Comments by "Hyok Kim" (@hyokkim7726) on "F35 Main Mission: Evade Russian S400 Air Defense" video.
-
0043 Yes, F-35 was intended to replace them: That was their main selling point.
0045 No, They are going to be replaced and retired, as they should be.
0057 The US Air Force Quietly Admits the F-35 Is a Failure - ExtremeTech
0120 The pilot forgot the numbers: The numbers could be more important than just talent, a pilot in the box. In the battle of Nomonhan, IJA had better pilots and better planes as well than the Soviets, but the Soviets had the numbers, and did the ground and pound: IJA overall had higher kill ratios, but they couldn’t get relief. Some IJA pilots ended up fighting 24 hours straight! IJA eventually had to withdraw the AF, and the ground units ended up getting stranded, and surrounded.
0220 F-35 is very unreliable, almost PRC unreliable. This puts the sortie rate at far below suboptimal.
This may not matter that much to an individual pilot, but it matters a great deal at the operational level. After all, one doesn’t go to war so that an ace could win some dogfights.
Besides 6 gen is going to be replacing 5th gen pretty soon.
0307 Russian almost always never export full spec advanced weapon systems, that’s for domestic use only. About the only exception was when they sold a batch of T-80U back in 90s when they were in extreme hardship.
One cannot depend on F-35’s stealth ability based on examination of S-300 the Russians exported.
Btw. U.S. does the same: U.S. rarely ever exports full spec advanced weapons. F-35 U.S. has sold to the allies are all downgraded ones.
0347 20k is only for the kit, not the ammunition/bomb itself, plus the support service module: using JDAM for F-35 is like having a pig wear a diamond necklace. JDAM is far inferior to KEPD 150, far longer range, far more precise. ROK originally thought about JDAM as well for supposed commonality of parts, and far cheaper price, but found JDAM to be very finicky, unreliable, plus far inferior performance.
Why risk an ultra expensive fighter like F-35 when one could use KEPD 150 for better performance, far more safely? Penny wise dollar foolish move.
KEPD 150 (globalsecurity.org)
0404 F-35 Flaws | Why the F-35 Still Has a Lot of Must-Fix Flaws (popularmechanics.com)
0428 Here Is What We Know About Yesterday’s British F-35B Crash - The Aviationist
Accident Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II 12-5053, 19 May 2020 (aviation-safety.net)
0457 So-called ‘Stealth’ ability is over-rated, and it has far smaller radar signature, but it can be detected when close enough to the enemy radar and/or if the enemy radar is good enough, and radar is getting better almost every few months, but stealth is not getting better every few months.
Not only that, the stealth panel used by F-35 is not durable: It will ‘chip off’ when flown beyond mach, in fact, SOP is to repair those stealth panels after every sortie, and the operating cost of F-35 is indeed ‘Ferrari’ like like CharLes Brown had said. It also keep the sortie rate suboptimal.
0506 That mission set is already obsolete. Why risk a super expensive fighter jet, with a very expensive pilot? Why not simply use autonomous unmanned fighter/attack bomber to do the dangerous work, such as SEAD, using stealth guided/smart bomb?
0618 You don’t ask pilots to build the planes needed for the war: They will give a plane they want to fly, win some dogfights, not the plane needed to win the war.
The most important factor is cost effectiveness, not situational awareness. What good is situational awareness if the plane is not cost effective.
0642 F-22 has far smaller radar signature than F-35.
0822 The tactics are changing. Boeing Airpower Teaming System
Unmanned Aircraft Systems - Manned-Unmanned Teaming (armyaviationmagazine.com)
0840 That VTOL comes with stiff cost. Less performance, less reliability, far higher expense/operating cost. Is it really cost effective? Me think not. USMC can depend on USAF, and USN, doesn’t need to waste resources on less effective, less efficient redundant support.
0915 All three are going to be replaced something better and more cost-effecitve.
0937 F-35 was never tested against first rate SEAD in Iraq. Not only that U.S. didn’t need F-35 for SEAD in Iraq. Using F-35 against ill-trained pseudo religious kooks is no proof of its cost effectiveness.
I am not sure whether F-35 should have been started even now. However, I am convinced even if F-35 should have been started, its implementation was suboptimal, and F-35B should have never been allowed, A, and C only. B is the most expensive of the three, and the least effective as well.
USMC can depend on USAF, and USN, and she still would have Apaches for CAS, and if that’s not enough, she could have gone for Super Tucanos for more inland operation. For CAS, super tucanos are far more efficient and just as effective overall as Apaches. No reason to waste money on B.
The corner stone for the future implementation should be based on MUM-T, not expensive individual pilots for the future. MUM-T should be implemented across all services.
2
-
1