Imagine if you went to an air show and the pilot came up and was like "check out this router! communicate with 20 other planes, gigabit speeds! Meshnet in the air! I can video chat with my wingman so I can see his face struggle with the Gs!"
I love how you make the point that technological ideas which appear too soon may fail, but that very failure lays the ground work for success decades later. We often assume that only success breed success. But failure (or learning from our mistakes) can move us forward just as well. I can remember an old adage that said, "If you never fail, you're not trying hard enough." In other words you're playing it too safe.
@@bertg.6056 there was no intent to offend, brainfart means that you’ve forgotten something that is fairly common knowledge, I was the subject of the remark.
I am an old Air Force man who knew thenF4 inside out and I have been totally focused on then current aircraft and the different needs required. This is fantastic, thank you!!!
I like the NFL analogy. If you dive deep into each duty position on the team, and also look at the head coach on the sideline, then relate this to the fighter generations, it makes more sense for the layman. In the 3rd fighter generation, technology limited us to single role, purpose-built fighters, interceptors, nuclear strike fighters, light attack, medium attack, deep interdiction, fleet air defense, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare aircraft where the crew focused on that one mission set. Several of those aircraft were found to be useful in totally unrelated roles, like the F-100 fighter being used for CAS and light attack in Vietnam, or the A-5 Vigilante carrier nuclear strike fighter being used for high speed tactical reconnaissance. As processing power got better in the 1970s, we realized that the possibility of multirole fighters could be realized even in single-seat jets, and the F-16 and F/A-18 embodied this. It would be akin to having a player who could be a tight end or a fullback/running back and do both roles really well. AWACS emerged in Vietnam, which is like the coach on the sidelines with a microphone and the players have ear pieces to hear his perspective of the big picture and how to best position them. That was 4th Gen. With 5th Gen, the platforms can smoke a 4th Gen quarterback, defensive end, tackle, tight end, wide receiver, fullback/running back and have a better picture of the field than the coach on the sideline can. When you have a team that has 2 5th Gen wide receivers, a 5th Gen QB, 5th Gen Fullback/running back, with some leftover 4.5 Gen tackles who have better ear pieces connected to the 5th Gen players, the team is unstoppable. A 4th Gen player talks about what his sprint times are on the track, what he can lift, while not wearing equipment he has to wear on the field. 5th Gen trains in its equipment all the time, even for sprints, the gym, and field exercises, so it’s always configured for game day. On top of that, the 5th Gen players have optical camouflage like Predator, making it next to impossible to see them. Meanwhile, our adversaries are scrambling to develop their own 5th Gen players, but they are decades behind us in training and building them.
I truly love how informative your videos are. I've know many fighter pilots personally over the years ranging for a high school classmate, (my best friend in high school), who flew the F-4G Wild Weasel to another who flew the Hog out of flight training and became an F-16 IP to living next to Langley AFB and knowing several Raptor pilots. I was a very early subscriber for your channel and I thank you.
I'd really like to hear from your perspective about the maneuverability of the F-35 vs say the F-16, the F-22 or what is or has been said about it. I believe the plane is way more capable than the press wants us to believe and I know it's not as maneuverable as the Raptor due it is different mission parameters but I'd really just like to hear about it from a pilots perspective.
Regardless of how tactically superior modern fighters are....as an aviator you can't deny the romanticism attached to the high speed and highly manoeuvrable dog fighting machines of the last century.
@@kevin_1230 Not borne out by actual data. Rates have indeed been somewhat lower at times, but so have the rates for a LOT of other aircraft in the Air Force and Navy (F-18 especially). F-22 is really nothing very special here. In fact, in actual combat deployments (when an effort is made to have the parts and manpower on hand), the F-22 and F-35 have done very, very well. In 2019, the rate for the F-22 (overall) was 68% vs 75% for the F-16, so yes, lower, but not massively so. F-35 was 74%. And yes, these vary month to month, so you can always pick a bad month and make headlines. Rates are not the real issue. The issue is getting the cost per flying hour down.
Thank you for very eloquently summarising the evolution of fighter design and aerial combat philosophy. I’m sure many would agree that this video is one of the best examples of anyone connecting the dots. Much respect.
@@mr.spaceboy9785 4th gen fighter are designed to be marginally unstable. If the computers fail, the plane will crash since a human can not make the adjustments fast enough to fly the plane. Ergo, an unstable dart. Or, a computer stabilized dart. lol
Another great piece of content Hasard - I was wondering why you made your goal-setting/new year resolution video private ? I thought there was some really good and useful stuff in there that I hadn't heard before.
Quick question: where do you see 6th gen going? What kind of emphasis do you think is going to take the forefront of aircraft design and stratrgy/tactics?
5th gen focus on stealth+networking but with a carrier design for drone hangars, deploying mini-fleets of combat drones with their own weapons or sensors, and the ability to put drones between the plane and an incoming locked missile. Might replace aircraft guns entirely with drone-based lasers for air-to-air combat, and a load of traditional missiles for specific roles.
Great generalisation. So many people don't get the differences. I suspect many won't get the concept of sensor fusion and I understand you talking about it is not possible most likely. Thanks for sharing. The world has changed so much since I worked on Mirage III, F111 and f18a. :)
I quite enjoy your videos. My pappy was a small prop fighter in World War II. His favorite plane was always the P-51. From a time when landing gear used a hand crank, avionics has indeed come a long ways.
I really respect Hazard. He does a great job of breaking stuff down in an educational way. On top of that, you see a lot of fighter pilot youtubers and they're always conceited and its off putting. Hazard isn't like that. He's always professional and not cocky at all, and I really admire that.
This video got me to look up the Dragon's Maw Bridge, and reading the wikipedia article just makes me more fascinated; I would love to watch a video on why it was so difficult to destroy. I realize that the Viet Minh made it a priority to defend, but it's still mind-boggling for how long they successfully defended it from such overwhelming force.
I've come to view the concept of "generations" as a marketing thing. Lockheed's 5th gen definition originally included supercruise, but they dropped it when the F-35 came along since it would be hard to meet. Generations can be redefined on the fly, but one thing is guaranteed: no capability exists in a vacuum. It is always in response to another capability, and will likely itself be countered in the future.
@@rmm3803 The F22 does. It can attain supersonic speeds and maintain them without afterburner. The F35 needs afterburner and then can maintain those speeds without it for about 150 miles. The main point being that the definition of "5th generation" can change. Or any generation for that matter.
What a striking presentation. Succinctly compressed all the information we need, drawing from decades of historical and technological lessons, to allow us to better understand modern considerations in formulation of air combat strategy and tactics. Even gives us a window to start thinking properly about the development and procurement of aircraft. This guy will make terrific general, his people will always know the way forward and be able to contribute meaningfully. They'll know which way the unit is headed.
I came across your channel quite by accident... I have learnt more about avionics in 3 of your videos then I think I have in my entire life... Not to mention other interesting stuff you raise... Great Channel. Thank you.
I wonder what the average “combat” speed of 4th vs 5th gen planes are since a lot of people care about numbers. Considering 5th gen planes use internal bays so the extra weight slows them down obviously, but no real drag difference. Meamwhile 4th gen planes have the same extra weight, but an additional increase in drag from external pylons, weapons, pods, etc. Someone probably has a research paper on that.
High hour F-16 pilots said they cruise at 50-80kts faster in the F-35A, that they don’t have to punch burner to sustain speed at turns at flight levels at 25,000ft and higher, and that they have way longer legs than the Viper. In any internal stores-configured F-35, it’s very easy to go supersonic, whereas in the Viper, many of the stores configurations are subsonic or barely supersonic if you go into burner.
@@LRRPFco52 having longer legs than a viper is nothing to brag about. The 35’s effective combat radius is crap. The idea that it can deploy from “austere” airstrips is laughable.
Hey Hasard, love your content and perspective. Just one item I'd like to bring to you. There's quite a few of us who are eagerly waiting on your perspective/knowledge on real complex aviation/fighter/tech/military topics and even tactics/strategy(whatever you can share). The content you've shared so far is great, but familiar to what your audience likely already knows if they are subscribed. I'm eagerly awaiting your SME perspective.
High school grades squashed it for me ... but hey, I'm a civilian helicopter pilot soon and I honestly believe I will be happier with that, as I get much more freedom!
Can you speak about the usability of the touch screen on the F-35? In my experience using a touch screen on a car, it's incredibly annoying when dealing with vibrations and I much prefer real buttons. The F-35 doesn't seem to have buttons around the edge like almost every other screen in a modern fighter. Does this impact how easy it is to use?
I would think it'd make it way easier since way more information and buttons can be intuitively placed on the screen, I assume that if you have a Tesla the issue is the screen is in the middle of the car rather than where the driver is. The F35 has the screen right in front of the pilot, and when flying there are less vibrations.
Great video. It’s worth noting that the F/A-18C has very little interchangeable items with the new Super Hornet. It’s a vastly bigger airplane with great improvements everywhere. Some people think it’s a revitalized F/A-18C. (I know you don’t think that). Maybe a great video topic comparing the old and new Hornet? Keep making the Sierra Hotel videos!
Airframe/engine, not interchangeable. Avionics, yes. In fact the last Hornets built for Malaysia already had Super Hornet avionics on them. Most export Hornets are constantly upgraded and they are already as capable as Super Hornets, except the radar (APG-79v4 for A-D Hornets only readied recently) and range.
@@mimimimeow Malaysian F/A-18D doesn't have F/A-18E Block 2's AESA radar nor F/A-18E Block 3's reduced RCS and avionics improvements. Malaysian F/A-18D's upgrade includes JHMCS, AIM-9X IR, ATFLIR pods, and support for GBU-31/32/38/54 and JDAM “smart” bombs. Malaysian F/A-18D's upgrades don't match F-16V Block 70/72, F-15EX, and F/A-18E Block 3. RAAF F/A-18AM has longer range AIM-132 IR. Classic Hornet's AN/APG-79(V)4 is a scaled-down F/A-18E's AN/APG-79 AESA radar i.e. Super Hornet has radar diameter size advantage.
Hey Hasard! I've got a burning question: When you guys are on long flights/missions either to get to a particular place or to attack a target, what do you do to pass the time? Are you allowed to bring things with with you in the jet, like an iPod or a Rubiks cube for example, to occupy yourself?
Gabby, you will get a very different answer from the F-16 pilots Dos Gringos. Here's their song _JDAM Blues_ ua-cam.com/video/ng3HPrea90k/v-deo.htmlm20s ~~~~~ I'm gonna tell stories When I grow old How I flew the whole mission On altitude hold How I kept myself busy From goin' insane I completely unstrapped Showed my wingman my brain Yeah, there ain't much to talk about I even had time to rub one out! Droppin' JDAM Droppin' JDAM (Man, this shit sucks!) ~~~~~ When not flying combat, you can guess that the boredom level does not go down. In a multiseat fighter, you get to have excellent conversation. Single seat requires radio transmission. But you can bring anything you want into the cockpit, so long as it fits, and isn't illegal. And even if it's illegal, you'd have to get caught before you got in trouble. It's not like you have to go through customs. No one checks what you're bringing along.
@@diegoferrr6173 maybe you should spell check before you post a pointless bible verse a million times on a fighter pilots UA-cam video. Just a suggestion ✌ Keep it up Hasard! Love the videos, stay safe up there
I sow video from airshow, so F-35 was making aggressive 180 degrees turn, after turn plane was a lot slower then before turn, so i checked time on the video, turn took about 5 seconds to perform. 180 degrees in 5 seconds with lose of speed, it is instantaneous turn rate about 35 degrees per second - not bad at all, pretty agile aircraft.
@@bionicsjw Bullshit. NO ONE who has ever flown the F-16 calls it a lawn dart. That's a moniker that only people who WISH they were flying F-16s call it.
I always wanted to be a pilot when I was a kid. Unfortunately my eyesight was just not good enough. But my love for aircraft has never waned and over the years I worked in aerospace on wide body aircraft, airborne radar, missiles and Data General development telemetry systems for both military aircraft and reentry vehicles from space. But I still love that feeling when the aircraft is banking hard and you look out over the wing and see it flexing 5 to 10 degrees as your heart beats and tries to escape the bounds of its chest cavity.
One 4th generation design that I thought was underrated was the F-16XL which would be a interesting platform to build off of for a next-generation light fighter-bomber.
@@markflierl1624 Same here. And if I need to replace my flip phone, I am looking for another flip phone. They are simply more durable and fit my needs for a phone.
That P80 shooting star was introduced on 1944-45 and got its but kicked by the Mig but was quickly Followed by the F86 Saber with Swept wings and a radar guided gun sight. It was still slower than the Migs in the Korean war but was a big leap forward in Gen1 jets. I would have shown the first first gen 1 and the last Gen 1 to show how fast things changed.
Off topic question. Mach 1 at the surface of the ocean is about 1200 km/h. Chuch Yeager "cheated" at 1047 km/h at high altitude. Is there a standard altitude one refers to when one talk about mach speed. When I do the math sometimes I get confused about it.
Hey Hasard, I've tried to do some research on this, but could not find an answer. Since weapons on the F-35 are stored internally, does it take a substantial amount of time to deploy them? In other words, is there a delay between when a pilot wants to fire the weapon and when the doors are open and the missile/bomb can be deployed?
Something that a lot of people I run into get wrong is how fast fighter jets fly over stadiums. Most of them think that fighter jets flyover at speeds of at least 1,000 mph when they’re really going at 400 mph if that, considerably slower than a commercial jet.
I've seen 2 criticisms of the F-35, which I'm hoping you can address. Firstly, the complexity of the aircraft makes it difficult to maintain, which results in high operating costs, but also fewer sorties per day and fewer planes operational at any one time. The former is a budgeting issue during peace time, while the latter is a potential capability constraint during war. Secondly, the F-35 is limited in how much ordinance it can carry, in order to maintain stealth, which makes it unsuitable for the SEAD/DEAD role, as it's unable to carry enough missiles to take out sufficient targets. This appears to be partly why the USAF has opted for the F-15EX (to fly in conjunction with the F-35, as a "missile carrier") and is now also considering scaling back production of the F-35A in favor of a simpler, cheaper, non-stealthy successor to the F-16.
Complex things require complex maintenance. They're doing just fine. What was your other thing...?...oh yes, no the F-35 was NEVER intended to have a dedicated SEAD/DEAD role. Not ever.
@@GonzoTehGreat Its completely fact based. Your opinion doesn't equal fact I'm afraid. Continue with your pointless insults if you prefer, I could care less about them LoL.
I have to ask, as you are an F-35 pilot, and I was a former aviation systems tech, how fucking cool is the HUD in the F-35 helmet? I can only imagine what it would feel like the first time you looked around and didn't see air frame/ cockpit, but just the environment! Must feel like Superman for a moment. haha.
Thank you for this. My biggest misconception was that the F-16 was just a direct decedent of the F-5, taking the mission profile of the F-5 to the next level with new technology. I didn't know it was a completely new type of beast. You may be able to dispel another one of my misconceptions. During the transition from 3rd to 4th generation, I was under the impression that the fighter that would eventually become the F-16 was intended to be the main fighter of that generation. The thought process was that you're always prepared to fight your last war and the US was preparing to fight future Vietnam Wars and the F-16 was the perfect aircraft to do this (providing low level close air support to support ground forces and a ground attack role). During development though, the Russians unveiled the MIG-25, which showed the war the Russians were preparing to fight, which was a WWIII scenario involving larger, longer range aircraft with the mission profile of intercepting high altitude bombers. At this point the air force changed their strategy to also fight this type of war, focusing on developing the F-15 as the new mainstay and putting the F-16 on the backburner and developing it to fill a support role for the F-15.
YF-16 was designed to be a daytime within visual range lightweight fighter to defeat hordes of MiG-21s, without any pulse doppler radar, but a radar-ranging gunsight like in the F-86. The USAF wasn’t looking for that, but a single engine reliable replacement for the F-4E and A-7D that could do multirole, and be produced by the thousands. USAF proceeded to get their F-16A with radar, Fire Control Computer that was awesome at bombing, started off with AIM-9 capability for A2A (and gun), and focused on integrating as many of the bombs and A2G missiles in inventory at the time. It wasn’t until the F-16C that they really started expanding the BVR capabilities, which were still far behind in priority to the A2G roles. Nuclear attack was also an important role for the F-16. MiG-25 came before all of that, and we already had begun the F-X program in 1965, which became the F-15. MiG-25 basic design features were literally copied from the North America A-5 Vigilante and Canadian Avro Arrow. Fuselage, intake geometry, and wings were taken from the A-5, while the radome and cockpit were taken from the Arrow. Since Russia didn’t have a good working knowledge or experience with advanced alloys for high heat tolerance and coefficient of thermal expansion mitigation of an airframe, they built the MiG-25 skin of stainless steel to deal with the aerodynamic heat loading from friction. The MiG-25 was a high supersonic, high-altitude, short mission duration, point-defense interceptor designed to intercept incoming supersonic US bombers. The USAF had a huge fleet of various different types of fighters, especially with the Century series, most of which proved to be lackluster in performance, extremely unsafe, and almost universally used for different roles than intended, with exceptions being the F-106 and F-111. There were so many different engines, radars, and weapons that really complicated the logistics and ballooned operations and maintenance on such a fleet. The adoption of a Hi-Lo concept where the F-15 would handle the Hi capability A2A fight, while the F-16 would handle the Lo-capability, mass-produced, multirole fight, (with help from Wild Weasel, Electronic Attack, and deep interdiction/strike F-111F) would be the force mix moving forward from the 1970s-onward, while the F-4E and A-7D would be phased out. The USAF was primarily focused on 3 different fronts: European theater vs Soviets with Fulda Gap invasion-type scenario. South Korea/Japan/Philippines PACOM NORAD air defense mission as well as Iceland AD mission The air threat would be dealt with using the F-15A/C in an air-to-air only culture of hunter/killers working with E-3A AWACS and other Electronic Support Measures platforms. The ground threats would be dealt with using F-117A, EF-111A, F-111F, F-15E, F-4G, F-16A/C, and A-10A. This is the basic USAF TACAIR force structure that deployed to Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1990-1991. A lot of lessons were learned from ODS, mainly that again, we had too many different radars, engines, and airframe types in the system to maintain, and that upon analysis, a lot of the basic flight characteristics and payloads of these fighters overlapped considerably. F-111F was retired shortly after. F-4G was replaced by F-16CJ and later F-16CM. Work had already begun on inevitable replacements for the F-15C and F-16 fleet, based on large Soviet force analysis of how many different airborne and ground-based radar systems they were fielding. It was determined that in order to maintain survivability and lethality, more VLO platforms would need to be designed for TACAIR, starting with the ATF, which eventually became the F-22A Raptor. There were at least 3 different USAF programs that merged into the JSF-A, which became the F-35A, which is already replacing older F-16 airframe squadrons around the world as we speak and over the past several years. This allowed them to merge the F-117A VLO capability with more modern threat warning and sensor capabilities that had evolved from 4th Gen fighters, while doing the EF-111A mission as well. So that knocks out at least 3 of the airframes that were part of the Desert Storm era fighter mix, while providing superior performance in each one of those fighter’s relevant missions set focus.
The F-5 and F-16 have zero in common. The direct descendent off the F-5 was the F-20 Tiger Shark that never made it to full-scale production. The YF-17 also built by Northrop had some similarities to the F-5..The YF-17 lost the LWF competition to the F-16... but it was further developed into the F/A-18 for the Navy and Marines. The USAF preferred the F-16 because it shares the same engines as the F-15 and it was more manoverable /agile that anything else back then..
I mean, we *could* show the public better examples of stealth, but somehow I think bringing an X-Band RADAR to a flight show isn't the best idea... However, taking said RADAR and pointing it at an F-22 and at an F-15 to calculate the improvement in RCS between them and then disseminating that improvement to the crowd, should make it abundantly clear to everyone just how big the improvements really are... for a couple of seconds at least (or however long they have left before their own personal MOAB demonstration).
I feel you Bro ... tough to talk publicly about how 5th Gen works when everybody in the "Public" is still tied to "Top Gun" expectations ;) That's ok ... we know what we know ... F-35 is bad ass beyond comprehension ... even if we can't say "Why" ;)
I'm still in the mindset of the gun being a very important weapon. Long story short, I've studied Shaw's "Fighter Tactics and Maneuvering" and it seems like the ability to engage an enemy within minimum range would give an advantage (eg force guns-d) and/or prevent the enemy from exploiting the closer ranges (presumably in a slow and dirty fight). Of course missiles would still be the primary weapon, and of course western training and hardware would almost certainly have the edge either way. But would I be using a dated mindset, or is the gun still worth the weight and space for the near/foreseeable future (dogfights of course, assuming dogfights will still be relatively common, in air to air exclusive fights). Of course "no comment" works too if needed. Ignoring the effect of stealth on BVR and all of the other fun that entails for both sides missile shots because of course that area is classified.
I mean, we're still putting modified M61 Vulcans on our F-35's, so they must still have a decent amount of value, even on 5th gen fighters. I'd be willing to bet it has to do with simply just having the option available should the need arise, as the F-35 and other 5th gens are supposed to be able to do a wide variety of tasks, even more so than 4th gen multirole fighters, while retaining all that stealth capability. Why try to build a stealth A-10 or a stealth F/A-18 Super Hornet, when you can have the F-35 do each of those jobs well *enough* when stealth is needed to deal with modern air defenses, then switch to using our upgraded A-10's and F/A-18's once air superiority has been established, since those planes are more specialized for the roles you'd need at that point, and have the benefit of being much cheaper to fly? Basically, each role a stealth fighter CAN do will keep another aircraft that would normally fulfill that role out of the line of fire until the most critical threats have been eliminated, even if an older, more specialized aircraft would do that specific role better normally?
20 year F-16 pilot here. A gun is still important but maybe not for the reasons you think. To quote the weapons school “it depends”… Against a modern near peer threat any air to air engagement will almost certainly be 80-90% BVR. Best to kill them at long range, especially before they know you’re there, hence the emphasis on stealth. This is especially true if we fight an adversary in their backyard where they will probably have a numerical advantage. Having said that, there is a reason that all 4th gen fighters (excluding the F-117) have a gun. For the multi-roll jets like the F-16, F-18 and F-15E it was both an air to air and air to ground weapon. This was a lesson learned from the F-4C/D and other models that didn’t have a gun in Vietnam. With air to air missiles in the early stages they weren’t that reliable and a gun was a great necessity. Fast forward to the Gulf War and beyond. Ask any grunt that was in Afghanistan or Iraq and they will tell you the gun (strafe) was in important option especially in a “troops in contact” situation. Having flown the Viper in both OEF in 2001 and OIF in 2005, 2007 and 2009, i can tell you that there was virtually zero air to air threat. But when troops needed support in danger close situations, they wanted strafe runs on many occasions. I never did anything air to air in my 20 years but employed the gun in Iraq against enemy troops. Oh, and both the F-22 and two models of the F-35 have a gun. Hope this answers at least part of your question.
@@gatorspad3632 Apologies if this is real but I have serious doubts of the veracity of this comment. The comment on the F-117 is a little odd, obviously it's not a fighter. Its an attack aircraft with zero air to air capability. It would be like pointing out the F-111, F in the name but that's all. But it was to disregard the aircraft so maybe I'm just a little overly sensitive on that. However the gun was rarely used to strafe in the modern conflicts, so much so that a significant proportion of aircraft went up without ammo, many nations replaced the guns entirely with ballast. Specifically the latter for air to ground aircraft like the Tornado, two 27mm guns has a dramatically better effect on target but it was still deemed useless. The risk of MANPADS is extreme whilst the reward is very minimal compared to using bombs. Indeed fairly quickly it was entirely ruled out of the RoE to use guns against ground targets. Its now a very dated idea to require guns for ground attack, arguably a 30mm is still reasonable but even the A-10 has had a fair amount of criticism (obviously that wasn't ruled out of guns attacks). The modern mentality is, in my opinion, overly zealous to AVOID gun against ground targets. Not to use them as an important tool. F-16 pilots have even opted to use supersonic dives to pretend to be dropping bombs from the noise over using guns against ground targets. So as allegedly a veteran of the wars where that mindset shift actually happened, and where blanket RoE was against using guns on ground targets, its a very unusual statement to make. My question was solely on the air to air, because that's the only question which remains. Last I heard there's a debate among pilots if retaining the gun has benefits for the ability to threaten a guns attack and avoid the enemy coming close in a dogfight to exploit a weakness, or if its a waste of weight and space for fuel if missiles are all you need. With the emphasis on close up fights in training despite most fights obviously resolved BVR its an interesting dichotomy for me. Especially with the supermaneuverability pulling dogfights in far closer whilst missiles and NCTR/camera pods push them further out. But at the same time 5th gen fighters could swing that doctrine significantly so I was in part expecting no answer.
@@olivialambert4124. You are certainly free to think what you want but I have over 2900 hours in the F-16. And yes, I flew it in both Afghanistan and Iraq. You are sadly incorrect about “blanket” ROE preventing the use of strafe. I have first hand knowledge of that since I did it. But hey, what do I know, I just flew fighters for 25 years and worked at Lockheed Martin designing F-16 cockpits and working at the Skunk Works. 🤷
Sorta went off topic there for the majority of the video with the lesson on fighter jet generations. Great video, just need to adjust the accuracy of the title a hair to the right.
I suppose once we work out the kinks, ultrastealthy drones will scout ahead of the f35 and provide targeting data. F35 will select targets and have cheaper weapons trucks like an f15 or f18 shoot the long range weapons from a safe distance. Question is who gets the credit for the kill? The drone operator? The f35 or the f18?
If we’re using stealth drones deep in contested airspace then why bother using the 35? It’s a useless piece of junk that is a National Security threat to the overall effectiveness of our Air Force by wasting so much money.
@@411bvRGiskard I don't think we'll see massive quantities of the f35. It's going to be like the lcs. Good technology development but crap product. To make the marines and navy version, they crippled the air force version. They will most likely build a new clean sheet navy and air force version of a new fighter. The marines can have their v22 and f35
Sir. According to the KEYBOARD WARRIOR INTERNET UA-cam EXPERTS in the other channels when there is one F16, F22 or One American made Jet fighter F35 or so fighting that fighter is going to fight 3 or 10 MIG fighters in combat.
It use to be that you can look at the airframe, guns, and missiels to get an idea of the aircraft. However, a blackbox with wires coming out of it doesn't tell you much, but it is often one of the most critical component.
Love what you do thanks. Quick question could you possibly do a video on how a non fighter pilot could experience pulling a decent amount of G’s just to feel what it’s like. Thanks again
Greetings . - What "differences" are there between subsonic and supersonic maneuverability, how useful is it in combat? - Is it preferable to have a vector push or a HUD visor in the helmet? Thanks for your time .
Computer/networking nerd... I can see the benefits of several aircraft sharing sensor information, being able to designate a target, and share with nearby aircraft - but isn't frequency jamming a hazard once you become used to leaning on these benefits, or do they frequently hop over such a wide spectrum this is nearly impossible to achieve? Also curious about how much data is sent/received - for example, can you check on your wingman's engine status readouts, etc? Obviously if classified - don't answer, but would love to hear more about this in as much detail as you're allowed to go into.
answering my own question... did some googling, MADL is k-band (12-18Ghz+), line of sight - and literally points itself at the other aircraft... good luck jamming that. Such a tight / directed signal too... which I guess is pretty hard to detect. I can't imagine the range being great, though.
Imagine if you went to an air show and the pilot came up and was like "check out this router! communicate with 20 other planes, gigabit speeds! Meshnet in the air! I can video chat with my wingman so I can see his face struggle with the Gs!"
I would laugh so hard dude
Cod lobby between f35s
lmao that latter part
I love how you make the point that technological ideas which appear too soon may fail, but that very failure lays the ground work for success decades later. We often assume that only success breed success. But failure (or learning from our mistakes) can move us forward just as well. I can remember an old adage that said, "If you never fail, you're not trying hard enough." In other words you're playing it too safe.
This is the essence of mastering anything
There is another saying that applies to this directly: “The price of success is failure.”
A failure shows that a solution did not work…go work out something else!
My grandfather was the lead engineer on the payway guided bombs that took out the bridge at 2:39!
I bet he spelled it Paveway.
@@bertg.6056 lol, you are correct, brainfart
@@jakecarsten3973 Bad at spelling, good at name calling. Congrats.
@@bertg.6056 there was no intent to offend, brainfart means that you’ve forgotten something that is fairly common knowledge, I was the subject of the remark.
@@jakecarsten3973 Oops, sorry Jake. My mistake.
I am an old Air Force man who knew thenF4 inside out and I have been totally focused on then current aircraft and the different needs required. This is fantastic, thank you!!!
I like the NFL analogy. If you dive deep into each duty position on the team, and also look at the head coach on the sideline, then relate this to the fighter generations, it makes more sense for the layman. In the 3rd fighter generation, technology limited us to single role, purpose-built fighters, interceptors, nuclear strike fighters, light attack, medium attack, deep interdiction, fleet air defense, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare aircraft where the crew focused on that one mission set. Several of those aircraft were found to be useful in totally unrelated roles, like the F-100 fighter being used for CAS and light attack in Vietnam, or the A-5 Vigilante carrier nuclear strike fighter being used for high speed tactical reconnaissance.
As processing power got better in the 1970s, we realized that the possibility of multirole fighters could be realized even in single-seat jets, and the F-16 and F/A-18 embodied this. It would be akin to having a player who could be a tight end or a fullback/running back and do both roles really well. AWACS emerged in Vietnam, which is like the coach on the sidelines with a microphone and the players have ear pieces to hear his perspective of the big picture and how to best position them. That was 4th Gen.
With 5th Gen, the platforms can smoke a 4th Gen quarterback, defensive end, tackle, tight end, wide receiver, fullback/running back and have a better picture of the field than the coach on the sideline can. When you have a team that has 2 5th Gen wide receivers, a 5th Gen QB, 5th Gen Fullback/running back, with some leftover 4.5 Gen tackles who have better ear pieces connected to the 5th Gen players, the team is unstoppable.
A 4th Gen player talks about what his sprint times are on the track, what he can lift, while not wearing equipment he has to wear on the field.
5th Gen trains in its equipment all the time, even for sprints, the gym, and field exercises, so it’s always configured for game day.
On top of that, the 5th Gen players have optical camouflage like Predator, making it next to impossible to see them.
Meanwhile, our adversaries are scrambling to develop their own 5th Gen players, but they are decades behind us in training and building them.
This is a pretty neat way of describing it. I may end up bottowing this for future use lol
I truly love how informative your videos are. I've know many fighter pilots personally over the years ranging for a high school classmate, (my best friend in high school), who flew the F-4G Wild Weasel to another who flew the Hog out of flight training and became an F-16 IP to living next to Langley AFB and knowing several Raptor pilots. I was a very early subscriber for your channel and I thank you.
I'd really like to hear from your perspective about the maneuverability of the F-35 vs say the F-16, the F-22 or what is or has been said about it. I believe the plane is way more capable than the press wants us to believe and I know it's not as maneuverable as the Raptor due it is different mission parameters but I'd really just like to hear about it from a pilots perspective.
Regardless of how tactically superior modern fighters are....as an aviator you can't deny the romanticism attached to the high speed and highly manoeuvrable dog fighting machines of the last century.
On the other hand, the F22 is still very good at both of these.
@@presidentbanana4536 When it is not down for maintenance.
@@kevin_1230 That's true of ANY aircraft (or vehicle, for that matter).
@@KRGruner Some like the f-22 and to a lesser degree the f-35 Have a very low readiness rate.
@@kevin_1230 Not borne out by actual data. Rates have indeed been somewhat lower at times, but so have the rates for a LOT of other aircraft in the Air Force and Navy (F-18 especially). F-22 is really nothing very special here. In fact, in actual combat deployments (when an effort is made to have the parts and manpower on hand), the F-22 and F-35 have done very, very well. In 2019, the rate for the F-22 (overall) was 68% vs 75% for the F-16, so yes, lower, but not massively so. F-35 was 74%. And yes, these vary month to month, so you can always pick a bad month and make headlines. Rates are not the real issue. The issue is getting the cost per flying hour down.
Thank you for very eloquently summarising the evolution of fighter design and aerial combat philosophy. I’m sure many would agree that this video is one of the best examples of anyone connecting the dots. Much respect.
We basically went from flying bricks to flying darts
What about the f104
Holy shit bro I thought you were one of my friends for a second because of the duck pfp
Unstable darts. lol
@@ycplum7062 ?
@@mr.spaceboy9785
4th gen fighter are designed to be marginally unstable. If the computers fail, the plane will crash since a human can not make the adjustments fast enough to fly the plane. Ergo, an unstable dart. Or, a computer stabilized dart. lol
I’ve been able to put on the F-35 helmet and use it in a demo and that alone is a massssssiiivvvveee jump forward
Another great piece of content Hasard - I was wondering why you made your goal-setting/new year resolution video private ? I thought there was some really good and useful stuff in there that I hadn't heard before.
I love seeing a UA-cam notification that Hasard has uploaded a new video !!!
Quick question: where do you see 6th gen going? What kind of emphasis do you think is going to take the forefront of aircraft design and stratrgy/tactics?
Autonomous pilot-less crafts.
@@Trust_but_Verify yeah, immediately after asking the question I saw the Boeing "Loyal Wingman" UAV
@@largeasbrontasauras5019 Key word: wingman
@@9999AWC haha wingdroid
5th gen focus on stealth+networking but with a carrier design for drone hangars, deploying mini-fleets of combat drones with their own weapons or sensors, and the ability to put drones between the plane and an incoming locked missile. Might replace aircraft guns entirely with drone-based lasers for air-to-air combat, and a load of traditional missiles for specific roles.
Great generalisation. So many people don't get the differences. I suspect many won't get the concept of sensor fusion and I understand you talking about it is not possible most likely. Thanks for sharing. The world has changed so much since I worked on Mirage III, F111 and f18a. :)
I quite enjoy your videos. My pappy was a small prop fighter in World War II. His favorite plane was always the P-51. From a time when landing gear used a hand crank, avionics has indeed come a long ways.
What a great channel. Rapidly becoming one of my favorites.
I really respect Hazard. He does a great job of breaking stuff down in an educational way. On top of that, you see a lot of fighter pilot youtubers and they're always conceited and its off putting. Hazard isn't like that. He's always professional and not cocky at all, and I really admire that.
Is he half asian?
This video got me to look up the Dragon's Maw Bridge, and reading the wikipedia article just makes me more fascinated; I would love to watch a video on why it was so difficult to destroy. I realize that the Viet Minh made it a priority to defend, but it's still mind-boggling for how long they successfully defended it from such overwhelming force.
I've come to view the concept of "generations" as a marketing thing. Lockheed's 5th gen definition originally included supercruise, but they dropped it when the F-35 came along since it would be hard to meet.
Generations can be redefined on the fly, but one thing is guaranteed: no capability exists in a vacuum. It is always in response to another capability, and will likely itself be countered in the future.
The F-35 has super cruise capability though
@@KevinMardirossian It can cruise at supersonic speeds for a short duration, but needs afterburners to do so.
Oh my god.
I dont understand. Doesn't the F22, a 5th gen fighter have super cruise?
@@rmm3803 The F22 does. It can attain supersonic speeds and maintain them without afterburner. The F35 needs afterburner and then can maintain those speeds without it for about 150 miles.
The main point being that the definition of "5th generation" can change. Or any generation for that matter.
Really enjoy these videos. Always well done and informative.
What a striking presentation. Succinctly compressed all the information we need, drawing from decades of historical and technological lessons, to allow us to better understand modern considerations in formulation of air combat strategy and tactics. Even gives us a window to start thinking properly about the development and procurement of aircraft. This guy will make terrific general, his people will always know the way forward and be able to contribute meaningfully. They'll know which way the unit is headed.
I came across your channel quite by accident... I have learnt more about avionics in 3 of your videos then I think I have in my entire life... Not to mention other interesting stuff you raise... Great Channel. Thank you.
Another awesome video Hasard, I love learning about this & you explain it so us regular people can understand.
As always a great and to the point video that is fun to watch! Stay safe everyone!
I wonder what the average “combat” speed of 4th vs 5th gen planes are since a lot of people care about numbers. Considering 5th gen planes use internal bays so the extra weight slows them down obviously, but no real drag difference. Meamwhile 4th gen planes have the same extra weight, but an additional increase in drag from external pylons, weapons, pods, etc. Someone probably has a research paper on that.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only son so that whoever believes in him should not parish but have eternal life.
@@diegoferrr6173 ok?
High hour F-16 pilots said they cruise at 50-80kts faster in the F-35A, that they don’t have to punch burner to sustain speed at turns at flight levels at 25,000ft and higher, and that they have way longer legs than the Viper. In any internal stores-configured F-35, it’s very easy to go supersonic, whereas in the Viper, many of the stores configurations are subsonic or barely supersonic if you go into burner.
@@LRRPFco52 having longer legs than a viper is nothing to brag about. The 35’s effective combat radius is crap. The idea that it can deploy from “austere” airstrips is laughable.
@@LRRPFco52 18k lbs internal fuel is a dream, especially with a plane that size
Hey Hasard, love your content and perspective. Just one item I'd like to bring to you. There's quite a few of us who are eagerly waiting on your perspective/knowledge on real complex aviation/fighter/tech/military topics and even tactics/strategy(whatever you can share). The content you've shared so far is great, but familiar to what your audience likely already knows if they are subscribed. I'm eagerly awaiting your SME perspective.
Love your videos! Greetings from France 🇨🇵
This was a dream of mine. Unfortunately asthma squashed this real quick.
Im sorry for you
@@sgfdgdfg3434 ok. I don’t care lol
Colorblindness squashed it for me
Same thing happened to me I have CF and I was in 10th grade when I was like oh dang I can't join the AF
High school grades squashed it for me ... but hey, I'm a civilian helicopter pilot soon and I honestly believe I will be happier with that, as I get much more freedom!
Can you speak about the usability of the touch screen on the F-35? In my experience using a touch screen on a car, it's incredibly annoying when dealing with vibrations and I much prefer real buttons. The F-35 doesn't seem to have buttons around the edge like almost every other screen in a modern fighter. Does this impact how easy it is to use?
I would think it'd make it way easier since way more information and buttons can be intuitively placed on the screen, I assume that if you have a Tesla the issue is the screen is in the middle of the car rather than where the driver is. The F35 has the screen right in front of the pilot, and when flying there are less vibrations.
Great topic, great video. Thanks!
I love your videos, they are very informative!
This video was good enough that I subscribed. This is really excellent.
Great video. It’s worth noting that the F/A-18C has very little interchangeable items with the new Super Hornet. It’s a vastly bigger airplane with great improvements everywhere. Some people think it’s a revitalized F/A-18C. (I know you don’t think that). Maybe a great video topic comparing the old and new Hornet? Keep making the Sierra Hotel videos!
Airframe/engine, not interchangeable. Avionics, yes. In fact the last Hornets built for Malaysia already had Super Hornet avionics on them. Most export Hornets are constantly upgraded and they are already as capable as Super Hornets, except the radar (APG-79v4 for A-D Hornets only readied recently) and range.
@@mimimimeow Malaysian F/A-18D doesn't have F/A-18E Block 2's AESA radar nor F/A-18E Block 3's reduced RCS and avionics improvements.
Malaysian F/A-18D's upgrade includes JHMCS, AIM-9X IR, ATFLIR pods, and support for GBU-31/32/38/54 and JDAM “smart” bombs.
Malaysian F/A-18D's upgrades don't match F-16V Block 70/72, F-15EX, and F/A-18E Block 3.
RAAF F/A-18AM has longer range AIM-132 IR.
Classic Hornet's AN/APG-79(V)4 is a scaled-down F/A-18E's AN/APG-79 AESA radar i.e. Super Hornet has radar diameter size advantage.
Props for bringing up John “40 second” Boyd. That is a great book for aviation enthusiasts....especially for Viper fans.
Yes, the John Boyd biography by Robert Coram is a MUST READ for any aviation enthusiast.
Great content and thank you for your service! My brother in law is a Major at Langley.
“If your primary weapons system is the gun, you’re going to get dominated”
*sad A-10 noises. Noises that vaguely resemble a brrrt.*
You got to talk about that helmet, please please please lol. That helmet looks crazy cool! Stay safe everyone!
Hey Hasard! I've got a burning question: When you guys are on long flights/missions either to get to a particular place or to attack a target, what do you do to pass the time? Are you allowed to bring things with with you in the jet, like an iPod or a Rubiks cube for example, to occupy yourself?
we're always busy unless we're just going cross country. 99% of the time there is always something you could be doing
Gabby, you will get a very different answer from the F-16 pilots Dos Gringos. Here's their song
_JDAM Blues_
ua-cam.com/video/ng3HPrea90k/v-deo.htmlm20s
~~~~~
I'm gonna tell stories
When I grow old
How I flew the whole mission
On altitude hold
How I kept myself busy
From goin' insane
I completely unstrapped
Showed my wingman my brain
Yeah, there ain't much to talk about
I even had time to rub one out!
Droppin' JDAM
Droppin' JDAM (Man, this shit sucks!)
~~~~~
When not flying combat, you can guess that the boredom level does not go down. In a multiseat fighter, you get to have excellent conversation. Single seat requires radio transmission.
But you can bring anything you want into the cockpit, so long as it fits, and isn't illegal. And even if it's illegal, you'd have to get caught before you got in trouble. It's not like you have to go through customs. No one checks what you're bringing along.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only son so that whoever believes in him should not parish but have eternal life.
@@dahawk8574 John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only son so that whoever believes in him should not parish but have eternal life.
@@diegoferrr6173 maybe you should spell check before you post a pointless bible verse a million times on a fighter pilots UA-cam video. Just a suggestion ✌
Keep it up Hasard! Love the videos, stay safe up there
A video on the F 15EX would be interesting ...
He won't do it.. "Fighting Falcon" drivers can't handle the truth lol
Well I'm not sure he has any special knowledge about it
I could do a video of someone taking your money, and then throwing it into a trash can. That should equate well to the EX.
I sow video from airshow, so F-35 was making aggressive 180 degrees turn, after turn plane was a lot slower then before turn, so i checked time on the video, turn took about 5 seconds to perform. 180 degrees in 5 seconds with lose of speed, it is instantaneous turn rate about 35 degrees per second - not bad at all, pretty agile aircraft.
I love how 5th gens look like lawn darts
One of my high school classmates was an instructor pilot on the F-16 and he called it the Lawn Dart.
@@bionicsjw It indeed was called the lawn dart by many due to some of the early issues with engine reliability in a single-engine jet
Nobody f104 am I a joke to you
@@bionicsjw Bullshit. NO ONE who has ever flown the F-16 calls it a lawn dart. That's a moniker that only people who WISH they were flying F-16s call it.
Fishbed and Starfighter looks like lawn darts, not sure the 5th gen even comes close
Great job, Hasard! I learned an awful lot re this very interesting subject
Very interesting stuff I’m glad I found your channel sir Thankyou for your service and Thankyou for sharing
Yes more of these please!
Love your work and this channel, thanks for the service
"If your primary weapons system is a gun in 2021 you're gonna get dominated!" A10 Warthog: "Am I a joke to you?"
Hasard... haha! Laser disk growing up? I started with 8 track, I remember thinking cassette tapes, and VCR's were amazing!
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only son so that whoever believes in him should not parish but have eternal life.
Very nice summary! Thank you.
I always wanted to be a pilot when I was a kid. Unfortunately my eyesight was just not good enough. But my love for aircraft has never waned and over the years I worked in aerospace on wide body aircraft, airborne radar, missiles and Data General development telemetry systems for both military aircraft and reentry vehicles from space. But I still love that feeling when the aircraft is banking hard and you look out over the wing and see it flexing 5 to 10 degrees as your heart beats and tries to escape the bounds of its chest cavity.
Wow, I had no idea about the AT&T Video Phone. That’s amazing. Great video, really interesting to get a big picture of fighter design progression
If I'm not mistaken, they showcased the tech in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
@@Carhill, 2001 also showcased moonbase technology. Neither existed at the time.
Hello. It was fiction. Hence the 'Fi' in SciFi.
Great summary ! Really appreciate your concise insights.
Can I ask you Hasard, what airplane from previous generations would you most have liked to have flown?
One 4th generation design that I thought was underrated was the F-16XL which would be a interesting platform to build off of for a next-generation light fighter-bomber.
Look at the proposed F36 Kingsnake (Viper>>Kingsnake; get it?). It’s basically a twin tail F16XL.
4:30
"If you're trying to make a flip phone today [...]"
Samsung: *laughs crazily while asking to hold it's beer*
I use a flip phone.
@@markflierl1624 Same here. And if I need to replace my flip phone, I am looking for another flip phone. They are simply more durable and fit my needs for a phone.
@@markflierl1624
The joke is that manufacturers are making flip open smart phones with folding screens.
Great video. Thank you
SIR you're doing a fantastic job of explaining this subject. Thank you!!
Great idea to educate us....many thanks.
This man is very intelligent and also a great speaker.
That P80 shooting star was introduced on 1944-45 and got its but kicked by the Mig but was quickly Followed by the F86 Saber with Swept wings and a radar guided gun sight. It was still slower than the Migs in the Korean war but was a big leap forward in Gen1 jets. I would have shown the first first gen 1 and the last Gen 1 to show how fast things changed.
Thank you for saying that the M-262 wing was slightly swept for W&B (just like the DC-3). So many are misinformed about that.
Great video, you explained it very well.
Off topic question. Mach 1 at the surface of the ocean is about 1200 km/h. Chuch Yeager "cheated" at 1047 km/h at high altitude. Is there a standard altitude one refers to when one talk about mach speed. When I do the math sometimes I get confused about it.
Very informative, thanks for the vid!
Good review of technology development influencing the chances, demands and capabilities of fighter-aircraft. Well made for the layman.
Thanks for the video!
Hasard, thank you!
Hey Hasard, I've tried to do some research on this, but could not find an answer. Since weapons on the F-35 are stored internally, does it take a substantial amount of time to deploy them? In other words, is there a delay between when a pilot wants to fire the weapon and when the doors are open and the missile/bomb can be deployed?
There are videos showing missile launches taking about 6 seconds, but it can probably go faster.
In combat it happens very fast. Many video's online are of test drops/launches.
Awesome video. God Bless
Sir, you inspire confidence.
Something that a lot of people I run into get wrong is how fast fighter jets fly over stadiums. Most of them think that fighter jets flyover at speeds of at least 1,000 mph when they’re really going at 400 mph if that, considerably slower than a commercial jet.
I've seen 2 criticisms of the F-35, which I'm hoping you can address.
Firstly, the complexity of the aircraft makes it difficult to maintain, which results in high operating costs, but also fewer sorties per day and fewer planes operational at any one time. The former is a budgeting issue during peace time, while the latter is a potential capability constraint during war.
Secondly, the F-35 is limited in how much ordinance it can carry, in order to maintain stealth, which makes it unsuitable for the SEAD/DEAD role, as it's unable to carry enough missiles to take out sufficient targets.
This appears to be partly why the USAF has opted for the F-15EX (to fly in conjunction with the F-35, as a "missile carrier") and is now also considering scaling back production of the F-35A in favor of a simpler, cheaper, non-stealthy successor to the F-16.
Complex things require complex maintenance. They're doing just fine. What was your other thing...?...oh yes, no the F-35 was NEVER intended to have a dedicated SEAD/DEAD role. Not ever.
@@danielh1708 It's clear that you don't know what you're taking about...
@@GonzoTehGreat I'm 100% correct, lol...but whatever dude.
@@danielh1708 Someone who's clueless would think that...
@@GonzoTehGreat Its completely fact based. Your opinion doesn't equal fact I'm afraid. Continue with your pointless insults if you prefer, I could care less about them LoL.
Thanks learned a lot
I have to ask, as you are an F-35 pilot, and I was a former aviation systems tech, how fucking cool is the HUD in the F-35 helmet? I can only imagine what it would feel like the first time you looked around and didn't see air frame/ cockpit, but just the environment! Must feel like Superman for a moment. haha.
Hey hasard, are there any Air Force sleep techniques you could share with us?
@Hasard lee where can I find that F-35 model behind u. I really want one
Thank you for this. My biggest misconception was that the F-16 was just a direct decedent of the F-5, taking the mission profile of the F-5 to the next level with new technology. I didn't know it was a completely new type of beast.
You may be able to dispel another one of my misconceptions. During the transition from 3rd to 4th generation, I was under the impression that the fighter that would eventually become the F-16 was intended to be the main fighter of that generation. The thought process was that you're always prepared to fight your last war and the US was preparing to fight future Vietnam Wars and the F-16 was the perfect aircraft to do this (providing low level close air support to support ground forces and a ground attack role). During development though, the Russians unveiled the MIG-25, which showed the war the Russians were preparing to fight, which was a WWIII scenario involving larger, longer range aircraft with the mission profile of intercepting high altitude bombers. At this point the air force changed their strategy to also fight this type of war, focusing on developing the F-15 as the new mainstay and putting the F-16 on the backburner and developing it to fill a support role for the F-15.
YF-16 was designed to be a daytime within visual range lightweight fighter to defeat hordes of MiG-21s, without any pulse doppler radar, but a radar-ranging gunsight like in the F-86. The USAF wasn’t looking for that, but a single engine reliable replacement for the F-4E and A-7D that could do multirole, and be produced by the thousands. USAF proceeded to get their F-16A with radar, Fire Control Computer that was awesome at bombing, started off with AIM-9 capability for A2A (and gun), and focused on integrating as many of the bombs and A2G missiles in inventory at the time. It wasn’t until the F-16C that they really started expanding the BVR capabilities, which were still far behind in priority to the A2G roles. Nuclear attack was also an important role for the F-16.
MiG-25 came before all of that, and we already had begun the F-X program in 1965, which became the F-15. MiG-25 basic design features were literally copied from the North America A-5 Vigilante and Canadian Avro Arrow. Fuselage, intake geometry, and wings were taken from the A-5, while the radome and cockpit were taken from the Arrow. Since Russia didn’t have a good working knowledge or experience with advanced alloys for high heat tolerance and coefficient of thermal expansion mitigation of an airframe, they built the MiG-25 skin of stainless steel to deal with the aerodynamic heat loading from friction.
The MiG-25 was a high supersonic, high-altitude, short mission duration, point-defense interceptor designed to intercept incoming supersonic US bombers.
The USAF had a huge fleet of various different types of fighters, especially with the Century series, most of which proved to be lackluster in performance, extremely unsafe, and almost universally used for different roles than intended, with exceptions being the F-106 and F-111. There were so many different engines, radars, and weapons that really complicated the logistics and ballooned operations and maintenance on such a fleet.
The adoption of a Hi-Lo concept where the F-15 would handle the Hi capability A2A fight, while the F-16 would handle the Lo-capability, mass-produced, multirole fight, (with help from Wild Weasel, Electronic Attack, and deep interdiction/strike F-111F) would be the force mix moving forward from the 1970s-onward, while the F-4E and A-7D would be phased out.
The USAF was primarily focused on 3 different fronts:
European theater vs Soviets with Fulda Gap invasion-type scenario.
South Korea/Japan/Philippines PACOM
NORAD air defense mission as well as Iceland AD mission
The air threat would be dealt with using the F-15A/C in an air-to-air only culture of hunter/killers working with E-3A AWACS and other Electronic Support Measures platforms.
The ground threats would be dealt with using F-117A, EF-111A, F-111F, F-15E, F-4G, F-16A/C, and A-10A.
This is the basic USAF TACAIR force structure that deployed to Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1990-1991.
A lot of lessons were learned from ODS, mainly that again, we had too many different radars, engines, and airframe types in the system to maintain, and that upon analysis, a lot of the basic flight characteristics and payloads of these fighters overlapped considerably. F-111F was retired shortly after. F-4G was replaced by F-16CJ and later F-16CM.
Work had already begun on inevitable replacements for the F-15C and F-16 fleet, based on large Soviet force analysis of how many different airborne and ground-based radar systems they were fielding. It was determined that in order to maintain survivability and lethality, more VLO platforms would need to be designed for TACAIR, starting with the ATF, which eventually became the F-22A Raptor.
There were at least 3 different USAF programs that merged into the JSF-A, which became the F-35A, which is already replacing older F-16 airframe squadrons around the world as we speak and over the past several years. This allowed them to merge the F-117A VLO capability with more modern threat warning and sensor capabilities that had evolved from 4th Gen fighters, while doing the EF-111A mission as well. So that knocks out at least 3 of the airframes that were part of the Desert Storm era fighter mix, while providing superior performance in each one of those fighter’s relevant missions set focus.
The F-5 and F-16 have zero in common. The direct descendent off the F-5 was the F-20 Tiger Shark that never made it to full-scale production. The YF-17 also built by Northrop had some similarities to the F-5..The YF-17 lost the LWF competition to the F-16... but it was further developed into the F/A-18 for the Navy and Marines. The USAF preferred the F-16 because it shares the same engines as the F-15 and it was more manoverable /agile that anything else back then..
Thanks for the info, good stuff. Who is the maker of the F-35 model behind you?
I mean, we *could* show the public better examples of stealth, but somehow I think bringing an X-Band RADAR to a flight show isn't the best idea...
However, taking said RADAR and pointing it at an F-22 and at an F-15 to calculate the improvement in RCS between them and then disseminating that improvement to the crowd, should make it abundantly clear to everyone just how big the improvements really are... for a couple of seconds at least
(or however long they have left before their own personal MOAB demonstration).
I feel you Bro ... tough to talk publicly about how 5th Gen works when everybody in the "Public" is still tied to "Top Gun" expectations ;) That's ok ... we know what we know ... F-35 is bad ass beyond comprehension ... even if we can't say "Why" ;)
Can we convert F-35 helmets into VR platforms? 😂
I'm still in the mindset of the gun being a very important weapon. Long story short, I've studied Shaw's "Fighter Tactics and Maneuvering" and it seems like the ability to engage an enemy within minimum range would give an advantage (eg force guns-d) and/or prevent the enemy from exploiting the closer ranges (presumably in a slow and dirty fight). Of course missiles would still be the primary weapon, and of course western training and hardware would almost certainly have the edge either way. But would I be using a dated mindset, or is the gun still worth the weight and space for the near/foreseeable future (dogfights of course, assuming dogfights will still be relatively common, in air to air exclusive fights).
Of course "no comment" works too if needed. Ignoring the effect of stealth on BVR and all of the other fun that entails for both sides missile shots because of course that area is classified.
I mean, we're still putting modified M61 Vulcans on our F-35's, so they must still have a decent amount of value, even on 5th gen fighters.
I'd be willing to bet it has to do with simply just having the option available should the need arise, as the F-35 and other 5th gens are supposed to be able to do a wide variety of tasks, even more so than 4th gen multirole fighters, while retaining all that stealth capability. Why try to build a stealth A-10 or a stealth F/A-18 Super Hornet, when you can have the F-35 do each of those jobs well *enough* when stealth is needed to deal with modern air defenses, then switch to using our upgraded A-10's and F/A-18's once air superiority has been established, since those planes are more specialized for the roles you'd need at that point, and have the benefit of being much cheaper to fly?
Basically, each role a stealth fighter CAN do will keep another aircraft that would normally fulfill that role out of the line of fire until the most critical threats have been eliminated, even if an older, more specialized aircraft would do that specific role better normally?
20 year F-16 pilot here. A gun is still important but maybe not for the reasons you think. To quote the weapons school “it depends”… Against a modern near peer threat any air to air engagement will almost certainly be 80-90% BVR. Best to kill them at long range, especially before they know you’re there, hence the emphasis on stealth. This is especially true if we fight an adversary in their backyard where they will probably have a numerical advantage. Having said that, there is a reason that all 4th gen fighters (excluding the F-117) have a gun. For the multi-roll jets like the F-16, F-18 and F-15E it was both an air to air and air to ground weapon. This was a lesson learned from the F-4C/D and other models that didn’t have a gun in Vietnam. With air to air missiles in the early stages they weren’t that reliable and a gun was a great necessity. Fast forward to the Gulf War and beyond. Ask any grunt that was in Afghanistan or Iraq and they will tell you the gun (strafe) was in important option especially in a “troops in contact” situation. Having flown the Viper in both OEF in 2001 and OIF in 2005, 2007 and 2009, i can tell you that there was virtually zero air to air threat. But when troops needed support in danger close situations, they wanted strafe runs on many occasions. I never did anything air to air in my 20 years but employed the gun in Iraq against enemy troops. Oh, and both the F-22 and two models of the F-35 have a gun. Hope this answers at least part of your question.
@@gatorspad3632 Apologies if this is real but I have serious doubts of the veracity of this comment. The comment on the F-117 is a little odd, obviously it's not a fighter. Its an attack aircraft with zero air to air capability. It would be like pointing out the F-111, F in the name but that's all. But it was to disregard the aircraft so maybe I'm just a little overly sensitive on that.
However the gun was rarely used to strafe in the modern conflicts, so much so that a significant proportion of aircraft went up without ammo, many nations replaced the guns entirely with ballast. Specifically the latter for air to ground aircraft like the Tornado, two 27mm guns has a dramatically better effect on target but it was still deemed useless. The risk of MANPADS is extreme whilst the reward is very minimal compared to using bombs. Indeed fairly quickly it was entirely ruled out of the RoE to use guns against ground targets. Its now a very dated idea to require guns for ground attack, arguably a 30mm is still reasonable but even the A-10 has had a fair amount of criticism (obviously that wasn't ruled out of guns attacks).
The modern mentality is, in my opinion, overly zealous to AVOID gun against ground targets. Not to use them as an important tool. F-16 pilots have even opted to use supersonic dives to pretend to be dropping bombs from the noise over using guns against ground targets. So as allegedly a veteran of the wars where that mindset shift actually happened, and where blanket RoE was against using guns on ground targets, its a very unusual statement to make.
My question was solely on the air to air, because that's the only question which remains. Last I heard there's a debate among pilots if retaining the gun has benefits for the ability to threaten a guns attack and avoid the enemy coming close in a dogfight to exploit a weakness, or if its a waste of weight and space for fuel if missiles are all you need. With the emphasis on close up fights in training despite most fights obviously resolved BVR its an interesting dichotomy for me. Especially with the supermaneuverability pulling dogfights in far closer whilst missiles and NCTR/camera pods push them further out. But at the same time 5th gen fighters could swing that doctrine significantly so I was in part expecting no answer.
@@olivialambert4124. You are certainly free to think what you want but I have over 2900 hours in the F-16. And yes, I flew it in both Afghanistan and Iraq. You are sadly incorrect about “blanket” ROE preventing the use of strafe. I have first hand knowledge of that since I did it. But hey, what do I know, I just flew fighters for 25 years and worked at Lockheed Martin designing F-16 cockpits and working at the Skunk Works. 🤷
Sorta went off topic there for the majority of the video with the lesson on fighter jet generations. Great video, just need to adjust the accuracy of the title a hair to the right.
I suppose once we work out the kinks, ultrastealthy drones will scout ahead of the f35 and provide targeting data. F35 will select targets and have cheaper weapons trucks like an f15 or f18 shoot the long range weapons from a safe distance.
Question is who gets the credit for the kill? The drone operator? The f35 or the f18?
If we’re using stealth drones deep in contested airspace then why bother using the 35? It’s a useless piece of junk that is a National Security threat to the overall effectiveness of our Air Force by wasting so much money.
@@411bvRGiskard I don't think we'll see massive quantities of the f35. It's going to be like the lcs. Good technology development but crap product. To make the marines and navy version, they crippled the air force version.
They will most likely build a new clean sheet navy and air force version of a new fighter. The marines can have their v22 and f35
Sir. According to the KEYBOARD WARRIOR INTERNET UA-cam EXPERTS in the other channels when there is one F16, F22 or One American made Jet fighter F35 or so fighting that fighter is going to fight 3 or 10 MIG fighters in combat.
It use to be that you can look at the airframe, guns, and missiels to get an idea of the aircraft. However, a blackbox with wires coming out of it doesn't tell you much, but it is often one of the most critical component.
Excellent summary.
Love what you do thanks. Quick question could you possibly do a video on how a non fighter pilot could experience pulling a decent amount of G’s just to feel what it’s like. Thanks again
Already got you--check out the video I did on G-Force a while back
Greetings .
- What "differences" are there between subsonic and supersonic maneuverability, how useful is it in combat?
- Is it preferable to have a vector push or a HUD visor in the helmet?
Thanks for your time .
Computer/networking nerd... I can see the benefits of several aircraft sharing sensor information, being able to designate a target, and share with nearby aircraft - but isn't frequency jamming a hazard once you become used to leaning on these benefits, or do they frequently hop over such a wide spectrum this is nearly impossible to achieve?
Also curious about how much data is sent/received - for example, can you check on your wingman's engine status readouts, etc?
Obviously if classified - don't answer, but would love to hear more about this in as much detail as you're allowed to go into.
answering my own question... did some googling, MADL is k-band (12-18Ghz+), line of sight - and literally points itself at the other aircraft... good luck jamming that. Such a tight / directed signal too... which I guess is pretty hard to detect. I can't imagine the range being great, though.
The F-35 is a battlespace manager. Rather than a fighter plane jock it would take an all-domain battle planner to fly the F-35.
Excelent video! ty
Hey Hasard: any possibility of having a fellow fighter pilot alongside you in one of these vids? Cool on top of cool!
Why does this man have a beautifully formed Jaw Line?
Love the content
Awesome breakdown...
Thanks
Yo, just a clarification. The ME262 is not a Nazi fighter. Non of the German planes or tanks or guns or whatever are Nazi. People were, stuff wasn't.
Thank you for the content. Sir🇺🇸
Glad I found this channel. Sad that I also grew up renting laser discs.
would love to hear more comparing f22 to f35