. The A-1 Skyraider and other prop-driven CAS platforms could not carry the weapons weight to deal with the new self-propelled Soviet AAA systems like the ZSU-23-4, so there was a specific request to the Pentagon from the Army for a slow-flying CAS bird that could deal with those threats in order to protect the massive formations of vulnerable helicopters carrying troops from one part of the battlefield to the other.
The USAF also wanted the aircraft to be able to do close range interdiction of armor outside of the FEBA, which the A-7D was better for because it had survivability and the precision bombing computer that actually worked.
The A-10 in the CAS role relies on pilot eyeballs to discriminate between friendly and foe up until the A-10C, which is basically a networked and advanced FLIR pod-equipped Warthog with night capabilities and SATCOM with large MFD displays. The big problem with the A-10 has and always will be that it's underpowered and cruises along at 285kts. This is why most of our CAS has been pre-coordinated Reapers, emergency TIC F-15Es, B-1Bs, F-16Cs, F/A-18s, Super Hornets, and even B-52s. The A-10 really needed an engine upgrade so it could get to emergency Troops In Contact calls faster like the Su-25 can (copied of the Northrop YA-9 competitor of the Fairchild YA-10). The Su-25 can reach 526 knots, almost twice the speed of the A-10, making it more responsive.
The F-35 can get to a TIC 9-Line faster than any of the above, have an astonishingly-clear picture of the battlespace before it even gets there, and start delivering more accurate precision munitions before it arrives, while exploiting the enemy disposition, comms, connectivity with other threat elements, and deliver weapons on them with the same bay door opening for separation. It can do this at night through bad weather with supersonic separation speeds.
agreeed! The main problem with the A-10 is the ability to quickly get on station or to escape threats when the shit hits the fan. However, I think the A-10's loitering gives it one really unique advantage when it comes to CSAR missions.
@@TheJTcreate Roger that. One of the mission profiles we had in the best unit I was in was CSAR, although it wasn't a primary. We were more focused on reconnaissance and surveillance, with terminal guidance and CSAR as secondaries. An A-10 on station is a comfort once they get there, as long as they aren't in a high IADS threat Weapons Employment Zone.
What's up with the 'X' image flashing at 0:41? lol
Coolest pilot I’ve ever seen
Well paid spokesperson. Drink the cooaid. It tastes good! ;)
Best review I've see, the first time i have seen a review of someone with an opinion instead of all the rubbish you here salesman and soldiers ordered to say.
Are you kidding. He is a salesman. The danish journalists were allowed to interview him because their government were in the process of buying and testing the aircraft. The dude is probably on retainer with Lockhead.
Your views about the F-35 were very comprehensive and truly reflective of a professional fighter pilot. Well done Major.
How much more expensive is a F-35 than an A-10? Than a F-16? Jack of all trades...master of none.
@@MrPyroguy1 Cheap and F-35 do not go together in the same sentence ... LOL Are you on crack?
@@MrPyroguy1 Listen, if they were cheap, everyone would have them. Stop fronting...It's embarrassing...
@@connoreads1723 When you lose 6 of the A-10s in the first two weeks of combat (this happened) and potentially lose more lives and airframes in the CSAR missions trying to rescue them, and F-16s are getting blasted by SAMs like the Israeli F-16I did recently, the F-35 is clearly the cheapest option if you ever plan to use the aircraft in combat theaters where modern IADS nets are present. The F-35 really is a master of each of the areas or legacy mission profiles, while adding ones that were unimaginable for a fighter before.
It humiliated F-15C squadrons since this interview in BVR A2A and surprised them in BFM, flown mostly by new F-35A pilots mixed with former F-16C and F-15E drivers who converted.
It has been used to do things in CENTCOM that sound more like legacy strategic reconnaissance aircraft, while delivering precision strikes on ISIS and Taliban savages, and doing Defensive Counter-Air for F-15Es and Super Hornets.
JTACs (USAF guys who call in CAS) say it does things in the CAS role that blew their minds, and is a new generation of CAS that hasn't existed before.
The analogy made here is great. You can own a pickup truck, a sedan, and a sports car if you can afford it. Most people pick just one car or two and use it for everything dependent upon their personal needs. That's why mid-size SUV's are so popular and have become so luxury and performance oriented. The F-35 is the Honda Pilot of fighter planes. Plus it's stealth.
If it's not broke, don't replace it... Upgrade it. The A-10 should get a little refresh and keep it going. It's low operational coast vs it's capabilities is amazing.
The only reason the A-10 was developed at all was to kill Russian tanks. That 30mm gun is way way overkill for soft targets. In a low risk environment the A-10 could be replaced with helicopters or the AT-6 Wolverine at a fraction of the cost. Or predator drones. Check this out!!! ruclips.net/video/1foKo4l_HAo/видео.html
If u done that then u would have to buy all new A10s because it's getting close to the air frame hours running out and the aircraft has to be retired for safety reasons.
It is!!
@@sevenrats tell that to the guys saved by it
I did an analysis of "What if we had F-35s in Desert Storm?" instead of the legacy single and multirole platforms. I compared the mission profiles using the post-ODS Congressional reports, USAF, USN, USMC, and US Army After-Action Reports, systems critiques and lessons-learned, partner nation experiences, order of battle, what worked and what didn't, with the following aircraft replaced by some JSF variant:
USAF
F-15C vs F-35A in OCA/DCA/CAP
F-117A vs F-35A Stealth deep penetration strike of C4 nodes
F-111F vs F-35A all-weather/night deep penetration, interdiction, strike
F-15E vs F-35A all weather/night deep penetration, interdiction, strike
EF-111A vs F-35A Penetration Electronic Attack Strike Package lead escort
F-111D vs F-35A day penetration/strike
F-16C Block 25/30 vs F-35A strike/CAS
F-16C Block 40 vs F-35A night all weather strike/SEAD
F-4G vs F-35A SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense)
A-10A vs F-35A for CAS and short interdiction ahead of the FEBA
US Navy
F-14A vs F-35C in Strike Escort, OCA/DCA, recon
F/A-18C vs F-35C in multirole strike/SEAD
A-6E vs F-35C in deep strike, mining
A-7E vs F-35C in light attack/strike
EA-6B vs F-35C in Electronic Attack/Penetration
USMC
F/A-18A vs F-35B in multirole strike, SEAD, CAS
AV-8B vs F-35B in CAS/interdiction
UK RAF
Tornado GR1 vs F-35B
Tornado F3 vs F-35B
Outside of the sea mining mission of the A-6E, the JSF variants out-perform every single legacy platform in every single mission profile, but even better, the F-35 out-performs them in their primary mission while simultaneously doing several other missions without the pilot needing to do anything.
The A2A single mission of the F-15C is simply out-classed by any variant of the F-35, with unquestionable solutions to the NCTR problems they had with a few merges with the MiG-29 and MiG-25s. The US Navy would also have gotten way more A2A kills had they had F-35Cs, or even if they had trained their former A-7E pilots to use the Hornet's radar/FCC in A2A mode.
The multi-service JSF variants could have all contributed to the stealth penetration strike profile going into downtown Baghdad, then pivoted to AEW&C and BDA for follow-on sorties and do OCA on the way out.
The F-111F/A-6E/Tornado GR1 missions on airfields could be done better with F-35s with more accurate weapons effects on the hardened shelters, taxiways, and runways while then having the ability to trap any fighters that were trying to recover and eliminate them in A2A with stored AIM-120s.
The F-111F tank-plinking night missions (where the F-111F killed 1500 tanks and armored vehicles in 2423 sorties vs the A-10's 987 tanks in 8077 sorties) could have been done better by F-35s, with one less crew member to train or worry about. Once they expended their tank-busting munitions, they could then pop-up for Air Dominance, AEW&C, ISR, etc.
The F-35A does EW/Electronic Attack in ways that would send shivers down the spine of a Sparkvark EWO.
The F-14A's performance in Desert Storm is one of the most overlooked, ignored aspects of the war because they were basically reigned in quickly once it was seen that they had a lot of problems with IFF and RIO's working with their pilots well, resulting in zero kills for the Tomcat in the most TGT-rich environment for the Navy since Vietnam. All the technical problems that the F-14/AWG-9 had are solved while exceeding its capabilities in fleet air defense, escort, OCA/DCA with the F-35C, plus the F-35C has more combat radius than even a 2-tank F-14D (which didn't exist/deploy to ODS as they were still being developed).
As you go down the list looking at effective combat radii, ability to fly anywhere in the Iraqi IADS net, ability to take out any Iraqi fighter, and attack any ground TGT with impunity, you start to see the brilliance of the JSF concept. You get all that capability with a common avionics core and propulsion system that is shared across the services, as well as our allies, with far more survivability for the pilots.
You also get a quicker end to the campaign, which helps reduce loss of life all around.
All that and not a single youtube like for your work .... take 1 from me ;)
@@angrysam5361 Thanks. If we had F-35s in ODS, the Iraqis wouldn't have been able to bury their MiGs because they would mostly have been destroyed so quickly, it would make their heads spin. Desert Storm was already a breathtaking demonstration of the US coalition's ability to rapidly decimate one of the biggest militaries in the world.
The JSF concept would spiral that kill chain into an even tighter compression of events that would reduce the length of the war into an astonishingly short beat-down of immense proportions. This is why JSF is so feared and why Russia and China can only really deal with it by attacking launch and recovery hubs with missiles, while also targeting AWACS and refuelers.
F-35 distributed nets don't rely on AWACS that much, and AWACS have JSF and F-22 protection, while other F-22s and JSF are targeting enemy AWACS platforms within the first hour of that type of campaign, built on the legacy of the F-117A anti-AWACS profile that we've been training for since the 1980s.
Well said, I totally agree with you.
First two views was me. 😀✌
I love the journalist asking about multiple platforms that are specialists at one role. First off, you'd need at least 4-6 of each type per mission (12-18 total aircraft) as opposed to 4-6 total for the F-35 for the same mission. Spread out those savings over the course of a one or two year conflict and you're into the hundreds of millions of dollars with regards to cost savings. Money and logistics in-general are crucial components in a war and frankly, the F-35 is now demonstrating it's as good and in many cases better than any of the aircraft it's going to be subbing for. So really, you get a vastly cheaper air component with far greater capability.
Just the fuel cost difference would buy a few F35s a yr. The cost of F35s are coming down a lot in the next few yrs so thats a good thing. Everybody talks shit about the F35s but the pilots that flies them.
an A10 is golden if its shooting up insurgents or armies with lack luster anti air, not against near peer opponents like Russia which have comprehensive anti air suites.
The reality is that the F-35 is like the “Swiss army knife” of fighter jets and is stealth on top of that as well.... who doesn’t want that? It makes sense to go to war with 2-3 different types of aircraft that previously required around 10.... just like he said “if you have the money for it, then go for it” that says it all
Well, if you are going to approach it like that, actually the F-18, F-16, F-15E and AV8B are all swiss army knives. That is what the term "Multi-role" means. Yes, the F-35 takes a bit further but its still within reason. Saying that an A-10 will always be better at CAS than an F-35 really doesn't tell you how well an F-35 can still do CAS. The A-10 is better at CAS than all the fast movers the pilot mentioned. Yet, those platforms are doing the majority of CAS, not the A-10. So obviously, they must be highly effective. One thing is for certain, the F-35 is designed to be better at that role than all those fast movers. Enough said.
...Remember, CAS is a capability not a platform.
Is this a commercial ?
Well, we were a group of Danish journalists that was invited to talk with an F-35 pilot. Conspiracy people would probably call it a commercial.
Yes totally - denmark had placed orders and were testing the F35. This was a PR exercise to drum up good publicity for the purchase. The pilot I would guess was on retainer with Lockhead. No conspiracy required .... just business. Why the F^&@ else would you invite journalist to interview a pilot ?!?
F35 da BOMB
President Trump is a big fan of F-35 pilots.
So, if you ask the boots on the ground, what would they say? What can save more lives? Why has the A-10 been around for over 40 years and still viable? Jets don't win wars, soldiers do. Why is money even in the conversation when it comes to casualties? This dude is a cocky F-35 pilot. Go watch the videos about A10 pilots. They are humble and really care about the soldiers they support.
To help the Major's point, would you buy the old Flip or older Smartphones from 2005-2010, or would buy current Smartphones today?
It's different than that as he goes on to say...you can buy multiple planes for each role they were designed for or get 1 f35 that'll cover all those roles?
Only problem is meanwhile Russia has continued to develop specialised air craft like the SU-57 and SU-35 both of which would eat the F35 for breakfast. Its like saying I don't need a phone, a laptop and a TV. I'll just get a tablet to do everything. Then your room mate buys the latest versions of all of them separately and makes you look like a moron.
one crucial question is can USAF rely on single platform for all their missions? i mean only F35 no F22, A10, F15 etc..
Basically. The F-35 is capable of almost every mission combat aircraft perform in any capacity, and it is at worst average at each of its roles. In most of its roles, it's exceptional.
For example: the only thing the A-10 has over the F-35A is that the gun fires somewhat larger rounds at a higher fire rate. Outside gun runs, the F-35 is better in every way, not just technologically, but physically. It can carry much heavier bomb loads much farther and much faster, while both passively and actively being far less vulnerable than any other aircraft in existence.
In air superiority, I'm not sure the F-22 is actually better. I'm fairly sure this pilot hasn't flown the F-22, and while I have never flown either I have had abundant time to read the opinions of pilots of both aircraft and the facts of the aircraft as well as analyze what the F-35 program strategically set out to do. From what I can tell, there aren't many actual reasons an F-22 would perform better in air-air combat. It's not as stealthy as an F-35, it can't fly as far, and it does not have the spherical detection radius against any aircraft/missile/rocket/etc that the F-35 has. It does not have the electronic warfare capabilities of the F-35; virtually no other system does.
In reality, having analyzed both aircraft as well as a civilian can, the F-22 and F-35 both have some advantages over each other, generally favoring the F-35.
1. The F-22 is more maneuverable in almost every aspect.
2. The F-22 has a higher maximum speed.
3. The F-22 has a higher maximum altitude.
4. The F-22 has two engines. This advantage is marginal and effectively irrelevant, even when speaking of modern naval aviation.
5. The F-22 can carry two AIM-9Xs in side bays the F-35 does not have, giving it a larger possible missile payload by two AIM-9s when both aircraft fly stealthy.
Those are the F-22's advantages.
1. The F-35 has a longer range.
2. The F-35 can carry far more ordnance.
3. The F-35 has a higher critical Angle of Attack. (this allows you to point the nose of your aircraft farther away from the direction you're actually going, allowing you to point the nose wherever you want if, say, you want to fire guns in a direction that would normally be impossible)
4. The F-35 has a spherical field of view which can likely detect F-22s and other F-35s at least 50km away, with a stated range against 4.5th gens flying low with afterburner on (ideal conditions for detection) up to 160km away.
5. Unstealthily, the F-35 can carry more missiles than an F-22 unstealthily.
6. The F-35 has one of, if not the best flying electronic warfare capabilities around and has allegedly jammed the F-22's radar before without a problem.
7. The F-35 is stealthier, thanks to being a smaller aircraft, utilizing more advanced RAM, and stealthy airframe features such as the Diverterless Supersonic Inlets, which mask a massive amount of engine from radar. Generally, the single largest part of a fighter aircraft's forward radar cross section is the combination of intakes and engine.
8. The F-35A's 25mm gun has significantly better ballistics than the 20mm the F-22 mounts, but in air-air this is essentially irrelevant.
9. With the AEGIS Baseline 9 upgrade to many USN destroyers, JMSDF destroyers, and in the future possibly South Korean, Spanish, and Norwegian ships, the F-35 can guide long-range-surface-air-missiles for a ship. In essence, the F-35 can use the most powerful warships ever to sail as arsenal ships if it runs out of missiles itself. A cruise missile has already been intercepted in testing using an F-35 guiding an SM-3 with its radar to a target where the radar of the missile firing does not necessarily have the ability to see. In theory, a single F-35 could, with proper naval support, shoot down the entirety of any Air Force currently in existence single-handedly. I would be surprised if this capability was not expanded beyond the AEGIS platform, with integration for the Type 45s of the UK likely and, at some point, it would not be far fetched to integrate the F-35 this way with every relevant SAM a given military possesses, I.E. Patriots, THAAD, etc.
Note that I'm just a bored high schooler and so far my connection and experience with this aircraft does not go beyond public knowledge and accounts like given in this video by actual pilots. I want to fly F-35Bs in the USMC one day, but that's about a decade off from now at best.
@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 Where on Earth did you get that the F-35 has longer range than an F-22? That doesn't make any sense given that the F22 has 2000 mile range on internal fuel vs an F35A that has 1200 miles.
@@SpecJack15 Where did YOU get YOUR numbers? Are you sure you're not confusing combat radius of F-35 with ferry range of F-22?
F-35A carries 18,498lbs of fuel internally.
F-22A carries 18,000lns of fuel internally.
Only difference is that F-22 can reach 26,000lbs when it is utilizing unstealthy drop tanks. Conversely, the F-35 _also_ has external stations plumbed for fuel tanks, and a STEALTHY tank is in development once again.
F-35 has one F135 engine.
F-22 has two F119 engines.
The F135 is a more powerful, more fuel efficient development of the F119.
And looking at numbers I can find for F-22 _with_ the drop tanks, it still doesn't reach 2,000 miles in ferry range, which is just flying somewhere and not coming back. Ferry range at maximum with the drop tanks is given as only around 1,840 miles. The combat radius is tiny, as well. Only 529 miles clean and stealthy! The F-35B taking off from a rampless Wasp class carrier gets better strike combat radius than that! Lugging bombs internally an F-35B can strike at like 600 miles from a Wasp. And that's the version that only carries 13,000lbs of fuel and expends more fuel on takeoff because it has to use the lift fan a little to get off a Wasp...
Not only are your numbers wrong, but the overall main weakness of the F-22 is range. In fact, the range is embarrassingly low. Only 115 miles if supercruising as is apparently so important for a 5th gen to do. My car can go four times that far on internal fuel.
For reference:
F-35A air-air combat radius 875 mi
F-16 can go 340 mi with 4 draggy 1000 lbs bombs on the outside, ferry range 2,620 mi with drop tanks.
Gripen C/D 497 mi combat radius
Range is by far the biggest weakness of the F-22, and the F-35 is, excluding the F-15, the longest range fighter America has. F-35 was intentionally built to make up for the F-22's shortcomings, and so it did.
@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 No I am not confusing the combat radius of the F-35 with the ferry range of the F-22. I specifically left out combat radius of either jet as they're much dependent on the given mission load (air-to-air, dual-role, strike). My numbers come from Lockheed Martin themselves, stated 1,200 miles range (not combat radius).
You must be shitting me to claim that a single-engine jet has sufficient internal space to carry more fuel than a twin-engine jet.
@@SpecJack15 It does. Look it up, literally nobody in the world except you that I've found disputes how much fuel the F-35 carries. The F-22 is not all that much bigger than the F-35 but has two extra bays on the side and another engine both to feed and taking up space. F-22 wings are also really thin relatively speaking and dont carry much if any fuel. F-22-35 hybrid proposals for the JASDF explicitly mention putting fuel in the wings to rectify this weakness of the F-22.
Oh, and the F-35C has over NINETEEN thousand pounds.
Looking at AF.MIL, they list F-35A range as "over 1,200 NAUTICAL miles" which is about 1,350 regular miles, and considering they dont list combat radius for air-air loadout or air-ground loadout or anything, that may very well be a simplification for regular people and actually be the combat radius. That'd fall in line with other given combat radii from other sources
why build a jet "just as good" as one we already have? Maintenance costs?
Maintenance. Age. Lack Of Stealth. Lack of modern avionics.
Adding on from the previous poster...It's different than that as he goes on to say...you can buy multiple planes for each role, that are older and have high maintenance costs and they were designed for, or get 1 f35 that'll cover all those roles?
He crosses his arms because of insecurities. That says alot. They did not build the F-35 to be good at Cas. Drones with missiles will take over Cas.
Company propaganda at its best. I feel sorry for these pilots. They openly recognize the F35 is not as capable as legacy fighters and keep touting its stealth abilities to go in places others can't as the magic bullet. Technology advances rapidly and certainly in radar and ways to "unmask" and detect stealth aircraft. When it does, none of those planes will be even as good as legacy planes apart from stealth. Without that they are flying coffins.
Many pilots will die in those so called best fighters of the future.
This pilot has been sufficiently brainwashed about costs. The legacy planes cost far less to buy, maintain than the f35 by far. The warthog even cheaper. So to argue it's about cost is nonsense and not even honest.
What the air force wants is very few platforms to buy and maintain. So they need the funds from dedicated platforms too pool into they're jack of all trades platform.
We have much better systems for what they are designed for and cheaper.
Make NO mistake. Stealth will not survive much longer. Perhaps even before the next big war. And all it's fanciful promises are gone. Then what plane do you wish you were sitting in pilot?
I had a bad opinion of the F35 but it is early stages still - though it shouldn't be. Theres been heaps of "negative" reports about it. Though the plane is a stock build at the time no mods yet.
And its main tech point is the integration with ground and sea communications. to give an overseer view of the battle field and more info at hand will win. It doesn't need to be a faster plane, or carry more weapons but use the air more effectively that wins the battle + mass production.
I agree with the pilot money is the issue like 99% of most business issues. Its how to save more money. If you have 20 ok vs 5 very good weapon systems. Most of the time the ok weapon systems win just by number superiority and cost effectiveness. USA doesn't really need to be ahead of the pack in tech that much as it is now. It beats every military in the world I would even say put together by shear mass and fear. Its a gigantic system already.
What I think is the 3 types are different planes that could have been with three different companies but they chose one only
Mathew Jackson U got him to shut up 😂
Chris, good points. At this point, I put my money on the F-15, F-16 and F-22. Proven fighters. Just not sold on the F-35. It appears too bulky and large for it's small wings and it's one engine, that I hear runs too hot.
The F-16 and F-22 at first glance, just seem like faster and more deadly planes. Any truth to the story that a Syrian 1960's ground based rocket hit a F-35 and the plane has been grounded? If this is true I am very concerned about how stealth the F-35 is to get into places the F-16 and F-22 can't.
Foot Note: "Hot sections of the engine (combustor and high-pressure turbine blades specifically)ran hotter than expected".
4zmusic Its simple. Any jet would be dead until they knew the F-35 was there. Its called the R Max. The F-35 would see the target, and destroy it about 50km from the merge. Even a SU-35 would have zero chance In BVR engagements and no chance on sneaking up on the F-35. Its physics/math, PERIOD!
Edit: And to go for the over heating in the F-35s engine. All jets have had over heating before in early service. It will get fix, trust the U.S Airforce, they know what they are doing.
Thanks, very valid points and I respect your knowledge and experience. I will wait a few years and after a few missions before . . . making any final opinions on the F-35. BTW, Do you know what kind of weapons capacity the F-35 has compared to the F-15, F-16 and F-22's?
Thanks in advance for your response.