Comments by "LRRPFco52" (@LRRPFco52) on "The Infographics Show" channel.

Every assertion in this video is incorrect so far, and I’m only at 3:06. The program goes back to 1983, and was joint UK/USMC/USAF for the SSF/ASTOVL way before JAST or JSF. The silly mission profile they represented in the beginning? Yeah, Israel started doing strikes with F-35s into Syria in 2017, USMC in 2018, and USAF in 2019 and nobody stopped. Video post date is Oct 2020. Numerous articles from USMC, USAF, and Israeli news document this in detail, to include availability rates, numbers of bombs dropped, sorties flown, different mission sets accomplished in single sorties, how USMC F-35Bs working off an LHD in the Red Sea covered targets from Syria to Afghanistan, and how once the UAE saw what the F-35 is capable of, were willing to make a peace deal with Israel so they could be cleared to buy F-35As as well. The future referred to in this video is years old already, with far more complex mission sets, threats, and responses.
7
3 airframes for different take off and landing basing, not one airframe. And it turns out JSF do all the jobs of legacy fighters, strikers, spyplanes, and EW platforms better than they can, at a much lower unit cost.
4
@ClamBake7525 They humiliate the F-15C in A2A. They beat F-22A in A2A in LFEs since 2017, according to both Raptor and F-35A pilot interviews. They do F-117A's job better than it ever could, and it has a stellar record of 2000 combat sorties with only 1 loss. They do all the Viper models' jobs better than they can whether it be D-SEAD, CSAR, strike, A2A, and CAS. They have ISTAR capabilities that smoke the U-2S, RQ-4, and MQ-9. They have exponentially better SA than any AWACS has ever had, with superior data transfer and connectivity. They have EW/EA capability Growlers wish they had. C Model has 100nm+ more combat radius than the Tomcat did, plus it networks with Poseidon, RQ-4C, E-2D, Super Bug, and Surface Warfare vessels with an integrated fleet air defense/maritime patrol/AS swingrole, omnirole set. I did a detailed analysis of the individual capabilities and mission sets of legacy fighter, strike, EW, and various aircraft platforms, and JSF simply matches or exceeds them all even in their specific domains.
3
Have you done a cost analysis on what it would have been if we funded, produced, and maintained the following: ASTOVL Supersonic STOVL Fighter (to replace the UK and USMC AV-8 Harrier IIs eventually) Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (to replace F-16s) Agile Falcon (Currently flown by Japan, each airframe was $171 million-more than F-22 Raptors) Advanced Tactical Aircraft (Navy stealth flying wing-$2 billion was spent on R&D for it, cancelled) A/X- US Navy stealth program after the ATA was cancelled Because the DoD and Congress did a cost analysis on what it would have been to not only fund these, but to cut these down to 3 and see how that worked out. Turns out that even with 3 of the above programs eliminated, it was going to be astronomical to fund the independent service-driven programs, so it was suggested, “What if we go with a common avionics and propulsion and as many subsystem common component approach, while each of the services gets its own airframe design?” Thus was born JAST and eventually JSF. This was really the best way to go when looking at cost and efficiency. None of the proposed airframes and separate avionics systems would have added a practical benefit overall because different radars and engines would create separate supply chains with spiraled costs, and radars and engines are 50% of the aircraft cost. By combining efforts and buying power, they ended up with the world’s most advanced, most capable AESA radar that exceeds the capabilities of the F-22’s bigger AESA, with the world’s most powerful fighter engine, and the lowest radar cross section and tiny IR signature of any other fighter in the world. They also carry more internal fuel than any other single engine fighters out there by a huge margin, to the extent that combat radius is superb with the JSF series. Things are not what they seem on the surface of the ignoverse.
3
Opposite is true. If you base your opinions on popular media and mass disinformation, you'd think the JSF Program was an utter disaster. Then you look at safety and actual costs and say, "This is totally opposite of what we're being told."
3
@cdro1257 I don't see it that way and neither do the services. The main differences with NAVAIR are carrier-based. The common avionics has proven to be a game changer for interoperability. Name one thing an F-14 or Super Hornet can do that the F-35C can't. Now make a list of all the things the F-35C can do that the Tomcat and SH will never be able to do. Air Dominance....not even close. Precision strike...same Combat radius....F-35C wins again OTH sensor node for recon/surveillance and targeting for surface warfare vessels and subs...F-35 AWACS...F-35 VLO launch platform for VLO cruise missiles...F-35 If you go back and put the F-35 in place of every other TACAIR platform for Desert Storm, the war ends sooner with more devastating results for the enemy, with much more streamlined logistics.
2
@TheFoulMouthNews Erroneous. They are 3 very distinct airframes with different wings, different weapons bay on the B, but with common avionics architecture and components.
2
@peterson7082 A-10 has been a straggler at CAS for decades. F-15E and B-52 do more CAS than the A-10 ever will. A-10C has upgraded to net-centric capes, which is much better, but still too slow.
2
Hey Infographics: Maybe you didn't care to research, but Israeli F-35Is, USMC F-35Bs, USAF F-35As, and Royal Navy F-35Bs have been conducting combat operations for a while now. Your data is all incorrect. Operational F-35s are 85-96% availability rates. Your claims about guns are 5 years old. USAF F-35As have been using the gun successfully. Guns are not as accurate as bombs. Modern Russian tanks are armored to defeat the 30mm GAU-8. F-35 airframes have twice the service life of the F-16. You cite a 2010 deficiency in early LRIP birds, not mature higher volume production. Sounds like you've been reading POGO. All of your data is incorrect. Airframe life is 10,000hrs+. Block 3 F-35s exceeded the structural tests. This video is false at literally every metric when discussing actual birds in operational squadrons. Again, multiple service F-35s are in combat right now.
2
@steffenberr6760 A simple research into the history of JSF would have shown the 6 programs from before and elicited the question, "How much would that have cost?"
1
Funny thing is it actually is extremely cost effective and is currently the most affordable fighter in the world. For example, "cheap" Chinese Chengdu J-10A fighters cost $58.88 million each. 16 of them have crashed so far with 6 pilots killed, numerous homes burned on the ground. At least 1/3 of those crashes are from engine failure. Another 1/3 from unknown technical failure. 103 Flankers have crashed with 136 fatalities. Just in the first 10 years of F-16 service, we lost 143 of them with 71 fatalities. 720+ JSF built and 15 years later...2 Bs and 2 As have crashed, only 1 B model from mechanical failure. A model unit price is lower than any Western fighter at $77.9 million.
1
@pauloaz496 Gripen E was estimated to be $85m unit flyaway in 2015. Saab won't say what unit flyaway is, but it's higher than F-35A. Typhoon unit flyaway is 146-152m Euros last I checked on the most recent contracts. Unit Program is well over 200m Euros per. There's a difference between unit flyaway and unit program cost. F-35A is more affordable than any of them in both categories. Unit program cost is air vehicle + weapons, spares, support, suspension equipment, simulators, practice training weapons, etc. Unit program cost for F-35As with huge weapons packages are less than unit flyaway for Typhoon Tr4 or Radale F4.
1
@pauloaz496 Not according to the US DoD Comptroller and the Norwegian Defense Minister, Air Chief, and Air Logistics Chief. CPFH on F-35As is the same as F-16AMs were for RNoAF. I can look up the 2024 rates in DoD Comptroller again, but they are typically in the $16,000/hr region and have been dropping significantly since 2015. F-35B and F-35C are actually lower rates, which is funny. The Saab H-X rep said Gripen E was expected to be about what it cost to fly and operate the Gripen C/D, but they didn’t know yet since there were no operational squadrons with full-up jets. Also keep in mind that pods are not included in O&M cost statements, so that has to be factored separately. F-35s have pod capabilities integrated into the airframe and avionics architecture, so what you see with CPFH and O&M is what you get. It’s much more transparent in that regard.
1
@pauloaz496 I just looked up 2024 DoD Comptroller hourly rates for fixed wing: F-35A $17,525 F-35B $16,309 F-35C $13,310 USN F-16A Adversary $29,160 USN F-16C Adversary $21,981 F/A-18C $31,120 F/A18-E $17,584 F/A-18F $22,266 F-5F $17,580 F-5N $19,252
1
What's the cost of a HUD and aircraft losses who don't have HMDS and DAS? Look at how many legacy aircraft were shot down in Desert Storm and Kosovo. Look at recent shoot-downs of Saudi F-15S and Israeli F-16I, which has more advanced ECM than USAF F-16C Block 50s. You lose 1 F-16C50, and there goes well over $100 million in sunk costs, not counting the pilot and spiraling costs from the CSAR response into an IADS trap. Or you can buy F-35As for $77.9 million each and move forward like a reasonable person with basic analytical faculties.
1
The US will continue to be the dominant super power, as it has the largest economy, no threat nations on its borders, the largest and most experienced military with the largest Navy patrolling the sea lanes, the most dominant space-based assets, the most demand for products from abroad, while having the most healthy domestic production and consumption, the largest arable farmland for food cultivation, the largest population that lives in low population density, with cities evenly distributed across the land, with the most connected river network in the world, with the most deep sea ports connected to that river network. The EU isn't a union, but a bad idea of unifying historic enemies who don't speak each other's languages and don't share the same regional threats, with the majority of the most powerful EU members militarily allied with the US. Brazil is a weak collection of city states on the coast, who aren't connected geographically because of the terrain. China is its own worst enemy because it can't deal with the interior, which is what has always plagued China. Their military force projection capability has never been tested, and they are barely able to maintain internal security with their military, while facing a huge crisis in living conditions between those on the coast, and those in abject poverty. Russia is on the verge of fragmenting due to interior erosion and lawlessness, compounded by the coming demographic winter Japan is already well into. No matter how you look at each scenario, it just doesn't work out for any other nation currently.
1
@DavidRichardson153 All F-35 variants but the C are currently engaged in combat operations, and have been so for years now. It is so far more capable than anything else, the differences are staggering.
1
@mikemontgomery2654 F-35 has a lot more range than the F-22, & VLO characteristics are practically the same, with superior RAM on the F-35. F-35s are taking pressure of F-22 CENTCOM taskings, now that the USMC did 8 months in theater, followed by USAF and Brits, both of whom are operating there currently in combat.
1