What the heck would an F-14A RIO know about federated systems anyway! (I keed, I keed) I think the F-14 entered life just a few years too soon, missing out on the new wave of solid state and digital systems that really emerged prominently with the F-15, then out-of-the gate in the Hornet. It was several days late and a few paychecks short once F-14D finally got that stuff. When looking over the oversight reports on F-14A/AWG-9/AIM-54A in the mid-late 1970s, I noticed the emphasis they were putting on an F-14B with Pratt & Whitney F401-PW-400 engines. That F401 motor was an F-14 variant of the F100, but they were still having a lot of the same problems as the TF30 and never produced it. They spent hundreds of millions of 1970s dollars on that F401-PW-400. Have you ever heard about that and if it gutted a lot of the money for additional F-14 development?
@@alexanderzerka8477 I am not sure if there is much to say other than that Sprey was wrong. I know he had a lot of fans who really got into his whole narrative but he was wrong.
Just the first 10 years of each teen fighter airframe losses and fatalities: F-14: 59, 19 F-15: 54, 26 F-16: 143, 71 F/A-18: 90, 27 A-10: 59, 26 AV-8A/B/C: 100, 20 That's 505 airframes and 189 lives lost to really unproven systems designs, faulty manufacturing processes, rushed initial production model runs, engine failures, midair collisions, CFIT, GLOC (F-15, F-16, and Hornet), and even several combat fatalities for the Harrier and Hornet. But the F-35 is made to sound like a disaster in the media. Among the entire JSF fleet over the past 14yrs 10 months: 2 F-35A crashes 2 F-35A write-offs due to ground fires 2 F-35B crashes, 1 from a faulty fuel tube, the other from an aerial refueling accident 1 F-35B w/o due to fire in weapons bay on an early Lot sample 1 fatality, JADF CFIT which is one of the only 2 F-35A crashes. The other F-35A crash was when a pilot out of Eglin left the speed hold on at over 200knots and didn't speed-check on final, bounced it off the runway by forcing a nose-down commanded descent rate, and thought that was HMDS misalignment. It smashed the gears into the wells, which told the DFLCS that it was weight-on-wheels, which commanded nose-down pitch, which the pilot fought with into a rapidly-degrading PIO situation, so the pilot ejected. That airframe is now used as a maintenance training platform because they don't have spare crashed airframes lying around like with the teen series incidents that were salvaged from landing incidents.
Redesign and "bureaucrats having an idea" can make planes deadly ... as the F-104 FIGHTER jet ... which was modified to carry nuclear bombs (supplied by the US) for the german air force showed. According to Wikipedia there were 916 of them and 292 crashed with 116 piots losing their lives. There is a term in german which was created by this bureaucratic mindset to desire weapon systems that "can do everything": *_eierlegende Wollmilchsau_* an "egg-laying, wooly, milkable pig". This concept works "ok" in the case of a tank where you can put several different turrets on top of it for bridge laying or tank recovery ... but a tank doesnt "drop out of the sky because the lift is suddenly lost due to bad aerodynamics from a modification". In a sense I feel that the F-35 could be falling into the same trap ... being too ambitious and trying too much in one evolutionary step.
@@Muck006 As to the egg-laying, milkable, shearable sheep-pig, JSF is all that and more. Your smartphone is a better phone than your old wireless household phone, or your old flip-phone. It's also a better music player, navigation tool, camera, storage device, calculator, calendar, planner, ballistics software host, flashlight, computer, internet access device, etc. than the previous generation individual devices for each of those functions. Likewise, JSF is better at: * EW, Electronic Attack, Signals Collection * Air-to-Air across the spectrum from BVR to Helmet HOBS employment, with total overmatch against any fighter at night/limited vis * Deep penetration/strike using VLO * D-SEAD * Interdiction * AWACS * CSAR * Anti-ship * Adds Theater Ballistic and Cruise Missile Defense It's a result of the combined velocity of multiple technological tracks maturing rapidly, then being packaged together into these airframes.
I know this is an oddball question, but one day I was wondering why the F-35A has the Equalizer rather than a single barrel cannon, I looked it up and indeed Boeing was actually proposing a license-built Mauser BK-27 for the JSF program. If I had to make a guess why the program went with the rotary cannon I'd say reliability, but is there any information on the decision process?
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD The rate of fire is much faster with a rotary cannon because each barrel performs a different cycle of operation while not firing. Gives more predictable streams of fire with higher hit rate per area on the TGT, whether airborne or on the ground.
Absolutely love this podcast and really any long format conversation with true experts in the field being discussed. It really gives the lay person a clear perspective on areas of interest and empowers us as citizens to make better informed decisions. On a side note - ever notice that the true experts out there all share humility as a trait? Seems to be a dead giveaway on what to discern when looking for clarity on a subject. Keep up the great work!
Totally agree. The subject matter doesnt really make a difference. True experts are just great to lusten to long form. And humility goes hand in hand with expertise.
Not a pilot. Not a coward either. But if I had to send my kids to war, I'd want them in a jet that gave them every chance of not even being seen. I'd want it damn unfair on the bad guys. F35 for me.
Compare the F35's hours flown to airframes lost and the numbers speak for themselves. 1/3 of every harrier built, has crashed. Dozens of F14s lost in its dev years. The F35 hit 250,000 hours with no loss of life.
Institutional memory seems to be short in certain sections of the media. Try looking up the development history of the F-16, it's well-regarded as a safe, effective fighter now (as well it might be after nearly 50 years in service), but it had SERIOUS problems early in its' life, well beyond the issues the F-35 program has had. It's almost as if developing new, technically complex aircraft is a difficult, and sometimes dangerous thing, because the days you could go from drawing board to production in less than a year (the WWII vintage P-51) are loooong gone.
Finally got to listen to this one, which was well worth the time. Finally someone who has the hands on knowledge to dispel the rumors and myths about an under performing 21st century weapons platform. What an interview, and great explanations with supporting examples between different platforms like the f16 and f18. Well done.
Yeah, the F-16 had a (deserved) reputation as a pilot killer early in its' dev/deployment, and had a horrible safety record overall. Over time, as problems were identified and fixed, it has become a workhorse for air forces all over the world, and has been the mostly widely deployed fighter for about a decade now, in service with a couple of dozen nations
Like almost everything else nothing is perfect. To have one thing often requires compromise elsewhere. I don't know of anything ever made that didn't have it's pro's and it's cons. I get that pilots who fly these things are more biased than us armchair experts and of course their narrow minds are never going to see the big picture but I am yet to hear a pilot who has flown in these things say they don't like it....... but hey, what would they know?
All fighters for the most part had long and troubled developmental issues. The difference is the F-35 was done in the public light where as most other fighters were designed and developed with black budget $
@@jizburg In measuring the expense, if you add all of its capability together. F-35 replaces multiple aircraft. Meaning instead of having 3 or 4 different types in a strike package, you have one. So you would have to consider that. Example- in Desert storm you have F-111's jamming, F-117's(VLO) bombing, F-15C doing CAP, F-16's doing wild weasel stuff. The F-35 can do all of those missions, so that needs to be considered in expense as you are not just replacing one aircraft but many. Also in terms of maintenance and parts its... it is a lot less expensive then needing parts for all those jets. Do the math with those considerations and adjust for inflation... and you will quickly see that it's cost, is not as bad as some make it out to be. Remember a F-117 in 1987 cost 43 Million alone, F-15 was around 25 Million... and that is not adjusting for modern inflation. I personally disagree with the o my gosh its so expensive argument.
@@jizburg There is no "it" though. We've never had a Fighter/Attack/ISTAR/EW/AWAC/Cyber Attack multi-variant platform to compare it to that was used across 3 services in the US. You would have to add up the total life costs of: EF-111A F-4G F-16 A-10 F-117A EA-6B F/A-18A-D AV-8A/B/C TAV-8B LANTIRN ALQ-119 ALQ-131 ALQ-184 SNIPER LITENING PAVE PENNY ATFLIR HTS Then adjust those costs into current dollars and you would still far short in capabilities, and bring the hundreds of airframe and pilot losses along with those older, less-safe designs. Just among the first 10 years of "teen fighters", we lost 515 airfranes and had 182 fatalities. That's how you know you're either being lied to or misled by people who talk about the projected life costs of JSF across all 3 services, for many decades of service.
Compared to the teen fighters, all 3 JSF variants are relatively faultless when you look at mishaps, total losses, and fatalities. It's how I can immediately tell if the author of an article has any relevant experience or recent historical framework knowledge.
Great interview Jello, I love how in depth you get in these interviews. I had no idea of the importance of having Canadian airspace protected for the United States really was, these interviews really stimulates the mind and increases ones own situational awareness. Absolutely love the job you and your team does, this is by far the most interesting and enjoyable content that I consume, you are better than Netflix, HBO, Amazon Prime, and all other media outlets. The detail and amazing guests and your own team is fantastic, keep up the awesome work.
Funny story......Erich Hartman destroyed 352 Allied planes in WW2. After the war, he was testing a prototype of what would eventually be the Harrier. He was hovering at low altitude when the engine suddenly quit, and the aircraft slammed onto the ground. He survived, pulled himself out of the wreckage and exclaimed.....353 !
This was my first time at this channel. What an incredible interview, LtCol Flynn is a true SME for so many platforms. As a former Marine 53E guy I loved every moment. I hope the F35 can do what it needs to, our Nations and way of life depends on it. God bless America and our Allies.
"F-35 is too fat" It's barely any heavier than the F-16, while making almost double the thrust. "It's wings are too small" It's wings have more surface area than the F-16. "It doesn't handle well" Look up current videos of it manuevering. It handles like a leaf with thrust vectoring. It's insane.
Wow, what an absolutely fantastic interview! LTCol Flynn is such an experienced, introspective, far-seeing and brilliant individual! Without a doubt, this is the BEST hour and 45 minutes I have EVER spent on UA-cam. Thank you both! And, yes, the X-32 was a truly ugly airplane! lol
The real story is that the F-35 grew up in the age of social media. Everyone can have an opinion (and they do) about this aircraft. So whenever there is any negative news about it, people are quick to make comments. Aircraft like the F/A-18, F-16, F-15 and F-22 all had troubled developments like EVERY aircraft ever made does, the difference is that we have thousands of people on Facebook and other social media platforms speculating on the condition of the F-35 program.
I was born on base and grew up til i was 9 at Edwards AFB in Kern County CA, my father was stationed there as a fire fighter and before him my grandfather was stationed there back when it was Muroc AFB, i've got allot of cool stories and experiences at Edwards, my daughter is about to go into the Air Force next year and she wants to be stationed at Edwards and i hope she gets it, but when i die i will have my ashes spread there, so much family history there and there is where i want to lay for eternity.
40 minutes in and what a great story! Listen to the SME (subject matter expert) not reporters and political pundits if you want the real skinny! CFIT resulted in so many of my friends tragic ends, (I was a Naval Aviator in the 70’s-90’s) thank you for helping to develop this life saving technology! Sparky
SMEs are part of the military industrial complex. They're not going to lambast the providers of new and cool technologies they've been allowed to become SMEs on.
Hands down the best interview with the most qualified individual on the most important strategic decision making in 5th generation aircraft. Well done to all involved.
I'm an engineer who worked in high technology in many different industries over a span of nearly 50 years with some of the biggest players in their industry. In the fall of 2001 I was working on a project at Lockheed commercial satellites division. I was there when Lockheed won the contract for F35. Based on the quality of the people I met there I knew and never doubted that it would be a spectacular success. I also followed its development and knew that its detractors like Pierre Sprey didn't know what the hell they were talking about. The challenges that had to be overcome to create this machine were staggering. I knew immediately when the F16 beat it in simulated combat that it was operating on block 3 software which deliberately limited the kinetic performance of F35 at that time. Lockheed was very cautious about its testing and extending its limits. F35 is not the same plane it was 5 years ago, it will be a different plane 5 years from now, and still a different plane 10 years from now. The adaptability for upgrades is inherent in the way it was conceived. With 10 million lines of computer code and an on board library of 200,000 RCSs it's a flying computer but more than that it is an important node in a network connecting swarms of combat elements to each other and every asset the US has. It's part of the tip of the spear. Along with drones it will control one of its primary tasks will be to eliminate enemy defenses opening the gate for more heavily armed planes like F15EX. It also now can deploy the B61 mod 12 bunker buster 50 kt gravity bomb. Once a protected underground space is penetrated it will take out an entire network of underground chambers and connecting tunnels. I find it impossible to believe China or Russia could build a comparable plane. Building a next Gen fighter that will eclipse F35 will be an enormous challenge. If you want to know how good F35 is ask an F35 pilot what other plane in the world he'd choose to go into combat against F35?
I was initial DoD maintenance cadre in the F-35 Program. Spent 10 subsequent years on the A/B/C (Crew Chief) ending with Hill. Let me know if you would like to have the ground perspective of the development.
This podcast is so good and exactly what I want as a subscriber! And LT Col. Flynn what a stud. This definitely opened my eyes to the success of the f-35
After 7 years of assessments of some of the top in-production Western fighters by the Finnish Air Force and MoD, and the F-35A beat all the others handily in the H-X Competition. Finnish Air Chief stated that its superiority was “clear and dizzying”. Distant 2nd place was Super Hornet Block 3, with Saab Gripen E/F coming in dead last. Not only was the F-35A the best across the board, but it was also the most affordable in acquisition and sustainment, allowing Finland to use much more of their budget for weapons. Only 4.7 Billion Euros is going to the actual 64 unit aircraft purchase.
@@billieflynn1943 Yes. I watched the announcements on the Finnish news, but they also did English speeches back-to-back stating their decision. They also published a PDF breakdown of all costs that detail Unit Program and Unit Flyway more than I’ve ever seen OSINT since the early 1980s (when I started keeping detailed track of defense acquisitions specific to fighters and weapons that we were involved in, as well as ones peripheral to us at AFFTC, China Lake, Pax River, etc.). It also shows the contracted Unit Flyway of Block 4 F-35A in Euros, since the 64 unit order is only for 4.701 Billion Euros, initial A2A weapons package for hundreds of Block II+ AIM-9X and AIM-120 later models at 775 million Euros, with a 2.9 billion maintenance, support, training, services, etc. package on top of that. The F-35 package was so much better economically that it leaves them all kinds of money to spend on future weapons and a lot of Air-to-Surface weapons. There’s a 178 page thread on a reputable site that has tracked H-X since 2014 with far better info than any other source online, since it is populated by actual Viper and other .mil pilots, maintainers, AeroEs, Pratt jet engine mechanics and engineers, software, avionics, ordnance, and related folks. They do an excellent job of sifting through the usual corporate presstitue excrement and cutting down to the ground truth.
@@billieflynn1943 Finland didn’t mention who placed 2nd until Saab pitched a fit complaining about fairness in H-X, when it was the most overseen, 3rd party audited, extensive, exhaustive fighter evaluation I’ve seen practically any nation undertake. To settle the record, Finns announced that Boeing came in distant 2nd place with the Super Bug with 3.81 out of 5, with 4 being the threshold. An interesting thing I noticed about the military performance 5 sub-paragraph portion of the requirements for H-X I read included: Counter-Air Counter-Ground (ATG) Anti-Ship ISTAR EW Each paragraph might as well have said: A2A: We want F-35 A2G: See above Anti-Ship: “ “ etc. First sentence in counter-air para started with discussion of sensor fusion. Finished with a brief discussion about the need to be able to detect and track a wide number of targets and assess their EW posture in addition to traditional TGT tracks. Who ever wrote a fighter specification like that before? ATG said basically: “We want autonomous and automated TGT detection, recognition, with ease of pilot weapons employment on those TGTs, in addition to being able to network with Finnish JTACs.” It went on like that for each paragraph for the pure military performance requirements. I got the sense that someone who had been flying F-35 simulators basically went back and wrote the contract out based on the capes they saw in there. My perspective is that they knew since 2014 what they were getting, but by creating the sense of competition with lots of players, it allowed them to drive the contract with L-M into their favor and get a huge industrial share with even lower prices overall.
@@billieflynn1943 Big picture. I think this basically means that Canadian Parliament would have to openly advocate for buying the constant loser from the Swiss, Norwegian, and Finnish fighter replacement programs (that has been losing for decades), pay more money for it, to have the least capability of any current Western-produced fighter on the market, while divesting of their $661 million already invested in JSF, along with the existing Canadian companies who have been making critical parts for the JSF program all this time. Maybe they’ve just been holding out for Block 4.
Sorry I’m not interested in what an actual F-35 pilot has to say about the plane. I prefer to get my Information 2nd hand from a guy who talked to a guy that knows a guy that has a cousin who says it’s no good.
Do you think a pilot who gets the chance to fly in the most modern fighter jet is going to say bad things about it? They would be weeded out of the selection process instantly. You have to be a gungho, tow the line, 110% team player. No cynicism, or negativity will be tolerated.
Jell-O, there are good podcasters and there are GREAT podcasters. The good ones would try to guide the discussion while the guest is spewing out diamonds of fantastic, jaw-dropping stories - so thank you for letting Billie roll with 20 full minutes of been-there-done-that. His stellar test background was so astounding, that I listened to this twice this morning. Please invite him back someday. Great Podcast, Great Episode!
Great episode! Always love hearing Billie's point of view. I can confirm that our procurement system here in Canada is abysmal. No matter what we buy, it has to be "Canadianized" in some way.....as well as have economic offsets for Canadian businesses (some are currently building components for the F-35). If there is one place where negative press has skewed the outlook on the F-35, it's here in Canada. I'm not an SME, but I feel I am somewhat informed; I have gotten into long, drawn out debates for/against the F-35 (which I am for), and it amazes me that detractors are firmly planted on their views of the F-35, despite the fact that it is improving and proving itself. Even guys in the Canadian Hornet community (some who are friends) are rebuffed by these detractors.....and the fighter guys are privy to more info than is what is available to the media and the public.....not to mention drawing from their experience in the Hornet. I have no problem agreeing with Its early shortfalls, but these people simply refuse to acknowledge that the aircraft is getting better. While it may not seem like it here in Canada, the F-35 is a hot debate topic, especially among aviation enthusiasts and experts alike. Biggest problem is, it (defence & procurement) is never high on the list of campaign issues during Canadian elections. I also feel that not enough Canadians know exactly what the Canadian Forces does. The last eight to ten years has been part of a larger saga in terms of replacing the CF-18. From kicking the can down the road, to a Conservative government sole-sourcing F-35s, to a Liberal government cancelling that, buying Super Hornet as an "interim" solution, to that falling through, to buying used Australian Hornets. Now, we are upgrading 36 Hornets with AESA, AIM-9X and JSOW. From the purchase of used jets to upgrading half of our current fleet, those funds could have been allocated to the new fighter. And we still won't see a new platform for at least another 3-4 years. But going through any Canadian media platform...... it's all the same when it comes to the F-35. Nothing but sensationalism and negative press.
Great comments. When I saw that Canada is buying 36x APG-79(V)4 Gallium Nitride TRM-equipped AESA radars to install in rickety, broke-arse baby Hornets with limited service life on them, while avoiding commitment to the JSF, it was confirmed that Canada's parliament needs a urinalysis. There aren’t any legacy baby bugs around with decent airframe life left on them. The last baby -18s were delivered in the year 2000. Assuming 300 flight hours per year per airframe, you’re looking at over 6,000 flight hours on the last Hornet airframes, and they were delivered to USMC and Finnish Air Force, who still operate those “younger” Hornets. Where did Canada get the used Hornets from? The Australians, who fly them like they stole them. Of all the Air Forces in the world, only the maritime-deployed Hornets will have worse airframes, structures, subcomponents, and electronics due to saltwater exposure and endless corrosion-containment workloads placed on the maintainers. This is going to cost Canada well over $1 billion to maintain those broke rust buckets with cracks all throughout the structures, worn-out subsystems and components, and limited capability in fully-up condition anyway. Just to do all the structural inspections and overhaul will not only cost insane amounts of money, but will see much of those aircraft in extended depot-level servicing, unable to train or deploy. If you’re like the US with thousands of fighters, you can rotate a few hundred later model fighters through SLEP/MLU/CCIP like we’ve done with F-16C Block 40/42/50/52. Each one of those Vipers has well over $100 million in sunk unit costs, especially after the CCIP standardization, which took 144 days per bird in just one of the Block standardizations. We can still maintain commitments all over because our fighter fleet is monstrous in size, and composed of 10 different types. Canada doesn’t have the luxury to screw around at this point, wasting a billion on worn-out fighters. This is one of the most preposterous defense decisions we’ve seen from a relatively large coalition partner in ages. The only other example I can think of right now would be Austria, and they were tricked/swindled into buying a bunch of used Tranche 1 Typhoons from Germany, with only IR missile capability at $120 million per airframe flyaway, who knows what unit program cost was. They’re trying to offload those right now on someone, but have to get US approval because of all the US technology that is in them. From an Intelligence perspective, Canada’s decision was heavily-influenced by an active measures Soviet disinformation campaign, coordinated with “Canadian” media and treasonous politicians who don’t know the rear-end from the radome of a fighter, and couldn’t care less. That’s what drove that Canadian 60 minutes hit piece that really “informed” the populace and politicians, with helpful input from Pierre Sprey. I would love to debate that guy. It would be brutal.
Dude, you're exactly missing the point. The reason he's worth listening to at 39 minutes is because of the background he provides prior to that. Billie has credibility.
Awesome podcast, clearly an awesome aircraft. An RAF F-35 went down yesterday in the Mediterranean (Nov 2021). Will be interesting to see what the cause was.
I'm a software engineer and the idea that the whole system is a monolitic block where changing one thing needs changes throughout the whole system sounds so 80s to me. Why isn't it they could have a multitude of agents exchanging clearly defined messages between all the avionic systems? Maybe it the old monolitic kernel (performance) vs. Microkernel (fail-safety) debate (with RT-considerations put in) again, but it really rings a bell of yesterday-design in me...
Oh...and I'm from germany and I never heard that thing about the F16 over here. But I remember clearly we called the F104 a widow maker and remember it being said that if you ever want to own a F104, you only had to buy a patch of land and wait. That was after we decided to repurposed that interceptor into a bomber...
Agreed. Of course the code base was.probably started in the 90's so they are locked I to a defunct language. Devops cycle must be insane. To me this sounds very much like a one massive git branch with one master.
A few years ago I highly critical of the program until someone asked me to look at the history of aircraft development. And because I was curious enough to go down that cavern I came out of it of a understanding how hard it is to develop a whole new platform with politicians breathing down your neck let alone the crazies in the press. Thank you for the interview and another bit of info to give in the arguements that I find myself in defending the F-35 and other cutting edge aircraft designs.
There's a book I recommend for serious students of modern combat systems development. It's called "F-35 From Concept to Cockpit" Over 731 pages written by each program lead and test pilots for JSF, complete with photographs, test parameter metrics, real-world instrumented data, computational fluid dynamic models showing what didn't work and how it was corrected on X-35. I can't believe they printed it. We never had that kind of data on the F-16 publicly-available.
You dont think t he companies behind these planes have any fault? They were "overpromising", aka lying about the planes capabilities, relied on cost plus contracts to extract as much money as possible, and the design/production management was so inept they had to constantly refit to make the first planes work because the design wasnt finished. The F-35 is very capable, but thats ironically enough, because its capabilities were massively increased from the earlier, insufficient model. Its way bigger, heavier and more expensive than proposed. Especially the hate towards journalism is hilarious. No matter the bad reporting, the bullshit Lockheed tried to pull with this plane wouldve not come to light without them. And now they pretend to be surprised when theyre getting looked at super critically. Even in the interview its actually said that the F-35 team now knows they have to deliver, bring the cost down, cannot afford fuckups as before. Thats because of media and political oversight, and was necessary because of the rip off that this project was for a long time. Thats why I dislike these one-sided messages. Ripping the F-35 to shred without understanding it is just as boring as one-sided defenses.
Interesting point about the F-35C. If it was the wing that was meant to be on the F-35, it apparently turns better than all the other variants, it has more fuel and range than all the other variants, why didn't it become the base model. Was a C model with regular landing gears not a cheaper version than making an A model
The transonic acceleration between the 3 is different, favoring the A, then the B & C. The B isn’t area-ruled like the A since there is a noticeable bulge behind the cockpit for the lift fan, which makes it harder to push through supersonic. The wing area of the C also prevents the transonic acceleration exhibited by the B. I don’t think it’s as big of a deal since you’re trying to avoid heating the leading edges in supersonic realm anyway, so it would be interesting to see a CTOL variant with A model landing gear, and C Model wings. I would use carbon composites for the wing structures to drop the weight considerably, since the C model is around 32,000lb empty last I checked. A model is ~29,000lb empty, which helps with T/W and climb rates. There’s a graph showing the transonic acceleration between the 3, where the A model beats a slick Block 50 F-16C big mouth Viper with the GE motor. Transonic acceleration is a main consideration for weapons separation kinematics from a 4th Gen perspective, so I think it’s something to look at for a high subsonic 5th Gen that likes to avoid blooming in the IR spectrum.
I am not a pilot but I helped design auto-land systems when all we had was very slow op-amps and the test pilots would out-fly any technical solution we could design. It seems odd to me that people complain about the F-35 when it does so much for the pilot in extraordinarily complex environments. They simply do not appreciate the enormous technology advancements the F-35 and the hours or hard work that have gone into creating the most advanced fighter in the world. In my opinion, the Chinese can attempt to steal our tech all they want but unless they have exact copies of our complex design and flight environments as well as our talent they will NEVER understand or beat the quality characteristics of the F-35. By the way, I love this stuff. Please keep it coming.
Many take issue with the fact that the U.S. did not purchase an adequate number of F-22s, placing further pressure on the F-35 to meet requirements--which it has not when we look at cost alone.
I just hope Canada makes the right desicion and purchases this legendary plane. The Block III Super Hornet and Gripen don't have as much potential as the F-35.
This was very insightful and informative. I finally understand why Canadian Forces did not consider the carrier-compatible F-35C variant. I had the impression that CF "needed" the ability to deploy off of US carriers. Especially in the Pacific and Middle East theater. Thanks LTCol Flynn!. The Canadian people need to hear more from CF pilots like you!
Vince, I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion!!! Too much Billie is barely enough!!. He's has had an amazing career. He also has the 'runs on the board' as a highly experienced and knowledgeable fighter and test pilot to speak the truth regarding this amazing weapon system. I'm so glad the RAAF decided to purchase the aircraft. It's an amazing beast.
I think the Air Force is finally realized that they need to keep a diversified air defense fleet and not have all their eggs in one basket. Only having one option is a really big limitation. If you only have one type of weapon then your enemy only has to figure out how to defeat that one weapon
Well as a fellow dual citizen but living in Canada this interview convinced me that the F35 is the platform Canada needs. It clarified a lot of issues surrounding the airplane. This country has a GDP larger than Russia and occupies a strategically critical space. Canada cannot afford to select an aircraft that is less than 5th generation capable.
Here in the US, we are grateful to have you guys as our neighbor to the north. I've been fortunate enough to spend a lot of time in Canada, and when I retire in another 10 years, we will definitely have a place in Canada... for the summertime, of course! ; )
I learned a lot from this podcast and it was reassuring to hear a positive voice based on such extensive experience when you consider the amount of money that must be spent these days to fund cutting-edge fighter aircraft research.
@@FighterPilotPodcast Well yes, should is not would. But the win certainly is a significant merit for F-35 as the competition was extremely tough and thorough against the best the west has to offer.
Acommon aircraft seems good until the enemy finds a weak link in that aircraft and then they are all vulnerable! The navy found out that having different aircraft was a big asset during ww2
Um, the Navy had attack planes and fighters. Hellcat, replacing the wildcat. Many of the different planes were replacements for older craft. The F4U only saw carrier service when the need for a high speed interceptor outweighed how horrible it was at landing.
I'm old enough to remember when the A-10 went through this B.S.. Except it wasn't on UA-cam or social media, it was in print media. The A-10 was the "Popsicle Stick" because of it's un-cool un-swept wing. It was "too slow to survive on a modern battlefield". We were all supposed to laugh at the fact that it was given the name "Thunderbolt!" as it was by no means lightning quick. But I think the P.R. problem was the same. People and the press knew what military aircraft did because Hollywood showed them. They really, at a fundamental level, didn't understand what the A-10 was designed to do. Opinions changed only slowly, and mostly by word of mouth, from soldiers coming home with stories that ended with "So that ugly assed warthog saved all our butts". After a lot of years, decades really, of saving lives the A-10 has become a legend. Some of you have to remember all of the hand wringing that went on over the reliability of the Abrams just before Desert Storm. 73 Easting changed that. Give it time.
It was great to hear from someone with such great experience with no dog in the fight. I think that the best advertising for the F-35 is the selection by the Swiss, a country that doesn't go to war. Several years ago I spoke to a guy who works on the line at Lockheed. They build the center wing boxes here in Marietta. He told me that in reality, the F-35 is really three different airplanes..
Alan - One of the most surprising outcomes of the Swiss competition in their debrief was that they calculated the procurement and operations for 30 years of the 36 new fighters to be $2.2 Billion less for the F-35 than the nearest 4th Gen competitor (Super Hornet, Typhoon or Rafale). That debriefing point shocked everyone. How could the 5th Gen fighter be that much less to buy and fly over a 3 decade period by that much. It would be hard to argue that the Swiss don't know financing therefore how is the massive cost discrepancy explained? It becomes another compelling point in favor of 5th Gen.
@@billieflynn1943 I read that in some of the media reports on the outcome of the Swiss competition. Hopefully your air force will purchase aircraft that match the quality of Canadian Forces personnel..
@@billieflynn1943 Another interesting analysis from the Swiss when the Gripen NG was a contender in a previous competition was that they determined CPFH would be $21,000-$27,000 with the Gripen NG. Gripen E wasn’t invited back to/didn’t participate in the final competition that F-35A just won. I’ve seen random claims that the Gripen E will cost only $4,000, then $4,400, or $6,000 CPFH. I then point out that those are roughly half of what it takes to fly the radar-less, EW system-less, 285kt cruising, non-afterburning A-10 with simple tube airframe and wings, mechanical FLCS with cables and pulleys. Dassault told India they promise they will work hard with them to get the CPFH down to $25,000 on India’s $213 million unit program cost Rafales. This doesn’t include any critical ancillary systems of course, just the airframe. In the USAF Viper fleet, ECM pods have their own shop and mx back-end, as does LITENING FLIR pod, and HARM Targeting Pod for Later Block CCIP Vipers. None of those costs and MMPFH are reported in the fleet readiness reports, FMC, or MC rates. Just the airframe and contained systems are reported. None of that can be hidden with JSF since it’s all integrated, and yet F-35A surpassed all other USAF fighters in 2020 for FMC/MC rates, which is handicapped by all the Block 2 early F-35As at Luke AFB mostly, used for conversion training. The costs for upgrading those Block 2 birds to Block 3 is included and amortized across the fleet when reporting CPFH stats as well, which isn’t even close to an accurate representative of what operational squadrons are seeing. The GAO and DOT&E reports in the US are highly-flawed and erroneous before they are even compiled.
American corporations have no problem lying to sell their product. Europe tends to jail/fine their corporations that do this but the USA protects it's criminal corporations because it makes them more money. Welcome to the United States of corporate oligarchy.
I think for Canada the statement would be "Why get some muscles if big brother is going to fight our fights for us." It's what many counties in Europe do.. Great podcast btw
The best way to counter critics is with success. I can remember when the iPhone first appeared, its critics said nobody will pay five times the price of the popular flip phones for the iPhone. The F-35 is the iPhone of war planes.
curious as a Canadian. what effect does sand and Ice control have on the f35's maintenance/operations. does de-icing/Anti-icing fluid have an effect on RCS coating and performance?
With all the testing and evaluation they go through, not much during normal Ops, but after lengthy/continuous exposure, there is definitely some impact which needs to be dealt with.
You wouldn't think just sitting, talking in front of a microphone would be difficult but I was already exhausted after this long--I don't know how Joe Rogan does it!
Great podcast! I first became aware of Mr Flynn at his lecture at the recent flightsim conference, which was an awesome presentation on F35 details and simulation. Keep it up.
First off, outstanding podcast! Even being prior USAF, I can't begin to tell you how much I've learned here. Secondly, as others have said, I wasn't too big of a fan of the F-35 at first. However, the more I hear about it (from the various SME's) the more and more I have come to love it. I truly can't wait to see what the future holds for this amazing craft! Keep up the great work!
Thanks, Travis, I appreciate the feedback. It's natural to have a negative impression of the F-35 because that's what we were served by most media outfits. That's why Billie is the right guy to explain this.
@Phil Collins Those are declared IOC dates, not service introduction. F-35A started flying in December 2006. F-35B first flew in June 2008. F-35C: June 2010 Most JSF are A models by a large factor.
@Phil Collins The thing that impresses me the most is that the USMC and USN haven't smashed an F-35C yet. F-14 burned in on its first flight ever, not even carrier ops, where it really suffered. They lost 173 Tomcats over its entire life. Hornets didn't even have working landing gear. There was an alignment bar that kept the wheel oriented correctly when gear down. Those kept detaching on landing, sending Hornets cartwheeling or careening off runways and flight decks. Killed several pilots, including one of the Gulf of Sidra Sukhoi-killers from VF-41/1981 incident. He went into F/A-18 test program after flying the cat, died in one of those landing gear failure incidents in the early 1980s. These were real people, not just some statistic. I watched all the teens struggle through those years, but we never really heard much about it except for the F-16.
@Phil Collins It takes years of work for a service to get a new jet to Initial Operating Capability. They have to do the developmental test and evaluation on a few production samples before blessing off on further production. They have to do all the weapons configuration flight test, landing, and flight regime separation tests for the initial weapons suite, plus make sure they have the effects they want with guidance. They also have to build the fighter conversion training units, simulator infrastructure, and get Instructor Pilots trained. They have to get maintainers trained, equipped, and based with their own schools and pipelines. Can't stand-up operational squadrons if none of that other stuff is in-place. It's even harder for the carrier variant because you have to do the carrier qualifications, tailhook feasibility, weapons bring-back tests, catapult launch weights and stores configurations, hangar deck interoperability, maintenance procedures under-deck, engine module transport compatibility with fleet cargo assets (big deal with F135 motor for Navy). So you start to get a picture of what it takes from first flight to IOC.
@Phil Collins I'm not talking about X-35 program, but from the start of production and adoption by the services, starting with the units at Edwards AFB and US Navy Pax River. F-35As have been in USAF since 2006, F-35Bs in USMC since 2008, and F-35Cs in USN since 2010. You don't rack up 436,000 flight hours with a few of them flown over a few years. 705+ have been delivered since 2006. The test flight schedule for JSF was very aggressive too, as are the operational squadron training and deployment schedules. They're pushing these aircraft hard all over the world. Israelis have been flying in combat for a long time now, immediately followed by USMC, then USAF, and UK.
You're welcome, Thunderace. Doing so is not completely altruistic: sure we want to get the word out but we do earn ad revenue from UA-cam. Also, we hope the occasional listener will sign up on our Patreon page. 😉
OK, I'm converted from F35 sceptic to being excited that we're getting them. Now I'm worried that the UK won't buy enough. Also, I think we should have gone for F35C but that's another story...
True. But also I’m not sure given the expense of catobar in comparison that the carrier program would’ve even survived the last/next couple of governments
The cost, the complexity, the forward thinking design and future-proofing are all factors of threat and overcoming that threat. To build something beyond your adversaries, that will outlast a whole generation of their capabilities will always be difficult and expensive. Winning is hard, but overwhelming victory requires legendary expense and effort. The US is blessed by being such a wealthy and stable nation. To stay ahead of its arch rivals and *convince them that fighting is a mistake* is the hallmark of that wealth, stability, and unified effort. Being at the top, however, isn’t a guarantee. It takes unwavering dedication to ensuring that the people and systems we have are the best they can be. That’s incredibly expensive to do. Good execution requires many good people and lots of money. Those outside of large scale engineering projects often fail to understand that delivering quality on an ongoing basis is often unaffordable. It’s why we have governments that take in taxes from an entire country-it’s the only way we can approach such a high level of expense and technology.
When I was a baby, "Eric Hartman" came to my baby Bday party, dad flew F86's,....French military college, then you become Canada's 1st CF-18 driver.....was a front line fighter pilot in Europe in the amazing 1980's, deep in the fighter mafia culture wars, test pilot for all leading edge things Euro, USN and USAF and a test pilot that actual got to Command a fighter squadron and led RCAF into 1st combat since WW 2....2,000 hours in Hornets, 5,000 hours TAC air total....legendary fighter pilot lineage. How often are you invited to speak at AWC, Fighter Weapons School, Red Flag???? Etc
A one size fits all approach has worked before - the F4 Phantom! If the plane is good enough...used in combat by the USAF, USMC, USN,and sold to a dozen allies because it was a world beater.
The F-4 phantom also had a 2-1 kill ratio when it first went into combat, because the pilots were told that the age of the dogfight was over so the USAF and USN stopped training their pilots to dogfight. Then they met an obsolete MiG-17.
@@nullterm the USAF had the chance to buy the F/A-18 when it was the YF-17, they chose the YF-16. The Navy then took the YF-17 and in the process of turning a LWF into a strike fighter got a larger, heavier plane that could not meet the Navy's range requirements so the range requirements were changed to meet the F/A-18's capabilities. So instead of doing the mission on just on external tank, it would use 3 external tanks.
The thing that people keep getting confused about the is that USAF is not the F-35 program. Its joint program between the USAF, USMC and USN The USAF's problems with the F-35 are completely different from the rest.
Budget cuts in the RCAF should not be on the table. Billions of tax dollars wasted on give away programs like the CERB while Canadian military families and the armed forces beg for a respectful wage and spare parts. There is a lack of operational readiness and our adversaries will take advantage of the holes we do not tend in our Northern backyard. This podcast is an eye opener for all North America, thank you. Derek J.
Out of curiosity... You mentioned _"X-32 vs. X-35"._ That brings up two questions: + _Why 'X' vs. 'Y'?_ and + _Why non-consecutive numbers?_ How did this differ from _YF-22 vs. YF-23?_ BTW, I was in Marietta, GA working on C-130J software testing in the 1990s and was fortunate to be present for the first flight of the F-22. I'm sure it's not true, but I've often gotten the impression that F-35 is essentially the cheaper, downgraded export alternative to the F-22. OTOH, I do suppose that with a limited budget, you probably get more bang for the buck with a fleet of F-35s than with an equivalent amount of money invested in F-22s.
You mentioned the _CF-104_ -- do you have videos on _"almost fighters"_ like the _CF-105?_ Perhaps speculating on how effective it might have been if not cancelled?
This plane is one of the first being born under this crazy social media age, thats way it's getting so much heat and attention... There are planes that are so well known today with zero hate but had alot more problems than F-35 just because they never were developed under this crazy social media age.. F-35 is one of the 4 fifth generation fighter jets and it's an amazing plane, with tech that nobody has... It is not made for close combat dog fighting or to go super duper fast like some do even if the F-35 goes pretty damn quick specially with high load, going back to close dog fighting the F-35 will kill you loooong before it even gets there that's what the F-35 is made for, if you can't pin point the plane you can not shoot it down no matter what plane you have that's the F-35 right there.
Good approach to the issue. Ask the pilots about the plane. I am tired of people spouting off that do not know what they are talking about! This is refreshing to hear! Good show!
I know the Lt. Col. is a smart man and a hell of a fighter pilot, but saying, “no plane will ever hit the ground again” sounds a lot like, “no plane will ever dogfight and need a gun again” from the Vietnam era. But it does sound good, we shall see!! Salute.
What annoys this Marine is the B version for CAS ...? with NO INTERNAL GUN. And why not use the C variant's wings on all (for more fuel and reduced wing loading) ... But, if logic were where it's at -- we wouldn't be dismissing F22 for being "over-priced" ... Only to buy "Modernized F-15s" with an increased RCS (pylons + CFTs) for MORE $$ than F22s..!! And less fuel than the F-35C
@@maean7410 The solution to the Phantom's problems was not to add a gun (despite the common misconception). The Navy never added a gun to their Phantoms. The solution was better pilot training (like top gun school)
The Marines believed, as did the Navy, that the space and weight of the gun (which, if integrated, is there whether needed or not) was better and more frequently utilized for more fuel/bombs/missiles. As for the wing, the larger wing gives better sustained turn rate and low speed control for landing, but is draggier and makes the aircraft slower to accelerate and less efficient. With the current engine, I think it's more bad than good. With another 10k pounds of thrust, that may change.
Great Podcast. I ran into it by accident. Lt Col Flynn was excellent. I know this question may be off limits but how about an interview with an 160th SOAR pilot?
It's funny how he uses "low cost" as a defense of the F-35 when it's the single most expensive weapons system in the history of mankind. It's almost like he works for Lockheed Martin lol.
The development cost was 400 billion and the unit cost has dropped to 80 million for the A variant. Is that the most expensive weapons system? I have no frame of reference. But how much would it cost to deploy inferior weapons systems?
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD yeah it still is. You just cant help but feel for this expensive of a development, we could have had something much better. The most obvious and cheaper option would have been to modernize the F22 for the airforce and navy and for export and then develop a much cheaper harrier replacement in coordination with the UK.
@@House_of_Schmidt "for this expensive of a development, we could have had something much better" - Such as? "The most obvious and cheaper option would have been to modernize the F22 for the airforce and navy" - First of all, the F-22 is the High in the High/Low mix. It's the expensive, twin engine fighter. The F-35 is the Low, the cheaper single engine. So right there, forget it. Modernize the F-22? There's less than 180 of them in service. The modernization of the F-22 is actually too expensive because so few were made. There's also the fact that the F-22 was never navalized, and the proposal to make a naval variant would have required so many changes it would have been too expensive.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD when i say modernize, i mean produce new F-22's and at the time the JSF was being designed the F-22 was in production and like i said before, this is the single most expensive weapons program in history by a longshot so calling this a "low" as it was initially intended is really not true. Our armed forces have essentially confirmed this by calling the F-35 a ferrari and expressing the need for something less expensive so if the F-35 is going to be the Ferrari why not have you're Ferrari be the better aircraft dynamically. In hindsight they should have just further developed and exported the dynamically superior F22. And the F22 could have been carrier capable in the same way the f35 is. Forget about all those swing wing f22 concepts. Thats just people who miss the tomcat wanting a replacement. The carrier F22 wouldve just needed a slightly larger wing and upgraded gear to be carrier capable as stated by the Navy air wing commander back in 2012.
Reading the previous comments, as an engineer I’d like to add that engineering is absolutely not a precise science and the higher one aspires the harder the challenge and the more iterations one encounters. That’s the price for aiming high and succeeding.
F-35 replaces three types of airplanes,that means end result 30 million each on the other will never be made or sold.This is a bargain but the public loves to criticize the military spending. This airplane will bring combined strike and sleath to to the enemy,but command and control of the battle space is the real bonus invaluable GREAT SHOW I SUBSCRIBED
In the 1950s, test pilots were being killed at the rate of about one a week, but the risks have shrunk to a fraction of that because of the maturation of aircraft technology, better ground-testing and simulation of aircraft performance & fly-by-wire technology. I appreciate & honor all who serve & protect the free world, and I thank the both of these men for theirs. I've tried to follow aviation since the 1950's, the many planes & pilots who have flown them. Both of my parents gave of themselves during WWII. My father served in the Philipines on Moratai Island. My mom, she was a "Rosie the Riveter" and they built B-17's and P-38's!! I built models of every plane I could find, those from WWI, WWII, Korea and on. Planes like the Corsair, the P-51, the P-38(of course), the Voodoo, the Starfighter, the Saber & Super Saber and on. I know that the powers-that-be wanted a jet that could do a lot of what the Raptor, but for a much, much lower cost. Fast forward to today. The overall lifetime cost for the F-35, when all the operating costs for the planned fleet are calculated across the expected 50-year lifetime of the program, the American people will spend an estimated $1.727 trillion on this plane. As far as any advantages of computer power, situational awareness & info sharing with other elements of our forces go, the Raptors are now being upgraded with the same sensors, software and connectivity to survey the battlefield as the f-35. A fully armed F-35 loses it's stealth capability unless it flies inverted(upside down). The plane's single engine cannot withstand much damage. Given its current attributes, the Raptor's high production price tag-$125 million per aircraft, according to the latest Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate-is not unreasonable. The cost for an F-35 varies by the model, $110.3 million per F-35A, $135.8 million per F-35B, and $117.3 million per F-35C. The totals do not include the nearly $1.3 trillion in life cycle costs to operate and sustain the aircraft over its 50-year life cycle, making it the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history. The F-35 cannot do the job of close air support even close to as well as the A-10(Warthog)! An effectiveness analysis based on results from a survey of joint terminal attack controllers indicates that the A-10 vastly outperforms the F-35 in providing close-air support (CAS), a critical requirement for future conflicts against terrorists and insurgents. This actually helps the F-35!! It eliminates the need for the F-35 to do this job because it can't. If they do replace the A-10 with the F-35, who will shoulder the blame for every member of our ground forces that die needlessly because the A-10 wasn't there tp help them. BTW- the A-10's have been or soon will be given a big upgrade. They are calling it the Super A-10. The Lightweight Airborne Recovery System [LARS] V-12 has already been installed and integrated in [Operational Flight Program, OFP] Suite 8, and all A-10s now have this system integrated into the Central Interface Control Unit to provide critical Combat Search and Rescue [CSAR] information.” Check this out: ua-cam.com/video/QoNWXa1hZao/v-deo.html
ROFL at the X32 part. Truer words have never been spoken! People say the F35 is ugly, the X32 was TOO ugly. That thing would have been cancelled at the first sign of a problem!
I did a web search on the F-35 Distributed Aperture System and found a Northrop Grumman demo of it at the 2016 Farnborough Airshow on UA-cam. Very interesting... Many thanks!
You should index the timeline so people can jump into specific information and share it by time stamp. Pretty necessary for a really long video with lots of first-time information for the public.
I was listening to the show and when you mentioned how Hartmann had been shot down twice in one day and it brought me back to something I've wondered for quite a while. I'm a maintenance guy, did maintenance on CH47's and UH60's during my time in the Army. That's my background. However the guest mentioned that small countries "Go to war as they are". However isn't that going to be all countries in the future? I mean these aircraft now aren't the same as say WW2 where they could fight a war of attrition because the factory was cranking out replacements by the hundreds monthly and new classes of pilots were being trained at astonishing speed. Back then those aircraft were nearly disposable. For example, and I suppose this is an extreme example, but I saw somewhere once that early in the war the mission average before loss for an IL-2 airframe was two sorties. Back then the pilots probably didn't receive even a quarter of the training pilots today do. Today these aircraft are so complicated, so expensive, so intricate, such a feat of engineering that there's just no way these aircraft could be manufactured and replaced at such speed as the P-47 or P-40 was. You certainly couldn't train a competent jet pilot to fly the replacement at the kind of speed that training was conducted back then. I know the big buzz word these days is a "near peer conflict" but if that were to happen wouldn't it literally be everyone coming as they are including the "super powers"?
It's like the difference between the Hueys in Vietnam with their much simpler maintenance regimes compared to Blackhawks, imagine requiring the number of Hawks in a conflict as was the case in Vietnam with the Hueys.? I personally think go asymmetric, go simple go medium tech and go extreme camouflage and underground and urban and let the USA and allies think they're in charge just because they can fly everywhere just like in Vietnam, Oh wait! That's what everyone is already doing lol, if you can't dislodge the enemy on the ground who really cares, but that's not the point of programs like the bloated Lead Sled jSF.
@@Veldtian1 I discussed a similar point elsewhere where the discussion was in regards to upgrading the Apache attack helicopters. The point I brought up that’s great and all but there’s still an desperate need and capability gap left empty by retiring the OH-58D’s because in the end the OH-58D’s aside from running scouting missions had become in effect a light, simple and less expensive strike helicopters that were well suited to counter insurgency. As it stands the army completely lacks a helicopter to fill that role of a simple, light, inexpensive attack and scout helicopter to fill missions that just might not be worth risking an Apache on or using an Apache would simply using a jack hammer when a sledge hammer would do. Even in a “near peer conflict” there would be a need for helicopters such as these because they can simply be produced in greater numbers and be cheaper and easier to maintain thus answer more calls for air support.
Fantastic interview. Good to hear from such experience of the strengths of this aircraft. I have to admit I was leaning against F-35 due to the years of negative opinion from non experts .
One question, if the F-35C wing is so good, why didn't it go on the A as well? Did they just not realize how good it was going to be until after the F-35A design had been largely locked in, or are there operational considerations that drive the F-35A to keep the smaller wing? Are we likely to eventually see an F-35D with the C style wing start showing up in the USAF inventory? I'm guessing the F-35B needs to keep the small wing to control weight.
"Federated systems" is my new favorite expression.
What the heck would an F-14A RIO know about federated systems anyway! (I keed, I keed)
I think the F-14 entered life just a few years too soon, missing out on the new wave of solid state and digital systems that really emerged prominently with the F-15, then out-of-the gate in the Hornet.
It was several days late and a few paychecks short once F-14D finally got that stuff.
When looking over the oversight reports on F-14A/AWG-9/AIM-54A in the mid-late 1970s, I noticed the emphasis they were putting on an F-14B with Pratt & Whitney F401-PW-400 engines.
That F401 motor was an F-14 variant of the F100, but they were still having a lot of the same problems as the TF30 and never produced it.
They spent hundreds of millions of 1970s dollars on that F401-PW-400. Have you ever heard about that and if it gutted a lot of the money for additional F-14 development?
Awesome to see you out in the wild, Ward!
@@DJones476 clever line 😁
It’s Mooch!
@@alexanderzerka8477 I am not sure if there is much to say other than that Sprey was wrong. I know he had a lot of fans who really got into his whole narrative but he was wrong.
Just the first 10 years of each teen fighter airframe losses and fatalities:
F-14: 59, 19
F-15: 54, 26
F-16: 143, 71
F/A-18: 90, 27
A-10: 59, 26
AV-8A/B/C: 100, 20
That's 505 airframes and 189 lives lost to really unproven systems designs, faulty manufacturing processes, rushed initial production model runs, engine failures, midair collisions, CFIT, GLOC (F-15, F-16, and Hornet), and even several combat fatalities for the Harrier and Hornet.
But the F-35 is made to sound like a disaster in the media.
Among the entire JSF fleet over the past 14yrs 10 months:
2 F-35A crashes
2 F-35A write-offs due to ground fires
2 F-35B crashes, 1 from a faulty fuel tube, the other from an aerial refueling accident
1 F-35B w/o due to fire in weapons bay on an early Lot sample
1 fatality, JADF CFIT which is one of the only 2 F-35A crashes.
The other F-35A crash was when a pilot out of Eglin left the speed hold on at over 200knots and didn't speed-check on final, bounced it off the runway by forcing a nose-down commanded descent rate, and thought that was HMDS misalignment.
It smashed the gears into the wells, which told the DFLCS that it was weight-on-wheels, which commanded nose-down pitch, which the pilot fought with into a rapidly-degrading PIO situation, so the pilot ejected.
That airframe is now used as a maintenance training platform because they don't have spare crashed airframes lying around like with the teen series incidents that were salvaged from landing incidents.
EXCELLENT comment!
Redesign and "bureaucrats having an idea" can make planes deadly ... as the F-104 FIGHTER jet ... which was modified to carry nuclear bombs (supplied by the US) for the german air force showed. According to Wikipedia there were 916 of them and 292 crashed with 116 piots losing their lives.
There is a term in german which was created by this bureaucratic mindset to desire weapon systems that "can do everything": *_eierlegende Wollmilchsau_* an "egg-laying, wooly, milkable pig". This concept works "ok" in the case of a tank where you can put several different turrets on top of it for bridge laying or tank recovery ... but a tank doesnt "drop out of the sky because the lift is suddenly lost due to bad aerodynamics from a modification".
In a sense I feel that the F-35 could be falling into the same trap ... being too ambitious and trying too much in one evolutionary step.
@@Muck006 As to the egg-laying, milkable, shearable sheep-pig, JSF is all that and more.
Your smartphone is a better phone than your old wireless household phone, or your old flip-phone.
It's also a better music player, navigation tool, camera, storage device, calculator, calendar, planner, ballistics software host, flashlight, computer, internet access device, etc. than the previous generation individual devices for each of those functions.
Likewise, JSF is better at:
* EW, Electronic Attack, Signals Collection
* Air-to-Air across the spectrum from BVR to Helmet HOBS employment, with total overmatch against any fighter at night/limited vis
* Deep penetration/strike using VLO
* D-SEAD
* Interdiction
* AWACS
* CSAR
* Anti-ship
* Adds Theater Ballistic and Cruise Missile Defense
It's a result of the combined velocity of multiple technological tracks maturing rapidly, then being packaged together into these airframes.
I know this is an oddball question, but one day I was wondering why the F-35A has the Equalizer rather than a single barrel cannon, I looked it up and indeed Boeing was actually proposing a license-built Mauser BK-27 for the JSF program. If I had to make a guess why the program went with the rotary cannon I'd say reliability, but is there any information on the decision process?
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD The rate of fire is much faster with a rotary cannon because each barrel performs a different cycle of operation while not firing. Gives more predictable streams of fire with higher hit rate per area on the TGT, whether airborne or on the ground.
Absolutely love this podcast and really any long format conversation with true experts in the field being discussed. It really gives the lay person a clear perspective on areas of interest and empowers us as citizens to make better informed decisions.
On a side note - ever notice that the true experts out there all share humility as a trait? Seems to be a dead giveaway on what to discern when looking for clarity on a subject.
Keep up the great work!
Totally agree. The subject matter doesnt really make a difference. True experts are just great to lusten to long form. And humility goes hand in hand with expertise.
True experts said the F-35 is not ugly. Big doubt.
Not a pilot. Not a coward either. But if I had to send my kids to war, I'd want them in a jet that gave them every chance of not even being seen.
I'd want it damn unfair on the bad guys.
F35 for me.
Smart choice.
Probably the best discussion of the F-35, and what it brings to the table, that I have heard yet. Much appreciated!👍
You're welcome. 🤩
Compare the F35's hours flown to airframes lost and the numbers speak for themselves. 1/3 of every harrier built, has crashed. Dozens of F14s lost in its dev years. The F35 hit 250,000 hours with no loss of life.
Institutional memory seems to be short in certain sections of the media. Try looking up the development history of the F-16, it's well-regarded as a safe, effective fighter now (as well it might be after nearly 50 years in service), but it had SERIOUS problems early in its' life, well beyond the issues the F-35 program has had. It's almost as if developing new, technically complex aircraft is a difficult, and sometimes dangerous thing, because the days you could go from drawing board to production in less than a year (the WWII vintage P-51) are loooong gone.
@@talltroll7092 Yes, many current fighters had lots of problems. The F35 however has been record breaking in its safety.
@@mhamma6560 if you don't count Hypoxia and Japan and the UK landing one apiece into the ocean
@@mhamma6560 which safety?? - the F35 only flies in straight lines... unable to turn sharply....
@God's Creature, there are other reasons for mental malfunctions other than incest. Public education and mass media for example.
Finally got to listen to this one, which was well worth the time. Finally someone who has the hands on knowledge to dispel the rumors and myths about an under performing 21st century weapons platform. What an interview, and great explanations with supporting examples between different platforms like the f16 and f18. Well done.
Yeah, the F-16 had a (deserved) reputation as a pilot killer early in its' dev/deployment, and had a horrible safety record overall. Over time, as problems were identified and fixed, it has become a workhorse for air forces all over the world, and has been the mostly widely deployed fighter for about a decade now, in service with a couple of dozen nations
Like almost everything else nothing is perfect. To have one thing often requires compromise elsewhere. I don't know of anything ever made that didn't have it's pro's and it's cons. I get that pilots who fly these things are more biased than us armchair experts and of course their narrow minds are never going to see the big picture but I am yet to hear a pilot who has flown in these things say they don't like it....... but hey, what would they know?
All fighters for the most part had long and troubled developmental issues. The difference is the F-35 was done in the public light where as most other fighters were designed and developed with black budget $
Yea thats true. But even so its still the most expensive project ever.
BINGO!
@@jizburg In measuring the expense, if you add all of its capability together. F-35 replaces multiple aircraft. Meaning instead of having 3 or 4 different types in a strike package, you have one. So you would have to consider that. Example- in Desert storm you have F-111's jamming, F-117's(VLO) bombing, F-15C doing CAP, F-16's doing wild weasel stuff. The F-35 can do all of those missions, so that needs to be considered in expense as you are not just replacing one aircraft but many. Also in terms of maintenance and parts its... it is a lot less expensive then needing parts for all those jets. Do the math with those considerations and adjust for inflation... and you will quickly see that it's cost, is not as bad as some make it out to be. Remember a F-117 in 1987 cost 43 Million alone, F-15 was around 25 Million... and that is not adjusting for modern inflation. I personally disagree with the o my gosh its so expensive argument.
@@jizburg There is no "it" though. We've never had a Fighter/Attack/ISTAR/EW/AWAC/Cyber Attack multi-variant platform to compare it to that was used across 3 services in the US.
You would have to add up the total life costs of:
EF-111A
F-4G
F-16
A-10
F-117A
EA-6B
F/A-18A-D
AV-8A/B/C TAV-8B
LANTIRN
ALQ-119
ALQ-131
ALQ-184
SNIPER
LITENING
PAVE PENNY
ATFLIR
HTS
Then adjust those costs into current dollars and you would still far short in capabilities, and bring the hundreds of airframe and pilot losses along with those older, less-safe designs.
Just among the first 10 years of "teen fighters", we lost 515 airfranes and had 182 fatalities.
That's how you know you're either being lied to or misled by people who talk about the projected life costs of JSF across all 3 services, for many decades of service.
Compared to the teen fighters, all 3 JSF variants are relatively faultless when you look at mishaps, total losses, and fatalities.
It's how I can immediately tell if the author of an article has any relevant experience or recent historical framework knowledge.
Great interview Jello, I love how in depth you get in these interviews. I had no idea of the importance of having Canadian airspace protected for the United States really was, these interviews really stimulates the mind and increases ones own situational awareness. Absolutely love the job you and your team does, this is by far the most interesting and enjoyable content that I consume, you are better than Netflix, HBO, Amazon Prime, and all other media outlets. The detail and amazing guests and your own team is fantastic, keep up the awesome work.
Thanks, Eric, but better be careful: feedback like that is liable to expand my head.
This is the coolest RCAF pilot I've ever heard of
Billy must have had one of the all time flying careers! Amazing.
No kidding.
What'd you fly Billie?
Just all of 4th gen, a couple 3rd gen.
Yes. he flew for all Developers, and every plane. Some say, he will land the ISS safely on an Aircraft carrier.
@@triedproven9908 If our relationship with Russia didn’t worsen, he probably would fly all russian jets by now.
@@Gunni1972
At night !
Funny story......Erich Hartman destroyed 352 Allied planes in WW2.
After the war, he was testing a prototype of what would eventually be the Harrier.
He was hovering at low altitude when the engine suddenly quit, and the aircraft slammed onto the ground. He survived, pulled himself out of the wreckage and exclaimed.....353 !
This was my first time at this channel. What an incredible interview, LtCol Flynn is a true SME for so many platforms. As a former Marine 53E guy I loved every moment. I hope the F35 can do what it needs to, our Nations and way of life depends on it. God bless America and our Allies.
It can't close the southern border, so what's the point of it.
@@Veldtian1 yeah just like border control.
Imagine the “oh shit”/“no shit” stories Billy has over that illustrious career. Would love to hear more about flying those Greek F-4’s!!!
"F-35 is too fat"
It's barely any heavier than the F-16, while making almost double the thrust.
"It's wings are too small"
It's wings have more surface area than the F-16.
"It doesn't handle well"
Look up current videos of it manuevering. It handles like a leaf with thrust vectoring. It's insane.
Hey, never let the facts get in the way of a good rant!
It also has more wing are than the F/A 18 as well as it is a lifting body design meaning the entire aircraft generates lift, not just the wings.
Wow, what an absolutely fantastic interview! LTCol Flynn is such an experienced, introspective, far-seeing and brilliant individual! Without a doubt, this is the BEST hour and 45 minutes I have EVER spent on UA-cam. Thank you both! And, yes, the X-32 was a truly ugly airplane! lol
The part about automatic ground collision avoidance was great. Would like to hear more of that…
Sounds like there *_will_* be a dedicated Auto-GCAS episode in the future...
Stay tuned!
its cool but i dont think thats a new thing, i know the f111 had a ground collision avoivance radar. however i dont know if its automatic.
@@yujinhikita5611 Been around many years TSR2 had it
The real story is that the F-35 grew up in the age of social media. Everyone can have an opinion (and they do) about this aircraft. So whenever there is any negative news about it, people are quick to make comments. Aircraft like the F/A-18, F-16, F-15 and F-22 all had troubled developments like EVERY aircraft ever made does, the difference is that we have thousands of people on Facebook and other social media platforms speculating on the condition of the F-35 program.
That’s a good summary of what we said.
@@FighterPilotPodcast Yeah I ended up writing this comment before I listened to the podcast. Great discussion by the way!
Thanks,@@nickestes1839
I was born on base and grew up til i was 9 at Edwards AFB in Kern County CA, my father was stationed there as a fire fighter and before him my grandfather was stationed there back when it was Muroc AFB, i've got allot of cool stories and experiences at Edwards, my daughter is about to go into the Air Force next year and she wants to be stationed at Edwards and i hope she gets it, but when i die i will have my ashes spread there, so much family history there and there is where i want to lay for eternity.
40 minutes in and what a great story! Listen to the SME (subject matter expert) not reporters and political pundits if you want the real skinny! CFIT resulted in so many of my friends tragic ends, (I was a Naval Aviator in the 70’s-90’s) thank you for helping to develop this life saving technology!
Sparky
SMEs are part of the military industrial complex. They're not going to lambast the providers of new and cool technologies they've been allowed to become SMEs on.
There not
Dude this guy belongs in a museum holy crap! Insane episode!
Hands down the best interview with the most qualified individual on the most important strategic decision making in 5th generation aircraft. Well done to all involved.
Thank you, Adrian.
I'm an engineer who worked in high technology in many different industries over a span of nearly 50 years with some of the biggest players in their industry. In the fall of 2001 I was working on a project at Lockheed commercial satellites division. I was there when Lockheed won the contract for F35. Based on the quality of the people I met there I knew and never doubted that it would be a spectacular success. I also followed its development and knew that its detractors like Pierre Sprey didn't know what the hell they were talking about. The challenges that had to be overcome to create this machine were staggering. I knew immediately when the F16 beat it in simulated combat that it was operating on block 3 software which deliberately limited the kinetic performance of F35 at that time. Lockheed was very cautious about its testing and extending its limits. F35 is not the same plane it was 5 years ago, it will be a different plane 5 years from now, and still a different plane 10 years from now. The adaptability for upgrades is inherent in the way it was conceived. With 10 million lines of computer code and an on board library of 200,000 RCSs it's a flying computer but more than that it is an important node in a network connecting swarms of combat elements to each other and every asset the US has. It's part of the tip of the spear. Along with drones it will control one of its primary tasks will be to eliminate enemy defenses opening the gate for more heavily armed planes like F15EX. It also now can deploy the B61 mod 12 bunker buster 50 kt gravity bomb. Once a protected underground space is penetrated it will take out an entire network of underground chambers and connecting tunnels.
I find it impossible to believe China or Russia could build a comparable plane. Building a next Gen fighter that will eclipse F35 will be an enormous challenge. If you want to know how good F35 is ask an F35 pilot what other plane in the world he'd choose to go into combat against F35?
This was the F-35 discussion to end all F-35 discussions. I really like the thumbnail showing the F-35 soaring above the negative articles.
Thanks, you’re the first to comment on that. 😎
I was initial DoD maintenance cadre in the F-35 Program. Spent 10 subsequent years on the A/B/C (Crew Chief) ending with Hill. Let me know if you would like to have the ground perspective of the development.
Yes please!
This podcast is so good and exactly what I want as a subscriber! And LT Col. Flynn what a stud. This definitely opened my eyes to the success of the f-35
That's the hope, Aaron!
@@FighterPilotPodcastBy the way, I joined the civil air patrol because of this podcast. Thanks for all the great info !
Don't tell him that! He has a small ego for a test pilot and we want to keep it that way!
After 7 years of assessments of some of the top in-production Western fighters by the Finnish Air Force and MoD, and the F-35A beat all the others handily in the H-X Competition. Finnish Air Chief stated that its superiority was “clear and dizzying”. Distant 2nd place was Super Hornet Block 3, with Saab Gripen E/F coming in dead last. Not only was the F-35A the best across the board, but it was also the most affordable in acquisition and sustainment, allowing Finland to use much more of their budget for weapons. Only 4.7 Billion Euros is going to the actual 64 unit aircraft purchase.
Did not read about who finished where in the Finnish competition or the remarks from the Air Chief. Publicly released?
@@billieflynn1943 Yes. I watched the announcements on the Finnish news, but they also did English speeches back-to-back stating their decision. They also published a PDF breakdown of all costs that detail Unit Program and Unit Flyway more than I’ve ever seen OSINT since the early 1980s (when I started keeping detailed track of defense acquisitions specific to fighters and weapons that we were involved in, as well as ones peripheral to us at AFFTC, China Lake, Pax River, etc.).
It also shows the contracted Unit Flyway of Block 4 F-35A in Euros, since the 64 unit order is only for 4.701 Billion Euros, initial A2A weapons package for hundreds of Block II+ AIM-9X and AIM-120 later models at 775 million Euros, with a 2.9 billion maintenance, support, training, services, etc. package on top of that.
The F-35 package was so much better economically that it leaves them all kinds of money to spend on future weapons and a lot of Air-to-Surface weapons.
There’s a 178 page thread on a reputable site that has tracked H-X since 2014 with far better info than any other source online, since it is populated by actual Viper and other .mil pilots, maintainers, AeroEs, Pratt jet engine mechanics and engineers, software, avionics, ordnance, and related folks. They do an excellent job of sifting through the usual corporate presstitue excrement and cutting down to the ground truth.
@@billieflynn1943 Finland didn’t mention who placed 2nd until Saab pitched a fit complaining about fairness in H-X, when it was the most overseen, 3rd party audited, extensive, exhaustive fighter evaluation I’ve seen practically any nation undertake. To settle the record, Finns announced that Boeing came in distant 2nd place with the Super Bug with 3.81 out of 5, with 4 being the threshold.
An interesting thing I noticed about the military performance 5 sub-paragraph portion of the requirements for H-X I read included:
Counter-Air
Counter-Ground (ATG)
Anti-Ship
ISTAR
EW
Each paragraph might as well have said:
A2A: We want F-35
A2G: See above
Anti-Ship: “ “
etc.
First sentence in counter-air para started with discussion of sensor fusion. Finished with a brief discussion about the need to be able to detect and track a wide number of targets and assess their EW posture in addition to traditional TGT tracks. Who ever wrote a fighter specification like that before?
ATG said basically: “We want autonomous and automated TGT detection, recognition, with ease of pilot weapons employment on those TGTs, in addition to being able to network with Finnish JTACs.”
It went on like that for each paragraph for the pure military performance requirements.
I got the sense that someone who had been flying F-35 simulators basically went back and wrote the contract out based on the capes they saw in there.
My perspective is that they knew since 2014 what they were getting, but by creating the sense of competition with lots of players, it allowed them to drive the contract with L-M into their favor and get a huge industrial share with even lower prices overall.
@@billieflynn1943 Big picture. I think this basically means that Canadian Parliament would have to openly advocate for buying the constant loser from the Swiss, Norwegian, and Finnish fighter replacement programs (that has been losing for decades), pay more money for it, to have the least capability of any current Western-produced fighter on the market, while divesting of their $661 million already invested in JSF, along with the existing Canadian companies who have been making critical parts for the JSF program all this time.
Maybe they’ve just been holding out for Block 4.
@@LRRPFco52 Brilliant intel and summary...
Sorry I’m not interested in what an actual F-35 pilot has to say about the plane. I prefer to get my Information 2nd hand from a guy who talked to a guy that knows a guy that has a cousin who says it’s no good.
😂🤣
Do you think a pilot who gets the chance to fly in the most modern fighter jet is going to say bad things about it? They would be weeded out of the selection process instantly. You have to be a gungho, tow the line, 110% team player. No cynicism, or negativity will be tolerated.
You have a future in journalism. 👍
So a Test Pilot vs the opinion of The NY Times of the Socialist Democratic City/State of New York? 😂
Jell-O, there are good podcasters and there are GREAT podcasters. The good ones would try to guide the discussion while the guest is spewing out diamonds of fantastic, jaw-dropping stories - so thank you for letting Billie roll with 20 full minutes of been-there-done-that. His stellar test background was so astounding, that I listened to this twice this morning. Please invite him back someday. Great Podcast, Great Episode!
Thanks, MrShado. I'd like to think I've learnt something in 120+ episodes... 😉
Phenomenal interview and what a wealth of experience that Billie has.
One of the most enjoyable FPP's! Thanks for tee'ing up the F-35C question - Billie crushed a 400 yard drive with it.
🏌️♂️🎯
Great episode! Always love hearing Billie's point of view. I can confirm that our procurement system here in Canada is abysmal. No matter what we buy, it has to be "Canadianized" in some way.....as well as have economic offsets for Canadian businesses (some are currently building components for the F-35). If there is one place where negative press has skewed the outlook on the F-35, it's here in Canada. I'm not an SME, but I feel I am somewhat informed; I have gotten into long, drawn out debates for/against the F-35 (which I am for), and it amazes me that detractors are firmly planted on their views of the F-35, despite the fact that it is improving and proving itself. Even guys in the Canadian Hornet community (some who are friends) are rebuffed by these detractors.....and the fighter guys are privy to more info than is what is available to the media and the public.....not to mention drawing from their experience in the Hornet. I have no problem agreeing with Its early shortfalls, but these people simply refuse to acknowledge that the aircraft is getting better. While it may not seem like it here in Canada, the F-35 is a hot debate topic, especially among aviation enthusiasts and experts alike. Biggest problem is, it (defence & procurement) is never high on the list of campaign issues during Canadian elections. I also feel that not enough Canadians know exactly what the Canadian Forces does.
The last eight to ten years has been part of a larger saga in terms of replacing the CF-18. From kicking the can down the road, to a Conservative government sole-sourcing F-35s, to a Liberal government cancelling that, buying Super Hornet as an "interim" solution, to that falling through, to buying used Australian Hornets. Now, we are upgrading 36 Hornets with AESA, AIM-9X and JSOW. From the purchase of used jets to upgrading half of our current fleet, those funds could have been allocated to the new fighter. And we still won't see a new platform for at least another 3-4 years.
But going through any Canadian media platform...... it's all the same when it comes to the F-35. Nothing but sensationalism and negative press.
Great comments. When I saw that Canada is buying 36x APG-79(V)4 Gallium Nitride TRM-equipped AESA radars to install in rickety, broke-arse baby Hornets with limited service life on them, while avoiding commitment to the JSF, it was confirmed that Canada's parliament needs a urinalysis.
There aren’t any legacy baby bugs around with decent airframe life left on them. The last baby -18s were delivered in the year 2000. Assuming 300 flight hours per year per airframe, you’re looking at over 6,000 flight hours on the last Hornet airframes, and they were delivered to USMC and Finnish Air Force, who still operate those “younger” Hornets. Where did Canada get the used Hornets from? The Australians, who fly them like they stole them. Of all the Air Forces in the world, only the maritime-deployed Hornets will have worse airframes, structures, subcomponents, and electronics due to saltwater exposure and endless corrosion-containment workloads placed on the maintainers.
This is going to cost Canada well over $1 billion to maintain those broke rust buckets with cracks all throughout the structures, worn-out subsystems and components, and limited capability in fully-up condition anyway. Just to do all the structural inspections and overhaul will not only cost insane amounts of money, but will see much of those aircraft in extended depot-level servicing, unable to train or deploy.
If you’re like the US with thousands of fighters, you can rotate a few hundred later model fighters through SLEP/MLU/CCIP like we’ve done with F-16C Block 40/42/50/52. Each one of those Vipers has well over $100 million in sunk unit costs, especially after the CCIP standardization, which took 144 days per bird in just one of the Block standardizations. We can still maintain commitments all over because our fighter fleet is monstrous in size, and composed of 10 different types.
Canada doesn’t have the luxury to screw around at this point, wasting a billion on worn-out fighters. This is one of the most preposterous defense decisions we’ve seen from a relatively large coalition partner in ages. The only other example I can think of right now would be Austria, and they were tricked/swindled into buying a bunch of used Tranche 1 Typhoons from Germany, with only IR missile capability at $120 million per airframe flyaway, who knows what unit program cost was. They’re trying to offload those right now on someone, but have to get US approval because of all the US technology that is in them.
From an Intelligence perspective, Canada’s decision was heavily-influenced by an active measures Soviet disinformation campaign, coordinated with “Canadian” media and treasonous politicians who don’t know the rear-end from the radome of a fighter, and couldn’t care less.
That’s what drove that Canadian 60 minutes hit piece that really “informed” the populace and politicians, with helpful input from Pierre Sprey. I would love to debate that guy. It would be brutal.
Always challenging.
@@FighterPilotPodcast Especially here. I know politics is always going to be involved in stuff like this, but it is very prevalent here in Canada.
@@LRRPFco52 I would also love to debate Pierre Sprey but he passed away a short while ago.
@@yxeaviationphotog Quit worrying. Parliament's chock-full of DCS-ers.
Truly engaging!!! What a great interview and story. Enjoyed listening to it.
Start at 39 minutes, when they finally get round to talking about the F-35. And Billie Flynn loves it.
Dude, you're exactly missing the point. The reason he's worth listening to at 39 minutes is because of the background he provides prior to that. Billie has credibility.
Awesome podcast, clearly an awesome aircraft. An RAF F-35 went down yesterday in the Mediterranean (Nov 2021). Will be interesting to see what the cause was.
I suspect it wasn't a mechanical/structural fault, since they reconvened flight ops and even got Italians aboard HMS QE within the week.
I'm a software engineer and the idea that the whole system is a monolitic block where changing one thing needs changes throughout the whole system sounds so 80s to me. Why isn't it they could have a multitude of agents exchanging clearly defined messages between all the avionic systems? Maybe it the old monolitic kernel (performance) vs. Microkernel (fail-safety) debate (with RT-considerations put in) again, but it really rings a bell of yesterday-design in me...
Oh...and I'm from germany and I never heard that thing about the F16 over here. But I remember clearly we called the F104 a widow maker and remember it being said that if you ever want to own a F104, you only had to buy a patch of land and wait. That was after we decided to repurposed that interceptor into a bomber...
Agreed. Of course the code base was.probably started in the 90's so they are locked I to a defunct language. Devops cycle must be insane.
To me this sounds very much like a one massive git branch with one master.
A few years ago I highly critical of the program until someone asked me to look at the history of aircraft development. And because I was curious enough to go down that cavern I came out of it of a understanding how hard it is to develop a whole new platform with politicians breathing down your neck let alone the crazies in the press. Thank you for the interview and another bit of info to give in the arguements that I find myself in defending the F-35 and other cutting edge aircraft designs.
There's a book I recommend for serious students of modern combat systems development.
It's called "F-35 From Concept to Cockpit" Over 731 pages written by each program lead and test pilots for JSF, complete with photographs, test parameter metrics, real-world instrumented data, computational fluid dynamic models showing what didn't work and how it was corrected on X-35.
I can't believe they printed it. We never had that kind of data on the F-16 publicly-available.
@@LRRPFco52 Thank you, I will be getting a copy.
Plus there is a possiblity theres a lot of those nay sayers are foreign funded like mayber trying to derail the project in fear of its success
You dont think t he companies behind these planes have any fault? They were "overpromising", aka lying about the planes capabilities, relied on cost plus contracts to extract as much money as possible, and the design/production management was so inept they had to constantly refit to make the first planes work because the design wasnt finished.
The F-35 is very capable, but thats ironically enough, because its capabilities were massively increased from the earlier, insufficient model. Its way bigger, heavier and more expensive than proposed.
Especially the hate towards journalism is hilarious. No matter the bad reporting, the bullshit Lockheed tried to pull with this plane wouldve not come to light without them. And now they pretend to be surprised when theyre getting looked at super critically.
Even in the interview its actually said that the F-35 team now knows they have to deliver, bring the cost down, cannot afford fuckups as before. Thats because of media and political oversight, and was necessary because of the rip off that this project was for a long time.
Thats why I dislike these one-sided messages. Ripping the F-35 to shred without understanding it is just as boring as one-sided defenses.
What an awesome interview. I love all 3 variants of the F35! What a beautiful aircraft and great to hear good news about it!
Very interesting talk. As a German I am glad that the F35 is competent and hope that we will be able to develop something that is also good.
We will develop nothing. Even if we cooperate with France, which has never worked, we won't have the resources.
Interesting point about the F-35C. If it was the wing that was meant to be on the F-35, it apparently turns better than all the other variants, it has more fuel and range than all the other variants, why didn't it become the base model. Was a C model with regular landing gears not a cheaper version than making an A model
The transonic acceleration between the 3 is different, favoring the A, then the B & C. The B isn’t area-ruled like the A since there is a noticeable bulge behind the cockpit for the lift fan, which makes it harder to push through supersonic. The wing area of the C also prevents the transonic acceleration exhibited by the B. I don’t think it’s as big of a deal since you’re trying to avoid heating the leading edges in supersonic realm anyway, so it would be interesting to see a CTOL variant with A model landing gear, and C Model wings. I would use carbon composites for the wing structures to drop the weight considerably, since the C model is around 32,000lb empty last I checked. A model is ~29,000lb empty, which helps with T/W and climb rates.
There’s a graph showing the transonic acceleration between the 3, where the A model beats a slick Block 50 F-16C big mouth Viper with the GE motor. Transonic acceleration is a main consideration for weapons separation kinematics from a 4th Gen perspective, so I think it’s something to look at for a high subsonic 5th Gen that likes to avoid blooming in the IR spectrum.
This was a great listen, and what an incredible career
Ah, the CF-18 Hornet... The story of an American fighter than became a Canadian icon. Weird, huh?
I am not a pilot but I helped design auto-land systems when all we had was very slow op-amps and the test pilots would out-fly any technical solution we could design. It seems odd to me that people complain about the F-35 when it does so much for the pilot in extraordinarily complex environments. They simply do not appreciate the enormous technology advancements the F-35 and the hours or hard work that have gone into creating the most advanced fighter in the world. In my opinion, the Chinese can attempt to steal our tech all they want but unless they have exact copies of our complex design and flight environments as well as our talent they will NEVER understand or beat the quality characteristics of the F-35.
By the way, I love this stuff. Please keep it coming.
Many take issue with the fact that the U.S. did not purchase an adequate number of F-22s, placing further pressure on the F-35 to meet requirements--which it has not when we look at cost alone.
I just hope Canada makes the right desicion and purchases this legendary plane. The Block III Super Hornet and Gripen don't have as much potential as the F-35.
This was very insightful and informative. I finally understand why Canadian Forces did not consider the carrier-compatible F-35C variant. I had the impression that CF "needed" the ability to deploy off of US carriers. Especially in the Pacific and Middle East theater. Thanks LTCol Flynn!. The Canadian people need to hear more from CF pilots like you!
Vince, I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion!!! Too much Billie is barely enough!!. He's has had an amazing career. He also has the 'runs on the board' as a highly experienced and knowledgeable fighter and test pilot to speak the truth regarding this amazing weapon system. I'm so glad the RAAF decided to purchase the aircraft. It's an amazing beast.
And should only get better. Thanks, Mark. 💪
Where are the F35's "runs on the board" as of right now..? Why is the RAF deciding to develop the Tempest if the F35's the cat's pyjamas..?
@@Veldtian1 Mark said RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force), not RAF (Royal Air Force).
I think the Air Force is finally realized that they need to keep a diversified air defense fleet and not have all their eggs in one basket. Only having one option is a really big limitation. If you only have one type of weapon then your enemy only has to figure out how to defeat that one weapon
Well as a fellow dual citizen but living in Canada this interview convinced me that the F35 is the platform Canada needs. It clarified a lot of issues surrounding the airplane. This country has a GDP larger than Russia and occupies a strategically critical space. Canada cannot afford to select an aircraft that is less than 5th generation capable.
Here in the US, we are grateful to have you guys as our neighbor to the north. I've been fortunate enough to spend a lot of time in Canada, and when I retire in another 10 years, we will definitely have a place in Canada... for the summertime, of course! ; )
I learned a lot from this podcast and it was reassuring to hear a positive voice based on such extensive experience when you consider the amount of money that must be spent these days to fund cutting-edge fighter aircraft research.
Honestly the F-35 winning hands down the Finnish HX-challenge for Hornet replacement should finally put the nonsense bad rep to rest.
You would think, but I doubt it.
@@FighterPilotPodcast Well yes, should is not would. But the win certainly is a significant merit for F-35 as the competition was extremely tough and thorough against the best the west has to offer.
Incredible podcast episode!! I used to think the F-35 was garbage compared to the F-22, but y’all have completely changed my mind!!
Acommon aircraft seems good until the enemy finds a weak link in that aircraft and then they are all vulnerable!
The navy found out that having different aircraft was a big asset during ww2
Um, the Navy had attack planes and fighters. Hellcat, replacing the wildcat. Many of the different planes were replacements for older craft. The F4U only saw carrier service when the need for a high speed interceptor outweighed how horrible it was at landing.
I'm old enough to remember when the A-10 went through this B.S.. Except it wasn't on UA-cam or social media, it was in print media. The A-10 was the "Popsicle Stick" because of it's un-cool un-swept wing. It was "too slow to survive on a modern battlefield". We were all supposed to laugh at the fact that it was given the name "Thunderbolt!" as it was by no means lightning quick. But I think the P.R. problem was the same. People and the press knew what military aircraft did because Hollywood showed them. They really, at a fundamental level, didn't understand what the A-10 was designed to do. Opinions changed only slowly, and mostly by word of mouth, from soldiers coming home with stories that ended with "So that ugly assed warthog saved all our butts". After a lot of years, decades really, of saving lives the A-10 has become a legend. Some of you have to remember all of the hand wringing that went on over the reliability of the Abrams just before Desert Storm. 73 Easting changed that. Give it time.
It was great to hear from someone with such great experience with no dog in the fight.
I think that the best advertising for the F-35 is the selection by the Swiss, a country that doesn't go to war.
Several years ago I spoke to a guy who works on the line at Lockheed. They build the center wing boxes here in Marietta. He told me that in reality, the F-35 is really three different airplanes..
Alan - One of the most surprising outcomes of the Swiss competition in their debrief was that they calculated the procurement and operations for 30 years of the 36 new fighters to be $2.2 Billion less for the F-35 than the nearest 4th Gen competitor (Super Hornet, Typhoon or Rafale). That debriefing point shocked everyone. How could the 5th Gen fighter be that much less to buy and fly over a 3 decade period by that much. It would be hard to argue that the Swiss don't know financing therefore how is the massive cost discrepancy explained? It becomes another compelling point in favor of 5th Gen.
@@billieflynn1943 I read that in some of the media reports on the outcome of the Swiss competition.
Hopefully your air force will purchase aircraft that match the quality of Canadian Forces personnel..
@@billieflynn1943 Another interesting analysis from the Swiss when the Gripen NG was a contender in a previous competition was that they determined CPFH would be $21,000-$27,000 with the Gripen NG. Gripen E wasn’t invited back to/didn’t participate in the final competition that F-35A just won. I’ve seen random claims that the Gripen E will cost only $4,000, then $4,400, or $6,000 CPFH. I then point out that those are roughly half of what it takes to fly the radar-less, EW system-less, 285kt cruising, non-afterburning A-10 with simple tube airframe and wings, mechanical FLCS with cables and pulleys.
Dassault told India they promise they will work hard with them to get the CPFH down to $25,000 on India’s $213 million unit program cost Rafales. This doesn’t include any critical ancillary systems of course, just the airframe.
In the USAF Viper fleet, ECM pods have their own shop and mx back-end, as does LITENING FLIR pod, and HARM Targeting Pod for Later Block CCIP Vipers. None of those costs and MMPFH are reported in the fleet readiness reports, FMC, or MC rates. Just the airframe and contained systems are reported.
None of that can be hidden with JSF since it’s all integrated, and yet F-35A surpassed all other USAF fighters in 2020 for FMC/MC rates, which is handicapped by all the Block 2 early F-35As at Luke AFB mostly, used for conversion training. The costs for upgrading those Block 2 birds to Block 3 is included and amortized across the fleet when reporting CPFH stats as well, which isn’t even close to an accurate representative of what operational squadrons are seeing.
The GAO and DOT&E reports in the US are highly-flawed and erroneous before they are even compiled.
American corporations have no problem lying to sell their product. Europe tends to jail/fine their corporations that do this but the USA protects it's criminal corporations because it makes them more money. Welcome to the United States of corporate oligarchy.
I think for Canada the statement would be "Why get some muscles if big brother is going to fight our fights for us." It's what many counties in Europe do.. Great podcast btw
Amazing interview with an amazing man- the new time stamp function in youtube would be a great supplement!
Not familiar, can you link to what that is?
@@FighterPilotPodcast I couldn’t remember what they were called guess they are called “chapters” ua-cam.com/video/pvkTC2xIbeY/v-deo.html
The best way to counter critics is with success. I can remember when the iPhone first appeared, its critics said nobody will pay five times the price of the popular flip phones for the iPhone. The F-35 is the iPhone of war planes.
curious as a Canadian.
what effect does sand and Ice control have on the f35's maintenance/operations.
does de-icing/Anti-icing fluid have an effect on RCS coating and performance?
With all the testing and evaluation they go through, not much during normal Ops, but after lengthy/continuous exposure, there is definitely some impact which needs to be dealt with.
@@FighterPilotPodcast
thanks.
there is little info on that.
I would think sand may also be something to look into.
What an interview. I could've listened for another 2 hours.
You wouldn't think just sitting, talking in front of a microphone would be difficult but I was already exhausted after this long--I don't know how Joe Rogan does it!
Agreed. Sucks its fatiguing.
Great podcast! I first became aware of Mr Flynn at his lecture at the recent flightsim conference, which was an awesome presentation on F35 details and simulation. Keep it up.
First off, outstanding podcast! Even being prior USAF, I can't begin to tell you how much I've learned here.
Secondly, as others have said, I wasn't too big of a fan of the F-35 at first. However, the more I hear about it (from the various SME's) the more and more I have come to love it. I truly can't wait to see what the future holds for this amazing craft!
Keep up the great work!
Thanks, Travis, I appreciate the feedback. It's natural to have a negative impression of the F-35 because that's what we were served by most media outfits. That's why Billie is the right guy to explain this.
Billie has got some hell of a resume🔥
One of the best episodes yet; thank you Jello and LtCol Flynn for cutting through the chatter on the F-35. Well done.
thanks, Joel.
The Navy: single engine fighters are less safe for carrier operations.
The Marines: we want that single engine to rotate and be way more complex.
1st ten years of AV-8 service: 100 total losses, 20 fatalities
1st ten years of F-35B service: 3 total losses, 0 fatalities
@Phil Collins Those are declared IOC dates, not service introduction.
F-35A started flying in December 2006. F-35B first flew in June 2008.
F-35C: June 2010
Most JSF are A models by a large factor.
@Phil Collins The thing that impresses me the most is that the USMC and USN haven't smashed an F-35C yet.
F-14 burned in on its first flight ever, not even carrier ops, where it really suffered. They lost 173 Tomcats over its entire life.
Hornets didn't even have working landing gear. There was an alignment bar that kept the wheel oriented correctly when gear down. Those kept detaching on landing, sending Hornets cartwheeling or careening off runways and flight decks. Killed several pilots, including one of the Gulf of Sidra Sukhoi-killers from VF-41/1981 incident. He went into F/A-18 test program after flying the cat, died in one of those landing gear failure incidents in the early 1980s.
These were real people, not just some statistic. I watched all the teens struggle through those years, but we never really heard much about it except for the F-16.
@Phil Collins It takes years of work for a service to get a new jet to Initial Operating Capability.
They have to do the developmental test and evaluation on a few production samples before blessing off on further production. They have to do all the weapons configuration flight test, landing, and flight regime separation tests for the initial weapons suite, plus make sure they have the effects they want with guidance.
They also have to build the fighter conversion training units, simulator infrastructure, and get Instructor Pilots trained.
They have to get maintainers trained, equipped, and based with their own schools and pipelines.
Can't stand-up operational squadrons if none of that other stuff is in-place.
It's even harder for the carrier variant because you have to do the carrier qualifications, tailhook feasibility, weapons bring-back tests, catapult launch weights and stores configurations, hangar deck interoperability, maintenance procedures under-deck, engine module transport compatibility with fleet cargo assets (big deal with F135 motor for Navy).
So you start to get a picture of what it takes from first flight to IOC.
@Phil Collins I'm not talking about X-35 program, but from the start of production and adoption by the services, starting with the units at Edwards AFB and US Navy Pax River.
F-35As have been in USAF since 2006, F-35Bs in USMC since 2008, and F-35Cs in USN since 2010.
You don't rack up 436,000 flight hours with a few of them flown over a few years. 705+ have been delivered since 2006.
The test flight schedule for JSF was very aggressive too, as are the operational squadron training and deployment schedules.
They're pushing these aircraft hard all over the world.
Israelis have been flying in combat for a long time now, immediately followed by USMC, then USAF, and UK.
Thank you for making this podcast available on UA-cam for us.
You're welcome, Thunderace.
Doing so is not completely altruistic: sure we want to get the word out but we do earn ad revenue from UA-cam. Also, we hope the occasional listener will sign up on our Patreon page. 😉
OK, I'm converted from F35 sceptic to being excited that we're getting them. Now I'm worried that the UK won't buy enough. Also, I think we should have gone for F35C but that's another story...
Exactly. I think down the road they'll regret not doing the C
True. But also I’m not sure given the expense of catobar in comparison that the carrier program would’ve even survived the last/next couple of governments
The cost, the complexity, the forward thinking design and future-proofing are all factors of threat and overcoming that threat. To build something beyond your adversaries, that will outlast a whole generation of their capabilities will always be difficult and expensive.
Winning is hard, but overwhelming victory requires legendary expense and effort. The US is blessed by being such a wealthy and stable nation. To stay ahead of its arch rivals and *convince them that fighting is a mistake* is the hallmark of that wealth, stability, and unified effort.
Being at the top, however, isn’t a guarantee. It takes unwavering dedication to ensuring that the people and systems we have are the best they can be. That’s incredibly expensive to do. Good execution requires many good people and lots of money. Those outside of large scale engineering projects often fail to understand that delivering quality on an ongoing basis is often unaffordable. It’s why we have governments that take in taxes from an entire country-it’s the only way we can approach such a high level of expense and technology.
I'm so jealous of this guy. Amazing interview.
An amazing interview with an amazing fighter pilot. Thanks, Jello. Jeez, it was TRULY AMAZING...
Thanks 👍
“Never question an A-10 in CAS.” 😂 10/10 agree. Best comment of the podcast.
💪
When I was a baby, "Eric Hartman" came to my baby Bday party, dad flew F86's,....French military college, then you become Canada's 1st CF-18 driver.....was a front line fighter pilot in Europe in the amazing 1980's, deep in the fighter mafia culture wars, test pilot for all leading edge things Euro, USN and USAF and a test pilot that actual got to Command a fighter squadron and led RCAF into 1st combat since WW 2....2,000 hours in Hornets, 5,000 hours TAC air total....legendary fighter pilot lineage.
How often are you invited to speak at AWC, Fighter Weapons School, Red Flag???? Etc
A one size fits all approach has worked before - the F4 Phantom! If the plane is good enough...used in combat by the USAF, USMC, USN,and sold to a dozen allies because it was a world beater.
The F-4 phantom also had a 2-1 kill ratio when it first went into combat, because the pilots were told that the age of the dogfight was over so the USAF and USN stopped training their pilots to dogfight. Then they met an obsolete MiG-17.
Make the Navy build it, then make everyone else fly it. Imagine if the Air Force was flying Hornets these days.
There are 3 different airframes too, nothing like the F-4. Even the F-35B has about 100nm combat radius over an F-4E on its best day with 2 EFTs.
@@nullterm the USAF had the chance to buy the F/A-18 when it was the YF-17, they chose the YF-16. The Navy then took the YF-17 and in the process of turning a LWF into a strike fighter got a larger, heavier plane that could not meet the Navy's range requirements so the range requirements were changed to meet the F/A-18's capabilities. So instead of doing the mission on just on external tank, it would use 3 external tanks.
The thing that people keep getting confused about the is that USAF is not the F-35 program. Its joint program between the USAF, USMC and USN
The USAF's problems with the F-35 are completely different from the rest.
Budget cuts in the RCAF should not be on the table. Billions of tax dollars wasted on give away programs like the CERB while Canadian military families and the armed forces beg for a respectful wage and spare parts. There is a lack of operational readiness and our adversaries will take advantage of the holes we do not tend in our Northern backyard.
This podcast is an eye opener for all North America, thank you.
Derek J.
This was fantastic. I’m ashamed to admit I just found this podcast @ episode 121! Thank you - great guest, questions and discussion.
Glad to have you no matter when you find us, GRB.
Out of curiosity... You mentioned _"X-32 vs. X-35"._
That brings up two questions:
+ _Why 'X' vs. 'Y'?_ and
+ _Why non-consecutive numbers?_
How did this differ from _YF-22 vs. YF-23?_
BTW, I was in Marietta, GA working on C-130J software testing in the 1990s and was fortunate to be present for the first flight of the F-22.
I'm sure it's not true, but I've often gotten the impression that F-35 is essentially the cheaper, downgraded export alternative to the F-22. OTOH, I do suppose that with a limited budget, you probably get more bang for the buck with a fleet of F-35s than with an equivalent amount of money invested in F-22s.
Handy podcast! Off work with a bad back, bored and hobbled! Now something to get my teeth into. Thanks Jell-O!
I hope your back feels better!
@@Tigershark_3082 hahaha! Thank you! I'm indeed loosened up a bit and back to the slave pit in the morning!
You mentioned the _CF-104_ -- do you have videos on _"almost fighters"_ like the _CF-105?_ Perhaps speculating on how effective it might have been if not cancelled?
This plane is one of the first being born under this crazy social media age, thats way it's getting so much heat and attention... There are planes that are so well known today with zero hate but had alot more problems than F-35 just because they never were developed under this crazy social media age..
F-35 is one of the 4 fifth generation fighter jets and it's an amazing plane, with tech that nobody has... It is not made for close combat dog fighting or to go super duper fast like some do even if the F-35 goes pretty damn quick specially with high load, going back to close dog fighting the F-35 will kill you loooong before it even gets there that's what the F-35 is made for, if you can't pin point the plane you can not shoot it down no matter what plane you have that's the F-35 right there.
Good approach to the issue. Ask the pilots about the plane. I am tired of people spouting off that do not know what they are talking about! This is refreshing to hear! Good show!
I know the Lt. Col. is a smart man and a hell of a fighter pilot, but saying, “no plane will ever hit the ground again” sounds a lot like, “no plane will ever dogfight and need a gun again” from the Vietnam era. But it does sound good, we shall see!! Salute.
The host asked for his career and life story, basically. I enjoyed it. I love real life anecdotes.
The F-16 can't stall. Until it did and it got the nickname the "Lawndart"
I'm not in the military or a pilot but I greatly enjoy hearing these great minds makes me feel better about the state of our military 💯🇺🇲
What annoys this Marine is the B version for CAS ...? with NO INTERNAL GUN.
And why not use the C variant's wings on all (for more fuel and reduced wing loading) ...
But, if logic were where it's at -- we wouldn't be dismissing F22 for being "over-priced" ...
Only to buy "Modernized F-15s" with an increased RCS (pylons + CFTs) for MORE $$ than F22s..!!
And less fuel than the F-35C
The gun isn't needed any more. It has air-to-air missiles
@@Tigershark_3082 they said that about the phantoms too until they started getting shot down
@@Tigershark_3082 until you run out.
@@maean7410
The solution to the Phantom's problems was not to add a gun (despite the common misconception). The Navy never added a gun to their Phantoms. The solution was better pilot training (like top gun school)
The Marines believed, as did the Navy, that the space and weight of the gun (which, if integrated, is there whether needed or not) was better and more frequently utilized for more fuel/bombs/missiles.
As for the wing, the larger wing gives better sustained turn rate and low speed control for landing, but is draggier and makes the aircraft slower to accelerate and less efficient.
With the current engine, I think it's more bad than good. With another 10k pounds of thrust, that may change.
Woohoo!! F35
Great Podcast. I ran into it by accident. Lt Col Flynn was excellent. I know this question may be off limits but how about an interview with an 160th SOAR pilot?
It's funny how he uses "low cost" as a defense of the F-35 when it's the single most expensive weapons system in the history of mankind. It's almost like he works for Lockheed Martin lol.
You didn’t understand much of this update did you?
The development cost was 400 billion and the unit cost has dropped to 80 million for the A variant. Is that the most expensive weapons system? I have no frame of reference. But how much would it cost to deploy inferior weapons systems?
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD yeah it still is. You just cant help but feel for this expensive of a development, we could have had something much better. The most obvious and cheaper option would have been to modernize the F22 for the airforce and navy and for export and then develop a much cheaper harrier replacement in coordination with the UK.
@@House_of_Schmidt "for this expensive of a development, we could have had something much better" - Such as?
"The most obvious and cheaper option would have been to modernize the F22 for the airforce and navy" - First of all, the F-22 is the High in the High/Low mix. It's the expensive, twin engine fighter. The F-35 is the Low, the cheaper single engine. So right there, forget it. Modernize the F-22? There's less than 180 of them in service. The modernization of the F-22 is actually too expensive because so few were made. There's also the fact that the F-22 was never navalized, and the proposal to make a naval variant would have required so many changes it would have been too expensive.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD when i say modernize, i mean produce new F-22's and at the time the JSF was being designed the F-22 was in production and like i said before, this is the single most expensive weapons program in history by a longshot so calling this a "low" as it was initially intended is really not true. Our armed forces have essentially confirmed this by calling the F-35 a ferrari and expressing the need for something less expensive so if the F-35 is going to be the Ferrari why not have you're Ferrari be the better aircraft dynamically. In hindsight they should have just further developed and exported the dynamically superior F22.
And the F22 could have been carrier capable in the same way the f35 is. Forget about all those swing wing f22 concepts. Thats just people who miss the tomcat wanting a replacement. The carrier F22 wouldve just needed a slightly larger wing and upgraded gear to be carrier capable as stated by the Navy air wing commander back in 2012.
leather seats? wood trim? are there cup holders? How many miles per gallon?
Reading the previous comments, as an engineer I’d like to add that engineering is absolutely not a precise science and the higher one aspires the harder the challenge and the more iterations one encounters. That’s the price for aiming high and succeeding.
I was stationed at Little Rock AFB, the main c130 training hub. I remember how big of deal it was when the c130Js started rolling in.
F-35 replaces three types of airplanes,that means end result 30 million each on the other will never be made or sold.This is a bargain but the public loves to criticize the military spending.
This airplane will bring combined strike and sleath to to the enemy,but command and control of the battle space is the real bonus invaluable
GREAT SHOW I SUBSCRIBED
One of the best, ( if not the best) interview yet. Thank you again!
Cd
Frickin’ AWESOME interview. I really enjoyed listening to this man!
Thanks, Kevin. Billie is the real deal.
In the 1950s, test pilots were being killed at the rate of about one a week, but the risks have shrunk to a fraction of that because of the maturation of aircraft technology, better ground-testing and simulation of aircraft performance & fly-by-wire technology.
I appreciate & honor all who serve & protect the free world, and I thank the both of these men for theirs. I've tried to follow aviation since the 1950's, the many planes & pilots who have flown them. Both of my parents gave of themselves during WWII. My father served in the Philipines on Moratai Island. My mom, she was a "Rosie the Riveter" and they built B-17's and P-38's!! I built models of every plane I could find, those from WWI, WWII, Korea and on. Planes like the Corsair, the P-51, the P-38(of course), the Voodoo, the Starfighter, the Saber & Super Saber and on.
I know that the powers-that-be wanted a jet that could do a lot of what the Raptor, but for a much, much lower cost. Fast forward to today. The overall lifetime cost for the F-35, when all the operating costs for the planned fleet are calculated across the expected 50-year lifetime of the program, the American people will spend an estimated $1.727 trillion on this plane. As far as any advantages of computer power, situational awareness & info sharing with other elements of our forces go, the Raptors are now being upgraded with the same sensors, software and connectivity to survey the battlefield as the f-35. A fully armed F-35 loses it's stealth capability unless it flies inverted(upside down). The plane's single engine cannot withstand much damage.
Given its current attributes, the Raptor's high production price tag-$125 million per aircraft, according to the latest Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate-is not unreasonable.
The cost for an F-35 varies by the model, $110.3 million per F-35A, $135.8 million per F-35B, and $117.3 million per F-35C. The totals do not include the nearly $1.3 trillion in life cycle costs to operate and sustain the aircraft over its 50-year life cycle, making it the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history. The F-35 cannot do the job of close air support even close to as well as the A-10(Warthog)!
An effectiveness analysis based on results from a survey of joint terminal attack controllers indicates that the A-10 vastly outperforms the F-35 in providing close-air support (CAS), a critical requirement for future conflicts against terrorists and insurgents. This actually helps the F-35!! It eliminates the need for the F-35 to do this job because it can't. If they do replace the A-10 with the F-35, who will shoulder the blame for every member of our ground forces that die needlessly because the A-10 wasn't there tp help them. BTW- the A-10's have been or soon will be given a big upgrade. They are calling it the Super A-10. The Lightweight Airborne Recovery System [LARS] V-12 has already been installed and integrated in [Operational Flight Program, OFP] Suite 8, and all A-10s now have this system integrated into the Central Interface Control Unit to provide critical Combat Search and Rescue [CSAR] information.”
Check this out: ua-cam.com/video/QoNWXa1hZao/v-deo.html
ROFL at the X32 part. Truer words have never been spoken! People say the F35 is ugly, the X32 was TOO ugly. That thing would have been cancelled at the first sign of a problem!
Some have argued on these pages that the A-10 is ugly and yet we let that in.
@@FighterPilotPodcast the A10 is the Cardi-B or Meg the Stallion of military aircraft. It's attractive, just not in the normal, refined way lol.
I did a web search on the F-35 Distributed Aperture System and found a Northrop Grumman demo of it at the 2016 Farnborough Airshow on UA-cam. Very interesting... Many thanks!
Did I miss it during the conversation? How did Billie end up in the US and becoming a US citizen?
You should index the timeline so people can jump into specific information and share it by time stamp. Pretty necessary for a really long video with lots of first-time information for the public.
I’ve been at Cold Lake as an avionics troop with F15s, but I don’t remember much except the fishing and the beer were really good.
I was listening to the show and when you mentioned how Hartmann had been shot down twice in one day and it brought me back to something I've wondered for quite a while. I'm a maintenance guy, did maintenance on CH47's and UH60's during my time in the Army. That's my background. However the guest mentioned that small countries "Go to war as they are". However isn't that going to be all countries in the future? I mean these aircraft now aren't the same as say WW2 where they could fight a war of attrition because the factory was cranking out replacements by the hundreds monthly and new classes of pilots were being trained at astonishing speed. Back then those aircraft were nearly disposable. For example, and I suppose this is an extreme example, but I saw somewhere once that early in the war the mission average before loss for an IL-2 airframe was two sorties. Back then the pilots probably didn't receive even a quarter of the training pilots today do. Today these aircraft are so complicated, so expensive, so intricate, such a feat of engineering that there's just no way these aircraft could be manufactured and replaced at such speed as the P-47 or P-40 was. You certainly couldn't train a competent jet pilot to fly the replacement at the kind of speed that training was conducted back then. I know the big buzz word these days is a "near peer conflict" but if that were to happen wouldn't it literally be everyone coming as they are including the "super powers"?
It's like the difference between the Hueys in Vietnam with their much simpler maintenance regimes compared to Blackhawks, imagine requiring the number of Hawks in a conflict as was the case in Vietnam with the Hueys.?
I personally think go asymmetric, go simple go medium tech and go extreme camouflage and underground and urban and let the USA and allies think they're in charge just because they can fly everywhere just like in Vietnam, Oh wait! That's what everyone is already doing lol, if you can't dislodge the enemy on the ground who really cares, but that's not the point of programs like the bloated Lead Sled jSF.
@@Veldtian1 I discussed a similar point elsewhere where the discussion was in regards to upgrading the Apache attack helicopters. The point I brought up that’s great and all but there’s still an desperate need and capability gap left empty by retiring the OH-58D’s because in the end the OH-58D’s aside from running scouting missions had become in effect a light, simple and less expensive strike helicopters that were well suited to counter insurgency. As it stands the army completely lacks a helicopter to fill that role of a simple, light, inexpensive attack and scout helicopter to fill missions that just might not be worth risking an Apache on or using an Apache would simply using a jack hammer when a sledge hammer would do. Even in a “near peer conflict” there would be a need for helicopters such as these because they can simply be produced in greater numbers and be cheaper and easier to maintain thus answer more calls for air support.
I think the Ukarine war has answered a lot of those questions. Currently the US doesn't have any near peers, but give China another 10 years...
Fantastic interview. Good to hear from such experience of the strengths of this aircraft. I have to admit I was leaning against F-35 due to the years of negative opinion from non experts .
A great episode as always. Does anyone have a link to the brief that they talked about at 1:31:00
I've been searching for it, but nothing so far. As a Canadian, I am extremely interested in that brief.
That would be a great doc to provide
One question, if the F-35C wing is so good, why didn't it go on the A as well?
Did they just not realize how good it was going to be until after the F-35A design had been largely locked in, or are there operational considerations that drive the F-35A to keep the smaller wing? Are we likely to eventually see an F-35D with the C style wing start showing up in the USAF inventory?
I'm guessing the F-35B needs to keep the small wing to control weight.
More cost, more weight, more drag, when it's not necessary for the USAF's purposes.