F22 vs SU57 vs Rafale vs Eurofighter vs F15 vs Gripen vs Tejas vs F35 vs SU35 - Stop Comparing!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 авг 2024
- Comparison videos are one of the most common military hardware videos on YT.
Most of them, not all, but most of them just compare some sort of performance or metric but this is not the way it is done by the professional military. Let's try to make some clarity on this subject.
--------------------------
MENTIONED IN THE VIDEO
Mariano Sciaroni - A carrier at Risk (non affiliate link)
www.amazon.co.uk/Carrier-Risk...
Wiseman's Wisdoms (in Swedish)
wisemanswisdoms.blogspot.com/
----------------------------
Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millenn...
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
tinyurl.com/y4g528lt
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the RUclips Partner Program, Community guidelines & RUclips terms of service.
Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millennium-7-history-technology
Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7
2 engine jet fighter is benchmark for use on an navy aircraft carrier?
What are the successful single engine jet fighter today used on an aircraft carrier?
F-35?
@@YashSharma-mv5ee you could also just take the sheer reliability of the F-16 and image a navalised version (almost came to fruition) but that engine has been plenty reliable for Navy use. The Navy does have some to use for adversary aircraft but obviously not on the boat.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Americans pilots remember many grave problems from f35. Is it really working well nowadays ?
Music name??
Finally an educated youtuber who correctly states why aircraft shouldn't be compared and that too in such a brilliant manner. this video alone makes you superior to every other self proclaimed youtuber who starts comment section wars for views. this deed has made me happily subscribe to your channel.
thank you for the heart sir
The voice of reason. Very well said.
The voice of reason has a Russian accent.🇷🇺
I would like to echo the genuine appreciation for your objective and non-biased approach. It’s beyond refreshing! I also admire your style of encapsulating broad subjects into “manageable morsels.”
This is what happens when someone who has a Master's Degree in Aeronautical Engineering has a channel instead of some clueless fanboys.
non-biased just for reference. Not non-bias.
@Desrtfox71 Roger that! Thanks.
Thank you for doing this. I too am tired of the comparison videos and false anecdotes that claim one aircraft is better than another. This is not World Cup football or sports trash talk, these are weapons of war.
Correct
Yes We should stop with naive comparisons they're built for specific tasks and objectives.
Agreed.
Ben Ghazi : Due to the high cost of modern military aircraft, almost all are now 'multi-roll' so as to be funded and/or bought. The relative weight placed on the various rolls differs with each aircraft.
We should learn how to educate people on living together in peace and prosperity rather than spending $Trillions on weapons of war!
That's what we should do! That would be far, far more beneficial to humanity!!
@Ben Ghazi Yes ! But the problem with that, It's how fast the evolutions of technologies made obsolete many ideas. For example, stealth is almost useless with new radars technologies, so the f22 which was based on the stealthy side, will be fast to be obsolete compared to some cheaper aricrafts with better pilots.
You know what's going to be obsolete? Non stealth aircraft.and your radar becomes less usefull if not outright obsolete with a new coat of radar obsorving material
Context, Context and Context! Any information presented without or out of context is often useless and at worst, misleading.
Its infuriating how so many try to white-room comparisons without taking important details like doctrine into account. Always a surface level comparison but of little substance. The tripe of clickbait that pursues a shallow understanding of how these machines are operated and expected to work within the greater framework.
Top Channel, finally found one with real information! Thanks man!
Really amazing videos as always ! Glad to hear it from you, it comforts me, in many arguments I experienced with many people around the world, who clearly doesnt get it !
Excelent video! I'm Argentinean and didn't know about de 25 de Mayo surprise attack plan. Your channel raises the bar!
I'I second all praise below. Great video again.
that intro was amazingly refreshing. a nice distraction from all the nonsense happening in the world.
That was an excellent analysis. While I have always been weary of videos (or articles) comparing one aircraft to another, your video provides clues as to what specific elements can be compared to come to any meaningful conclusions. Thanks!
How great! I'm very glad to knew this content. It's unique not because of the information only, but some wise using this information. Thank you.
Worldclass explainiton of the endless a .vs b questions. Your description fits on every matter , thanks. 👍
Great video keep up the work
This is a really good presentation of the influence doctrine has on the effectiveness of a fighter jet. Good work!
I wish I had found this channel years ago. Very great perspective.
great video as always.
The host of this channel seems like the kind of guy who can get you a crate of Stinger missiles for the right price.
Am I wrong?
😆😆😆
1:30 You are absolutely correct. The F-104 would have DESTROYED the Viet Cong....if they had been flying supersonic bombers over the North Pole. But when they were guiding water buffalo along the Ho Chi Minh trail and other mud ruts, the modern jets didn't stand a chance.
They had too little loiter time, flew too fast to observe changes in their target areas, and carries munitions that could do wonders against large metal objects or high heat sources, but were worthless against slow moving, body temp, with no radar return.
Cracking video with some very nice touches. Red Flag exercises allow comparisons though, and the F22 rules that roost with the F35 coming second. Where both fall short is their inappropriateness for general/low value tasks, which comes back to your central point.
Excellent Analysis of a master of the subject.
I agree they've should have build Gundam not jet fighter because the next battle field is outer space 👻
Just my 2 cents of daily dose of sarcasm 😁
You are the besttttt! keep doing man.
F22 vs lemon, please!
moveaxebx against the f35 then ;) f22 wins
An African lemon or a European lemon?
Axiom Research Solutions : African lemon vs European lemon please
“Lemons are better than the F-22”-Citrus Growers of Florida
@@jeanvaljean9293 how are you a viewer on this channel but still spew ignorance like this
Nuanced and superb content.
Good intro, even better outro 13:05
Intro music made me cry 😭
Great Job in your videos. Could you do some videos on the Argentinean airforce against the British during the Falkland/Malvinas war?
I am amazed at the intelligence, insight and wealth of information found in your videos.
I absolutely agree most comparisons are too simplistic. Range and speed depend on carried weapons and fuel, are entirely separate from acceleration, high maneuverability can be outbalanced by bleeding speed.
Aircraft have different characteristics in different altitude and temperature, so which one wins may depend on that as well. And, of course, pilot training matters a lot, support by AWACS has better chance to detect the other, support by air refueling means the aircraft can be more aggressive with their engine power without fear of running out.
With all that being said - we need better comparisons, but we still need comparisons. Some aircraft are objectively bad or old. I would not want to have obsolete aircraft protecting my country.
By all means - give us context, more details and nuances, but we need comparisons, especially when a country is modernizing its airforce (as mine is - Bulgaria) and we need to know if decisions are taken for good reasons or bribes. History is full of those as well.
SUGGESTION: I would like to see a video on the history of air to air refueling and the pros and cons of both of the predominant methods that are used...
very nice info.
Finnish BW, propably the most underrated airplane in history yet achieved huge kill ratios by great pilots (and modifications). Subscribed! :)
Dad:Who is your favourite dad or moma?
Child:milk
So Momma!
I would love to see these go head to head in a unrestricted MOCK fight. All are awesome in their own regards.
can anyone tell me Which accent is this?(narators)
Great analysis! There are lots of examples, but a fairly obvious one is the Vietnam War, where the VPAF at least partly held its own against what on paper was a qualitatively and qualitatively vastly superior USAF for all sorts of reasons specific to that conflict.
Awesome video makes sense why a cheaper aircraft can get a shot at a more expensive machine
Can you make a video about which is more efficient, a carrier strike group or a B-2 bomber?
Could you enlighten us about the introductory music?
It is a track named "The_Rising" from the RUclips free music library.
It's the worst recommendation to have showing up in any context. Tanks, artillery, rifles or camoflage, doesn't matter. Comparison videos are nothing but clickbait content to get you riled up write a comment and downvote the video all which shows engagement on the video.
Yeas so right!
So true. Weapon of this class is extremely complex depending on a stupid amount of parameters.
This is often reduced to "But it has vectoring". "It has higher thrust to weight."
You could not be more on the money on this. Often even performance is reduced to a couple of figures.
People also tend to forget cost, flight hours training, count, amount of missions etc, etc, etc ad nauseam.
I'd be lying if I said I was immune to this type of arguments, but I am not. :)
For everyone who wants to watch a good content, I highly recommend this channel, here you will find the objectivity and the best explanation in such a smart way that even a non a specialist may comprehend the general idea 💡.
You are the best
I absolutely agree with you. Nicely explained another great video👍. Please make video on Indian Sukhoi 30 mki with Brahmos missiles capabilities.
😂
I would like to see mig 31 with hypersonic missile instead.
By the way I m Indian
Very good!
I admit I was angry at you due to a kind of sick joke based on a clché about my country but I kept watching from a technical perspective and well, I have to acknowledge that your videos are very interesting. For once there is a lot of relevant and reasoned information. As they say in my country "only idiots never change their mind" ...
I have been in the aviation business for 36 years and I can tell you that it's quite hard to find high quality reports about aviation on the net. So, as in addition you are not "anglo-saxon" (I'm kidding but not that much ...) due to your Russian accent, I forgive your joke 😉
All the best
I am Italian
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Wow! Shame on me, we are cousins and I didn't even recognise your accent... Io sono francese.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Yet you follow a Swedish blog careful enough to pick up an article about aircraft soft stats... rather impressive :)
There's no point in comparing. We all know Gripen is superior to everything else, designed by Oden and forged by Tor.
Odin* :P
KevinTOC
Oden or Odin same same.
Hahahaha
😂
@@SetNode Oden*
People make black and white comparison videos because their is a large viewerbase for those videos. People seek gratification by the views of others. This leads to comparison videos that have thousands or even hundreds of thousands of views. And every single one on the comments sections would be lying if they didn't watch them themselves. We love comparison when its in the favour of our views.... Btw love this channel and its content. Especially relating to TEJAS. Heck yeah!
Please do more videos on Naval hardware also
in fact, the most advanced the weapon system is, the more it show how a "saturation" doctrine may topple it... most advanced weapon cost very very much... they are able to deal with much problem, but they are limited by the number of "shots" they can fire... be it offensively or defensively... if you can saturate the sky with "cheap" AA missiles launching one after the other, you can overwhelm any defensive capability of an attacking plane and strike it down or at least imper its capability to deliver its "package"
You have excellent videos!
Perhaps one about WIG craft?
Or other tech, like explosively formed penetrators, as in the cheap rpg-7, yet it's outstanding penetration capability. Or thermobaric weapons...precisely how it works?
Be well, and safe...from ☀️😎☀️🇺🇸
Built for different purposes but once there are pitted against each other, one cannot but to make comparisons. You fight with what you have, not with what you wish to have.
The point is that you can comparing them only in a over simplified situation. Wich would not be realistic
Yeah, I bet that if the Russian and European pilot could choose, they will choose to have F-22 planes.
Your take on the fr and swd air force is correct but its also the case of the us navy. Making the us air force an exception in the west, may be due to large number of pilotes
Spot on man. But which plane is the best? It's gotta be the F-35, since it is stealthy, right?
@James Van Allen Depends for the task. The F22 has hardly any ground attack capabilities. Also the low production numbers and high maintenance of the F22 would cause logistical problems in a prolonged conflict. Where on the otherhand the F35 is a very capable strike aircraft, but mediocre at best as an interceptor.
Stealth isn't that useful anymore. A lot of modern ground based search radar can easely spot even a F22. They may still can't get a radar lock on the F22 but they can transmit the position of the aircraft and so lead intercepters to it.
But the actual biggest issue for both aircraft is what they actually are. They are just capable mobile weapon carrier. It's often claimed that both aircraft, the F22 and F35 have unmatched BVR capabilities. That's probably true. But the problem is actually the weapons they would use for an BVR attack. The AIM-120 hasn't exactly a good track record so far when it comes to it's use against real BVR targets.
No because the B2 is Stealthier in the majority of situations. Especially against meter band radar....
So for pure, missile strikes the B2 is better than either.
You missed the point really... for a given task some aircraft are better than others.
The F35 is stupidly expensive in actual cost (175million) and worse than the F22 in Air superiority roles.
Because of the cost, single engine and likely low durability, its also likely inferior in the CAS role than the A-10.
However there are roles where it maybe good too, just the same as an F16 is great for some roles and very limited in others.
The SAAB Gripen and even the Mig29 are superior to the F35A AND c when operating from unprepared airfields... say in the instance your airfield is bombed..
It all depends on the circumstances and capabilities which are not completely known, such as just how capable advanced datalink meter band networks are with getting weapons quality tracks... I suspect quite capable given triangulation is not a new science ...
But yea the point is, there are too many variables even if the performance of a particular aircraft is completely known.
Fight to YOUR plane’s strengths because you may not always be able to play off of your enemies weaknesses....
8:19 this is where i eject from the plane. very informative videos
This works for near-peer kind of comparisons (as stated with the specific aircraft named in the video), but tech adds significantly to capability. an average f35 pilot in f35 vs an ace F4 phantom? (something like this has actually happened relatively recently) character is important, true, but tech will be what wins a race.
Well, this is just a simulator game, but I find the results still worth considering
ruclips.net/video/6USwmIjgJP4/видео.html
Good video, anyway....
The variation in the doctrinal issues probably equate to the size of the organisations
Nicely put. However, what would be a pragmatical approach to compare two different fighter aircrafts?
I guess we need to keepout 'man' element out of this comparison, if we wish to compare only machines.
Comparisons to find the "better" are meaningless. There is no point. I will never do.
NO! Its fun to compare!
Thx, but what about the J-20 vs the F-22?
😇
Another good video, but the title is quite misleading imho. "Stop Comparing!" is misleading as you don't say that you shouldn't compare different aircraft types, but that you shouldn't compare them by focusing only on a couple of numbers without taking into account all the important factors. This is obviously true. But nevertheless you HAVE TO COMPARE different types, especially if you're a military decision maker and you want to decide what type should you buy for your air force. It's just like buying a car. Do you compare the different types before you buy one? Of course you do. But if you're clever you don't compare only the performance numbers. You take into account many different factors, like fuel consumption, price, reliability, service costs, availability of a service network, and of course suitability for your personal needs. It's the same with fighters. What I would emphasize more, and what makes 1 on 1 comparisions quite stupid, is costs (both purchase price and maintenance costs) and mission capability and sortie rates. Let's just assume that the overall "combat performance" of a certain type is, say, 1.5x that of another type. Than most "armchair experts" would say it's the better plane. However, if the purchase price of the second type is, say, 0.6x, the maintenance cost is 0.3x, while the mission capability rate is 2x and the sortie rate is 1.5x of the first one, I consider the second plane much better. Because it provides you much more capability for the same amount of money. And money is always the greatest limiting factor.
Yes, but the point is that what is required to have as meaningful a comparison as possible is not available to the general public. Therefore, the general public should not bother with these ridicolous, uninformed comparisons based on irrelevant criteria.
Good contribution. Thanks!
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Thanks a lot! :)
@@TLTeo Well, there are obviously lots of classified data that is not available, but a good amount of data is, especially if you do some research, so I wouldn't say it doesn't make sense at all. But such comparisons never gonna be completely reliable, and should always be taken with a grain of salt, of course.
one shouldn't make simplistic comparisons. however one can make the point of design inspiration.
If you want Hide-in-Plain-Sight, then simply remove the wing tip tanks on a twin-engine Beechcraft and mount AIM-9X's, or AIM-120 AMRAAM's in their place. It fly's low and slow so no one will pay it any mind until you light their backside up. And yes it would work since an ESA radar would easily mount in the nose of the aircraft, and even without the radar, both the AIM-120 and AIM-9X have a lock on after firing capability. Now that's Civil-Air patrol defense at it's best.
People don't want to think they just want to know what is "best" so there are a lot of videos that pander to them. Any hobbyist will cringe at the "best" word as there is no suck thing and yet "what's best" is the most common question. It always requires a deep explanation to explain why but the people who asked in the first place aren't willing to learn and just want a quick answer.
Never underestimate the enemy.
Just in time to commemorate the Argentinean rendition.
i have seen a bunch of guys on DCS manage to kill an AWACS right on top of a S300 suit using only 8 times T1 hawks and 2 times Viggens and yet fail to clear the airspace for their bomber to pass over the suit... so... when we talk about tools we need to understand, that their efficiency is very much limited to our own imagination... or one should say... unlimited as our imagination...
The gap in the level of knowledge between you and the other "military aviation" channels is about as wide as the Pacific Ocean. Bravo Signore, Bravo!
My personal pet peeve is when the self-proclaimed "military aviation experts" (read: F35 Fanboys) use the line:
"The enemy would be shot down before they even knew they were in danger."
This is, of course, impossible unless you're shooting at a Cessna because all fighter aircraft have a radar/missile warning system. The enemy pilot would be well aware that someone has locked onto him. Alarms sound when a locked missile is fired at him. Also, what magic does the F-35 use to detect an enemy aircraft without its radar emissions being detected? It's amazing how Lockheed-Martin and the USAF have used people's ignorance about military aviation against them. They've done a very good job of demonstrating how the general public are as easy to fool as a barrel of monkeys.
In an era of stealth, datalinks, LPI radars and long range missiles being guided by someone other than the launching platform, it's perfectly feasible to sneak up on somebody and fire an AMRAAM in such a way that they will only be aware of the launch when the missile seeker itself goes active (which is roughly 10 seconds before impact). That's what the whole "they won't know it's there until it fires" picture means.
I'm not saying the F-35 fanboys are correct either, just that you are falling in the same trap as they are.
The truth is, the vast majority of civilians are as qualified to judge any modern combat equipment's capability as they are to judge a theoretical physics publication. You're better off just shutting up, and learning what you can from channels like this, while realizing you will likely never know enough to actually have a well-informed opinion.
Avro Arrow
Which kind of fanboy are you? You also seem to be a self-proclaimed aviation expert. If you really think you are smarter than Lockheed Martin and USAF I think you need a reality check. You seem to think an airplane must be 100% right or it's all wrong, and you don't seem to understand that superiority in combat can be bought with differences of meters and seconds, and having those meters and seconds on your side gives you advantage. If you don't understand the advantage of an aircraft that already knows were the enemy is, can maneuver into position on it while undetected, and need only illuminate it just before firing, then I suspect you are more ignorant about military aviation than those you decry.
Avro Arrow Well said, my Canadian friend!
Amazing....he said what was needed ti ne said all along...he could also share the experienCe of the operation opera and the combats of sabres slayer of india...
Make some videos on WW2 planes .
Why you had fight? Are you alright now?
Instead of tejas, you should put JF 17 BECOZ IT CAN KILL F22, IT CAN ALSO SHOOT SATELLITES, ALSO IT CAN GO TO MARS AND COME BACK IN JUST 15 MINS.
Ha is that it? ;-)
@@THE-BUNKEN-DRUM nah it can do whatever you can imagine!!
The power of Pakistan baby
@MR X Allah might have close ties with China, we'ed better keep tabs on that.
Good example about the invincible during Malvinas. However, it received our gifts anyway...
lamentablemente, parece que no le pegamos www.zona-militar.com/foros/threads/el-ataque-al-portaaviones-hms-invencible.10322/page-634#post-2655492
its more or less, 5 gripens vs 1 j35. because if the price tag. or 15 gripes vs 5 j 35. .
I want to shove this video in some people faces. Well done.
But now the next step, how much of that data is known, how much is available to the public, and where?
F35 vs fer a repasser.
The point about aircraft being compared by performance specifications than by combat power was absolutely natural for a long time these virtues were essentially synonymous. And of course they were quantifiable, which allowed for objective determinations, such as which design should win a competition for a production contract. The F-104 was probably the peak expression of the assumption that performance equaled combat capability, and perhaps the first example of his assumption being no longer accurate. The F-15 and F-16 were examples of the first generation that did not place top speed and climb as the most important performance criteria. Luckily by then quantification of energy maneuverability allowed for objective comparison in terms of sustainable turn rate, the new kinetic performance priority. But by then electronic fire control systems were central to combat capability, and also objectively comparable. Even though today's fighters are slower than previous generations they have more combat power than was previously dreamed of. Ironically many zealots and fanboys still compare them on the basic of kinetic performance alone, despite the fact that that is a smaller portion of combat capability these new aircraft bring to the modern arena.
This is a grossly over-simplified analysis though. To continue on your example, there are many things in the F-104 (specifically the G and derivatives) that are not quantifiable by numbers, and because of that it's not mentioned in any discussion about it; instead, all you get is "but the turn radius!" (as if countless other strike aircraft were known for their agility...). To name one, it was the first fighter jet to carry an INS, which makes greatly reduces the workload in any strike mission and at the time placed it well above any other comparable lightweight fighter.
Even going back to WW2, stuff like the Wildcat being less vulnerable than the Zero is not really quantifiable by a number, yet it had a massive impact on the outcome of the battles.
@@TLTeo You are speaking of the later version of the F-104, and I was speaking of it's original version as a daylight fighter interceptor. Pilots who had fought the MiG-15 in Korea told Kelly Johnson they wanted superior speed and altitude capability, so that's what he designed into the F-104, which sacrificed some maneuverability to excel at the desired performance criteria in expectation this would would provide superiority in combat. So development of the plane was very much a performance numbers game that did not focus on aspects then seen as less essential to beating the MiGs, such as fire control system capability or combat load and combat radius. Later aircraft like the F-15 began the trend of placing more priority on ability to actually hit another airplane with a weapon than to simply fly faster and higher.
I'm not sure if you intend to agree or disagree, but you are supporting my point with your examples of things other than pure performance that make a difference in combat capability, but are more difficult to quantify than simple kinematic performance numbers.
@@gort8203 My point was simply that "performance" (whatever that may mean - it's more than just top speed and service ceiling) is simply one box a plane has to tick, and in that sense I agree with you. I also disagree with your claim that aircraft before the teen series were the first to be designed with the goal of putting weapons on target first and foremost, with performance being second, unlike previous design. To go back to the F-104 example, it was designed to pull ~7.5g at Mach 0.9, which really is enough to gun somebody. There are many other examples too - the F102/F106 being built around their fire control systems, the Sabre receiving the first radar gunsight, etc.
@@TLTeo You misunderstood my point, and you are using the term performance for what I was calling combat capability. My use of the word performance was related only to the kinematic performance because I was trying to distinguish between the two concepts.
My main point is that the earlier jets were designed primarily to outperform previous jets in term of speed and altitude, while of course carrying weapons necessary for their role. Design compromises were made to maximize those criteria rather than tight turn radius or sustained turn performance. They were not game changers as much as game extenders. The teen fighters made different compromises in order to change the game a little. They could have been even faster, but the design compromises chosen limited top speed in favor of better turn performance. Vietnam had demonstrated that turn performance was more important than top speed in putting A-A weapons on another fighter. The irony of missiles is that they changed the calculus by causing opposing fighters to turn in situations were they could have previously extended out of gun range.
The F-104 gets a bad rap in many ways. If they kept the speed up they could turn as well as another fighter at high speed. But other fighters with slower corner velocities and could out turn them at slower speeds. I've heard F-104 pilots say that by using energy tactics and extending flaps when slow they could turn with most other fighters of the era, such as the F-4, but they had to fly smart.
@@gort8203 The F-104 is a cautionary tale in taking things too literally. The Sabre pilots were happy with its maneuverability, but wanted more acceleration and climb rate to equal or overmatch the MiG15. Kelly heard "speed", and optimized for speed, when he should have hear "MORE speed", which implies the same maneuverability with more speed. Gnats would have done that. The aircraft everyone should have bought (and would have if not for Lockheed's bribes), the F11F-2 Supertiger, was the next generation aircraft that combined maneuverability and speed. The F-104 should have been DOA.
Quite the 'club sandwich' of comparisons.
So when deciding what aircraft to buy from another country their doctrine should be a consideration. Graphic displays are more effective than numerical? I guess that because of the size of US forces they need more control over individuals because they are less important providing the objective is achieved.
I think it is interesting to look at situations when you cant use yours on aircraft.
Wen India airforce and Pakistan airforce has is the last confrontation. It seems to me that the Pakistan airforces shot down some Indi airplane. But the India Airforce didn´t dare to strike back.
Was the F16 + Globayeye in such superiority for The India airforce. What do you think?
@Marcos B I don´t think the Mig 21:s was used. The used the best equipment against the Pakistan border. If I listen to the news it seems that The Indian Airforce has probably lost more dan 2 airplanes.
You want a true comparison of this aircraft?
Get all the aircrafts in question together. (Say 7 aircraft.) Have all 7 pilots fly all the planes to it's highest capabilities. Compare the pilots capabilities to each plane, then to each other. The data will show whos the best planes and best pilots. Instead of talking about what pilot with what plane can do what? Thanks again my friend.
As an Indian I believe tejas mk1 is not fit to compete with the best.
But tejas mk2 ll be beast aerodynamically
X-02 beats them all. (No! XFA-27 or 33!) Common man, CFA-44! (Morgen or Raven, end of story). I like the Shiden II. (rabble rabble rabble) For those that don't get it, Ace Combat fictional planes.
ignoring kids generally solves that problem
Knowing who has the bigger stick and who's growing their stick is important, first reason why arms races are NOT ancient history right ?
Hypersonic race for e.g.
Q: Which aircraft is the best at the end???
A: Your question is stupid, there are different aircraft to do different tasks. hahaha
This is my favourite answer, it depends on the doctrine of the armed forces and the technology used.
Yes, but I bet that if you ask the pilots, 9 out 10 times they will be choosing the F-22.
Even if you have to do CAS? Or buddy buddy refuelling? Even if you are not the USA and you are incapable of supporting all the monumental logistical apparatus involved in keeping a squadron of F-22 operative? I humbly suggest to watch the video again.
Dear Juan Gomez Fuentes
I have asked the question to some military pilots,friends of mine, and all of them gave me the same answer: different aircraft to do different kind is jobs.
It is all about doctrine
Yes we should stop....Gripen is the one.... ;)
There's one thing people need to understand there's no perfect weapon system.
But could there be? 🤔🤔🤔
Make a video on future PLA pilot less aircraft .
The true question : who is the strongest between the pope and a polar bear ?
Not exactly the content I expected since the psychology behind all these RUclips comparisons is rather different to the points you describe. They are driven by (auto)propaganda and tribal sentiments, even up to near personalised comparisons of the size of reproductive organs ("My country has the better weapon and so I have the bigger (beep)!") Mankind never seizes to amaze me! Or should one call that "sizes" in this context? :-)
To concentrate more on the actual content of your video: What I fear is that all this complex technology and procedural thinking turns the average military pilot in a sort of equivalent of todays airline pilot. They are supposed to know all the procedures but seem to have lost track of the underlying reasoning. Every analysis in a certain popular program about aircraft disasters seems to prove that there basically are only 2 ways to down an airplane: 1) To not take care of the crafts energy management (in practical terms: sooner or later put it into a stall) or 2) Literally fly it through the ground ("Is that a mountian?"). Still those darn things keep dropping out of the air like flies!
The more individualistic approaches in pilot decision making you describe plus a remaining "seat of the pants" awareness could negate that trend somewhat. One however still wonders. A procedure / software is only as good as those who write it. ("Hey, my F22 is supposed to never be seen by the enemy. So why are all these Rusky / Chinese fighters still filling my direct field of vision? This whole war has after all only existed for the last 20 minutes!").
I sure hope you are wrong about military pilots becoming as robotic as airline pilots. I chafed under the 'checklist operator' mentality of a major airline while relying on flying for the military reserve to keep my skills sharp and make me feel like a pilot again. If the military moves toward the airline mentality we are in trouble if we have to fight a real war. The USAF has always been more structured than smaller outfits because that's a natural imperative in such a large organization. Consistency is needed as a framework, but that doesn't mean it must be so restrictive as to inhibit or penalize operational flexibility. There are always the clerks who can follow the checklist but don't see the big picture, and those who know what they are doing and must be allowed to advance the art -- at east until the self-learning AI takes control.
@@gort8203 Good to hear from somebody who knows the loop. Luckily you where personally aware of the need to keep your basic skills alive. It could very well have saved a lot of lives without nobody ever being aware of it . If I understand you correctly this is however indeed not a prerequisite for an airline pilot, probably because such abbilities are seen as an expensive luxury. So the question I pose basically is if such skills are still expected from air force pilots and if it will stay that way in the future. Drones becoming ever more popular seems to be prove of the opposite mentality. If they break their plane they simply wag your finger at them and send them home. There are always more then enough cheap software jockeys out there to "man" a model plane. And I am not even speakig of the moral implications of th use of such weapons. Roger Waters called it The "Bravery" Of Staying Home.
@@marcbrasse747 If you know how to fly before you get an airline job, the airline can teach you how to operate its airplanes under its government approved procedures. The airline doesn't have the time or ability to teach you how to really fly, either in initial or recurrent training. At the end of my airline career I was getting one simulator every 9 months under the so called Advanced Qualification Program. My military airplane was giving me eight simulators every year, in addition to operational flying and multiple pilot proficiency sorties in which you practiced every sort of approach and landing you might not have seen in operational flying. The airline trained me to not think and follow the approved checklist, the military trained me to use my knowledge and judgment because there isn't a checklist for everything that will happen. The civil aviation authorities are starting to wake up to the hidden costs of making airline pilots slaves to automation, but it may be too late to save the profession. I hope not, but it will take more changes than I have seen to reverse the trend.
@@marcbrasse747 I think all this talk I'm seeing in comments to this video about some air forces being trained to break the rules is kind of silly. No air force has rules designed to inhibit mission accomplishment. Standard tactics and procedures are designed to enhance operations and increase probability of mission accomplish by proving multiple units with a common frame of reference and coordinating their actions. Nobody is prohibited from doing something non standard if it doesn't put others at risk or reduce probability of success. The military has always had to balance discipline and standardization against initiative and innovation. It is not a new challenge.
@@gort8203 I am sure you are better qualified to judge this then many others here. It's one thing to be a well (or not so well :-) ) informed enthousiast. It's another to know the way things work close up front. There are however enough examples of bad doctrine from the past. The idea of the bomber munching aircruiser from before WW2 that led to Me 110 et all. Rules to fly rigidly in certain formations that where actually detrimental to succes. The whole repressive sowjet system that made it dangerous to have idea's. The rocket-truck idea and deletion of onboard guns in the 50's and 60's. The list goes on and on.
So the danger of faulty doctrine becoming overly influential has always been around. I for instance see the "Shock and Awe" and "Shoot before anybody sees you" doctrines rather dangerous. That might work against an inferior oponent. In practice the reasoning could however be just as weak as that behind the German V-weapons. Things do not tend to be that simple when the (beep) hits the fan. The only way to really test such principles would be a long term, all out, attrition war and in that case one might still be better of with a MIG 21, Harrier or Saab Griffen. (Better not try though! :-) ) I sometimes remember people of the Boeing Peashooter. At the time is seemed to tick all the boxes but, boy, was it surpassed quickly.
So I also have little direct insight into doctrine and tactics (although I have seen Topgun, jada , jada! :-) ) but I cannot imagine shortsighted behaviour havig become totally extinct in that side of the business. Otherwise about every fighter would by now be a VSTOL, whatever the penalty! :-)
Why are you compare tejas with best jets
Millennium Falcon is better than every combat aircraft mentioned in the title of this video. Try to change my mind.
😂😂😂
Being an Indian I can't understand why we always try to compare tejas with everything. Come on. Tejas is good. But you don't have to compare it every time.
Yes, because it is a comparation video. We are here to compare best engineering.
@@juangomezfuentes8825 comparing engineering doesn't mean that you compare a cruiseship with a fishing boat
@Prabhudutt Bisoi that's like saying hero splendor is the best the motorcycle...😆..yes its the best but in a lower class
@Prabhudutt Bisoi what it lacks ? Seriously?.....there's a mk1a version just only coz the MK2 cannot be ready in the near future... obviously it can't match even MK2...so forget the rest fighters in the list......not saying it's bad though...but just coz it's home made to say it's the best ....seems a bit naive.... unnecessary ultra nationalism isn't needed
@Prabhudutt Bisoi MK1 and MK2 have no relation 😆😆😆😆😆...are you high on weed energy too
Pilots are more important than plane, and doctrines are more important than pilots.
Can really skilled pilots in a Sopwith camel beat bad pilots in a F22. Sure... if the F22 pilots is sufficiently bad, they will just crash there aircraft outright.
Can a good pilots in a Sopwith camel beat a equally good pilot in a F22. Again yes, if the doctrine of the F22 is just sufficiently bad. If the F22 is parked on the tarmark an supriced by the WWI fighter-bombers , it don´t really matter if its 10 generations newer.
While this might sound like an extreme example, and it is, the diffrance in pilot skill and doctrinal differences, needed close in with when the generation close in.
Is it an extreme example? If one country have pilots that are doing 500 hours a year, and a other have pilots that are doing 50, having one generation newer fighters might not help. Being totally Swedish in this. The lower the maintenance time is, the less time the plain is on the ground, the more time the pilot got in the air... Also the cheaper both the plane and the hours are, the more pilots you can have for a fix amount.
That is, you can be a super power, have 1300 fighters, but if 1200 of them are grounded... you really have the least important part of the puzzel, the equipment,
Hence the most important performance stat is cost per hour in the air