Whatever happened to ATTACK aircraft?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 тра 2023
- Let's talk about Fighter and Attack aircraft designations, the differences between the two, and why we don't see many new attack aircraft entering service these days.
📱 Follow Sandboxx News on social
Twitter: / sandboxxnews
Instagram: / sandboxxnews
Facebook: / sandboxxnews
TikTok: / sandboxxnews
📱 Follow Alex Hollings on social
Twitter: / alexhollings52
Instagram: / alexhollings52
Facebook: / alexhollingswrites
TikTok: www.tiktok.com/alexhollings52
#f35 #fighterjet #airpower #military #aviation #defense #attackjet #short #shorts
An F-35 pilot gets more work done in a mission than my whole Department in a month
Because fighter jocks complained about the "A" in "F/A-18."
Ass a fighter pilot one should not be prissy like that.
I think it sounds cool
Same reason we don't see "heavy" tanks any more. Technology has advanced to the point where a mbt is faster than the old medium tanks, better armored than heavy tanks, with better guns than tank destroyers.
The tank destroyer bit is not technically true because practically you can not really put anything bigger than 120mm in a MBT so tank destroyers do still serve a purpose but the reason that there isn’t any right now is because there no tank with armour that to thick for 120mm and tank destroyers are general design during war to fill a gap because it the same for towed anti-tank guns they may not be needed now but if there was a war they would be needed because it a lot easier to produce shells over missiles but unlike towed anti-tank tank destroyers will become obsolete when tanks get rail guns.
@@jammiedodger7040
Tank on tank battles are not the way to do war. Tanks are far better delt with using artillery, mines, aircraft, or infantry. So the size of the main gun relative to the frontal armor isn't a huge deal. It's far better to Crack tanks from above or below, which is what the state the field has been in for 40 years now. There's just no practical reason to throw dumb big slugs into the frontal armor of a tank from a soft shelled ground vehicle.
No military on this planet can exchange 5 million dollar tanks for 150k dollar atgm and come out ahead in a war of attrition unless they already hopelessly outclassed the enemy in economic power.
Never mind the fact that the attack helicopter perfectly fills the roll that the obsolete tank destroyers used to fill, because it can hit from much further away, much harder, on the softest armed part of the tank, and is much harder for a tank to deal with.
@@TypexviiibThis isn’t a new state of affairs, or even a “last 40 years” state of affairs. All the way back to WWI, tanks could be knocked out with much cheaper and lighter weapons. A .50 AP round wound penetrate some WWI tanks, and a 40mm gun could penetrate most early WWII tanks. WWII was littered with portable and very effective anti-tank weapons, and the vast majority of destroyed tanks were destroyed by...something other than (and usually cheaper and more numerous than) tanks. And of course, as you said, artillery has always overmatched a tank’s roof armor. So why use tanks? Because they’re still the best way to bring fast and heavy direct gunfire on entrenched enemy positions, and the men inside them are still much safer than they are on foot or in any other ground vehicle. And the whole “weapons vs. armor” dynamic is cyclical. Armor got thicker, so HEAT rounds for guns and portable ATWs were developed. Then ceramic and reactive armor were developed to stop them. Then APFSDS rounds were improved to defeat those. And so on. Right now, the anti-tank weapons have a bit of an edge, since no one with tanks (except Israel and the US) has both the need and technical and financial ability to design and implement defense systems that can semi-reliably stop things like drones and ATGMs (sorry Ruzzia, yours doesn’t work and can’t even aim upward). Now that the threat has been exposed on a large scale, there will be massive spending in active defense systems, jamming, and lasers, and the countries who can develop/buy these systems will have an edge over those who can’t develop/buy them. And tanks will keep right on rolling. Oh, and just as it always has been, tanks will always need infantry support to keep portable anti-tank weapons away, and ideally, lots of air cover to keep enemy heads down and enemy helos and CAS away. Only one country is realistically going to be able to provide that level of air support in a large scale ground war these days though.
@@bluemarlin8138 well said
Can you do a short on the a29 super Tucano. Its a 'Light Attack Aircraft'
And it is incredibly versatile on COIN operations!
The F-35 can be called a E/F/A aircraft. But they didn’t…
"Makes sense but its too dam long!"- The Navy, Marines, and Airforce
It could actually be called a “FEAR” aircraft. Fighter, Electronic Warfare, Attack, Recon.
@@bluemarlin8138 …. A Great improvement!
Modern Attack and Fighter missions are about the ordinance the aircraft carries and now the form factor of the ordinance has advanced to the point that basically any fighter can carry advanced AGM without sacrificing performance when it is loaded out with air-to-air missions in mind, thus attack roles are now available to fighters with just a change of the missile they carry. This is good because you can have more economy of scale by just operating one airframe instead of 2
Eh the biggest problem with that general statement I’d say is range / fuel capacity. An F16 or F22 won’t have the range with a full load out that say an F15EX will. It’s why we’re still upgrading and coming up with variants of the F15, she’s the modern interceptor/ground attack bird, she’s a missile truck that can fight, very well and carry a lot of fuel…. And burn a lot of fuel going real dang fast if she needs to jettison ordnance and get the heck out of dodge.
@NOT_BATFE sure but particularly in smaller air forces, you see the economic and logistics considerations come to the forefront. When making purchases they buy one airframe that suits them best and then change the armament load depending on the mission rather that field both a dedicated attack and fighter aircraft, unless they are going the full Super Tucano route of super cheap light attack craft. And in modern militaries that means orders for multirole fighters and not say export versions of A-10
@@guybrushthreepwood362 as an example, if your Air Force is flying A-10s, it’s going to need two other aircraft types to fly support missions, other wise your A-10 is single use, if that.
@@meanman6992That’s true, but you can still get about 300 miles of combat radius out of a fully loaded F-16, without taking drop tanks or aerial refueling into account, and about 600 miles out of an F-22 with a full internal loadout. (Although if we have the luxury of using F-22s for ground attack missions other than SEAD, we’re in a pretty good spot anyway). And an F-35 configured for ground attack (internal carriage only) has a combat radius of 770 miles, which is only 20 miles shy of a Strike Eagle’s radius, albeit with much less ordnance. The key is using all these aircraft together with each other and with cruise missiles. The F-35, F-22, B-2, B-21, and lots of drones/cruise missiles would be used to knock out enemy air defenses, command/control centers, cruise/ballistic missile batteries, and early warning radars, and to destroy as many enemy aircraft as possible on the ground. The F-22s would then probably be used for patrolling for remaining enemy fighters. The F-16s would handle close air support, shallow interdiction missions, and continued SEAD/DEAD missions near the front, while the F-35s would keep handling deeper interdiction and SEAD/DEAD missions, along with fighter sweeps and semi-AWACS duty. Once the USAF was confident that air defenses were sufficiently suppressed/destroyed to make things non-suicidal, then Strike Eagles and B-1s would join the party, with Growler escorts. Of course it wouldn’t be nearly this simple, and it would require some surprise, and there would be losses if this were done against a country with extensive air defenses like Ruzzia or China, but that’s probably a very general outline of the tactics that would be used.
Happy to see a bigger volume of content from you lately. Nice work
Now explain the difference between a fighter and an interceptor.
Also got deleted by technology, as the fighters got to the same or similar performance levels of Interceptors, while also having a long enough loiter time to fly Combat Air Patrol.
The English Electric Lightning is probably one of the last true Interceptors, who had pitiful endurance, while not having that much more performance than a normal supersonic fighter with Mach 2+.
@@JainZar1 MiG-31 sad noises
@@eduardoandres7330 Right, forgot about the Russian F-15 they built to stop the SR-71.
@@JainZar1 🤣
The purpose of an interceptor is to shoot down a carrier aircraft (bomber) before it can launch its standoff weapons. The F-106 was the best example of a pure interceptor ever made. The F-14 Tomcat was a close second. The Six and the Turkey had two things in common, high speed and long range A2A missiles.
The distinction is only meaningful when the mission profiles demand a significant difference in airframes and loadout.
In WW2, a wildcat and a dauntless wouldn’t be best used in switched roles, but today, ordnance and avionics change the mission profile, so any airframe that can carry both can do the mission. And the aircraft can be designed for speed, range and agility more independently.
On the flip side, near the end of the war, there'd be fewer attack aircraft because the Corsairs and Hellcats could carry enough ordinance to do ground strike and defend themselves, so... (and then we went back to specialized aircraft for the Cold War.)
@@egmccannA lot of that was also due to the Japanese simply running out of pilots, leaving US fighters unchallenged and without much of a job outside of kamikaze defense. Also, the Corsair actually found a second life in Korea doing ground attack missions.
a10 best morale booster, sounds of freedom and zooming across the sky with BRRRT
By morale boosting, do you mean "shooting your friends"?
Just a morale booster 😉
You know what’s an even better morale booster? Your enemy dead. Doesn’t matter which platform delivers it, but it’s also nice when you’re not getting shot and bombed by your own aircraft, as has happened numerous times with the A-10.
Soon we'll see bombers like the B-21 become fighter-bomber-attack aircraft. The USAF is looking into plans to integrate the future AIM 260 JATM missile on it, guided by f35s. The B-21 will then be able to fire missiles, do heavy bombing, and provide close air support, like the f35 but even slower, carry more mutations and heavy bombing capability.
@@calebjohnson6423 well then your not aware very far. USAF generals are considering arming B-21s with AIM 260s once those go into service. not confirmed yet but its pretty likely
@@calebjohnson6423 yes its just spectulation, nothing confirmed yet but its pretty likely the air force will at least experiment with the idea. Afterall, why wont you want a stealth bomber carrying like 60 AIM 260s acting as a literal missile truck on the battlefield
Too much risk to lose B-21 $$$$ and if it crashes our enemies could get a hold of that technology.
@@SeanJM013 same goes for f22s and f35s and those guys are frontline fighters, America is willing to risk their technology to win their battles. there will be stealths shot down in battle, it is inevitable and we have the accept that and do our best to use our resources to their maximum
Aye, make it more expensive when it get blown up on the ground due to some Tik Tok spy strapping explosives to it for social media points.
I've always called the F-100 "the first superfighter" because it could do both fairly well. After the F-100 we started splitting off again, the F-104 was a fighter and the F-105 was a striker.
Thanks again for another great snippet.
A very distilled and accurate explanation, my friend. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸
The A10 got a life extension because it can run the show for and do it on a slim budget
No, just no. Check the budget for just the new wings on the A-10 fleet and compare to what we could do with that money instead.
@@CausticLemons7exactly I mean the a 10 I looks cool and is fun in games and movies but it is obsolete and should be retired or sent to reserve squadrons
@@CausticLemons7
You want to compare the budget for one F 35 with the budget for one pair of wings for the A10?
Or the destruction the A10 can do with the destruction the F35 can do?
@@alexanderweigand6758 Sure, compare the capabilities per dollar between A-10 and F-35. The A-10 is cool but extremely outdated and less useful in the modern era. Badass is not an excuse for inefficiency.
@@CausticLemons7 I think not so outdated.
What do you want from such a aircraft what the A10 is not able to do?
But there is a lot what a single A10 can do and another aircraft can not do.
The only question is whether the A10 has become too vulnerable to infantry weapons. The war in Ukraine shows how vulnerable tanks, helicopters and planes are to light rockets. Patriot (and similar) anti-aircraft systems are of course also dangerous. But I think the A10 is tough enough to take some hits. And it has to be hit first.
F15 and it’s decedent variants are both, and very good at their jobs of being able to attack ground targets with a ton of munitions, as well as defend its self against threats.
You forgot about fighter interceptors, like thr F104 Starfighter, whose stubby wings had such a sharp leading edge, they needed felt covers on the ground. And the heavily modified core of the F104 became...The U2!
And then NATO nations modified the F-104 for the attack mission--sort of.
Well dang, I never knew that.
The real reason why attack aircraft are mostly obsolete is technological progress. Bette airframes, power plants, avionics and weapons allowed the creation of the multi role fighter which could execute most combat tasks well.
Thats why the F/A-18 is classified the way it is.
The difference used to be much more obvious in the old days, before rockets and guidance, when everything was a dumb bomb or a hunk of flying lead. The only "targeting" was done by pointing the whole plane at the target.
You had to get up close and personal to shoot down an enemy plane, cruise low, slow, and steady to drop a torpedo into the water, or dive at a near vertical drop to aim your bomb. These all made for very obviously different flight requirements. Today, nearly everything is a rocket-powered guided munition, so the differences aren't as obvious.
And add to that over-the-horizon A2A missiles. Dogfights are going to be rare.
I had this issue with the F-117A Nighthawk. It's s damn bomber.
The only fighter that has no tracking radar, missiles, or guns, or any way to attack airplanes at all short of trying the F-15E trick and lobbing a laser-guided bomb at it
@@sethb3090 military aircraft don’t really need guns anymore
I recall reading that the designation as a fighter jet was a deliberate deception.
I think the real reason is that the aircraft are so expensive now they can't afford separate platforms.
So it not that technology is allowing it but forcing forcing it due to the higher costs.
Loiter time difference of A-10 vs. F-35?
Basically, what happened to the attack aircraft?
The multirole fighter came by.
I was on a train op at Camp Pendleton next to an obvious terrain feature in the open and a couple of F18s decided to take some mock strafing runs at us. Boy, did that leave an impression on me, never felt so helpless.
What about making a video on Pursuit ? (P-40, P-51)
An interesting overview.
Wonderful explaining about differences between fighter & attack aircraft....F35 designed for both tasks
there's no more fighter, no more attacker
only Multi role fighter in the recent years
Fighter = Viking/Phoenix
Attack = Banshee
When your TEST munitions are so precise you can use a trailer behind your buddies truck as a target.
It seems the Navy at one time had attack and others fighters back in the day. The Airforce did not embrace this as much. The F-111 or the F-117 as examples. Outside of the A-10 or A-37 . The A-7 was at first Navy so the Airforce had to call their Corsair A-7.
The F-117 was a light stealth bomber though, it absolutely could not engage air targets
Whatever happened to that study the Air Force said they were conducting of the F-35 suitability to take over close air support missions of the A-10 from the infantry perspective? I am not talking about the tank busting mission.
Last I read, it didn't have the necessary equipment for CAS. Not without adding it to an external hard point anyway, which means giving up its stealth. At that point, they might as well add fuel tanks to give it better loitering time.
Budgets are also a factor. If you can get a plane that is an OK fighter & an OK attack for the same price, then you only get a dedicated attack/fighter if you really need it!
The F-35 doesn't have the psychological trauma inducing capabilities of an A-10. For that matter just knowing there were Apaches in the area was enough to strike fear in tge hearts of middle eastern fighters who called them "whispering death".
There are simpler explanation:
(A) class or Attack = Штурмовик
(F) class or Fighter = Истребитель
Attack aircraft were necessary because in the old days. To successfully hit a mobile ground target you needed to be low and slow to hit it. Now, with the advancement of sensors and cheaper guided munitions, am F-35 can drop a jdam in the bed of a moving truck from 50 thousand feet up while doing 600 mph
So dedicated attack aircraft are a design compromise we no longer need to make
And yet you're starting to see the lack of the F/A designation on aircraft. For example it is the... F/A 18 Hornet, now it is only an F35, yet they both fill the same roll
You mean role. They can’t perform the exact same roll because the airframes are different. It’s a matter of aerodynamics.
I guess this develompent in weapons technology was in=evitable, but I'm saddened to think we will never see anything like the Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt ever again.
Multi roles are king
It should be properly named the F/A 35
What would be a good option for a modern high speed fighter bomber? The f15ex isn't stealthy enough
I still think F-22 is the prettiest modern plane. Hands down.
Because most are setting on the ground the ones that attacked are scattered across the ground to many weapons designed to destroy them
So what is the difference between a Strike aircraft (like the Strike in Strike Eagle and Joint Strike Fighter) and an Attack Aircraft (A-10 and F/A-18)?
Never gonna beat the brrrrrrt of the GAU-8 tho
Now explain the difference between a bomber and attack jet?
Thank you your the best
The AF wanted to get rid of the A-10 and use the F-16 as a ground support aircraft. That didn't pan out because the F-16 can't loiter nearly as long as an A-10. I don't think they'll ever get rid of a specifically designed ground support aircraft. Maybe a UAV can do this mission. As it is, the Global Hawk can loiter for 24 hrs., while the U-2 can typically fly for around 12 hrs. The GH isn't nearly as effective as the U-2, however.
Good video. I love the channel. Do you think an F-35 can actually do an attack role as good as a A-10?
F-16's were already performing far more CAS missions than the A-10. For counter insurgency an A-10 is overkill, in a modern war it's dinner for SAM sites or manpads.
The A-10 has terrible range as well and is extremely vulnerable to manpads. It can’t do it’s own job on the battle field if someone has a rocket launcher. It’s basically been obsolete since the late 80s because of this. the military is just good at keeping maintainers in Arizona employed by working around its limitations to keep certain congress creatures happy. Those same congress creatures and contracting lobbyists are very good at creating public support as well.
@@aidanwilliams9452 Just upgrade it like the F-16 and the F/A-18 have been getting to their electronics and airframe including the "have glass" coating the F-16 got.
The F-35, the aircraft the Air Force wants to replace the A-10 with, is overkill for COIN too.
If there are still SAM sites in the area then the pilots of the SEAD aircraft suck at their job.
As for manpads, it depends on the if F-35 is carrying external loads and flying closer to the ground to better communicate with controllers embedded with the infantry. Infantry can't see that far high up. In any case they are ways to mitigate MANPAD dangers. But if you were going to take a hit, I bet you would rather take it in an A-10 and it's titanium tub for the pilot.
@@NickSteffen A-10 pilot when asked about MANPADs.
“Ah, yes. The bogeyman of the battlefield.
“TL;DR: MANPADS won’t keep the Hawg on the bench. Yes, they are a pain. Yes, you want to avoid getting hit by one. But if you apply proper tactics, techniques, and procedures while doing your job, the odds of getting hit go down significantly.
“And, if you do get hit, I’d rather be in a Hawg than an F-35 if I had to soak up a missile.”
The A-10 is only obsolete because the Air Force has been reluctant to give it upgrades throughout its life like the F-16 or F-15 were getting. If they gave it the same tempo for applying upgrades, the A-10 would not be obsolete. Imagine if they had given it the same intensity for upgrades back in its introduction that the F-35 is getting to today. If anything, this is just another example of the Air Force not being serious of the CAS role. At most, they get strike aircraft and think that is good enough.
As for lobbyists, you do realize that it's the entire industry right? How do you think the Eagle 2 got in production after the F-35 while the Air Force was simultaneously saying they wanted to divest from A-10 so they can buy more F-35's?
A-10 support mainly comes from pilots that don't want to see the experience and skills vanish. I recently read an article how a former pilot made the case to replace it with an F/A-18 Super Hornet.
@@bl8danjil Upgrades only go so far when the design itself is part of the problem. Have glass won’t have as much of an effect on stealth as concealing the engines and adding wing sweep, at which point you’re making an entirely new aircraft. Imo the gun is an unnecessary dead weight that should be used on larger hardpoint capacity.
Yep the F-35 is definitely overkill for COIN, it should be left to lighter platforms for most basic missions. But the F-35 isn’t overkill for CAS in a high threat environment. Even during their introduction the A-10 fleet wasn’t expected to survive more than a few weeks or so against a soviet invasion, they were a buffer.
Never a bad idea to play it safe, may not know of every site or SEAD platforms may be grounded for instance like during the F-117 incident. And likewise with manpads, it’s all about mitigating the risks. What do you mean by infantry can’t see that high up?
the a-10 would be the besr example of an attack aircraft.
Its the A-6 looks scarier to me especially when carrying a shitload amount of dumb bomb 😂
Fighter jets are just that, fighters. Sometimes they carry missiles, sometimes bombs, sometimes both.
That's just the way it is.
Back in the days where avionics were less advanced though, you did need a specific type of airframe for attack purposes since a more stable plane capable of slower speeds was more effective at gun strafing and bombing runs. It's only when avionics became more advanced and PGM's became more prevalent that said requirements no longer became as necessary, so a fighter aircraft can perform the same ground attack runs as a dedicated attack aircraft, and in between having two different aircraft for completely different roles that can blend in the battlefield, just have one multi-role aircraft instead.
Rarely hear about attack aircraft? What about that time when USA turned a crop duster into an AT-802U?
I was legit thinking about this yesterday, was the A-7 followed by another attack aircraft. Didn't search it anywhere, so mind reading apps confirmed. 😂
Aren't Strike for ground attack? or is this nomenclature not used?
We don't have attack aircrafts because UFO's found them offensive 🤫🌝😂😂💯
"F-35 is probably the premier attack aircraft on the planet."
A-10 : Hold my beer
This only makes sense when you don’t consider the full cost of the aircraft. Attack aircraft still have a role to fill. No reason to send an F-35 to kill a few militants on the ground. We will see new “low” budget attack aircraft to support ground troops and fill small role missions.
1. Attack Aircraft : Focused on Anti Ground Vehicle or Ground Support.
2. Multi Role Aircraft : Commonly used For Multi Combat situations,like Knocking Out Enemy Aircraft,Attack Sea Or Ground Vehicle,Support Mission,Bombardment,Reconnaince,etc.
Fighter Aircraft : Used To Dogfighting enemy Aircraft And Drones,Or Other Incoming Danger.
Drone : Some Used to Reconnaince Mission or even Attack Mission to Support Troops and Tanks mobility.
Bomber : Used For strategic Bombing Run,Like In WW2. B17 always Use into it
Refueling Aircraft : Just A Refueling that u Know
Gunship : BB That can Fly,Ofc For Supporting Allies Troops or Tanks
Hmmm... modern technology? Seems the P-40 Warhawk, F-6F Hellcat, P-51D Mustang, and P-47 Thunderbolt served the Fighter & Attack roles just find in WW-II.
Think of Attack aircraft with primary rile of say a BOMBER, where as Fighter kills other planes. Attack can also be both!
The word y’all looking for is Multirole
The b-21 raider is an attack aircraft. Im pretty sure you cant dog fight in the b-21. It would be nice to see more b-21 variants coupled with A.I. drones👍👍👍👍. We need more drones . China has over 300 variants of drones. All different shapes and sizes. Smh
Have you told the story as to why the F-117 got the “F” designation instead of the “A” as it clearly should have?
might have something to do with secretly so when the soviets hear of an F-117 theyll think less of it than something more realistic. Idrk its kinda something i heard a while ago
Why are they blowing up K-trucks??? Use a 90's Buick regal or something
Won't they just be called muti-role aircraft? Or did i miss something 🤔
Looking forward to the next USA 6th Generation Fighter; to come into fruition by being built for service!!! 👍💖😉
Drone operator kid asks what does he do for a living? "I outrun ordnance." Just barely... But a close following conflict vehicle can obviously be excised by Ginsu bomb. That's spooky!
not sure why the F-35 didn't name itself the F/A-35, like the F/A-18
When almost every fighter now has some degree of ground attack ability it's just easier excluding the A
So really it should be called the FA35:)
Watching this short video has provoked so many thoughts. I don’t think I can even remotely express what I want to say. It will be so inadequate.
In long hard wars with peer level or superior adversaries, weapons systems tend to become very focused and specialized. The reason for this is that any slight advantage or if possible any significant advantage in a l weapon can turn the tide of the war. So in great competitions fighter aircraft tend to become solely focused on air superiority. For example the F-15C is a slightly superior dog fighter than the F-15E. Why? The F-15C doesn’t have to carry the extra weight of a second crew member, the weight of the systems for ground attack and the pilots can be selected from the best of the best and trained solely to gain air superiority. Imagine an F-15EX with 5000 lbs less of weight (smaller cockpit, canopy, structure to support the second crew member, the heavier wings and fuselage required to carry the massive air to ground ordnance, and the conformal fuel tanks can be removed because simple drop tanks are worth the expenditures when fighting to air superiority. The F-15EX designed for only air superiority would be noticeably better. Another good example is the F-16N which was a rocket ship and significantly better dog fighter than the heavier F-16’s the Air Force uses.
The same can be said if other key weapons systems in great struggles. Tanks, Artillery, attack submarines often play a disproportionate role of importance.
Now, I’ve said all the above to need to acknowledge that there is incredible value in having overwhelming numbers of “JUST GOOD ENOUGH”. There are times when a nation clearly has superior weapons and and at times better trained soldiers and officers. Yet they are simply overwhelmed by the sheer number of “good enough” enemy.
So where does this place the USA today knowing that China has more than once stated it is planning on starting a war against the US, a war to destroy the US’s ability to project power anywhere China desires total control over. China has a stated goal of world dominance economically, militarily and in terms of its neighbors in Asia and the Pacific, it sees itself as the ruling class and these other nations as junior partners. China is constantly destabilizing any democracies that develop in neighboring nations. They fund military coups, political assassinations. Even their close Allie’s are not immune to attack. Look at Vietnam. China invaded Vietnam not long after the U.S. abandoned S Vietnam.
So the US now has the most powerful enemy building a huge military and equipping that military with stolen, copied and now internally developed technological advanced weapons in large numbers in order to meet both the highly advanced and overwhelming with numbers equation of warfare. Add on the fact that China, has built a very dangerous coalition of dictators and they threat is growing exponentially by the year.
My belief is that the US needs to: (1) get its financial house in order and as quickly as possible cut all economic ties with a China and ban all trade with any country whose made a statement of or through their actions demonstrate they plan on doing all they can to destroy the US and it’s Allie’s. (2) build larger numbers of absolute cutting edge weapons systems while at the same time building even larger numbers of weapons systems that are “good enough” when combined with the task specific equipment that is superior to multi role systems.
The F-35 isn’t the best fighter in the world. It currently is the best flying sensor, data and linked information platform that has a limited number of ordinance available for its internal bays. It isn’t the best CAS either. It is a multi roll attack platform with air to air capabilities that rely on information that gives it an advantage in first shot missile kills.
This is why the US Navy and Air Force are developing a new advanced fighter specialized for the gaining air superiority and still retaining some air to ground ability. The F-35 will become the primary attack platform using unmanned platforms as missile, bomb and extra fuel loads. Thea f-35 will end up working with the NEXGEN fighter that incorporates what ever the services believe is most important in gaining and maintaining air superiority and then once that is achieved, becoming an attack platform.
The F-35 holds almost no bombs. It can't hold 4 medium range missiles. It literally can't replace the A-10.
F 35 can hold 6 jdams at the exterior pylons , 2 in it's weapons bay and 2 medium range missiles but stealth will be neglected
The A-10 can't penetrate heavily defended airspace. F-35's will lead destroying ground targets on SEAD missions to pave way for 4th gen aircrafts behind them.
It can carry 2 JSMs internally as well as 4 on the outer pylons if yo wanna sacrifice a little bit of stealth, also the F-35 has a higher payload capacity vompared tp the A-10 (18000 vs 16000)
A-10's only did a fraction of CAS missions, F-16's performed way more. Payload capacity is similar yet the F-35 will have a much faster response time, have far more accurate targeting, and won't get shot down the moment any modern air defence shows up
The A10 isn’t broken. It’s virtually a masterpiece of warfare.
It’s outdated.
@@MarcosElMalo2 How? It’s a tool. It does its job just fine
@@Stopinvadingmyhardware The musket is a tool that still works just as it was designed to do. Your point is irrelevant to how the A10 performs on the contemporary battlefield.
Part of your conceptual error is seeing a piece of a system as a complete thing. You’re missing that it is merely a component in a system and for that you will miss that there are better components. It’s like being obsessed with knob on the dashboard of your car, and missing not just the car, but the road, the automotive maintenance infrastructure that keeps vehicles running, the manufacturing infrastructure that makes them, the entire petroleum industry that provides fuel.
The A-10 isn’t a cog in a machine, it’s a tooth on a cog. And it’s a worn out tooth.
@@MarcosElMalo2 Which sector are you in again?
If the F35 is so good and so very advanced, why does it perform so very poorly against the JAS Gripen in red flag exercises?
You told them, if you can't find & see it ?
Why is the F-35 not F/A-35 like the F/A-18
It’s not the best fighter though, it might be the best attack aircraft but F16 and A10 could do that at a fraction of cost.
You're missing something obvious. Most trainers can be armed for actual combat, and some attack aircraft like the A-29 can be used as trainers too. And in both cases you have cheaply flown, versatile aircraft familiar to more than just the fighter pilots that can substitute for fighters or supplement them if a conflict isn't a high intensity affair where hyper survivability is a must. Which is most conflicts.
Drones are great. But they will never be as cheap and dependable as an armed trainer or bush plane.
An armed trainer or bush plane still needs a man inside though, which is the main difference. A drone can have the pilot be far away in the back safe from enemy fire, so even if the drone is shot down there's no loss in human life.
The guy only has 60 seconds to give info. I think he did a fine job
f35 is so hot
The F35 cannot hold a candle to the A10 for ground attack. The A10 is the best ground attack ever.
If I’m a ground soldier and I’m under enemy fire… send me a Warthog every time.
MINT3-5
Because multirole fighters
The Air Force has always hated attack aircraft because they all want to be fighter pilots. Hence the F-111, F-117, etc. It appears this ego matching has taken over Naval Aviators as well.
That is if f35 does malfunction and gets destroyed
A-10 (Crusty Attacker)🤢🤢😭😭🤓🤓
F-35 (Modern Multirole)😍😗🥵🥵🤑🥹
Can F35 defeat Eurofighter or Rafale on 1vs1 on any type fight ?
That sounds like something you’d see playing a video game or watching a movie.
Under Ace Combat logic, not likely since the F-35 has a dogshit loadout and stealth is kinda pointless.
IRL, BVR would mean the F-35 would end the fight before it even started.
Never understood why the its the FA18 super hornet but the F15e Strike Eagle . I mean its got strike in its name why doesn't it have an A in its designation
F15E was introduced a few years after, and the hornet's designation I think had made a few pilots unhappy for some reason
F/A-18 can be used in fighter or ground attack roles. The F-15E is built strictly for air to air combat.
@@williambean8211 no it is not its a fighter bomber by nature
@George Wright it was not originally a fighter bomber at the time there were at least 4 aircraft for ground attack platforms. A-10, the Navy A-6, the FB-111 variants, the A-4 Skyhawk. The original F-15E I was told was for air superiority on the modern battlefield of the late 70's through the early 2 thousands. I was told this by a retired aircraft designer, though I now forget his name as that was over 40 years ago.
F/A - 18E-F enuf said😊
Multirole
If you were and Air Force "fighter" pilot and were given a choice of an F-22 or an F-35A to fly in contested enemy air space, which would you pick when your life depended on it? Don't try and tell me that a "Multi role" fighter is just as good as a purpose-built Air Superiority Fighter in the fighter role.
Over the horizon A2A, friendo.
Is this a real question??
Because all aircraft realized they couldn't live up to the legacy of the A-10 and GAU-8 and they retired the "A" name. 😂 Seriously though, I've gotten CAS from A-10s, AH-64, and F-16s. The A-10 is and will probably always be my favorite.
"Couldn't live up to the legacy of A-10"
The Aardvark would like to bash and bet the fuck out of the A-10 legacy with flying colors and guided bombs
@@tandemcharge5114 but without 30mm....fail
@@pkt1213 30mm that couldn't hit shit
Not correct! F-35 is probably not the most advanced fighter jet. It's not a fighter jet at all. It's a strike aircraft with some capability of self defence. Even it's proponent call it "a quarter back in the sky". F-15 is still needed and procured to do the fighting. It's not easy to make a combat aircraft that's good at every type of mission. Only Dassault and SAAB have succeded with that so far.
I always listen to your videos while im working so I've never seen your face before, you look nothing like i pictured you in my head
Semantics.
F/A 18
Do the F 35 have a titanium tub to protect the pilot? Triple redundant flight controls? I don't know?
While I agree that we have more or less forced aircraft to become more multi-role, this still doesn't fill the gap that we used to have. The reality is that you have better results when a pilot is one or the other. While technology (designators, smart munitions, advanced in targeting software) make it easier for an F-18 pilot to drop bombs and dogfight...he'd be better off specializing in one or the other.
I've spoken to several modern aviators who are pretty clear that in a squadron most pilots will lean in one direction or be better at one task than the others.
As with a lot of modernization in the military, we've sacrificed specialization for a do-all nature of aircraft. Many of our mixed-role aircraft can do several roles - but perform none of them as well as the older dedicated aircraft.
Given our current threats I think we're getting away with it at the moment.
I agree with on every point but it has been the goal of military aviation since the 60's to have a multi role aircraft. The F/A-18 has filled that role for the Navy since 1980 or so. The F-16 and F-15 F/A variants were developed during the 80's and have served since then. F/A designations are not new and current iterations fulfill that role adequately for the time being.
Unfortunately it is too costly to with the technological advances to field designated fighters and /or ground attack aircraft. Except the A-10. Hate to see it when it sunsets. Lol
It's why they spend most of thier time in BFM.
@@trickn2819 not really. They train mostly for ground attack and do BFM occasionally. However, they do have the freedom to engage in BFM after they've completed their ground attack exercises from the info I've gathered. I often see ANG and NAS Jax aircraft training over Ocala, FL at least three times a week and have never seen them engage in BFM.
The F-35 is still not the most advanced technology fighter in the world.
The F-22 still is the top dog in this category.
Not at all.
The F-22 is currently getting a 10 billion dollar upgrade to get to F-35 level technology wise.
The Airforce is even sacrificing 30 F-22 to achieve this goal.
F22 isn't even as advanced technologically as 4.5 gen planes like f18e. F22 doesn't even have helmet mounted cueing or the ability to interface with f35s madl, things thef18e and f16 block 70 can do.
Shakespeare play made excellent points too.
F-22 has been really hard to upgrade and lacks many features standard on today's 4th gen fighters.
The F-22 is stuck on a unique datalink that has to be passed through a 1960s spy plane before it can talk to anything modern. It also doesn't have a whole suite of capabilities like HMCS.
It's still the best air to air combatant out there, but it's not the most technologically advanced
Just no, the F-22 may have better kinematics in some flight regimes, but in every other metric the F-35 is the superior fighter.
Nothing beats the A10 and that makes top officials mad. That makes me happy.
A-10 is kinda bad tbh
The only thing the A-10 is best at is causing friendly fire.
Nothing beats the A10 in fraticide and that makes British IFVs mad.
So you prefer siding with the career politicians on taxpayer money? The ones too stuck in their ways to understand that warfare changes and that the A-10 was made obsolete decades ago?
@ 文西 Vinci What good is a laser pointer gonna do when the 30mm cannon, the only reason to use the plane over any other platform, is manually aimed by the pilot screaming along at 400 miles per hour?