F-35 explained video (excellent)

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3550
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post03 May 2021, 11:38

This video is by far the best video I've ever seen explaining F-35 capabilities and addressing almost all critics against it:



I really wonder if this Hypohystericalhistory guy is regular here as he would clearly fit very well here.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25879
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 May 2021, 13:41

Hahah this'll be fun for CONAN to view (it is obvious to me) the author of this video and above is an educated Australian.

The F-35B Option: the Future of Australian Naval Aviation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QIA4bn4Pvc

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3217
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post03 May 2021, 19:17

hornetfinn wrote:This video is by far the best video I've ever seen explaining F-35 capabilities and addressing almost all critics against it:



I really wonder if this Hypohystericalhistory guy is regular here as he would clearly fit very well here.


Excellent video indeed! :thumb:

This one goes straight to my favorite list.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post06 May 2021, 17:29

spazsinbad wrote:Hahah this'll be fun for CONAN to view (it is obvious to me) the author of this video and above is an educated Australian.

The F-35B Option: the Future of Australian Naval Aviation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QIA4bn4Pvc



I've seen it. His costings are laughable, his rationale obvious and few debate them, but his conclusions are myopic and fail to address the elephant in the room, which is the primary reason why defence will not adopt the idea.

These ships are AMPHIBIOUS ships, designed to support forces landing in amphibious operations. They are not designed or intended to be a carrier, the flat deck and ski-jump notwithstanding. Even Spain realises this and intended to buy a real carrier...

Adding F-35 only detracts from this. It adds very little. They would be an extremely poor carrier which is why NO-ONE is planning to use them as such and if you ignored this reality and did it anyway, all you would achieve is that you'd have a poor amphibious capability as well. If you did it anyway, you'd achieve what Spain has. The maintenance of carrier quals for pilots and no real capability... All for fewer helicopters, fewer vehicles and equipment, fewer personnel and less availability to perform it's actual roles...

He understates the modifications required, completely ignores the reality that RAN only rarely has 2 LHD's available anyway and entirely ignores the fact that the ships actually need to be trained and exercised in the roles they are performing... From a simple movements perspective, there is little difference in the HADR role and amphibious landing role, it's mainly the types of vehicles, personnel and stores you're off-loading. Operating a fixed wing aircraft off a ship though is completely different as I'm sure you are aware, Spaz...

He minimises the fuel bunkerage issue (for instance the Cavour has approximately 3x as much fuel for a 12 aircraft squadron as an LHD could manage) and has zero air-weapons magazines for the types of weapons an F-35 would require, as opposed to an armed recon helicopter. He ignores the helicopter usage that is required to be maintained in his back of the napkin style assessments of fuel etc, ignore the maintenance requirements of the F-35 and their F135 engines, ignores the deck strength limits on the light vehicle deck and the fact the entire light vehicle deck would need to be used as a hangar, making it entirely unavailable for personnel, or light vehicles...

He ignores all these real-world points because it doesn't suit his end-point style argument. I personally am supportive of fixed wing carrier capability for the ADF. But flying them off Canberra Class is not and never will be the way to do it.

Defence and Government ain't interested and have zero plans to do this, but if they were the only sensible solution is to get a real carrier in addition to the current capability, just as Spain realised... The other problem besides lack of political will, lack of doctrinal interest and unsuitable ships, is there is no money and no workforce available for this...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25879
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 May 2021, 21:28

'Conan' said above: "...These ships are AMPHIBIOUS ships, designed to support forces landing in amphibious operations. They are not designed or intended to be a carrier, the flat deck and ski-jump notwithstanding. Even Spain realises this and intended to buy a real carrier..."

I think it is clear that an "aircraft carrier LHD style flat deck for F-35Bs for Oz" is needed (to help crew transition from one LHD style to another perhaps) or a different LHD ski jump aircraft carrier larger for the use of... anyway I'm interested in the claim by 'Conan' that SPAIN realised they needed an aircraft carrier and what SPAIN intends to do about it. Perhaps conversation here: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20426&start=975 (or start a new thread?)
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1307
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post06 May 2021, 22:45

hornetfinn wrote:This video is by far the best video I've ever seen explaining F-35 capabilities and addressing almost all critics against it:



Indeed it is a good video and explains things very simplistically. This is on par with videos by Dragon029. However sometimes it doesn't matter how good or well explained something is, you cant fix stupid. Even if a bee can talk to a fly and explain why pollen is better than sh*t, the fly would not understand.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3217
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post06 May 2021, 22:58

spazsinbad wrote:
'Conan' said above: "...These ships are AMPHIBIOUS ships, designed to support forces landing in amphibious operations. They are not designed or intended to be a carrier, the flat deck and ski-jump notwithstanding. Even Spain realises this and intended to buy a real carrier..."

... anyway I'm interested in the claim by 'Conan' that SPAIN realised they needed an aircraft carrier and what SPAIN intends to do about it.


Yeah, me too!

As far as I know Spain doesn't intend or plan to adquire any new (dedicated) Carrier or Carriers.

Actually Spain operated a dedicated Aircraft Carrier in the recent past, the 'Príncipe de Asturias' which was replaced by the Juan Carlos I amphibious assault ship which is the exact same type of ship used by Australia as the Canberra-class.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post07 May 2021, 06:44

ricnunes wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:
'Conan' said above: "...These ships are AMPHIBIOUS ships, designed to support forces landing in amphibious operations. They are not designed or intended to be a carrier, the flat deck and ski-jump notwithstanding. Even Spain realises this and intended to buy a real carrier..."

... anyway I'm interested in the claim by 'Conan' that SPAIN realised they needed an aircraft carrier and what SPAIN intends to do about it.


Yeah, me too!

As far as I know Spain doesn't intend or plan to adquire any new (dedicated) Carrier or Carriers.

Actually Spain operated a dedicated Aircraft Carrier in the recent past, the 'Príncipe de Asturias' which was replaced by the Juan Carlos I amphibious assault ship which is the exact same type of ship used by Australia as the Canberra-class.


No, as I said, they intended to… Budget cuts killed the Principe de Asturias and it’s intended replacement, which was a dedicated carrier, not an amphib pressed into service as a pseudo-carrier. They use the Juan Carlos I due to lack of other choice, while acknowledging it’s vast limitations in the role. It’s original intended use was as a dedicated amphibious ship what it was designed for as well as for maintaining carrier pilots quals, when their actual carrier was unavailable. Effectively that is what they are doing still, just longer term than originally envisaged.

This should not be confused with what they had and planned to continue operating in future however. Juan Carlos I is not a replacement in their view, just their only option at present. Like Italy, the Amada would like a dedicated carrier, if funding permitted.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3550
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post07 May 2021, 09:30

charlielima223 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:This video is by far the best video I've ever seen explaining F-35 capabilities and addressing almost all critics against it:



Indeed it is a good video and explains things very simplistically. This is on par with videos by Dragon029. However sometimes it doesn't matter how good or well explained something is, you cant fix stupid. Even if a bee can talk to a fly and explain why pollen is better than sh*t, the fly would not understand.


Yes, that's totally true. All this info has been around for at least a decade and yet the old falsehoods about F-35 persist. Like it doesn't have good maneuverability, has a lot of problems or it's far more expensive than other aircraft.

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests