Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Is the USAF Fed Up With The F-35?" video.

There's a really interesting vid on the A10 and it goes into the design methodology of the A10 and in particular it highlights that from the start it was intended to be EASY TO MAINTAIN. In that vid at 13:25 there is a chart of the costs per hour of flight time for a range of Aircraft. -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk6Qr6OO5Xo I'm Australian but did aerospace in America and have done 30+ years of work in industrial automation and robotics. The one thing that concerns me more than anything else with the F35 is MAINTENANCE. Its the same for almost any engineered system - can it be maintained to deliver as designed. Forget mission capability for the moment because there are people with far better credentials than any of us here who can honestly judge the F35's mission capabilities. BUT as they learned in WW2 with superior technologies like the Tiger Tank doesn't mean much if it breaks down all the time. Every Tiger Tank was followed around by a maintenance crew in a truck with a pile of spares. In terms of competing against the Sherman it was almost unbeatable champion. BUT in terms of how hard it was to manufacture and maintain the Tiger was a disaster. AND once they worked out how to beat it with better guns or shooting it in the ass - it was an even bigger disaster. So what concerns me with the F35 is will it become our generation's Tiger Tank - brilliant to use but a disaster to maintain?
10
@jacobmccandles1767 Its the wing size and the number of hardpoints that makes me doubt the claims. So I went and checked. The F35 has 4 internal and 6 external hardpoints that can carry a total of 8200kg. The A10 has 11 hardpoints (all external) that can carry a total of 7,260kg. So that F35 can take off with slightly more payload. But in that configuration I'd expect it to be a slug. It already has poor maneuverability from its small wings. So I doubt that would improve much with all that added extra weight. While the A10 is meant to fly with all that weight. And that's before we discuss the guns. Only the "F35A" has a gun - 25mm/182 rounds and I don't think that matches the A10s 30mm/1350 rounds or the types of rounds it fires. Its the difference between a purpose built system versus a "do lotsa stuff" system. No I am not in Montana.
3
@timgosling6189 I saw a series of documentaries comparing various WW2 systems and how their OVERALL effectiveness matched up. 2 in particular I remember were comparisons between the Sherman & Tiger and Hurricane & Spitfire. They both gave odd results. The Sherman vs Tiger came out on the Sherman for the simple reason that they were so easy to produce and could simply overwhelm the tigers. Interesting they interviewed both Sherman & Tiger people who managed to survive the war. They BOTH agreed they would have preferred to be in a Tiger for the simple reason that a Sherman could only disable a Tiger with a shot to the engine, but that a Tiger would destroy a Sherman with one shot and kill all on board. Until the Firefly and others came along the German crews usually survived. The Hurricane Vs Spitfire was really pertinent to the F35 discussion. In the air the Spitfire was clearly superior and could outclass the BF109. BUT in terms of keeping them flying the Hurricane was way better. ANY DAMAGE to a Spit usually put it out for at least 2 days, because it was all metal with flush rivets needing specialized skills. The Hurricane was mainly cloth over wood (which is why so few have survived) and the local carpenters could fix them over night. It could go against the BF109 but not as well as the Spit, but it was fine against the bombers. Because is was easier to keep flying some of the squadrons with foreign pilots REVERTED back to the Hurricane after getting Spitfires. So their conclusion was that the Hurricane was more decisive in the Battle of Britain because it was able to fly more often and put more bullets into more bombers and eventually the Germans ran out of bombers. I knew a Spit pilot and brought this up with him one day and he was blunt that NO PILOT would trade a Spit for a Cane in NORMAL circumstances. It was quite simple the Spit TO FLY was better all around. So I asked about the maintenance issue and HE AGREED that the Cane was much easier to maintain. He thought the analysts were wrong because without the Spit the Canes would have had to take on the BF109s a lot more. So in hindsight neither the Hurricane or Spit could win the Battle of Britain but together they could. And that's where I think the F35 is a mistake. Its too complex and too hard to maintain and its trying to do everything.
2
@jacobmccandles1767 Model or the real thing? If its the real thing he flies arguably one of the best engineering achievements of the last 70 years. The A-10 is a lesson in project management that all engineers should study.
2
@jacobmccandles1767 Yeah HOW?? Even using external hardpoints (which ruins the radar profile) HOW? Seriously who TF would make that claim and then HOW? 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️
1
@jacobmccandles1767 Yeah but the A10 was NEVER meant to go against ANY fighter so that's a mute point. The A10 was built for 1 thing close in ground support. As far as I know they have always operated with fighter over watch. WW2 was a series of ugly lessons in fighter support. First for the Germans and then for Bomber Command and the 8th Airforce. That was one reason for developing the F117 and B2 the way they were. Get without anybody knowing you are there and get out without them even seeing where you are. From what people like Lt Col. Chip Berke has said the F35 is actually damn good at. And he's flown most of them including the F22, F16, F18 on top of the F35. Therein lies the issue with close support of ground forces. Hiding isn't an option. Who ever they are they know where your ground forces are and can see or hear what's in the sky. Somebody put it well a while back. All other pilots avoid getting hit but an A10 pilot expects to get hit. Because they do go that close to the action and do it in almost any condition including broad daylight. Go check some of the vids. Sure there's those that are all hype but there's also some really good ones that explain what it is and what it does. The USAF keeps trying to retire it and the US Army keeps say NO -Hmmm 🤔🤔 And now they are planning on all new wings for the existing fleet and then a whole brand new fleet to replace and increase the existing fleet. Look at all the places America and its allies have ground forces. Hmmm 🤔🤔
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD I disagree with the first point and made a slip on the second. The A-10s vulnerability comes first and foremost from its primary mission profile which is close air support. On the F35s lack of maneuverability go and check what's happened when its been up against planes like F16s in open air combat trials. If you want to hear a really sensible discussion on it go an look for the Pierre Sprey and Chip Berke discussion. Chip Berke who's flown F16s, F18s, F22s and the F35 changed my mind considerably on the F35 because he put into the context of modern aerial warfare where there is a huge emphasis on not being seen to begin with. What Pierre Sprey goes into is what happens when an F35 is located and then engaged. Since my remark I also had a chance to listen to Ward Carol speak about his time in F14s and their training against MIGs. Its really interesting about his discussion on optimal maneuvering speed. A few others have mentioned it but he explained it better. I'll admit I did not know this before Ward explained it. Jet fighters each have a best speed to turn and its totally dependent on the jet's fundamental characteristics. Go look at his videos on air to air, They are super informative. As for Air show stuff, that has nothing to do with combat. For every great air show routine no matter how good it is there's always someone saying that something else was better.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD By chance this just came in my recommendations. Its the Ward Carroll vid on "Constant Peg" which is about his time training against MIG 21s & 23s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeBNyPsysiI
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD On the A10 sure there are the drones and helicopters and gun ships for CAS, but nothing else has that gun. For sure that's just one aspect but what military anywhere wants their men or hardware on the wrong side of that gun. On the Pierre Sprey thing that was what Chip Berke pointed out that surprised me a lot - its the dramatic change in air-to-air. He said the very nature of air combat has fundamentally changed. Sorry about the F16 stuff but its also less relevant than most people think when you put it into the comments Chip made about avoiding unnecessary interactions. On the maneuverability Chip Berke said nothin on that and he's flown all these planes. If it was a non issue in straight open air he would have said so - I think. And by open air I mean well clear of land and other obstructions physical or visual. Nothing else meant by it - just 2 planes in open clear sky. Chip didn't really say it but implied something that I first heard way back in the 1980s that was to the tune of "if you could see it, you could hit it with a missile and destroy it." That was how they at least described what they had. There was a documentary way back then that literally concluded that a modern European War could be back to swords and shields in a matter of a weeks because the missiles would simply take out everything. What Chip alludes to with the F35 over the previous planes (except the F22) is that your chances of being seen are so low to begin with that no pilot would pick another plane for any mission (except the F22). It was those remarks that really changed my view on the F35, from being a lemon to being something a LOT more. I still have some reservations over the maintainability of the F35, but that's another subject in part based on my engineering experience.
1
TO ALL There's a really interesting vid on the A10 and it goes into the design methodology of the A10 and in particular it highlights that from the start it was intended to be EASY TO MAINTAIN. In that vid at 13:25 there is a chart of the costs per hour of flight time for a range of Aircraft. -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk6Qr6OO5Xo I'm Australian but did aerospace in America and have done 30+ years of work in industrial automation and robotics. The one thing that concerns me more than anything else with the F35 is MAINTENANCE. Its the same for almost any engineered system - can it be maintained to deliver as designed. Forget mission capability for the moment because there are people with far better credentials than any of us here who can honestly judge the F35's mission capabilities. BUT as they learned in WW2 with superior technologies like the Tiger Tank doesn't mean much if it breaks down all the time. Every Tiger Tank was followed around by a maintenance crew in a truck with a pile of spares. In terms of competing against the Sherman it was almost unbeatable champion. BUT in terms of how hard it was to manufacture and maintain the Tiger was a disaster. AND once they worked out how to beat it with better guns or shooting it in the ass - it was an even bigger disaster. So what concerns me with the F35 is will it become our generation's Tiger Tank - brilliant to use but a disaster to maintain?
1