Amazing video as always but 5:32 technically false. According to F-35A pilots, the F-35A can dogfight as well, if not better, than a Hornet. It even has PSM capabilities.

G’day mate, love your work. I have question. When you beam their radar, would it be better to yaw and turn like that instead of rolling and showing a larger surface area of the airplane? If it’s too long to answer then it’s all good.

Fat Betty's a cat lover

For doubters, LazerPig's F-35 video is very good.

It’s ok. This is just a game after all. DCS isn’t trying to be the War Thunder forums!

@@sadlerbw9 For sure, but not everybody realises this. It does frustrate me somewhat that the F-35 DCS mod kinda perpetuates the idiotic assessment that the real jet is a dud.

I think GS has more understanding of aircraft he flies and against thus he can utilize while Longshot was better at guns and was more skilled with stick,

only one way to find out. FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT! 🤣

I've been asking for a long time for a worldwide fighter competition where GS & Longshot will probably be numbers 1 and 2... But who cares, they're not hurting each other like the Federenco Brothers would hurt each other if they competed against each other and made their mom cry. COME ON GUYS, PUSH FOR THAT WORLDWIDE COMPETITION BECAUSE LATER ON THIS MIGHT NOT BE AS POPULAR, AS POLITICS WILL RULE THE STAGE FOR A YEAR OR TWO NOW!

Well, we need to see Longshot in the Tomcat vs an F-22. I know that GS excels in the F-14 with wings and flaps out manually, allowing him to get amazing kills, like when he absolutely destroyed Flankers in HOBS fox-2 fights and has beaten F-22s on multiple occasions. I'm very curious how Longshot would handle such situations, as he's never showed such a fight.

Heroic comment

@@Tyrannosaurus_STFU_III it's not much, but it's honest work

Now he needs to do this fight as BVR, test out that Tomcat RADAR

Glad to see more comments pointing this stuff out. I pretty much nope out of any DCS video (much as I do love a good Longshot or GS vid) featuring the 35. There's just not enough public information and WAY too much disinformation out there on its capabilities.

The F22 isn't even allowed to show its full capabilities when training with allies lol

That was the point of my comment. What they do at air shows is only scratching the surface. That said, fat Amy does have some nose authority and bottom end grunt. Personally touched fighters for years. She’s better than what people think.

​@@briangilbert4420 do you think they are just saying that to mess with Russia and China?

It’s just barely less maneuverable than f-22 so it wouldn’t exactly have trouble with 5th gen fighter

@@AviationLover190 at least in DCS it seems to suffer; GS was smearing the floors with the F35 in an F22.

@@AviationLover190it doesn’t have thrust vectoring, so it’s no where near the f22, but irl they have said it’s similar to the f16 so I wouldn’t imagine it’s much different in dcs to the f16

@@brodykloster2102 dude F-35 can cobra F-16 can’t

@@NavajoMX both the F-22 and F-35 underperform in dcs

lol, yeah was close

what is a Fox-4?

@@19sebi88collision

@@19sebi88 A mid-air collision. Basically using your plane to down the other plane.

@@bitmanagent67 Ah okay, thank you

Wouldn't be fun tbh. each fight would last like 10 seconds.

It was a poor performer in terms of cost. It was supposed to be a budget 5th gen fighter.

F-14 cant physically do the same things... The lack of fly by wire alone...

F-14 has the power of Tom Cruise guiding it

OP is 💯 correct. I was in Marine Aviation. Just like the Raptor, nobody knows the actual capabilities of 22's and 35's.. It's not like our government would EVER participate in a disinformation campaign....lmao When something pops off and the enemy is "At least there are no F-22's" then gets half their air force dropped by 35's then they'll realized we lied. We don't even sell 35's with full capabilities to our allies.

Yea this is pretty unrealistic or the F35 pilot isn’t familiar with the platform. I highly doubt the mod for DCS is particularly accurate. Sandoxx recently did a great video on how the F35 gets crapped on and it really shouldn’t be.

Yeah, I love the way some of these videos disable the superior aircraft to the point where the inferior aircraft is now better.

if the Tomcat come in slow, or with the wings manually sweeped (flaps or no flaps), I don't see why the F-35 will last a single turn. How many Gs can the F-35 pull again? I have a bit of (IMHO) reasonable doubt it can stay with the Tomcat in a 11 G pull.

@@1471SirFrederickBanbury the F-35A can pull a max of 9g and 50 degrees of AOA (Angle of Attack) with limiter but ~110 degrees without it. The F-14’s max AOA is 77 degrees. So technically the F-35 has higher AOA

@@Mav09 I don't think the F-35 is going to make it anywhere pointing backwards! XD Thats sure impressive, but the question in my head is whether a desperate Tomcat (wing swept full forward, flaps fully out) could match the Lightning. Unfortunately, the best/only source of any potential info would be Growling Sidewinder's F-14 vs F-22 fights, which would suggest that the Tomcat can, but even with the accuracy of the simulation, we can never really know. It does make me wish for the Super Tomcat 21 even more though!

With guns and fox 2 missiles. That would be very interesting!

Thank you very much

Thank you very much

Not much point in taking notes when you'll never see what killed you, either way, much has gone wrong if a F35 dogfights

They can take all the notes they want, they have an old, old version of the F14 and very little in way of actually keeping them flyable.

Relax........it was a joke

@@SamG-py7ej wasn't trying to come off as combative, just making a point

@@montyx2333 don't sweat it, we're good buddy 👍🏻

Fat Amy might one circle a C-5 but that's about it

From the pilots I've heard from, the F-35 CAN be okay if it's not loaded with fuel or stores....against aircraft that ARE loaded with fuel and stores. In the same general condition, it's kind of a pig. Yes you CAN get one quick pull, but it bleeds energy fast. The airframe doesn't like to regain energy. Yes it has a nice big engine, but it's also draggy and heavy. Compare to the F-16 for example. 50% more thrust, 50% heavier (empty)... even more with fuel included. Drag profile much higher (or realistically F-35 has similar drag to an F-16 with external stores/tanks since it's so bulky and stealth shaped) so it's really not any better. It's significantly worse...but doable if the other pilot isn't good. The gamble is that being mediocre in the air WITH STEALTH wins the game, and that's true.... at a high cost. The cost of purchase and servicing an F-35 is 2-3 times what it is for the latest F-16 or F-18. Yes, they can do a lot, but they half less payload and less coverage for the same cost. It's a tradeoff. Then again, with air forces short on pilots... they're spending money to have fewer pilots that hope they won't be detected. It's a gamble.

@@jimrussell4062 Will look in the morning for the source but afaik the drag index of the F-35 is something similar to an F16 with a single centerline fuel tank, not sure how much it changes as you pull. Additionally, using the high AoA for a quick pull instead of entering the fight a bit faster and trading for altitude is more a pilot's decision error than the aircraft imo. That's something to be punished whether it comes from an F-35, F-22, etc. At least from demos it seems to regain energy pretty well even from slow pass which matches its T/W, it's probably more just the bleed rate than anything else.

​@@jimrussell4062 Um, the F-35 has internal stores so it can be fully loaded without any increase in drag. That is why F-35 pilots will say it is superior in a visual fight to 4th gen which need to carry an equivalent load externally which severely affects their performance. Even in guns-only fight the F-35 has the advantage due to better situational awareness and passive sensors. Like the OP said, it's the pilots and their tactics that usually allow 4th gen to win in BFM.

@@jimrussell4062 The F-35 on a mock combat load beat a F-16 in a dogfight without any load at all just fuel so I mean what about that

It's an inaccurate flight model, the f35 doesn't perform at all in dcs

@@brianp8796 So just some basic made up flight model XD

@@jnx4803 yeah, the way it seems to perform, it looks like it was based on the leaked "dogfight" test early in it's development where it was software limited to 7g turns and engine output was limited as well so it couldn't recover energy very well. The test was more of a, what can this build of software do for the airframe while being pressed by an aggressor, but the press ran with it to bag on the f35

It would. The F-35 in DCS is about as realistic as an X-Wing.

BVR of course. Just need to specify that.

@@1471SirFrederickBanbury across the board. At any range.

@@Saltfly I don’t know about that if they’re tight in BFM, especially 2 circle, but if the Tomcat can get that close, then the F-35 pilot is too incompetent to be flying anyways.

@@1471SirFrederickBanbury BVR and in close.

The checkmate is a joke of a plane, don't come here with this "Russia Air Force good" bs. Any Russian plane (including the su57) will get no diffed by a f18

The flight model in this game isn't close to being realistic.

Sadly they won't, neither of those two have appropriate cockpits for a video with them.

The non-existent Su-75? The mockup? The Femboy?

@@Danko05 😥

That's a hard one... can't tell. It's what you rather do... more A2G or A2A

@@LongShotChannel Prefer Air2Air I think

May I ask how do you know that dogfights are not taken in consideration?

The F-35 will run circles around F-16's in a dogfight. The whole "can't turn" thing genuinely comes from Russian and Chinese propaganda that they created to sew doubt. There are videos here on YT showing the F-35 doing maneuvers that previously were restricted to twin engine, thrust vectoring aircraft -- one of these being the "falling leaf". This specific video is titled something like "F-35 breath taking manuevers" and the KZfaqr is Elwyn R. I also want to add that the F-35 weighs about 32% more than the F-16, but makes 62% more thrust. That's a 30% better thrust to weight ratio. When you read the F-35 has a "0.87" thrust to weight ratio, you are reading the specifications for the aircraft when it is fully loaded with fuel. To put this into better perspective; the F-35 holds more fuel internally, than an F-15E does with full internal tanks, and 2 drop tanks.

@@Danko05 The wing loading is abhorrent for a fighter at over 107 lb/sq ft and has a thrust to weight ratio with 50% fuel at the equivalent of, or worse than, F-16 & F-15 fully fueled (F-35A has a ratio of 0.87 fully fueled), and the control surfaces are few & puny for a fighter. It also wasn't even designed to carry AIM-9X internally, and only has been adapted recently by foreign users to accommodate Sidewinder & AIM-132 in its bay. What's more, the internal cannon on the one version (F-35A) that even has one hasn't been made combat capable recently, and it's still not cleared for use on all but the handful which have A) had their HUD & aim point display corrected to actually shoot where the gun is pointed, and B) been retrofitted with a trap door that actually opens properly before the gun can fire. To name a few things. I'm not saying it's altogether useless in tight, but that Lockheed approached the design stage with a mind to give F-35 the the F-4 treatment.

@@PotatoeJoe69 To be clear, I'm not saying that F-35 is utterly useless tight in, but I am saying it got the F-4 treatment from Lockheed in the design stage. But no, the F-35 absolutely would not "run circles around F-16s in a dogfight." I've seen F-35As at a couple of airshows, and their flight computer is very good, but that does not overcome such an abysmal wingloading compared to an F-16 or F-15, nor the scant control surfaces. And the 0.87 thrust/weight ratio fully fueled compares to 1.07 of the F-15 fully fueled, and 1.10 of the F-16 fully fueled. That is to say that the F-35 at 50% fuel has the same or a worse ratio than fully fueled F-15 or F-16.

@@FunnyQuailMan Couple of points: Wing loading alone won't tell you enough with modern aircraft design, though it may tell you a lot. Fighters are designed with relaxed stability and shaping such that the entire airframe contributes to lift generation, whether through traditional means or vortex generation. For the F-35, which has a large amount of supercritical airfoil body shaping and vortex generation, the wings alone are the majority but not the overall determinant. Furthermore, simply increasing wing area in response to high wing loading can have counterintuitive effects because wing area contributes to both lift and drag via their respective equations. Ideally you try to reduce weight but that's usually the much harder option as you'll see. Also consider that wing loading is a product of area AND weight. It can be entirely possible and I'd say the case that an aircraft is aerodynamically "correct" but simply rather heavy (think of a heavy Viper, even w/o the tank/weapon drag it'd have to fight a lot harder to do normal stuff. F-15C vs F-15E also works well; same dimensions, way different performance). That weight is mostly due to the incredible amount of internal carriage vs traditional airframes: fuel capacity, radar size, electronic wiring and cooling piping, internal weapons bays, the larger engine, DAS, EOTS, and so on. Should also be noted: an F-35 at full fuel being 0.87 has more to do with it carrying 2.5x the internal fuel of a Viper; set them both at 7k pounds and the F-35 holds a 1.194 to the Block 50's 1.180. The control surfaces aren't unusual to the class, relatively speaking it's close to the F-16 in size for the aircraft and number. Larger or naval fighters add extra but they have their own costs associated. So do the cheek bays for internal AIM-9X carry: adds unnecessary complexity and weight to an airframe that's still considered stealth even with the external 9Xs. In the first place the issue with internal AIM-9s is more down to the fact that they have to be rail-ignited and don't have lock-on-after-launch like they would need.

Except the F-14 was already an aging, high-maintenance hangar queen, and the F-18 was *vastly* cheaper to operate, which is why it replaced the Tomcat.

Super Tomcat would be every bit as good as the USAF's new billion dollar F-15. Then again the fly away cost of the new F-15 EX is what the F-22 flyaway cost would have been if we had built the original 750 plan. Instead we got 187 which of course makes the unit cost "too expensive" for congress, who is the ones who cut the numbers. F-15 is an outstanding plane, but 750 F-22 would have been unbeatable.

@@djbiscuit1818 Yeah they would have needed to build a new Super Tomcat from the ground up. But the Pentagon has a very, VERY strong tendency to chase new and shiny objects versus more of the tried and true.

@@djbiscuit1818 Harrier had many of those same issues. Marines did a nearly clean sheet redesign of it that looks like the original harrier. Composite construction, relocation of items for ease of maintenance as well as just improving all the access to perform maintenance easier. Yes F-14 was old but it was only a couple years older than the F-18 which also got a clean sheet redesign because Boeing bought Cheney and Gruman told him no. F-15 EX is ridiculously expensive and the Eagle is 2 years younger than the Tomcat as well. If the Tomcat had been given the money that the Super Rhino and the Eagle got, I guarantee its operating cost would have also be reduced and its capabilities would have been greatly advanced as well.