Here’s a movie missile myth: a missile will go fast enough to catch up to a jet until it’s about 10 feet away… then it will match the jet’s speed and keep pace until the jet pilot can cause it to crash into something else.
You can’t possibly ruin “Wonder Woman 1984”. The filmmaker did that already. They stole a fighter jet from the Smithsonian and flew to the Middle East. Why a museum jet was fueled and ready for flight and how it managed to fly 8000 miles without refueling was never explained.
It’s more like a weird cross between a tornado and an F-111 and they got it started without ground power. They figured out how to start it based on 1940s aircraft knowledge. They ran afterburner while taxiing, etc. it was hilarious. You gotta just ignore reality in a movie about a hot chick with a magic lasso saving the world.
@@MeppyMan Exactly it looks like they used a 111 cockpit module for the shots up close. Just ridiculous in every way. I didn't see the actual movie cause I knew it was going to be dogshit but when I seen the part with the aircraft I couldn't believe what I was seeing.
@@ericturner4850 Follow the thread, numbnuts. We're making fun of the guy writing about the "Blue Angles" instead of the "Blue Angels". Humor is clearly not within your mental capacity.
I still marvel at the insane amount of aircraft these countries have. A regular mission will destroy about 3 and 6 billion USD worth of equipment. And there is more than one mission in that game. If you are that rich, having a Tardis sized weapon magazine is just a given.
@@steezydan8543 they are hidden in the C5 or C17 and are replenished inflight like tankers do with fuel. It's just not glamorous so they don't show it in movies. Just like all the maintenance people involved.
7:10 I was driving down a lonely desert road once when I saw a jet fighter making what looked to me like an attack run. As there was no one else around I started jinking back and forth from one side to the other. The plane flashed over at very low AGL and I continued strait down the road. The plane then flew over again from behind and performed a beautiful aileron roll. I am 98% sure he was letting me know I was "dead". It was actually a very cool experience.
@@spinosaurusrex11 I think you mean "Might have done" or possible the contraction "might've done" Might of done" makes no sense at all. But I did enjoy the "air show" I'm pretty sure if he was really making an attack run, I would be dead.
I swear the USMC UH-1Zs flying around the hills near me have tracked me on the drive to town before! It's fun and scary to have a gunship of any size crest a hill looking straight-on at you.
In the 80s, my buddy and I were canoeing down a river in New Hampshire in the wilderness and a pair of A-10s decided to pretend that we were a T-38 and made two low level passes on us. Then they came by and gave us wing wave and were gone.
@@CWLemoine I honestly wouldn't be surprised if that writer pens another piece saying that YOU don't know what you're talking about. (Because he read it on wikipedia) It's the way of the world right now.
How can Top Gun teach the "best of the best" if the best are heavy pilots? This author doesn't even stop to think that they've contradicted themselves. Also, I love those Angles!
@@Karibanu It's the biggest counter-intelligence operation ever. If the enemy are stuck trying to shoot down your fighters and strike aircraft cause they think those are the biggest threat, you can get your truly deadly C-5's behind enemy lines to wreak havoc. :-P
I’m a simple guy, I see an F-16 in the thumbnail, I click. Best looking IMO. The Hornet looks like garbage to me, Super Hornet is even worse. The Tomcat might beat it but it’s a neck and neck fight for 1st place there. Eagles are pretty, but not as graceful as the Viper. Maybe the only thing better looking to me is the Hawg, and that’s because it’s so ugly she’s gorgeous!
My dad was a pilot in the RAF. He initially went for fast jet, but his biggest problem was that he couldn’t think as fast as the plane was travelling. So he got put onto multi engine, and in his early career was flying recce flights over Berlin so military photographers could snap the defences on the Soviet side. Later he went into flying VIPs, specifically the royal family.
One of the best ever from Flight of the Intruder. "Don't ask a man if he's a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
I worked with a bunch of pilots when I was a EWO doing counter radio-controlled IED work in Iraq. Some were fighter pilots, a couple E2, a few EA-6B. A good bunch. I was a surface warfare CPO. We had a running joke though. “How do you know if there’s a pilot in the room? …Don’t worry, he’ll tell you.” Those were the days.
How can you tell if the party was thrown by a fighter group? They will tell you all about it. What's the difference between a jet engine and a pilot? The one quits whinning is the jet eventually the pilot will sleep but if you listen your likely as not to hear him gripe.
As a retired Navy pilot who flew COD's (C-2A Greyhound) in the fleet, as an IP with the FRS, and also, a T-45C Goshawk IP who went through the BFM, TAC form syllabus, etc....that was as basic as you get in terms of just the beginning of tactical jet training, it was much harder than flying a cargo plane off the boat. Granted, the COD was much harder to land on the boat than the T-45 but the Goshawk is a trainer, it should be easier. The almost 1000 hours I flew in the Goshawk made me an overall better pilot than if I had just flown COD's my whole career. Being able to have SA, operate radio comms, instruct, etc in a highly dynamic 3d arena just puts you on another level versus the straight and level flying of big wing stuff. Right on Mover!
Do you mind if people ask you questions? I have a lot of questions about this career and very little exposure to the military. I'm trying to learn as much as I can from Mover and others :)
Had a couple of COD flights (on then off) back in the eighties. Two very professional LTs up front (same crew both times). Pretty sure.... they were sucking 100% O2 doing the check list. I taught them how to drink sangria from a boata down town Barcelona the night before. Mighty fine Aviators. Air Force
Maybe it was just my ignorance but when wild weasels went from the two seat F4 to single seat of 16 I thought those guys were going to be unable to keep up with everything. There's a lot going on when they have to defend against a bunch of missiles and hit their target and fly the airplane
I scrolled to see if it was there. Fighter jock radios the tanker he is transiting with and says, "Watch this!" He proceeds to do some rolls and loops. Arriving back on station He radios, "What do ya think of that?" The Tanker pilot radios back, "Watch THIS!" He then disappears from view and reappears a few minutes later and radios the fighter jock again, "What did you think of THAT!" The jock, confused, says, "What? You didn't do anything." The tanker responds, "Yes I did. I got up. Took a piss. Got a cup of coffee and made a sandwich. CAN you DO THAT?!?!?
@@jamieminton172 NASA's been using diapers since the 50's. Cathing is just right out of the question though. The urinary tract is sterile and as a result, it can become infected easily when foreign objects like catheters are introduced. I've personally contracted several infections as a result of having catheters and let me tell you, it's exactly like it's depicted in The Green Mile. As a result, urinary tract infections are common from catheters. On top of that, I believe there's something about the environment in space that allows for infections to take root much easier than on Earth. But none the less, such an infection has been devastating on previous missions. During Apollo 13, Fred Hayes developed a urinary tract infection that pretty much crippled him and caused him to spike a dangerous fever. Which is ironic because he actually replaced another guy who tested positive for measles, but the positive wound up being false and he never contracted measles. So if they went with their original choice, he would have been perfectly healthy. I'm sorry to say I can't recall his name. Jack Swigert, I think. Using diapers is really nothing new or surprising for most people who are interested in space stuff. I remember learning about it in Grade 6 when we did a unit on Apollo 13. Which, I didn't realize how much of that stuff stuck until I wrote this. And about all of the different layers of the suits they wore back then. See? All of that useless stuff they teach you in school could help you write a TH-cam comment 20 years from now. And since then, I've kept an interest in space, so I have a bit of knowledge about current systems. Especially the space toilets. Cuz who wouldn't want to know how a modern space toilet works. SPOILER: The same way as one from the 60's, basically. Except for number 2s they actually have a throne now, instead of just a plastic bag. The funny thing about the bag, is it was just as hard to aim into as you would think. There's an except from the mission transcript of Apollo 10 where the guys come across a piece of poop floating around the cabin and subsequently, an argument ensues about whose it was. "well I remember mine being a bit stickier than that" stuff of that nature. It's pure gold. And just cuz I'm not not sadistic, here's a link for an article about it: www.vox.com/2015/5/26/8646675/apollo-10-turd-poop But yeah, there really doesn't seem to have been a lot that's changed in the way of how they handle waste. I'd imagine they developed something for a woman having her period, as that's a very real problem. There was a contest a couple years ago where NASA was asking for the public's help in developing an intermediate-term solution to the problem of waste management in a space suit. In an emergency situation, the astronauts would be required to wear their suits for as long as 2 weeks straight. And diapers just aren't going to cut it for that long. Especially when you can't even take the suit off to change them and clean them up. As for how they deal with periods, I'd imagine a tampon would be the only real solution since without gravity, it wouldn't flow properly onto a pad. And yes, this is gross, but it's human bodily functions and most people do it. And I also have an interest in medicine, so I'm used to just talking about this kinda stuff in a matter of factly way that inevitably turns people off. But still, if you wanna make some extra money, there is a cash prize involved in this. Among other things, the solution has to deal with urine, feces, and periods in such a way that they can keep the suits on and not have to sit in their own bodily waste for 2 weeks. Also just so I don't mess up my streak for random mentions of Tom Hanks movies. CASTAWAY. That is all.
A variation of that is: An F-4 showboats around a B-52. The pilot smugly says "Can you beat that?" The BUF pilot says "Wait one". They cruise along for several minutes and the F-4 jock asks "When are you going to do anything that will impress me?" The BUF pilot says "I shut two engines down 5 minutes ago".
As a sheetmetal mechanic who was stationed at Nellis, I loved the F-16! F-15’s were constantly over-G’d and needing maintenance, but the 16’s were extremely well built aircraft :)
More and more evidence I hear as time goes by that the F-16 was superior to the F 15 In many ways. Mission capability and readiness is a big factor. The bigger they are the harder they fall
Historically speaking, being a heavy guy could be pretty tough. Imagine being in a B-17 on the second Schweinfurt raid. Fly in tight formation the entire mission, while getting shot at for like three hours.
Mentally it was pretty harrowing to go out and do a run, survive and then know you've got to do it again in a day or two but on the plus side you did get to come home to a warm bed and hot meals between missions. Fear and fatigue were a big concern and put a good deal of aircrew out of service either temporarily or permanently, unfortunately with this being the 40s there wasn't much thought given to the mental wellbeing of servicemen unless they became a hazard to themselves or others.
"Heat-seeking missiles won't be able to follow you through a narrow canyon or even a few extra degrees of turning." Aim-9X and Python-5: *"Am I a joke to you!?"*
He's only right in that the time of flight and closure is so fast that the target aircraft wouldn't have time to dive down into a canyon. Short range missiles TOF is just a few seconds. There is no case were you simultaneously can see a missile a few plane-lengths behind you, and it doesn't either hit you or miss less than a second later.
I see, what you did there, and I partially agree. But his main point was, that the misslie won't actually "chase" you on the same flightpath. The missile will always pull lead and trying to meet you at a calculated point based on time and distance (always assuming that the seeker actually "sees" you). Now, if you are flying in a canyon and going around a corner..... I guess, the seeker will lose the lock when you're hiding behind a wall of rocks.
Good analysis and info - I was an AF pilot for 21 years and flew every version of the EC\RC\WC\KC 135, E3, T-39 and FB 111. Many Red\Blue|Green and Checkered flag missions. Also many combat missions in Vietnam, Southwest Asia {Saudia Arabia, China {Taiwan} and Grenada invasion. My pilot training class Commander was a Marine F4 pilot upgrade candidate that earned the upgrade to AF pilot training and a few years later flew several of the F-14 scenes for the Top Gun movie. He also had a brief speaking role in "the GREAT Santini.". The bottom line on Top Gun is that the Top Gun would be invited to the AF Fighter Weapons School At Nelis. After the FB111 I transitioned back to AWACS and was bored out of my gourd. I could fly the jet, eat my lunch, read a book, and take a nap all at the same time. Other that takeoff, landing and air refueling it was mind numbingly tedious. I checked out on the intercept consoles in the back and let the copilot and nav monitor the autopilot flying 100 mile racetracks for hours. Even flying a T-39 into major hub airports with no autopilot was a hello of a lot more fun. If you want to have a challenge you should try out running a Mig 21 in your unarmed flying JP4 bomb over Hainan Island after you took your tanker into the the NV defense perimeter to try and plug a Marine F4 that had taken a missile coming off Target and was venting fuel with one engine on fire. Don't let Boeing tell you a KC135 won't go supersonic with the nose down at full power. Controls are a little flakey with a bit of reversal but she will make 1.1. Sorry, not overly impressed by Top Gun {although not bad high level training for the Swabies} and I would hope the Chief of the Boat would accidentally drop the POS Tom Cruise over the side accidentally. Goose is probably salvageable.
An Airbus 380 is on its way across the Atlantic. It flies consistently at 800 km/h in 30,000 feet, when suddenly a Eurofighter with Tempo Mach 2 appears. The pilot of the fighter jet slows down, flies alongside the Airbus and greets the pilot of the passenger plane by radio: "Airbus flight, boring flight isn’t it? Take care and have a look here!” He rolls his jet on its back, accelerates, breaks through the sound barrier, rises rapidly to a dizzying height, only to swoop down almost to sea level in a breathtaking dive. He loops back next to the Airbus and asks, "Impressive?" The Airbus pilot answers: "Very impressive, but now have a look here!" The jet pilot watches the Airbus, but nothing happens. It continues to fly stubbornly straight, with the same speed. After five minutes, the Airbus pilot radioed, "Well, do you have to say now?" "What did you do?" Asked the confused fighter pilot. "I didn't see anything impressive." The other laughs and says, "I got up, stretched my legs, went to the back of the flight to the bathroom, got a cup of coffee and a cinnamon cake and made plans for a date with a stewardess tonight. Impressive?" www.ba-bamail.com/jokes/plane-jokes/?jokeid=1257
@@bigblue207 - had a former wing commander who I helped make general. He became the head of assignments for SAC and while playing golf he asked me if I was interested in anything he controlled. A few months later I was off to Aardvark school.
@@JoeBlow-ms8ge I first heard a version of that joke in about 1970. I think it was a TWA Super Constellation and an F-100. That was back when the Stews were attractive and female. My favorite pickup line at the bar was, "I'm a fighter pilot - how do you like me so far?"
"Tracing Missiles?" I suspect he meant tracking missiles. Seems at all newspapers, mags and especially TV they pick the least technically savvy person and put him/her in charge of all aviation reporting. Even at the networks most reporting is crappy on aviation, especially crashes, space, and military subjects. This was a fun one. Thanks, Mover. PS I'm about to publish my first novel. Cover art is next. Yikes!
To help escape from the tracing missile the aircraft will flap its wings harder. If your flying a heavy your skills are so good those trackers can sense it and just give up.
Sadly, they put their best and brightest in such positions. The ones who can't tie their shoes cover politics, and the ones who are literally never right cover the weather or economic issues.
Unfortunately these ""articles"" are more profitable than something factual and reasonable. Mover wouldn't have given this bullshit any exposure if it wasn't bullshit.
Writers are expensive, especially in media that is being replaced by the internet. Because of the expense, writers are always kept busy. There is rarely enough aviation, firearms, computer, or any technical subject to keep a writer busy, so they move from subject to subject. They might write an aviation story, a business story, a political story, and a crime story all on the same day. So errors from lack of understanding are bound to creep in.
Ex Army Vulcan gunner here, one of these days the sound editor in a movie is going to get the sound right for a GE M61 cannon. Top Gun came out about two months before I got out, me and my buddies went and saw it in the theater and got a pretty good laugh at the belt fed machine gun sound track that the sound editor dubbed into it, they'd be better off using the sound byte from a chainsaw.
I remember the first time I heard a Warthog unleash the Avenger in person while working CAS for us. It was....amazing, and sounded nothing like a machine gun.
What struck me in top gun was using Amercan built f5 as the enemy ""migs". F5s don't look anything like a migs. It was like a movie repeatedly calling a corvette, a Porsche.
I LOVE these videos of your Mover! Everyone thinks they're an expert or authority on a subject because they looked something up on the internet! Another thing that grates me is when people focus on a single plane’s strengths and weaknesses totally ignoring the whole infrastructure, organisation and plethora of other factors that are also a significant part of whatever a good military does.
Exactly! IDK how many times I've heard people talking about how bad the Sherman was in WW2. Nevermind that it was reliable, easily deployable by ship, and built for ease of egress, unlike some German tanks, and battles are fought by units and combined arms, not tank vs tank.
@@Pughhead No, the article did not get everything right. The USAF pilot, experienced and much more intelligent than the writer of the article, got everything right.
When I was at Kunsan AB in 90/91 we lost a jet (pilot punched out and jet crashed in a rice paddy)to onboard fire. It was determined to be because of the augmenter fuel tube that came loose and dumped fuel into the engine bay. Our jets were Block 30's with the GE 110-100 engine. For many months after pilots were restricted from using afterburner until a fix was developed and implemented. For our air to air configured jets this was no problem. For the bombers (370 tanks and associated weapons) it was a huge problem. It took more than 3/4 of the runway to get airborne which by doing the math leaves very little room for a ground abort on takeoff roll. We made it without any incidents but the pucker factor was always there on any given morning until all our jets were fixed.
While I agree with most of what you said here, including the fact the fighter pilots are typically of a higher caliber, I disagree with the heavy commits, at least as it pertains to tactical airlift. I was a crew chief on C-130s & F-16s. While the F-16 is cool, I liked the C-130 more because of the missions we flew. I was on flying status because of where we would go & what we did. While stationed in Japan we were always flying a combination of the (so called) motherhood missions you spoke of as well as tactical airlift missions & that's where the real flying in airlift is. Flying tree top level through the mountains in Korea at night on an infiltration mission for special ops is anything but "motherhood". Not to mention the real-word missions we went on, on a regular basis. But then again tactical airlift is not the same as regular airlift missions.
Got it. You liked the C-130 more (your words.) The point is still that heavies take off, fly, and land. Fighter pilots have to add intensive tactics, operate under high G's, and fly the plane alone. This is why the top students are picked for fighter roles. It isn't a slam on heavy crews to point that out.
I love how you call my jet "Fat Amy" lol I know those deployed have officially christened it as "Panther" but I still affectionately call it "Stubby". The F-35 is like the super athletic fat kid. It's looks are deceiving.
She looks just fine man, don't worry, a more capable piece of equipment was called for and that was certainly delivered! My issue is with the cost and auxiliary requirements (and costs thereto as well), but what's done is done, the plane itself is fine.
During WW2 some new pilots thought that if you had an enemy aircraft behind you then doing a barrel roll would stop them shooting you down. Of course this would work. But only if the pilot behind you realised you are an idiot and his sudden burst of laughter threw off his aim.
IN THE BOOK by Capt. Robert Johnson, Thunder Bolt, he said the P-47 was un beatable in a dive and it could out roll any other fighter, so if someone was on your Six, dive and roll.
@@Durzo1259 Common confusion. A barrel roll actually takes your entire plane in a helix (like you're flying a spiral down the inside of a barrel). It's somewhere between a spin and a loop. The "I'll try spinning" maneuver is an aileron roll, where your plane rotates around its own axis. The Star Fox games called that doing a barrel roll back in the 90s (as well as making that the way to dodge missiles) so I think they bear some blame for the confusion.
@@sethb3090 This is one of the better answers I've ever received. Thanks man! So I guess it's better to jink back and forth because barrel rolling creates a predictable movement pattern, right?
@@cliffordex Otherwise known as RPGs, which are next to useless against jets, but work a treat against hovering heli's. [EDIT - added an apostrophe for clarity]
Like most of the other "myths", he's sort of right, but mostly wrong and gets the terminology so screwed up it's hard to tell what he's even talking about. Guided missiles use lead or proportional navigation, and don't technically "chase" their target, they calculate where the target will be at intercept and go there. And yes, if you can see the missile, you can evade it (or at least try). What movies screw up is how much faster missiles are, how small they are, and how fast the closure is. The odds of seeing a missile after the rocket motor burns out are about zero unless it's a big SAM like an SA-2.
As a former grunt decades ago, and a fighter jet enthusiast when I was in high school, I'm just glad I was able to follow along with the terminology and guess which way the myth was gonna fall before it was discussed. Very informative video, thanks!
1:07 the $1.5 trillion development cost is a myth. The F-35 cost around $40 billion to develop with some of that coming from allies that also want it for their air forces. The $1.5 trillion figure is the total expected cost of the buying, fueling, maintaining, and repairing all of the F-35s the over the expected 50 year life span of the platform.
@@trainknut What is proof it deserves to exist? What should the cost be if it barely proves to exist? Should the price increase if it exceeds the proof standards? Lets be real, you don't know. You don't know the appropriate price to pay for an air frame that does prove it should exist. The truth about projects of this cost, scale, and government involvement is this: You won't ever know. Your kids might start to know. Their kids won't care any more. Everything else is speculation, and playing pretend.
@@williamwinstrop3918 proof would be flight performance, airworthiness, and completed airframes... Are you pretending to be daft or are you just an idiot? My point about "it deserves to exist" is that the F-35 is a solution to a nonexistent problem, the F-16 does virtually all the same things for a fraction of the cost, and it doesn't take a decade and a half to get it into the damn air.
@@trainknut so the F-16 is nearly impossible to take out with a radar guided weaponry now ? ... because that is the point of F-35 to be as hard as possible to take out from the ground or in BVR. Sure you will be able to detect that its there with long wavelength radar, thing is those are useless for weapons guidance, for that you need short wavelength and guess what F-35 is specifically designed against those. where F-16 would be just free target practice for both enemy airforce and ground based SAM batteries F-35 will be able to survive much easier ... so it can go in on a SEAD mission, neutralize the enemy ground based AA capabilities to allow the cheaper general purpose fighters and strike aircraft to clean house ... F-22 as air superiority that can work in contested airspace due to stealth F-35 to mop up SAMs the rest to clean up after those two are done
Saying Heavy pilots are more experienced or 'better' pilots is like saying Truck drivers are better drivers than F1 drivers because they have more drived hours.
Man, I LOVE this type of review .. never seen this sort of a review like this pertaining to fighter jets. And yeah, sorry, but there is absolutely no freaking doubt that fighter pilots are absolutely, unequivocally, the best pilots in the world. There isn't even a question about that, to suggest otherwise is just painfully stupid. You guys are simply amazing people. I have been around a lot of airfields with my father who flies sailplanes (lot of competitions, holds lots of records) and many of his friends are either heavy pilots (airlines) or military pilots (a few fighter pilots). There is no doubt about fighter pilots. They garner the most respect on any airfield. Every single pilot out there knows how good these guys are (well, with jets anyway 😉) .. you absolutely have to respect the level of skill and self-control that fighter pilots have been able achieved. Simply amazing stuff. And it takes a very special person at the foundation of that too. Just the mindset of the individual disqualifies 99.9999% of the population from even having the mental capacity and thought process to think of becoming a fighter pilot. It's truly something special with very special people. Now, you wanna talk about programming computers or playing golf? .. I'm your Huckleberry 😂
Hey Cap! Well since I'm retired Air Force and served on a ground crew in Vietnam I'm sure you can guess that I absolutely agree with you 💯% . Great videos. You just showed up in my feed today. Look forward to more videos.
16:55 Also, a fighter pilot with 1,500 flight hours has maybe 1,000 takeoffs/landings. A heavy pilot with 1,500 flight hours has maybe only 300 takeoffs/landings. Takeoffs/landings are by far the most dangerous times in an aircraft, simply because if anything goes wrong, it is at low altitude, with little time or space to fix the problem. A fighter pilot gets two to five times as many of those incidents.
god forbid a journalist actually runs his article by someone who knows what they're talking about. Journalism is dead, this stuff is all just clickbait
Hell, even researched journals aren't always accurate due to the fact that the current publishing system rewards quicker publications. Veritisum has a video on this topic and its actually eye opening for some people. Basically faster and more papers is more beneficial than fewer, well researched and developed papers. Many of the publishers even dislike it when someone else comes along and wants to double check the findings if I recall correctly. Edit: Changed Productions to publications. Man I must have failed bad in typing on my phone for auto correct to change it to that, lol.
As a Navy maintainer I always wanted our pilots to train longer not that I didn’t think they weren’t great but I knew the Air Force training was longer and we could learn from that. All that being said we still have to land on a postage stamp in the middle of nowhere and you guys have long runways.
yeah it gets pretty damn over done though to be honest, I'd love it if our pilots would just take a damn break once in awhile. Need more maintenance days so we can actually have our training days back and get ahead of some of these code 2 s
Hi there CW! Absolutely right about the best pilots being selected for fighter pilot training! In the early 80s here in the UK, the BBC did a documentary series called 'Fight Pilot' in one episode at the end of basic filght training only the best candidates went on to advanced jet training, with the others being sent to operational conversion to C130s.
Retired USAF here. As a young A1C in the early 1990's got a ride in the back of a F-16D. Flew over the Adriatic Sea (broke the sound barrier...the best part!). Did some 9G turns (the commander gave me a 9G survival certificate). And, I got to fly it for about a 45 seconds...did two rolls. The F-16 is one helluva ride...so glad I went up (got some great pictures too)
The 30mm one isn’t that incorrect because while most us aircraft use a 20mm cannon with a few exceptions, a ton of foreign aircraft use 27mm or 30mm cannons for example the typhoon, flanker series, fulcrum, and Rafale
Justin is correct; in general, the 30mm has been the preferred gun for several decades. Mainly only US designs (20mm) and Soviet designs (23mm) bucked this trend. The British Aden and French DEFA 30mm guns dominated much of the fighter market.
@@Justin-zi5io Correct. I was referring to historical development in general. The Soviets went with 23mm for a long time, then switched to 30mm. Which means you are proving the point of this thread.
@@NeightrixPrime That was my first thought too, except the audience for this "article" wouldn't even know what that meant let alone care. So either the author realized that and made up a word that sounded layman or he's a knowitall TH-cam University graduate.
On a PSA flight, our pilot was introduced as a carrier pilot. On take off, he did the turn at the end of the runway under power, straightened out (without the typical pause), applied full power, but held the plane on the runway. Near the end, he pulled up hard, we got to altitude in no time. When we landed, you never felt the tires touch (only heard the chirp). Very smooth. Of the hundreds of passenger flight I've taken, that one of 2 that I remember. The other, a puddle jumper pulled off the runway for "radio problems". As we turned, I saw a heavy touching down on the same runway.
@@karlknechtel8119 I expect you have to know exactly where your plane is when you land on a carrier. He proved that on landing (and he was showing off).
Dive a AB and look at cracks and missing sheet metal on an AB can and tell me is doesn't effect motors much. The reason Hollywood puts rings in exhaust while flying is that's what they see during a static run or just before a CAT shot. Squat 1 foot from AB during a test run while your skull is vibrating, counting rings is sorta fun. Better yet look at a E2 while props are idle and snock your nose, your eyes vibrate at the same rate as rotation and one can visually stop the prop. Has nothing to do with AB but thought I mention it. The biggest difference between Fighters and trash haulers is piddle packs. Handling your junk solo aiming at a sponge is more difficult than sitting on a shitter.
I flew a Schweitzer 2-22C at Torrey Pines, La Jolla, San Diego when I belonged to a glider club at age 15. It was beautiful. Enjoyed going to the air shows at Mira Mar in the Seventies. Enjoyed the static displays there on base, the old junk airplanes. The museum. What dropped my jaw was watching an F-8 Crusader go straight up in afterburner at one of the shows.
Sir, thank you for your service, your video and your answers and comments. Could you please answer some questions for me and comment? I was in the flying mechanic program on B-52Hs in SAC in the late '70s, and was in the instructor pilot seat on a Green Flag flight. Our Electronic Warfare Officer had never flown against F-15s, they were very new. He commented over the interphone "I think that might be an F-15, I don't recognize that signature." We were crossing a valley (low level) and starting to climb toward a range of mountains, aiming for a saddle between two peaks. Maybe three miles away in front of us an F-15 comes through the same saddle on an opposing course, maybe 500' higher than us. He was crossing our flight path at about a 45 degree angle, from our right to our left. He stayed straight and level and our pilot handed off control to the co-pilot. He craned his head watching the Eagle, and apparently the Eagle driver waited until he thought we couldn't see him anymore, then banked and pulled down toward our tail. Our pilot said "Guns, AC, you're going to have company high on your right." A few seconds later our gunner replied "There he is. I LOCKED HIM UP! HA! I LOCKED HIM UP AGAIN! I KILLED HIM TWICE!" Back then we still carried the 20mm cannon in the tail, and the fire control system was supposed to be real good. Apparently the Eagle driver wanted to get gun camera footage (real film back then) of him downing a Buff at Green Flag. He got inside the range of the tail gun and inside it's firing angle, and the officials (I think they called them umpires) awarded us with a kill. This happened near the beginning of my career, fast forward about 15 years. I was in the Minuteman program in North Dakota, with long boring drives to and from the Missile Alert Facilities. I was telling this story to the two officers in our vehicle and suddenly the liutenant in the front seat whirled around and said "Sergeant Mallon, you were in that plane?!" I said yes Sir and gave a few details like tail number and approximate date. He said "They're still telling that story at the Air Force Academy to show us that technology won't save you if you are stupid." I wish I could take some credit for what happened but I was just a passenger, I had no responsibility until we landed. This happened a very long time ago, the details have blurred over the years. Does any of this sound plausible? I heard from someone, I think a flight crew member, that the Eagle should have stayed farther out, beyond range of our tail gun, and swarmed our defenses with a bunch of missiles. He said the umpires would likely credit us with fooling one or two missiles but one or more would get through and the score would have been Eagle 1, Buff 0. For what it's worth, the other two Buffs from our squadron, in trail maybe 50-100 miles back, were swarmed by F-106s and F-4s. It didn't go well for them. I don't even know the difference between Green Flag and Red Flag, and how exercises play out these days. Comments? Thank you sir.
Thank you for what you are doing with Folds of Honor. What a terrific organization! Now I am going poke you: Fighter pilots are the best fighter pilots. CAS pilots are the best CAS pilots. Aerobatic pilots are the best aerobatic pilots , and so on. We each have our area of expertise, and outside of that area humility must be exercised to avoid trouble. Example: I watched an F-15 guy buy a Pitts, not get any training, and ground loop it on his first take-off.
I was in the Navy in the 80s and early 90s, the Navy had more fighters than the USAF was what our skipper told us. Also my dad was a Naval Aviator and always said the guys who get fighters have the ability to take in a lot of information process it and act quickly. He flew Avengers and Catalina’s ASW and Air-Sea rescue during the war. Got recalled for Korea checked out in Panther’s, but was moved to LBJ’s staff as his liaison officer.
@@tommyhillfier9458 AF pilots learn how to take-off, fly, and land with precision. Navy guys just have to do the "flying" part. Take-offs are their hopes and dreams. Landings are just crashes with style.
@@gmcjetpilot Somehow after considering your comment, I'm left not worried about a deficit of this military pilot's technical or stick and rudder skills, nor his situational awareness of flight progress, engine and system instruments, weather, or divert options.
@@gmcjetpilot I wouldn't be worried with a 'bored' Mover as my pilot. I would actually be quite secure. Here is why: Mover is saying it is boring because he is doing EVERYTHING you mentioned and more, but that does not use up his whole capacity. He is used to doing all of that, while operating a radar, employing weapons systems, tracking threats and keeping situational awareness, paying attention to data link and AWACS, flying in a formation, etc etc. Flying that airliner is like driving an automatic transmission car at 30mph around a track, instead of a Formula 1 firewalled.
@@gmcjetpilot There is a huge difference between an activity being boring and someone being bored doing it. Just because a pilot is doing something boring doesn't mean he or she isn't sufficiently engaged at all times. Frankly I hope every single flight I'm ever on is the most boring thing the pilot has ever done.
Thanks for this., I needed the laugh. I am an Air Force Veteran, I used to do maintenance on the F-16 engines while I was stationed at MacDill AFB. You have a new subscriber now.
Definitely have to agree on the second one. Now yes, overall, to the success of the mission the heavies are rather required (it's rather hard to keep going without fuel and ammo), but they still have physical checklists. A fighter pilot has to have the entire 700ish steps of a checklist known BY HEART with all the associated muscle memory involved too. Standard heavy pilots also wouldn't have the instinctual know-how to be able to instantly process a total brown pants moment such as low level airshow maneuvers and having an engine go out (see Captain Brian Bews' instant reaction to the incident in July 2010 in Lethbridge as an example). They also almost always have altitude on their side for said moments, and a glide ratio that's actually useful. At least they could have been tongue in cheek and said combat helicopter pilots get more training (I grew up around TacHel, so I'm moderately biased)
In a big plane, or in pretty much any civil aircraft really, quick reaction times are irrelevant. Nothing happens /that/ quickly, and you're trained to be methodical and collaborate with the other pilot sitting beside you. Even in an extreme case like Sully's, you're still operating on a timescale of minutes rather than split-seconds. I have zero experience flying fighter planes, but I at least understand that it's a whole different thing.
If pilot's flight hours would count as actual HOTAS inputs, those IAS-HDG-ALT-VS AP dudes in airliners would drop 99% of it. Heli pilots are narrow margin skill perfectionists, fighter pilots are G-force masochists.
I will say this tho, for a guy that has no fighter background or no first hand knowledge, he's actually on point on some of the points tho surprisingly
No, it's terrible. From a guy who does have first hand knowledge. The terminology he uses is so screwed up that in most cases you have to guess what he really means.
@@jerrylittle7797 If most don't know what you mean regardless then you might as well use the correct terminology.for the percentage who do, and the percentage who'll look it up when they realise they don't.
Sounds like the author correlated fight hours with "best". Technically, he's right about transports and heavies having more hours in the seat, and should have left it there. Also love Mover warning against being triggered after being triggered by the assertion that fighter pilots are not the best.
It's like comparing rally car drivers with truckers. One driver does more hours than the other, but isn't working as close to the edge of their ability.
"most expensive weapons platform ever..." I'm sorry, Wyatt, but have you heard of this cool thing called the Gerald R. Ford Class CVN? Then again, if we're talking about development cost, the F-35 wins, but not on a per-unit basis.
I'm a "newbie" when it comes to jets & anything related, but you had me LMAO discussing myths! Even this newbie knows the difference between many you addressed. Thank you for educating us. 👍
Even flying GA low hours, I built hours orbiting the sewer processing plant and a nearby golf course over the end of downwind at Bournemouth International at 1200ft, I would not be proud declaring that as some hours well spent, though I did get good at orbiting... mixed feelings!
Well one thing talking for navy and marine pilots is that they have to land at carriers at nights. Thats as tough as landing gets. But I usually like to think all kind of pilots has different sets of skills requirement thats needed for them to be at the top of theyre respective game. Johan.
Many years ago I read one of the books about the Early Astronauts. Among the Mercury 7 all 3 services (UAF, USN and USMC) were represented and the usual stuff about superiority went on. I think it was Alan Shepard who to keep his carrier wings had to do so many carrier landings in a given time period. So he used to get a jet and go out do a bunch every so often. Instead of arguing over the superiority of the services he used to just ask who wanted to go along a ride with him as he did a bunch of carrier landings. None of the others ever went.
Great Video. Sometimes as a pilot, you have to suspend disbelief when watching an aviation movie. I can even remember seeing the original "Airport" move with my dad, a longtime AF and Airline pilot, as he grimaced and groaned over all the inaccuracies.
Kindof like me, USAF crew chief, had my hands on pretty much everything (all services, including European), watching Iron Eagle... My wife HATES it when we watch those kinds of movies, soooooooooo many things wrong!!!
If i remember correctly, a cold war MIG capture is what lead to the formation of top gun, to teach front line fighter pilots to out maneuver the soviet MIG fighter. Said training saved MANY American pilots lives, increasing survivability in encounters with MIG fighters.
Something also mentioned in original Top Gun move was that pilots relied too heavily on missiles, and got shafted in dogfights. This fits story with AIM-7 issues in Vietnam, where pilots could not use them effeciently, because they were requred to visually ID planes as hostiles before engaging them, giving up range advantage and playing on enemy's terms. Navy quickly figured out this is retarded, and went back to using heat-seekers exclusively.
"Blue Angles". Laughed so hard I had to check my ass is still there. This guy finds interesting topics to write about to put food on his plate. Don't expect too much.
30mm is actually very common on fighters. Just about every Mig and Sukhoi, Rafale and Mirage, Harrier, and Viggen. Eurofighter and Gripen are 27 mm and F35 is 25mm. 20mm is pretty much only American fighters.
Man, i just discovered your channel and it's awesome. As a former Recce Tank Operator i can assure you we had/have the same issues on the ground. Myths about fierce combat scenes taken from movies. Explosions, bounces, turret gunfights... I just remember one particular moment during my training, when a officer said "well gentlemen, this device on top of the turret is the IR alert system, it catches up when you are under radar lock mostly by an attack helicopter, usually this will engage the automatic smoke defense system, be sure to leave your position immediately..." Then after some silence in the room he continued: "... anyway, if a helicopter has a lock on you, the missile is already flying towards you, so this system is here just for you to say goodbyeeee" I remember the general laughing to ease the tension but... some of us were just... i mean... worried...
ALL pilots are generally type A types, but fighter pilots are extreme type A, from my experience. I flew a KC-135 and we kept the fighters fueled up to drop the bombs on the bad guys. I was initially disappointed I didn't get fighters, but realized when I got into heavies, that it was a much better fit for my personality. And hats off to fighter guys, because I can also appreciate that pulling g's can be fun, but it can also be totally draining physically and I can imagine that I'd be really feeling that now that I'm in my 50s.
A hornet pilot and a C-130 pilot were arguing about who was a better pilot during an escort mission. So the hornet pilot breaks off, does some high g turns, some barrel rolls and all kinds of acrobatics before returning to his wing. He calls over. "That was some pretty good flying if I say so myself. Let's see you do that!" The C-130 pilot calls back. "Think that's hot shit? Watch this!" The plane flies straight and level and the hornet pilot wonders when he'll start. He keeps waiting for several minutes until the C-130 pilot calls back. "Wheeew! That was some good flying if I say so myself. What do you think?" The hornet pilot calls back confused. "You just flew straight!" "I did more than that. I got up out of my chair, walked to the back to take a leak, stretched and got some coffee before sitting back down. Let's see you do that!"
That’s funny. Thanks for the good story Fighter pilots are excellent pilot no doubt. The best pilots are crop dusters and bush pilots, Absolutely no doubt.
i've always wondered if any pilots have ever pooped their flight suits whilst pulling a lot of Gs. i'd think that would be hilarious, but also extremely unfortunate considering that there isn't much room for a restroom on most smaller planes. do they have a plan for that scenario? the strangest things amuse me.
I can't really imagine that it hasn't. Although try and find a pilot who'll own up to it in hindsight ;p Are modified reduced stool diets a thing for fighter pilots?
There was a pilot I used to fly with who did the T-37/T-38 track in the 1993-94 timeframe, back when everyone did that, even if you were going to be a rotor-head. While doing his T-38 solo cross-country at Columbus AFB, he suddenly went "Code Brown" (I'm sure the reduction in air pressure as he climbed to altitude probably had something to do with this) and he tried to take a shit in his helmet bag. He missed the bag, unfortunately, and sprayed down the entire instrument panel, along with the rest of the cockpit. He declared a physiological event and the controllers, thinking it was something like hypoxia, vectored him for an emergency landing and directed him to taxi off at base ops. Waiting for him at base ops was the crash rescue trucks and an ambulance with the flight surgeon, naturally....along with the wing commander, group commander, squadron commander, etc.... They rush up to the jet to make sure he's okay and there he is, covered in explosive diarrhea. It's all over him, all over the cockpit, it's everywhere. So yeah, he decided to go fly helicopters after that, probably a wise move on his part :-)
Back in the 90s there was an F16 pilot who crashed his plane while trying to change his piddle pack. When I heard the story, I thought of the line "Hope you had a hell of a piss Arnold" from Fast Times at Ridgemont High. (After Brad gets fired for reacting to the angry customer who wanted a refund for his breakfast.)
Fighter pilots are comparable to knights in the middle ages, extremley well trained, equipped with the most advanced technology of their age, and strategically crucial in war. The major difference is that fighter pilits don't have to buy their own jet.
Dog fights between the Hellenic and Turkish air forces are an every day situation. Pilot losses on both sides are also relatively common during those encounters, usually by accident, although few were actually shot down.
The AB is just a section of the engine. There is no "mechanical connection" to the actual turbine engine (a shaft / turbine section). It is attached to the engine case. AB use does not "wear out" the engine. Great Video!
I never understood why military aircraft aren't equipped with a rearward facing defensive weapon. Not necessarily a heavy missile but maybe light guided rockets, something similar to DAGR (Direct Attack Guided Rocket). Doesn't have to destroy the enemy aircraft just capable of damaging the radar or control surfaces, just enough to make the enemy unable to get a lock or to stop the engagement. I know I'm not the first person to think about this so there's got to be a reason/reasons why this was never implemented. i.e. cost, weight, too niche. I wouldn't be surprised if Airforce One has something similar. Anyway, always wondered about that, I know I would like to have defensive weapons when I can't shake a enemy behind my ass..
I think the main issue is that it's like trying to launch a rocket (or a missile) while flying backward at many hundreds knots. Any weapon would have to slow down to 0 kts and then start to build up speed, which means losing altitude as well... Another option would be to launch a missile which will have to make a 180 degrees turn right after launch. I think the French Air Force did something with a pair of Rafale and a MICA-AR missile, but I can't remember the details...
@@BC107BP TRhe AIM9X can do this with the F-35. It's not so much to due with the munitions itself, as it does with sensors. You need to have IR Weapon sensors that can get tone on a bogey BEHIND the airplane which is typically not the case. Most Fox-2s do not get their information from the host fighter. When majority of fighters are engaging with Fox-2s, it's missile seeker that's doing the searching for the pilot, and then it alerts the pilot through the WCS that "hey, i see something! Is it a bad guy?!" And if the pilot thinks it's bad, he or she will fire and that missile will try as hard as hell to maintain a lock on that heat blob. HOBS Missiles in regards to Fox-2s are heat seekers with very wide angle lenses and seeker heads that can look directly to their sides of the missile. But even with HOBS, they cannot look backwords. And we cannot put sensors in a missiles ass because... well, that's where the rocket motor is. So in the case of the F-35s, you have systems like the EOTS or the DAS, which allow sensor data to be taken in angles more than just forward facing and more than just HOBS as well. The F-35s DAS can actually look onto a target in the rare (since the DAS has a 360 degree sensor radius), tell the missile "target is right here, when you release, turn at that point and you should see it", and when the F-35 fires, the AIM9X will actually do a 180 degree flip, effectively allowing the Panther to fire backwards. The trick is in the seeker head. If the target is behind you, then it's the front of the target that the missile will first see; which isn't very hot. The cool spot of the front of a target will be in the middle of a giant heat plume from the exhaust behind said bad guy. So the trick was to make a missile seeker head smarter and faster so that it could ID where the actual vehicle was in the middle of that plume and lock on fast enough to guide itself in for a kill.
the inherited velocity would probably really limit the range and maneuverability. They could probably drop a forward facing missile but delay the rockets burn until the target overshoots it. That seems like a really elaborate way of shooting yourself down though.
Excellent job of shredding another load of BS. Sad when articles like that one even see the light of day. I will say one thing about the transport pilots, they do get involved in some "odd" and very quietly done missions to unusual places and with people and things that the average person and even military person has no clue they would do. Those missions may involve moving people or things that nobody would expect the US military to have anything to do with, but; thanks to the State Department, the USAF gets tasked to move those people or things even though publicly we would never admit to doing so. Not exciting stuff but very interesting. (Like when you are deployed and an unscheduled C-141 (yeah this was years ago) lands at a field in a middle east where we are operating for an extended period of time. The next day a rather brief announcement is made that a person associated with radical groups arrived in that same city the night before. Hmm? No commercial flights landed during that time but this controversial person just happens to pop up the next morning. (Yeah the C-141 didn't taxi over to our area or the commercial area but just to a rather empty ramp area.) So, no, they don't do a lot of glamorous or highly dangerous missions, but they do get involved some sensitive mission that take them places where we might never go under normal circumstances.
green berets in vietnam tired to airdrop elephants by parachute to a remote mountain village, but that ended up being canned because the SPCA somehow found out and protested. The elephants ended up being transported by helicopter. Disney made a highly sensationalised movie about it.
I always loved going to shows and having the big mouth guys walk up to the planes acting like they're a super pro expert... then point at the external tanks, and proudly state in a loud voice to their friends... "See, those are the bombs right there"
We had an open ship w/tours for the public🚢. I was standing stern gangplank watch. A young girl looked at our stern AN/SPG-55B missile fire control radar & asked her father what it was (looks like a pointed drum w/Mickey Mouse ears). He told her with total confidence "That's the Navy's new laser weapon!". I couldn't believe my ears! This was the 1980's, on a Leahy CG-16 class cruiser, long before they were serious a/shipboard laser weapons. The dad could've just asked me what it was, instead of BS'ing his kid. 😒
Yep, lived on Randolph AFB as a teen during late 70s -- Dad was an officer and former pilot. Was walking onto the flight line at an on-base airshow with my girlfriend and listening to one of those guys next to me telling his friends where the "weapons" were on the T-38 we were walking past. Girlfriend and I just grinned and shook our heads. Just one example of some of the nonsense I've heard and seen over the years, including after I became a civilian flight instructor myself.
Man I thought this would be a legit list, but when It said "Fighter pilots are not the best" and "Top gun is not a real school". It lost it's credibility. I thought it would point out myths like "Gen 1 WW1 planes are incapable of being shot down by Gen 4&5s". Yes, I heard that one many times.
Enjoy your videos. As a 75 year old pilot wannabe I still wish I had stuck with pilot training. Have you ever critiqued books like “Flight of the Intruder”. That book made my palms sweat.
Interesting analysis ! Afterburner…..have a good one for you. My father-in-law flew on B-58 Hustlers. Afterburner always at TO. Can also be useful to take off period. One time they had too much fuel on board and had to use the entire (!) runway to burn off enough fuel to reach max. TO weight. He told me „when we reached the last runway marker I had my hand on the ejection seat handle but the pilot kept his cool and we missed the base fence by a few feet“. Remarkable aircraft but a widow maker he said. He also flew over 5000 hrs. on B-52 as counter measure warfare officer and received the distinguished flying cross for saving the aircraft over Hanoi (navigator error). Going from B-58 back to the Buff was from Race car back to tractor. He was an officer and gentleman. He was like a father to me. I miss him dearly.
AB and engine wear: where does this even come from? Afterburners are named such because they inject extra fuel directly into the jet pipe, after all the important moving parts.
Exactly! The engine doesn't spin any faster and the internal pressures are the same. The only damage would be possible cracks in the aug liner and possible broken rivets. But all that has to be inspected on a daily basis, as those issues can happen at any time.
14:00 "Before everybody gets triggered", says the triggered guy :p I can understand though, that's a slap in the face. Good video Mover, it's always interesting to have an expert's opinion on the matter.
@@CWLemoine I meant no offense, tone is hard to convey through text sometimes. "Triggered" is a word I take pretty lightly, among a plethora of neologisms meant to silence one's interlocutor rather than provide an actual argument.
1:05 Well that right there is BS, $1.5 trillion "to develop". Nope $1.5 trillion is the estimated cost to develop, buy and operate ALL planned F-35's through their entire service lifetimes.
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | Survival Stage วันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FVFT-PFwU80/mqdefault.jpg)
Here’s a movie missile myth: a missile will go fast enough to catch up to a jet until it’s about 10 feet away… then it will match the jet’s speed and keep pace until the jet pilot can cause it to crash into something else.
True story.
I actually had a sam do this once in DCS for about 5 seconds before it fell behind.
The best missile is a beer can.
@@icecold9511 5 seconds is one thing, 30seconds to a minute is another.
@@patrickstewart3446
I was surprised it happened for even 5 seconds. That's a bullet burn.
You can’t possibly ruin “Wonder Woman 1984”. The filmmaker did that already. They stole a fighter jet from the Smithsonian and flew to the Middle East. Why a museum jet was fueled and ready for flight and how it managed to fly 8000 miles without refueling was never explained.
And the Jet is a Panavia Tornado with side by side seating which is absolute horseshit in itself. Just a stupid ass movie.
It’s more like a weird cross between a tornado and an F-111 and they got it started without ground power. They figured out how to start it based on 1940s aircraft knowledge. They ran afterburner while taxiing, etc. it was hilarious. You gotta just ignore reality in a movie about a hot chick with a magic lasso saving the world.
@@MeppyMan Exactly it looks like they used a 111 cockpit module for the shots up close. Just ridiculous in every way. I didn't see the actual movie cause I knew it was going to be dogshit but when I seen the part with the aircraft I couldn't believe what I was seeing.
It is just as idiotic as the VTOL SR-71 Blackbird or some other variant in one or multiple X-Men movies.
Also since when does smithsonian has a runway in it?
Only the best architecture candidates get selected for the Blue Angles.
The Blue Angles do not fly the F-16; they fly the 8-Effteen Super Henrot.
I heard that only 32nd Degree architects get into that elite unit.
@@mikearmstrong8483 ive never seen anyone sound stupider in there life
its called the f/18 super hornet
@@ericturner4850
Follow the thread, numbnuts. We're making fun of the guy writing about the "Blue Angles" instead of the "Blue Angels". Humor is clearly not within your mental capacity.
"You are not gonna win a war by yourself"
**LAUGHS IN ACE COMBAT**
Seriously though, you are right.
Magic Regenerating Missile that's why
@@arya31ful They're not magic you just start with 122 sidewinder missiles hidden . . . somewhere
I still marvel at the insane amount of aircraft these countries have. A regular mission will destroy about 3 and 6 billion USD worth of equipment. And there is more than one mission in that game. If you are that rich, having a Tardis sized weapon magazine is just a given.
@@steezydan8543 they are hidden in the C5 or C17 and are replenished inflight like tankers do with fuel. It's just not glamorous so they don't show it in movies. Just like all the maintenance people involved.
Remind me of the US Army' brainless recruiting commercial, "I am an Army of one"...
7:10 I was driving down a lonely desert road once when I saw a jet fighter making what looked to me like an attack run. As there was no one else around I started jinking back and forth from one side to the other.
The plane flashed over at very low AGL and I continued strait down the road. The plane then flew over again from behind and performed a beautiful aileron roll.
I am 98% sure he was letting me know I was "dead".
It was actually a very cool experience.
@Eric Taylor Wow, very cool story. Too bad you two couldn't have met for a beer somewhere after that.
I think he was saying "thanks for playing." At least that is what I might of done if I had the fuel. Or at least rocked my wings on return.
@@spinosaurusrex11 I think you mean "Might have done" or possible the contraction "might've done"
Might of done" makes no sense at all.
But I did enjoy the "air show" I'm pretty sure if he was really making an attack run, I would be dead.
I swear the USMC UH-1Zs flying around the hills near me have tracked me on the drive to town before! It's fun and scary to have a gunship of any size crest a hill looking straight-on at you.
In the 80s, my buddy and I were canoeing down a river in New Hampshire in the wilderness and a pair of A-10s decided to pretend that we were a T-38 and made two low level passes on us. Then they came by and gave us wing wave and were gone.
Damnit Mover, everything on the internet is TRUE. You know this, stop it.
Bonjour
@@CWLemoine I honestly wouldn't be surprised if that writer pens another piece saying that YOU don't know what you're talking about. (Because he read it on wikipedia)
It's the way of the world right now.
@@Pavewy Opinions are as valuable as facts these days, and it's offensive to suggest otherwise.
"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet." -- Abraham Lincoln
@@christopheroliver148 😂
How can Top Gun teach the "best of the best" if the best are heavy pilots? This author doesn't even stop to think that they've contradicted themselves. Also, I love those Angles!
The new topgun will be all about Osprey dogfights, the hornet stuff is a ruse!
Major Kong did make a case in his blog that refueling in a B-52 is like holding a 30lb freeweight outstretched in your hand for half an hour.
I never miss a chance to see the Angles in person
@@Karibanu It's the biggest counter-intelligence operation ever. If the enemy are stuck trying to shoot down your fighters and strike aircraft cause they think those are the biggest threat, you can get your truly deadly C-5's behind enemy lines to wreak havoc. :-P
@@jjbloon Depends, I like the acute ones, but those obtuse ones sure do stink.
Blue Angles! Too funny!!!!
Mover’s head was building pressure there. Handled it well. ;)
Tried to form demo team called Blue Falcons. Did not for some reason get any applicants.😋
I’m a simple guy, I see an F-16 in the thumbnail, I click. Best looking IMO. The Hornet looks like garbage to me, Super Hornet is even worse. The Tomcat might beat it but it’s a neck and neck fight for 1st place there. Eagles are pretty, but not as graceful as the Viper. Maybe the only thing better looking to me is the Hawg, and that’s because it’s so ugly she’s gorgeous!
Figther pilot training helped him keep cool under pressure ;)
My dad was a pilot in the RAF. He initially went for fast jet, but his biggest problem was that he couldn’t think as fast as the plane was travelling. So he got put onto multi engine, and in his early career was flying recce flights over Berlin so military photographers could snap the defences on the Soviet side. Later he went into flying VIPs, specifically the royal family.
One of the best ever from Flight of the Intruder. "Don't ask a man if he's a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
“Fighter pukes make movies.
Bomber pilots make HISTORY”
Great movie..
I worked with a bunch of pilots when I was a EWO doing counter radio-controlled IED work in Iraq. Some were fighter pilots, a couple E2, a few EA-6B. A good bunch. I was a surface warfare CPO. We had a running joke though. “How do you know if there’s a pilot in the room? …Don’t worry, he’ll tell you.” Those were the days.
How can you tell if the party was thrown by a fighter group?
They will tell you all about it.
What's the difference between a jet engine and a pilot?
The one quits whinning is the jet eventually the pilot will sleep but if you listen your likely as not to hear him gripe.
@@kenchen704 and logistics pilots bring infantry.
As a retired Navy pilot who flew COD's (C-2A Greyhound) in the fleet, as an IP with the FRS, and also, a T-45C Goshawk IP who went through the BFM, TAC form syllabus, etc....that was as basic as you get in terms of just the beginning of tactical jet training, it was much harder than flying a cargo plane off the boat. Granted, the COD was much harder to land on the boat than the T-45 but the Goshawk is a trainer, it should be easier. The almost 1000 hours I flew in the Goshawk made me an overall better pilot than if I had just flown COD's my whole career. Being able to have SA, operate radio comms, instruct, etc in a highly dynamic 3d arena just puts you on another level versus the straight and level flying of big wing stuff. Right on Mover!
Do you mind if people ask you questions? I have a lot of questions about this career and very little exposure to the military. I'm trying to learn as much as I can from Mover and others :)
@@seraph1-13 sure
Had a couple of COD flights (on then off) back in the eighties. Two very professional LTs up front (same crew both times). Pretty sure.... they were sucking 100% O2 doing the check list. I taught them how to drink sangria from a boata down town Barcelona the night before. Mighty fine Aviators. Air Force
Damn straight. “Admin…standard.”
I miss the clown jet. Simple as shit, fun as hell.
Maybe it was just my ignorance but when wild weasels went from the two seat F4 to single seat of 16 I thought those guys were going to be unable to keep up with everything. There's a lot going on when they have to defend against a bunch of missiles and hit their target and fly the airplane
Heavy Aircraft Pilots: “We’re trained in defensive maneuvers for when things go wrong”
Fighter Pilot: *I’m when things go wrong*
Ohhh bravo!! 🤣
Winner
fighter: i make things go wrong
@@theicedragon100 Ha! Always! It takes a high school diploma to fix a college degree eff-up...
Two kinds of aircraft. Fighter. Or target.
I scrolled to see if it was there.
Fighter jock radios the tanker he is transiting with and says, "Watch this!" He proceeds to do some rolls and loops. Arriving back on station He radios, "What do ya think of that?"
The Tanker pilot radios back, "Watch THIS!" He then disappears from view and reappears a few minutes later and radios the fighter jock again, "What did you think of THAT!"
The jock, confused, says, "What? You didn't do anything."
The tanker responds, "Yes I did. I got up. Took a piss. Got a cup of coffee and made a sandwich. CAN you DO THAT?!?!?
Ya, that's a good one that's been around awhile. Still fun to hear it. You left out the nap hammock. 🤣🤣
Piddle packs just aren’t the same. 😆
@@keirfarnum6811 You could "Cath" for long cross countries or "Depends". LMAO :D
@@jamieminton172 NASA's been using diapers since the 50's. Cathing is just right out of the question though. The urinary tract is sterile and as a result, it can become infected easily when foreign objects like catheters are introduced. I've personally contracted several infections as a result of having catheters and let me tell you, it's exactly like it's depicted in The Green Mile. As a result, urinary tract infections are common from catheters. On top of that, I believe there's something about the environment in space that allows for infections to take root much easier than on Earth. But none the less, such an infection has been devastating on previous missions. During Apollo 13, Fred Hayes developed a urinary tract infection that pretty much crippled him and caused him to spike a dangerous fever. Which is ironic because he actually replaced another guy who tested positive for measles, but the positive wound up being false and he never contracted measles. So if they went with their original choice, he would have been perfectly healthy. I'm sorry to say I can't recall his name. Jack Swigert, I think.
Using diapers is really nothing new or surprising for most people who are interested in space stuff. I remember learning about it in Grade 6 when we did a unit on Apollo 13. Which, I didn't realize how much of that stuff stuck until I wrote this. And about all of the different layers of the suits they wore back then. See? All of that useless stuff they teach you in school could help you write a TH-cam comment 20 years from now.
And since then, I've kept an interest in space, so I have a bit of knowledge about current systems. Especially the space toilets. Cuz who wouldn't want to know how a modern space toilet works. SPOILER: The same way as one from the 60's, basically. Except for number 2s they actually have a throne now, instead of just a plastic bag. The funny thing about the bag, is it was just as hard to aim into as you would think. There's an except from the mission transcript of Apollo 10 where the guys come across a piece of poop floating around the cabin and subsequently, an argument ensues about whose it was. "well I remember mine being a bit stickier than that" stuff of that nature. It's pure gold. And just cuz I'm not not sadistic, here's a link for an article about it: www.vox.com/2015/5/26/8646675/apollo-10-turd-poop
But yeah, there really doesn't seem to have been a lot that's changed in the way of how they handle waste. I'd imagine they developed something for a woman having her period, as that's a very real problem. There was a contest a couple years ago where NASA was asking for the public's help in developing an intermediate-term solution to the problem of waste management in a space suit. In an emergency situation, the astronauts would be required to wear their suits for as long as 2 weeks straight. And diapers just aren't going to cut it for that long. Especially when you can't even take the suit off to change them and clean them up.
As for how they deal with periods, I'd imagine a tampon would be the only real solution since without gravity, it wouldn't flow properly onto a pad. And yes, this is gross, but it's human bodily functions and most people do it. And I also have an interest in medicine, so I'm used to just talking about this kinda stuff in a matter of factly way that inevitably turns people off. But still, if you wanna make some extra money, there is a cash prize involved in this. Among other things, the solution has to deal with urine, feces, and periods in such a way that they can keep the suits on and not have to sit in their own bodily waste for 2 weeks.
Also just so I don't mess up my streak for random mentions of Tom Hanks movies. CASTAWAY. That is all.
A variation of that is: An F-4 showboats around a B-52. The pilot smugly says "Can you beat that?" The BUF pilot says "Wait one". They cruise along for several minutes and the F-4 jock asks "When are you going to do anything that will impress me?" The BUF pilot says "I shut two engines down 5 minutes ago".
As a sheetmetal mechanic who was stationed at Nellis, I loved the F-16! F-15’s were constantly over-G’d and needing maintenance, but the 16’s were extremely well built aircraft :)
More and more evidence I hear as time goes by that the F-16 was superior to the F 15 In many ways. Mission capability and readiness is a big factor. The bigger they are the harder they fall
@@steveperreira5850different roles, hard to truly compare that way.
Historically speaking, being a heavy guy could be pretty tough. Imagine being in a B-17 on the second Schweinfurt raid. Fly in tight formation the entire mission, while getting shot at for like three hours.
its a different skillset, just like the rotary wing pilots, whole different ballgame
The flying part wasn't the hardest part, having to courage to do it was.
Are bombers considered the same league as heavy transport pilots? I think they would be more of a middle ground.
I expected you to know that better than anyone, you flew in the Schweinfurt Raid as a B-17 pilot!
Mentally it was pretty harrowing to go out and do a run, survive and then know you've got to do it again in a day or two but on the plus side you did get to come home to a warm bed and hot meals between missions. Fear and fatigue were a big concern and put a good deal of aircrew out of service either temporarily or permanently, unfortunately with this being the 40s there wasn't much thought given to the mental wellbeing of servicemen unless they became a hazard to themselves or others.
"Jinking" was probably the most violent maneuver we practiced in the F-4.
"Heat-seeking missiles won't be able to follow you through a narrow canyon or even a few extra degrees of turning."
Aim-9X and Python-5: *"Am I a joke to you!?"*
**intensifies 180 degree seeker**
He's only right in that the time of flight and closure is so fast that the target aircraft wouldn't have time to dive down into a canyon. Short range missiles TOF is just a few seconds. There is no case were you simultaneously can see a missile a few plane-lengths behind you, and it doesn't either hit you or miss less than a second later.
@@DragNetJoe Unless you have your after burner on but those are rarely used and would damage your engine ROFL!
AIM-9X **Laughs while out-turning and out-burning**
I see, what you did there, and I partially agree.
But his main point was, that the misslie won't actually "chase" you on the same flightpath. The missile will always pull lead and trying to meet you at a calculated point based on time and distance (always assuming that the seeker actually "sees" you). Now, if you are flying in a canyon and going around a corner..... I guess, the seeker will lose the lock when you're hiding behind a wall of rocks.
As a Wyatt, I am irked especially by this guy's lack research.
Yeah me too lmao
Ok pilgrims.
he gives you a bad name
What's with the number of Wyatt's lol.
@@titan4110 They follow the buzzards.
Good analysis and info - I was an AF pilot for 21 years and flew every version of the EC\RC\WC\KC 135, E3, T-39 and FB 111. Many Red\Blue|Green and Checkered flag missions. Also many combat missions in Vietnam, Southwest Asia {Saudia Arabia, China {Taiwan} and Grenada invasion.
My pilot training class Commander was a Marine F4 pilot upgrade candidate that earned the upgrade to AF pilot training and a few years later flew several of the F-14 scenes for the Top Gun movie. He also had a brief speaking role in "the GREAT Santini.". The bottom line on Top Gun is that the Top Gun would be invited to the AF Fighter Weapons School At Nelis.
After the FB111 I transitioned back to AWACS and was bored out of my gourd. I could fly the jet, eat my lunch, read a book, and take a nap all at the same time. Other that takeoff, landing and air refueling it was mind numbingly tedious. I checked out on the intercept consoles in the back and let the copilot and nav monitor the autopilot flying 100 mile racetracks for hours. Even flying a T-39 into major hub airports with no autopilot was a hello of a lot more fun.
If you want to have a challenge you should try out running a Mig 21 in your unarmed flying JP4 bomb over Hainan Island after you took your tanker into the the NV defense perimeter to try and plug a Marine F4 that had taken a missile coming off Target and was venting fuel with one engine on fire. Don't let Boeing tell you a KC135 won't go supersonic with the nose down at full power. Controls are a little flakey with a bit of reversal but she will make 1.1.
Sorry, not overly impressed by Top Gun {although not bad high level training for the Swabies} and I would hope the Chief of the Boat would accidentally drop the POS Tom Cruise over the side accidentally. Goose is probably salvageable.
An Airbus 380 is on its way across the Atlantic. It flies consistently at 800 km/h in 30,000 feet, when suddenly a Eurofighter with Tempo Mach 2 appears. The pilot of the fighter jet slows down, flies alongside the Airbus and greets the pilot of the passenger plane by radio: "Airbus flight, boring flight isn’t it? Take care and have a look here!” He rolls his jet on its back, accelerates, breaks through the sound barrier, rises rapidly to a dizzying height, only to swoop down almost to sea level in a breathtaking dive. He loops back next to the Airbus and asks, "Impressive?" The Airbus pilot answers: "Very impressive, but now have a look here!" The jet pilot watches the Airbus, but nothing happens. It continues to fly stubbornly straight, with the same speed. After five minutes, the Airbus pilot radioed, "Well, do you have to say now?" "What did you do?" Asked the confused fighter pilot. "I didn't see anything impressive." The other laughs and says, "I got up, stretched my legs, went to the back of the flight to the bathroom, got a cup of coffee and a cinnamon cake and made plans for a date with a stewardess tonight. Impressive?"
www.ba-bamail.com/jokes/plane-jokes/?jokeid=1257
How’d you end up flying the FB111?
@@bigblue207 - had a former wing commander who I helped make general. He became the head of assignments for SAC and while playing golf he asked me if I was interested in anything he controlled. A few months later I was off to Aardvark school.
@@JoeBlow-ms8ge I first heard a version of that joke in about 1970. I think it was a TWA Super Constellation and an F-100. That was back when the Stews were attractive and female. My favorite pickup line at the bar was, "I'm a fighter pilot - how do you like me so far?"
@@JoeBlow-ms8ge Seemed funnier when I heard it 1957 concerning a Hun (F-100) and a B-52.
"Tracing Missiles?" I suspect he meant tracking missiles. Seems at all newspapers, mags and especially TV they pick the least technically savvy person and put him/her in charge of all aviation reporting. Even at the networks most reporting is crappy on aviation, especially crashes, space, and military subjects.
This was a fun one. Thanks, Mover.
PS I'm about to publish my first novel. Cover art is next. Yikes!
To help escape from the tracing missile the aircraft will flap its wings harder. If your flying a heavy your skills are so good those trackers can sense it and just give up.
Sadly, they put their best and brightest in such positions. The ones who can't tie their shoes cover politics, and the ones who are literally never right cover the weather or economic issues.
Unfortunately these ""articles"" are more profitable than something factual and reasonable.
Mover wouldn't have given this bullshit any exposure if it wasn't bullshit.
@@Hi11is Haha! Good summary.
Writers are expensive, especially in media that is being replaced by the internet. Because of the expense, writers are always kept busy. There is rarely enough aviation, firearms, computer, or any technical subject to keep a writer busy, so they move from subject to subject. They might write an aviation story, a business story, a political story, and a crime story all on the same day. So errors from lack of understanding are bound to creep in.
Is the -16 ever not carrying two tanks? I’ve been told by a -16 crew chief that the Falcon would burn less fuel if it was on fire.
They used to say "It's the best airplane in the world to carry 2 bombs 200 miles away and not hit shit"
Polish Vipers are often seen not carrying two bags because they use the conformal fuel tanks. And Europe has shorter ranges.
At least if the engine's on fire it might burn less fuel
Only 7200 pounds of fuel in a Viper. Short legs.
@@blurglide Pretty sure that's a strike package Q jab.
Ex Army Vulcan gunner here, one of these days the sound editor in a movie is going to get the sound right for a GE M61 cannon.
Top Gun came out about two months before I got out, me and my buddies went and saw it in the theater and got a pretty good laugh at the belt fed machine gun sound track that the sound editor dubbed into it, they'd be better off using the sound byte from a chainsaw.
I remember the first time I heard a Warthog unleash the Avenger in person while working CAS for us. It was....amazing, and sounded nothing like a machine gun.
And with "Final Countdown" coming out YEARS before "Topgun", you'd have thought they would have known better.
Final Countdown got it right man~41 years ago
What struck me in top gun was using Amercan built f5 as the enemy ""migs". F5s don't look anything like a migs. It was like a movie repeatedly calling a corvette, a Porsche.
@@blaster-zy7xx
No kidding, during the Cold War they didn't exactly have a lot of MIG's laying around to film movies with.
I LOVE these videos of your Mover!
Everyone thinks they're an expert or authority on a subject because they looked something up on the internet! Another thing that grates me is when people focus on a single plane’s strengths and weaknesses totally ignoring the whole infrastructure, organisation and plethora of other factors that are also a significant part of whatever a good military does.
I call it the *"I HAVE A SOAPBOX AND I MUST BE SMUG"* effect.
Exactly! IDK how many times I've heard people talking about how bad the Sherman was in WW2. Nevermind that it was reliable, easily deployable by ship, and built for ease of egress, unlike some German tanks, and battles are fought by units and combined arms, not tank vs tank.
I mean, the article got everything right, he was just nitpicking.
@@Pughhead No, the article did not get everything right. The USAF pilot, experienced and much more intelligent than the writer of the article, got everything right.
Relative to today's media, the fact that you said "true" more than once is astounding.
True
It was so refreshing to hear (honest combination of true/false)
When I was at Kunsan AB in 90/91 we lost a jet (pilot punched out and jet crashed in a rice paddy)to onboard fire. It was determined to be because of the augmenter fuel tube that came loose and dumped fuel into the engine bay. Our jets were Block 30's with the GE 110-100 engine. For many months after pilots were restricted from using afterburner until a fix was developed and implemented. For our air to air configured jets this was no problem. For the bombers (370 tanks and associated weapons) it was a huge problem. It took more than 3/4 of the runway to get airborne which by doing the math leaves very little room for a ground abort on takeoff roll. We made it without any incidents but the pucker factor was always there on any given morning until all our jets were fixed.
While I agree with most of what you said here, including the fact the fighter pilots are typically of a higher caliber, I disagree with the heavy commits, at least as it pertains to tactical airlift. I was a crew chief on C-130s & F-16s. While the F-16 is cool, I liked the C-130 more because of the missions we flew. I was on flying status because of where we would go & what we did. While stationed in Japan we were always flying a combination of the (so called) motherhood missions you spoke of as well as tactical airlift missions & that's where the real flying in airlift is. Flying tree top level through the mountains in Korea at night on an infiltration mission for special ops is anything but "motherhood".
Not to mention the real-word missions we went on, on a regular basis. But then again tactical airlift is not the same as regular airlift missions.
Got it. You liked the C-130 more (your words.) The point is still that heavies take off, fly, and land. Fighter pilots have to add intensive tactics, operate under high G's, and fly the plane alone. This is why the top students are picked for fighter roles. It isn't a slam on heavy crews to point that out.
Spec-ops infiltration missions through mountains at tree-top level in a C-130 at night in Korea... Which Korea were you infiltrating?
@@llYossarian Best Korea.
I love how you call my jet "Fat Amy" lol
I know those deployed have officially christened it as "Panther" but I still affectionately call it "Stubby". The F-35 is like the super athletic fat kid. It's looks are deceiving.
She looks lovely. The ridges on the weapons bay of the A variant look like chiseled abs.
SHE'S THICC!!!!
She looks just fine man, don't worry, a more capable piece of equipment was called for and that was certainly delivered!
My issue is with the cost and auxiliary requirements (and costs thereto as well), but what's done is done, the plane itself is fine.
I recently heard the F-35 referred to as the "Battle Penguin".
I LOVE the F-35. :)
"I played Ace Combat, so I'm ~kind of an expert~ on combat aircraft." (flexes smugly)
BRO 💀
Im an avid Ace Combat player, and you right, I am an expert...
...in that very arcade style, fun toy, simplified game
Ace Combat is totally accurate.
Except for the physics. 😉
@@baomao7243 And a hundred missiles on a jet. And railguns. And lasers that actually do damage. And. And. AND...
fk, ACE comabt, it's fACkE Comabt.
Great synopsis. Myth busting at its best. As an ex-RAF WSO (Tornado GR) everything you said was spot on. Great video.
During WW2 some new pilots thought that if you had an enemy aircraft behind you then doing a barrel roll would stop them shooting you down. Of course this would work. But only if the pilot behind you realised you are an idiot and his sudden burst of laughter threw off his aim.
IN THE BOOK by Capt. Robert Johnson, Thunder Bolt, he said the P-47 was un beatable in a dive and it could out roll any other fighter, so if someone was on your Six, dive and roll.
A barrel roll actually involves getting out of plane, so not exactly.
Is a barrel role, specifically, like the most notorious Star Wars line, "I'll do a spin, that's a good trick!"?
@@Durzo1259 Common confusion. A barrel roll actually takes your entire plane in a helix (like you're flying a spiral down the inside of a barrel). It's somewhere between a spin and a loop. The "I'll try spinning" maneuver is an aileron roll, where your plane rotates around its own axis.
The Star Fox games called that doing a barrel roll back in the 90s (as well as making that the way to dodge missiles) so I think they bear some blame for the confusion.
@@sethb3090 This is one of the better answers I've ever received. Thanks man!
So I guess it's better to jink back and forth because barrel rolling creates a predictable movement pattern, right?
I think ol' Wyatt meant "tracking", not "tracing". I mourn the lack of decent editors.
That goes for all blogspam sites.
I dont expect any less from online blogs and news companies, theyre pretty trashy these days
Those missiles trace blue angles.
They grew up on auto correct
Or proof reading.
When he wrote "tracer missiles", I believe he meant "tracker missiles", still a poor choice of words, but more inline with what he was writing about.
As opposed to those pesky unguided A-A missiles?
@@cliffordex How else are you going to know where the missile is going if you don't intersperse with tracers? :D
@@cliffordex Otherwise known as RPGs, which are next to useless against jets, but work a treat against hovering heli's. [EDIT - added an apostrophe for clarity]
@@docOld55 Just rockets right? 100% probability of kill unless they happen to deviate in the slightest.
Like most of the other "myths", he's sort of right, but mostly wrong and gets the terminology so screwed up it's hard to tell what he's even talking about. Guided missiles use lead or proportional navigation, and don't technically "chase" their target, they calculate where the target will be at intercept and go there. And yes, if you can see the missile, you can evade it (or at least try). What movies screw up is how much faster missiles are, how small they are, and how fast the closure is. The odds of seeing a missile after the rocket motor burns out are about zero unless it's a big SAM like an SA-2.
As a former grunt decades ago, and a fighter jet enthusiast when I was in high school, I'm just glad I was able to follow along with the terminology and guess which way the myth was gonna fall before it was discussed.
Very informative video, thanks!
Mr Lemoine, you’re awesome! You did such a good job with this. I especially enjoyed how you shot apart #2.
Plot twist: the article’s author is a salty C-17 pilot who failed fighter grades
1:07 the $1.5 trillion development cost is a myth. The F-35 cost around $40 billion to develop with some of that coming from allies that also want it for their air forces. The $1.5 trillion figure is the total expected cost of the buying, fueling, maintaining, and repairing all of the F-35s the over the expected 50 year life span of the platform.
To be fair, even in context 1.5 trillion is still way too much for an airframe that so far is barely proving it even deserves to exist.
@@trainknut What is proof it deserves to exist? What should the cost be if it barely proves to exist? Should the price increase if it exceeds the proof standards?
Lets be real, you don't know.
You don't know the appropriate price to pay for an air frame that does prove it should exist.
The truth about projects of this cost, scale, and government involvement is this:
You won't ever know. Your kids might start to know. Their kids won't care any more.
Everything else is speculation, and playing pretend.
@@williamwinstrop3918 proof would be flight performance, airworthiness, and completed airframes... Are you pretending to be daft or are you just an idiot?
My point about "it deserves to exist" is that the F-35 is a solution to a nonexistent problem, the F-16 does virtually all the same things for a fraction of the cost, and it doesn't take a decade and a half to get it into the damn air.
@@trainknut If you apply all the inflation and stuffs, F-16 costed more than F-35 in terms of development and maintain....
@@trainknut so the F-16 is nearly impossible to take out with a radar guided weaponry now ? ... because that is the point of F-35 to be as hard as possible to take out from the ground or in BVR. Sure you will be able to detect that its there with long wavelength radar, thing is those are useless for weapons guidance, for that you need short wavelength and guess what F-35 is specifically designed against those.
where F-16 would be just free target practice for both enemy airforce and ground based SAM batteries F-35 will be able to survive much easier ... so it can go in on a SEAD mission, neutralize the enemy ground based AA capabilities to allow the cheaper general purpose fighters and strike aircraft to clean house ...
F-22 as air superiority that can work in contested airspace due to stealth
F-35 to mop up SAMs
the rest to clean up after those two are done
Saying Heavy pilots are more experienced or 'better' pilots is like saying Truck drivers are better drivers than F1 drivers because they have more drived hours.
Man, I LOVE this type of review .. never seen this sort of a review like this pertaining to fighter jets. And yeah, sorry, but there is absolutely no freaking doubt that fighter pilots are absolutely, unequivocally, the best pilots in the world. There isn't even a question about that, to suggest otherwise is just painfully stupid. You guys are simply amazing people. I have been around a lot of airfields with my father who flies sailplanes (lot of competitions, holds lots of records) and many of his friends are either heavy pilots (airlines) or military pilots (a few fighter pilots). There is no doubt about fighter pilots. They garner the most respect on any airfield. Every single pilot out there knows how good these guys are (well, with jets anyway 😉) .. you absolutely have to respect the level of skill and self-control that fighter pilots have been able achieved. Simply amazing stuff. And it takes a very special person at the foundation of that too. Just the mindset of the individual disqualifies 99.9999% of the population from even having the mental capacity and thought process to think of becoming a fighter pilot. It's truly something special with very special people. Now, you wanna talk about programming computers or playing golf? .. I'm your Huckleberry 😂
Hey Cap! Well since I'm retired Air Force and served on a ground crew in Vietnam I'm sure you can guess that I absolutely agree with you 💯% . Great videos. You just showed up in my feed today. Look forward to more videos.
16:55 Also, a fighter pilot with 1,500 flight hours has maybe 1,000 takeoffs/landings. A heavy pilot with 1,500 flight hours has maybe only 300 takeoffs/landings. Takeoffs/landings are by far the most dangerous times in an aircraft, simply because if anything goes wrong, it is at low altitude, with little time or space to fix the problem. A fighter pilot gets two to five times as many of those incidents.
Depends…. Hercs do a lot of airland and airdrop training and regularly put it into practice! Prob the outlier though compared to C-5’s and 17’s.
god forbid a journalist actually runs his article by someone who knows what they're talking about. Journalism is dead, this stuff is all just clickbait
Hell, even researched journals aren't always accurate due to the fact that the current publishing system rewards quicker publications. Veritisum has a video on this topic and its actually eye opening for some people.
Basically faster and more papers is more beneficial than fewer, well researched and developed papers. Many of the publishers even dislike it when someone else comes along and wants to double check the findings if I recall correctly.
Edit:
Changed Productions to publications. Man I must have failed bad in typing on my phone for auto correct to change it to that, lol.
We must dissent!
As a Navy maintainer I always wanted our pilots to train longer not that I didn’t think they weren’t great but I knew the Air Force training was longer and we could learn from that. All that being said we still have to land on a postage stamp in the middle of nowhere and you guys have long runways.
and we can carry more ordnance because of it, so double edged sword, the F15E's payload is ridiculous
@@slappymcgillicuddy7532 Yea but the F16 lacks.
Also, no alternate airfields to land in the middle of the ocean!
yeah it gets pretty damn over done though to be honest, I'd love it if our pilots would just take a damn break once in awhile. Need more maintenance days so we can actually have our training days back and get ahead of some of these code 2 s
@@stanleybuchan4610 or golf courses
Hi there CW! Absolutely right about the best pilots being selected for fighter pilot training! In the early 80s here in the UK, the BBC did a documentary series called 'Fight Pilot' in one episode at the end of basic filght training only the best candidates went on to advanced jet training, with the others being sent to operational conversion to C130s.
I like how you gave us your thesis on this article, then concluded your assessment with a reinforcement of that thesis.
Retired USAF here. As a young A1C in the early 1990's got a ride in the back of a F-16D. Flew over the Adriatic Sea (broke the sound barrier...the best part!). Did some 9G turns (the commander gave me a 9G survival certificate). And, I got to fly it for about a 45 seconds...did two rolls. The F-16 is one helluva ride...so glad I went up (got some great pictures too)
Good for you man
The 30mm one isn’t that incorrect because while most us aircraft use a 20mm cannon with a few exceptions, a ton of foreign aircraft use 27mm or 30mm cannons for example the typhoon, flanker series, fulcrum, and Rafale
Well. That and .50 cal is 12.7mm so not sure why anyone would be more excited about those.
Justin is correct; in general, the 30mm has been the preferred gun for several decades. Mainly only US designs (20mm) and Soviet designs (23mm) bucked this trend. The British Aden and French DEFA 30mm guns dominated much of the fighter market.
@@mikearmstrong8483 almost every Soviet plane with offensive armament today use the gsh30 witch is a 30mm cannon
@@Justin-zi5io
Correct. I was referring to historical development in general. The Soviets went with 23mm for a long time, then switched to 30mm. Which means you are proving the point of this thread.
@@mikearmstrong8483 this thread has a point to pnder?
Wednesday’s with Mover!
Im gonna assume Tracing was supposed to be Tracking.
Same
Well what the hell is a tracking missle. If they didn't track they would be a rocket. Tracking/"tracing" missle is redundant
@@NeightrixPrime That was my first thought too, except the audience for this "article" wouldn't even know what that meant let alone care. So either the author realized that and made up a word that sounded layman or he's a knowitall TH-cam University graduate.
On a PSA flight, our pilot was introduced as a carrier pilot. On take off, he did the turn at the end of the runway under power, straightened out (without the typical pause), applied full power, but held the plane on the runway. Near the end, he pulled up hard, we got to altitude in no time.
When we landed, you never felt the tires touch (only heard the chirp). Very smooth.
Of the hundreds of passenger flight I've taken, that one of 2 that I remember. The other, a puddle jumper pulled off the runway for "radio problems". As we turned, I saw a heavy touching down on the same runway.
@@karlknechtel8119 I expect you have to know exactly where your plane is when you land on a carrier. He proved that on landing (and he was showing off).
Dive a AB and look at cracks and missing sheet metal on an AB can and tell me is doesn't effect motors much. The reason Hollywood puts rings in exhaust while flying is that's what they see during a static run or just before a CAT shot. Squat 1 foot from AB during a test run while your skull is vibrating, counting rings is sorta fun. Better yet look at a E2 while props are idle and snock your nose, your eyes vibrate at the same rate as rotation and one can visually stop the prop. Has nothing to do with AB but thought I mention it.
The biggest difference between Fighters and trash haulers is piddle packs. Handling your junk solo aiming at a sponge is more difficult than sitting on a shitter.
I flew a Schweitzer 2-22C at Torrey Pines, La Jolla, San Diego when I belonged to a glider club at age 15. It was beautiful. Enjoyed going to the air shows at Mira Mar in the Seventies. Enjoyed the static displays there on base, the old junk airplanes. The museum. What dropped my jaw was watching an F-8 Crusader go straight up in afterburner at one of the shows.
Sir, thank you for your service, your video and your answers and comments. Could you please answer some questions for me and comment?
I was in the flying mechanic program on B-52Hs in SAC in the late '70s, and was in the instructor pilot seat on a Green Flag flight. Our Electronic Warfare Officer had never flown against F-15s, they were very new. He commented over the interphone "I think that might be an F-15, I don't recognize that signature."
We were crossing a valley (low level) and starting to climb toward a range of mountains, aiming for a saddle between two peaks. Maybe three miles away in front of us an F-15 comes through the same saddle on an opposing course, maybe 500' higher than us. He was crossing our flight path at about a 45 degree angle, from our right to our left. He stayed straight and level and our pilot handed off control to the co-pilot. He craned his head watching the Eagle, and apparently the Eagle driver waited until he thought we couldn't see him anymore, then banked and pulled down toward our tail.
Our pilot said "Guns, AC, you're going to have company high on your right." A few seconds later our gunner replied "There he is. I LOCKED HIM UP! HA! I LOCKED HIM UP AGAIN! I KILLED HIM TWICE!"
Back then we still carried the 20mm cannon in the tail, and the fire control system was supposed to be real good. Apparently the Eagle driver wanted to get gun camera footage (real film back then) of him downing a Buff at Green Flag. He got inside the range of the tail gun and inside it's firing angle, and the officials (I think they called them umpires) awarded us with a kill.
This happened near the beginning of my career, fast forward about 15 years. I was in the Minuteman program in North Dakota, with long boring drives to and from the Missile Alert Facilities. I was telling this story to the two officers in our vehicle and suddenly the liutenant in the front seat whirled around and said "Sergeant Mallon, you were in that plane?!" I said yes Sir and gave a few details like tail number and approximate date. He said "They're still telling that story at the Air Force Academy to show us that technology won't save you if you are stupid."
I wish I could take some credit for what happened but I was just a passenger, I had no responsibility until we landed.
This happened a very long time ago, the details have blurred over the years. Does any of this sound plausible? I heard from someone, I think a flight crew member, that the Eagle should have stayed farther out, beyond range of our tail gun, and swarmed our defenses with a bunch of missiles. He said the umpires would likely credit us with fooling one or two missiles but one or more would get through and the score would have been Eagle 1, Buff 0.
For what it's worth, the other two Buffs from our squadron, in trail maybe 50-100 miles back, were swarmed by F-106s and F-4s. It didn't go well for them.
I don't even know the difference between Green Flag and Red Flag, and how exercises play out these days. Comments? Thank you sir.
Loved your dissection of the errors. I have known many fighter pilots; they are a cut above. Do they know that? Sure. But they earned it.
Thank you for what you are doing with Folds of Honor. What a terrific organization!
Now I am going poke you: Fighter pilots are the best fighter pilots. CAS pilots are the best CAS pilots. Aerobatic pilots are the best aerobatic pilots , and so on.
We each have our area of expertise, and outside of that area humility must be exercised to avoid trouble.
Example: I watched an F-15 guy buy a Pitts, not get any training, and ground loop it on his first take-off.
I was in the Navy in the 80s and early 90s, the Navy had more fighters than the USAF was what our skipper told us. Also my dad was a Naval Aviator and always said the guys who get fighters have the ability to take in a lot of information process it and act quickly. He flew Avengers and Catalina’s ASW and Air-Sea rescue during the war. Got recalled for Korea checked out in Panther’s, but was moved to LBJ’s staff as his liaison officer.
I think the Air Force course is six months , because everybody knows navy aviators learn a lot faster 😅
@@tommyhillfier9458 AF pilots learn how to take-off, fly, and land with precision.
Navy guys just have to do the "flying" part. Take-offs are their hopes and dreams. Landings are just crashes with style.
"I'm an airline pilot - it's easy, it's boring"
-Mover
@@gmcjetpilot I feel like you missed the "compared to flying a fighter" part right after that quote.
@@gmcjetpilot Somehow after considering your comment, I'm left not worried about a deficit of this military pilot's technical or stick and rudder skills, nor his situational awareness of flight progress, engine and system instruments, weather, or divert options.
@@gmcjetpilot I wouldn't be worried with a 'bored' Mover as my pilot. I would actually be quite secure.
Here is why:
Mover is saying it is boring because he is doing EVERYTHING you mentioned and more, but that does not use up his whole capacity. He is used to doing all of that, while operating a radar, employing weapons systems, tracking threats and keeping situational awareness, paying attention to data link and AWACS, flying in a formation, etc etc.
Flying that airliner is like driving an automatic transmission car at 30mph around a track, instead of a Formula 1 firewalled.
@@gmcjetpilot Nah... Just a LOT of people telling you where to go...
@@gmcjetpilot There is a huge difference between an activity being boring and someone being bored doing it. Just because a pilot is doing something boring doesn't mean he or she isn't sufficiently engaged at all times.
Frankly I hope every single flight I'm ever on is the most boring thing the pilot has ever done.
Airline pilot: Training for things to go wrong and hoping they never do.
Fighter/Strike Pilots: Training to make the other guy's day go wrong.
According to fighter pilots there are only two types of aircraft. Fighters and targets.
Thanks for this., I needed the laugh. I am an Air Force Veteran, I used to do maintenance on the F-16 engines while I was stationed at MacDill AFB. You have a new subscriber now.
Definitely have to agree on the second one. Now yes, overall, to the success of the mission the heavies are rather required (it's rather hard to keep going without fuel and ammo), but they still have physical checklists. A fighter pilot has to have the entire 700ish steps of a checklist known BY HEART with all the associated muscle memory involved too. Standard heavy pilots also wouldn't have the instinctual know-how to be able to instantly process a total brown pants moment such as low level airshow maneuvers and having an engine go out (see Captain Brian Bews' instant reaction to the incident in July 2010 in Lethbridge as an example). They also almost always have altitude on their side for said moments, and a glide ratio that's actually useful.
At least they could have been tongue in cheek and said combat helicopter pilots get more training (I grew up around TacHel, so I'm moderately biased)
In a big plane, or in pretty much any civil aircraft really, quick reaction times are irrelevant. Nothing happens /that/ quickly, and you're trained to be methodical and collaborate with the other pilot sitting beside you. Even in an extreme case like Sully's, you're still operating on a timescale of minutes rather than split-seconds.
I have zero experience flying fighter planes, but I at least understand that it's a whole different thing.
If pilot's flight hours would count as actual HOTAS inputs, those IAS-HDG-ALT-VS AP dudes in airliners would drop 99% of it.
Heli pilots are narrow margin skill perfectionists, fighter pilots are G-force masochists.
I will say this tho, for a guy that has no fighter background or no first hand knowledge, he's actually on point on some of the points tho surprisingly
That's the problem with modern journalism though. It's zero research all opinion. I will never support a "journalist" that writes articles that way.
No, it's terrible. From a guy who does have first hand knowledge. The terminology he uses is so screwed up that in most cases you have to guess what he really means.
@@DragNetJoe except most people reading the article don't know the difference. "Know your audience" applies.
@@jerrylittle7797 If most don't know what you mean regardless then you might as well use the correct terminology.for the percentage who do, and the percentage who'll look it up when they realise they don't.
"Gypsy say your angels"
"My angles are blue"
Thank You for correcting this article. The internet is full of these and love to read about this stuff and you never know what is true or false.
In a single seater, you're always the pilot flying! LMAO!
This type of article is always idiotic. I’m glad someone is picking them apart.
Just imagine those are people making a living for writing such BS... I always wish someone would pay me for doing dumb stuff when I see such articles.
Sounds like the author correlated fight hours with "best". Technically, he's right about transports and heavies having more hours in the seat, and should have left it there.
Also love Mover warning against being triggered after being triggered by the assertion that fighter pilots are not the best.
It's like comparing rally car drivers with truckers. One driver does more hours than the other, but isn't working as close to the edge of their ability.
Lol
"most expensive weapons platform ever..." I'm sorry, Wyatt, but have you heard of this cool thing called the Gerald R. Ford Class CVN? Then again, if we're talking about development cost, the F-35 wins, but not on a per-unit basis.
had to watch it again the look on your face reading some of it is great ! Thx for another big smile for the day .
I'm a "newbie" when it comes to jets & anything related, but you had me LMAO discussing myths! Even this newbie knows the difference between many you addressed. Thank you for educating us. 👍
Even flying GA low hours, I built hours orbiting the sewer processing plant and a nearby golf course over the end of downwind at Bournemouth International at 1200ft, I would not be proud declaring that as some hours well spent, though I did get good at orbiting... mixed feelings!
Well one thing talking for navy and marine pilots is that they have to land at carriers at nights. Thats as tough as landing gets.
But I usually like to think all kind of pilots has different sets of skills requirement thats needed for them to be at the top of theyre respective game. Johan.
Many years ago I read one of the books about the Early Astronauts. Among the Mercury 7 all 3 services (UAF, USN and USMC) were represented and the usual stuff about superiority went on.
I think it was Alan Shepard who to keep his carrier wings had to do so many carrier landings in a given time period. So he used to get a jet and go out do a bunch every so often. Instead of arguing over the superiority of the services he used to just ask who wanted to go along a ride with him as he did a bunch of carrier landings.
None of the others ever went.
"Because Afterburners are Cool"
Talk to my inner 5 year-old.
I luv your interpretations and actual experience. Keep em flying.
Great Video. Sometimes as a pilot, you have to suspend disbelief when watching an aviation movie. I can even remember seeing the original "Airport" move with my dad, a longtime AF and Airline pilot, as he grimaced and groaned over all the inaccuracies.
Kindof like me, USAF crew chief, had my hands on pretty much everything (all services, including European), watching Iron Eagle... My wife HATES it when we watch those kinds of movies, soooooooooo many things wrong!!!
and and every special field has that reaction to movies about their field. right down to carpenters and stenographers.
If i remember correctly, a cold war MIG capture is what lead to the formation of top gun, to teach front line fighter pilots to out maneuver the soviet MIG fighter. Said training saved MANY American pilots lives, increasing survivability in encounters with MIG fighters.
Something also mentioned in original Top Gun move was that pilots relied too heavily on missiles, and got shafted in dogfights. This fits story with AIM-7 issues in Vietnam, where pilots could not use them effeciently, because they were requred to visually ID planes as hostiles before engaging them, giving up range advantage and playing on enemy's terms. Navy quickly figured out this is retarded, and went back to using heat-seekers exclusively.
"Blue Angles". Laughed so hard I had to check my ass is still there.
This guy finds interesting topics to write about to put food on his plate. Don't expect too much.
30mm is actually very common on fighters. Just about every Mig and Sukhoi, Rafale and Mirage, Harrier, and Viggen. Eurofighter and Gripen are 27 mm and F35 is 25mm.
20mm is pretty much only American fighters.
you forgot all of the 2nd and 3rd gen british planes all had ADENs
Yup, just the american ones with the m61 vulcan. Fuckin GSh-30 cannon is the shit
So percent wise 30 is still very rare
@@Nr15121 True, but so is 20mm
My Hunter in the 1970's had 4 x 30 mm Aden cannons, the barrels ran under the seat. Firing all 4 was delicious.
Man, i just discovered your channel and it's awesome.
As a former Recce Tank Operator i can assure you we had/have the same issues on the ground. Myths about fierce combat scenes taken from movies. Explosions, bounces, turret gunfights...
I just remember one particular moment during my training, when a officer said "well gentlemen, this device on top of the turret is the IR alert system, it catches up when you are under radar lock mostly by an attack helicopter, usually this will engage the automatic smoke defense system, be sure to leave your position immediately..."
Then after some silence in the room he continued:
"... anyway, if a helicopter has a lock on you, the missile is already flying towards you, so this system is here just for you to say goodbyeeee"
I remember the general laughing to ease the tension but... some of us were just... i mean... worried...
ALL pilots are generally type A types, but fighter pilots are extreme type A, from my experience. I flew a KC-135 and we kept the fighters fueled up to drop the bombs on the bad guys. I was initially disappointed I didn't get fighters, but realized when I got into heavies, that it was a much better fit for my personality. And hats off to fighter guys, because I can also appreciate that pulling g's can be fun, but it can also be totally draining physically and I can imagine that I'd be really feeling that now that I'm in my 50s.
A hornet pilot and a C-130 pilot were arguing about who was a better pilot during an escort mission. So the hornet pilot breaks off, does some high g turns, some barrel rolls and all kinds of acrobatics before returning to his wing. He calls over. "That was some pretty good flying if I say so myself. Let's see you do that!"
The C-130 pilot calls back. "Think that's hot shit? Watch this!" The plane flies straight and level and the hornet pilot wonders when he'll start. He keeps waiting for several minutes until the C-130 pilot calls back. "Wheeew! That was some good flying if I say so myself. What do you think?"
The hornet pilot calls back confused. "You just flew straight!"
"I did more than that. I got up out of my chair, walked to the back to take a leak, stretched and got some coffee before sitting back down. Let's see you do that!"
That’s funny. Thanks for the good story
Fighter pilots are excellent pilot no doubt. The best pilots are crop dusters and bush pilots, Absolutely no doubt.
i've always wondered if any pilots have ever pooped their flight suits whilst pulling a lot of Gs. i'd think that would be hilarious, but also extremely unfortunate considering that there isn't much room for a restroom on most smaller planes. do they have a plan for that scenario? the strangest things amuse me.
I can't really imagine that it hasn't. Although try and find a pilot who'll own up to it in hindsight ;p Are modified reduced stool diets a thing for fighter pilots?
There was a pilot I used to fly with who did the T-37/T-38 track in the 1993-94 timeframe, back when everyone did that, even if you were going to be a rotor-head. While doing his T-38 solo cross-country at Columbus AFB, he suddenly went "Code Brown" (I'm sure the reduction in air pressure as he climbed to altitude probably had something to do with this) and he tried to take a shit in his helmet bag. He missed the bag, unfortunately, and sprayed down the entire instrument panel, along with the rest of the cockpit. He declared a physiological event and the controllers, thinking it was something like hypoxia, vectored him for an emergency landing and directed him to taxi off at base ops. Waiting for him at base ops was the crash rescue trucks and an ambulance with the flight surgeon, naturally....along with the wing commander, group commander, squadron commander, etc.... They rush up to the jet to make sure he's okay and there he is, covered in explosive diarrhea. It's all over him, all over the cockpit, it's everywhere. So yeah, he decided to go fly helicopters after that, probably a wise move on his part :-)
The plan is to wear a diaper.
Back in the 90s there was an F16 pilot who crashed his plane while trying to change his piddle pack. When I heard the story, I thought of the line "Hope you had a hell of a piss Arnold" from Fast Times at Ridgemont High. (After Brad gets fired for reacting to the angry customer who wanted a refund for his breakfast.)
Fighter pilots are comparable to knights in the middle ages, extremley well trained, equipped with the most advanced technology of their age, and strategically crucial in war. The major difference is that fighter pilits don't have to buy their own jet.
And Knights actually went I to battle regularly.
Dog fights between the Hellenic and Turkish air forces are an every day situation. Pilot losses on both sides are also relatively common during those encounters, usually by accident, although few were actually shot down.
The AB is just a section of the engine. There is no "mechanical connection" to the actual turbine engine (a shaft / turbine section). It is attached to the engine case. AB use does not "wear out" the engine. Great Video!
I never understood why military aircraft aren't equipped with a rearward facing defensive weapon. Not necessarily a heavy missile but maybe light guided rockets, something similar to DAGR (Direct Attack Guided Rocket). Doesn't have to destroy the enemy aircraft just capable of damaging the radar or control surfaces, just enough to make the enemy unable to get a lock or to stop the engagement.
I know I'm not the first person to think about this so there's got to be a reason/reasons why this was never implemented. i.e. cost, weight, too niche. I wouldn't be surprised if Airforce One has something similar. Anyway, always wondered about that, I know I would like to have defensive weapons when I can't shake a enemy behind my ass..
Like a tail gun turret on a bomber?
I think the main issue is that it's like trying to launch a rocket (or a missile) while flying backward at many hundreds knots. Any weapon would have to slow down to 0 kts and then start to build up speed, which means losing altitude as well... Another option would be to launch a missile which will have to make a 180 degrees turn right after launch. I think the French Air Force did something with a pair of Rafale and a MICA-AR missile, but I can't remember the details...
@@BC107BP TRhe AIM9X can do this with the F-35. It's not so much to due with the munitions itself, as it does with sensors. You need to have IR Weapon sensors that can get tone on a bogey BEHIND the airplane which is typically not the case. Most Fox-2s do not get their information from the host fighter. When majority of fighters are engaging with Fox-2s, it's missile seeker that's doing the searching for the pilot, and then it alerts the pilot through the WCS that "hey, i see something! Is it a bad guy?!" And if the pilot thinks it's bad, he or she will fire and that missile will try as hard as hell to maintain a lock on that heat blob.
HOBS Missiles in regards to Fox-2s are heat seekers with very wide angle lenses and seeker heads that can look directly to their sides of the missile. But even with HOBS, they cannot look backwords.
And we cannot put sensors in a missiles ass because... well, that's where the rocket motor is.
So in the case of the F-35s, you have systems like the EOTS or the DAS, which allow sensor data to be taken in angles more than just forward facing and more than just HOBS as well. The F-35s DAS can actually look onto a target in the rare (since the DAS has a 360 degree sensor radius), tell the missile "target is right here, when you release, turn at that point and you should see it", and when the F-35 fires, the AIM9X will actually do a 180 degree flip, effectively allowing the Panther to fire backwards.
The trick is in the seeker head. If the target is behind you, then it's the front of the target that the missile will first see; which isn't very hot. The cool spot of the front of a target will be in the middle of a giant heat plume from the exhaust behind said bad guy. So the trick was to make a missile seeker head smarter and faster so that it could ID where the actual vehicle was in the middle of that plume and lock on fast enough to guide itself in for a kill.
@@BC107BP FireFox did LOL
the inherited velocity would probably really limit the range and maneuverability. They could probably drop a forward facing missile but delay the rockets burn until the target overshoots it. That seems like a really elaborate way of shooting yourself down though.
I like my angles blue, and obtuse.
Hilarious!!
So... the difference between a "heavy" and a "fighter", is like the difference between
painting a house and painting the Mona Lisa?
well more between driving a truck and driving an F1 car, as far as skill concerns.
"I should start writing car stuff..." Subscribed. Thank you sir for your service.
Excellent job of shredding another load of BS. Sad when articles like that one even see the light of day. I will say one thing about the transport pilots, they do get involved in some "odd" and very quietly done missions to unusual places and with people and things that the average person and even military person has no clue they would do. Those missions may involve moving people or things that nobody would expect the US military to have anything to do with, but; thanks to the State Department, the USAF gets tasked to move those people or things even though publicly we would never admit to doing so. Not exciting stuff but very interesting. (Like when you are deployed and an unscheduled C-141 (yeah this was years ago) lands at a field in a middle east where we are operating for an extended period of time. The next day a rather brief announcement is made that a person associated with radical groups arrived in that same city the night before. Hmm? No commercial flights landed during that time but this controversial person just happens to pop up the next morning. (Yeah the C-141 didn't taxi over to our area or the commercial area but just to a rather empty ramp area.) So, no, they don't do a lot of glamorous or highly dangerous missions, but they do get involved some sensitive mission that take them places where we might never go under normal circumstances.
Heck of a point. Saw a Coasty C-130 transport a whale!
green berets in vietnam tired to airdrop elephants by parachute to a remote mountain village, but that ended up being canned because the SPCA somehow found out and protested. The elephants ended up being transported by helicopter. Disney made a highly sensationalised movie about it.
I always loved going to shows and having the big mouth guys walk up to the planes acting like they're a super pro expert... then point at the external tanks, and proudly state in a loud voice to their friends... "See, those are the bombs right there"
We had an open ship w/tours for the public🚢. I was standing stern gangplank watch. A young girl looked at our stern AN/SPG-55B missile fire control radar & asked her father what it was (looks like a pointed drum w/Mickey Mouse ears). He told her with total confidence "That's the Navy's new laser weapon!". I couldn't believe my ears! This was the 1980's, on a Leahy CG-16 class cruiser, long before they were serious a/shipboard laser weapons. The dad could've just asked me what it was, instead of BS'ing his kid. 😒
I hear that comment at just about every airshow! Sorry, but I have to correct that!
Yep, lived on Randolph AFB as a teen during late 70s -- Dad was an officer and former pilot. Was walking onto the flight line at an on-base airshow with my girlfriend and listening to one of those guys next to me telling his friends where the "weapons" were on the T-38 we were walking past. Girlfriend and I just grinned and shook our heads. Just one example of some of the nonsense I've heard and seen over the years, including after I became a civilian flight instructor myself.
Man I thought this would be a legit list, but when It said "Fighter pilots are not the best" and "Top gun is not a real school". It lost it's credibility.
I thought it would point out myths like "Gen 1 WW1 planes are incapable of being shot down by Gen 4&5s".
Yes, I heard that one many times.
Oh boy, I would show them that video of a Venezuelan Viper shooting down a prop plane
@@skeletonwguitar4383 rip ov-10
Enjoy your videos. As a 75 year old pilot wannabe I still wish I had stuck with pilot training. Have you ever critiqued books like “Flight of the Intruder”. That book made my palms sweat.
Interesting analysis ! Afterburner…..have a good one for you. My father-in-law flew on B-58 Hustlers. Afterburner always at TO. Can also be useful to take off period. One time they had too much fuel on board and had to use the entire (!) runway to burn off enough fuel to reach max. TO weight. He told me „when we reached the last runway marker I had my hand on the ejection seat handle but the pilot kept his cool and we missed the base fence by a few feet“. Remarkable aircraft but a widow maker he said. He also flew over 5000 hrs. on B-52 as counter measure warfare officer and received the distinguished flying cross for saving the aircraft over Hanoi (navigator error). Going from B-58 back to the Buff was from Race car back to tractor. He was an officer and gentleman. He was like a father to me. I miss him dearly.
AB and engine wear: where does this even come from? Afterburners are named such because they inject extra fuel directly into the jet pipe, after all the important moving parts.
Exactly! The engine doesn't spin any faster and the internal pressures are the same. The only damage would be possible cracks in the aug liner and possible broken rivets. But all that has to be inspected on a daily basis, as those issues can happen at any time.
_"I wish our guns were 30mm!"_
Russians: Xaxaxaxa!
French: Honhonhon!
Different 30MM. The A-10 GAU-8 is much bigger.
@@CWLemoineI know, but the text simply said "30mm" without specifying case length
Laughs in Oerlikon KCA :) (wishing for a JA-37 in DCS...)
@@CakePrincessCelestia I was going for 30mm cannons on fighters that are still in use.
I love how he picks apart what this media automatically expected us to believe.
"Fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make HISTORY!" Flight of the Intruder.
14:00 "Before everybody gets triggered", says the triggered guy :p I can understand though, that's a slap in the face. Good video Mover, it's always interesting to have an expert's opinion on the matter.
Nothing triggered here.
@@CWLemoine I meant no offense, tone is hard to convey through text sometimes. "Triggered" is a word I take pretty lightly, among a plethora of neologisms meant to silence one's interlocutor rather than provide an actual argument.
1:05 Well that right there is BS, $1.5 trillion "to develop".
Nope $1.5 trillion is the estimated cost to develop, buy and operate ALL planned F-35's through their entire service lifetimes.
everybody knows that sailplanes pilots are actually the best pilots 😂