@@viktor_v-ughnda_vaudville_476 Afaik, its a very considerable difference, but steam powered ones are very slightly more relaible. %0.007 vs %0.005 crash rate And also, after launching multiple aircraft from the steam catapults back to back, you have to consider heat and pressure and you sort of have to get it to cool down, most aircraft carriers just pump seawater to cool them down. Electronic ones dont have that problem
I think the F-35 has a really high thrust to weight ratio since the engine is actually rated to be able to have the aircraft reach Mach 2+, but they didn’t want the engine to wear out as fast and it turns out they would easily get damage beyond Mach 1.8 so they limited the engine to Mach 1.6
Between that and I remember hearing the f22 and 35 loose stealth coating after 1.4 I think it was so they also limit because of that. Not sure of the truth of that though.
The T/W isn't all that high. The inlets are relatively inefficient for thrust (although good for stealth) And overall the F-35's aren't that clean aerodynamically. Their official stated ranges given by the US Navy and USAF are way below the expectations for the amount of fuel they carry. The F-35s weren't optimized for aerodynamics and kinetics. That's just to be expected since they were built to maximize stealth.
The gun conversation cracked me up. People still think we use Vietnam era missiles in the modern day any way a vast majority of Vietnam kills were done by missiles.
Yup The reason not having guns was a mistake is BC the f-4s couldn't strafe ground targets anymore. They'd be flying over marines caught in am ambush. The soldiers desperate begging for air support, but the pilot could only radio back "sorry boys, no 20mil" The B and C Stealths are very valuable so risking exposing them to ground fire on the pilots whim is not a great idea, they get gunpods if they're allowed to engage ground targets. Why would you risk an 80 million jet on ground attack if you can just call in a super tucano instead, or call in a long range missile from a B-21 or its drone swarm
@@d.thieud.1056 USAF more likely A-10, f-15E/EX, F-16C. USN F/A-18E/F. Super Tucano was meant to be an affordable modern A/G plane for poorer Countries.
@@richarddixon146 yes that's very true as well, once stealthier aircraft have cleared the airspace and preformed SEAD/DEAD, the airspace is clear for cheaper F-16s and F-15E(X)s to come in and provide superior CAS too the A-10
I'd love to see a clash in the Taiwan Straight, between a Chinese landing craft fleet and the US Gerald Ford fleet. Including Chinese land based air and hypersonic anti ship missiles and maybe Japanese or British carriers too!
C models has a stealthy external gun pod. They had to move it external to provide room for the Navy's Drogue and Probe refueling setup. The pod is moderately stealthy so not a lot of compromise with it, and it actually holds more ammo than the A model's internal gun IIRC.
While a simple US Army rotary wing aviator, Seeing this shit above Dothan and in Utah at Red Flag... I'm not sure shit works out better in real life. I love the Tomcat but it just doesn't... Edit: This is only 1/3 of what I had typed. Where is the rest? To include the point I was making? Fucking GOOGLE!
You are correct.. the external pod holds more ammo but is smaller size than the internal mount on the A.. the B/C need the external since they trimmed up to be carrier and STOL capable. The A version (Air Force variant) has the 25 mm internally with 182 rounds... the B and C utilize the Terma A/S multi mission pod (MMP) which is "stealthy" but does somewhat compromise the stock B/C stealth signature and has 220 rounds. The MMP is mounted on the centerline of the underside of the aircraft. The reason for the 25mm over the standard 20mm usually mounted is due to the AF trying to make the F-35 a more capable in its CAS role since its replacing all the A-10s which have 30mm. The AF exclusively uses A variants, the Marines use both B and C (to a lesser extent), and the Navy almost exclusively uses C (carrier) variants. One funny note...a Marine B variant accidentally ran into one of its own bullets that it fired.
@@grimreapers Yes, Funny as hell. Just finished watching them all. We've all heard about the Rom-Com, this is the Fly-Com. Some great moments from GR DCS History.😆
continuous wave illumination is based on the same radar range equation as pulse doppler radar and thus affected by stealth in the same way. Due to it's lower power transmitter it would not be a more viable option than the aim-54
Let me tell you exactly how this would go in real life... The a2g f35s would go out with 2 joint strike missiles in the bay and 4 lrasm on the wings... The lrasms would fire at the carrier groups at about 250mi away and fire the JSM at about 150mi away... All well before the other group would even know there were f35s firing... After that they'd go back and the a2a f-35s would stay within 100mi of the group...as soon as the tomcats came within 200mi of the carrier group the f35s would pass targeting coordinates to the group so they can launch sm6 at the tomcats... At the same time the f35s would launch aamrams from about 70mi... Literally every tomcat and their carrier group would be destroyed before they could ever target or even find an f-35 on any radar... That's the power of 5th gen... It would be an absolute massacre... They can fire everything and kill from outside the range they can even get close to being targeted
24:16 i think It's because of the drive shaft required to run the lifting fan. iirc the f-35A use's different engine to the B and C and so doesn;t have the driveshaft sitting under the cockpit so there is room to place a gun
I'd be curious to see a re-run of this if/when HB revises the AIM-54C seeker and guidance. Might not make a difference, but I'd be curious. Edit: and why did you not use the 54C for a 90's air wing, Cap?
@@92HazelMocha This argument is ONLY valid, and I do mean ONLY, because it's an AI fight. In theory the 54C should be miles better, and much harder to defeat, but we don't know how well it is modelled
Before watching it think the F14s are faster than the F35s so they should get there first. Though I suppose they're run out of fuel whereas the F35s can super cruise. So...
I’m not sure why you guys seem to believe that the F-35 isn’t a good ACM fighter. It pulls alpha like a hornet (f-35 pilots say it pulls more) but has the thrust to weigh of an F-16. Because it carried its weapons, ECM/target pods internally, it fights as a “clean jet”. It also doesn’t have to drop its fuel before a fight…it carries almost as much fuel internally an F-14 WITH its drop tanks (about 18,250 lbs)…and the F-35 only has ONE engine. Just because it’s stealthy, filled with sensors and not an F-22 doesn’t mean it isn’t a beast in BVR and ACM. So much BS propagated by Pierre Sprey and his ilk who knew NOTHING about the F-35s capabilities but felt free to announce that it can’t do anything
It has FAR FAR less T/W than an F-16. It's a 35,000 lbs a/c, with 20,000 lbs of fuel that only has 43,000lbs of thrust (less installed) with inefficient intakes and a high drag factor. It's good at what it DOES... which is be hard to see and shoot from a distance via datalink and drop bombs.... but it's NOT built for ACM. Not even close. It's inferior to the F-16 and F-18 kinetically (even the F-14). It CAN pull nose authority briefly but once it loses speed it's tough to get it back. The F-35 shouldn't have had the speed in the game given the Air Force/Navy says it CAN'T do that...(and physics agrees), but the STRATEGY was correct. Stay invisible and launch Aim-120s.
@@jimrussell4062 do you think the F-16 flies around with no fuel? look at average gross weight of each aircraft vs their thrust...and how do you figure the F-35 has a "high drag factor" when its clean?? Why don't you look at the comments of the pilots that actually fly the F-35? It pulls as much alpha as a hornet (and what aircraft doesn't do it "briefly"?... you don't fly around at a 25 degree AoA). and - since its weapons are internal so its aerodynamically clean- can rate with an F-16 that has six pylons, 6 missiles and an ECM pod dragging through the air. At least, according to the pilots who have flown it at Red Flag...but what do they know? I would like to see your sources for the argument that the F-35 is a poor ACM platform. Pilot ability is much more important and- I'll say it- although ACM is an important capability to have in case... DOGFIGHTING IS DEAD. it just is. Doesn't mean it will never happen...just that it is incredibly rare. As in: none I'm aware of in the last 50 years. Most visual kills (and there are FAR FAR more BVR kills) are usually made by a fighter that is unseen, pursuing a fleeing enemy or head-on at the merge with an all aspect....not a twisty high-g "Top Gun" style fight. Why do we sigh with a "that's what they said in Vietnam" as if technology hasn't advanced in 50 years? Hell., in 1942 Curtis Lemay (head of US strategic bombers) swore that with the Norton site, they could accurately hit strategic targets and decimate Germany from the air. They were wrong. Are you the guy in the planning room of Desert Storm 40 years later sighing and rolling your eyes when Buster Glossen discusses his plan to use Precision guided munitions to destroy Iraq's strategic targets? "Ha! that's what Curtiss Lemay said in World War 2!"
Not all that surprised the AIM-120 works against stealth. After all, it's the primary weapon for the country that has fielded stealth aircraft for the longest. It would make sense that said missle would have been designed to work better against stealth aircraft, considering the US has had a long time to work out how to make that work, at least IRL. Probably not true for a simulation. With how much is classified with the F-35, I doubt the in-game performance is anything like the real aircraft. I can't wait to see what comes out of the Navy's F/A-XX program. Probably frickin lazer beams man!... Actually, future implementation of directed energy weapons is one of the Navy's criteria for their 6th gen aircraft. I saw an article with a picture of an altered F-22 that appears to have experimental skin meant to defeat or disrupt IRST.
Except the Navy continued to go gunless with their F-4s, created TOPGUN instead, and ended the Vietnam War with kill/loss ratios multiple times better than what the AF achieved with guns. Guns haven't been relevant to air combat for over 50 years. Hell, they're barely relevant to air-to-ground combat NOW.
So why are you using F-14Bs with AIM-54As when in the 90s we had the F-14D and the AIM-54C available? seems unfair to downgrade the Tomcat's when you are maxing out the other side with the latest Gen 5 fighter?????
Aim54c has worse kinematic performance than the aim54a mk 60. Although if we're splitting hairs, wing pylons should be Aim7's, and most Aim54 kills have been in STT, not TWS, which would have been more effective in this scenario.
@@92HazelMocha Yeah, it seems the radar was tracking but not the missiles...which would have been fixed by using AIM-7 or datalinks on AIM-54 to direct the missiles mid-course.
The Toms and FAs see each other at the same time, have same rate of climb... did someone use cut-n-space when 'fixing' those models? Remember, there's only one paste buffer per keyboard (unless you have a kewl SE UI). On a separate note, is there a reason why there's a not a 30+ mile Sidewinder that rides a radar return for the first 20 and switches to IR for the slide into homebase? OK, how about just a radar receiver in the skinny Sidewinder nose, wrapped around the appropriate IR head.... the attack radar could be in a dedicated pod, and slave the SideW via RF or GPS. Obviously, I'm trying to find a way to get Stealth-killing IR warheads out at to a much greater distance without giving away their position in transit. Some system must have solved that problem by now, right?
Tomcats we're too heavy with 6 Phoenix missiles and 2 bags. More standard loadout would be 4 phoenix, 2 amram and 2 sidewinders. You should try this again with the Tomcats loaded with 6 aim120s and 2 sidewinders each...their speed would increase.
@@logannicholson1850 Too heavy to perform. Yes they could take off. No they couldn't land. No they couldn't reach speeds above what the F35s could reach to exploit their speed advantage.
well this discussion isn't necessary because even if they were faster they would only die faster plus the dcs cat is an early a and b model wich can't load aim-120s just like the real life one
Hard HARD doubt an F-35 can outclimb a GE F-110 equipped Tomcat Edit: Actually went to check how the F-35 Performs: "Pratt & Whitney F135 turbofan rated at 40,000lb st (177.88kN) with afterburning and 40,500lb st (180.10kN) for vertical take-off." Compared to the GE-F110-400 of the Tomcats that produced 30,200 lbf each (at mach 0.9)
Well, the Gerald R Ford class has a lot of improvemens that helps with the rate of launching and recovering of aircraft. I'm not surprised the Ford could get her aircraft faster than the Nimitz
If they can spot and track them the aim-54 phoenix should be able to far out range whatever the range of amraam missiles the f-35s have should be outclassed by quite a bit
I was gonna say if none of the F-35s are actually using stealth then they may get wiped out but you said there will be dedicated fighters that are in stealth using the internal Bombays then i think the F-35s may just have a chance (possibly a field day) it all depends on how accurate the stealth modeling and cross section of the f-35 is in the simulation and the f-14 real radar capabilities are accurately represented. I’m not sure how comparable the maneuverability is between the f-14 and f-35 performance is, I think the tomcat is quite a bit faster and I’m sure they have better slow speed maneuverability with wings extended but I have no clue what the capabilities and Ariel maneuverability is on the f-35, I’m sure it’s pretty good but nothing compared to the f-22 but that’s a given good luck f-14’s
The amount of fawning the Grumman hanger queen gets is nauseating. When it could actually fly the Phoenix couldn't hit anything nimbler than a Backfire and the only things the plane downed were badly trained Iraqis in Mig-17's. Hollywood papers over a lot of flaws but the facts remain Tom Cruise is 5'4" and the F-14 was by far the least accomplished teen series fighter.
F-35C mod has an unrealistically fast speed, but F-14 being slower here was not. This due to its loadout, according to a SAC document, F-14D don't exceed Mach 1.6 when loaded with AIM-54 and drop tanks.
yup, that's something a lot of people don't get... With internal only weapons, a loaded stealth plane can go faster and be more manueverable than a loaded 4th gen, because the 5th gen still appears "slick" to the air.
However my experiences in DCS says differently I went up to Mach 1.9 with an A Cat, got 2 Phoenixes and 3 sparrows loaded, no bags though as I was engaging
One of the lesser known technologies that makes American carrier fleets so effective is the ability to take off straight through ground crew. Little known fact: this was a key element to winning the battle of Midway.
Nope battle of midway win because of intel, and japanese discipline, they just do exactly what the secret code say. If both side have fog of war Japan will win they just perform better in every aspect.
Yeah, American sailors can phase trough aircraft, but only if they were manufactured in the US. That's why the launching rate of Harriers is lower than for the Hornets
A F35 tactic is to fly a line of aicraft with missiles on behind a line of full stealth F35s, the line behind guides full stealth craft into the aggressors by manovering into a suitable direction to lead them to the attackers
Ive read the RAF would fly F35 forward detecting targets while remaining unseen, and hand off the targeting information to the high and fast flying Typhoons travelling behind them.
the f35B and C don't have an internal gun to save weight and fuel on missions in which the gun is unlikely to be used and it is found in testing that the gun pod performs better than the f35A's internal gun
Reading a lot of the comments on here and a lot of very good ones. But lets put a few issues out on the table. Are we also talking the crews as well not just equipment? Are we talking about the capabilities of at sea repair? Cause if we are than those are combat multipliers that todays fleet do not posess but the 90s fleet does. This comes from someone who served 14 years. The military today is not much compared to the military of the 90s in terms of its personnel. Our politicians and general/admiral staff have ensured that. That is a huge factor in combat. We rely soley on tech to save the day, we do not have at sea repair capability, hell we can't even fix our F-18s with organic navy techs. Don't believe me, do your research, the Blue Angels have subbed our repairs why??? not enough techs in the navy. Don't feel bad the boy scout army is in the same boat, our military has been destroyed from within by our own people. And that pisses me off.
Sidekick was only budgeted for F35 Cs at the last time I checked the pentagon spending wishlist... for a few 2022 production models, so unlikely to be in service until 2023 ish, about 10 million dollars extra on a 200 million dollar (actual price) aircraft to carry 2 more AMRAAMs . Hard to say for sure its worth it, I mean if you beleive the marketing unit cost of 70 million... its almost better to buy more airframes . Sidekick ~81x4 = 324 million for 24 missiles. while 6 F35s at the bogus cost would only be 420 ish million. Sure it's "saving" 100 million, but id be willing to bet the 6x4 missile aircraft would beat the 4×6 in a head to head... But yeah at the politicians price (vs actual price) the sidekick doesn't make much sense. ... with the 200 million per airframe actual price, an extra 10 mill makes more sense. However still questionable as far as spending tax dollars on these things... especially with so many involved in approving purchases for various countries being seen to take bribes ( ohh look you approved the purchase.. come work at Lockheed as a "consultant" l Anyway I guess thats a bit beyond scope, but the cost factor if you beleive the "flyaway" cost is really questionable to add a rack for 10-11 million more.
That was incredible cap! Once the A-6 comes out it would be interesting to see the modern fleet and 90s fleet fight! The 90s carrier group has more ships and aircraft but the modern carrier group has stealth. The best counter to stealth is to outnumber it.
Again, knowing your enemy, this is the wrong set of tactics by one of the fleets. If I was running the 1990s fleet, I would be not relying on my AIM-54s versus stealth. As many AIM-9s on those beasts as possible. Also, as noted the F-35s seem a little fast. The other issue is, you win by bombing not killing fighters. So why waste missiles on the CAP, you want to take out bombers......
I'm impressed to the degree the accuracy of the real life DCS was able to produce. Regarding the AIM-54 Phoenix not being able to track, the AN/AWG-9 used in the F-14 is an X band radar. Stealth Aircraft are usually optimized to reflect a low cross section against X and S band radars but not against VHF, UHF, and L band radars such as those used in AEW&C. So when they AIM-54's were unable tracking after being fired it was likely due to the F-35 not having open bomb bays or bad angles facing towards the F-14.
RCS in DCS is just a fixed value, which does work, but it's not 100% accurate. RCS values change wildly throughout the angle you look at the aircraft, and same goes for Stealth with bays and pylons. DCS isn't made for 5th get at least not yet
Stealth and range, the f35c has the longest range of all the models, a shorter range would have given it a gun, but would also move the entire carrier fleet closer to the given danger. In the cases where they do have a need for a gun, it has an attachable belly pod. Will be interesting to see f35c doing stealth, 1400 nmi JSM attacks in the future.
Air Defense radars definitely cannot detect stealth aircraft at 80 miles, expect maybe in the vaguest "I think there's something in this patch of sky a dozen miles across" kind of way. Really what would even be the point of stealth if that was the case? 80 miles is already a greater range then most SAM can really be effective kinetically against an agile target, so if strong air defense radars could detect stealth aircraft at ranges like that Stealth would barely provide any advantage against air defenses at all. Fighter radars definitely can't track them reliably at 20 miles in reality because we've had direct quotes from pilots fighting stealth aircraft in exercises that even within visual range their radars fail to produce tracks usable by weapons.
Missiles are a BIT more advanced now since 1968. When is the last time someone used a gun in a fight in real life? I think in 1982 the Israelis had 2 gun kills….of course, they had over a hundred missile kills. Fact is, you only use guns to strafe. The US hasn’t had a guns kill since Vietnam and even the - after the F-4 had a gun added- guns represented less than 4% of kills. And you can’t bring an f-35 into an ACM engagement unless you can find it and survive the onslaught of BVR
I think the stealth on the F-35 can only go so far with the 120 AAMRAAM... maybe with an all Hornet wing? En Francis gefeliciteerd met je nieuwe baan ^^
I seen the leaked f35 crash it looked like he impacted the f35s left landing gear too hard when he touched deck,didnt see any bounce really but was a fast clip
look at that awesome flightcharacteristix at 18:27 ... clearly superior flightdynamix in the DCS F-35 ... like in real ... totally superior to everything .... murica f### yeah :D
What if the F-14's were carrying 2× AIM-9 + 4× AIM-54 + 2× AIM-7? Although the AIM7 wasn't that great it would at least be a medium-range radar missile. Because I'm not sure the B or D models carried AIM120?
ok I noticed you guys brought up the meme of internal Air to Air gun even looking at the Vietnam stats missile we still the vast majority of kills 78 out of 122 at least these are the stats for US air force of course for north Vietnam which was behind on missile technology this is reversed and thus they had 40 out of 73 kills being. By all accounts guns were the backup for when missiles failed, this was for the AIM-7 with 8 percent hit rate, and AIM-9 with 19 percent hit rate. Guns make sense if missiles are absolute garbage or as backup for this time period however modern missiles are not like that. When you're scoring less kills then AIM-7 which hits 27 out 340 shots I really doubt the gun is going to do well vs using an AIM-120D or AIM-9X. This is because unlike missile technology, fighter jet survivability the gun has not advanced at all. Thus its a very safe bet that this why in round two of Vietnam this happened "During Operations Linebacker I and II in late 1972, U.S. aircrew were credited with sixty-eight air-to-air victories. Eight kills were achieved with guns, including victories by two B-52 tail gunners, whereas fifty-seven enemy aircraft were shot down by U.S. missiles. ". A source that highlights this is ye old CSBA csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf This is why we get all these stories and videos of drones being blown out of the sky with missiles not guns by Saudi F-15's. The fact that they fire missiles at drones when they fly this close to them like in this video is because guns can not be trusted to reliably hit an airborne target. Otherwise they would. www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39992/watch-a-saudi-f-15-fighter-swoop-in-low-to-blast-a-houthi-rebel-drone-out-of-the-sky .The fact of the matter is guns aren't even reliably able to shot down drones that fly at slow sub sonic speeds casts some pretty serous doubts on trying to shot a F-16 pulling 9 G's at 3 times the speed, it's just not going to happen. Maybe there will end up being a case where someone actually could have benefitted from an internal gun but this is very very extremely unlikely due to the developments of modern jets and weapon systems. This trend away from guns for air to air is not because modern militaries are miss informed, it is because of endless back to back findings and experiences all pointing to the obsolescence of the gun.
What? Both the B and the C have a 25mm internal cannon on board, lmao.. Too many people look at Wikipedia and don't understand that the majority if not most information on any modern weapon systems is just pure speculation. The aircraft is classified, it's sensor suite is classified, and it's top speed is certainly classified.. I love the F-14 but you could put 6 against a single F-35A/B/C and they would lose, horribly.
