Is The F-35 Worth $115 Million?
This, episode, of real engineering, is brought to you by curiosity stream, watch thousands, of documentaries, for free for 31 days a curiosity stream, calm, Ford / real engineering, this. Year at the f-35. Is finally. Set to close its 27. Year development, phase and move, towards high-volume. Manufacturing the. Culmination, of 27. Years of design and development. From, its manufacturer, Lockheed, Martin, 27. Years of development, crossing, the finish line in the midst of a political power struggle, in America, this is after, all the most expensive weapon, system in the history, of humankind, costs. Have inflated, as a result, of the American, military-industrial, complex where. The intertwining of politics, economy, and the military industry encourages. Companies like, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing to, not vertically. Integrate, their companies as a means of spreading jobs, across America and, thereby, increased, political support, for, these programs and the, politicians, that approved them in Congress, to, win contracts, we, could deep dive into these muddied waters of politics but, this channel is about engineering. And the development costs of the f-35 would, be astronomical even. Without these issues, so, let's, explore the design of this plane and see whether its price tag is really, worth it from. The start the f-35, sought to be the jack-of-all-trades an. Air, superiority machine. To replace the air force's f-16s. And a TENS a stealth, fighter taking, the lessons learned from the b-2 program and improving, upon Lockheed's previous ventures into stealth technology with, the f-22, Raptor and the, f-117, Nighthawk. A carrier, capable fighter to replace the f-18. Hornets, of the Navy and perhaps, most, audacious of all it would take on the challenge of vertical, landings taking over from the British av-8b, Harrier, taking. On all these advanced, technologies and combining, them into one plane, was, never going, to be an easy or cheap task. And the, program was made even more expensive by what was initially intended, to be a cost-saving. Measure this. Plane would be developed, as a joint venture between three, US military, brand the Air Force Navy, and Marines, a single. Plane for each branch of the military the, program was named the Joint Strike Fighter and, its goal was to produce a next-generation, plane, that could replace fighter, strike, and ground, attack aircraft of, not just the United States but all of, its allies, unlike. The f-22, Raptor which is a US Air Force exclusive. Plane, the f-35 would, be commercially, available the. Joint Strike Fighter program began. Life as a competition between, McDonnell. Douglas Northrop Gruman, Lockheed, Martin and Boeing with.
Lockheed And Boeing going, on to develop prototype. Aircraft as finalists, in the competition, both, eager to win what was sure to be one of the most lucrative contracts. They would ever sign, Boeing's. Aircraft, the x32. Was, an odd-looking aircraft. Featuring. A massive single, air intake, that made it less VTOL, and more veal all its, looks alone may have stopped it from winning this valuable contract, but what really held it back was Boeing's, decision to, create two, prototype, planes one. Capable of supersonic, flight and one capable of vertical takeoff, using. The same vector thrust as the Harrier which, it was supposed to be replacing the, engine used in the Harrier is similar, to a traditional jet, engine, in that a consists of a low pressure compressor fan a high-pressure. Compressor a combustion, chamber a high-pressure turbine and a low pressure turbine, but, it's out less nozzle placement, is anything, but traditional two. Outlets are placed immediately after. The low-pressure compressor with, another two ducting, air from the higher pressure turbines, in, vertical, thrust mode the, nozzles point downwards, and allow the plane to balance precariously, on these four columns of air the, Harrier was not, an easy plane to control in this flight mode and on more than one occasion turbulence. From its own downwash, caused, the plane to flip over onto the cockpit during, landings, killing, the pilot a large. Part of these control issues, can be attributed to the proximity of the, control nozzles, to the center of gravity of the plane giving, them less mechanical advantage. To, manipulate the plane's attitude. The, Harrier did have small roll control nozzles, on the tip of each wing but, the control for these were entirely, manual, placing. The incredibly. Unstable control, mechanism, into the hands of a human that, needed to focus on various, other factors, when, landing the, x32, used, many of the same techniques to achieve vertical, thrust but, improved, on many of the Harriers shortcomings. Instead. Of using the same nozzles, for cruise and direct, lift the x32, would, close valves for each when needed in normal. Flight the cruise nozzles, would open allowing, the thrust of the jet engine to be directed, efficiently. Through, the rear of the aircraft then, during, transition, this nozzle would close and force air through the direct lift nozzles, they. Placed a larger roll control nozzles, further, from the planes center of mass and also, employed a cold air screen placed, just, forward, of the lift, nozzles, this, was intended to stop hot turbulent, air from the direct lift nozzles, from entering the front intake, which, was a massive, issue for, the harrier as it, landed, jet, engines need cold and smooth air to operate at maximum thrust which was difficult to get when landing and directing, the entirety. Of your thrust, directly, at the ground despite. These improvements lockheed, ultimately, won, the contract impressing. The Joint Strike Fighter program with, their left fan system the, engine thrust here once again exits. A single, exhaust nozzle, during. Normal flight but, when the show begins, the, ex35, was capable of some incredible, transformer, like changes, hatch. Is opened on the top and bottom, of the aircraft revealing. To contra-rotating, fans. Another. Two little doors opened, beneath the wings exposing. Two additional, exhaust ports that controlled the plane's role finally. As the plane begins to slow down the crews nozzle would begin to pivot downwards, transitioning. The remaining, thrust of the jet engine from horizontal to, vertical the. Left fan solved many of the same issues that plagued, the harrier the, lift fan produced, the majority of the vertical thrust and it did not heat up the air significantly. In the, process, the, roll control had significantly. More mechanical. Advantage, and did, the majority, of the control over to a computer, perhaps. Most influential in, their success to winning the contract this prototype was capable of both vertical, landings and supersonic. Flight this, was the kind of innovation, the Joint Strike Fighter program was, looking for the, lift fan is essentially, a turboprop, engine, like something you would find on an osprey, the, propellers, are driven by a drive shaft connected, to the jet engine turbines, which, can be disengaged during.
Normal Flies this, means the lift fan is dead waste during cruise but, what it adds and weighs it more than makes up for it in lift combined. These propulsion, methods can produce. 185. Kilonewtons. Of lift the, Harrier could only manage, 106. This, increase, in direct lift capabilities. Was, vital, to making the f-35, a worthy, successor to, the Harrier as one, of the Harriers greatest, weaknesses, was its limitations, in maximum, takeoff and landing weight the. Harrier like the f-35b. Mostly. Operated, in short takeoff and vertical landing, mode the, Harrier would point all four, of its nozzles at about a 45, degree angle, allowing. It to produce both horizontal, and vertical thrust. To take off from shorter, runways, this, allowed it to take off with considerably, more waste than it could land with in a vertical landing the, empty weight of the f-35b. May be thirteen thousand one hundred and fifty four kilograms, compared, to the six thousand three hundred and forty kilograms, of the Harrier but, it more than makes up for that with a maximum, takeoff weight of thirty one thousand eight hundred kilograms, compared. To the Harriers fourteen thousand one hundred kilograms, that's, an extra, 11, tons of waste available. To the f-35, for fuel and a munitions, something. The Harrier had little space for so, the, f-35, is more than a worthy, successor to, the Harrier a plane, which fetched about 24, million dollars, per unit in 1996. Or about. 39 million adjusted. For inflation so. Incorporating, VTOL, to the f-35b, was. Just one of many design, challenges, that pushed the price of the program off ironically. Despite, Boeing's, joule prototype, entry being a sticky, point four the jsf program. The f-35 now, comes in three variants, each, tailored, for different branches in the US military. The f-35 a is customized. For the US Air Force and as such has, been designed, to take off from conventional, runways, allowing. It to scrap much of the heavy equipment needed. For the f-35 be, the, Marines variant, the, Marines do not operate out of large aircraft, carriers, like the Navy and as such their, ships like the wasp-class amphibious assault. Ship have often been referred to as helicopter. Carriers, as no, plane, other than the Harrier or Osprey, have been able to use them this. Is not the case for the Navy who have large aircraft, carriers, at their disposal the. Final variant is the f-35. C which has been designed to satisfy the Navy's, requirements, having, wings that are about 40% larger, than either of its sister variants, and its landing gear is much heavier and stronger, both. Of these features were included to allow it to land and take off from, aircraft carriers without, the need for the vertical propulsion, like the f-35 be the, larger wings not only allow the f-35c.
To, Have the largest fuel capacity of, the three but, also give it much better lift at slower speeds making. Landings, and takeoffs much. Easier on the deck of an aircraft carrier while. The heavier landing, gear allows the plane to survive the rough landings associated. With the arresting, wire landings, on aircraft carriers the, f-35. See also, incorporates, folding, wingtips to allow for neat storage inside the ship this. Expansion into three variants has been a huge source of increased, costs, and the program likely could have dramatically, reduced on spending, had, it just designed three, different planes for, three different branches, trying. To squeeze the needs of these three military, branches, into a single, airframe, was never going to be an easy task for the R&D division of Lockheed Martin and forced, them to make some concessions in design, that have limited them in other areas, the, brunt of criticism directed. At the f-35. Is its, shortcomings in dog fighting capabilities. Headlines. Of the f-35, losing. Simulated, dogfights, to cold war-era. F-15s. Dean's grabbed, many people's attention, and were, used to detract from the f-35s. Advancements. We, only knew about these issues as a result of a report that leaked to the press let's. Take a look at that report to, see what this test pilot thought about the f-35 a he flew the, primary, flaw of this pilot highlighted, was the f-35, A's poor, energy maneuverability. Meaning. The f-35, a struggled. To maneuver without expending, a significant. Amount of its kinetic energy, which, is a problem, I discussed, in more detail in my fighter jet instability. Video the primary, design aspect, the pilot pins this on is the smaller wing area and the weaker afterburner, thrust of the f-35, in comparison. To the f-15e. He was accustomed to essentially. Their issue with the f-35, was, that it depleted, its kinetic energy stored quicker than its competition we, have no reason to believe this pilot was wrong in his findings so what does this mean for the f-35, it.
Is Important to note that this was not a fully functional, version missing, software enabling, the plane to detect its foes before they can detect it and was missing radar absorbing, paint on, top of this the f-35, is not short of trained military aviators. Who praised the f-35. Like, US Marine corpse major Dan flatly who helped design the combat training program for f-35. Pilots, and he, has chalked up these issues to old habits of pilots who have spent significant. Portions, of their lives dedicated, to older generation, planes which, were designed with a different, philosophy in, mind since, then the f-35, has performed, phenomenally, in simulations, with the reports up to 22, 1 K TRS other, pilots, who have had more time to become accustomed, to the f-35, had more positive things to say like, John Beasley the chief test pilot of the f-35, with, 22, years of experience as. A test pilot at Lockheed Martin and was, involved in the development of the f-117, Nighthawk, and the f-22 Raptor, he, claims the f-35, can outmaneuver any, US, fighter except, for the f-22, which, was designed specifically. As an, air superiority machine. And. Is not, available for purchase outside of America, and actually, has a higher unit, cost than, the f-35, at about a hundred and fifty million dollars it's. Hard for me to make a judgment, call on this because I have as little information as any other civilian, but honestly outside, of this one report, most pilots who have flown with the f-35, sing, its praises John. Beasley also, makes an important, note air, combat has always relied, on stealth, whether, it was World War one pilots, diving, from the Sun at their backs or modern. Fighters using advanced, radar, masks in design because. In the grand scheme of things in a dogfight the real star that matters is who sees and shoots first and the biggest factor that contributes, to that are the onboard, sensors, and stealth the, thing that really sets the f-35, apart, is its suite of sensors, and computer, guidance systems, which, have been integrated, with the user interface, of the, aircraft unlike, any other plane in the history of mankind while. Sharing that information with, the entire, force this, is what truly makes this plane something to be feared and it all starts with this a little, transparent, faceted, sensor suite containing. The infrared, imaging, and tracking, equipment of the, aircraft but those are not your typical windows, those, are made of sapphire and notoriously. Expensive gemstone, one, of the few materials that is both hard and durable but also transparent, to a broad range of wavelets, the, imaging, data from these sensors can even be fed into the pilots helmet visor which, has been enhanced with augmented reality technology, this. Helmet alone costs. $400,000. And enables, the pilot to look straight through the aircraft and see at night without having to wear clumsy, night-vision goggles. The, helmet also feeds in data from the multitude of other sensors, like the advanced, high-frequency, radar, in the nose of the plane along. With data received, from sensors, from other aircraft, and ground-based units, the, data does not feed into the pilots AR helmet unfiltered, though it passes through the on-board computer which. Performs, all the necessary filtering. And data analysis, and only, presents the pilot with the information, he really, needs this technology. Is so powerful, that even an unarmed, f-35, would greatly, boost the combat effectiveness, of its, allies but. Detection, is just one step of that goal of shooting first not, being detected is just, as important. Incorporating. Stealth was just another design, challenge, and is likely the source of much of the unexpected, cost let's, first clear something up despite, what you may have otherwise, heard stealth, does not render a plane undetectable. Short, of not physically, existing, everything. Is detectable, if we can find and analyze planets. Billions, of light-years away we can detect a plane flying directly, overhead, stealth. Purpose is not to make the plane invisible, it serves, to complicate, and delay, the enemy's detection, of an aircraft stealth. Has proven itself invaluable, over the past two decades prior. To the f-35s, inception, the, f-117. Nighthawk flew over. 1,300. Missions over Iraq during. The Gulf War scouring. Direct hits on over, 1600. High-value. Targets, without losing a single aircraft. But, it was far from perfect Lockheed knew this all too well as the manufacturer, of the f-117, in, 1999.
A Nighthawk, was infamously, spotted, by a radar and subsequently, shot down over Serbia the, pilot survived but the plane crashed and remained mostly, intact handing, over a valuable, technology to, the Russians to reverse-engineer. Celt, serves a single purpose to, avoid detection and the f-117, failed, here but, it was developed, using 1970s. Era computing, technology, it's panels were flat and faceted, simply, because we did not have the computers capable, of analyzing more, complicated, shapes to optimize stealth early. Attempts at stealth worked under a fairly, simple theory radar, works by sending out pulses of electromagnetic. Waves and waits, and listens for reflections. The, idea behind stealth, technology is to not reflect, those waves back at the emitter and thus, avoiding, detection this. Is why the f-117. Is shaped like this each, panel has been angled and placed in a way to minimize, how much of this energy it will reflect back to the sender, it was also coated in a paint that would help absorb, some of that electromagnetic. Radiation, a, opponents of stealth technology despite, its proven track record are quick to point out that long wavelength, radar is capable, of detecting stealth, aircraft the, same kind of radar that detected, the f-117, over, Serbia and the same kind of radar used in the Battle of Britain while, this is true, these, stealth aircraft are optimized, to avoid detection of, higher frequency. Radar, those opponents rarely, mentioned that low frequency, long wavelength, radar do not provide high fidelity measurements. And struggle, to pinpoint their location of, the, aircraft this, makes them effective early warning systems but entirely useless, for directing, missiles while, this is certainly not useless it's, not particularly useful in, air-to-air combat had. The f-117. Nighthawk on that night been escorted, by its usual squadron, of electronic, jamming Prowler aircraft, the, missiles may well have never got a lock this, was made worse by the fact the aircraft, was flying a regular, flight path and so, the Serbians knew where to look topping, this off the f-117, was designed in an era before, sophisticated. Computational. Analysis, was available and so, it took this relatively, simplistic flat, faceted, form the b2 and f-22, however, greatly, improved, on the technology, utilizing. Complex curved shapes which no human could hope to calculate, the radar signature, of and they, have never been shut down the, curves diffused those radio waves in many directions rather. Than reflecting, it all in one direction which makes it easier to detect by receivers, listening, in locations, separate, to the emitter a fairly standard practice, today the, f-35 uses. The same complex, curves to avoid detection by, these, high-frequency, radars. And this, is likely one of the things driving its development, costs up the most stealth. Technology requires. Precision, beyond. Any other type, of manufacturing, this, is manageable, at small-scale, production like, that of the b2 and f-22, which, had very small production. Runs the, f-35, however is expected to be a mass manufactured. Aircraft, that foreign allies with shallower pockets, than the US military, will be willing, to pay for creating. A manufacturing, line that requires this level of precision was, never going to be, panels cannot have gaps between them that cannot be malformed, a single, scratch on the radar-absorbing, coating will require an entire repaint, of the parrot small. Manufacturing, defects have caused recalls, on multiple, occasions Lockheed. Is only now starting to, comfortably, roll the plane off the assembly, lines and that, is reflected in the lowering price of the aircraft, the latest, batch of orders have reduced and cost by 5.4 percent for, the f-35 a 5.7, for the B variant, an 11.1%. For, the f-35 see, leaving, us with a unit, cost of 89 point two million for an f-35, a a hundred, and fifteen point five million for an f-35, B and one hundred and seven, point seven million for an f-35, see, with, the f-35, a expected. To drop by a further four, point seven percent to 85, million by, the end of 2019, this. Sounds like a shitload, of money to the average, person, like me but, we get a clearer, picture of these costs, when comparing, to other fifth-generation. Fighters. Like, the f-22 Raptor, which cost a hundred and fifty, million dollars per unit or even. Looking at the other aircraft, it's going to be replacing I think, it's fair to say that we've established that, the f-35, is a worthy, successor to all of these planes which. Individually, come with their own hefty. Price tags but. The f-35, manages, to combine the capabilities, of all these aircraft, into, a single, plane yes, the development, cost of this plane have been astronomical.
That, Cannot be denied but, much of that money has gone directly back, into the American, economy then. When you consider that the plane is expected, to sell up to 4600, units. By the end of its lifetime nearly. Identical to, the total f-16, sales figures this, will inject more money into the American, economy considering. A large sum of these orders will be from international. Exports. So, is the f-35, worth it's 115. Point five million price tag as an, Irish, citizen that's, not for me to decide but, I can't say one thing this, is a fascinating, plane, with astounding, capabilities. This, may have been a heavy, price to pay but what isn't is a subscription. To curiosity, stream at a price of just, $2.99. A month with. That price you will get access to thousands, of documentaries, and nonfiction. Titles like, this fantastic, history of weapons series not, only that you will also get free access to nebula, the streaming video platform, built by and for. Independent. Creators like tear Zoo Lindsay, Alice minutephysics, Wendover. Productions and my new channel real, science, which just launched last week where, curiosity stream, is all about big-budget, non-fiction. Videos we're, building nebula because we want a place for educational. Creators, to try out new content ideas, that, might not work on YouTube I'm currently working on a logistics. Of d-day series and the next episode of real science is already available, on there but, won't be on YouTube for another month, curiosity. Stream loves independent, creators and wants, to help us grow our platform, so they're offering real engineering, viewers, free, access to nebula, when you sign up to curiosity, stream comm, Ford slash real, engineering, by, signing up to curiosity stream, you will be helping not just me but, the entire, educational. Community, as we, work together to build a place where we can create content like, my logistics, of d-day series that, would just be too risky, to rely on YouTube, as, always thanks, for watching and, thank you to all my patreon, supporters if you'd like to see more from me the, links to my Instagram Twitter. Subreddit. And discord server are below. You.
2019-10-16 21:49
@Caleb Houston that would actually be good
@Ron Johnson his early content was unique and very good.
dosmastrify have to agree. This video seems like it's sponsored by Lockheed Martin and us military fanboys. You've got people in the comments section who think this is a US channel and are telling Irish people to comment on their own local media. I'm guessing they haven't much interest in free engineering.
@OT A the hill channel. (left wing) Tim black channel (left wing minority) 1791L channel (right wing)
Will it be real science or. Pop science? This channel used to be real engineering but now it's pop engineering. Look at your early Vids vs this one.
I disagree with you Caleb your curiosity stream has 2 huge flaw Flaw #1 you cant use it without sign up Flaw #2 its not FREE
Eat Shit you didn't do too well in Afghanistan. Or Vietnam. Or Korea. Or Iraq for that matter. You managed on with Grenada though, so well done. Although didn't you have to leave when you realised it was British?
@Guinness ?????? Pls give me and answer with content...
Balázs Molnár how very naive you are
@Guinness It is irrelevant from technical aspect... The title of channel is Real Engineering not Real Economics...
Real Engineering how did you get through an entire video of cost without mentioning 50 separate manufacturing sites in as many states?
You should do a "My Pillow" video
@wolum andreas This is totally false comment. Even with full program cost counting the cost was about 350M (65bn/187) and not 800. About 42bn was development rest was manufacturing. What is underpowered? F-35A. In demo config has same performance as F-16. Only problem if you put external stores for F-16 (because you cannot do otherwise) the performance loss for F-16C is hihger. Why. Because simple physics. The F-35A is much heavier and has the same perf. In case you add more weight by weapons the relative weight increase for F-35A is much smaller than for F-16C especially because as long as remains in stealth config the drag of weapons is 0. I can show you F-16s performance the effect of +4000 lb fuel and +4000 lb as stores and drag... In combat config - especially in AG - F-16C simply lame comparing to F-35A.
No it is not, not even close in fact the F-35 is already obsolete its mamoeuvrability sucks compared to its rivals It cant even go in super cruise for a long time but the worst is its stealth failure Nearly all passive radars will detect and track it and there are anti air missiles equiped with those same passive radars So yeah it obsolete id rather spend my money on jets that dont only rely on stealth to survive like the PAK-FA T-50 it can do a 180 degree turn at full speed thus it can dodge a missile No other jet can do that Imagine you are on the 6 of one of thosee Russian jets, you fire your missile at him but then you see him do 180 degree turn, dodging your missile and he charges towards you while firing his guns... Its a scary thing to imagine because go straight from haha i got you to oh crap he might get me Straight from confidence to full panic - Yes some of the PAK-FA T-50 did have engine failure but better that then a stealth that doesnt work besides the Russia have the best emergency evacuation system in the world something they always bragged about
@EliteGeeks - You say " these planes will be useless..." But, you on't say why these plane will be useless.
In all the war games the f-35 replaces, even the ones the US has lost. The f-35 dominated the air once it got off the ground with no contest and with the big boost of funding the US military got they're trying to cover their windfalls they had in the last war game (basically lost to tens of thousands of "cheap" rockets currently aimed at military and air force bases)
You should make one giant ad for curiosity stream and how it's engineered better than YouTube
@stephen Burrows...How far does your head Burrows up your backside. Or, are you Burrowed in a time between 2010 and 2016 when so many wanted to and attempted to Burrow the F35 by any means available. This included using the oldest trick in the book, like this favorite book of yours, propaganda. Yet four years later, with all that bs debunked, you still can't seem to get a grip on reality. If at all possible to pull your head out and get air to your brain, a good suggestion would be to become familiar with, educate yourself, on the F35's true performance and capabilities. Unless of course there's an unwillingness to even be honest with yourself. Ignorance is after all a choice
Wouldn't it be neat if they had a heavier gun on these....like a gauss cannon or something?
Is Nubela free?
Arthur Inglis - it’s already stuffed, aka. Doesn’t really work as described, more info here if you’re interested: https://www.amazon.com/American-Gripen-Solution-F-35-Nightmare/dp/1941071538
OT A - FYI: https://www.amazon.com/American-Gripen-Solution-F-35-Nightmare/dp/1941071538 - might help. IMHO the only reason the F35 is where it is today is as result of a dubious marketing campaign - not actual flight capability...
Sorry, I don’t buy it - so you’re suggesting the opinion of a pilot that helped design it is unbiased? And strangely, blames short comings of other pilots as failure on their part, not the aircraft? At end of day the F35 has been an engineering disaster from day #1 and continues ‘today’ in being an ongoing development project rather than a completed one. Here’s some excellent background for anyone interested - it’s mind opening: https://www.amazon.com/American-Gripen-Solution-F-35-Nightmare/dp/1941071538
Just another YouTube narcissist who plagiarizes and repeats aricles from random who knows whose publications with no clue whether fact or a blatantly false. Proven by the number of ridiculous claims of others you repeat. Ignorance is a choice
Same ruskie that wrote the book on stealth included the solution (defeat). All your gizmos are great on paper. I will be as delighted as everyone else if it works. Simulations are irrelevant. It remains an underpowered pig; and too costly. The 22 wasn't 150m it was 800m when axed; rightly so. This thing does nothing new, a huge mistake. History will again tell the tale.
in a real-world war, these planes will be useless... wont be able to replace them as we lose them fast enough
Is some inaccurate information about the F-117 shotdown. Pls. link if you can. I met personally with Zoltan Dani and spoke about hours what happened. http://www.mediafire.com/folder/zkcw69g28351z/F-117_vs_S-125
I have access to Curiosity Stream. How can I access watchnebula.com without paying?
So when is nebula coming to Android?
Sailor Bob
dude this will be a good series, like next time do is this Car or Machine wroth that Money!
@Braden A, haha, perfect rebuttal. Good job, sir!
People love arguing about the F-35. You're a brave man for entering the fray lol
5 (whatever the fuck) We always sell you the cheaper version aircraft with simple defects and a complete lack of our high technology. That is why your price is always lower on every type of aircraft we sell to Israel. I make F-15 parts , any defective parts that do not meet tolerance specifications are shipped to Israel. They are still functional , just not PERFECT.
Steven Utter yeah keep on uttering bullshit out of your mouth smh i dare you to go live in any other country like russia or china or india and then you’ll realize which country is actually going to shit, if anything america is going to shit because of pussy ass liberals like you brainwashing our youth into thinking they can be whatever gender they want when in reality you are either a MALE or a FEMALE. gtfo you liberal scumbag.
Correction. The f35 price is 85M. We as israelis know that, thats why idf will have more.
This is how America works dumbass. 50 independent nations with free market trading partnerships and one common defense. Learn who we are before you condescend our methods of operation. We are a REPUBLIC. We can kick the shit out of you with both hands tied behind our backs while blindfolded and our feet in shackles.
was it nostrodomus that said, "that in the end times, the top 10% of humanity would be employed by the beast to control the lower 90% of humanity."? i did 20 years working in the belly of the beast in the military. the usa has been usurped, by the way. but we all must choose, individually, to put our trust in god. no voting majorities will suffice. be still. dont buy that new 4g tv for 2 grand off. it's soul bait. go help your next door neighbor. yeah him, behind your "privacy" wall. see if he is ok ? probably not. where do you see the face of jesus ? i'm looking for him. : )
America is going to shit, our students are getting dumber and dumber, the country values military spending over that of education, and multiple states in the south are actually allowed to heavily edit their text books, including the teaching of young earth creationism, and the omitting of the slave trade from Americas history, portraying the KKK as protectors of the community, the list goes on and on.
now remote drones are better than a meat puppet in a can could ever be
Now you HAVE TO do a video on Quantum Radar!!! https://futurism.com/the-byte/working-quantum-radar-device
The only plane i dont think it can fully replace is the A-10 as it lacks the raw firepower but feel free to prove me wrong
@Real Engineering At 19:15 you talk about how the F-35 uses complex curves to avoid detection. To me the F-35 looks like a very normal fighter jet. How are those complex curves used? Is it a small curvature on the surface of the plane or the curvature of the plane itself?
21:52 That Segway hit me right in the face
This channel is such excellent quality. But when you swore around the 21 minute mark, you made it look like a home made amateur movie. Your work is excellent, truly some of the best around. You have the opportunity to make your work appeal to the professional field more fully by simply dropping one word. Trust me when I say that when you present your portfolio of work to a boardroom, you don't want that kind of language in there. It takes it from highly researched, professional work - to low brow home movie. Remember, your work is something for you to be proud of. I have no doubt your future employers will watch. Do you honestly want them left with a bad impression? Never let anything put your future promotion at risk. You make great work. Keep the standards high
can you talk about the james webb telescope in details for your next episode?
Just subscribed thanks for your hard work keep up with your exelent work
3 things 1. I've heard that the F-35's stealth technology may be countered in less than 10 years which isn't good considering that its meant to have a service life of 40. 2. Can you please do a video on the Saab Jas 39 Gripen its quite an interesting fighter plane. 3. and love the videos they are very interesting.
I guess I don't have to tell you that was a great job
where can I find content on the politics?
You are doing animations anyway so why can't you upload that in 4k 60fps?
Whatching it rihght away!
very well reseched video i liked taht you metioned the radar freq range
@Real Engineering Just subscribed, I hope it's just as good as this channel, (but we all know it's going to be).!
Thank you for being an Engineer
A disaster program. Monocultures are a disaster. The F35 is a disaster.
I wonder if they created those huge sapphire windows by sintering
Give me a break! It’s not worth a dime. It is basically unable to dogfight. Can’t fly in rain Is not stealth Has a huge turn around time between missions. This piece of garbage is the Swiss Army knife of planes. It can do a little of everything but sucks at everything. A Russian fighter would shred this toy and the Russian ground to air Missile defences would knock it out of the air with ease. Now try and tell me what it actually can do.
3:05 Dad Joke Brigade, papers please.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. They said very similar things about the F-4 Phantom. We don't need a gun! Gun dogfights are old school and you're thinking backwards! The pilots learned the hard way they still needed a close in weapon system backup when confronting the much more maneuverable Mig 17s, 19s and 21s. The other thing that has always bothered me about the Join Strike Fighter is the jack of all trades mission. Again this is something the USAF and the Navy should remember from their own histories of mediocre performance machines attempting to "do everything" and being good at nothing. The idea of sharing 60% of the parts with other branches to save cost over the lifespan of the plane is a nice idea but in the end I fear that this will just turn out to be another extremely expensive modern day Edsel.
I want the one that comes with a V8 and 6-speed.
As a job creation project that sucks in lots of US tax payers money, it's a resound success, as a combat capable aircraft able to go up against a nation that can seriously shoot back it's a .
- Holy crap, somebody who actually properly mentioned the MIC. Good job on that. - "Combining multiple roles" Isn't what the F-35 does. The F-16 and F-18 (C and E variants) are already "multirole" and perform the same role the F-35 will. The F-35 is simply continuing what those aircraft already do (and then extending that capability to the poor Marines). - I'd also add, that the cost of developing three separate airframes is far more than a single airframe with three variants. Code, sensors, stealth and cousin parts significantly reduce costs compared to wholly designing a new aircraft. You were able to compare the protractors and detractors on the maneuverability side but sadly didn't do so here. If you need any amount of proof that having several different aircraft is more expensive, look at standalone developments like the Rafale or Eurofighter. Despite them lacking the advanced sensors or technology in the F-35, they cost way more both in PAUC and APUC measurements. - I like how you pointed out the protractors and detractors of maneuverability. Basically, there are two types of turn fighters. One turn fighters, and two turn fighters. One turn fighters are built to immediately point their nose/weapons at an opponent and achieve the first shot (F/A-18, F-35). They're characterized by very high AoA capability. Two turn fighters are built to sustain their turn rate, and use E-M theory to overcome their opponents (F-16, F-15). This was the "fighter mafia" ideology. However, significant studies by the USAF in the 1990s showed that the most significant factor in winning a dogfight is firing first (which two turn fighters are bad at doing). Not only did USAF studies point to this, but later experimentation with German Migs proved just how far behind in the WVR game US E-M theory was. HOBS missiles proved to be by far and away the most dominant WVR technique. Thus, we come to the F-35. It combines the lessons learned by the USAF (E-M theory is outdated), becoming a one turn fighter (like what the USN has been using) and incorporating HOBS missiles along with DAS (360 degree targeting) to create by far one of the most advanced WVR fighters to date. - On the F-117 shootdown, the radar was not modified to use low wavelengths. It was a normal X-band targeting radar. The battery commander has since walked back on his claim that he modified the FCR (which doesn't really make sense in the first place). The far more logical explanation is a very smart placement and operation of a radar battery, combined with knowledge of exactly where the aircraft would fly. Even then, the radar didn't pick up the F-117 until its bay doors were opened and basically on top of the FCR. In other words, the FCR was looking inside the aircraft rather than on the stealth optimized outside. - Your F-22 costs are a bit off. The overall APUC (per the F-22's last SAR) is $160 million. The last lot of aircraft reached an APUC of ~$120 million though. You could also include more modern 4th generation aircraft into your comparison. Depending exactly on the block or model, F-16 bl60+/F-18E costs are around $70-$80 million, while the Rafale costs ~$110 million and the Typhoon costs a bit more than that. And these are all fourth generation aircraft with far fewer sensors, less powerful sensors, and little (or no) sensor fusion.
How big do you think the instruction manual is?
With regards to the radar used in the Battle of Britain. As it was so new, and primitive. In what ways did it benefit the allied pilots? Since the pilots did not have a direct feed to the radar data? I imagine it like having broadband before computers..
What a waste of money. All that spent on stealth knowing in was ineffective. A lie to the U.S. citizen and tax payer. It obviously to anyone paying attention that each service would have been better served by a dedicated aircraft. And now stealth is worthless.
Many people misunderstand stealth and what the F35 was designed for. The F35 will come into its own when the right situation arises much like the B2 did for a decade or so before being used in the Bosnian war to great effect. The A10 and the Apache were all panned for years until the right conflict proved their worth.
Patriotic propaganda ads are the best ads
Isn't that price normal for fighters? Also, this is a value judgement, engineering can't answer that
Can a gyroscope be used to balance an aircraft without the use of wings and flaps
humankind sounds so stupid, it is OK to say mankind.
With the rise of drones this plane probably won’t be as important you’d think.
*BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT* I'm gonna miss that damn sob
13:30 Annoying background music. Did not finish.
The F-35 is useless with out the combat weapons system, Just like Donald Trump, Everything with a little bit of British in side it, is always Great ;-)
I'm surprised how cheap this really is. A small paved road project is more expensive here in seattle. What do people want a dollar store jet?
It doesn’t even have airbags.
1st ) The F-35 is a ( UK - US ) designed and built Jet NOT just US. 2nd ) The F-35B is not worthy of the Harrier the Harrier is a 70 - 80's jet the F-35B is a 90 - 19's jet so 20 years between them if the Harrier was built today it would be a lot better then the F-35B. 3rd ) The US needed the UK to help with all 3 types A / B / C of the F-35 like BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce. 4th ) The F-22 is not the best jet in the Sky's that title goes to the Eurofighter. 5th ) The F-35 like the F-22 is not the best the ( UK - US / F-22 ) Its fast and good turn rate but not the best ( UK - US / F-35 A B C ) yes can do a lot of stuff but not great at one ( UK - Germany / Eurofighter ) Its faster then both better turn rate then both flys higher then both better dive/cilmb rate then both and can do all what the F-35 and F-22 can do plus more the only thing the Eurofighter cant do is take off vertical.
Most american planes are incredebly ineffective, and now they make this useless gloryfied toy costing 115 mil. When you can get a slightly worse performing aircraft for 4-5 million
"nothing is undetectable" why cant we find MH370?
The F-35 is useless, old radars can detect all "stealth" planes, no matter if it's escorted
but can a fighter wing detect, pinpoint, and engage before it's already destroyed them?
It is worth 115 million or more only for the IMBECILES who are gallable enough to believe this crap is the only one state of the art tech worwide.... For the most intelligent govts and gov's advisors, the better option would be the SU-57..... only the eeuu's cock suckers would by this piece of shit
F 35 junk is the expertise to crash in ocean
Yes it is.
Your segues to Curiousity Stream are always as smooth as an F-35's contours.
just make another plane around a gun and have the same brrt, then name it A-10 2
jack of all trades master of none.
The answer is no. The stealth has already been rendered useless. And without stealth, it is just a "meh" plane.
Would like to see a comparison of other modern fighters of this era to see if the value makes sense. (Typhoon, etc)
I feel like this plane is a true life representation of the stuff that went on in The Pentagon Wars movie... "We want a troop carrier... with a turret, and port holes, and speed, and a heavy machine gun, and armor, and ammo carrying capabilities, and a few missiles" "That sounds like a tank..."
A large portion of the cost is campaign contributions. Bribery is so common with congress that nothing gets done without it. Want to fight climate change? How much cash you got? Ditto with infrastructure. Why do you think the USA leads the world in mass shootings and school massacres? Campaign cash. Dead school kids don't give bribes, gun companies do.
It’s not the most expensive weapon at all. The B-2 costs 2.1 billion each.
jaqs smith okay but that’s the project cost not the unit cost.
the f35 is projected to cost 1.5 trillion over it's service life.
The biggest aviation disaster F-35
F -35 Enter the Market !!! China :- Dayyum ,let me reverse Engg it.
Two things worry me about over reliance on stealth. Firstly, in the arms race between sensors and aircraft, aircraft have a far longer expected time of service, and far longer development cycle. Secondly, a significant portion of the stealth capability goes out the window once you start strapping fuel tanks and munitions to it, meaning for proper stealth it's limited to internal storage. And of course, for the munitions, that means opening hatches and a significant risk of revealing itself whenever opening fire. Good, perhaps even great, odds of getting the first strike, but I'm hesitant if it can handle being outnumbered, which through a combination of hefty price tag, high maintenance costs (and skill requirements), and rumored maintenance man-hours/flight hour seems uncomfortably probable. (Keep in mind with the price tag, in practice it's not so much about cost-per-plane, so much so as cost-per-operational-availability, at which point the f35 looks even worse.) And of course, for offensive missions, getting in undetected and getting out are two entirely different things.
Nah, China made something that is roughly the same outline, that is instantly going to be far better, just ask the Internet.
Stealth = Highly compromised vehicle. Giving up aerodynamics. Maneuverability, payload and range. Is also not actually stealth capable due to it only being invisible at certain carrier wave angles....it's a fucking disaster.
Did the project really inject money into the economy, or did the government borrow that money?
I would of just went with the gripin e
I thought the F-22 development was more expensive.
A10,s are staying till 30,s This shit is old shit typical limey.
Whenever I hear "cost saving measure" I know it's gonna be trash
First off, the F-35 was NEVER intended or designed as an "Air Superiority" aircraft (do some research, don't rely on false/BS reporting). It's a "Ground Attack" aircraft, thus a replacement for the A-10, Harrier, and F-16 in it's ground attack mode/variants.This is why the US Air Force has, and maintains the F-22, and the US Navy the F/A-18. The F-35 replaces neither of these aircraft.
Find people who aren't biased. Who gives a fuck what someone who works on it is gonna say. They aren't allowed to say it's shit. The one person who isn't in the program said it was shit.
Wonder how long before china can make the fake cheaper one.
You did not talk much about what maybe is most important in a modern fighter aircraft: Electronic Warfare. I'm sure the F-35 has lot's of it built in, most of it classified and not common knowledge. Also, EW systems needs constant upgrades. With old EW tech (5-10 years) you will not stand a chance, no matter how good your fighter aircraft is. Listen to SAAB.
Just another example of how the Government robs the taxpayers while they let the poor sleep in the streets .
Well done
This one is just full of garbage that could have come straight from Lockheed Martin PR. Tells about advantages without informing that those "advantages" still don't work. Example: the "great sensors that would make even an unarmed F-35 an asset" are actually blocked from being able to send information to US networks because as one person responsible for these network put it, "F-35 acts like a virus infected machine on the network, filling it with false information such as non-existent targets". His other claims are equally odd. He for example states the long debunked claim by stealth proponents that Serbia used "long wavelength radar" to detect and shoot down F-117. Except that it didn't. We know this because the commander of the unit responsible for this event, as well as one F-16 shot down among other things has written and been interviewed about this event. They didn't actually use any non-standard radar. They simply survived long enough to learn appropriate tactics, first on how to survive US anti-AA tactics, and then how to successfully engage, be a real threat and finally shoot down US aircraft bombing Serbian targets in their area of responsibility. And that shoot down event was all tactics. This is one of those cases where this is just a garbage story full of a mix of Lockheed Martin PR efforts and just plain "I have no idea, so I'll just let the first google link to tell me how it is". Which is why you won't find a single link that wasn't a part of the billion-grade Lockheed Martin PR campaign they announced to their shareholders when first massive negative news about supposedly "almost ready" F-35 hit the press back in early 2010s. If you really want to know how badly F-35 is performing, about the only reliable source that isn't under strict PR lockdown by Lockheed Martin's massive PR efforts since then is Government Accountability Office annual reports on the program (and a handful of leaks that pierced the PR campaign). And they have been scathing. Lockheed Martin's solution to most of the problems being found in testing have been to literally cross it over and state "this isn't that important of a problem". Because they simply have so many problems with the aircraft, they don't have time or manpower to solve most of them. Which is how we got various variants of F-35 declared "combat ready" years ago. Remember those events? The A variant that couldn't fire its gun because its stealthy gunport had to open and would increase drag so much on the side that aircraft would be immediately pulled off target before the gun could be fired? All variants that literally were blocked from sending any data to network while "combat ready" because from network's perspective they were a virus that destroyed integrity of the network with massive amount of false targets they would feed into it should they be allowed to? The supposed air superiority aircraft that could not sustain it's maximum speed for interception of the target beyond about 10 minutes, because its internal weapon's bays got hot enough to cook off its own missiles? Just to name a few out of literally hundreds flaws mentioned in GAO reports over the years AFTER these aircraft were declared "combat ready" under massive pressure from Lockheed Martin so they could increase production volume, and hence, profits. And those earliest "combat ready" versions that are so massively flawed that they will likely never seen any actual combat beyond the "protect the king at all costs so we can pretend it had a combat sortie"? That Lockheed Martin promised when they were declared as such that they will be "updated to latest standard when it is done"? They'll never be updated to purportedly coming "really guys, this one will be combat ready, we promise" version that is still in the development according to the latest information. Just another one of those promises Lockheed Martin PR campaign made to get money that will never be kept. This one deserves to be on the wall of shame for Wendover. Write about things you know, not about things you have barely any cursory knowledge about, that are just massively saturated by a billion-grade now almost a decade-old PR campaign. Because you'll need to put months of work in if you actually want to figure out what's actually going on with program, rather than just cite all of the PR, because that is what's going to be search engine optimized.
If I had $85 million I could retire my whole family and invest a huge chunk of it for the long term.
Knowing that even poland is buying some, they managed to get allies with shallow pockets to buy them.
Designing this to bomb 3rd world countries... What a waste of money.
This needed to be done for NATO. China and Russia have been making huge astronomical gains by weponizing their military defense mechanisms and 5th generation air superiority fighters. Let's just hope that nobody opens their mouth and divulge classified information...
The better question to ask is, how soon it's gonna be obsolete?
Dodge that quantum radar MACH 5 missile F35!
Simple answer is no Its over budget Wriddled with flaws And Germany have tracked it on their new radars from 100 miles out.... and that was the f35as version So it's a stealth fighter that is no longer stealth And before all the armchair pilots pipe up . Germany's newest radar tracks electromagnetic emissions in the atmosphere. Meaning that no matter what happens to this plane it will never be stealth. Nor will anything else above germany . Simply stating germany here as they were the first to use this type of radar, I'm sure other countries will follow suit So all in all it's a stealth fighter that has lost the element of stealth .
The $115 million figure does not include the engine cost. The engine for the B is over $30 million.
@James Monahan sorry but the only thing I can find is "For the eleventh consecutive year, the cost of an F-35A was lowered. The F-35A unit price including aircraft, engine and fee, is $89.2 million." As for Pentagon, or countries like Poland buying engines separately, you do need some in storage. The fact that it can doesn't mean it has to. How do you think plane communicated with the ground in test flights?
@Admiral Firespammer The F-35 also uses an uplink to a satellite to communicate with anything (including link 16). so i'll add "satellite not included".
@Admiral Firespammer AW&ST Magazine
Source?
I hope not...1 jet could have helped 115 families for life. (unless they are bad at managing money) Making about 20k or less per year...I wonder wtf people with 500k+ do with that money? I just read books and play cheap games off steam for entertainment. I don't go out much. I live in an apartment with roaches, rats, mold and bedbugs...I don't have a family and starve from time to time...I have insurance...but...I am about to let it go.. the deductible is too high and I get better deals when I say I don't have insurance.
The A-10 Wart Hog is my favorite plane ever. Can get part of its wing blown off and is still able to fly. It will be sad to see it go.
Nice plug at the end
12:35 Well of course he has good things to say. He is being PAID by his employer!!!
No.
"Short of physically not existing, everything is detectable'. Lmao
this STILL cant beat a taliban with ak47.
mmm war and killing,no matter what we humans achieve,we simply cant leave the need for killing!
But does it go BRRRRRRT? Didn't think so
at least those jet were make in the USA
Quantum Radar - the next generation radar system which can detect and scan in so much details passively without been detected, and shoot SAM at F-35. So much money been spend, at the end there is no added advantage.
One plane won’t replace all of them. U can’t replace the f22 air combat with the f35. Ever.
My goodness that was a long-winded lecture. I realise that you get payed by the minute watched, but it's coming to a point where I'm not going to watch the whole video anymore, and there is a significant inhibition on my side to even start watching.
lol fuck no
Why is this channel Telling the SECRET to the World?!!!! WTF!!! China will Copy this Shit!!!!
115 million US$, used to bomb old Toyota trucks
15:35 he or she?
Not necessarily hating on the video except for one thing, you did claim that the version of f-35 that lost simulation against other aircraft, but any pilot would agree, the f-35 is an engineering marvel when it comes to electronic warfare. not only with the aircrafts numerous external peripherals bit also like you said, the airframe helps in this area a lot, obviously banking at an angle that's directly perpendicular to a radar will always give away its location, non the less its almost perfect and supersedes any other aircraft in terms of low observability. I am not at liberty to give to much information about the recent joint military exercise "Operation Talisman Sabre" because no information about simulated dogfights during this operation has been disclosed, however i can tell you that there were numerous aircraft across the board, including other 5th generation aircraft and 4th generation as well, and simply to put it, blew them out of the water.
21:57 Source: The entire Irish Air Corps . I'm dying
I have a lego plane that does that and it only cost 80bucks
Please ditch the music.
Those prices makes me understand the sucess of sails the Embraer A 29 is reaching. *A 29 is a light attack/patrol aircraft, is not a fighter or a bomber.
A 29 is for counter insurgency (COIN)
Nah the USAF is keepin the Warthog
F35+F22 = SU57
it is generally a better idea to give away budget on spreading out jobs not save on one fighter but have to give away initial claims. use your brain, it is a good thing - dont forget to use it
Wow it's a jack of all trades... master of? Well one plane fits all .. should reduce the development costs and gain economies of scale in production.. right? crickets
Wrong numbers. For the max take of weight the B has only 27.216 kg, not 31,800 kg. Thats for the other two variants and even that is 49 kg to much. And most of the weapons can't placed internal so byebye stealth. Also just the A has a Gun. Same mistake mad by the F4 Phantom. So tries do do everything and can do nothing good, but with all the costs.
Isn't the Eurofighter 100+ mil as well?
15:00 those greasy thumbs on his visors make me cringe so hard
“Jack of all trades, master of... all of them” Riiight
NO Master of NON
Comic Book Guy Except cost
The t-35 may use its complex curves to avoid detection. I however use my complex curves to be detected
Heard that the F-35 can be "easily" spotted with passive radar.
Not if you turn off your transponder
Is it worth it? If it does what it is supposed to and keeps comming back the entire war it is fighting, than yes. If it doesn´t come back, the pile of burned metal it leaves on the ground definitely isn´t. Most of the missions the strike fighter will do, is ground attack on protected targets. Stelth is indispensable as any shell or rocked for a 1000 $ will bring the F- 35 down. Unfortunately a new kind of passive radar was able to track an F- 35 all the way to and from Berlin Air show by just plotting the electromagnetic sources all around the place. They describe the tracking of the F- 35 as looking for a black cat in a dark garden. You just have to look for the darkest spot moving, for a black hole within the relative darkness. The same problem was met by IX-529 Sea Shaddow back in the 1990´ ies. It could be seen on any conventional radar system as a black hole in the water because at it´s place there were no wave echos. So any hostile nation that get´s hands on clever computing technology will be able to achieve what Serbia did back in 1999 when they shot down an F- 117A. In the next war the F- 35 will not meet fighters designed in the 1970´ies but those designed in the 2000nds, like the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Dassault Rafale, and the Saab 39 Gripen which have already proven to shoot down F- 35s (with ground and airborne radar support) at a 1:2 ratio. In WWII Germany never was short of competetive aircraft, but short of fuel to operate them and, during the last year, even short of capable pilots to operate them successfully. The F- 35 will find its limits, too. (money, pilots, aircraft, spare parts, ... )
What a incredibly stupid title,, The very simple answer is of course not, II can buy a ton of lemons for about $2000,00 a deal at twice the price
A-10.... Air Superiority... comon man...
As per usual, you're saying a lot of stuff that is right. Unlike normal you're also saying a lot of stuff that is, as far as I know isn't right or isn't completely right. I thought I could look past it earlier in the video, but it keeps pulling me out of the experience. I only made it about half way through before I had to stop. There is so much information out there that has been interpreted and reinterpreted over and over again, resulting in reports about the plane and what it could do being often inaccurate. I've seen it happen with myself, I've seen it happen with some of my best airplane geek friends. This plane is still a mess though, make no mistake.
There are a multitude of other issues with the F-35 that are not known to the general public that limit its effectiveness as replacements for the multiple airframes listed throughout the video. The biggest of which that is public is the installation of the gun.
Boeing x 32 looks like a water Toad. The enemy will die of laughter than from scare!
there's a $100mil surcharge to EU member states for imperial to metric conversion.
This video sounds like a commercial. Even their own project info showed a clusterfuck of problems.
How come they lost from f16's ?? Lol
At least this wonder can take off and land
A quite interesting movie was actually made named something like ''Pentagon Wars '' or ''Bradley '' ! And Lockheed Martin could setup a manufacturing/outsourced unit in Cambodia or Ghana ,......the aircraft will barely going to cost around 5 million per unit ! Costly but much cheaper than the one made in USA !
@dosmastrify...If one isn't familiar with the abundant information sources on the F35, then yes, it would be good. That said, all information presented here is simply plagiarized, word for word, including all video, from others work. Unique is not the word I'd choose
Thom van Dijk pure roundness actually scatters radar waves favorably. The f35 combines planes to deflect waves away from the radar, with some unevenness to scatter/weaken the waves. This is why stealth fights have these crimped sides on them, along with favoring using chines.
$115 Million jet to be destroyed by s-300 under $1 million per missile?!
You lost me with politics goodbye
Hopefully, we use this as an example of "What not to do when building a new fighter jet".
The only thing that shouldn't be done is treating it like a jobs program. Everything else was correct.
history of "humankind" ?! Are you a from Canada? :D
A drone is waaaaaay cheaper. And will shoot all those things down.
What a mess. As a professional engineer, I can imagine that the level of job satisfaction must be dismal. At least it provides lots of jobs for the yankee doodle dandies
I often see the F35 as a tie fighter. flashy but worthless in real combat. if you make a jack of all trades with modern military equipment you are making a shit at everything machine.
Failed...get over it retarde
It's pronounced Marine "Core"
I hesitate to watch your vids because of your titles. I hate titles that pose a question and don't even attempt to answer the question. Also when you compaired the thrust of the f35 v harrier, the masses of the planes would have been great to see there in stead of only appearing a minute later
HOW MUCH MONEY DID LOCKHEED MARTIN PAY YOU TO MAKE THIS VIDEO???
27years to produce unusable piece of shit....interesting .
It looks fat
*I AM NOT SCARED OF THE 1000 MOVES YOU HAVE PRACTICED 1 TIME . BUT AM AFRAID OF THE 1 MOVE YOU HAVE PRACTICED 1000 TIMES*
No it's not worth it. Beautiful electronics wrapped around a mediocre aircraft.
_cough_ I doubt the F-35 is ever going to replace the full capabilities of the A-10.
Did he just say the ah10 was an air superiority fighter?
One bit of clarification or, rather, context for the layperson: Radar does exactly this, sending out signals and listening for a response. However, this is not like Sonar or listening for an echo in a canyon. Radio waves are a form of light and travel, unsurprisingly, at the _speed of light_ . Radar pulses and listens extremely fast. The image of the slowly-rotating radar dish is really a thing of the past when it comes to military radars. Radar is much more like shining a laser at something.
I´ve read that the F-35 has already been detected by some german, indirect radar system. I am not an engineer at all tbh, so correct me if you know it better than me
Many issues with facts in here. Latest cost of an F-35a is $90 million and dropping as is the cost of the B and C models. The JSF program might be 27 years old but the F-35 is not and is significantly redesigned from the X-35. What was said in the report about the F-35 and the F16 5 or so years ago was not that it lost a dogfight with an F-16 but that in the prototype state it was in that it could not match the F-16 in certain envelopes of flight at that time. If you look at some of the manouvres being done by the F-35 demo team you would know this argument is no longer the case. The F-35 is not meant to be a replacement for the F-15. The F-15's replacement was supposed to be the F-22.
At an altitude F35 can develop attitude
let's hope that the coating is not the same as the f-22, the plain is high quality but already detectable slow etc, so to expensive. A 50 million 5th generation or 4++ plane does the same or even better.
In one book a I read (it was sci -fi) that USA start selling masivly military grade guns/planes etc. And at time of war when one nation tried to invade USA they dissable all thei weapons and shut down all planes etc. Cuz they secretly put "extra" stuff in it just in case something like that. I dont wanna go full conspiracy theory on this, but its kinda common sance... when you sell your best toys to allie in this time, how you can be so sure about it in 5-10 years. You would probably put some back doors in it.
WTF is that gal doing with these cables at 2:03?
Of course NOT . Military expenditure is simply a way to Steal a Countries Wealth from the People
Euro Fighter Typhoon >F35 but the F22 is the GOAT
I would be asking for a 3D nozzle if I was buying them. It makes the Russian a/c very manurable. Pratt and Whitney has them developed in the 1980's for the F-16 and F-15 but wasn't actioned.
Wow if there're F22s still in production and commission, how much will that worth??!!
This "furtive" technology has never really been tested against real player. I would like to see one of those planes go trough an air space defended by French, German or British systems. Of course it can pass the Russian systems, how many companies of high tech has Russia or Serbia?.
Answer = no this disaster ain't worth shit
Yes!
F-35A is less then $90 million
F35 stand no chance against the MiG or the Sukhoi especially in a dog fight.
All it takes is one S-400 AAA Missile to bring it down.
not realy because stelth dosent mean invisible like in harry poter books or movies
The helmet is so heavy it can break your neck If the plane sits on the tarmac for more than 10 mins it overheats The pilots to sing its praises are on Lockheed payroll and NOT independent military pilots On the inside, the F35 is better know as 'the little turd'
us gave its stealth...know tht it spent billion of dollars behind research of stealth..i wud give them anything fr "stealth".
should have just made f22 lite, use the existing airframe, improve the equipment and software
a hundred million dollars against multiple lives....money shudnt evn been talked here
drone craft instead or?
27 years. That's as long as I have been alive!
Truely first class... The editing the background music... Just perfect
Seamless bridge to curiousity stream :D
And thus the serbians wrote the song "Nismo znali da je nevidljivi F117 a - We did not know stealth F117A is Invisible"
Lockheed Martin and the USA owes Australia for this massive rip-off that is the F35. There is no doubt in any sensible mind that American politicians and corporate scum have wasted and embezzled billions of hard-earned Australian dollars to eventually complete this farce of a plane. Fuck you America, we follow you into Vietnam and Iraq and this is how you repay us. We deserve half-price and priority delivery of your overpriced piece-of-shit plane. BTW: Russia were willing to sell us the export version of the SU-35, we should have taken that offer. Better plane than anything USA ever made. Ever.
Let’s build a common plane that has no common parts. We will save money, they said. Lmao
As its striking your mud hut village just look in the sky and think what a excessive cost and force that's if you survive the initial strike.
Awesome video, but.... most expensive weapon's system? You might want to look into submarines... $100 million? Try $100 billion...
17:45 Get out of here STALKER
Is the loitering time still an issue? I read that the F35's loiter capability was only two hours compared to the Warthog's five, making it greatly inferior for close air support of troops on the ground.
Had Congress decided to get an additional 70 F22’s Lockheed had sold them for 72.000.000 USD a piece... so NO the F35 is not worth 85 millions per plane, it should be around 65 millions. But that would require that every nation bought twice as many. So we are stuck with the elevated price tag.
To receive a proper return on investment you need to kill 5,000 to 10,000 enemies
What engerneering ? This whole video is opinion. I can't watch AmDocs.
No aux input or wi fi, crap
Someone get the narrator his Lucky Charms...
The A-10 Warthog will always be my favourite.
Trump will have it down to 2.5 million in three tweets....
the program probably costs equalling a small country's total gdp..the kind of country US would use this technology against
Russia and China have left the chat. Just kidding comrades, calm down. Cheers!
Now the russia and china can copy it. Thank you, pal XD
Nice.
27 years innovation. Sell one of these to allies of china and within a year china releases a copy of F-35 and sells them for 1/4th of the cost that the USA is selling
dude.., why is center of pressure is not always a convenient concept in aerodynamic ??
Boeing X-32 looked like a water Toad being horny.
15:50 — those two twilight shots are aviation porn to me
The F-117 in Serbia was shot down by anti-aircraft guns not by missiles. A lot of guns being used to saturate an area.
Thanks for the video, I'll take six!
OK, how much did LockMart pay you to make this video. The F-35 can NEVER replace the A-10, it is absurd. There are other errors, but after a howler like that, is there any point in listing them?
This is great and entertaining 101 video but it has some flaws that may be overstating the capabilities of the F-35. I'll summarize them: 1) The plane is extremely digital and computational. 10 years ago, you couldn't even see any pictures of inside the cockpit but I heard that it was all flatscreen/touchscreen maybe. From the shots you showed, this is the case. This means though, that when/if the electronic systems are down due to hits. How does the pilot operate the plane? Can they land safely? You can smack talk pilots being stuck in "old mode" about acquiring targets, and how air to air combat is conducted, but in an actual war, you will take hits. You don't want to be flying in a glass bird that can't land because it took a few stray rounds. 3rd-5th generation aircraft are capable of landing after taking hits, this one probably can't. 2) You talk a lot about the advancements of technology in developing the stealth surfaces and coating for the plane, but have you considered what the same computational advances mean for detecting stealth aircraft as well? I'd say it's much easier to detect a large bird flying somewhere in the ballpark of 200-900mph than it is to hide it. Nothing else in a war atmosphere will be that size (radar cross section) and moving that fast in the sky. I'm sure when dealing with enemies that haven't made radar advancements since 4th gen, perhaps you could be near undetectable BVR but I doubt even a 5th generation plane would be totally caught off guard if given modern radar modules and equipment. 3) Honestly, this plane simply does not replace all missions of all other aircraft. F-15E is still one of the most capable planes that can strike ground targets while still capable of defending itself. A-10C is still the best close air support (CAS) plane for ground fighters against heavily armored ground targets. On the latter, while the F-35 may be able to enter a space undetected and deliver payload to a specific target, if supporting ground forces in an active battle, once that first flyover, it's detected and basic IR guided missiles from the ground can pick it out of the sky just like any other aircraft. In the absence of anti-air, can it carry as much payload? Delivery it as quickly with repeated passes(loiter)? 4) Consider the politics of the JSF. It feeds into the military industrial complex of the U.S. You mention how much of a boon this will be for the economy - this is a lie. The cost and development of this jet (billions) could easily pay for so much more to boost the economy of more than just working families of the major defense contractors and subcontractors on this project. But the executives at those contractors want those dollars so they will sell this plane to the US govt and justify it's existence at any cost, while being paid for with US taxpayer dollars, and the profits of sales to other countries will go to only the executives of said companies rather than their workers. I should note for other viewers: CuriosityStream seems to be a conservative source of information. Based in some in some science, reporting, and fact, it pushes a conservative agenda overall. I like military planes because I've always thought they were cool and I've spent a lot of my life studying them, flight simming them, etc well before I had progressive views on war and industry. I can still appreciate a war machine, but since 4th gen, the U.S. hasn't really made an airplane platform with a mission focus and simplicity and effectiveness in mind -- and to be honest, maybe it doesn't need to.
I think it would be wiser to create many cheap, niche platforms than one expensive, multipurpose one. I would rather have a fork and a spoon rather than a spork. Do one thing well, not 2 things badly.
I especially dislike the idea of replacing the A10 with this. I want something specialized for ground attack. Replace the a10 with something cheap, but like an a10. Something with high capacity for weapons and can fly low beneath the hills and slow.
So when can we expect to have flying aircraft carriers for drones like those in Ace Combat games?
f35 never replaces the a10
Is crAk worth $50 a point
Waste of time (24 minutes to be exact)
without forgetting that one F-35 was humiliated by Syrian air defense officers who fired an S-200 missile on it over Lebanon on October 16, 2018, so her future ended before it began.
I had my doubts,...but you sold me
A F-35 stealth fighter crashed in the Pacific Ocean during a training mission on Tuesday, Japan's Defense Ministry said amid fears that the accident was caused by technical defects.
Nope.
Imagine spending $115 million on a plane the Bruce Willis can take out single-handedly on a bridge...
you can never take away my a-10
Does most the world actually care about america
Are most of americas military service personnel just dumb as fuck, homeless or clueless
Why haven't you done it yet lol
How hard is to kill a stupid a american president
Are there hookers in sandy hook
Are american kids worth jack shit
Is radioactive material easily to put into american water reticulation systems
Is ebola easy to spread in american cities
Lift fan is a Russian design ✅
0:37 “history of humankind”. Lol. Okay Trudeau
No way cheaper.
Also, I feel like there was no way to "not cover the politics" in this, because the argument that all the money going back into the american economy is just inherently an argument for the overblown american military industrial complex. The biggest question is - do we NEED something like the F35? did we NEED the 117? We spend more than the next ten nations combined, all to be ready to fight an imaginary war that hasn't happened in getting closer and closer to a century. All the while, we're neglecting our infrastructure, educational system, healthcare and wages. Essentially arguing that the F35's "being better than it could have been" is like saying "well, I bought meth instead of groceries, but at least I didn't just burn the money!" So no, the F35 wasn't worth it. injecting those billions and billions of dollars into american infrastructure and healthcare would have been a far better use.
A TON OF MONEY FOR A BABY KILLING MACHINE !
The F-35 cannot replace the A-10 for its close air support role, its super expensive, doesn't carry the same cannon, and doesn't have the same survivability as a A-10 with its mechanical redundancy and the titanium tub. For other roles, possibly a perfect plane, but its foolish to throw such a expensive plane into a role that would most likely see its damage and failure.
Is The F-35 Worth $115 Million? No. In absolutely now way is it worth $115 million.
Union and lucrative contracts drive up the costs for the taxpayer.
A lot will still change https://youtu.be/Qvso4oZMMqY
I disagree completely with your argument that the F35 is a "worthy" successor to the A-10. Close air support is not something the F35 is going to be able to provide in the same sort of way that the A-10 has. Every time they try to "retire" the A-10, the massive outcry to keep it flying brings it right back, because it's brutally tough, relatively inexpensive, extremely maneuverable at low speeds with extended loiter times, able to lay absolute waste to the landscape with combined arms fire (the GAU-8 can suppress in a way that nothing else short of a spooky can) and since it flies so low and heavy, works as a ground level morale booster for friendly troops and demoralizer for enemies, all on its own, by its mere presence on a battlefield The F35 can definitely support it, but I highly doubt it will supplant the most nightmarish close air support aircraft ever invented. It's just like the idea that kept coming up in the 60's that fighters just didn't need cannons anymore, that dogfighting was dead, and aerial combat would happen at tremendous standoff ranges. It just didn't happen. Fighters are still going to get in close when the need arises, and the A-10 serves a very niche, specific role that nothing else has come close to yet. The most likely plane to replace the A-10 will probably be a turboprop powered, cheaper, lighter weight close air strike fighter. What we need is something even cheaper, lighter, and better able to deal with asymmetrical combat scenarios in a way that laser guided weaponry just can't.
gotta say though, the VTOL layout looks kinda like yak 38 and yak 141
CANADA cancelled their order.
Of course the hired"in house"chief pilote,will give a positive report on this plane,we all know that the F35 is a difficult plane to trust,many flaws,just like the F22(that cannot be fixed)(Major O2 problems,with the"raptor"above a certain altitude,no "fight"without a tanker close by/What fight...???)...).....Long life to the A10/F15/F16/F18.....!!!!....
ACT governing resumption of work Supreme Court of the USSR
@Arthur Inglis RAM is never blanket countered. Its just 'reduced'. At current, fhe F-35 and F-22 can fly up to 20 miles to a S300 site and not be picked up. In 10 years inhancements to conputer aided resolution of the return signals may boost that radious to 40 miles. In either case, the stealth is never negated, just reduced in effectiveness. But note how its still effective regardless. At cruising altitudes of 35 thousand feet, one can hit targets with free fall bombs using guidance packages from 70 miles out, so even if detection ranges literally double their effectiveness, the Stealth of the F35 still wins out when used effectively.
Something to note is that Boeings entry in the JSF program focused zo heavily on cost reduction that they failes to address performance and kinematics effectively. The VTOL capable demo for example coult not perform a vertical take off during its demo showing without the aircraft literally having pieces removed before flight to lower its weight, including the entire Intale Cowling lip. The 'Guppy' was visually even to onlookers, overwieght. The Lockheed entry flew its vertical take off demo without any such modifications. Boeings choice to focus heavily on cost of production put the performance of the aircrafr second and the DoD pickes the F35 for its performance. On top of this, Boeings attempt at attacking frabrication costs probably would have failed anyway. The entire wing section of the X-32 was a single piece composite structure. It was the largest of its type and very ambitious. However, the issues of ever getting such a large complex mono-piece to exit and the autoclave without any major defects was neight impossible and in the end, the failed. However those lessons learned did contribute to the 787 dreamliner, which uses the largest autoclaves in the world at Charelston SC. The F35 of courses uses composites as well and while it never uses such large mono-pieces that the X32 did, the autoclaces for the F35 are the 2nd largest, being only 2 inches or so less than Boeings SC plants. Both planes really pushed carbon fiber and composite airframes into the modern life, thats for sure.
The MacDonald's of "fighter" planes. You are clueless. The internal fan design is updated Yak-36/37 concept. "Stealth" was invented in the USSR too. This fancy pile of junk is worth no more than 500k in materials and assembly. It is also single engine, so this tells you right off the bat what it's intended purpose is - to stay as far from the action as possible, namely - docked. It does not replace the F-16, A-10 nor the Harrier in any sensible way.
One word not worth it. It was late into production by at least 10 years.
12:08 - "Missing software..." Irrelevant point. Dogfights happen, and will happen even in stealth/low observable aircraft. Your software and sensors and radar and IRST can't see through a mountain or ravine or a valley of earth. Pilots routinely fly in these to avoid detection. 12:13 - "Missing radar absorbing paint..." That's... not a positive. Paint on aircraft, especially RAM coatings, put on hundreds of extra pounds of weight on the aircraft and affect performance negatively (albeit slightly). Also, IR seekers don't care if you're invisible to radar, your hind end is emitting thermal radiation like its going out of style. 12:21 - "But these other pilots like the plane..." 1.) Not an argument. 2.) And as we see in the case of F-22 pilots that whistleblew about the oxygen generator issues ("Raptor Lung") on the aircraft, talking ill of multi-billion dollar weapon systems is a sure-fire way to prematurely end your career. And isn't it interesting when it's not someone who is connected with Lockheed, nor in a high position that starts involving politics as well in the military (like a Major overseeing integration of a mult-billion dollar weapon systems would be), and doesn't have the not-as-proverbial-as-you'd-like job on the line that they start quietly expressing concern. The fact that Lockheed is dirty as hell and has been involved in multiple bribes, corrupt business dealings and outright illegal activities (see the Lockheed F-104 deal with Germany, for a major example)... Forgive me if I don't trust a single word coming out of their mouth. Especially when we have a mountain of evidence showing the shortcomings of the airframe and the entire point of us having this program was to "save money" and we're doing anything but that.
Now start Real Politics for stuff like the politics of this jet please
Real Engineering Geico insures the military China insures large properties and building projects(Miami newyork downtowns everywhere)
BUT IT HAS NO CHANCE AGAINST THE SU-57, BREAKING: Russia’s New Stealth Drone Performs 1st Joint Flight With Su-57 Fifth-Generation Plane Sep 27, 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7G4sjpkO1M
There is NO "short coming" is dog fighting skills... that is bullshit. BAD VIDEO...
This peice of Junk s now being manufactured in Israel as well, yep Israel that wonderful Nation that has already sold secret US fighter jet engine vectoring technology to both Russia and China, not to mention shit load more their supposed allies secret Tech LMFAO
Fake news out of the gate. F35 is now ramping up production and cost is around 85 million each and will go down even more. Keep in mind that the F15 cost is around 100 million each.
F-35 is shit...!!! Just say it...
So its a high tech flying brick. Sucks at dogfighting but can snipe other aircraft out of the air. I guess that makes up for the crappy dogfight capability
"but ALL of its allies" what allies. We've alienated ALL of them.
Our eyes are always looking at you America. Cheers from the Balkans :)
Isn’t this the plane from gta sanandreas?
Ofcourse the US pilots sings its praises its a 1.5trillon weapon system the pilots woulnt be pilots for long if they didnt like it. The F-35 disaster it what happens when goverment and corporation merger in a corrupt system designed to steal as much money from the US tax payers as they possible can. When a F-35 cockpit screw cost 150 times what a F-16 cockpit screw or a F-35 pilot helmet cost 400 times what a F-16 pilot helmet cost then you have to ask youself wtf. When you look globally at other next gen fighter jets you can also see the price difference. The Russian Sukhoi Su-57 program costed 20 times less and the SU-57 fighter is pretty much better in all aspect becuase there designers didnt had to put 3 planes into one. We can only hope US and EU never gets to war with Russia because our entire F-35 fleet is going to be exposed as an expensive paper tiger. The only use we can get out of the F-35 is to bomb middleeast countries with old anti air systems but we seem to be running out of those.
The real question is, is it better than 3 Sukhoi Su-57 or 6 F16s?
12:21 "Like U.S. Marine Corpse..." oof
No, no its not.... Hugely profitable by 10 times yes it cost 10 million to produce...
The amount of technology that goes into this plane is crazy while India is flying Jets from 1960 and getting owned by a country Pakistan of quarter of it size.
and Russia (and China always rely on Russia stealth technology). The US literally just sell the planes to themselves.
The monument of american corruption.
An absurd and complete waste of an airplane ...no one want's it! It is truly amazing to see how Ignorance prevailed over Technical knowledge. This airplane is the worst airplane flying on any army today. The concept is such a stupid design idea that it must have been rejected by any decent engineer as a total idiocy. Of course money speaks louder and there it is, a monumental failure of design. Imagine someone going to Yamaha and saying : look, I want a motorbike chassis and engine that will be used in multiple Racing conditions, and the races are going to be : 1 - Offroad Cross and stunt jumps 2 - MotoGP 3- Trial Oh and also ... 4 - And everyday use on road trips. go on ..make that Single bike! I bet engineers would laugh in disbelieve ... but that was approved by USA politicians to support the MIC zionist lobby. Amazing Stupidity!
Definitely not. No one is paying that kind of money. Australia has 100 on order and has taken delivery of the first 20...four years late. The contract price was A$85m each. With the current exchange rate at US$0.67 to the A$, thats US$60m each. In the contract, for every year the deliveries are late, the price goes down by $10m. Its a bargain.
This clip tells you nothing.
How about the f22? I feel like thats a pretty good prize-value plane
I like the ways you explained things, you spent 1/3 of the video to introduce stealth technology. Very nice of you to mentioned the F-117, F-22 and B-2.
who cares. its bought with paper pieces printed by the people buying it lol
Nobody cares. Things cost whatever you pay for them.
BTW, all Marines are on NAVY ships.. The Marines dont have their own ships per se, but ships they are assigned to. MARINE = My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment...
cant match the raptor.
Whoa whoa whoa, America isn’t the only country to blame for inflating prices of military equipment to get funding
We definitely can't dedect planets billions of light years away, at that distance, even Galaxies are just a blurred blob.
A piece of junk. Try our hypersonic DF-17 and DF-41 express. Delivery to anywhere in the US in 30 minutes or less, or your money back.
F-35 is developed from soviet Yak-141. Nothing more that tuned up version of a 40 years old concept.
F-35 is the evidence of US dumb decisions. No one is going to buy a "stealth" plane on peacetime like this. Most nations buy planes just to support the ground units, not to mention that most of the cases we are fighting terrorists that have right next to none advanced-armaments. The only one who needs "stealth" planes the most are the US, China, and Russia (and China always rely on Russia stealth technology). The US literally just sell the planes to themselves.
This is why ladies and gentlemen, we always going to have war. It's an insanely good business for some.
the price of a F-35A is 89,2 millions which is 0,8 millions less than the Eurofighter Typhoon with a 90millions price tag while not being stealth, having the same thrust (60kN x2 vs 120kN x1) and a worse avionic and maneuvrability at full load because of higher drag due to wing mount compared to the internal weapon bay and even at full bomb load under wings the F-35 have a smaller RCS than an empty F-16 no other plane in the world can do what the F-35 does... in some areas it's better than F-22 aswell of course in some other areas it's worse than many other planes but the future is stealth because those who have the first look have the chance to down the enemy first... you cant be downed if you cant be detected and even when detected you need a lock on with a system accurate enough to provide guidance to a missile and low frequencies radars dont allow that.
Re the big comparison between the capabilities and difficulties operating the Harrier via the F-35 . I feel there should have been something said about ' the Harrier (though developed) was basically a 1960s aircraft' via a much more modern design (the F-35). Try comparing a 60s car (pre ABS, pre seatbelts, pre ECUs etc [yes these things did exist but where NOT in common use]), with one that is in development, if not in common use, today.
russians will develop better radars in less than 10 years, and f-35 will become the biggest disaster of the american arms industry.
no need for that, google "Vera NG", it's a czeck system for passive radar (!); it can detect both "active" (..use the radio and you're a blip on the screen) and passive signals, like flying into a certain area, the VeraNG can detect changes in the magnetic field - thus detect everything in the airspace. The system is so sensitive, it can use the GPS- and other satelite-signals as background to detect disturbances. conclusion: the "stealth-argument" is almost irrelevant. ...the F35 comes 27 years too late to be of use.
Thank you for a detailed and informative video...but please.......don't replace the A-10!
Fine, I'll take two. Can you park whem on the lawn please?
Soulds like a cool plane but im wondering why we in the Netherlands need this?
In short: NATO. While developped for US AF, USMC, USN, it was also developped for the UK. Since they reduced their orders (even canceled?) for the F35 in favor of the "to be developped" fighter by france, sweden and uk (gosh i can't wait to see a draft of that one, gonna be a hell of a plane!), it was decided to sell it to all NATO-partners (incl. PfP). ...with certain "incentives", to get some sales... So Nato-partners in europe can choose from Typhon OR F35 to not get ...certain disadvantages by the US within NATO. (many countries would do better with Gripen or Rafale than Typhon/F35, but look at the "decission-making" that happenes AFTER they selected one of these; eg. Austria: "Eurofighter-Skandal", Switzerland: "Papierliflüger-Scandal" (Paperplane-scandal, where the same "experts" and organisations advertised against Gripen as in Austria), OR turky (...want a US-plane and being a US-partner? Buy what they say to buy "or else")... Now even Germany thinks about getting the F35, --> while the Typhon they already have actually can do the same tasks (just a little better) than the F35... Conspiracy-theory? Maybe, maybe not; question is "how many singular cases following the same pattern actually confirm the existance of said pattern", right?
@Rhino saur more like the US forced us to buy them to re enforce US power over Europe while we're a small nation that doesnt need such military tech.
Unofrtunately We still need an airforce for defence. The F-16 is becoming obsolete and the F-35 is a great replacement. The biggest drawback is it's cost, which is the result of a bad development phase.
Wait a year and the price will drop to 9.99 when the next model comes out.
...and we obviously did not learn from the Space Shuttle compromises nor with SLS.
Thank you for great source of information about this plane. I appreciate that it has not been made just to gain views and likes. Great Idea with References shown in video! Thanx!
saw one of these at the AUS airshow in Melbourne this feb. what an absolute unit. I love it.
I don't think the F-35 will be able to replace the A10. Not for the purposes it was used for in Afghanistan at least. There simply isn't any better close air support platform than the A10. It carries more ordinance, can stay in the area for longer and is simply a lot tougher than the F35 could ever hope to be.
No
The bull shit from this channel is immense the money is not going back into American economy is going straight and directly to the rich
13:48 Rafale has joined the chat and wants to... Hold on, already knows F35s position.
More like the F-35 was meant to replace the Harrier jump jets and F-18 carrier jets. The other two you named are secondary, even though there is no true replacement for the A-10. So until there is one made, the A-10 won't be gone any time soon. And as for price, it's only worth it for the electronic innovations and stealth coatings. Otherwise it's a pork barrel project that should've been cheapen to death if not cancelled altogether. Plus the Air force cheapening out on this is idiotic, they might as well produce more F-22s instead!
One of the biggest improvements is the standardization of many shared parts between the 3 models. This alone save the lifecycle maintenance costs
The A is the refined one, the B is the cool younger one, and the C is her older sister.
how about manufacturing it in china? Would really make them cheaper.
Troll
Isnt it interesting that the development of the F16 was because the Vietnam war proved that multirole aircrafts designs did not work out ( eg the F4 phantom was a good interceptor but a lousy dogfighter). Therefore the F16 became the dogfighter, the F17 became the F18 naval aircraft) and the F15 the interceptor. It turned out those aircraft became formidable in more or less all field. Now they have designed the F4 all over again, but slower,less a dogfighter, unsuitable in close air support ( like the A10). All in all a formidable video game. I have no confidence untill proven. With the F16 we knew from day 1 it was good.
U dick ...the reason this was so expensive was only due to the simple fact....that capitalism can get to rape the shit out of the tax payer
All war is the genocide of the working class for the profit & pleasure of the rich
Name 5 wars where it’s wrong
Wrong
F35 worth 115 million, no chance at all, it's completely unable to fullfil it's role as a fighter aircraft. It is product of the military industrial complex in a criminal capitalist country, and it's sole purpose is to take taxpayers money for the US capital elite.
all i heard in this video was absolutely nonsense ill researched conjecture. SHAME on you for making videos in the way you do. MAKE BETTER VIDEOS or i will NEVER ever click on your little photo icon thing again. At this point i am not even going to watch another of your videos for at least three months. If i look at another video after then and it is just as bad then fool me once shame on me fool me twice shame on you i will NEVER be a customer on your videos.
And, it's pronounced core, not corpse.
For someone having multiple channels on the outerweb you don't need my help for s***.
The trick is to put the big money into a project that is ripe in terms of R&D capabilities. With room for improvements and upgrades. The F-15, 16 and 18 are good examples of this principle. All of which are still very viable platforms. The F-35 seems to be a bridge too far. Not impossible, but too much money for a capability easily matched by a slightly larger number of currently available aircraft. Better perhaps to have worked on an upgraded F-22? And wait for the tech to catch up with the ambitions of the F-35.
the US Navy originally didnt want the F35 due to having a Single Engine configuration. why do you think the Navy always used twin engine such as F14, F18, etc because the navy loves redundancy, when 1 engine goes out the other one can still get it back home. although im sure Durability and Reliability have increased significantly from past to present, its still a single engine aircraft, once that engine shuts down its a flying brick. but in the end of it the Navy didnt have much choice as Washington really pushed the F35 program
"Going back into the economy" my fucking ass.
LOL
So what was supposed to be "one aircraft for all" now has 3 versions. So what was the point. The Harrier, F 16 and A10 are all proven fighters. The F 35 never will be able to perform better than any of the afore mentioned aircraft. Short answer NO.
That depletion of kinetic energy can be seen when it is maneuvering with F-22 in air shows. It isn't nearly as maneuverable but that doesn't much matter when you spot your target and let fly 100 miles off.
EA-18G Growlers are ultra important in any scenario when analyzing stealth. EA-18G Growlers have even shot down f22's in simulation.
it is built for stealth, not a flying tank like the a10. need a dedicated plane, the f35 wont cut it as a ground attack aircraft
We CANNOT detect any planets billions of light years away!!!!!
Can't believe this Irish fuck confused SEEING with DETECTING.....
What a piece of shit this plane is. Mr Trump is talking it up! The only countries that want this disaster are the ones that America Forces to buy!! Want a master piece of engineering Buy RUSSIAN!!
Seems stupid, they say make an all-in-one plane afterwards nevermind make seperate models. Looking at the plane the engine placement did seem to make for bad performance. The air flow seems less effecient and balance. Just a improved mig probably would compete. US military lining pockets of big corporations as usual.
Issue is: stealth is its only advantage. If it's in "Beast Mode", meaning: carrying rockets and bombs under its wings, the F35 has a HIGHER radar-echo at least similar to an F15; AND it's slowing down its manvourerability even more. Combine it's not even fast or agil in the first place ("it's stealth, it doesn't have to be"), it's one sitting duck - since ALL modern radar can track the "stealth-planes" nowadays, and there will ALWAYS be an IR-signature. So stealth became a way smaller advantage than the Lockheed's marketing dept is tellling people.It has become "easy to detect"; and what can be detected, can be shot down (ask the pilot of that F117). Also, the plane itself isn't the only thing needed to be bought; the mentioned computer, connectivity and hightech-informationsystems needs a massive investment in groundsystems, so everything can work together. In total, with informations at hand that are no more suffisticated than anyone elses, I'd say the SYSTEMprice for an F-35 will be about 190 to 200mil, while the plane itself costs 115mil. So every airforce that wants to buy the F-35 essentially has to replace ALL components (from radar to everything) so the F35 can do what it was bought for; this is a massive cut in every budget. ...this answers the question "is the F35 worth $115 mil?" with a definitive "as one has to look at the whole system-price (F35 plus groundequipment plus maintenance), the answer is NO. The only advantage over other modern planes is no longer as big as it was 27 years ago; this makes the F35 into a top-modern and neat airplane, that will lose against other competitors, especially in combat/dogfight situations". (also add, that eg. EF Typhon and Dassault Rafale make use of an active stealth-method, thus having similar stealth-attributes as the F35 but WAY more advantages in both dogfight and attack, while the systemprice (including maintenance!) is lower than the one for the F35)
The engineering certainly is worth the price, but whether the plane is any good in combat or not is subject to scrutiny.
Its a lemon and you,re shilling
No. Do what Turkey did. Buy the S-400 instead.
... well, when ya consider the aircraft that have come out of the Skunk Works through the decades e' ere since it began - yeah...
Know why the Iraqi's didn't shoot down an F117? Because they were incompetent.
"The F-117 Nighthawk flew over 1,3000 missions over Iraq". Yes, because Iraq had oudated military weapons and not last generation of Anti-Air weapons at this time.
Controlled by a computer from Boeing? No thanks...
Let’s hope there’s an easily accessible manual override switch.
F-35 doesn’t cost 115 million you dumbshit...
Elon Musk can make it with 10M let alone 100M. US taxpayers are robbed as always.
At $100 million what mission would justify the risk/benefit?
to manufacture no fkn way. to develop definitely.
Definitely. Thank you President Trump!
The F-35 is worth *** a hell of a lot more than $115 million *** For instance, if you go to **the useless piece of shit known as the F-35 that's been under construction for the last 13 fucking years, but it was DONE over 8 years ago... congress keeps paying for this dumbass company known as Lockheed Martin to intentionally fuck up the design of the plane because GUESS WHAT... they were converting all of the F-22 Raptors to have the same technology as the F-35's, because the F-35 is 'a lot fucking slower than the Raptor', AND it's actually 100X more money per plane. "Where did you get those numbers?" From the Wikipedia page. It says 1.700 TRILLION in THEN YEAR 2070 DOLLARS. I DONT KNOW WHAT A GOD DAMN THEN YEAR DOLLAR IS AND TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST, SOUNDS LIKE THE FUCKIN MATH IS WAY THE FUCK OFF.... Here's why. The F-22, which was completed IN TOTAL, for < 70B. In 1998. Now, the F-35, it's fucking somehow ... 1700B. Now, I know 'you are an engineer that can do things like "better fucking mathematics than congress can"...' so it shouldn't surprise you that 1700B is a fucking HELL OF A LOT MORE THAN 70 fucking B. So **I really don't know where the fuck you're getting the $115 million number from.*** On the Wikipedia page it says "this plane was the worst idea that America ever decided to fucking commit to." Well, it doesn't say that, but IT FUCKING SURE AS SHIT SHOULD. But no, in reality, each plane is worth $4 billion dollars. I'm not even remotely fucking joking. I fucking WISH I WAS FUCKING JOKING BUT THAT"S WHAT 1700B DIVIDED BY 425 EQUALS. 4B. Now look... how does a plane go from being reportedly costing 115 million, BUT SOMEHOW THE FUCKING PROGRAM COST ABOUT 99% OF THE MONEY THAT WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE UNIT COST? Well I will tell you. The plan comes with a feature to where it will rape you in the asshole while any country flies it. It's not JUST a fuckin plane? Oh. It's a fucking part of Voltron. It fucking Hacks your grandchildren before they evne fucking exist and then it ass rapes them too with a fucking time machine called 'go fuck yourself the United States Government that can't do math real well. Stop fucking taking my god damn money you stupid pieces of shit." I wish... i really fucking WISH THAT I WAS KIDDING ABOUT ANY OF THIS... but I'm not. The hidden costs of this plane are 99X MORE THAN WHATEVER FUCKING NUMBER YOU WERE TOLD. BECAUSE LIKE I SAID. IT's like a fucking VOLTRON HACKING PLANE THAT ASS RAPES ANYONE WHO FLIES THE FUCKIN THING... AND guess what... it's STILL fucking slower than the F-22. Which was finished 22 fucking years ago. And has the same sensors and upgrades. Pretty FUCKING AWESOME ISN'T IT? ^ Revelations.
Resulting from stealth induced compromises, the plane has severe maneuverability issue ("kinetic energy") and that's a fact (isn't kinetic energy advantages was supposed to be the main concept vs Russian plane with their super maneuverability ?) Even the Chinese who are claimed to copy the f35 made a twin engine variation. it's Good maybe for anti SAM & ELNIT but considering it's current price far from achieving targets - being a multirole for replacing the f16 \ f15 seems like advanced variation of f16 \ 18 & 15 will still kick & running for a very long time from now.
junk
15:58 “Billions of light-years away“ lol. Try again
what about the harrier jet?
well it's cheaper than the f-22, but i'd rather have 100 harriers for that price
You could only buy 2 Harriers at most for that price.
Why even quote US Marine Corps Major Dan Flatly's opinion or review of the F-35 if he helped design it's fighting training program. Isn't this the definition of bias. Wouldn't we be better off investing in hypersonic missile technology and radar systems. Is it me, or does it seem as if Russia and China are getting a lot more bang for their buck. Cost of an aircraft carrier vs hypersonic missiles?
"is it good?" "Yes, but with that pricetag it damn better be!" lets just hope it doesn't turn into a hangar queen.
Does air dogfight still a thing now? i thought they were all used as a scouting plane
Give me 15 two million dollar planes equipped with missing over that piece of shit any day! Fucking criminal theft of tax payers money!
Wow! I've heard a mixed review of this aircraft, w/ most of the beef being about it being ungodly expensive...but I never knew about massive amounts of Sapphire as "sensor
"a jack of all trades is a master of nothing.".....
10/10!! Bonus points for using lots of F117 footage & a taste of DUGA array :)
I saw one of these F-35s fly at fleet week in San Francisco yesterday! It was so fucking sick and at the end it flew alongside a WW2 escort jet and the difference in tech was amazing
8:58 there are 4 you forgot the F-35I, it’s the israeli variant designed for the IDF needs.
Nothing can replace an A-10
Who's Manny?
11:48 Guardians of the west
Who else seen the F35 performed at the San Francisco airshow?
No, it isn't worth it and the billion's of $ air craft carriers aren't worth that price either.
Those things start to depreciate the second you fly 'em off the lot.
I think that the question isn’t “was the F-35 worth it”, but “how do we make sure that nobody charges the American people this much again”
you are really clueless if you think radars stayed in the stone age, my shity country already detect stealth planes more then 180KM
Nah why would I? This channel sucks ass so why would your new one be any better?
I have to point out that 'corps' is pronounced like 'core', not like 'corpse,' lol. I think you mispronounced 'Grumman', too; should be like 'GRUH-min'.
stick with the a10. cheap and still works
F-35 is a jack of all trades but master of none.
And yet health care is too expensive
Ironic how the US government is promoting peace and democracy all over the world and build deadly weapons at the same time...
Iirc, if all currently discussed orders go through, they will be at around 80 mil per at that time, which is pretty darn cheap and middling in price next to 4+ gen planes. I know the F-35 has some amazing engineering in the F-35, but pound for pound it probably won't be as good as an A-10 at being an A-10, nor will it dog-fight better than an F-16. But it does do a great many things well enough and a lot of things older aircraft just can't.
What a piece of garbage.
A single scratch messes up the stealth coating? ffs
That was the smoothest plug of all-time.
It's not called "forward slash", it's just called "slash".
Of course the test pilot from Lockheed Martin is going to say good things about the F-35. He wants to keep his job.
short answer: No. long answer: NO, YOU IDIOT!
Can you even get a f35 for 115 million? Even the f35a costs more, even ignoring the development costs.
Feel like I've worked on a lot of software projects with comparable requirements. My first recommendation is don't do it. My second recommendation is that this will require a comparable budget. Somehow I'm the asshole when neither recommendation is followed, and it all blows up.
No its not . I'll pay only 69$ for it .
It copied the Russian design with the extra fan and how many years between the harrier and this new yet old design , to give us a so called improvement . All that was needed was a super light weight plane with Hight thrust engines ,, yes not a single one , would have made it a short runway aircraft instead of a worthless VTOL where its not needed at all .
As I understand it, there's an expectation that the plane is 'future proof". That is it'll be able to integrate and support new hardware and software as it's developed.
Downvoted for that garbage conclusion hahahaha
MURICA FUCK YEA
I am so happy that Poland got on board and ordered 32 of F-35A, thank you USA, very nice!
Since the stealth advantage of the F-117, many years of radar development has been made. Against tribal warriors of some mideastern country it may still be effective, but against a competent foe it's insignificant. The Chinese data theft in 2007 meant that Tbytes of highly secret signature data got stolen. Every modern radar will see and identify the JSF in good time. Btw. The helmet. I watched a testpilot say that he didn't use it as it was lagging (in this video, at 15:00 there was no erratic head movements as this would expose the weakness). Did he need to see below the plane he just flipped the plane upside down. Btw2. It will never be able to replace the A-10 in the close ground support role. I'm dead sure that this plane is the worst lemon we can buy, but we do at a time where we politically and militarily need it to be a deterrent.
if F35 can be stealthy then yes.... but how indians and germans claims that they have technology to detect 5th gen aircraft ... then it has no value
How u got to the conclusion that this plane is going to be good replacement? U cannot know that to pullout that conclusion. No way.
Nope!. Better off spending $15 million on a few hundred $50 thousand 6th Generation drones and partying up with $100 million worth of cocaine and hookers like the MIC executives, senators and generals do.
Well no, it's probably only 'worth' 10% of that, additional calculated price fixing, insider trading, profiteering, extortion and don't forget all of the industrial military complexes embezzlement, and a select few are cashing in on the misinformation that's presented to the people living in the united states of abominations #WWJD #usaFAGGOTS #PSYWAR #whitehouseFAGS
The "Jack of all trades" and the master of none. A single engine mechanical nightmare which does nothing really well, is ridiculously complicated, huguely overpriced, and is a maintenance nightmare. Neither fish or foul I pity the pilots who fly it, the airmen who have to service it. The taxpayers who have to pay for it, and the nations who will rely on it for defence. There are good reasons why a vtol attack plane is not used as an air superiority fighter or a strategic bomber. 3 separate aircraft that share common parts like engines, tires, ejection seats and avionics would have been far cheaper to build per unit and far more capable of successfully completing its assigned combat role. A Hundred million dollar close air support aircraft for example is a ridiculously expensive way to take out a tank or give air support to troops on the ground, where all that fancy electronic garbage is rendered useless do to the the nature of the combat, where simple lead bullets and line of sight shoulder fired rockets render those fancy microchips and programs useless. Why do you think the Air force wants to hang on to their A 10's? And ask a navy pilot how they feel to rely on just one engine? One of the biggest defence boondoggles in history.
You really put your foot in it this time!!!!! Just one, fyi, the AV-8B is American NOT British! Get your facts straight, dummy!
The pentagon is a waste all they do is inject money to private companies. They overspend
i have always had a bad feeling about his plane.
helmet tech is dope
A10, air superiority??
Srsly that ad transition. XD
I want to the concept of the F-35 to work. Unfortunately, its development process felt like a way for Lockheed to lockdown a contract aimed to steal near-limitless tax money. The concept of a plane that consolidates multiple aircraft into one with full stealth capabilities sounds wonderful. Were they trying to consolidate too many planes into one? That is certainly arguable. I wouldn't get rid of the A-10; no other plane can do what the A-10 does - the F-35 doesn't even bother trying to do what the A-10 does, so that's a voice of confidence in the A-10's capabilities to me (let's not forget that the A-10 finally got its first upgrade only a few years ago, and it was predominantly an electronics upgrade, visible only by a couple of MFDs replacing multiple analog gauges - a handy upgrade, sure, but not a large one). If any variant of the F-35 needs to work, it's the C. Navy specifications are actually a great standard to apply to the Air Force, so the Air Force's A variant is kind of pointless. Carrier and VTOL capabilities can warrant variants, but having three is unnecessary. Sure, the Air Force doesn't need reinforced landing gear or an arresting hook, but I've argued that ALL fighter planes should have full naval capabilities, and with this comes building steam/electromagnetic catapults and arresting wires at ALL air bases. Having carrier components full functional at land bases would greatly reduce the risk of grounding defense aircraft due to bombed-out runways. Plus, with the training programs condensed as well, all pilots would have the same skills and capabilities (the only lasting difference would be in tactics), and as a bonus, if one branch - or even military - needs more pilots, they can draw from the other(s). As much as I want the F-35 to work after all of its time in development hell, it feels like a waste of money that should have been avoided. Sales speculation means nothing; businesses always oversell a product - that doesn't mean that they actually do sell, let alone by how much they say they will.
They got money for wars but can't feed the poor.
If a Bugatti is worth 3 million then hell yeah!
Worth depends on the purchasing power of its buyers ,you don't want to give 20 F35 with 1 billion
Is this a word by word dictation of this Medium article? https://medium.com/swlh/is-the-f-35-worth-115-million-acb751d95f32 ?? The only difference i was able to find was you being Irish citizen and the article author being Indian
The most expensive weapon system in history is the CVN. Not the F-35.
Delivery to Australia was suppose to be around 2010. Now expected delivery 2300 at a cost of $600,000,000,000 . What a joke. We should of got the eurofighter or even a MIG.
I find Russian jets like SU-27, SU-35, SU-57, more interesting than American ones.
I got mine for 113
Money very well spent.
That's kinda okay.. I mean, Chiron cost 3million and can't even fly.
The F117 over Serbia was not shot down by long wave radar but by IR and TV sensors. The serbians have never had long wave radar. Too expensive.
It was until Hillary Clinton sold the plans to China
why do we still spend billions on building killing machines when we can spend it on education and health care
It’s a fucking money pit.But what about the children
It's a lemon...
God damn 115 mill? Well my 70k I paid in taxes don’t help a lot in that 115 mill can I have it back lol
Yes perfect and simply ideal that US are selling these fighters to some of the most horrific nations on the planet with insane idiology that are beheading jounalists on embassy and are the parent nation behind ISIL, aka the sunni capital Saudi Arabia. not to mention the Turkey religious dude Erdogan who just invaded the kurds. Beautiful US that your selling this figher that we also here in Denmarl have put billions into developing to some of the most problematic nations in the world. (wheres your head?) afterall these nation here 19:50 where you can sense what look to be canadian, Danish, and Norwegian flag are likely not gonna put a knife in the back of US.
No, it's not worth $115 million, but it's worth billions to Lockeed/Martin!
In few words: MAFIA infilated prices
For Israel one, yes; U.S. one, hell no!
The single obsolescent thing holding back aircraft designs is the pilot. Removing the need of a pilot / crew means that designers can expand their horizons exponentially. No one thinks a missile system needs a pilot - so why does anyone think that aircraft of the future need pilots ?
It fits with American design philosophy. Have this commission of high ranking people who all want different crap stuck to some amazing imaginary project so they throw money at a manufacturer to get it done, that manufacturer realizes after hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of hours in design work that it won't work, then scrap it and just design variants to appease each commission member, essentially eliminating the entire point of the project to begin with. Sure there will be parts compatibility, for most of it anyways, so at least there's that. This is the same government that spent a billion dollars to dress our soldiers as moldy pickles, so no real surprise there.
Interesting how they got so much info but the title price is wrong. And the price has only been going down and Lockheed has not hidden these facts
can sum up the video in .5 seconds... "nope" because it's cost a TON more than 115 million. Remember the several hundred billion it cost to develop... It might make it to 115 million after a couple of thousand are produced...
humankind... wow so pc dude..ffs
Where can I buy one?
VERY EXPENSIVE TOY. HUMANS ARE REALLY STUPID. I'M A DOG BTW.
All the "new" wonder planes never get shot down when used against third world peasants. The US hasn't fought a fair fight in over what 70 years? It would be interesting to see their survivability pitted against someone with capable technology.
As if it was suppsed to take 27 years. Total, complete, 110% incompetence. When you say it was supposed to be a jack of all trades, what you don't understand is that means "striker, " instead of 'fighter." The F-22 has near-zero in common with strikers. You really shouldn't talk about what you have NO CLUE about. This video was 99.99% wrong.
Americans : why did you shoot our F-117? Serbians : we didn't know it was a stealth fighter and it wasn't invisible. Americans crying Michael Jordan face.
No it’s not! This machine for murder is very expensive and this money could do so much good in the world.
This program was NEVER meant to be anything but a cash cow for the manufactures. Any1 with half a brain knew combining all these so called features was NEVER going to work. It was set up for lockhead Martin to win from the get go. Like what the the host said in teh beginning, Military complex.
I recommend reading the book “Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War”
F-16 + F-22 + A-10 *>* F-35
Your segues are magical.
That segways to curiosity stream blew my mind the most!!!
Nope it's not worth it It doesn't have android auto
i wonder if they could ever make a nanotube paint that changes the frequency of enemy radar waves
In other news, the amero-zionist empire will likely be history long before the in-effective F-35 reaches its expected end-of service. Seriously amerikants. You waste so much on war-machines, and not near enough on the things that matter most. It does not matter how many of these war-planes you build, or even if you somehow manage to fix the endless flaws it has now and make it into a barely acceptable fighter. Your empire will still fall, and it will because precisely because of resources sinks like the F-35.
Lockheed got people in congress.lmao ha ha ha buy they trash azz plane they know that these planes will NEVER get i a dog fight ha ha lmao ha ha ha :D
That helmet does look amazing though...
To feed the few
US, 27 years of R&D, and billions in funding China, 1 year of theft and $29 million in funding
Ok but the pilot's real problem seemed to be described as not being able to pull instant vertical maneuvers the way they are used to driving during 'dogfights' because the engines thrust wasnt powerful enough once accelerating vertically to overcome that loss of lateral forward inertia. AKA you need a gradual upwards curve. its sluggish in comparison to the f-22 when your life depends on the craft responding and doing what's needed by driving up fast. Listening to Pilots who describe the f-22 in real world maneuvering tests vs how they describe this one (what little is available) tells me the f-22 could beat it straight up in an airfight.. if that MC Major really thinks he has a better battle plan then we'll never see it in any reports, and they'll need an entirely new generation of pilots without the habits of relying on a fast change of direction. im hoping they just incorporate the lift system during rapid vertical shift as opposed to simply directing the main engine the way they are trained to do in the f-22, otherwise the test pilots description of not being able to pull up is gonna mean they'll have to do a gradual 90 degree as opposed to the f-22s instant 90. either way, as long as US is the only country with f-22 than we dont have anything to worry about, right?
Short answer, no it's a turkey. A-10 is vastly cheaper can carry more firepower and can loiter at low speeds and maintain presence in an area of operation for far longer. Also is vastly superior in survivability of both operator and craft as A-10 airframe is not reliant on fly by wire avionics to constantly correct the ailerons for stability. Update the Harrier if you NEED a VTOL which I don't understand as they field F-35's on aircraft carriers with catapults which I'd trust a thousand time before the inlet on the F-35 in transference from vertical to horizontal thrust.....it's like why do we still field the 70yr old B-52's because they fucking work son.
27 yrs ? ..... P-51 Mustang 1940 Designed, Built, Flown In 115 days Of course they didn't have computers in 1940
Quantity has it's own quality. The cheap mass produced poor quality Russian T-34 tank overwhelmed the expensive and much more sophisticated German Tiger tanks.
I wonder how much it costs to shoot one of these things out of the sky...
Good analysis! You didn't mention that F-117 was not equipped with radar. Once F-35 turns radar on everyone knows it is there. F-35s capabilities are still to be tested on battlefield. There are other ways to detect and pinpoint airplane position (visual, sound), and with electronics development these ways of detection will improve, as well as radar sensitivity, making stealth less valuable. F-35 is built around stealth technology, without it, as you mentioned in your video, it is loosing to cold war era fighters, so with stealth becoming less effective it will degrade. Also because of its slow maximum speed it is less capable as fighter. Once it locks on (you can't lock on without letting enemy know), faster enemy fighter can just run away. In it's turn F-35 can't run away...
I think it's interesting how often in history people keep making this assumption that gun-based dogfighting is a thing of the past, thanks to missile technology. Would have thought we learned our lesson with the F-4. There will always be a need for fighters to be maneuverable, and I believe that slacking in that area gives a huge advantage to the other guy.
F35 is a piece of trash. With Chinese parts
The absolute best part of this aircraft is its sensors. They are highly classified, but make the plane extremely, extremely hard to kill. So yeah, head to head with a F-15 using only guns... the 15 will probably win b/c it was designed for yank&bank.
A multi-tool, does multiple things but none very well, and why bother with having a pilot anyway .
The P in Marine Corps is silent.
Nothing special it’s just made of LIGO blocks put together by some 3rd grader student in Texas.
Excellent video: Here are two additional complementary arguments, one in favor and one against. The first - the "for" argument is similar to one that you used, with maybe a little addition. "For" the assessment by some that the F-35 doesn't compare favorably to F-15's and F-16's in dog fighting. I think you largely pointed out the problem, in that the F-35 wasn't designed to be a dog-fighter in the vein of an F-16 or F-15. So, while the F-35 can't match the turning abilities of the other two and it may have a less favorable power to weight ratio, the changing style of air combat really doesn't dictate the need for the F-35 to exceed the capabilities of those older aircraft in that area. In a modern encounter the F-15 and F-16, probably even the modernized versions of the two, would never make it into visual range of the F-35 because they would be destroyed well beyond. While some do make arguments suggesting that militaries are incorrectly downplaying the importance of traditional dogfighting capabilities b/c in the past there were some oversights (the original variants of the F-4 being a good example) that really bit them in the ass. But at this point technologically we really are moving beyond visual range combat. If you get into a traditional dogfight, it is because something has gone *really* wrong - and so you can't really justify the additional expenses needed to make the F-35 comparable to those other aircraft when likely the only time it would require those abilities is the hopefully rare occasion when literally everything else (from command and control, electronic warfare, and other support aircraft) has been taken out of action. In a situation like that, maintaining the fight is probably the last thing that aircraft should be doing. Therefore, even though there will always be a certain level of hesitation to rely entirely on advanced technology (stealth capabilities, advanced armaments etc), at this point in time dog fighting just can't be a design priority for an aircraft like the F-35 (possibly a little more for the F-22, but erm..) "Against" This one is going to be a lot shorter and to the point. Some of the strongest critics of the F-35 have gone after it on the grounds that it falls prey to a familiar problem in design intent in that in trying to build an aircraft that can serve multiple roles, you end up with an aircraft that can serve those roles but can't do any of them of very well. In designing a multi-role aircraft (and this has been problematic in the past as well) you have to make compromises on the aircraft's features with regard to each role when features for one role get in the way of optimum performance in one of its other designated roles. I know that's an overly complicated sentence - in essence you have to make it an average performing aircraft in each role instead of superior b/c inevitably the various roles require certain design features that limit the aircraft's maximum ability to perform another of its set roles. With this in mind, critics say that the F-35 will fall prey to comparable generation technology that is designed to fulfill a single role and is therefore optimized to be able to do so at a higher performing level than the F-35 can in any one of it's designed roles.
Is it worth $115m? Nope. Not at all. But the US military will buy whatever the politicians and generals want.
How can anyone rationalize spending money on this travesty... You are doing this in the name of "balance?" Centrism is a disease.
400 thousand dollar helmets and high tech comm systems can also be incorporated into a plane with excellent maneuverability and performance. I think I'll wait for that aircraft
2050 U.S Military: we need a vertical take off aircraft carrier that we can land jet boats on Budget: $1 billion x 10 ^ 6
"...as something to replace the A-10" UH EXCUSE ME SIR the only thing replacing the A-10 is a NEWER A-10 thank you very much.
I feel like there's a comment from David Glatz that's relevant here. When asked if Germany could have won the war against the Soviet Union by removing forces from Kiev and directing them towards Moscow, Glantz (paraphrasing) said that the Soviet presumably would have done the same with their forces. Technocratic approaches aren't perfect, and other airforces have the ability to develop technologies to counter new aircraft. The longevity of the airframe is probably a more important consideration.
Wait, so the US Airforce has access to VR headsets which project an active HUD _completely in sync with reality_ into the pilot's field of view? ...Never would've guessed we're that far ahead, but also... *_The Future is Here_*
2.99 a month, I can feed a kid in Africa for less than a dollar a day..
Well worth it!!!! If we didn’t spend the money, we just spend it on poor people and better roads and better schools and better healthcare. So it’s worth it....
Yay he just said the first “S**T” lol
And when everything else fails,go buy SU-35 or SU-37!!
Nice video but you failed to mention how inaccurate the F-35's long range missiles are. During testing their missiles blew on their own in the middle of the distance or completely missed the target. Numerous times. Also the electronic system isnt very reliable in f-35. they have had many problems with the electronics (due to the fact it has so many capabilities it requires many electronic systems and they fail many times). So yeah this is why they keep reworking the F-35. Even many US pilots are doubtful about the F-35 in a dog fight because if they miss the long range missile (while in stealth) on say a dassault rafale (its extremely agile, it can even dodge missiles), the rafale can easily close in spot the F-35 and take it out (F-35 is bigger easier to spot and target in a dogfight and not as agile as the rafale). Many US pilots are aware of this fact and they dont rate the f-35 so highly because of its unreliable electronic system and missile target system. 100 million down the drain I would say. i have even heard they have secretly tested these planes against top of the line Migs, sukhois and rafales and the F-35 got beat in all of the dog fights. F-22 raptor is much better. This jet appears to be great on paper but in actual implementation?? Nah not so much. Is this video a marketing campaign?
Real Engineering No!
@Arthur Inglis Next week I am doing a video specifically about how to defeat stealth, and I have one about the quantum radars up right now. Spoiler alert: bistatic radars, VHF/UHF radars, passive sensors, appropriate tactics and quantum radar if it works.
@Eat Shit Typical Yankee. You also didn't do that well against Canada. But that is all moot, cause guess who finances the military complex so you can blow the shit out of third world countries, and make the rich richer? It's you dumbass, so you better get to work so you can pay taxes to your sociopathic government so they can make more bombs to kill innocent children. Hope you're proud of your country. The last war the US fought that was justifiable was WW2. You used to be a great country that was loved and respected by the rest of the world, but now you are a punchline to a bad joke, consisting of obese, ignorant, self centred pricks such as yourself.
The next question they'll ask is the TR-3B Astra worth it?? lol
In a word, NO! The whole fricken F-35 program started BECAUSE the F-22 was far too expensive at $100 million each and the F-35 was supposed to be a cheap alternative in comparison! The whole thing is a joke. We have Ben Rich, the former head of Lockheed-Martin Skunk Works which developed both planes, the SR-71, the U2 and others stating before he died that "We now have the technology to take ET home. Anything you see on Star Trek or Star Wars, we've been there, done that, or decided it wasn't worth the effort. We have the technology, but it's all locked up in Black Projects, and it would take an act of god to ever get it released to the public." As usual the public is being taken for a ride while military contractors like Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing and others have technology centuries ahead of anything that is officially admitted.
Also wonder what if F-35 are design on F-35 B, and landing gear of F-35C Then, replace the big fan at the middle to oil tank, for F-35A and C And replace a bigger wing for F-35C Will this be cheaper ?
how much are fuel and most importably Maintenece costs? is it a high maintenence plane?
"Most expensive weapons system in US history." "$115 million" Navy: 'laughs in Air Craft Carrier'
Am I hearing General Hux?
but you can't compare the f-35 to the f-15 in terms of energy, it's a multi-role plane replacing the f-16, the f-22 is the plane that should be compared to the f-15
I hope so Australia bought a few that are yet to arrive
And it was just tracked for 300 miles by an amateur with an old passive radar.
Donate that 115million for the people that needs it.
If India wants to fulfill the target of 44 squadron fighter jets .Rafale will be a better option for India.Dussa will do something new for Indian requirments also new engine for Tejas mk2
10:55 Nice ass.
more money not in the American economy but in the pockets of the company, not regular people
Quantum Radar negates stealth. Guess this thing is a waste of money.
Overpriced & overengineered.......a signal of the coming end of a product life cycle. The aerospace industry will go down like the auto industry.
To the F-32, you're ugly. U.G.L.Y. you ain't got no alibi!
There is a german word for this: *Eierlegende Wollmilchsau* Egg laying wool milk sow A thing that does not exist because you can't cheat physics. There is a reason why specialization is a thing throughout this universe.
Is The F-35 Worth $115 Million? His answer "As an Irish citizen thats for me to decide" Really? Thanks for wasting 22 of my minutes. What a joke of a video.
Nothing can replace the Warthog and it's GAU-8/A Avenger. That said, having specialized aircraft for specific combat roles AND having an all-in-one aircraft, I believe, is a good thing to have. If intel on a specific target is sketchy (like are there multiple vehicles are they heavily armored, do they have AA capabilities, are they moving into territory with AA capabilities, will there be hostile aircraft, etc), it might be a good idea to send something that can handle multiple situations. If you need to absolutely destroy the earth and everything that resides on it, the Warthog goes BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT. I suppose you could task air superiority fighters and close air support (for ground targets) aircraft to the same general target area, but I have yet to see that irl. And I feel like there might be a reason that that's not generally done, probably due to my lack of knowledge and experience on the topic.
It costs around $40.00 too much.
No, no.. I've seen from other Youtube channels that this plane is a big failure, so I sincerly doubt you when you're saying this is a success despite all it's cost, but I'm going to look at other Youtube channels too. Words like: "you should be glad if you can fly it at all" as a pilot. Hmm...
nice LM propaganda video, I truly enjoyed it.
Keeps us safe. Worth it.
I bet the US installed some shady ass backdoor into the plane software in case they wanted to hack their allies
Nothing new about f35 engine the Yak 141 had that engine vtol design from the 60s.
It's stealth is functionally worthless.
Kinda scary to think about the fact that this plane will probably be sold to Saudi Arabia.
Amazing segway to Advertisement @ 22:05 =) I'm not even being sarcastic, made me smile.
You deserve an award for this video!!
The A10 is not an air superiority fighter. It is a ground attack aircraft, or whatever you want to call it.
Hahah, the greatest political/finance corruption scheme in modern history.
The answer is no. No mass produced single seat aircraft is. This is 30 million dollars of aircraft and 80 million dollars of corruption, graft, mission creep and bad project management.
It’s only worth it if you need to appease the US. If your sensible/independent you (that is your country) will easily find an aircraft that performs at least as well for a fraction of the cost. Lesson: one side fits all is a recipe for disaster.
Answer your question, no. A better question is a statement, Why the flying turd is not worth the money. Make that video and I would watch it. I guess they do not teach these things in writing class.
I'd rather spend 115 million on Kamikaze drones.
"The real winner in a dogfight is who sees and shoots first". So nobody has ever knocked down a 117 Nighthawk?. On 27 March 1999, during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, a Yugoslav army unit shot down an F-117 Nighthawk stealth aircraft of the United States Air Force by firing a S-125 Neva/Pechora surface-to-air missile. The pilot ejected safely and was rescued by allied search and rescue forces. The F-117, which entered service with the U.S Air Force in 1983, was widely seen as one of the most advanced pieces of U.S. military equipment. At the same time, Yugoslav air defenses were considered relatively obsolete.
Jack of all trades, master of none .... is a saying for a reason
You can hide the plane. How are you gonna hide the fat pilots in the US airforce and Navy?
It's not a waste of money because it brings us closer to the destruction of humans. The faster humans die, the better. This plane is a people killing machine.
It's sad to think that humanity uses this amazing technology to fight itself.
Short answer to the video title: No
Harrier: *exists* F-35B: *_I'M ABOUT TO END THIS MANS WHOLE CAREER_*
F - NO!
*Fuel* for thought: Aussie has only recieved 2/72 jets in their deal. Lockheed Martin has promised to make all 72 F35's operational by 2023... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ As much as I like the design, replacing the Warthog and Hornet will never agree with me tbh... Cheaper, abundant in spare parts, (relatively) easier to maintain, bigger payload etc.
You might once in a while drop S-bombs, but at least you never drop H-bombs, which I am thankful for.
A-10 an air superiority fighter? Ahh no. The A-10 is a low-level ground attack aircraft. This is a replacement for the F-15 and F-16 as well as the F-22.
Blah blah blah , I'm Irish, blah blah . . . So, is it worth 115 million or not?
And china want to go to war lol.
"military-industrial complex" A phrase that enables the stoppage of thought.
so how long until we get point-defense on fighters like these?
"Political Power struggle" Are you meaning between the US and Russia? Or between the two major political parties? Or...?
Also nice callout to Lindsay Ellis. Didn't know she was a fellow Engineer. ;)
You have to remember other countries sponsor people to give a fake review or swayed review of their enemies to create dissension, division amongst it's people.
And some guy on the ground with a keen eye and a heavy machine gun can still knock it down. Every time you compromise several aircraft designs into one you end up with something which does nothing well. And we all know it's basically a way for a few companies to make an insane amount of money at the expense of the citizens.
False. Unless you use HEI ammo you're not going to do much to any aircraft using just a MG. Even the F-16 could survive such an attack and it's highly unlikely that MG rounds would hit the fighter in hte first place considering even an A-10 engages from outside the range of such weapons. The F-35 is also not a compromise... it's 3 physically different variants each adapted to the requirements of a single service.
I will answer that. No. Hell no.
heck no
Too big to fail. The military complex has taken our mony. The stealth planes can be seen using an advanced thermal imaging system. Also can be detected by using all three radar bands. Unless the complex builds an airframe that can negate the thermal signature all to gether it's just another jet.
It's a bargain. Expect the cost to go down over time.
Yeah that kinda money is a shit ton of it I would think most people wouldn't think so and if they don't then I need an income like that where millions of dollars and over a hundred mill doesn't affect me that would be ridiculous
I dont care what people say, the A-10 isnt going anywhere for a long time. The current f-35 mission statement has some similarities to the A-10 but is missing the key 30mm auto cannon. Ground forces have states that that piece or armament on the plane has made it invaluable to their missions when receiving CAS.
if you dont want to kill anyone, No.
if you want to kill someone, still No.
actually its not worth that much. they just say it is to get the money and use the cash for other secret projects
Yes it is. And you want to know why? Electronics. Sensors. Things you cannot cheapen without downgrading capability. Also vague stealth and the most powerful engine on a western jet fighter.
I've seen paper planes fly further, with more stealth and in larger numbers from the top tier of a football stadium AND get a bigger cheer. Gee wonder what decade we will get the F35s we paid for? And the biggest joke is they can't fly them anywhere that has Russian SAMs as the Russians would then work out how to track them.. Gee imagine that
The F-35 is designed for information superiority, not performance superiority. It' basically a mini AWACS with missiles or some such. Or at least that's how I understand it.
I would highly disagree that the F-35 is a "worthy successor" to the A-10, and it certainly will never be able to replace it. Loiter time alone makes the A-10 unmatched in its role, to say nothing about its survivability and mission weight.
The A-10's loiter time is barely better... It's survivability only helps get the pilot home... it's payload is worse than the F-35 and F-15. A-10s are only responsible for about 20% of successful CAS missions. Also the F-35 was designed with CAS as a primary mission.
The test Pilot for the company is hardly likely to say its a load of shite likewise the armed forces evaluators We wont really know until it gets into a scrap with some top class opposition even then a nfew changes can make all the differences. F/instance early spitfires and hurricanes without constant speed automatic propellors fared badly at the beginning of the war but that soon changed
It was supposed to cost $36,000,000 ???????
We just want healthcare ;-;
Doesn’t really matter If it’s worth it or not We still pay taxes
People pay taxes, taxes are used to build machines of war, machines of war are used to wage war, people who paid the taxes either die in the war or their sons and daughters do. What kind of s**t society have we built? No other species on Earth have such capacity for self destruction. There is no money to provide a universal healthcare, yet over 600 billion are available to fund an overextended military. Revolutions are born of stuff like that... question is "how long it's going to take"?
@Alex McAuliff You stated "There is no money to provide a universal healthcare" when there is definitely enough money in the system to do so. Throwing more money at a corrupt system won't fix the problem, and if you spend money to fix the problem you will have a lot more money to spare with comparatively minor temporary losses to other budgets. Nations that have free healthcare are spending about 1/3 as much as the US per person on average, and that's partially because they don't let the medical industry determine many of the prices. Also the US military budget takes up 3.5% of GDP. It's nowhere close to being 50%.
@dumdumbinks274 I never pointed out HOW much US spends on healthcare, just that it does not spend it in a way that actually benefits the people who need it most. You can not spend more than 50% of your budget on war related activities while holding sick people hostage because they haven't got the means to pay for medical insurance.
The US spend more on healthcare per capita than any other nation, including those nations who have free healthcare. Try to be informed before pointing fingers.
What no warp drive?
NO, it is not worth it. That is equivalent to at least $2 per taxpayer per plane, just for the initial build cost. It is more likely the cost is $5 or $10 per taxpayer per plane. The U.S. Military spending is out of control, and is effectively helping bankrupt the U.S.
+BUT, Early on you told the punchline: It would have been cheaper and better to just build three different airplanes in the beginning. There is so much graft and corruption in the military /industrial complex that the actual truth will never come out. EXAMPLE: Someone wanted the F22 Raptors to be taken out of service and as soon as possible. All the tooling, jigs and fixtures were stolen and no one knows what happened. Even then company security force tasked with inventorying and keeping it all safe. For a counterpoint, the parts and spares inventory for the SR71 Blackbird was finally stricken from inventory 20 years after the aircraft stopped flying. Why were the parts, spares, jigs, fixtures and tooling for the F22 (Which is still in service) allowed to go missing? Someone wanted to sell F35's really badly. They are currently stripping aircraft to keep others flying in the F22 fleet. Investigate a little.....
Nothing was stolen. The tooling exists in storage and the F-22 is currently in the process of being upgraded so it can last until 2060, which is the same timeframe as the F-35 is expected to be operational for i.e 50 years.
The real question you should have asked is how does it perform in combat mission compared to other aircraft, its logistic costs, maintenance costs etc. If its the best stealth aircraft its cool, but if it sucks at destroying targets then its an overpriced toy.
All evidence so far points to the F-35 being an excellent combat aircraft and far better value for money than the F-22
Good point at the end. though the development price was high, the returns will mitigate that price.
with such a smooth ad transition i feel like your talent is wasted in engineering and you should be selling insurances instead!
The cost has actually considerably gone down now that it's reaching it's mass productions stage. In fact, production is now cheaper than many contemporary 4th gen aircraft like the Eurofighter.
fuhqing greasy mic
14:30 The sapphire windows isn't the 'gemstone' found and mined in the earth, but artificial sapphire, made out of aluminium/aluminum in a factory.
nope
F-35 replacing the A-10. Yeeeah, right.
Considering the developmental hell it went through, the failures, the total cost all in for the entire program, and the politics involved against the actual performance given... no. Let history remember the F-35 as an infamous blunder and let's move on. By the time the contracts are half-way filled (which is as far as it'll get before everyone throws in the towel on this fiasco) China and Russia will have caught up with it at half the cost. For the next 5-10 years if DoD wants play money for more stupid projects, fund them by selling F-35s.
Good luck rallying support for that opinion. :) I went ahead and gave you a pity thumbs up to hopefully get the ball rolling.
Not really the case.
If it was that great a plane, we wouldn't be selling it to other countries! The F-22 isn't sold to anyone..guess why!
Because it was cancelled. It's that simple.
One of the objectives of this program was to simplify logistics by having component commonality between 3 versions of the plane...It turns out, only 1/3 commonality was achieved. 2/3rds were different because of the Navy and Marine versions requiring different materials (anti-corrosion against sea salt environment), strengthened bulkheads for carrier take-off and landing impacts, low-speed handling (carrier landing requirement) and VSTOL with the Marines.
Nope, flying garbage truck! Waste of money!
NO its a fucking joke....detected already
If China's copy is only 80:20 compared to the source USA original, their total 500 copies of (80:20) is BETTER THAN 100 of USA's PERFECT F-35's - plus no where "near" the 'stage of operation' !!! NO BRAINER!!! Go figure!
God that landing gear looks so twiggy
How much is the Chinese or Russan equivalent ; have they sorted-out the soft wear for the 737 or will it take 27 years? It took three and a half years for our so-called politicians to agree that they can't agree how to sort out Brexit, instead they are playing blind-man's bluff, and coming out any way. There is too much ego at the top and no plans .
If it's worth $115M then I am as well because I too cannot go fast, turn well, climb worth a damn, and have trouble with parts going wrong.
Except that the F-35 is fast, is the 2nd most maneuverable US fighter, and doesn't have much trouble with parts going wrong.
F-35 is a Sherman tank failure.
What nonsense are you on about?
18:50 true, at that time they had limitations in designing better stealth aircraft and so your point is that now with the advancements in technology an aircraft can be designed (how should I put this) stealthier right? more efficient but you're missing out on the fact that while technology helps us make stealthier planes it also help detecting them easier, it's not a one way effect and you actually have to see and test which side wins and thus saying that nowadays we make stealthier airplanes than the past isn't really an achievement (meaning you should already be able to make better planes) but to build something better, relative to today's radars is the true achievement pierre sprey, he tells some important stuff in one of his interviews against f-35 it's worth the time to check his side of view and the points he makes in my opinion the whole point of designing and building this aircraft is to sell it to other countries, making money and job opportunities for the US if they believed they can be too good they wouldn't just hand it over to others, like they didn't with f-22
*Glimpses at the comments* So you're not even going to answer you own question simply because you're Irish? Oh wait you're Irish.. No wonder you can't muster up an answer
Horrible accent. Irish tinker
In all seriousness, if you just made one F-35, with the A variant's landing gear, the B variant's lift system, and the C variant's wings, that probably would have been best...
Why did they go with one big door for the lift fan on the F-35B, instead of the split doors the prototype had?
Most of you complaining are either too stupid or dont want to see why this aircraft it's such a huge technological leap. Over a dozen countries conducted flight tests and choose F-35 over all competitors. They are lining up to buy it. Keep talking up your rusted 1970's russian junk or cheap imitation chinese garbage....F-35 is the new king of the sky...and will be for decades to come
F35, a flying $115million crap
Sapphire might be a bit expensive as a gemstone but it is not expensive as a synthetic material as it's one of the gemstones that we have been able to make syntetic for the longest time and is used in allot of watch glasses even for watches that is rather cheep.
"The F-35 is not a bad dogfighter because […blurp about long range detection capabillities, and this and that…]" …aha. The F-35 **is** a poor dogfighter. Thanks for making that point, even though by irony. And it is, and it doesn't make it a bad fighter plane, especially for the strike role. It just means that without support by air superiority fighters, it will get into trouble easier. No news there. Datalinks between an F-35 that passively detects enemy aircraft over hundreds of miles and fighters that can go in to knock out that enemy in any case will make it worthwhile. It would fulfill a similar part as the Tornado did, thus. "The extreme precision required in production to maintain an acurate surface drives up the cost!" -I remember you said you had a background in aerospace engineering somewhere, right? I thus imply you know what a laminar flow wing is. I also imply you know the degrees of accuracy required to ensure laminar flow. I thus drop a few names here: P 51, Mooney M 20, Piper Pa 24, LET L-13 Blanik. Planes made of metal that are available since dunnowhen which feature laminar flow wings, thus require precision in manufacture to a similar degree and have been available to johnny common plane owners decades ago. The requirements in maintaining the shape is only somewhat harder to achieve with the F-35, as the entire cell has to match. It's not required to re-invent any wheels here, though. To add an opinion: The JAS 39 comes at a fraction of the price, is similar in speed, superior as dogfighter, inferior in passive detection, probably superior in radar jamming, but all things considered the bigger bang for the buck. The E/F versions even are able to supercruise, thus *do beat* the F-35 in speed by far, but I am not sure if they are available for sale outside Sweden. The only real quality the F-35 holds over thr Gripen is stealth, which I guess is massivley overrated, as shown by the Serbian's downing an F-117 (Of which I heard very different versions from what you reported here). I guess they are better Choices than the F-35a, though. A team of F-35 in the second line of battle, providing fighters like the Gripen, Eurofighter, Rafale, F-15, F-18 or F-22 with data about enemy movements would probably be real killer teams. You don't need many F-35s for these teams, though.
*And just as everything seemed to be going so well, and profitably, for the obsolete Lockheed-Martin F-35, suddenly the Russian S-400 and Chinese PL-XX...*
Nice video, shitty segue way.
The Warthog would kick this things ass in a dog fight.
For comparison, the F-35A is much cheaper than the Eurofighter and about the same cost as the Rafale, but more advanced than both of them.
The money goes right back in the economy, lmfao stick to engineering.
Yes, it is.
if the yanks keep printing money there money becomes worthless so it’s would be worth 10 mil but the dollar is worthless so now it 115mil or 10 minutes of printing
Only $115 millions? I am ordering mine from Amazon right now!
What a bargain when you consider the F22 Raptor is a lot more expensive and the Harrier already being 39 million for pretty old tech.
Nope!
6:15 the back looks like a butt pointing at the ground
Haha) F117 was successful bombing a third world country into the Stone Age, success!
no.. because most of the research you paid for isn't for that plane at all. you basically paid for the research and development of the next couple of planes, bombers, fighters and other. The plane only cost 10 to 20 million per plane to make in the factory. the rest is all research and profit. why don't they mass produce them? planes get outdated quick and always need updates.. the newer.. the more you just have to through them out like your cell phone. all electronic and not worth upgrading.. like the F-35 is not worth upgrading. its a flying computer.. its cheaper just to make a new plane every 10 years.. cheap to maintain if you make the parts in your country. expensive if you buy direct from the factory.. iran has F-4s.. they don't need a smart plane.. they need a smart missile. they can get them from Russia.. all stealth is detectable. your suppose to be at 80,000 feet. launching missiles at things at ranges banned by treaties. like mid range missiles. they cheat and go high to get the distance. no side has ever followed the treaties.. us stealth is designed for high altitude. shape angles.. Russia stealth is designed for low altitude. smooth angles. usa high and slow.. Russia low and fast. sharp angles slow you down. not designed for being at low altitudes. could a F-22 to F-35 make it to Russia.. yeah.. just has to fly high enough..
Odd to take one basic design and then to fragment it with three rather different variants... So strange that the Navy version won't have the vertical take off and landing capability, which I would think they would want most. For the price, I'd rather have three F-15s (at the historical price of $42M each) or a single F-15, an F-16 or F-18, and an A-10.... Sort of scary to try to cram too many diverse requirements into one plane, which may wind up not doing any of its different missions very well . or as well as predecessors - at all... I sure hope it works out o.k...
The Navy has no reason to use the STOVL version when they have catapults that allow short take-offs at much higher mission weights. Also for a historical price you're getting a historical jet. An F-35 would wipe the floor with 2 or 3 F-15s of that era. Modern F-15s each go for more than $100 million, whereas the Air Force version of the F-35 goes for about $85 million, soon to be around $80 million. Also the F-35 doesn't do anything the F/A-18 or F-16 don't already do, it just has greatly enhanced capabilities. The difference between each variant comes down to how each service wants to operate the platform, not what roles they will use it for.
It is the usual yankee con job .. No use , No worth , No value .. the suckers are buying junk ...
Not "real engineering" when the problem of high wing loading and poor thrust to weight ratio is waved away with quotes from Lockheed sales plots and typical Lockheed deflection that the software and paint job wasn't finished.
Except that it's wing loading is about the same as the F-16, total loading is better than the F-16, and it's T/W ratio is extremely good and once again better than the F-16.
It will also 'inject' money into the UK's economy as about 19% of the F35 (for all nations) is made in the UK by BAE and other British companies.
if only my country got rid of all corrupt officials, we should've been purchasing dozens of these already.
Nothing should replace the A10
I WAS THE MILLIONTH VIEW
Trump really loved the F-35 over the other fighters so that is why the F-35 is the number one weapon that America is spending money on. Also it is because of Obama that America choose the F-35 over the F-22.
There is no proof that Beyond Visual Range (BVR) air to air combat is going to be the norm. This is not the way not the way the few examples of modern air combat have occurred. The F-35 is taking a huge gamble by sacrificing maneuverability which would be necessary in close range combat.
It doesn't sacrifice maneuverability... it's the 2nd most maneuverable US fighter. Also most actual air to air engagements since the Gulf war have been BVR.
Strangely positive given the data presented.
The military industrial complex has ruined the US. They keep building all these WW2 type aircraft and aircraft carriers when if a world war were to happen who knows what would need to be created to be victorious if it's at all even possible because of nukes.
Is it possible for you to do a V-22 Osprey video?
Yeah F-117 bombing a miltiary that uses WW2 radar... Till it met decent cold war radar in Serbia.
That incident just proved that stealth works. The Serbian radar (of the same era as the F-117A) failed to lock the F-117A multiple times despite detecting it at roughly 35km, resulting in the missiles only being fired at a range of 15km. It was about as amazing as an F-15 shooting down a MiG-23.
Of course everyone involved in the F-35 development and programs would say it is better than everything but F22 in dog fight.
How many pensioners could have warm home and good food for 10 of these ?
planes cannot serve multiple purposes unless you want to modify each plane for their purpose such as being more maneuverable for air superiority, better armor and more armaments for CAS, sleeker design with more angles to be more stealthier but this would cost so much for development and also would just be completely useless because the planes the F-35 is trying to replace like the F-18 for air superiority, A-10 in close air support will out perform it in any type of scenario because how they were specifically engineered for that task.
Except the F/A-18 is outperformed by the F-35 in literally every aspect. The A-10 doesn't perform CAS as a whole any better than an F/A-18 or F-16, and in fact performs less than 20% of all successful CAS missions. Most successful CAS missions are performed by F-16s, followed by the F/A-18, and then a range of aircraft including large bombers like the B-1B.
I'm still happy with my f4 phantom
Only a 115 mill, that's cheap. The F-22 Raptor is something like 2.5 billion. B not M. 115 million is cheap compared to that.
Why does the video stop at 12:08 ?
The World War II fighter bomber Mosquito could be the air superiority fighter of this decade with sufficiently sophisticated missiles, radar, and electronics.
If we could just make miniature drones which powersource can double as fuel for a fission reaction, we'd not need these bulky manpower junkers.
Part of this is due to Lockheed's policy of over hiring on new programs especially with support staff. This helps later in the life of the program allowing them to "reduce costs" through layoffs of personnel they never needed to begin with.
It is a far worse fighter than the f-22, it cannot do ground support at all, it is not a good bomber, its stealth has already been beaten.
arguably ,the only variant which makes sense is the F35B VSTOL . this is because it allows small navies a supersonic airsuperiority STEALTH fighter/bomber which IS potentially the greatest force multiplier for non supercarrier forces.
And just think, we really, really wanted to sell this to Turkey.... Problem averted!
you just need to ask China willing to pay S$115M for it or not.
Thank you Mr. Trump!
This comment is sponsored by CuriosityStream.com
Anybody that ever worked at an aircraft manufacturing plant, would tell you, in a word,... NO...
Nope, not worth it. S-300, S-400, S-500 are way cheaper and will kill this expensive POS without a single doubt.
That helmet is made from carbon fiber. No wonder it's so expensive
I have $70000 , what can I get ?
When you're a gov't that prints money like confetti and creates infinite debt, any price is fine. Cheap at twice the price. Wink...wink...
Considering the U.S. Has Alien Tech and far too advanced for civilians eyes, ears among other tech with a 20 year K ock block for civs. I'd say its money better spent elsewhere.
German radar company with Passive radar "picked up" f35s leaving town. That's why they don't do a lot of shows.
Yes, they also were notified of the F-35s positions because the F-35s were broadcasting their positions to air traffic control as a safety measure. Even if they theoretically could track F-35s, they haven't managed to do so in a situation where they didn't already know the positions of the F-35s.
Except the _F-35's_ in question were flying with Luneberg lenses.
No it isnt
India should buy this
11:48 did not expect to see israeli F-15 footage here ,nice vid m8
nnnoooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
corps is pronounced core.
Canada's been trying to figure this out for 10 years lol
Its a single engine plane that is slower, less manouverable and less well armed than much cheaper alternatives. The stealth coating wears off quickly, meaning much more costs and maintenance, and given the advances in russian radar tech and the s400 etc it will be redundant in 5 years max
Except, at combat load, it isn't slower, or less maneuverable, or less well armed than its very few cheaper alternatives. As many of its contemporaries are as or more expensive in both unit and acquisition costs.
Legit multiroll stealth plane? Totally worth it imo.
They tried to do too much with one plane man. You coulda made a replacement for the F18 and A10, and Harrier separately and made more effective, cheaper planes.
The _F/A-18_ is a mulit-role fighter... Making 3 separate programs would have collectively more expensive.
I like how people say Russian jets are superior when American jets shit on them in desert storm with no losses. Even a fucking A-10 shot down a couple.
and destroyable by a 500k missile.
A $3000 rifle and $50000 soldier can be destroyed/killed by a $1 bullet.
"humankind" man last chance. either you will stop this bollocks political newspeech, or you will loose all respect in my eyes. ah sory mixed up with "peoplekind" :P
Depends on a b or c
There are so many things wrong here... The 150 million pr F-22 price was the final BUYING price. It does not reflect its total development cost. That totals 27 billion... While we know for sure over a trillion was spent on the F-22 since the late 80s until it was finally laid dead in 2009. Then dug up and finalised later with new budgets. Same story with the F-35.
Should be how much the F-35B costs
This infomercial was brought to you by Lockheed-Martin.
NO !!!
Without a doubt, 'No'.
Christ... The F-35 excels in simulations. WELL OFCOURSE IT DOES. In simulations designed for the sole purpose of showing how great the plane is. In simulations that THEY MADE THEMSELVES !!!! If it had failed, we would never have been told about it, would we. Christ... Its like your mother telling you you are the prettiest boy in school. It doesnt mean shit when its your mother that says it, does it.
Nonsense.
F-22 is more at around 250M a pop
Sounds like "core."
I hope its true,if not....
Murican: MUH stealth aircraft can defeat alien spaceships! it is the size of a subatomic particle on radar! Serbs: haha ok cute :)
It's way way more expensive to create stealth aircraft than it is to create radars and countermeasures to defeat them. That's why Russia and China invest heavily in air defense, anti-stealth radars, and don't put alot of money into stealth fighters like the USA does
No that's just different doctrines. The US have always invested more in air power because ever since WWII carriers and aircraft have dominated over systems designed for direct combat such as battleships or tanks. Russia has focused more on air defences since they have always had a massive army and aircraft are expensive. It's makes perfect sense for the US to invest more in stealth aircraft and for the Russians and Chinese to invest more in air defences, though all 3 nations have both advanced air defences as well as stealth fighters.
Getting black ops 2 vibes
27 years development. In Gundam they develop new suits in like 6 months :D .
What are you talking about??? These planes are worth 1 billion dollars
12:23 spelled "marine corps" pronounced "marine core"
German engineers just tracked a F35 departing from Berlin airshow, ILA 2019, for 100 miles using passive radar technology. With the advent of more stealth a/c, the detection and counter measures will become more sophisticated as well. Rather buy some more Saab, which are probably not as capable but cost only 1/5, and are cheaper to operate at 10% of the F35s hourly operatring cost.
The _F-35's_ were flying with Luneberg lenses. The _Gripen E_ in unit cost is as if not more expensive than an _F-35A._ And are more like 1/2 the flying cost. With a smaller payload and slower speeds at combat load.
To discuss a point you made, stealth has not in any way proved it's value. It has been used against countries that use outdated AAM tech that is from the 80's and the 90's at best. Were the F-35 to be used against a first world country with advanced technology like China or Russia, then the evidence suggests it would not fair well at all and would be shot out of the sky very quickly.
The F-117A was 70s tech and has been used to great effect against nations using 70s radar technology. In fact the only instance of a stealth aircraft being shot down proved that stealth works as intended since the radar failed to lock the aircraft until it was at very close range, despite initially detecting it at medium range.
Horrendously expensive, overly complicated, prone to metal fatigue, maybe good for 40 minutes combat against China or Russia, as we all blow ourselves to Kingdom come! Readers, do you PERSONALLY see us going eyeball to eyeball with Beijing or Moscow? Our actual realistic enemies are tinpot dictatorships & looney terrorists (many alas in our borders already, & many even born within our borders). Yes, the Russkies & Chinese have & have had dodgy friends & allies, but our choice of friends & allies in governments (Cold War at any cost!) hasn’t been exactly comforting. We in the West need co-operation big-time with China & Russia. One doesn’t need to be a guitar-strumming hippy to see that detente & real-politik, combined with political & economic initiatives to supplement defence spending, is a good idea! Don’t leave people in the developing world, especially Muslims, without hope or dignity, like the Germans were left without hope or dignity after World War One. We all know what that led to!
?
I helped build these tools of war.
1:29 WTF theres a screw coming loose there
How much was an F-117A worth in the 1990s? And it was shot down by 1960s made Russian SAM. There is your answer.
@Nathan Peterson In 1990s, it wasn't obsolete. Put into service in 1980s, I think. It was used against Iraq a bit before. Yugoslavia was under sanctions and S-125 used to shoot it down DIDN'T HAVE ANY MAJOR UPGRADES, almost 100% basic. For today standards, yes, largely obsolete, but back then, it wasn't obsolete. On the other hand, S-125 WAS obsolete (1960s technology). So, if 1960s SAM can take out pretty modern stealth at that time, what will much more modern SAMs do? Waste of hundreds of millions of dollars...
The _F-117A_ was an antiquated aircraft that saw no refit since introduction and lacked any form of countermeasures save being low observable flying on the same route as other aircraft earlier that day. The _S-125_ and its associated arrays were modernized systems from the mid to late eighties.
Only Doug DeMuro can answer this
There is no rational argument to be made that the F-35 can replace the purpose built A-10 Warthog. It cannot carry a fraction of the payload of the A-10, it cannot loiter as long, it doesn't protect the pilot in a titanium "bathtub", it cannot land with an engine or wing missing (as the A-10 has on more than one occasion), it doesn't have a 30 mm armour piercing Gatling that'll punch through a tank like it's a soda can, and it's nowhere near as maneuverable at low speeds. The A-10 was built for one specific job, and it excels at it, but the F-35 is a jack of all trades, master of none.
There definitely is considering the A-10 only does at most 20% of successful CAS missions and exists today mostly because of a false reputation for survivability. The F-35 can carry a larger payload than the A-10, has longer range, has the option of stealth for CAS in contested airspace, has a 25mm version of the A-10's gun, and is extremely maneuverable (the A-10 only has a tighter turn radius, not better maneuverability). Also, the A-10's gun is only good against light armour. It was tested thoroughly against T-62As (from 1961) using DU rounds and failed to penetrate it from all angles that would be practically achievable in a combat situation.
Dope. Give Elon Musk 1 year and the F35 would be obsolete.
I'm a US citizen and I love this plane and what it can do for us and our allies. Like Ireland.
To be fair the F-117 that was shot down over Serbia was detected when it opened its bomb bay, which kills its stealthiness.
F-15, 16 and F-18 are the last excellent fighter jets that America ever made.
Is it worth it? just depends on what you compare it to. Ca built many bridges for its poorly managed high speed rail. There might be 12 to 14 of these bridges. The bridges are currently the only output from the input which is likely around 15 billion. (for a small relevant section including the bridges. the total project is expected to exceed 70 billion) So each bridge that connect to nothing and provides nothing cost a bit over 1 billion a piece. So one bridge that can latter be turned into a Jerry Brown Town for homeless people or about 8 f-35s. Hell yeah the F-35 is worth that small cost.
"VLOL" - Real Engineering
That segue hit me like a thunder.
Program cost: 1.5 trillion USD. Total expected revenue: 500 billion USD. Hmm...
The program cost is spread over 59+ years and over 12+ countries.
Watch the movie the Pentagon wars, that covers such issues in a hilarious manner.
What is one American life worth when they did not have to be a soldier on the ground?
Human kind? You mean mankind
This is really simple: - Yes, the F-35 is definitely worth $115 million. That doesn't change the fact the JSF program as such is a failure. Just as the fact, that the JSF program is a failure, doesn't change that the F-35 is worth $115 million. Why is it? - Because it has unique capabilities and there is no even remotely comparable alternative. Could better fifth generation fighters have been developed? Yes, but that didn't happen and here we are.
Failure how?
Lots will be paying for this shit and a few will cash in.
115M. for one F-35!!! That's stupit as fuck!!! You can buy 10 JF-17 for the same Money and is design to fight the 5 Gen fighters!!! Or 8 J-10's for 110M and is much better as the Eurofighter!!!
Love the way you say "a shitload of money"
"Lucky Martin"
"Shooting first" is the literal opposite of "dogfighting" which is direct sight maneuvering and shooting, usually involving machineguns/cannons instead of missiles. Dogfights in the closest sense require maneuverability and speed advantages over your opponent to get out of their aim and into a position where you can aim at them better sensory suites already have lost much of their importance when you close in enough to make it a dogfight.
Dad, can you buy me a "5th Gen vtol-capable supersonic stealth superiority fighter aircraft with cutting-edge broadcast-encrypted sensors"?
great video
Only in Ace Combat we will know the answer
Make a video on the F1 2021 regulations when they are released.
Isn’t the lift fan developed by Rolls-Royce, not Lockheed Martin?
These planes not even worth a penny, why? As we get more technological producers put more safety measures, and if you go get into a Conflict with someone they dont want to, they will surely shut it off.
The next plane will be so expensive, the US will be able to afford only 1. The USAF will have it on Mondays, Tuesdays, & Fridays, the USN on Wednesdays, Thursdays, & Saturdays. The USMC will have it 1st Sunday of each month
E
"Is The F-35 Worth $115 Million"? No, because my enemies are numerous very cheap and its not cost efficent to kill them with this plane. But I guess.. that if US put a gun at my head or gave me a carrot, it would suddenly be worth it.
One button = $10k
I personally feel any falling or limitations the f 35 has is at the faulty of it's having basic 3 jets in 1, I also feel it's could have been far worse but for the requirements it will work, also I am a person who wants to design militarily aircraft for a living
I want to buy a fighter jet. is F-35 worth that price?
The answer is: Yes. This is a stupid question. Didn’t even watch the video.
My personal opinion based on everything I've been researching the past 3 years: No.
The Chinese newest Quantum Radar will detect F-35 200 miles away.It will become useless and Canada has scrapped purchasing...
Australia still waiting for the rest of our order for the F35 Lemons at this date 19/10/2019 better supplies from the UK.
Is it worth it? Of course not, unless you are one of it's profiteers.
REMINDS ME when iranians shot down the US $170 MILLION DRONE
With all this money spend like that lead me to thinking could most of Earth problem could of been solve with it? I mean 115Million, thats enough for many to start entire business and be a millionair that can help the poor.
Booht
Steam Catapult equipment under the aircraft carriers deck is huge! Watch a video on it
Failed .. There was air show in france this years and there is company who make radars. They claimed that they detect f35 for 200 km
115 million U.S. dollars for a flying turkey??? Wasn't it last year an F-35 was hit and had to stop it's miiion over Syria ... picked up by an old Russian S-200 missle system and forced it back to Israel??? lmfao.
No, that was a bird strike in 2017 before the F-35 was even operational within the IAF.
It was never the answer I was interested in but the journey. Very good video.
Not worth it... nothing used to kill our fellow man is.
Meanwhile Australia just locked into a 10 year contract spending $80million on f16 jets. How retro
Longest leadup to a spruik for a subscription channel evah!
Downvoted for not getting to the point.
That is my tax money flying.
Ah, excellent. Now instead of being 100 times more powerful, we can be 400 times more powerful than those deadly goat farmers! And all it cost us was a first world healthcare system and fixing out infastructure! What a steal.
Easy answer... no
RIP the braaaaap braaaaap A-10 you will be missed
Amazing content bro
Compare it to the new China fighter in cost and capability.
11:15 he talks about fusalage is shit you spin that with bunch of bullshit. If fusalage is shit, its shit this is not something about software or some paint lol
EVERY time a missile or bomb it drops takes out some radical Moojah, I say YES !!!
Things I learned 1) The way the F-35B does vertical take off is seriously awesome. 2) Good lord, the F-22 is one gorgeous bird.
If the government didn't steal its income by force, we'd know the true value of something like this to people living in North America.
Nice
US: We have this stealth fighter with VTOL capability and electronic superiority. Russia: Our aircraft can land on a farm field, and can be repaired with a wrench and some duct tape. Russia wins.
The biggest argument you don't address - surviveability. The reason they brought back the A-10 was because it could handle the attack role better. It won't shut down from a few bullets ripping through it. There's a phrase that describes it perfectly: a Jack of all trades, a master of none. You try to do too many jobs an d you end up doing all of them shitty. Specialization is a necessity of war. Are you now going to say we should put all troops through dive, para-, and sniper training because it will save money having all in one? You're an idiot if you think so; and the same goes for this aircraft. Oh, and if it's so great, why did the Navy decide to put more investment into the F/A-18 E/F Superhornet?
The A-10 never left... It was simply painted with a false reputation and the USAF were not allowed to replace it despite having evidence it doesn't perform that well. A-10s perform less than 20% of successful CAS missions. And besides, bullets aren't going to do much to any combat aircraft. "Jack of all trades, a master of none" is the perfect phrase to describe literally every successful modern fighter. Specialised aircraft typically don't do their role much better at all, and they take up space that could be used for a more useful aircraft. "Are you now going to say we should put all troops through dive, para-, and sniper training because it will save money having all in one?" - No, but that's only comparable to pilot training, not the actual equipment being able to perform multiple roles. For instance there are F-35 squadrons dedicated to air combat. If a primarily ground attack squadron loses an aircraft they can borrow from the air combat squadron. "Oh, and if it's so great, why did the Navy decide to put more investment into the F/A-18 E/F Superhornet?" - Because the F-35 is not intended to replace the Super Hornet. The Super Hornet wasn't even operational at the time the X-35 won the JSF competition.
F-35: "exists" Passive Radar: "I'm about to end this planes whole career!"
Meaning you can buy up to TEN fully up to date and widely superior Sukhoi Su-35 for the price.
You can buy one of those at best per F-35A, and the US are producing F-35s about 10x as fast as Russia produces Su-35Ss. The Su-35S is also quite inferior. A bit like how the F-4 has better specs than the F-16 on paper, but the F-16 vastly outperformed the F-4.
No it is not worth 115 million, 400K for that helmet, wow. Now the F22 is worth every penny. Military could have gotten something better for that price of each one F-35.
Q: Is the F-35 Worth $115 Million? 20+ minutes of video later... A: NO
Are you a virgin? Yeah 20:12
It’s a trap but most Americans shy to say yes they eat 2 trillions for technology they have it already since 40 years
can you send it (again)over Serbia so we can do our voodoo shit and take him down(again).....
11 fukken tons of weight and you still build those stupid rockets for space flight???
Hey bro. Could you think of making match up of one F35 against all German army during ww2. Or dozen?
we (you that is) have absolutely not demonstrated that the f35 is a worthy replacement. and others seem to think the same. guess why boeing just fitted the a10's with new wings that are expected to take 10K flight hours.
Because the A-10 has political supporters who never let the USAF present evidence they don't need the A-10. Fact is the A-10 is responsible for less than 20% of successful CAS missions in the last decade.
The answer is No.
*sponsored by Lockheed Martin* ;)
Oh shut the fuck up about dog fighting. So tired of that crap. No one dog fights anymore! I don't care how well your Cold War fighter can dog fight if it can be picked up by the F-35 long before it even knows the F-35 is in the area.
When referring to the pilot we should use they not he, your videos are brilliant keep up the good work.
Is it worth $135 million? Do we want to keep air superiority? YES so $135 million is worth it! Ask a pilot how they like the F-35 who has flown a F/A 18, F-16 or F-15 Strike Eagle and the answer is yes. The only alternative is a F-22 which costs significantly more.
Anybody ever wonder if some of the $$$ went to other projects?
image and explanation at 17:23 is completely wrong
World's most expensive lemon.
No, it´s not. Cant´t you just say it?
Be aware you are talking a balance sheet. Ask the question to the ones who get paid - especially at the top of that game. Nothing has a cost but someone gets paid or collects. Wars that waste and seem to win nothing are more than lucrative - being the capacity to rig an Economy to war as peace. Pharma patently trolls for monopoly over sickness and opens has no business sense of actually curing their revenue stream. What is it worth to YOU is a more definite question - because you are part of the tax base that pays as well as sharing the nature of those who are its targets - people. I'm not saying defences are necessarily wrong I am questioning the frame of 'thinking'
I believe the F- 22 and the F-35 are turds
The F-35B made the other two variants less capable and more expensive by far. Bad move, ass they should have made a STOVL should have been developed as one project and the other two as another. I think the X-32 was a more interesting project and that it could have cut the price down a lot. That says a lot coming from me as I really dislike Boing. But after all, I think all 3 of the F-35 variants will end up doing their jobs well, and that they will in many missions be the best in the world, at least when the price is taken into account.
I mean one bolt will probably cost $2... And Boeing and Lockheed Martin get political pull only because they pay off Republicans and centrist Democrats to give them more contracts
Hey bro sorry my question is not related to your video but still I want to know why there is no spherical mirror (concave and convex mirror) camera exist.
Let china buy this, so next it will be cheaper for everyone.
grrrreeaatttttt........now we can kill even more people
12:05 I don't know much about military traditions, so is there a reason why that pilot has an american flag folded up on his dash board? My mind went to a very dark place when I saw that lol.
Fun fact the f35 only cost 122 million in small production runs of 10. Lockheed is going to deliver 130 this year. Also they just offerd the f35a at a cost of 80 million thats a 16% drop off in price when it hasnt even reached peak production
YES! The F-35 pilots will tell you that they are invisible to other pilots.
If youre a douche and youd rather kill than explore, or innovate theb yeah, sure....
Using people who have to shill for F35 as examples is ridiculous. Stealth is a meme (what is thermal imaging and LW radar). LW is not useless paired with ever-cheaper and higher resolution thermal tech. It was defeated by 70s sams in Serbia when they killed lots of Serbs to protect invading muslims. Thanks Bill. New attempts allegedly rely on detecting the absence of signal or a lower background due to scatter across various frequency ranges. Either way it can't do half of an A10s job, can't loiter as much, can't fight as good in the air in heavy ECM environment.. it's a donkey.
It will be a success! And the lessons learned in manufacturing will be taken to the next gen fighter planes. So the costs of that should not be attributed to this plane entirely.
One of these or Fifty Sea Harriers for $115 Million ? I know what I would have.
@bigearedmouse17 The production and acquisition cost was about ~40,000,000 USD in '1998 according to the GOA's budget report in FY98. Again, the _AV-8B_ has not been produced in over 20 years and has seen very little remanufacturing save some electronic warfare upgrades.
@Nathan Peterson According to Janes, A second hand harrier can be purchased for around $2Million. Am assuming the $40Million would theoretically be for a New model ?
The latter costs about $40,000,000 USD and hasn't been physically produced or significantly remanufactured since the nineties.
The F35 has more flaws than the X Box 360 !
try to fly with it over Serbia, I`ll bet it`ll end up like the F-117, downed by soviet technology from the 60`s
It would be sad to see this shit down by a cheap rocket
your 115mil number is way off. If you factor in the development cost which the US government did pay... plus the cost of all the added equipment needed to get full stealth capabilities... it is more like 200mil a piece. Now if they really do end up selling a lot of the planes to other countries... or course the per unit cost will come down in time but the reality is by the time the cost does start inching down in any meaningful way... it will be on to the next gen pilotless fighters. So in the real world, the F35 is a 200million dollar plane and at that cost... no way it is worth it other than to have a small number that can be used as quarterbacks with other planes doing the close in work. Honestly, the best solution in my humble opinion would be to use drones as the lion share of fighters with an F35 back calling the shots 50 to 100 miles back. I would propose a new combat group made up of 10 bomb carrying low cost drones. Then 6 advanced drones with air to air missiles. And top it off with one F35 to control the mission. The bomb mule drones would be very low cost with no stealth. They could be built for 3-5mil per unit. The advanced drones would be around 10mil per unit and capable of firing air to air missiles with a ground based pilot controlling each advanced drone. The F35 would be shielded by the cover of the advanced drones while the bomb carrying mules do the dirty work. So 10x5mil =50mil for the bomb carrying drones. Then 6x10mil = 60mil for the advanced drones. Then 200mil x1 for the F35. The F35 pilot controls the bomb carrying drones as a group with AI controlling basic things like attack formation based on what they are going after. Each advanced drone has its own ground based pilot that is in constant contact with the F35 flight leader. The beauty of the 3 layer flight group would be the majority of losses would come from the mule drones which are cheap and easily replaced. The fighting drones are more expensive but still hella cheaper than the F35 and since piloted by ground based pilots remotely... losses there would be manageable. Keeping the F35 safe would be critical as we can not afford to lose 200mil aircraft for long without bankrupting our air force.
Hello from Serbia! Sorry, we didn't know it was invisible.
Unit Cost of the F-35A over Low-Rate Initial Production: 2007: 221M 2008: 128M 2010: 112M 2012: 107M 2014: 94.8M 2017: 94.6M Beginning of Serial Production: 2019: 85M
If this is the most expensive weapon system in the history of human kind, then it is already a failure. The Manhattan Project smashes it with the full force of a million thermonuclear bombs.
The X-35 prototype is on display at the Smithsonian Air and Space museum near Dulles Airport
22:02 Smoothest ad transition I've ever seen...
India got its french Rafale for whopping 14 billion dollars.....you Americans try to sell your f35 to india you'll make billions
American fighter planes are like European cars...overpriced.
No it isn't
Your transition from the video itself to the advertisement part was genious :D
I wonder how many $600 toilet seats and the like are included in that cost, and how much it would be without them.
How humanity could be so much better off if only we could get along. So much
@Nathan Peterson Based on both price per plane as well as hourly operational cost. I don't remember the exact numbers, I roughly remember the hourly cost of the JAS 39 was around €20-30000, Eurofighter in the €40-45000 region and F-35 over €50000 according to Der Spiegel last year. ½ is a fraction according to maths. ;o) The ratio in purchase price per plane is similar. Superiority reffered to as roll rate and load factor at the same speed. The lower wing loading comes to bear there, as well as the delta planform. The JAS 39 also shows a visibly better L/D at high lifts, thus is better at taking its speed around corners. Same goes for the Rafale, by the way. (I don't include the Eurofighter here as I can't tell how much of its tight turning at low speeds benefits from its extremely high power/weight ratio over its aerodynamical qualities.) A crucial skill in dogfights. Higher wing loading improve the skills as strike fighters though, as ground turbulence doesn't shake the plane as easily, so the accuracy in low level attck benefits.
> *_"To add an opinion: The JAS 39 comes at a fraction of the price, is similar in speed, superior as dogfighter, ..."_* It doesn't come in at "a fraction of the price." Superior based on what? > *_"which I guess is massivley overrated, as shown by the Serbian's downing an F-117 (Of which I heard very different versions from what you reported here)."_* First generation of stealth aircraft that lacked any form of countermeasures and saw no refit since introduction fairs worse off in one scenario against a well trained unit that uses the old but modernized _S-125_ system and its associated arrays.
It’s only worth it if you need it. Same as any form of insurance.
Depends on who you ask? If you ask the bosses at the manufacturers they'll say it is to them. If you ask an RAF or FAA pilot they'll say "NO, can we have the Dassault Rafale?"
20 minutes and this guy decides to sit on the fence. Then what the hell was the point of this video? Fricking clickbait.
27 years? Wow that’s really petty.... they could have done so much better in 27 years...
"...when we look at the other aircraft it's going to be replacing." -The F-117 has been out of commission for over a decade. A handful are kept in usable storage, but that is all. Also (in spite of the "F" designator), the F-117 is a bomber, not a fighter. The F-35 would *never* have been it's replacement; the new AF bomber is a closer mark to its replacement. -The F-35 *cannot* replace the A-10 no matter how hard corrupt military leaders/politicians skew the data/their intent. Nothing else does low-and-slow CAS better. -Damn near every positive capability that is now cited in defense of the F-35 could have been/could still be incorporated into other, dedicated aircraft (to include the more capable airframe of the F-22): -Electronic collection -Jamming -Advanced HUD -Citing the cost per unit now is so entirely laughable as they have been intentionally misrepresenting the "price per unit" for over a decade. The fact that it is now becoming stomachable in spite of still being an excessive expenditure for the product being received in no way lessens the comedic impact of this figure. They were trying to figuratively (and literally) sell the F-35 even when the F-22 was objectively less expensive per unit, and flawed metrics/political smear was used to cut-short the production of the other aircraft (which would have been a far more deserving candidate for an increased production run inciting a much greater reduction in cost). In the best light possible, the F-35 is an electronically advanced fighter aircraft which benefits from stealth and is comparable to legacy 4th Gen F-16s and F-18s, albeit with greatly reduced payloads, endurance, and flexibility. In an objective analytical evaluation, the F-35 incorporates a multitude of compromises attempting to replace specialized legacy aircraft with a common airframe incorporating electronic and stealth advancements, but falls dramatically short of successfully succeeding any of these airframes on their own. The Navy's call for twin-engine redundancy, the Marines' call for VTOL, and the Air Force's call for high speed (~mach 2)/high service ceiling (~60k+) were all dropped in order to force each branch into a common airframe, with the issues that resulted from such a short-sighted compromise being further marked by the fact that all variants now suffer from a significantly short range and unacceptably low payload of only four (4!) munitions, the Air Force's F-35A being the sole version to sport a 20mm machine gun, once more highlighting the fact that we have yet to learn from our mistake of technological reliance despite having faced it twice already in both Korea and Vietnam.
Just saw one for the first time recently, gawd _they'e_ *SMALL!*
No its not a stealth fighter, the S - 400 AA Russian can pick it up, probably some of the new SU's can to. Has got low volume weapon pods ( the SU's can carry almost twice as much), Loiter time is pathetic. Slow... The list goes on. The Chinese and Russians laughing all the time.
No because the costs of building things these days have become overly inflated to make the big bosses way more money.
It's done well. https://blog.naver.com/7heppy7
Add in the cost of Soares and servicing -not worth cost !.
Sigh, it's always the hot bag of air in the back who's never even flown a kite that runs his mouth. How about this, Lucky Charms. Tell us what the fuck you where doing in 1992 that way I can interrupt you with a quick, "Hold up, nobodyfuckencares" as I giggle at your SWN'ness.
Flying junk. Worthless
Newer versions of F-16s bought by arab countries and Taiwan cost almost as much as the current price of F 35A
f--- off, sir.
So much innovation for killing each other
Poor Boeing :(
Does it comes it red colour? Planning it to gift myself for Christmas
Useless piece of junk.
If its bought by defense acquisition, the answer is always no, and you can find a civilian equivalent for 1/5th the cost, if legal.
The current cost is 95 million abd its decreasing each year.The f 18 super hornet cost 70 million to put things in perspective.
It seems to me that the F35 Is a jack of all trades , master of only stealth aircraft, mediocre in all aspects except for combat information collection and analysis as well as stealth. When reality strikes and shit hits the fan, like being forced into a dogfight or experiencing some form of engine failure (whilst possessing only one engine) , I would much rather be piloting an aircraft such as the F22 or the Euro Fighter Typhoon.
We have a grossly bloated military budget. It needs to be cut by 33% and pinned to inflation, only to be exceeded if the president declares and the congress approves a national security emergency and/or a declared war.
The f35 pointing its nozzle down looks like a nervous dog taking a dump
The worst part is this. Anyone who thinks they spent all this cash on our military for defense is a gad dam fool. We are going to War!!
No..You can now get a F-35 made in China cheap since they stole the plans.
The most expensive military plain is the B2!!!!!
Given that none of the enemies we are fighting even have an air force, I'm really don't think we need any expensive new fighter jets. Short of a war with Russia or China (which few will survive regardless) there is really no reason to build any planes that aren't exclusively ground attack craft.
... and that bag of shit is the Fail-35
The Harrier accidents were mainly during development, it was far more stable in its production form.
Seems like a bargain to me.
That sponsor transition was smooth as f*** haha
"Source: The entire irish air corps" Me: "Surely this is an exaggeration" *looks up irish air corps aircraft* Well it is an exaggeration, but this is literally 1/3 of the aircraft in irish air corps, and half of the actual CAS planes. xD
Replace an F-15? Maybe. A-10? Nope. That thing is a gun with wings.
Here is the F-35: watch and cry (If you bought it) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1Z_DuF87Sc
Why would I listen to a moron who lies about his qualifications and still talks about combat as though we're in the 1960s?
What was Iraq gonna fucking do??? Fucking hell. Fly one of your "stealth bombers" over China and let's see how undetected you remain.
The ever-rising F35 costs has become a serious problem, especially for a small country (5 mill people) like Norway. We have ordered 52 planes. This does put a lot of strain on the defence budget. Especially, the naval investments could suffer. A critical issue because of our vast and very important oceanic economic zones.
No,but if the wings were larger,and chassis lighter with that amazing engine.Would be more deadlier with its advanced weapons package.I designed a mock up prototype
It won't be a _bad_ plane. it just won't be a great one either. I have a feeling this will be a next-generation F-111: Mediocre. The thing that _will_ give it problems is the B variant. Mechanical complexity is not really something you want. Complexity involving rotating things and/or directional gearing is an absolute nightmare, as the Osprey proved time and again. Prediction: A and C will be adequate in thier roles, if unremarkable. B will be an ongoing money sink of mechanical issues in the field.
The F-111 was one of the most successful strike aircraft of it's era and performed exceptionally well even in the Gulf war. The F-35 is superior in every aspect compared to the aircraft it replaces. Osprey had problems during development, but is now one of the most useful aircraft operated by the USMC, as well as being safer than the aircraft it took over from.
For aerial superiority? Sure!
16:00 "If we can find and analyze planets _billions_ of lightyears away, we can detect a plane flying overhead." Good to know this plane won't be detectable, even overhead!
I haven't watched it but considering the Harrier would cost about $70M in today's money, I'd say, NO! A gearbox with a fan? Most ridiculous design I've ever heard of.
I think the money would be better spen on health care. So many people's lives could be saved for the price of a single F-35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ70D6nWQ6M
I doubt the money goes to the American economy rather to the corporations. Interesting video though
I don't know what these engineers have against runways. It seems like there are more important things to focus on when developing a fighter jet.
15:55 - I get the point you were trying to make, but a quick google search suggests the furthest exoplanet that has been detected thus far is under 30,000 lightyears away.
I have grave doubts about the F-35's ability to function effectively in a close-air support role (to replace the increasingly out of date A-10 Thunderbolt II). The Air Force, Navy, and Marines might not care so much, but I wonder how badly the Army is going to miss the A-10.
Well the A-10's role has been largely taken over by the F-16 which has been performing effective CAS for over 20 years. The A-10 is also one of hte most heavily upgraded combat aircraft of the US military during the last 20 years. It's out of date because of it's overall design being for a 1960s era conflict where low and slow was the only possible way to perform effective CAS or reliably identify vehicles as hostile.
humankind awwww so cringey is this justin trudeau narrating?
New Propulsion : *VLOL*
Why didn't you include prices of similar Russian planes for comparison?
Emp?
Replace the A10 i don't think so! That thing won't be able to withstand the amount of damage a warthog can take and keep on flying to finish the mission it will fail in that category.
The A-10 can't do that either. Contrary to popular belief the A-10 is incapable of continuing a mission after taking damage that would result in a lost airframe for other aircraft. It's ability to take a hit serves solely to allow the pilot to return to base, and if we're talking about survivability fast jets are far more difficult to engage and are therefore more survivable.
Lol my video messed up when the prowlers came up xD
One hundred million for one fighter aircraft. Seems we would learn from history when the Sherman tanks out maneuvered the German tiger in shear numbers. Plus cheaper to build and maintain. These complex systems just for fighting earth battles is ridiculous.
Except the _F-35A_ is not the most expensive fighter out there- in fact its cheaper than many NATO aircraft. There are currently more _F-35A's_ than there are the newer Russian multi-role fighters.
what a segue!
I thought that the F-35 was designed as a strike vehicle. Not really a dog fighter. I always assumed the F-22 would remain the best dog fighter
Same case as the F-15 and F-16. One is an air superiority fighter, the other is still a very capable fighter but is focused on multi-role capability.
not 2 minutes in and the description of the the aircraft, its roles, challenges and politics are all skewed and not really correct. They don't even seem to grasps the actual roles of the legacy aircraft the F-35 is intended to replace. Its like this episode was written by a random buzzword generator set on "Aviation" with the reality slider set to 80%.
Largely uncritical praise of the f-35. Its inability to outrun or out maneuver enemy aircraft is just glossed over. Instead, all your eggs are placed into one basket, namely stealth. Once unstealthed, the f-35 is a lame duck...
@Bhigr Bond The Su-35's maneuverability is not much better and with a combat load it isn't faster than the F-35.
@Nathan Peterson for example su 35
> *_" Its inability to outrun or out maneuver enemy aircraft"_* As compared to what?
Meh....at most I still think they'll only be good at bombing runs. I just hope those F22s been still getting some improvements for air to air combat
BS, there was a B2 shot down over Serbia. It was played on the news for at least 3 days before the CIA decided to cover-up that fact. YOU'RE WELCOME!
The Serbians never claimed to have shot down a _B-2._ All 21 production aircraft were accounted for until '2008 when one was lost on takeoff in Guam.
*US taxpayers exists* F35 - I'm gonna end this man's whole career
Not really. When you actually divvy up the program cost by the length of the program's service life (59 years ) and spread it over 12+ countries. It's not all that bad, it's an obscene amount of money, but nothing outrageous.
lol yeah we can't detect planets billions of light years away... more like a few hundred light years away max...
lol no it's not worth what it has ended up costing. It's supposed to be a cheap fighter bomber with average capabilities to be used after air superiority has been attained with the F-22. Except it cost almost as much as an F-22 and is a _way_ less capable aircraft. Somehow they have managed to make the second line fighter bomber program _the_ most expensive weapons program in the history of the earth. So it is nearly entirely pointless and costs far far too much. The entire program has been a complete disaster, and if I were Trump I'd be seriously looking at whether or not it's actually worth it to build the aircraft that were initially planned or do something else with the money, like buy some super hornets or more F-22 aircraft.
The F-35 is more capable than the F-22 by far in every aspect other than air to air combat, which at the very least it is only slightly worse than the F-22 in. The F-22's procurement and maintenance costs are almost double the F-35A. Also, it makes perfect sense for the plane built with much more advanced technology and in far greater numbers to have an overall program cost greater than the one that is produced in small numbers.
Not really the case. A more accurate analogy would be three different aircraft with considerable parts and equipment commonality.
The F-35 are really just drones. Any country that buys them are stupid
Helge Schaare Agree. It’s the military industrial complex that drives all this. Look at the most recent AUSA convention on You Tube this year. All those companies and developers hawking military hardware.
I don't know how useful F35 is as a weapons system, but as an engineer the technological leaps all packed into F35 is absolutely amazing! F35 is the one of the most (if not THE most) advanced machine humans have ever produced. If there is anything US is great at, its making the great weapons, technologically.
Don't forget, F35 has never flown a single mission against an opponent with any kind of semi-modern anti-air defense. It's basically used to bomb stone-age barbarians from unreachable heights. As a result, there are rumors that Russia learned to track F35s perfectly in Syria. F35 also has poor supercruise capability, it can exceed the speed of sound for short cruises but it puts heavy stress on plane's components. Unclassified manuals limit it to only 150 miles at 1.2 Machs. F22 can sustain higher supercruise speeds (1.8 Mach) and for much longer. Russian fighter aircraft can do the same. In short, F35 is a terrible plane. It has tried to do everything and as a result does nothing really well.
think they a lemon - russian mig alot better
the loif of a woife ends with a knoive
short answer NO https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/the-pentagon-is-battling-the-clock-to-fix-serious-unreported-f-35-problems/#targetText=Bad%20data%20in%20F%2D35%20logistics%20system%20resulting%20in%20lost%20missions&targetText=But%20the%20majority%20of%20these,more%20operators%20than%20the%20U.S. 'The 13 deficiencies include: The F-35’s logistics system currently has no way for foreign F-35 operators to keep their secret data from being sent to the United States. The spare parts inventory shown by the F-35’s logistics system does not always reflect reality, causing occasional mission cancellations. Cabin pressure spikes in the cockpit of the F-35 have been known to cause barotrauma, the word given to extreme ear and sinus pain. In very cold conditions — defined as at or near minus 30 degrees Fahrenheit — the F-35 will erroneously report that one of its batteries have failed, sometimes prompting missions to be aborted. Supersonic flight in excess of Mach 1.2 can cause structural damage and blistering to the stealth coating of the F-35B and F-35C. After doing certain maneuvers, F-35B and F-35C pilots are not always able to completely control the aircraft’s pitch, roll and yaw. If the F-35A and F-35B blows a tire upon landing, the impact could also take out both hydraulic lines and pose a loss-of-aircraft risk. A “green glow” sometimes appears on the helmet-mounted display, washing out the imagery in the helmet and making it difficult to land the F-35C on an aircraft carrier. On nights with little starlight, the night vision camera sometimes displays green striations that make it difficult for all variants to see the horizon or to land on ships. The sea search mode of the F-35’s radar only illuminates a small slice of the sea’s surface. When the F-35B vertically lands on very hot days, older engines may be unable to produce the required thrust to keep the jet airborne, resulting in a hard landing.'
I don't think it was worth the R and D, I don't understand why don't they just offer the F22 to allied nations, is there actually a security risk by doing that or is it more of a "we need America to be superior" argument?
15:56 No, we cannot find and analyze planets billions of light-years away.
VLOL! Omg
mig don't need to shot at you, you fall down as soon you see it
But can it penetrate S-400?
I wouldn't pay more than $108M tops.
Yes, and you need to check your numbers again. Its no where near 115 mil per plane anymore.
I'm still not a fan of the F-35 for the cost. Radar panels have to be replaced after every flight which seems not bad until you realize the amount of use this plane will see because of its multi role design. This fact alone makes maintaining a fleet of these expensive. I believe updating older planes with modern avionics should be what the military should focus more on. The B2 is still the bombing king and the A10 is still amazing at CAS.
it's not $115 million anymore... it's actually around $80-$85 million each right now for the A (CTOL) version
I like the F-35, but jack-of-all-trades products can never achieve what dedicated systems could've done. As such even with all the bells and whistles, it's never going to be able to effectively replace the A-10 for example. Even with setting out to do a all-in-one solution, they had to split it into different versions. It boggles my mind that time and time again we have to learn this. If you want a good product, design and manufacture it to its intended nieche, not to try and fulfill every role at once.
Should also compare it to other manufacturers the Typhoon costs 83 million and doesn't have many of the F-35 features.
I don't normally like political comments on this type of video. Thanks for calling out the military industrial complex. It is ABSOLUTELY a thing. When Eisenhower coined the term in the 50's he was making probably the most astute future prediction in history.
This channel is about politics plenty... each time. Thanks for your leftist opinion on the US though. Sours the mood for the rest of the video.
Here's the real question: Why do the Marines need their own carriers? What the heck is the point of continuing to spend untold billions of dollars to maintain an amphibious assault capability that hasn't been relevant since 1945? It makes ZERO sense to try to develop a single airplane to address the needs of the Marines which don't even need it.
Obviously not. It's a overweight, underpowered POS.
The Navy should just have brought back an updated F14. It’s laughable if you imagine the F35 taking on a CAS role that the F10 fills. Moreover in stealth mode, the F35’s payload is reduced since it’s internal weapons bays are small. Betting everything on BVR combat and downplaying maneuverability is risky. Also plz note that the Night Hawk was not a fighter, it was a bomber. Never was it meant to take an air superiority role and win dog fights. The B2 is actually produced by NOC, a direct competitor to LMT, and a company that actually has better stealth technology than LMT. What can be firmly established about the F35 is that it is a gravy train for LMT. Got to love that cash flow!
Nope. An updated F-14 I would have agreed with back in the 1990s and they were definitely trying to do so back then, but it's way too late for that to be worth it considering the F-35 is simply a better aircraft than the F-14 ever could be. The A-10 is responsible for less than 20% of successful CAS operations. The vast majority are performed by fighters such as the F-16, and not because of their numbers, but rather because they still effectively support troops and fewer of them are needed when supporting large scale operations. Multi-role fighters are simply more efficient at CAS than a dedicated platform. There is no evidence that Northrop have better stealth tech, and the F-35 is the stealthiest fighter in the world right now.
This is all subterfuge. Why do you think we are being told so much about a present-day American weapon system? Because there is shit out there like hyper sonic weapons, tic tacs, and other stuff we don't know about.
NO
Military leadership: Don't take pictures with the jets. The enemy can use them against us. This video: *exists*
I wonder if they give trade-ins
one more thing: stealth is only relevant if u fly at low altitude in a hostile area AND this area cotains weaponary that can hit a fast flying plane
Stealth is never relevant because by the time your jets go out of the production lanes , radar manufacturers have upgraded their systems ...Firepower and sensors are techs that always move faster than armor and concealment !! By the end of the industrial phase of the F 35 ,in 5 years the plane will be mostly obsolete and wont have the dog fighting capabilities to engage under BVR ... And the US doesnt have a reliable long range missile the aim 120 D cant compete with meteors
if the helm costs as much as 350 top m16 mgs - you know you got ripped off xD
Skip to 23 minutes to hear that he does not even attempt to answer his own question.
The word 'corps' is of French origin; it's pronounced 'core', not 'corpse'.
Government will over spend because it's the government and budget cut if not.
"Is it worth the money? This employee of Lockheed Martin thinks so!" How much did they pay you for this video?
So lockheed probably doenst pay taxes. the profit is shareholder money. they dont inject money in the american economy. the simple match is: the new plane is easily 3x to 4x more expensive than the old one. but you still get one of them. a stealth aircraft has a tiny weapons bay. it cant be used to replace the a10. etc etc etc. this is one of the biggest con games ever played.
officially patriot had a 90+% scud interception rate... then a scientist looked at the data.. it turned out to be less than 4%. the f-35 is the second incarnation of the failed f-111. it was a fail, it is a fail and it will remain a fail. oh and they probably shot pim fortuyn because he wouldnt buy them
didn't i recently read that the stealth of that plane was broken by some german passive radar?
The Harrier often had to dump un-fired or dropped weapons before it could land, this was a massive waste of ordnance and money, can the F-35 land with a full load vertically? If not there will be a lot of live rounds dropped into the seas where ever the F-35 is operated. One more thing, the true cost of the plane, the real cost is keeping it in service not the initial purchase price...
Over priced ?.... Corrupt system ?... Tax payers bring cheated ?
There's so much money on the line that they are beyond the point of pulling the plug which is what they actually should've done because of the compromised design.
US Marine Corps. That word is pronounced "Core", not "Corpse" 12:20
Star Gazer both are correct. Us vs British eng
The language of video is not simple what are you talking about? Just be simple, understandable dont try to be "cool"
Sounded simple to me, in fact the various concepts he talked about were so oversimplified that I think many of the topics he touched up on would require further reading on your part to understand properly.
It's worth 500K homeless and 40+Million who live below the poverty line.
Not sure about the latter figure's accuracy.
Beautiful segway at the end there. 10/10
Minute 15:59 "If we can find an analyse planets billions of light years away". Yeah right. Maximum confirmed is 2,500 light years. Maximum unconfirmed is 5,000 light years. Thanks
Morons in the comments -- I don't know why people don't get the idea of the F-35, it's meant to see the enemy before they see it, target it passively from further away than it can target them back and destroy it before they can be quite sure where it is. Ground control doesn't really know it's there until it's too late. Plus it can deliver a serious bombing payload. People seem to insist on comparing it based on it's ability to "dogfight" (speed, turning ability, lift etc) which is mostly classified and unknown info.
Taiwan would tell you that the F-16V is worth $115 million
F35: Jack of all trades Master of none
@solus48 Master of none
But oftentimes better than a master one
I tell you what $115 million can buy.
If it goes 10 MPH faster than anything else out there, it's worth it.
Exposing the fan in take behind the cockpit.makes it a easy kill.just throw a wrench in there.
The promo code doesnot work for me
It's a complete lemon.no way will it replace the 16.
HECK NOOOO!!!
I never realized F35C has larger wings. It looks so much better than the other two variants.
Sounds like a commercial financed by Lockheed Martin
I admit, after rumours or professional critics and analysis, i never liked the F-35, but this video has made me to look at it on another angle and appreciate all that it is asked for to perform, yeah, i still love the F-22, but it cant do 3 rolls...they are both unique and amazing, and now im at rest knowing the F-35 is a good aircraft
What a surprise, the biggest terrorist organisation on the planet has the most expensive killing machines - all to make the rich richer. Yes we should talk about the politics and these should not be being produced - it's idiotic. The only enemy out there is whoever the US says and that is because these countries refuse to allow American corporations to come in and steal their resources and exploit their peoples.
Based on what exactly?
It hasn't been in development for 27 years.
@Nathan Peterson Negative, the F-16 plays a role in CAS; hell, even the B-1 had a CAS role, but neither replaces the A-10 (again, nothing does). The F-16's ONSTA and survivability are a fraction of the A-10's. Additionally, the A-10 costs far less to maintain and operate, a fact that is only accentuated when proposing the F-35 as an alternative. Your lack of understanding in "the last paragraph" reveal your knowledge and comprehension to be significantly lacking.
> *_"The F-35 cannot replace the A-10 no matter how hard corrupt military leaders/politicians skew the data/their intent. Nothing else does low-and-slow CAS better."_* The _F-16_ has been taking over for the _A-10_ in CAS missions where a contested airspace is present since the mid nineties. Not sure what you are on about in the last paragraph.
Based on what? The _F-35_ has a potentially higher payload than an _Su-30._ Slow as compared to what?
@Ivan Strydom > *_"... it would seem that although the F35 was designed as a multi role aircraft, the current aircraft designed for each roll respectively far outmatch the F35 in said specialty field."_* The _F-35A_ and _F-35C_ are multi-role aircraft, yes. In the same way the _F/A-18, Rafale, F-16,_ and _Typhoon_ are. What aircraft specifically outmatch it and how so? > *_"Field one: Air to air Aircraft such as the F22 or the Euro fighter Typhoon are far more capable in an air to air ingagement. Faster, more maneuverable, better thrust vectoring and with airframes designed to handle higher G forces than that of the F35."_* The _F-22A_ serves the air-superiority role or the "hi" mix of aircraft- like the _F-15C_ does. The _F-35A_ and _F-16C/ D_ serve the "lo" mix. At combat load, the _Typhoon_ is by no measure the faster or any more capable of handling higher g-forces. More maneuverable based on what? > *_"when conducting close air support against frequent enemies of the modern era such as Afghanistan and Syria that use more primitive ground to air weapons such as AA guns, thermal guidance missiles and such, aircraft such as the upgraded A10 is far more robust and capable of safely providing more ordinance on fortified targets."_* In the case where a ground-to-air or air-to-air threat is present, the _F-16C_ by and large has been replacing it in since the mid nineties. > *_"... is powered by two engines , so in the event of engine failure, be it technical or due to combat damage the likelihood of the specialized aircraft being able to return to base for a safe emergency/precautionary landing is twice as likely for the F35."_* It is possible, and has happened, but your chances of limping home in a twin jet after one engine fails is statistically speaking the same as a single jet.
Well since I have not had the privilege of flying the F35 myself , the information I am able to gather on the capabilities of the aircraft relies on the reports of the pilots that have flown it as well as the designers. In Terms of reports on the handling capabilities and the general performance , it would seem that although the F35 was designed as a multi role aircraft, the current aircraft designed for each roll respectively far outmatch the F35 in said specialty field. For instance Field one: Air to air Aircraft such as the F22 or the Euro fighter Typhoon are far more capable in an air to air ingagement. Faster, more maneuverable, better thrust vectoring and with airframes designed to handle higher G forces than that of the F35. So if forced into an air to air confrontation, I would much rather be in the cockpit of the former . Field two: Close air support : when conducting close air support against frequent enemies of the modern era such as Afghanistan and Syria that use more primitive ground to air weapons such as AA guns, thermal guidance missiles and such, aircraft such as the upgraded A10 is far more robust and capable of safely providing more ordinance on fortified targets. And each mentioned specialized aircraft is powered by two engines , so in the event of engine failure, be it technical or due to combat damage the likelihood of the specialized aircraft being able to return to base for a safe emergency/precautionary landing is twice as likely for the F35. Once more, I'm not saying the F35 is a bad aircraft, not by any standard, but for the price, I'd personally prefer to fly a machine that is the best there is in said combat environment in stead of an aircraft that is just good at everything but stealth.
Mediocre how? The latter statement is based on what exactly?
We really don't. It's discretionary spending that appears to have gotten out of hand.
@Serenitis No the F-111 was intended from the beginning to be a low level strike aircraft which is exactly what it ended up as. The program was politically managed to develop a single type for 2 services, and the Navy's requirements and intended role were that of a high altitude interceptor. Unfortunately politicians wrote the final set of requirements and almost entirely favoured the Air Force's initial requirements, meaning they were adapting a conventional takeoff heavy ground attack aircraft intended to penetrate enemy airspace at low altitude into a naval CATOBAR variant intended to intercept high altitude bomber targets. The F-35 program shares almost nothing in common and the only reason the F-35 variants differ is the launch and recovery method. F-35s are also only expected to do the tasks that multi-role 4th gens already do, but with significantly improved effectiveness much like the F-22 was a huge improvement over the F-15. Osprey readiness rate being roughly 50% does not mean it's a bad aircraft and improvements to that rate are being made gradually.
F-111 was intended to be an interceptor. A role which it was incredibly ill suited for. It eventually found it's way into a strike/support role, where it was adequate. But as an aircraft it never excelled at anything. Even as an export it had only a _single_ sustomer. Osprey _continues_ to suffer from a vastly shorter maintenance cycle than planned for. And the V-22 fleet readiness is hovering (hurr) around 50%. Which is garbage. Osprey has not been titled _"the flying shame"_ for a laugh.
@wolum andreas What is the point of your comment...? I still do not find any.
@Balázs Molnár And why would you? zorkwhouse81 saves a lot of copy here [5 days ago]. Beyond the drafting table ( or accounting) great men will fight with this machine. It is a three- peat of one size fits all; been done before. Virtually no fight goes to plan. The f16 was designed by drivers, and what made it great. I find no insight in your analytics.
@wolum andreas I cannot find any content in your comment. What do you want to say....?
@Ron Johnson So, on the day the f16 flew vertical circles around an f4, both tail- standing with the f4 in full burner; where were you? It was breath taking. Doubtful you had your first diaper then. Spent my entire life with fighter pilots and their machines. [ Plagiarize others ? ] How bout you professor? Have some Tonkas' to tell us about? Saabs take off from roadways. Most competent platforms can strategic bomb, but air superiority is another thing altogether. Pray for men, machines and the finest combat training that a reinvigorated William Tell and Top Gun can muster. This, then is the redeemer. Mediocrity is a poor place to start. It's a turkey; come to the table with facts and defend them. That you buy into the hype make you mediocre too.
@Balázs Molnár No doubt LM would like you in public accounting. The last units were considerably higher for something that doesn't enjoy rainfall. Some would consider three of these a good trade for a b2 spirit. Least we not forget the first estimate put forward for the f35 was 40m per copy [ how did we know then, a non- starter?], but at least items don't require hand- fitting to an individual copy. Unlike you I've spent my life around fighter pilots and their machines. When the prototype 16 flew vertical circles around an f4 both tale- standing with the'4' in full burner; breath taking. My critique began with an admonition of hope that folks like you are right, but it's a turkey and a third mistake is two too many. You don't win air superiority with mediocrity. Men, leadership and superlative combat training prevail as the only redeemer. Sports cars designed by drivers are preferred and cheaper to own.
Erm it doesn't cost that much each they just tell you this so THEY steal more MONEY . . . . . You live a lie EDUCATED to accept like a sponge. No FUEL used here . . . . . .
Hello Real Engineering. Will you be covering NASA's commercial resupply vehicle Dream Chaser? https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/10/dream-chaser-path-flight-primary-structure-snc/ Thanks
I like my taxes fly in cool shape
Can *anyone* design a vehicle which would simultaneously be the world's fastest car, the toughest SUV & biggest pickup truck? No right-thinking person would do so. However the US has built such a plane. Which *does everything badly* 1 - That *half million dollar virtual reality helmet freezes* sporadically leaving the pilot blind (potentially during combat) 2 - The reason for having that overpriced helmet is because of that *huge hump directly behind the pilot completely obscuring the rear view* _(EVERY successful fighter plane till date has been with a clear rear view)_ 3 - The same hump and thick body common to EVERY F-35 _(and designed ONLY for the VTOL versions to house the fan)_ has completely ruined the plane's ability to dogfight (lower top speed, lower climb rate, fast bleeding of kinetic energy). One has ended up with a plane that cannot do its basic role. 4 - The F-35 is slated to replace the A-10. It literally has 25% of the A-10s ammunition capacity, 50% of its loitering capability & (unlike the A-10 which is a flying tank) none of its ability to take damage. *I bet this plane will never be used in close combat support because when it does, many will be brought down.* Its single cannon is placed to the side of the nose and is terribly inaccurate (causes the plane to yaw due to the recoil). _Note that its much ballyhooed stealth is useless when conducting ground support_ 5 - Every crucial test to certify the F-35 was rewritten in order to let it pass. 6 - The marine guy in the video was ecstatic because it is much better than the Harrier. _He does not care about it being much worse as a fighter_ 7 - The plane has only one engine. Fine for small interceptors, fatal in close ground support due to ground fire 8 - It is crawling with software which currently malfunctions under battle conditions _(screens freezing and systems actually re-booting during combat simulations... I guess the pilot will have to wait for the computers to reboot before continuing the battle)_ 9 - The plane is now used as a drone operator. Something the B-52 also does _(a non-stealth, slow-moving plane built 70 years ago with the radar signature of a football stadium)_ But don't worry, other countries will buy it _(under sufficient pressure from our government)_
HEY AUTHOR YOU FORGOT ABOUT YAK-141
The price of this plane is total bullshit. The company is overriding the U.S. government again. If the Chinese made it, it would cost $5 million each. We should outsource the manufacturing of this plane to China and dramatically reduce military spending. Use all the money saved to help people with health care and poverty. America surely has screwed up policies. It's all about war but be damn the American people!
The Boeing competitor was a fucking abortion. It's funny, just because a company can produce some of the best advanced airliners in the world, they totally sucked at the fighter dept.
6:55 No, not like a turboprop, but more like a turbofan with the assembly turned 90D downwards. No propellers involved here. relating this air moving system to the Osprey is like relating hand grenades to apple pie .
You got so involved with the history and the cost of the F-35, you left out the engineering wizardry which makes this aircraft so formidable. DAS? EOTS? AESA? MADL? Many people don't really understand modern jet aircraft like the F-35. They view the aircraft as a static design, but the reality is that platforms like the F-35 are constantly growing in capability. For example, the Block 4 will add capability, and succeeding Blocks will improve engine power, range, and also include lasers to shoot down missiles. The aircraft will be constantly improved over time, with each lot, and each block. No combat aircraft in history has been so extensively tested as the F-35. While the cost of the F-35 is great, remember, most 'journalists' include the total cost of the program well into the 2060s. No other combat aircraft, like the F-15, F-16 etc. have been costed by this total cost model. Any combat aircraft costed by this total cost model will yield very high numbers. The F-35 is on the bleeding edge of engineering, so it is very difficult to cost so many new technologies being implemented simultaneously. You asked the rhetorical question, is the F-35 worth it? That is a resounding yes if you are a foreign nation buying this advanced aircraft, since you will be paying the flyaway price without having to pay the enormous development costs. The bottom line is that the F-35 will make the US and its allies own the skies for the foreseeable future. No other aircraft, including the J-20 of China and the Su-57 of Russia can match the F-35. The F-35 is truly a game changer, not only for its stealth, but also in its advanced sensors and networking. The F-35 is even a force-multiplier for legacy 4th generation aircraft by bird-dogging and sending back target coordinates to legacy jets, or to ships or ground batteries. Air supremacy is expensive, but it is worth it. The F-35 is an i-phone, and the 4th generation fighters are flip phones. Which would you rather have?
Hopefully someday we can engineer and sell a machine costing $115M per unit that's not made to destroy things.
This was a rather nice video to find, after all the constant negatives I've heard of this impressive looking plane
I have only one thing to say A-10 Warthog
The most expensive weapons system in US history is the aircraft carrier.
Short answer: No!
Problem with trying to have one plane multirole for literally everything is that you lose potential by not allowing one aircraft purpose built for that role to be used. Long term it's cheaper to use planes like the F-15/F-16 and A-10 for their respective roles because they're cheaper and can fill one role they're designed for. There's a validity of getting new jets made, but at such a cost it's almost not worth it when the combat missions can be flown by cheaper aircraft.
The _F-16C/ D_ is also a multi-role aircraft like the _F-35A,_ as is the _F/A-18E/ F_ like the _F-35C._ The _F-15E_ is a bit of a one off kind of aircraft, but the _F-15C_ and _F-22A_ serve the same air-superiority role or the "hi" mix of aircraft in the USAF. A new produced _F-16_ and _F/A-18E_ are not cheaper than their contemporary _F-35C_ or _F-35A._
A billion lightyears is 9.46e+24 meters. That's about 500 times the distance between us and the Andromeda galaxy.
I'll take two!
You omit to mention that the three variants are - 1 can't run 2 can't jump 3 couldn't run from let alone jump away from a cat ! Wait till it meets a dog wvr
Um a10 is far far from air superiority. Its CAS
All the knowledge acquired by designing such a versatile platform will be classic in the future.
I hope China doesn't steal it but rather buy it. They probably wouldn't understand that...
It had to be done by the free world.
1 jet would *feed, clothe, house, medicines, etc. for life and living. Instead of death
This Canadian company will render stealth aircraft obsolete and change military tactics around the world. https://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/206803/%E2%80%98invisibility-cloak%E2%80%99-hides-people%2C-objects%2C-buildings-and-multiplies-laser-emissions.html
The F35 isn‘t stealth anymore
Huh?
Note: The concealment of the jet's weaponry may be for no use because they can be ticked off by special use of radars! See Radar signatures of substances, table of elements.
Where's my Military security clearance? #DepartmentOfDefence
The B-2 may or may not have ever been shot down. We'll NEVER know, because if it happens, the US government will bury that story so deep, we'll find out who killed Jimmy Hoffa first.
The _F-117A_ was a black project and while the U.S. didn't confirm it until about 6 months later, they never hid its loss in '1999. The _B-2A_ is not a Black Project. Why would its loss be kept secret? Not to mention there are only 20 of them (21 a the time ), not that difficult to keep account of.
Please do a video about the Sagrada Família in Barcelona! It’s an engineering masterpiece and I would love to see more about the physics in the architecture!
If the fighter can do everything manufacturer claimed can be done with it, then may be it's worth the hundred of million price tag to some country in reaching their political goal.
Nope it's a complete scam
Do more American weapons
This ur best video by far. I've watched it 10 times
I think stealth can best be explained as a means to facilitate ambush, not invisibility. The most important thing about that is at least temporarily, turning a semi-symmetrical combat situation into an asymmetrical combat situation that is in your favor long enough to carry out a specific objective and ultimately minimize risk of casualties.
@Alex Besogonov F-117A was shot down at close range after the P-18 radar (possibly even an upgraded 1980s version) managed to detect it at a range of 35km. The targeting radar however failed to lock the F-117A twice, finally acquiring a lock at a range of 15km which is within the F-117As weapon range. The missiles themselves were V-601s which are from the year 1970. 2 were launched and one failed off the rail, the other hit the F-117A at a range of 13km. Keep in mind the F-117A is 1970s tech too and apart from it's stealth capability was a very unremarkable aircraft with no warning systems, no countermeasures, and no active sensors. That proves stealth worked as intended since the F-117A didn't even know he was being targeted until he saw the fiery engines of the missiles igniting. Russia supposedly have the best air defence systems, but that's only if you consider land based systems at ultra long range. When it comes to ballistic missile defence they are a bit behind the US. As for the radars, no they cannot do precision targeting using long wavelength radars. They can fire missiles in the direction of the stealth aircraft with a lowered probability of kill, but that still means that stealth works as intended, especially considering that even the most advanced Russian air defence radars such as the Nebo-M are not capable of tracking stealth targets beyond about 150km. The F-22 is the only operational fighter that can supercruise at such high speeds. The Su-57 is supposed to enter production this year but won't be entering service for quite a few years more. But regardless you missed the point completely. Supercruise is a short range capability, not a true cruise. It really isn't that useful outside of entering combat since you're trading fuel economy for speed, but you're also trading speed for fuel economy. Mach 1.2 is fine for what the capability is worth. The Su-35S isn't old. It fist flew in 2008 and entered service 1 year before the F-35. And from what I've seen of the Su-57 airshows the Su-35 is more maneuverable than the Su-57 in clean configuration, but that obviously doesn't make it a better fighter. Considering the F-35 is currently a top tier fighter there is no way you can conclude the US didn't feel a need to build an actual plane. But even then the US already have 2 6th gen fighter programs intended to finally phase out the F-15 for the USAF and the Super Hornet for the USN. Turkey did not choose to negotiate a deal with Russia for fighters until after they had been kicked out of the F-35 program, so there's no basis in that point of yours for calling the F-35 inferior.
@ElJackale My last name is Besogonov, and I'm not a politruk. But sure, feel free to continue producing inferior products. Countries like Turkey have woken up to that fact.
@dumdumbinks274 F-117 was shot down by what basically was 1970-era Soviet anti-air missiles. As of right now, Russia has the best anti-air defense systems in the world and it can use multiple radars lighting up targets from several directions. The long-wave radar is used for rough targeting for short-wave seeker radars. Chirped radars with some clever math then allow to do pinpoint-precision tracking. Super-cruise for F-35 is not fine. And F-22 is definitely not an exception, Su-57 can do Mach 1.6 supercruise for 930 miles (limited by fuel) and short bursts of 2 Mach speed. Chinese J-20 will also feature supercruise capability in the upcoming revision. Heck, even the old Su-35 can supercruise and outmaneuver F-35. "Conventional war can still happen" - sure. But it never happens between technologically equal states. Nobody is going to attack the US with airplanes, so the US military doesn't feel any hurry to build an actual plane.
Alex Besogonov Keep your fairy tales for Radio Yerevan, politruk Besognow.
@Alex Besogonov 1. The F-117A was shot down once under very specific circumstances that only demonstrated stealth worked as intended. It continued to be used to bomb Serbia without any further losses. 2. There are things called radar reflectors specifically designed to make the aircraft visible that are used in conjunction with transponders. Not to mention the F-35 can use external munitions. 3. Supercruise at Mach 1.2 for 150mi is fine. The F-22 is the exception among supercruise capable fighters, not the rule. Supercruise isn't used to close the gap, it's used to increase the energy of missiles at launch to achieve a high probability of kill. If a fighter wants to close the gap quickly afterburner is used. Supercruise has no use in dogfighting. 4. The F-35 is cheaper than many 4th gens and is working well. Considering the old fighters are desperately in need of replacement developing a new fighter was the best option 5. Conventional war can still happen. The reason it doesn't happen between the superpowers is because of the combination of conventional and nuclear deterrents.
@dumdumbinks274 F117 flew missions in Serbia (and got downed). And there's no "visible configuration" for radar stealth, it's always on. F35s simply fly with turned on transponders in Syria to avoid issues, but this still allows adversaries to track them. Supercruise is important for dogfights, being able to close the distance fast and for dogfighting (to get a better angle). That's the reason F22 was designed with it in mind, it's needed for an air superiority fighters. F-35 has basically been designed as a cash cow first. Military understands full well that there is not going to be a conventional war, so why not pig out on those juicy contracts?
The F-35 hasn't faced a proper enemy because nobody has started a conventional war since 1991. This means that no modern fighters have proven themselves. F-35s in Syria are often flown in a visible configuration to prevent Russian from figuring out how to effectively track them. Supercruise is not for cruising and doesn't meet the definition of cruising in the first place. Supercruise is for short bursts of speed to enhance combat effectiveness. Also the F-35 is still faster than most fighters in a similar combat configuration. The F-35 was developed to perform the roles existing multi-role fighters could already perform. It certainly isn't what you claim.
They were planning to offer the F-22 as an alternative to cancelling the program, but they chose cancellation because very few nations would actually buy the F-22 even if offered. Nobody wants a single role fighter as their primary combat aircraft, which is why the F-35 and other fighters such as the F-16 and F/A-18 have been developed over the years.
Radar panels don't have to be replaced after every flight... where are you hearing that? The F-35A is no more expensive to operate than the F-15C.
The problem with that approach is that availability rates plummet. If you have a squadron of A-10s and a squadron of F-15Cs for air defence you're not going to perform CAS as effectively as 2 squadrons of F-35s that can defend themselves. The A-10s may be good, but the difference in capability for the specific role doesn't make up for a lack of 24/7 air support or inability to perform other missions at all. It's also questionable whether the A-10 is actually better performing to begin with.
he got payed with we wont fire you off the jet lol
@Nathan Peterson that wouldn't do much for a passive system
No it really wasn't given the _F-35_ was flying with Luneberg lenses in accordance to German aviation regulations.
@yondaime500 Ya, I think the brain shuts down somewhere between "billions of kilometers/miles" and "billions of lightyears." https://xkcd.com/1342
Yeah, even that M87 supermassive black hole is "only" 55 million light years away, and it took several large telescopes across the entire world to get a blurry picture of, despite it being larger than our solar system. Amazing how numbers in astronomy are so incomprehensible that you can be off by 6 orders of magnitude and it doesn't even seem to matter.
The top flap is closed unless the plane is in STOVL mode.
@William Swartzendruber it can't chase the P-51 the F-16 or the F-15 or the F-A-10 I can go on
And I'm sure you have the relevant information required to make this assertion.
Low and slow is a thing of the past, Gramps. JDAMs are extremely accurate, are way cheaper than the 30mm ammunition for the GAU-8, can be used from much higher up, and can be put on much better platforms. The GAU-8 serves no purpose and thus the A-10 is fundamentally obsolete.
F-35 was detected on radar from 150km on paris air show.
$115 Million spend this to buy opponent politicians and you are good to go.
27 years is more than 1/2 of my life (I am 53) .
@Real Engineering will we be able to access a nebula subscription if we used your code to sign up for curiosity stream a couple months ago? If so, how do I get it? Thanks so much.
This video is sponsored by Lockhead Martin
8:50 "Ironically" when referring to the F-35 having three models. Even the X-32 had it gone in to production would have had multiple models. The sticking point was that the VTOL prototype couldn't go supersonic. Yes, Boeing said they'd fix it in production, but they had a separate VTOL prototype from the prototypes capable of supersonic flight. Where the X-35's VTOL prototype had no problem going supersonic. So the X-32 had VTOL *OR* supersonic. From the start of the JSF program, it was expected that there would be a "VTOL version" and a "non VTOL version" of the winning design; as they knew the Air Force and Navy didn't want to waste the weight of a VTOL system. The adding of the third version for the Navy was "Navy gotta Navy" and wanting more capability than the Air Force. Although I don't know why the USAF didn't just order the F-35C for commonality. Oh, wait, I do know - they wanted to be different than the Navy. I do wonder if the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds will both switch to the F-35, though, marking the first time both teams would share a plane since they both used the F-4. It would be awesome for the Marine Corps pilot to fly an F-35B and do some VTOL tricks during the routine.
Please review the SU-35 Jet and the Ka-52 helicopter!
"This sounds like a shitload of money..." That's because it is.
Great video! Tho i got sad for all the aspiring female fighter pilots when you said "he" at 15:20 I'm super proud of all the females in STEM and military fields etc despite society not even recognizing that they're in it :)
I think the UK has ordered around 45 of the B varient at the cost of around 10 billion quid. It's a pretty controversial move all things considered. The light carriers the UK uses aren't long enough to support F-35 take offs, so the government has had to comission new light carriers to go with the new aircraft. The first batch of F-35s have begun to arrive but we only have one new carrier available, and even that is in the sea trials stage. It'll be quite a while before anyone can really say if the total cost of upgrading was worth it.
Stealth technology worked very well for the SR-71 however it was also very fast
Three separate aircraft using common parts and avionics could have been produced for a was cheaper price. When you try to get a jack of all trades a/c you just get left behind by role specific airframes.
IDK LET ME CHECK MY FUCKIN BLUE BOOK ON F-35s!!!!!!
That 400 thousand dollar helmet looks tough tho! Great video and good job to you and your staff
In twenty years they will be lined up in the desert rusting away !
WHILE the avionics etc are amazing tech the shortfalls of its performance cause me concern but time will tell ... BTW l dont believe its can replace A10 WARTHOG s role in a battlefield .
These hi-tech toys are too expensive to actually use in combat....you can't afford the losses. We'll know how well it really performs if it's used in combat against a formidable opponent..say Russia or China....hopefully that doesn't actually happen.
There is an awful lot of comparison here with the Hawker Harrier - first commissioned some 43 years ago! After some 40 years it would be reasonable and not entirely surprising if the Harrier's successor were better. The surprise I suppose is that it has taken so long and cost so much money to improve upon the Harrier.
"goes back into the economy". Translation: Stop saying the trillions of dollars we pump into the military industrial complex is bad. We created jobs for Americans!
The F-35 will be the last true fighter. And for good reason. Drones are the future.
The real mission of the JSF is... to make MO-NEY. Lots and lots and LOTSSSSSS of *$$$$$$$$$$* Literal tons and tons of cash.
A bit funny.... "And the powerful onboard computer" this was designed 20 years ago... it partly runs on windows.... Seriously doubt they are keeping up with the times....
I'd rather have the F15
You can't have one airplane that does everything and does it wella Swiss army knife or Leatherman tool do lots of things but they don't do any of them very well
lol this title REALLLLY. that is like asking "is a 10million dollar car" worth 10-million hahahaha nope. people forget that the HIGH COST OF MILITARY PLANES is the time+military stuff that non military aircraft use... i.e weapon systems but they are NO WHERE NEAR THE PRICE of what the big high up people "say they cost"
3:33 why is the diagram shifting around so much??
Vlol
Anything to further the Zionist Totalitarian Global Enslavement and Genocide Agenda!
So eli5, why not repaint the F-15 and install these electronics?
it is not and will not succeed the A-10. If you get a F35 close to the ground like a A-10 a 50 calber will shoot it down. All this teck is cool but for air to ground nothing replaces a pare of mark 1 eye balls, rockets, and a gun.
Well... not being an expert but an aircraft carrier is around 13 billion+ upkeep The F35 program is said to cost >1,4 trillion If this is correct the F35 is by a mile the most expensive, not per unit but as a defense program and that I believe is the right metric to use.
I’m still wondering what Boeing was thinking when they designed the X35, it’s so damn ugly
s400 can shot down this trashcan easily...not to mention s500, and s600 that is going to be in Russian army soon if its not already...no matter how much u invest in airplanes jewmericans u cant rule the world...your time is over
Does anyone think it's ironic that after all that money and time the F35 will be shot down by unmanned, cheep as dirt drones. There is a reason why every airstrike in the last decade has been preformed with drones, maned craft are already obsolete in so many situations.
Put that into perspective ...Jeff Bezos Gulf Stream jet cost $67 million, so I have no need to watch this ... "Oh hell yeah it's worth it !"
can you do a video on turbines or jet engines
The F35 is worthless since Russia's air defenses cut this thing apart.
12:22 The 'P' is silent in Corps. It's pronounced "United States Marine Core"
It's easier to pronounce "Jar Head" ...
Fake news.
Oh god no, I don't even know where to start. But i'll just point out that the A-10 and the F-16 succeeded specifically because they were designed to be cheap but no compromise designs, achieving both by focusing relentlessly on a single mission type (ground support and day fighter, respectively). Exactly the opposite of the F35. Additionally, stealth *only* works at all when it is the 100% no-compromise single variable optimized for, although unfortunately no cheap option exists for that axis. By attempting to do all three diametrically opposed tasks, plus adding in several other (strengthening for aircraft carrier landings, VTOL for those that need it like the UK for their carrier designs), then it is an absolute joke. What we get is literally the worst design compromised weapon system of all time. It is unsurprisingly ridiculously expensive, but also utterly useless for any specific mission type when compared to a more specific design. I think it primarily wasn't cancelled because: a) the US promised something to allies, and they don't want to give up their F22, and b) most governments realize that ultimately the most likely use of these will be to shoot air-to-ground missiles at enemy trucks in third world countries. This is because most countries military leadership know that there is a vanishingly slight chance of a serious, large-scale armed air conflict between the premier military powers because the attrition rates times the crippling replacement costs of their principal air superiority fighters would result in both countries air-forces being set back to being middling powers at best for a generation. As for the specific criticisms in the video around the dog-fighting ability, unfortunately it is not the issue of how it compares to the venerable F15, F16s, and F/A-18s (or even 'super' hornets), but how they will compete with planes like the cheap and readily commercially available Su-35, let alone the Su-57 (PAK-FA/T-50) and China's J-20. One would simply struggle to find adequate language to describe the one-sidedness of such a conflict. Simply put, I don't believe the fighter pilots would willingly commit outright suicide, nor the military throw away such highly trained individuals like lemmings off a cliff. Also, although I enjoyed the video, the simplistic summary of stealth being the primary deciding factor of aircraft is silly. Briefly I will point out that, a) there are a variety of mission types, only some of which get a benefit from stealth. It is far less important to the defensive side than the offensive one, and once air superiority has been achieved, stealth hardly matters. b) as for stealth, the F35 has stealth on only the front angles. The Russian and Chinese designs are stealthy on 3 (front and sides, the rear is the hardest), and the F22 is stealthy from all angles. It goes without saying that while it is possible to take advantage of a stealthy design that relies on frontal stealth only, it requires a pretty weak enemy in terms of radar coverage. Holding the minimal stealth capabilities of the F35 up as an advantage in this area is silly. Additionally one of the most famous design concerns with the F35 was the unresolvable conflict between it's sensor systems (size of the detector apertures) and it's stealth profile, so in fact it's sensors are deeply compromised in order to keep it's minimal stealth capabilities intact. This is worth remembering when you compare the costs of the F35 to the F22. They are not comparable aircraft at all. The F22 was the premier air superiority fighter in the world, second to none at the time and possibly that's still the case. It also had by far the best stealth profile ever achieved on a fighter by far, creating the best stealth perpetrator also, without compromises to sensors. Its specialized for the most difficult roles, and achieved unsurpassed success in those roles, at extreme expense. The materials alone involved in achieving this, and their fragility, account for much of the expense. It doesn't make sense to compare a limited run $150 million effort to create the dominant fighter in the two most expensive mission roles, with a high volume $100 million deeply compromised design, useful mainly for carting missiles into enemy airspace to shoot at ground targets once the F22 have achieved air superiority. Possibly the most useful part of the entire program will end up being the software. While currently it is deeply flawed and possibly un-debuggablefor many years to come, I think it still points the way forward. In any case, we will see when this plane enters combat. We will see F35 vs Su's in conflicts in other countries. Prepare to be surprised about how vulnerable this plane turns out to be. There are masses of specific criticisms in serious analysis pieces at sites like this: https://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html
Fewer planes for the same money do not cover the same terrain as less costly planes.
Nothing contracted by the government is worth what they pay. A bottle of simple green is $50 through a contractor. A bottle.
my question is, how much did everything cost in total? I mean all F-35 in all variants for the us army, navy, air force, including research etc., minus the profits from selling a few of them . and could all of that money (probably billions) not be better spend on NASA tech?
Make a video about the Lavi Aircraft!
ask this question to the S-400
Depends whats in it!! Biscuits???
Great analysis. One question though. As with all engineering analysis, life costs are a final key. What is the expected life of each unit? That could make it much cheaper... or much more expensive.
I stopped watching when you said the harrier was using its main engine exhaust nozzles to control the aircrafts attitude... it actually doesn't... those small "puffer jet" vents in the tail and wing tips are used for that... personally I think the F-35 is a massive white elephant with rediculous costs for buying and maintaining and that it was probably a mistake to go after it.
Yes.
noo it doesent worth it, Neuron worth it ;)
this plane is a scam ... it flies like an ironing ... No chance in dogfight with old russian su27 and mig 29 ... So upgradded versions will also do ..
With all the problems both the F-22 and F-35 have had and the “experts” building it, seems a load of rushed junk.
Really awesome work guys!!!
I haven't heard or read a good word about it.
@Red Bandit Blahsass Molnar will get you flunked out of school. Refuse to design a world without looking beyond your slide rule.
Any advice for a Mechanical engineering technology course taker?
Sad but this technology always ends up in enemy hands sooner or later!
I can only imagine the amount of good that 1.5 trillion dollars would have done for the American people instead of them building this farce of a machine
Sir. I just can not see how it could do the job of an A-10. By the way good video.
and correction, the helmet cost over 600k now. LOL from last I heard (6months ago) its on revision 4.
its shit on dog fights if it ever gets into one. It's advantage is its stealth tech as one of the lockheed techs that trained us on how to perform maintenance on it "dog fighting days are over, its all about stealth. whoever see the other person first wins and by the time they see us its all too late."
Australia..NO and add to that the "hidden" maintenance, weaponry and spare parts"...... final costs UNKNOWN and bad luck fools... buyers make the future generations pay for their "puppy dog, tail wagging warmongers in control of your government decisions to support the greatest WAR mongers in the world's HISTORY.....the US of A" ..... LOW interest rates "BUY NOW MUGS." Watch your BIGGEST client China switch to Sth America and Africa for future resources purchases..
That looks like yaw control, not roll control
THE ANSWER IS: NO IT ISN'T. But American defense contractors said: BUY BUY BUY
As a citizen of the USA: No.
Crazy approach. Engineer something that is optimised for the task, not compromised to meet some bureaucrat's vision.
Nope 1 s 400 1000$ usd rocket and your millions F15 were to garbage
The question is : are 115m $ worth an f-35
A10> f35 no tank killing- canon crappy loiter time no titanium bathtub no unique distinct sound no loiter time
They're worth ZERO if they cant bypass the s400 and s500 air defenses or defend "the homeland" from hypersonic cruise missiles.
Is the F22 really that much of a better air to air fighter than the F35?
The F-35 seems to sacrifice manoeuvrability for stealth and VTOL so doesn't that make it an unsuitable replacement for an aerobatic display jet?
The advanced IA drones will make them as obsolete as P-51s, but thousand less military successful.
I would not assess the stealth capacities of any modern aircraft so optimistically. The USA have never fought an ennemy with equal technological capacities after 1945.Claiming that no F117 was shot down over Iraq is like claiming that there were no accidents during test flights.The F117s never met any resistance, neither aircraft nor a viable AAM system... Have you never wondered why Russia sold their new anti aircraft missile system to Turkey, NATO member who possesses F35 airplanes? NEver wondered why Trump hardly reacted with severe sanctions?
Please make a video on alcohol powered engine made by Israel
@wolum andreas I have no idea what that means.
damn sexy plane
Russia and China will cleverly invest in unmanned drone technology to counter it
American overpriced junk
That F-35 cannot really replace that almighty A-10 Warthogs
Fuck no its not worth it
21:58 Did not see that burn coming.
My Irish friend. Good video. I was impressed by your vocal quality and delivery of the content. I will be on the look out for your future videos.
The Marines do operate from large aircraft carriers.
Hell no
These beautiful jets fly over my house on a daily basis.
This video starts out with a serious error, when they say the F-35 is a "jack of all trades" and that 1 of its intended roles is supposed to be as a Air Superiority fighter to replace the F-16 and A-10. Well neither of those jets were considered Air Superiority fighters. The F-15 and F-22 are the USAF's Air Superiority fighters... The A-10 doesn't even have a radar and can barely defend itself against any jet fighter, and the initial F-16 variants could only shoot Sidewinder AIM-9 missiles for short range air-to-air engagements, not exactly a convincing weapon for "Air Superiority" when the F-15 had both AIM-7 medium range and AIM-9 short range missiles, and the F-14 had those as well as the AIM-54 long range missile...
This is strange as talks stealth. We in the past month know that passive radar can pick up any type of stealth huge or very small aircraft including speed height and distance, also if any aircraft was using radar jamming that also gave away the distance height and speed. Because as soon as it was being used it gives off its own signal. Then there is the speed the F35 can only in its fastest roll do Mach 1.2 also the Jet thruster is known for failing. Now about the crashes pilot error was with the Harrier but late 1980's they were flyby wire. Not stated here why? Also not explained was dust in the jets via hover mode Harrier can hover higher and safer in dusty zones while the F34 has problems. Then the rain and hail as we know the Harrier was used in cold condition in a certain war in the rain and extreme bad weather. It is unclear if any F35 can handle that type of weather. So why was the harrier so good against a Mack2 mirage. Well one theory is that when the missiles fired at the Harrier the vector thrusters would send heat and confused the missiles like firing flares like F15 used to do. the other was Breaking the Harrier could slow down so fast by the time the missile lock was on they passed the Harrier and got fired at. Then there is its landing Harriers could and did land vortically on ships in bad weather but this was also not mentioned. If the harrier had these days weapons and made of modern materials with latest Jet engines who knows what it could do. So F35 can out pace the Harrier but can't out turn the Harrier. F35 is more able to carry loads but can't land in extreme weather YET. So over price and capability does not make sense to have F35's. But could had developed a better new variant with modern materials and engines with a better cost as all made in the UK.
But..... You still need to buy 3 planes to replace 4 planes, rather than buy 1.
F-35 doesn't really need to dogfight. Just grab the F-22s, kill everything that flies, then send in the F-35s to monitor.
totaly FUCKING SHIT
A couple of Harriers are now on the UK civil register!
It's actually not that expensive. We (The Netherlands) bought the F35 for little over USD 89 Million.|.. https://www.defensie.nl/actueel/nieuws/2018/09/28/wederom-prijsdaling-voor-f-35
"War is costly tothose whofight them but profitable to those who fund them" - Rothschild
For reference I recommend looking into the data fusion and passive sensors of the French Rafale. I'd genuinely trust that plane much more in a peer conflict, as it doesn't rely on radar in the way the F-35 and F-22 do. That much vaunted 400k helmet of the F-35 is also apparently really heavy, and the data fusion doesn't work properly at this point. Maybe the F-35 can eventually become a worthy machine, but it has many, many strikes against it at this point, and the fat, clumsy geometry necessitated by the lift fan isn't doing any favours for the A and C variants.
The F-35 doesn't rely on radar and it's data fusion is much more than what even the latest version of the Rafale is capable of. The A & C variants of the F-35 are physically different and are not in any way affected by the lift fan of the B version.
Well they are watching this video now lol
*A great video on F35, as always, but there are a couple of mistakes:* 1. you forgot that LM has bought a license for Yak-43 to develop F-35. 2. it is strange to allege that RUs needed F-117's remains considering the fact they've formulated the stealth topology in the first place.
@Nathan Peterson 1. they clearly did, the similarities are striking. And the formal deal took a long time to formalize so even way before that they knew they would use it. 2. there is no other "technology" in F-117 than that in regards to stealth, nothing to "reengineer" from there (not even radio-absorbing paint as Russia already had it).
1. They didn't. There was a technology transfer with Yakolev in the mid nineties- but it's still disputed if their inclusion of the _Yak-41_ was before or after LM submitted a bid for the JSF design contract. 2. They didn't invent the technology- Dr. Pyotr Ufimtsev founded the mathematical principles in calculating radar cross-section accurately.
Wasn't the SR-71 more expensive to build and operate with inflation taken into account than the F-35? I mean, buying titanium secretly from Russia to use against them couldn't have been cheap. Not to mention all the equipment and man hours exclusively for such a high-maintenance program in coordination with the Air Force and CIA and its photo equipment and secrecy measures.
Furthermore, these U.S. exclusive airframes and weapons systems (i.e., F-22, F-117, etc.) are not money-makers for the U.S. Industrial Complex like the F-35 program. If one multiplies 4600 potential aircraft sold to allies times, say, 90 million USD per aircraft, that's 414 billion dollars over the next few decades just in aircraft revenue, not to mention other equipment and support to sustain them in operation.
The Seawolf submarines are way more expensive costing 2 billion dollars each.
The projected program cost is $1.098 trillion USD by the end of its service life (2006 to 2065 ) spread over 12 plus countries. You're mistaken.
The _A-10_ is simply not survivable in any CAS mission where a ground-to-air or air-to-air threat is present- and has since been replaced by the _F-16C_ in such conditions since the mid nineties.
No it doesn't.
It is optimised for the task. What makes you think it isn't?
1 $1 bullet and that soldier with $50000 worth of training dies. But the soldier is still necessary.
The A-10 doesn't have a tank-killing cannon either. Titanium bathtub doesn't stop the A-10 being shot down. The F-35 has a pretty decent loiter time and far better reaction time than an A-10.
Not really. In a 1 vs 1 fight the F-22 is more likely to win, but the F-35 gains a much larger advantage the more of them there are than any other fighter. a 4 vs 4 scenario would likely favour the F-35.
Nope. Drones that could shoot down a fighter are not cheaper by any means other than not risking a pilot's life. Manned fighters are still superior. Most airstrikes are performed by manned aircraft, drones are mostly reconnaissance aircraft with combat capabilities suitable for a low threat environment.
The A-10 performed pretty badly and only succeeded because of multi-role fighters clearing the way. The A-10 to date has only either performed clean-up operations while suffering heavy losses, or operations in areas with no anti-air threats. The F-16 was initially designed as a day fighter. That concept was wholly rejected and the LWF program specifically required a multi-role fighter. The F-16 entered service as a multi-role fighter and even won a bombing accuracy competition against 2 dedicated modern strike aircraft types (F-111 and Jaguar) very early in it's operational career. The F-16's first significant use in real combat was a bombing mission, and it was used solely for air to surface tasks during Desert Storm. Not to mention most air forces operating the F-16 trained for CAS operations in the event that the Soviet Union attempted an invasion. The F-35 wasn't cancelled because it is an F-16 replacement, and an extremely good one at that. It doesn't perform any more roles than the F-16 already does, and the only real difference in capability between the 3 variants relates entirely to the platform they are intended to operate from. The F-35A is optimal for CTOL. The F-35B is optimal for STOVL (VTOL was never a requirement) operations from short-deck ships and has slightly worse performance to make room for the lift fan. The F-35C is as optimised as possible for carrier operations, but as with all decent carrier based fighters it doesn't' perform as well as it's CTOL counterpart. The F-35 is the 2nd most maneuverable US fighter, and while it doesn't compare favourably to fighters such as the (similarly priced) Su-35S, it still poses a serious threat to them in a dogfight. Stealth... the F-35 is currently THE stealthiest fighter around. Sure the F-22 has better rear aspect stealth, but the F-35 has better frontal and side aspect stealth. Stealth is also a very useful technology. Almost every mission type benefits from it, ESPECIALLY defensive operations where the enemy can't use large low-frequency radars effectively. F-35 compared to the F-22 largely favours the F-35 in most situations in a conventional war context. The F-22 has minor advantages in a direct confrontation, but has significantly less range, worse electronics in every way, and relies entirely on radar. a 4 vs 4 fight of F-22 vs F-35 would likely result in the F-35s winning. Not to mention the F-35A has replaced the F-22 at a bunch of airshows due to it's ability to perform the same maneuvers. The F-22 is specialised for a single role, and it's near complete lack of capability in other roles is evident. AAP are not a reliable source of actual military knowledge, only as a how-things-work type of site. They have no insider knowledge of stealth technology and most of that stuff is based on the knowledge of a university professor who is generally ignored because he has no experience with military technology, only theories which can always be proven wrong.
@TheShreester As a simple summary yes, but technically the F-35 is only intended as a direct replacement for the F-16, F/A-18A/B/C/D, and AV-8B... 1 for each F-35 variant. There is discussion about replacing the A-10 with it, but that's only because the F-16 has already largely replaced the A-10 and the F-16 is being replaced by the F-35 so it's an indirect replacement. I don't believe the A-10 will have a direct replacement since it's strengths are not nearly as useful today as they were back in the 60s. The F-15E is being upgraded and the F-15C is being replaced by the F-15X. The F-35 is considered perfectly capable of replacing them in terms of it's capabilities, but the production lines are fully occupied for at least the next decade so cannot replace the F-15s in a timely manner. All F-15 variants as well as the F/A-18E/F are expected to be replaced by 6th gen fighters starting around 2030. As for F-22, well that was a political failure much like the F-14. When politicians don't like a military product that product tends to end up falling short of expectations. The minimum number of F-22s required by the USAF was around 320, but politicians cut that number right back to 187 and studies into restarting F-22 production with modern technology unfortunately concluded that it would be a waste of money and effort. Better to just upgrade the ones we do have and proceed with the 2 6th gen projects.
@dumdumbinks274 That makes more sense.
@dumdumbinks274 The F22 is the replacement for the F15. The F35 is intended to replace the F16 (with A), F18 (with C), Sea Harrier (with B), F15E variant and originally also the A10 (although turbo props and now drones are being considered instead).
Bhue Angels are switching to the Super Hornet. It will be a very long time before they fly the same plane again.
@TheShreester Sure, but the F-35A is still superior to the F-16 in terms of maneuverability, it just isn't top tier like the F-22.
Real Engineering logo is jut a Real Manspread!
Is it only me, or posting an Engineering behind the Top Secret F-35 which was accessible to everyone seems to get the Sukhoi Engineer a boner
thx for the great vid. And Is The F-35 Worth $115 Million? not if the blue prints leaked to china :P I would have put the money on super drones.
US Marine Corps (core NOT corpse). lol
The US Marine Corps will eventually be getting the F35C to replace its aging F/A-18 fleet.
There is no finer close support aircraft for the troops on the ground , than the A-10 warthog. The F-35 is a fine aircraft but it cant touch the capabilities of the A-10
That was a smooth transition to the sponsor :P
I doubt that any YouTube channel clearly understands the tactical problems that the F-35 is designed to address.
19:12 "which makes it easier to detect by receivers listening in locations separate to the emitter: a fairly standard practice today". Huh? Where is bistatic radar being used?
if you think the F35 only costs 100 million dollar or that the F22 only costs 150 million dollar you must be stupid. the development costs of these aircraft, thanks to political inefficiencies and max money gabbing from the manufacturers, was somewhere around 1 trillion dollar. in the end they build a handful of f22 and they might build some thousands of f35. do the maths and don't believe in propaganda.
Spoiler: the answer is NO.
What I would like to see from someone is a video that compares American military hardware to opposing countries, without prejudice. Americans are quite proud, or complain, about how much money they spend on the military; my question is how much value are they getting for money spent. I did see a video once that compared the Russian long range bomber to the U.S., and the price of the Russian one was around $50 million, where the U.S. was over $2 billion. In that video they stated the Russian craft as being superior in design. They also showed the difference in tanks; unfortunately, I don’t remember the exact numbers, but it was quite a difference in favour of the Russian being lower again.
But if this plane is all about stealth, how did the germans managed to spot them with their radar systems?
@dumdumbinks274 But they ran it on full stealth due a military test, you can look it up
Stealth aircraft in civilian airspace are configured to be visible on radar for safety purposes i.e you don't want air traffic control directing an airliner into the flight path of something they can't see.
Seems to me much biased commentary in favor of US planes.
Big question is this, which country will USA be destroying to test this??
I watched a B-1 Lancer (the Bone, heh. It was probably a B-1B) take off from MCAS Miramar during one of the air shows... 2004(?) The B-1 isn't a small bird. Of course, lots of F/A-18s. Heh! :D I never got to see an F-15 do a full afterburner liftoff. I did get to see the Blue Angels doing aerial shows in F/A-18s. That's fun!
`A Jack of all trades` and a master of NONE!
As a proud American and having seen the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II fly many times. They both are worth the money. They can damn near defy the laws of physics.
You gotta think: With how advanced the F-35 is by today's standards and _how old the design actually is_ I don't really wanna know what kind of aircraft now enter testing phase.
Liking the wee accent
I'd trust LM over Boeing any day of the week. That's a sad thing to say.
What a colossal waste of money. I'd rather have investment in infrastructure instead of a fancy toy that sits in a hanger and does nothing for the taxpayer.
Aww so the arms starved US forces didn't have the biggest and 2nd biggest airforce - USAF & USN. Jr, here didn't even list other issues like fuel.
Russians making it better and cheaper
Current F-35 cost is $76-to-90M. Don't misinform people. And it will drop even lower with time. Probably twice in the next 20 years.
If the total damage it deals is over its cost and upkeep, it will be worth it.
Not mentioned in this video : The main reason the F-117 was able to be tracked on radar and subsequently shot down in Syria is that not only did they fly a repetitive route, but they would also test their bomb bay doors at the same time during each trip. When these doors are opened it all but eliminates the F-117's stealth features as the open doors break up the lines of the stealth fighter causing it to reflect radar at a much higher rate.
Where did you get the unit cost of an A-10 at 45 million, the A-10s current unit cost is only 18.8 million. The whole argument about stealth is my biggest problem with the F-35 because to carry a usable payload it has to mount external pylons which remove the stealth capabilities of the aircraft. I know that when they where doing the fly off against the A-10 they handicap the A-10 and removed all advantages it has over the F-35. A large fault of the F-35 is it's jack of all trades mentality which in the end makes a very poor alternative to what we already have. For the remark about all the people who have flown it singing it's praises there is a simple reason for that, it would be a very poor career move for them if they can even get that remark out to the public through all the governments filters. Ever thought about why the only criticism of the aircraft from a pilot came from a leak not an interview. Now the next problem with the idea of mass production of a "stealth" aircraft is the operating coast is much higher because of the special treatment the it needs, plus the mass amount of time required to maintain the special coatings and sensitive panels.This reduces it's combat capabilities because any kind of damage requires more time to repair. If any of the special equipment brakes that will increasing the repair time by orders of magnitude grater then traditional aircraft on top of needing to lug around all of that special equipment to deployed locations. Aircraft like the A-10 can fly with panels that just have a primer coat on them or speed tape covering a hole in the skin until time and resources become available. As a US citizen and an aircraft maintainer in the Air Force I don't think the aircraft is worth the cost.
@Caleb Mathre You're referring specifically to the fly-off in 2018 then? I'm referring to exercises such as Green Flag, not the fly-off that wasn't even organised by the USAF. The current maintenance cost for the F-35A is on-par with the F-15C. It is getting cheaper every single year as the infrastructure and spare parts are becoming more available. As I said production overtook supply and now Lockheed are working to have supply overtake production. Costs will definitely go down especially since most of the maintenance problems were due to the diagnostic tools, not the aircraft itself.
@dumdumbinks274 I was there when they did the fly off between the A-10 and F-35 they made the A-10 fly with limited fuel, ammo, not allowed to fly below a certain altitude all in an effort to make sure the F-35 looked good. There a big difference between solvable issue and inherent design flaws. The operating cost per hour of the F-35 and F-15C are about the same but compared to A-10 and F-16 which the F-35 also wants to replace the cost doesn't even come close.
$18.8 million is the unit cost of an original A-10A in 1998 $ value. Just that price alone in today's $ value is roughly $30 million, and add to that all the upgrades the A-10 has received in the past 30 years it easily exceeds $40 million per unit. The 2006 C upgrade alone added $10 million worth of upgrades to each A-10. If stealth is required an A-10 would never be used, so your problem isn't a real problem. The F-35 can carry the F-16's practical strike payload internally, and externally it can carry more than the A-10. The A-10 wasn't handicapped at all in the exercises in which the F-35 performed the CAS role better. CAS is simply not the role that most people think it is i.e there is no requirement or reason to fly low and slow. An F-35 can spot targets more quickly from 10000ft than an A-10 can at 5000ft, and that means weapons on target sooner. Not to mention the inherent advantages of being multi-role mean the F-35 is logistically easier to manage in a combat zone, and that results in better availability. The pilots singing the praises are simply talking about the capabilities that are part of the design and not the issues that are all temporary and solvable i.e there's no reason to make a fuss about them. They only suffer consequences if for example they report a problem to the public before the brass know about it as that is simply irresponsible. Operating cost is not much higher if at all. The F-35 is not the F-22. The F-35 costs about as much as the F-15C to operate. The F-35 does not need special hangars or intensive coating maintenance and most of them use the exact same facilities as the F-16s they are replacing. I have spoken with actual F-35 maintainers and the problems are mostly to do with the supply chain of spare parts lagging behind the production of aircraft, as well as the ALIS diagnostic system. ALIS has improved quite a bit over the years and the supply issue is going to be resolved soon since Lockheed have reportedly opted to spend about $2 billion of their own funds to provide spare parts ahead of aircraft orders by 2020.
The _A-10_ has been supplemented/ replaced by the _F-16C_ since the mid nineties in missions where a ground-to-air and air-to-air threat is present because the _A-10_ is simply not survivable. And the _F-35A_ is supplementing and eventually replacing the _F-16C._
This is strange as talks stealth. We in the past month know that passive radar can pick up any type of stealth huge or very small aircraft including speed height and distance, also if any aircraft was using radar jamming that also gave away the distance height and speed. Because as soon as it was being used it gives off its own signal. Then there is the speed the F35 can only in its fastest roll do Mach 1.2 also the Jet thruster is known for failing. Now about the crashes pilot error was with the Harrier but late 1980's they were flyby wire. Not stated here why? Also not explained was dust in the jets via hover mode Harrier can hover higher and safer in dusty zones while the F34 has problems. Then the rain and hail as we know the Harrier was used in cold condition in a certain war in the rain and extreme bad weather. It is unclear if any F35 can handle that type of weather. So why was the harrier so good against a Mack2 mirage. Well one theory is that when the missiles fired at the Harrier the vector thrusters would send heat and confused the missiles like firing flares like F15 used to do. the other was Breaking the Harrier could slow down so fast by the time the missile lock was on they passed the Harrier and got fired at. Then there is its landing Harriers could and did land vortically on ships in bad weather but this was also not mentioned. If the harrier had these days weapons and made of modern materials with latest Jet engines who knows what it could do. So F35 can out pace the Harrier but can't out turn the Harrier. F35 is more able to carry loads but can't land in extreme weather YET. So over price and capability does not make sense to have F35's. But could had developed a better new Harrier variant with modern materials and engines with a better cost as all made in the UK.
> *_"We in the past month know that passive radar can pick up any type of stealth huge or very small aircraft including speed height and distance, also if any aircraft was using radar jamming that also gave away the distance height and speed."_* This notion is based on what exactly? > *_"Then there is the speed the F35 can only in its fastest roll do Mach 1.2 also the Jet thruster is known for failing."_* The speed at combat load is 1.6M+ which is considerably more than an _F-16C_ at any combat load. Based on what is the engine known for failing? > *_"Also not explained was dust in the jets via hover mode Harrier can hover higher and safer in dusty zones while the F34 has problems."_* Again, based on what? > _*"If the harrier had these days weapons and made of modern materials with latest Jet engines who knows what it could do. So F35 can out pace the Harrier but can't out turn the Harrier. F35 is more able to carry loads but can't land in extreme weather YET. Again, based on what? > *_" So over price and capability does not make sense to have F35's. But could had developed a better new Harrier variant with modern materials and engines with a better cost as all made in the UK."_* I think you know what I am going to ask.
@Mikko Rintasaari Yes I'm serious. The "fat" (it isn't) fuselage is like that because of the internal weapons bay and the large fuel tanks. The F-35B airframe is very obviously different in that it has a massive hump behind the cockpit that is necessitated by the lift-fan, not to mention that internally it has a smaller weapons bay and 1 less fuel tank.
@Mikko Rintasaari This notion is based on what exactly?
@dumdumbinks274 "no way effected"? Are you serious? They share the fat and bulbous hull shape necessitated by the lift fan. Without the benefit of being VTOL capable, they still pay the price in aerodynamic drag. Do you really think the A and C versions would have that fat fuselage if it wasn't required for the B variant? The F-35 can't escape its heritage. The aerodynamic performance of all three variants suffers from that shape.
@Stranger Happened 1. Not really. The only similarity is in basic appearance. The X-35 shared just as much in common with the YF-22 as it did with the Yak-43. The deal had nothing to do with the Yak-43, only the Yak-141 and the only data received related to engine placement and flight test data, not to mention the X-35 design predates the actual transfer of data. 2. The idea of stealth aircraft was formulated by Lockheed engineers. All the Russians did was provide the spark that lit the fire, while at the same time thinking a fire wouldn't happen. RAM was in use during WWII on German ships. It was adapted to aircraft by Lockheed.
@dumdumbinks274 1. the similarity is much closer. And, considering the deal, not surprising. 2. everybody studied it, but somebody was the first to formulate. So the guy's claim about F-117 makes no sense.
@Stranger Happened 1. The similarities are about as striking as the similarities between the F-14 and Su-27, not to mention design studies for the aircraft that would become the F-35 began in 1987 2. The study had nothing to do with how to design low RCS into a practical aircraft/vehicle, only how to find the RCS of existing objects. The entire reason Russia allowed the study to be published in a public journal in the first place is because they couldn't see a practical application to knowing the RCS of an object when there were no threats at the time that could evade radar detection for a practical duration. As for RAM... that's a WWII technology that every major nation ended up studying.
As a citizen of the USA: Yes
@Choiria who the f are you shithead?
retard learn how to type and your grammar needs fixing
X-32
@Ben H "8000 missions and no targets destroyed doesn't back your position" - Why're you assuming no targets destroyed? Just because a bomb was dropped doesn't mean there's going to be a story about it. 8000 or so missions is pulled from here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/615661/us-air-force-aircraft-missions-in-iraq-and-syria/ 8000 missions in-theatre is quite low for USAF operations. "Again, I could totally be wrong, the November 2017 was the latest incident I could find in a 10 minute internet search" - You missed the F-35A's debut in Syria in April 2019, as well as the F-35B's reportedly consistent CAS coverage for US troops preparing to leave the theatre in late 2018 (though no source for that one). There are also numerous instances of F-16s and F-15Es having dropped bombs, as well as the dominance of the B-1B in every major ground fight between ISIS and US forces. "at 21 million, so a kill ratio of 1 to 8 would be cost effective." - The MQ-9 isn't capable of effectively engaging fighters in the first place and you therefore cannot make any cost analysis about drones replacing fighters based on the MQ-9, or really any drone in existence since they are all air to surface platforms. You're also ignoring the fact it likely wouldn't even score a kill due to electronic warfare. "Design would be cheaper and here is why. No life support, no manual control system, no display, no suit or headset integration, no performance limiters, no emergency checklist, no emergency evacuation system." - Instead of all that being in the plane it's on the ground in a control centre which makes an easy target, or one that is so far away the latency means the drones can never achieve their potential effectiveness. That is fine for air to surface missions where all a pilot has to do is specify the target and press a button, but it is completely unsuitable against peer threats. Sure it would be cheaper overall, but it would also be inferior since they would all get shot down by any competent enemy. "otherwise your probably just another pilot upset your job was easier to automate than truck driving" - Considering there is no drone in existence that is automated for the actual performance of a combat-related task that's not a very informed opinion. All UCAVs are controlled by pilots on the ground, and they often have a secondary crew member operating the sensors and weapons.
@dumdumbinks274 I would love to see any references you have. Especially about 8000 missions. I assume if you count every overseas flight as a mission that makes sense, but 8000 missions and no targets destroyed doesn't back your position. Again, I could totally be wrong, the November 2017 was the latest incident I could find in a 10 minute internet search, but unless you can send me a link to some evidence that fighters have been used for more than power projection in the last few years I can't secede that drones are already used more often than maned craft. You are correct about the MQ-9 price if you are looking at the data sheet provided. The 7 million number came from the cost evaluation article, but even with the increased number, at 21 million, so a kill ratio of 1 to 8 would be cost effective. Design would be cheaper and here is why. No life support, no manual control system, no display, no suit or headset integration, no performance limiters, no emergency checklist, no emergency evacuation system. Less engineering considerations means less parts means less money put into design, maintenance and usage. That's on principal though I do admit that the US military is a $800 billion jobs program, so they very likely will pay whatever sounds good to the contractors. But again I would like to see any of your sources if you have them otherwise your probably just another pilot upset your job was easier to automate than truck driving. Should have gone with rotary, those aren't about to be replaced any time soon.
@Ben H What you're referring to is simply public records where the details of the strike are available. There are thousands of strikes performed every year, and this year alone roughly 8000 missions have been carried out by the USAF in the Middle East. Drones have in the recent past accounted for roughly 1/3 of missions against ISIS. Drones are not cheap. The MQ-9 costs roughly $20 million per unit ($64m for 4 drone flight in 2006, adjusted for inflation to today) and is not very useful outside low-threat environments. Most drones today are primarily useful because they are designed to loiter with a light payload and a flight of them can provide 24/7 CAS in regions with no air defences. Add to that the systems required to engage a fighter effectively with an airframe designed for medium performance and your drone isn't going to cost any less than $50 million. Gs are not the problem in a dogfight and I highly doubt there are drones that can sustain 11Gs. Pull sure - so can fighters dating back to the 1960s - but not sustain. Also note that the G limit is mostly there to ensure a long airframe lifetime, it can be overridden in emergency situations in most fighters. There are a few instances of pilots pulling more than 10Gs in real combat. Upscale a drone to be capable of performing fighter duties and you won't see it dogfighting any better than current fighters due to physics. The F-16 for instance is only capable of sustaining a 7G turn, but can pull 9Gs at the expense of speed, but low speed makes you an easy target. Drones are vulnerable to electronic warfare, and modern fighters all are capable of at least jamming radar systems. To design a drone that is capable of operating in such an environment while also being capable enough to defeat fighters would take just as much money as designing a fighter. Sure you could do it a little cheaper if you only need it to engage aircraft, but you wouldn't save much money and you would have a drone taking up space at airbases that could only engage aircraft. There are no interceptor drones being built because it simply isn't logistically feasible compared to a high-capability fighter. And if you can afford 19 drones that have even a slight chance to shoot down a fighter then you can definitely afford multiple fighters with better cost-effectiveness supported by a couple of drones built solely to carry extra missiles or bombs for the manned fighters.
@dumdumbinks274 November of 2017 was the latest incident of a maned fighter hitting a live target that I could find. Maybe there have been more but they are either classified or I didn't find them. There have been over 60 publicly know drone strikes is just 2019. A MQ-9 drone cost about 7 million US dollars. An F22 cost 135 million. Drones are smaller, and less detectable targets. They have longer range capabilities if you don't count refueling for the F22. We can assume top speed is faster for the F22 since speed capabilities of most military drones are classified. High end commercially available drones can handle more than 11Gs of force. You find me a pilot that can outmaneuver that. I agree that drones are not designed for dog fighting at the moment, and they don't carry any defensive hardware, but how long would it take to design a drone specifically for intercepting and neutralizing maned fighters? A couple of months? Maybe a year? The reason we don't have drones to combat fighters is because there is no need. Only a 1 in 19 kill ratio would be required for a drone to be cost effective in air to air combat. Drones already dominate the air to ground regime and the only reason they don't dominate air to air is because their hasn't been a need. Referances https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104506/f-22-raptor/ https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104470/mq-9-reaper/ http://theconversation.com/drones-are-cheap-soldiers-are-not-a-cost-benefit-analysis-of-war-27924 https://www.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/COLUMBIACounting%20Drone%20Strike%20DeathsSUMMARY.pdf https://thedefensepost.com/2017/11/20/f-22s-strike-taliban-drug-labs-afghanistan/
Derek Beatty He was talking about a corpse,as in, dead man.
@dumdumbinks274 Can you support this with evidence? The F-16 was designed to be manoeuvrable in WVR engagements, so I don't see how the F35 could be a superior dog fighter and have actually read the opposite. https://militarymachine.com/f-35-vs-f-16/
@dumdumbinks274 The F22 was the intended replacement for the F15. The F35 is intended to replace the F16 (with A), F18 (with C), Sea Harrier (with B), F15E variant and originally also the A10 (although turbo props and now drones are being considered instead).
Let's increase the tax on the middle class they say, the government will provide healthcare with the tax money they say... Government: we need more toys!
shilling it for the MIC
The cost increase associated with creating variants for the various services is not as bad as you might think. 1) Commonality of parts will reduce cost over the life time of the system. 2) Having a broader user pool will decrease the amount of time to find the defects in the design(and there are always defects in new designs). 3) The wider number of users and maintainers will also give a more diverse range of ideas for future upgrades, increasing the lifespan of the design, delaying the cost of designing a new system. These point, and others, have been played out several times with different military systems, such as the Humvee, M1 Abrams, M4-M16, ect. Of course, none of that will matter if the basic design is crap, and we won't actually know for sure until they get it into a fight or two.
China: You are BANKRUPT right? US: Yessss China: How do you pay the planes? US: Oh easy. You just PRINT more
"windows are made of sapphire" yes, but it's not the gemstone kind. Gemstones are mined, these windows are grown. Not cheap, but not nearly as expensive as trying to find solid blocks of sapphire that huge (if one even could). Otherwise great video as always, keep up the awesome work!
Meanwhile everyone buys migs and sukhois, such a fail... and some point USA will be just a normal country with army only to defend it's own borders.
This video takes the manufacturer's word for far too many things. The F-35 has a massive amount of issues that aren't even mentioned here and many detractors who weren't accounted for. I am not convinced at all that the JSF is actually the world's best plane, or that its even a good plane. It certainly is not worth the absurd costs involved though, that much is blatantly obvious. We could literally build an entire fleet of aircraft carriers and F-18s for what the F-35 development has cost so far(and they're not even done spending yet). To say that the price is worth it is absurd.
Question: what does the F-35 do to replace the A-10? The whole point of the warthog are the munitions it carries, you didn’t mention the armaments of the F-35 at all in this video. Still enjoyed learning about the F-35 though, really love your channel
The F-35's GAU-22 and the A-10's GAU-8 are part of the same family of weapons. They are rated for the same accuracy. The F-35 is able to carry up to 8 250lb precision bombs internally that are ideal for situations requiring low collateral damage. There is also another 250lb bomb that functions as a long range anti tank/personnel weapon (dual warhead). In situations the A-10 would be used remaining stealthy isn't required so the F-35 can also use external munitions. In total (internal + external) the F-35 can carry more than the A-10, and potentially up to 24 of those 250lb bombs though that's just not a practical loadout.
OMG, best handover to the advertisement at the end of the video ever!
IIRC, the F-117 that was shot down, got locked onto because its bomb bay door was open for too long. If it was a mechanical, electrical or human error I do not know.
The irony is that central banks have been printing basically 1 F-35 per hour in fiat for almost the last decade. Actually it is more like one every 35 minutes if you wanna get even more ironic. In this context, they don't really seem all that expensive ...
For the eleventh consecutive year, the cost of an F-35A was lowered. The F-35A unit price including aircraft, engine, and fee, is $89.2 million. This represents a 5.4 percent reduction from the $94.3 million it cost for an F-35A in Low-Rate Initial Production Lot 10 (LRIP 10), and also puts the F-35A at equal to or less than the price of legacy aircraft. In LRIP 11, the F-35B unit cost was lowered to $115.5 million. This represents a 5.7 percent reduction from the $122.4 million it cost for the short-takeoff and landing variant in LRIP 10. The F-35C unit cost was lowered to $107.7 million. This represents an 11.1 percent reduction from the $121.2 million it cost for the carrier variant in LRIP 10.
This thing, replacing the A10? Hahaha!
Nobody: Boeing X-32: hehehe
the harrier has been doing this with one engine since 1960s .....and it beat other fighters in ACTUAL combat ......this has to use more engines to do the same at 4x the cost total waste of money ............and Im not getting paid to say so
@Dis Count Lol.
@dumdumbinks274 err ....by your logic youre expecting the enemy to be as thick as you are ........and yes thats another good point
@Dis Count So you're changing your argument to something even more stupid? By your logic we won't need rocket launchers because the fuel depots and bases will all get wiped and there won't be any tanks.
@dumdumbinks274 seeing that airfields will be the first targets that get pasted I guess anything that can take off from a street will be the only thing flying .....so yeah even a balloon might suffice
@Dis Count The F-35A is cheaper than many 4th gen fighters such as the Typhoon, Rafale, and F-15. It is the 2nd most maneuverable US fighter and while it isn't quite top tier in maneuverability it's sensor suite is far superior to any other fighter and allows the F-35 pilot to determine the absolute best course of action. Satellites can only tell fighters the general location. The fighters still have to identify and lock onto an F-35, and it really doesn't matter because they can't do that using the sensors they have until fairly close range.
@dumdumbinks274 pah !!! .......the most expensive aircraft in the world can barely dogfight and as far as stealth goes satellite radar can see them from above and relay the information straight to their fighters ......what a waste of tax payers money ...I bet lockheed martin are laughing all the way to the bank
The F-35 and Harrier have the same number of engines... And the only fighters the Harrier has beaten in actual combat were ambushed and had far inferior missiles. You can only get 2 Harriers per F-35B.
Hmmm. Close air support was not covered here, so I don't see the F-35 replacing the Warthog. It's too expensive to throw into low level ground attack, doesn't have the crazy gun and isn't protected like the A-10. Like anything else, you can't make a mini-van a race car unless you compromise on one end or the other--or make it so fiendishly expensive it's like the Pentagon designed it....errrr... oh right. Oops.
I'd rather buy more missiles.
@Kenny Williams The thing is the _A-10_ has been replaced in CAS missions with a present air-to-air or ground-to-air threat since the mid nineties by the _F-16C._
@Nathan Peterson tell that to all of the troops tha have been saved by one...multiple times
The R&D cost of the F-35 was around $55 billion. $1 trillion is the total cost of the entire program projected for it's entire lifespan until roughly 2070. Regardless you're talking about a completely different statistic to what the video mentioned. Program cost per unit is very different to unit cost.
The U.S. doesn't have a bomber that costs 2 billion. Nor do the Russians have a bomber as cheap as 5 million
@TripplJ They ran it for an air show...
Lockheed Martin: Ok fine, we do make some shady shit, but we guarantee it's the damn best shady shit money can buy!
@dumdumbinks274 corruption is a problem, however our Government does put a little too many of our eggs into the military basket. Not saying we shouldn't still give them a sizable portion of the budget, the military has funded many advances in technology that may have taken decades more if only private interests were the clients. However, giving the military nearly 53% of our entire discretionary budget is a little much. In fact, our military spending accounts for 36% of all military spending world wide! I still think, for the time being, having it be the largest item on our budget is a good idea, especially with China and Russia catching up to us in many areas such as aerospace technology, but it doesn't have to take the majority of our wallet.
Without a military the US would have been invaded ages ago. Besides there is more than enough money for infrastructure in the US economy without considering the military budget. The problem is corruption.
"War is costly to those who fight them but profitable to those who fund them" - Rothschild
@Mikko Rintasaari These aren't beliefs, these are facts. And who exactly are the "experts" you refer to? The F-35 is no fatter than a Super Hornet. You will get the impression it is fat if you compare it to fighters that are smaller, and all Eurocanards are significantly smaller. Wing loading of the F-35 is no worse than the F-16, and wing loading only accounts for about 70% of the lift provided by the F-35A's airframe. The F-35 is often misrepresented because it can carry a heck of a lot more fuel and has significantly longer range than any other fighter on internal fuel. At empty weight the Typhoon, Rafale, and F-35 have a very similar total loading slightly in favour of the Eurocanards. Those Eurocanards either greatly sacrifice performance to match the F-35's range, or they greatly sacrifice range to be slightly more maneuverable than the F-35.
@dumdumbinks274 keep your beliefs. I'll go with the opinion of experts in the aeronautics industry, and... well, understanding of basic physics. If you ever see an F-35 in the wild, next to any other fighter jet, take a good look at the shape of the planes. You might also want to look up the wing loading of the F-35A and compare it with the Eurocanards, for example. It will never be a decent combat jet, no matter how much they tweak the software. You can't cheat physics.
@wolum andreas...what mental illness are you suffering from? Or is it bottle flu maybe?
$115 million dollars is misleading, that does not account for the massive update and maintenance costs that Lockheed Martin projects (see F-22) seem to require over the years they exist. Modernizing systems the plane should have had from the beginning, fixing endless issues and then the fact that stealth aircraft in general have awful combat readiness and flight costs per hour and you see the initial price tag is not all inclusive. Tell Lockheed you will pay half, then pay the rest when they are actually done with the aircraft. Otherwise its like buying an Early access game on Steam for full price, then waiting 10 years to get the final product, realizing its been left behind by the competition haha! Good old Lockheed, the EA games of military companies. Oh, to answer the question, is a woefully ill equipped plane with a minuscule internal weapons bay that can carry a barely useful weapons load (read, dangerous for pilots) on an air-frame that has flight characteristics worse than many legacy 4th generation aircraft it is replacing worth 100 million? of course not. The F-35 is a running joke, at best its a new line of stealthy sensor plane with modest combat capability, possibly good against 3rd generation and old 4th generation fighters yet its the US defence plan going forwards into the 50-70's? dear lord.... Its bad enough that the US does not have a modern air to air missile in service anywhere close to the MBDA Meteor next generation missile and has to slog along with legacy AMRAAM's and is rushing to develop the low spec AIM-260 which still won't close the gap to even current weapons..... They should just buy Typhoons from Europe equipped with Radar Plus/Captor-E next generation wide scan AESA's and Meteor missiles. Buy some stocks of Brimstone and SPEAR 3 as well to modernize their strike capability and the US will come out of the 90's and be a next generation 2020+ military at last....
Overpriced.
While there is nothing wrong with having a multirole fighter, I believe it best to have machines that are specialized for a particular purpose. Aside from its VTOL abilities, I don't know why we didn't bother putting that money to improving the already proven aircraft with the technologies that are present on just the F35 itself...
I'm a little uncomfortable being so up front about the f35's capabilities.
So much of the information presented here which detracts from the F35's expected performance is very dated from a time frame far prior to release iterations of the onboard mission systems. This bird is worth every penny and then some.
we're entering bo2 stage boyz
1/3rd of century to develop a fighter plane....
it is easy to find how many other countries have F-35 aircraft, and I was reading in Defense News 15 years about the log off software glitch in the viewer issue, and that is still a problem, apparently. It was meant to be the everything. Now all were supposed to be vectored thrust Harrier-type versions. No service would need to go anywhere else, there were 3 versions. and, it has not turned out to be so, hence the skyrocketing price. The promised savings never were to become true
Nice mercenary Video. DO you know that most of the up to date production is faulty and can never be used as war plane?
@Jakov Škaro You should do exactly that. Fleet-wide availability rates are low, but that's not because the planes are faulty, it's because the supply of spare parts has not kept up with production of aircraft. There are very few examples of F-35s that are not combat capable, and those are used as training aircraft so are still very useful.
@dumdumbinks274 Please! Check facts in depth b4 touching keyboard and stating someones information false.
No, because that's false. The F-35A and F-35B have both been used in real combat operations. There are only concerns about minor issues that might affect operational performance, but those can only be fixed once the F-35 has been tested operationally just like every other fighter that has had similar problems.
Frankencrapper of a plane
The most expensive weapon ever developed is the B-2 Spirit Bomber Total procurement costs averaged $929 million per aircraft, which includes spare parts, equipment, retrofitting, and software support. The total program cost, which included development, engineering and testing, averaged $2.1 billion per aircraft in 1997.
I'm having a hard time believing the soldier on the ground will be happier with an f-35 offering close air support than a warthog. The F-35 is too fast and too ill equipped for this type of role. I would imagine a simple single engine prop plane with modern armaments would likely be better for this role. I'm not a military guy but from what I've learned over the years regular jets aren't very good for this type of role but maybe things have changed due to technology.
@Nathan Peterson I guess I've read stuff like this and they make a rather compelling argument although I can only base that off of my best common sense since I'm no expert in this area. To me we seem to waste so much of the defense budget if we could manage a few reforms I suspect the money is already there. The 70K per hour cost of an f-22 would seem to suggest it may be prudent provided the small planes could be armoured enough. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/02/20/a-light-attack-aircraft-fleet-could-it-change-the-fight-or-put-lives-at-risk/
The thing is the _A-10_ has been replaced in CAS missions with a present air-to-air or ground-to-air threat since the mid nineties by the _F-16C._ You're right in the fact that the _A-10_ is being replaced by lighter aircraft in missions that have such threats.
Ha. smoothest curiosity stream transition ever.
I heard 20:1 KDR lol
18:33 so, you have a stealth plane and you travel on a "regular flight path" well, thats not very smart.
No, that plane is a satanic invention! Better educate people on how to save nature!
At 14 minutes i minimized the video since it went into the direction of "what really matters is the software. To help develop the next generation of software, you can use Brilliant / Skillshare / Whatever!".. then i realised there is nearly half of the video left. I guess you got me there :P
JAS-39 Gripen E is better
“Lockeed Maehrtin”. What a fine Irish accent
Best explanation on this complicated subject that I have seen ! Kudos!
The Raptor is more
'bush' ?
Let's be honest, no amount or size of Great Walls, or military spending, or nuclear arsenal, or non US soil military bases and ops, or international weapons sales, or personal weapons and magazine sizes, or of school teachers with guns, or of privatized, militarized and systemically racist police and mass incarceration, or of mass deportations including the Dreamers, or of bans of entire groups of people, or torture of immigrant children as a deterrent, or threats to shoot rock-throwing refugees, or torture of POWs, or control over women, or Space Farces, or border moats filled with snakes and alligators, or anything else will ever Make American Republicans Feel Safe enough... American Republican fear is historically extraordinary. Every single American Republican policy is more fear and greed based than the progressive alternative. Fear (and the empathy and critical thought it kills) is what separates the right from the left. The fear at the root of ”Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” -- Albert Einstein With a $15 min wage, tuition free education, universal healthcare, a universal basic income (UBI) and internet access for all, together we'll take a giant leap in reducing day to day societal fears and towards increasing equality. #getALLmoneyOut #BanMeToo #DeportMeToo #BuildBridgesNotWalls #SomosUno
The F-35 will not replace the A-10 in a meaningful sense. We'll just get out of the CAS business, and say that the F-35 Budget Superiority Fighter scored another kill.
@Haakon Dahl Even I would love A-10 support in a firefight, but that's not the problem. It is simply an inefficient CAS plane despite being excellent when it is actually supporting troops (as long as there's no anti-air threat). It's more a logistics problem than a performance problem - even if numbers are equal within the role of CAS multi-role fighters still achieve higher availability per mission because they can support a larger number of operations at the same time. I'd rather have 24/7 air support than top tier air support for 1/2 the day. That said the issue isn't that the A-10 isn't needed but rather that there's no need to operate 270 of them.
@dumdumbinks274 I respectfully submit that yours is a minority point of view among those who rely upon CAS. Now I've never been in a firefight -- closest I ever got was rockets over the base and once on a road trip we thought we had a TIC -- but no. But I'm reliably informed that when you really need it, there's no substitute for the capability that the A-10 beings.
Uh the F-16 already performs more CAS than the A-10 by far... CAS is not going anywhere and the A-10 is not a god of CAS.
@batt3ryac1d then US should allow ALL USD papers from ALL.countries to change with REAL commodities.
The us isn't bankrupt lol.
Most detractors are doing so because of a political motivation, not an issue with the plane. You could barely build more F/A-18s for the same price as what has been spent on the F-35, and the F/A-18 is inferior in every aspect of performance.
@LIKWID "The SU 57 is in full production" AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OMG what a joke lol, you really are so stupid you idiot LOL. Also the SU57 is NOTHING like the F-35 LOL. They only have 10 "prototypes" LOL. Go back to your Russia Propoganda. The USAF has 187 F-22 since the 90s!
@kiDkiDkiD12 The SU 57 is in full production with the 1st jet in service with the Russian Air Force
The F-35 is the most advanced jet and military machine ever made in human history!!! What other nation has a full production of a 5th generation jet? Stop being jealous
Spoiler: Your a dumbass
Plus I think the whole point of the f35 is to kill everything before it can even detect you properly.
@batt3ryac1d Learning to fly a Harrier is a whole other issue!
I wish I was rich and also knew how to fly.
@Egor No You are the idiot, you have understood nothing about life
Shut it down!
those who fight them are the ones who fund them, idiot
stealth comes with long range radar looking missiles. Missile uses solid rocket motor. Once must understand how rocket motors works in order to understand how missile actualy shots down a plane. Rocket motor does not work continously like jet engine, it operate only a few seconds. In that amount missile gains both altitute (several kilometers, up to 20) and speed (several machs, up to 7). Then missile starts tracking the plane using fin guidance. But this tracking is anything one would see in a movie (for instance behind enemy lines). Also missile won't do a U turn or it won't explode like in the movie. Also a plane would not explode in a holywood manner like there's a 10 kg of high explosives onboard. Missile also do not use shrapnels like seen in movies. Missile uses continous rod fragmentation warhead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous-rod_warhead and newer they directly hit the plane, but rather do a flyby and when the missile and plane are parralel the warhead explode and propels the continous rods in a ring shape patern what finaly cuts and destroies the plane. Now if you understand how missile works you know now that in just a few seconds they receive all of its energy from the rocket engine and after that it is a guided projectile constantly loosing speed and altitude. So if you fight stealt mode you shoot in a range greather that 100 kilometers. Let's say you shot at eurofighter or raffale. They are both very agile. They won't see you at the distance of 100km but they will get allerted once missile is fired upon. They will turn in the oposite direction and have good chace to avoid beeing shoot by the missile since the missile will lose more than half of its speed before geting close to the target. At thait point agility will have good chances to avoid being shot by the missiles since the speed of missile will be less than 3 mach. At the same time those planes could track F35 and if it will come to dog fight, F35 would loose badly.
serbian army shot down F117 not with radar seeking missile but rather simpler russian design IR seking surface to air missile. Once again low freq radar - a weather radar was used by the Serbs to detect a F177, not to pin point accuracy of course but at this point simple and cheap IR seking missile was shoot from the ground and efectively shot down the plane. Newer adwanced ir seekers have a range of 40+ kilometers and are proven against electronic jamming as heat countermeasures since the computer follows the planes path rather to seek the hot spot.
joint strike or 3 planes into one concept is just stupid and the program from the financial point of view is same as space shuttle program. Once again shows that common sense is not important when public orders are in place and political will is strong. Also F35 is not meant to replace F18 that's F22 job. F18 is larger heavier plane, with twin engine same as F22 is. F35 is smaller and can only replace F16. Anyhow both F22 and F35 are dead end. The whole stelth concept is a hoax since it will newer work in real life. Russian radars and IR detection can spot a stealth plane in radius larger than 60 km. Another thing is pure economics. You can build expensive and superb plane for 200 mio $ but your defence budget would not allow to change 1500 planes US army uses. Also when budget is invole let's not forget buying a plane is one but equal important is maintaining it. Maintanace costs of both F22 and F35 are just astronomical. On the other hand you can build 3 F18 for the price of single F22. What is better? I don't know, but the facts is 5th GEN fighters are same as electric cars. They exsist but there are only about 2-5% of them.
F35 IS NOT BETTAH THAN THE WARTHOG. BAD YOUTUBER.
worth every penny .... i think< send me the blueprints/spec's/manufacturing details i'll compare it to other machines and give you a more definite answer
I remember us bombing the wreckage.
>the other aircraft it's going to be replacing >Picture of an A-10 Yes, the F-35 is an excellent attack aircraft.
it's always the same bullshit from the ignorant. "it can't pull 9 G's!" Doesn't have to. It'll see you from 800 miles away, identify the model of your plane using fancy algorithims, suggest a weapon for the pilot, and even a course of action. Shit, if you're 2,000 miles away, but another f-35 600 miles away spotted you, (which is in itself insane) that f-35 will transmit all of its data on your aircraft in real time to the other pilot 2000 miles away. "it's top speed is the same as that 50 year old f-16!" Sure. But only when the f-16 is completely empty, and the f-35 is fully loaded. "it cost 1.5 trillion!!!!1!11!" Nope. It's cost about $300B so far. the 1.5T figure is the estimated cost of the entire program through to 2050, and accounts for ammunition, repair, fuel, procurement, training, and even losses.
The real curiosity for me, is can I buy one if I had the money? Or are they only sold to government/state?
I'm going to say probably no, because for 5 million each you could make an semi-autonomous drone that can pull 20g turns that no piloted plane can keep up with, and with that 115 million you could get 23 of them, which would be impossible for an f-35 to defeat.
Cheaper more specialized aircraft can be on separate mission happening simultaneously. Less pilot overload,
I worked on the Over the Horizon Backscatter Radar (OTH-B). Shame that was canceled. It has great potential for detecting things like this using its relatively long wavelength radar waves in the 5 -30 megahertz range or 60 -10 meter length.
I was working at Boeing during the proposal evaluation phase. The Boeing plane really did look ugly.
No it is not worth that much.
Who is Manny?
21:30 "...much of that money has gone back into the American economy..." American CEO: *laughs in tax breaks and stock buybacks
I don't understand why they developed f35, isn't f22 still the best aircraft ever made
Different doctrines.
135M
" It is unit cost, so I fail to see your point here?" Point being unit cost is not =/= aircraft cost. For example even if the F-35 were only 100 million or 80 million, the logistics of keeping the entire fleet flying, especially consistently with actual decent combat readiness makes it even more expensive. " A lot of its 4th gen contemporaries in their modernized form are as expensive if not more than an F-35A or _F-35C._Ill-equipped how?" What do you mean? I never said 4th gen, upgraded or otherwise were as expensive? Or are you saying upgraded legacy fighters are as expensive as an F-35?
> *_"$115 million dollars is misleading, that does not account for the massive update and maintenance costs that Lockheed Martin projects (see F-22) seem to require over the years they exist"_* It is unit cost, so I fail to see your point here? > *_"Oh, to answer the question, is a woefully ill equipped plane with a minuscule internal weapons bay that can carry a barely useful weapons load (read, dangerous for pilots) on an air-frame that has flight characteristics worse than many legacy 4th generation aircraft it is replacing worth 100 million? of course not."_* A lot of its 4th gen contemporaries in their modernized form are as expensive if not more than an _F-35A_ or _F-35C._Ill-equipped how?
@Jakov Škaro So what "facts" are you referring to? Made-up Russian ones? The last time there was concern over F-35s not being combat capable was 2-3 years ago and ONLY in reference to very old airframes that were not worth upgrading to the modern standard. Those airframes are still used to train pilots. "I don’t argue with people not knowing basic facts or refusing to know them" - So basically you don't talk to people who don't agree with you. That's quite unreasonable. Most people who use that excuse simply don't have any evidence to support their claims.
dumdumbinks274 I don’t argue with people not knowing basic facts or refusing to know them. This conversation is over. Have nice life.
@batt3ryac1d then US should pay ALL USD papers from ALL countries to be exchanged back into REAL commodities.
dumdumbinks274 appreciate the answer!
Then they can use the C variant, can't they?
Overpriced and shit
Yesterday Lockheed announce to sale F35 for 80m$ Lol the whole video gone wrong
Is it worth the money - FUCK NO, IT'S AN OVERPRICED PIECE OF SHIT!
they are actually 85mil, and set to lower in cost again. one of the most economical fighters ever made inflation-adjusted.
No, at $115 million a piece they are not worth it unless you plan on selling them to your allies in order to steal all their money. Or have I said too much?
is it worth 115 million? somebody thinks so because they keep throwing money at it. as far as it replacing anything that never came to be, all the planes it was going to replace have been given life extentions including the A-10
The real mission of the F-35...is to suck the maximum $$$ out of the American taxpayer without the Program be canceled. Loiter time on target is too short to support the CAS mission and it must fly at significant altitude because it's just too fragile at a lower altitude. The real reason the A-10 hasn't gone away is that we still need it for lower altitude CAS missions...where choppers would get eaten up.
But can it BRRRT?
The usaf just bought 478 more f35a models. Average price? 71 million each. That’s what happens when you buy in bulk.
its sad that we need planes for war...all that money could go to Engineering in planes who dont kill people...but i think im in the wrong channel
Talks about replacing the F/A-18 hornet but shows super hornets
I dont think it was ever intended to be an air superiority fighter. That role is for the f-22 and f-15 I believe.
Every day i will rather buy: EF 2000 Tayfoon or Su-35.
> *_"At the same time those planes could track F35 and if it will come to dog fight, F35 would loose badly. "_* ?
No they used the S-125 with V-601 missiles and they were forced to engage at short range due to stealth working as intended. This is acknowledged by the Serbs.
> *_"joint strike or 3 planes into one concept is just stupid and the program from the financial point of view is same as space shuttle program."_* ? > *_"Also F35 is not meant to replace F18 that's F22 job. F18 is larger heavier plane, with twin engine same as F22 is. F35 is smaller and can only replace F16."_* The _F-35C_ is replacing the _F-18_ and _F/A-18E/ F._ Not the _F-22A._ The _F-35A_ is replacing the _F-16C._ > *_"The whole stelth concept is a hoax since it will newer work in real life. Russian radars and IR detection can spot a stealth plane in radius larger than 60 km."_* This notion is based on what exactly?
"it can't pull 9 G's!" - Best response to that claim I feel is "it can". Only the B & C versions can't and that's mostly because they are naval aircraft which are always rated lower anyway.
@Michael Crumpton The F-35A currently costs less than $80 million per unit which is less than most 4th gen fighters. But regardless of that the point about the weapons is that a $5 million drone simply wouldn't be capable of using the weapons required to be effective against fighters even if the service operating the drones paid for the weapons. If all you had to do was buy the weapons then the F-35 would be a $60 million fighter. Autonomous drones are not within reach, and even then they would still rely on targeting systems that can be jammed. $25 million is the absolute minimum cost required for a drone to do what you're asking, and it still wouldn't be cost-effective. To put it in perspective the MQ-9 Reaper drone which is only capable of recon and dropping bombs or short range anti-tank missiles is a $20 million drone. So an absolute best case scenario cost for cost would have 3 fairly incapable drones per F-35A. The F-35 can at present carry 4 long range air to air missiles internally and soon that will increase to 6. That means each F-35A will have plenty of missiles to waste on drones, not that really need to anyway.
dumdumbinks274 I’m pretty sure that $115 million that the F 35 cost does not include weapons. In terms of jamming the drones, it would be pretty obvious to have the drone have autonomous capability. Also the source of jamming makes an excellent way of targeting something with a missile. Even if you make the drones cost 25 million to make them more capable I am pretty sure that 5 to 1 Odds would be pretty devastating for the F 35.
For $5 million that drone wouldn't have weapons capable of shooting down a fighter and it would be extremely slow and short ranged. Being able to pull 20Gs doesn't matter anyway because such a turn cannot be sustained and it would lose all it's energy. Not to mention the F-35 would just jam the drones thus preventing them from operating at all.
Most of the F-35's development cost is related to those technologies, so why not put them in a superior airframe as well?
This video completely skimmed over the known defects of the plane, such as single engine, cyber weakness, absolutely unjustifiable component cost, and fact that bulk of price actually is NOT cycled into the American economy, since extremely expensive components are outsourced to Europe
how long did it take to research and edit this video?!
The war machine is a fucking odd creature, and the 'games' involved are kinda twisted in a complicated and interesting way.
The A-10 warthog in my Opinion is nearly impossible to replace The only speed’sthing that comes close is drones it’s designed to fly very low slow it’s fuel and pilot and sensitive systems are armored which is something that will never be in the air superiority aircraft and it’s engines are on top meaning it’s the last thing to get shot from ground fire it’s designed to take damage 70% of one wing can’t be damaged or torn off and pilots have still landed them
Yes it worth more.
They tried to pack 50 lbs. of shit into a 10 lb. bag, and they failed miserably.
i would rather buy SUKHOI its cheeper and better suck it USA
f35: fighter jet, stealth bomber, and helicopter equipped with the most advanced surveillance equipment including radar, infrared, embedded avionics, and probably 8000 other secret features *all in one vehicle*
Oldworldtech wich falls 4generations short,the least. #F-Off
Recommended!? this ugly chunck of spyware
Fuck the F-35, LONG LIVE THE F-22 RAPTOR!
I don't know China has all our technology now thanks to the private servers etc ...from Shillary.......
Yes, it is worth 115 million dollars. That's what the government pays for it.
Tell that to the UK and France with the Typhoon and Rafale, both of which are more expensive and less capable.
@michael howell It is not remotely a historical fact - that's just what you've seen in the overly dramatic media. It's been 18 years since the X-35 won the competition and only 4 years since the first squadron declared IOC. The only aircraft the F-35 has ever been confirmed to be replacing are the AV-8B, F-16, and F/A-18A/B/C/D. The A-10 is only being discussed because the F-16 already replaces it in many CAS operations and the F-35 is replacing the F-16. It was recently discussed that the F-35 should also replace the F-15 after the cancellation of the F-22 since hte F-35 is better in almost every aspect compared to the F-15, but that idea fell through because it was realised the F-35 production lines already have about a decade of work to do just to replace the F-16. Instead they chose to buy more F-15s because they don't affect the F-35's procurement at all.
@dumdumbinks274 it is a historical fact that the A-10, F-15,F-16 AND THE F/A18 were to be replaced by this plane. 27 years later all those planes are still in the air. the only exeption was the Hornet which was replaced by the Super Hornet.
The A-10 was never going to be replaced by the F-35 directly and no other fighters have been given life extensions beyond hte point that they can actually be replaced. You know the F-4 served for over a decade after ALL it's replacements were operational right?
' oh no... not important to use currency number in here title... dont need it to know
The f15 eagle would fly circles around that thing.
Hmmm... you don’t know... but that doesn’t stop you from spending the better part of 30 minutes skirting around the question with information irrelevant to the question. BTW, red flag trials resulted in a 20:1 kill ratio in favor of the F35... that is the kind of capability that will deter hostile global actors... what do you think that might be worth?
Let's do the math: 1 f35 = 115 millions dollars + piolet = millions of dollars + maintenance = millions of dollars + fuel = millions of dollars + weapons = millions of dollars. What's the verdict?
Is The F-35 Worth $115 Million? "That's not for me to say"
The Harrier was not ”a brittish plane”. That is a myth. The BrIttish were the first to field them operationally but they weren’t the sole part involved in the project from the start. German Luftwaffe, US Army and many others initiated a joint development program. Fun fact - the only ones to still use the Harrier, the US Marine Corps, were one of the few US and NATO institutions that didn’t see any use for it from the start and hence were not part of the development of the Harrier.
When a gob-shite makes that much for 'acting' in a movie, or making that much riding the bench for Chelsea, then yes.
Cost saving my arse,we gave u the proven harrier,u dicks Pepperdog181@gmail.com
No, its not worth it. Whats the point of manned fighters anymore when we can send cheaper drones? Waste of taxpayer money.
Good doc. I am concerned that the Harriers special ability to “viff” was not mentioned, this is the ability to allow the enemy to get in a tail position only to have the Harrier pull up fast allowing the enemy to shoot past and, ahead. A soon to be dead enemy.
F-35 is going to replace the A-10 A-10: laugh in burrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrh
Until it proves it can replace the A-10, it can't. Cute video full of fluff and bullshit. Make another vid when you find some stones.
13:52 Han shot first!
Dog fighting???? Against who? US has air superiority.
Definitely not worth it. The F35 is designed to be a very expensive down rated aircraft vs the F22 in order to sell it abroad.
It's junk.
no
The f16 is not a valid comparison since it has the role of a light fighter, and the f35 is more of a strike craft. I could waste hours enumerating the limitless issues with this overpriced piece of garbage, but I'll give you a link instead
@Tayfun Nalbantoglu > *_"single engine design is a weakness. Since before the cold war most American combat jets have two engines."_* That's just not true- the U.S. has been using the single engine _F-16_ operationally for over thirty years. > *_"Cyber weakness refers to the fact that in many trials, critical systems (even life support) have failed, due to poor systems integration."_* No life support systems for any _F-35_ have failed testing or inspection since '2014... > *_"Any software that performs so poorly in trial, would be riddled with vulnerabilities in the field"_* And this notion that this is the case is based on what exactly?
@Nathan Peterson single engine design is a weakness. Since before the cold war most American combat jets have two engines. Cyber weakness refers to the fact that in many trials, critical systems (even life support) have failed, due to poor systems integration. Any software that performs so poorly in trial, would be riddled with vulnerabilities in the field
Single engine is not a weakness. Cyber weakness? What? What are you on about?
the F-35 will never replace the true master of CAS, the GAU-8 with wings, the greatest of all time the A-10 thunderbolt but yeah its a pretty sick plane
You're the king of the segue. I love the shout out to Lindsay Ellis in your ad, she's the best
It's funny he goes through the some historical vertical takeoff tech and never mentions Yak-141 which F-35 is directly is influenced by as Lockheed actually collaborated with the Yakovlev company.
Yes
NO the F-35 is NOT worth $115million... however $115million is the unit cost for the development of the the most technologically advanced aircraft ever (the F-35 Lightning). The F-35 has a few tactical advantages over the F-22 *but* the F-22 has a smaller radar signature.
The F-35 is now cheaper than a Super Hornet at US$78 million fly away cost. As Lockheed Martin promised all along.
Can't wait to get one in 20 years when the resale value goes down a bit. I mean, once you get it off the lot, it drops like 40%, so even then it's only $50 million. Can't wait!!!
Worst fighter ever made single engine garbage.......made as a money grabber for Lockheed . Disgusting plane
Oy! Irishman! ...you get away from our American airplane.. you.. *shakes index finger at you
No. Not if you're British. We should have built the Harrier 3 and stopped this madness - that serves only to line the pockets of rich Americans while they wipe out the rest of our aero industry innovation - before it started. The F35 is a total disaster.
And it was only the US pilots who could not handle their V8 version of the Harrier. It was a war winner in the hands of British pilots.
when they solve how to keep those sapphire windows from not scratching or repair them plz let us watch owners know lol.
If you want a real Gen 5/6 fighter look at the SU-57 it fills ALL characteristics of a gen 5 fighter. including high maneuverability, hi speed and a hyper speed cruise something F35 will never have therefore is not gen 5 lol
its a 3rd generation Fail Lemon
Yes it is expensive, but it would be inaccurate to compare it dollar for dollar to, for example, healthcare subsidies and infrastructure spending. The narrator eluded to the offset cost in terms of a boost to the economy. Part of this includes a round trip funding in tax payer dollars. Those jobs it creates pays income, corporate and capital gains taxes. Subsides do not. Add to the fact that the GDP receives a trade balance boost, something infrastructure spending can't claim, the costs are not as high as simply looking at the sticker price.
not to mention the internal bay is pathetically small lol and when you start piling weapons outside good bye stealth, information won``t save the F35 it can`t maneuver or run lol its a fail turd
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-07/williamtown-joint-strike-fighters-susceptible-to-corrosion/11085220
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/pm/us-official-warns-australia-over-f-35-spare-parts-dilemma/11319096
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7940691/rafs-new-100million-f-35-fighter-jets-hit-by-more-problems-as-invisibility-coating-scratches-off-and-must-be-replaced-after-every-flight/
its an overpriced under performing,poor ranged, poor armed faulty piece of absolute SHIT, just read the truth coming from Australian and British Pilots or the poor dead from crashes. Its useless and a lemon. And no stealth is nothing Radar is everything, Low band radar will track these easy. S500 will eat this lemon
İ Dont think so
Wait a moment.
I once read that the B2 Stealth Bomber had a unit cost of $2.2Billion... I need to get "googling".
You know you could have tweeked the F15s shape a little to make it Radar invisible without loosing performance and given it directional thrusting for more rapid changes of direction, in my opinion it would have been far superior than even the F22. as for the VTOL F35 ... hmm 2 engines that an older version managed to do with One says it all in my book .... they've regressed not moved forward.
Usa Where did all of my money go
F35 .....Nearly as Good as the Boeing 737 MAX 8
@Nathan Peterson I did not provide specific examples, because the article I cited did. Anyone can do a Google search to find known experts verifying my point. Im too lazy to bother explaining why an ultra expensive military program that has yielded an aircraft of inferior performance, instead of investing the money into infrastructure or education, is a bad idea. Im my experience, those that reject logic and prefer the cool plane are the same morons that bought the justification for the Iraqi war
@Tayfun Nalbantoglu The _F-16_ is a very valid comparison- they are both the multi-role "lo" mix of fighter aircraft in the USAF- the _F-35A_ is intended to supplement and eventually replace it. The _F-35B_ is a multi-role SVTOL aircraft like the single engine _AV-8B+_ and is already replacing it. > *_" could waste hours enumerating the limitless issues with this overpriced piece of garbage, but I'll give you a link instead"_* So you have no argument? Deficiencies are issues- but they are not limitless or deemed unsolvable by any parties involved. Overpriced as compared to what?
lol @ the woman.
China: see you in few years..
Government waste,,,, way too much $$$$$$
.'\
Yeah my ass! That's why tens of millions of US citizens leave in poverty and without health care!
A “jack of all trades” will never be an air superiority fighter and only 1 engine...give me a break. Lose it and the best you can do is eject. With 2 you fly home to do some maintenance and some beers. The plane is a dog, an EXPENSIVE dog. Your better off sending a pilotless drone and save money.
One aircraft for everything? Doomed to failure right from the start!
well if in auction car cann go 40mil 115 mills for plane isint big price
F35 is the cash cow on the car lot to make the dealer all the money (from allies)...the smokin hot rod is in the shed around the back.
I'm proud to be a part of a manufacturer that makes parts for this platform
October 3, 2019 will mark the manufacture of the 435th F-35. This video says it will now begin to be produced in large numbers. I'm confused. What number of F-35s manufactured does Real Engineering think makes the number "high volume manufacturing"? I think 435 is a high volume number. The F-35 became operational in 2015 and saw it's first combat in 2018. Design and development will continue for the entire life of the F-35. Design and development continues today on the B-52, though none have been built since 1962. That's over 70 years of "design and development" according to Real Engineering. I don't buy their definitions. The B-52, in today's dollars, would be priced at $108 million each. The F-35A is less than $80 million each and is getting cheaper every year. Why does this video say that the F-35 is "the most expensive weapons system in the history of mankind" when the B-52 was MUCH more expensive? This video suggests that the Boeing F-32 may have been cancelled because it was ugly. Anyone following the development of the F-32 vs the F-35 would know that when the competition fly-off was held, the F-35 took off and landed vertically, then went supersonic. The F-32 was totally incapable of vertical takeoffs or landing. In fact, no Boeing F-32 has EVER taken off, landed, or hovered using vertical thrust. For someone competing for a contract that required it to take-off and land vertically, Boeing screwed the pooch by not delivering anything that was remotely capable of doing that, then Boeing complained that it's rejection was because it was ugly. Apparently, the producers of this video are not aware that the Boeing F-32 couldn't do what it was suppose to do. The video also doesn't even mention the most important capability of the F-35 in combat. That is the integration of all weapons systems in theater into one massive weapon able to find and destroy any target in the theater without putting any assets at high risk. An F-35 can target dozens of Mig-15/17/21/23/25/27/29/31 or SU-25/30/35/50/57s 200 miles away simultaneously without any of the target aircraft even knowing that a radar was looking at it. All Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine units in theater could see the target from the F-35 transmissions and all of them could fire multiple missiles of any kind at the dozen or so enemy fighters being targeted. The F-35 would guide all the missiles simultaneously from all sources to all the targets from 200 miles away. The enemy aircraft would be busy performing multiple "Cobra Maneuvers" while dozens of missiles fired by Navy ships, Air Force F-15 fighters, and Army SAM sites fly up it's ass. All this with every friendly asset being out of range of any of the enemy aircraft's missiles. THAT is what the F-35 is capable of. Why doesn't Real Engineering do it's homework and produce a fact based video. This video regurgitates old paradigms that have been shown to be false. Perhaps some of the Real Engineering people are ex Boeing employees who are angry that their F-32 "ugly" duckling was rejected.
*Lifetime costs. Compare the total Development and production costs of the entire F-35 program to the B-52 program, its not even close. As for high volume, I'd call the F-16 a high volume production line at 4500+.
Damn it's just about to get out??
Dude. Come on! The corps in marine corps is pronounced 'core', not corpse! Your research is excellent. Don't let it slip.
conspiracy theory: it cost a lot cheaper but use the extra money for other secret projects
Worth it for Americans considering the amount of jobs it is creating/created and a lot of foreign money being injected into the american economy. But for the allies buying it? Nah.... The US creates chaos around the world by destabilizing regions and sell weapons to boost its own economy, pretty smart to be fair.
Make no mistake. This thing is sick. It dogfights beyond 4th gen fighters for sure.
Well presented. Liked and shared.
Just in time to be totally obsolete
The harrier jump jet was first flown over 50 years ago. A bit more context, rather than just pointing the problems of the harrier, would have been useful. The harrier was an amazing aircraft.
NO ITS NOT
at least there is one video praising this jet how good is it? time will tell bit it could never have been as bad as many videos suggested is it better as good or inferior to the Russian SU 57? best e never find out for if it came o it nukes will fly till its FA alive left on earth
Neva is a 1969 missile system that toppled the F117 in Serbia. And B2 (the spirit of Missouri) was also shot down by the same system over Serbia in 1999. The B2 plane crashed in Croatia near the city of Osijek. Everything has been cleaned. Two meters deep, they took possession of the land. Today, there is a lake at this place! I know, and you know, but I do not know why you're hiding?
@dumdumbinks274 F-35 has been in development for over 25 years. They were adding features and changing the design along the way, if you didn't know that was possible. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheedyakovlev-discuss-astovl-25571/
Nope. The F-35 design dates back to the late 1980s, and the only things it shares in common with the Yak are also things it shares in common with the Convair Model 200 from way back in 1973. The F-35 is essentially a scaled down YF-22.
F-22 is less stealthy, not more.
They already attempted that with the F-15 and it was never going to be better than the F-22 or F-35 simply because the F-15 without stealthy modifications has the largest RCS of all fighters worldwide by far. It's RCS is so large that a B-1B matches it. If modifications are made to make it stealth then the changes would be so drastic it would no longer be an F-15. F-35 only has one engine... and it is far more stable when hovering than the Harrier.
The Harrier is definitely a British plane. You could argue that they took advice from a Frenchman (a single person, certainly not a joint effort between nations), but basically everything about the Harrier is British. The Germans were not involved at all. The USMC were the very first foreign service to use the Harrier other than the RAF. They were on-board as soon as the Kestral was demonstrated in the US.
A-10 $45M. Cheapest F-35 $85M, and not as capable of taking the damage. Good job lobbyists
If we had wanted better plane we should have developed the Harrier and ironed out the few problems it had. Many planes like the Boeing 747 have had a long life and continuous development. This F-35 plane is a compete waste of money and to expensive.
Why don't you spend the $115 on love?
BUUUTTT!
There are a few things you are not mentioning. There are still a lot of technical problems with the f-35 and the total cost of the program to the American taxpayers is estimated to be over $1 trillion. Operating costs are very high and put the cost of a plane way above $115 million. In 2016, Senator John McCain of Arizona labeled the program a “scandal and a tragedy with respect to cost, schedule and performance.” The closer you look the worse it gets.
This video is spot on, as it touched upon all the issues surrounding the F-35 program, with the exception of how far behind schedule the F-35C continues to be for the U.S. Navy. After all, the original plans called for the FA-18E/F Super Hornet production line to be shutdown several years ago, but because of the tardiness of the F-35C, the FA-18E/F remains in production, and is scheduled to do so for at least several more years. The advantages of Network Centric Warfare incorporated into the F-35 cannot be overstated, and is what sets the U.S. military -- and our allies apart from Russia or China. But one cannot help but conclude that this will be the last fighter aircraft designed and built for all three flying branches of the military. Doing so was indeed a costly mistake.
Nothing is going to replace the A-10.
is $77 million now.
Not short of trained aviators who praise it such as the guy who developed the training program for it..... well that confirms it, must be good if the people connected to it say so o.O
There are no dogfights. ECM and stealth wins.
I would’ve liked if you included operating costs compared to other planes
One thing I've always wondered about the F-35 is, why didn't the -A and -C variants get combined into a single -C variant when it was decided to split the Marines' version off? The -A's smaller wing area vs the -C doesn't really give it any advantages in other areas, and there's been history of the US Military using a Navy craft for the USAF as well (e.g. the F-18 variants). With the lack of commonality of parts across even the -A and -C variants, one has to wonder how much money could have been saved by reducing the development from 3 variants to 2 for little tradeoff.
Copy of the Yak 144
Only the most expensive on the 3 models costs that much. The Air Force version that doesn't need carrier gear or the VTOL system will only cost about 85 million. That's comparable with most 4th gen fighters.
F-35A is confirmed to be roughly $78 million for the upcoming production batches. The F-35B will be around $108 million and the F-35C around $95 million.
Our F35 arrived, and we immediately took one out with fire fighting foam. I don't think it is worth the billions we spent on the damn things
It's funny that they couldn't sell the fugly plane. The F-22 is beautiful. They should just build more of those.
The US taxpayer is being taken to the cleaners. They should of just bought Russia's newest plane at half the cost instead of these expensive planes that seem to have lots of problems. Hell did he mention what the profit margin was on each plane. They sure like spending the tax payers money , especially when they get to classify it "top secret". Killing is so expensive!
Should have talked about the A-10
And not gonna lie, its a pretty cool looking jet. I'm a sucker for slick designs.
you better hope it never goes up against the typhoon. top gun of the skies., only way to get better is to go drone. 9g supersonic @ speed is untouchable.
The US healthcare system has more than enough money in it.
Jack of all trades, master of none!
@rusty nuts The F-35 isn't doing anything more than the F-16 already does. It's just doing everything the F-16 does but better.
@rusty nuts A multi role fighter is not a new concept
@Nathan Peterson it’s the same thing as: one firearm action for everything, one cartridge for everything, one motor vehicle for everything, one musical instrument for for everything, One rocket for everything, etc. A generalist will ALWAYS include compromises! Why are you even arguing that?
Not the case.
The Serbians never claimed to have fired upon a _B-2._ Nor did the Americans lose one. Keep in mind the _S-125_ and its associated arrays in question were modernized systems from the eighties- and the _F-117A_ was an antiquated aircraft that lacked any form of countermeasures save being low observable and saw no modernization that improved survivability since introduction in 1983.
You want a F35 or 115 million? I'll take the cash. Imagine the amount of eligible high end hookers you can get!
@Jakob HeinrichHeinrich there is under 200 a 10s in service. and it doesn't matter what they cost. the government isn't going to buy any new ones and operating costs will go us as they get older.
So basically the f35 replaces the f16 and the f22 replaces the f15. What replaces the warthog A-10?
Anyone else really hate the look of the f35 ? The f22 looks so much better, shame that it doesn't have vtol capabilities
Here's the problem: It's ugly.
We could just build another couple hundred f-22's for around 210 million per.
@Nathan Peterson the 150 number is what the last 200 cost. 210 is for the next 200.
This is all great features, but who is it fighting? We're not at war with the fucking Jetsons, we're at war with the Flintstones.
How exactly does it help the US economy? What's the actual profit and how much of that just piles up in the pockets of the 1%? What good is bolstering the US economy when the majority of the citizens don't actually see it's effect or get benefit?
The cost of a jumbo jet exceed 100M, so it's not that expensive but the real issue is whether it can be detected by some high-altitude plane and shot down by a hypersonic missile or otherwise. Probably it can be, but XYZ years from now. That's why they call it an "arms race".
Also, the initial developmental F-35A flight control law tests that were often cited by people claiming the F-35 is not capable against a 2-tank family model Viper has long been put to rest as the flight envelope was opened up. Just like with the Raptor, they didn't open full maneuvering capes out of the gate with the test program. Block 3F F-35As have been hurting Vipers for many years now in BFM, with senior Viper drivers who converted to F-35A saying that they have far more nose-pointing authority in the F-35 vs the F-16 since the F-35 isn't anywhere near as AOA-limited as the Viper. Viper drivers who thought they would treat the F-35 like a Hornet and fight a radius fight vs a rate fight then had to learn the hard way that the F-35 retains energy more like a Viper, and recovers airspeed better than a Viper. F-35 pilots learned to fight the F-35 in its strengths vs the Viper's weaknesses, and most BFM exchanges result in F-35s being dominant, not that an F-35 would ever let a 4th Gen within visual range of it anyway. Once you combat-configure the Viper with 2 EFTs, centerline ECM pod, HARM or LITENING Pod, bombs, and missiles, it has no aero or T/W advantages over an F-35 (that is carrying the same amount of bombs and missiles, with far more fuel than the Viper can carry). The Dutch F-35A pilots said when they came to Red Flag or trained against Nellis-based aggressor squadrons, they did BVR set-ups, then did BFM against aggressor Vipers who thought they could show up to the fight with 2 wing tanks. After the first day, the Viper drivers were surprised at the results, and showed up the next day only with centerline 300 gal EFTs, still had a hard time with the F-35A. 3rd day, they showed up slick with ACMI only to re-gain whatever pride was left. After the sorties, the F-35 pilots wouldn't return until much later for de-brief. Viper drivers asked what was going on with the time delay for RTB, and the Dutch said, "Let's go ahead and de-brief and it will all make sense." During the de-brief, which takes hours, they detailed how they flew every which way they wanted VLO approaches on the Vipers and killed them repeatedly, then went through all the agreed BFM set-ups with each other where F-35s were dominant, then explained how they flew out to the various test ranges to deliver live 2000lb JDAMs on-TGT after their BFM games. The Viper pilots were awe-struck that they had been fighting F-35s with full internal A2G weapons the whole time, let alone 2 x 2000lb JDAMs. It sent home the message that F-35 fuel fraction and internal weapons storage is a significant factor in its performance capes, and they realized the Viper they were flying is basically obsolete in comparison. Meanwhile, people with no familiarity with the actual capabilities of the F-35 talk about what a piece of garbage it is, how much more maneuverable the F-16 is, and how their pet Flanker/Typhoon/Rafale/Viper would smoke the F-35 because they read the "leaked" pilot report of the test article F-35 from years ago.
It's best to understand the JSF program as 3 separate airframes that share a common avionics and engine core, not airframes that were compromised because of a common airframe design as much as has been hyped. Nobody has done a cost-benefit analysis in the media sector of all the airframes it would take using older technology to attempt to cover some of the capabilities of the JSF fleet, including all the ancillary systems that cost multiples of millions per unit in addition to the aircraft, when said systems are integrated into the F-35 seamlessly from the start. Then when you realize that F-35As are currently rolling off the production line at costs that are similar to, or less than legacy airframes with nowhere near the capabilities, the cost analysis really favors the F-35 considerably. Examples with 4th Gen fighters include: * External ECM pods necessary for operating in high IADS threat environments * External Electro-Optical Detection/Targeting/Laser Spot Tracking Pods * Helmet-Mounted Cueing Systems * Certain Countermeasures Systems that require additional external profile So the base price for a Super Hornet or later Block F-16 is one thing, whereas all the necessary ancillary combat systems that get bolted-on (taking up opportunity costs for weapons stations in the process) are millions of dollars in addition to that base price. Further, since the upgrading of these pods/external mounts often includes complete pod body replacement, the scaled costs run away from you quickly when looking at fleet sizes. With the F-35, all of these systems and more are integrated into the physical airframe and subsystems of the F-35 internally, with software-leveraged upgrades that can maximize the life cycle of the hardware components. When the hardware needs to be replaced, you don't have to manufacture a new external case for them, and scale those costs across the fleet, which saves billions in comparison. Also, since the 3 services and multiple coalition partners share the common avionics and engine cores, your upgrade costs go down because of purchasing volume. Then look at lethality and survivability. If it takes you 4 legacy aircraft with attrition to execute limited mission profiles vs 1 JSF to execute expanded mission profiles, the pay-off in pilots' lives saved and destructive campaigns compressed in time is unprecedented. Right now, the air threats know that everything is done on our terms because we hold all the cards in SA, so instead of having more frequent skirmishes with opportunistic regional powers (or F-14 RIOs who can't discriminate between new Flogger pilots doing their 2nd check ride and a nose-hot interceptor looking for solutions), we're experiencing far less actual aerial conflict as a result. This helps with regional stability, as much as pilots would love to be told, "Eradicate any threat air with extreme prejudice until all their fighters and aircraft are totally destroyed!"
The political piece is just as important as the engineering. Thank you for it. It is important to know the limitations in place to our national security.
In March 1999, during Kosovo War, a F-117 Nighthawk Stealth Jet shot down by 60s era Russian Missile. The Serbian put up a Poster; "Sorry, we didn't know it was stealth"
What? Marines Corps (pronounced: CORE) are Department of Navy and use Naval ships.
Sapphire isn't as expensive as you made it sound. 14:20 It's oxidized aluminum, but without the metal impurities that give sapphires a blue color.
The Harrier doesn't even have the potential to match the F-35B, let alone be better...
Operating costs are no worse than the F-15C and most issues are fairly minor and certainly not widespread.
The projected program cost is $1.098 trillion USD over the course of its service life spread over *12+* countries.
@dumdumbinks274 I you sure in to that jack ass!
What about an A10?
@Jakob Heinrich F-35A large order just broke $71 million per aircraft, and can do CAS better than the A-10C will ever be able to. I've called in A-10As for CAS, as well as Vipers, and know how bad it sucks to wait for a 285kt slow poke airframe to get to you, vs a fast-mover. F-15Es do CAS much better if you have Troops In Contact that need help NOW, not waiting for 15-45 minutes for them to get to you. An F-35A can get to you within 3-7 minutes over the same distances, depending on whether he needs to take off, or divert from an ISR or other mission profile pattern. JTACS who have worked with everything else and are now working with F-35s on live CAS missions say the amount of SA the F-35 gives them about things around them before they even get there is mind-blowing. They are also able to put precision munitions on enemy TGTs in the area from over the horizon, at night, through bad weather faster than a Strike Eagle or B-1B can, with far superior sensor data about the TGT and the area, while minimizing collateral damage and blue-on-blue. Everything everyone said about the F-35 not being able to do CAS like an A-10 was true, but in ways they didn't realize. It smokes the A-10C at CAS without even needing to get down into the weeds within MANPADS or AAA range. A-10C re-wing is a very costly program, with recent awards to Boeing August 23rd to the tune of $999 million, after they got a $1.1 billion re-wing contract in 2007. The original manufacturer of the A-10, Fairchild, hasn't been a company in decades.
@nick 450 still a better weapon against terrorists. They hear the unique sound from an A10 and hide in fear. Only to be blown up by a bomb or shot by allies soldiers.
yankee stop talking about stealth it doesn't exist, maybe just in fiction or to much rpg!
That's exactly what happened with the F-111 back in the day. You would have thought they would have learned from history, but I guess not. F-111 was a great plane but in the initial A model for the Air force. It failed for the Navy due to weight reduction inability. Like you said - design one for each service to obtain the most suitable plane for the task like F-22 as air superiority. Thanks for a great video.
Easily the best laid out and most comprehensive unclassified analysis of the F-35 I have ever seen. Well done my dude!
It looks like a piece of shit! God help us if we ever get into a real war. The Mig seems to be a much better plane and its cheaper! The future of Democracy and freedom hangs on a balance.
Yeah, too expensive! Way cheaper to shut up, work on my social credit score, and "donate" a kidney to a CCP "patriot".
Well done Brian, another brilliant video
f35 is worth it at twice the price!!! Go Lockheed!! :)
You forgot to mention how the cancellation and lawsuit of the A-12 endend up giving both the ATF and the JSF to LM when the MDC had the better design and the more promising/feasible/cheaper/more capable acft than the problem plague not able to fly 35.
October 3, 2019 will mark the manufacture of the 435th F-35. This video says it will now begin to be produced in large numbers. I'm confused. What number of F-35s manufactured does Real Engineering think makes the number "high volume manufacturing"? I think 435 is a high volume number. The F-35 became operational in 2015 and saw it's first combat in 2018. Design and development will continue for the entire life of the F-35. Design and development continues today on the B-52, though none have been built since 1962. That's over 70 years of "design and development" according to Real Engineering. I don't buy their definitions. The B-52, in today's dollars, would be priced at $108 million each. The F-35A is less than $80 million each and is getting cheaper every year. Why does this video say that the F-35 is "the most expensive weapons system in the history of mankind" when the B-52 was MUCH more expensive? This video suggests that the Boeing F-32 may have been cancelled because it was ugly. Anyone following the development of the F-32 vs the F-35 would know that when the competition fly-off was held, the F-35 took off and landed vertically, then went supersonic. The F-32 was totally incapable of vertical takeoffs or landing. In fact, no Boeing F-32 has EVER taken off, landed, or hovered using vertical thrust. For someone competing for a contract that required it to take-off and land vertically, Boeing screwed the pooch by not delivering anything that was remotely capable of doing that, then Boeing complained that it's rejection was because it was ugly. Apparently, the producers of this video are not aware that the Boeing F-32 couldn't do what it was suppose to do. The video also doesn't even mention the most important capability of the F-35 in combat. That is the integration of all weapons systems in theater into one massive weapon able to find and destroy any target in the theater without putting any assets at high risk. A single F-35 can target dozens of Mig-15/17/21/23/25/27/29/31 or SU-25/30/35/50/57s 200 miles away simultaneously without any of the target aircraft even knowing that a radar was looking at them. All Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine units in theater could see the target from the F-35 transmissions and all of them could fire multiple missiles of any kind at the dozen or so enemy fighters being targeted. The single F-35 could guide all the missiles simultaneously from all sources to all the enemy targets from 200 miles away. The enemy aircraft would be busy performing multiple "Cobra Maneuvers" while dozens of missiles fired by Navy ships, Air Force F-15 fighters, and Army SAM sites fly up it's ass. All this with every friendly asset being out of range of any of the enemy aircraft's missiles. THAT is what the F-35 is capable of. Why doesn't Real Engineering do it's homework and produce a fact based video. This video regurgitates old paradigms that have been shown to be false. Perhaps some of the Real Engineering people are ex Boeing employees who are angry that their F-32 "ugly" duckling was rejected.
@Michael Runnels Im not comparing end production cost, I'm comparing program costs. I would agree that on a unit per unit basis, the B-52 comparison is correct. However, the main price in the F-35 program isn't the unit cost, it was the entire program's R&D and revisions. You put the initial B-52 run at 80B, plus years of upgrades, but that's still shy of the estimated 1.5 TRILLION for the F-35. I'm not in the naysayer crowd that craps on this plane, I think itll do just fine, but make no mistake, the F-35 program has had a MONSTER budget that dwarfs previous aircraft, and this should be evaluated when assessing the value to taxpayers.
@Bugler55 4500 IS high production for an aircraft. So is 435. An additional 478 F-35As have been ordered at a total cost of $34 Billion. That's $71 million per plane. They are in production right now. Not quite like the grand total of 12 prototypes of the highly touted SU-57 that's suppose to make the F-35 obsolete, huh? The B-52 started production in 1952 at a cost of $14.43 million each in 1954 dollars. That equates to $108 million in 2018 dollars. The total initial cost for the 744 B-52s was $80.352 Billion dollars in today's dollars. That's not including 75 years of further development and upgrades of the B-52. So you think that's not even close to the cost of the F-35 program? What dollar amount would you pull out of thin air do you think that the F-35 costs that dwarfs the total of $100 Billion or so we have spent, and are still spending, on the B-52? A trillion dollars? 500 Billion? In less than 3 years the number of F-35s produced will surpass the total number of B-52s.....AT LESS TOTAL COST! That is why the video saying that the F-35 is "the most expensive weapons system in the history of mankind" is inaccurate and unwarranted. Real engineering just repeats the phrases that critics of the program have said without ever doing their own research on costs of the program.
Those secret projects are building yachts for Senators and CEOs.
Down to $78M as of last week.
No! The Super Hornet is a better buy.
@Scott Henrie because there is soo little of them in service I don't think the standard run of the mill terrorist would ever encounter one. and it's out of production there isn't going to be any more spare parts. I think military buffs see it for its cool shape and funny noise but look past its flaws.
I'm curious you mentioned the fact that it likely would have been cheaper to develop 3 seperate planes. I'm curious if the economy of scale associated with the interchangeable parts will result in a reduction in supply/logistic costs vs 3 seperate planes with far less parts compatibility?
The most feared thing of the F-35 is what it will do to the military career of anyone that does not follow the orders and say what they are told to say. This is Defence industry welfare. When you build one aircraft to do three different jobs, many compromises have to be made. Thus none of these aircraft will be as good as if three separate aircraft had been designed.
Feels like a paid advertiser.
So when are we gonna get F35 and Su57 mock fights?
Tax payers dollars are free money , besides the lobby money makes the plane a winner.
Imagine buying like 50000 of these and telling the people that affordable healthcare is communism, 'Muricans, you can't think of a better joke
When I saw this in Transformers, I thought it was completely fake
115 million what? Dollars are essentially worthless. Cotton and paper backed by nothing. If offered a choice of 1000 ounces of gold or a F35, I would take the gold.
3:07 is something you would actually see in the sky if Trump got to be on the design team xD
is this comercial for f35 or analysis of its worth, jet is crap and i welcome a day when it will replace all it should replace in US army
This was a fair and objective take down of the F-35 Lightning II fighter jet. Aerial warfare has changed dramatically with the digital era and computer advancements. The old way of doing things simply doesn't work anymore. But the best thing about the F-35 is that the most stuff that make it such a formidable and dangerous jet are highly classified. From the capabilities of its DAS and EOTS systems to it's highly advanced and secretive AESA radar that is said to have yet unheard off cyber and electronic warfare capabilities. Le't just all hope we will never get a chance to see the true colors of this jet, especially against the SU-35s and J-20s...
3:56 colewms
Not really the case- the JSF was the program began did seek to create a universal aircraft for all three branches, as well as the international partners. However after 1993 the formulation for requirements were formed and sought three different aircraft with relatively high commonality between them.
_F-16C/ D_ and _F-35A._ At least in CAS missions where a ground-to-air or air-to-air threat is present. Lighter aircraft will replace it otherwise.
@Michael Runnels Thats fair, and I experienced the same frustration in trying to find an apples-to-applies comparison. I guess we'll see in the next decade how the costs sort out.
@Bugler55 I looked around the internet to find the total program costs for the F-35. I DID find a figure of $1.4 Trillion dollars. That article indicated that $1.4 Trillion includes research, development, production, upgrades, AND operational costs for 50 years. I could not find any figures whatsoever on the B-52 operational costs for the last 65 years. The $80+ billion figure for the B-52 does NOT include operational costs, but I would guess that the operational cost figure would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. I have no idea how close that is to reality.
Gee where have I heard all this before? Oh yeah the early 1960s when they made crap like the Thud. "Oh we don't need to dogfight we have missiles" then came Vietnam and they got their asses handed to them by Migs. Remember hearing the same shit about the stealth in the late 80s too, and then the Serbs found they could tweak the freqs and voila! Nighthawk becomes target practice. Lets be honest folks, the USA MIC has become a SCAM, plain and simple. They design something crap for a shitload of money then get paid ANOTHER shitload of money to try to fix the crap, and of course nobody is gonna say boo because they make sure the parts are being built in enough districts to spread that pork around so the piggies feed well. Nice work if you can get it but I have a feeling if the USA fights anybody other than jokes like Syria and NK with their 50 year old planes? The F35s will be sitting on the ground while the F15s and F18s do the work.
With all the orders from clients coming in the real cost of each F-35 is now around 80 million
Sorry about F117, we didn't know it was invisible. -Serbs
Lol!! Your curiosity plug timing was perfect!!! I literally busted a gut laughing.
An expensive decoy to dupe the Chinese into copying a lemon. Meanwhile the F22 rules the skies, well played USA!
Someone told me once that those projects are called " Job security" so everyone works as slow as they can so they guarantee they will have jobs for a long time. People already learned that when those government projects end many people loose their jobs. That's is the reason those projects take forever and cost 30 times more than should. Another interesting thing is that companies will always charge more for parts and supplies used in government projects. A screw that may cost $5 in manufacturing a car may cost $5.000 when manufacturing an airplane for the government. Even if it is the same screw. Overcharging the government is big business. Tax payers pay the bill. Just to put in perspective the project cost for the Boeing 777X is 5 Billion, the project cost for the F-35 was 406 Billion. The Swedish Gripen program cost was 13.5 Billion. It cost 30 times more to develop a jetfighter in the US than in Sweden. The most interesting thing is that the next war will probably be nuclear and these airplanes will be useless. It cost 81 times more to develop a F-35 than to develop a Boeing 777X which is 20 times more complex than a F-35.
Im sure that Nebula platform offers better terms for its content producers, but I have a hard time seeing it taking off in any real way when it doesn't seem to offer anything for content viewers. It kinda seems like a consumer service thats primarily created for content producers. Sounds like a bad pitch if I was a shark tank person.
No, it' NOT!
Complexity is the mother of all material disasters. The F-35 is so complex that failure is assured.
We have gone a long way since the battle of midway's naval technology. Fk yeah America.
I was searching for a drone for my sport events, now I change my mind ... it's gonna be a jet fighter.
Marines and Navy are the same branch
YES IT IS!!!!!
Great jet, great plane for target shooting! Small fire arms can bring this nintendo machine down. Like a modern car, full of sensors, processors, software (bugs) and cables! A nightmare for maintenance and costly to keep it in the sky but great for the industry. It really needs to stay far from anything flying around because maneuverability is like a broken wing duck. If the pilot doesn't matter anymore it's far cheaper to use a drone! The poor guy could't even hold up with the info tsunami. AI and drones makes it obsolete and a waist of money! Outdated at the start!
*F35. Engineering joke of the decade!*
Last time I checked it was only 100M. WTF USAF?
The _F-35A_ is $89.2 million USD at during the 2nd quarter of FY19. The _F-35B_ is $115 million USD as of FY18.
@Nathan Peterson there are three diffrent planes all based on the same basic design which should mean that many parts are interchangeable. This is diffrent then having one aircraft from locked, one from boeing, and one from McDonald Douglas. Which would likely have significantly less parts interchangeability. I understand that you cant swap an entire f35a for an f35b however a majority of the major components such as flight control servos, avionics, etc are likely interchangeable.
They are three different planes that share commonality.
You can leave the /c out of the url
The short answer is no, the greatest military resource sink of all time and a project that has gotten to big to fail. Did you mention that every flight deck in the navy has to be replaced to use the F-35 properly because its engine would melt the deck?
Imagine battlefield 4 with only the F35
20:05 I noticed the Closed Captions said "[need reference]". This totally makes sense with the recalling of parts as every F-35 needs to be perfect, considering the entire rest of the plane being at stake if something fails. However, I'd also like to know if you found the reference that says that.
The windows are made of gemstones?? Really???!!!
The chief test pilot of Lookheed-Martin assure that the f-35 can out-manoeuver every american plane ? Seriously ? Is that an evidence that this bulky, heavy and underpowered plane is in reality a hummingbird ? Let me think... Oh yes, software updates. They fix everything ;)
The F-35 kicks ass!
russia and china will develop advanced radars less than a decade that can detect f-35, then, what happens?
> *_"Oh yeah the early 1960s when they made crap like the Thud. "Oh we don't need to dogfight we have missiles" then came Vietnam and they got their asses handed to them by Migs"_* That's not what happened at all. The gun being fitted grew more out of use of ground support, not dogfighting. The U.S.N. simply improved missile reliability and training and their air victories to loss ratios sky rocketed. Gun kills even after introduction to both USAF and USN decreased over time. > *_" Remember hearing the same shit about the stealth in the late 80s too, and then the Serbs found they could tweak the freqs and voila! Nighthawk becomes target practice."_* The _F-117A_ was an antiquated aircraft that lacked any form of countermeasures save being low observable. It had no refits to speak of that improved survivability since introduction. The _S-125_ and its associated arrays were modernized systems from the mid eighties and the 250th Missile Air Defense Brigade were professionals. They noted through IR systems an aircraft was flying on the same route as other aircraft that day- and thus fired two missiles. The first failed to lock on, the second did. What nonsense are you rambling on about?
The _F-117A_ was an antiquated aircraft that lacked any form of countermeasures save being low observable. It had no refits to speak of that improved survivability since introduction. The _S-125_ and its associated arrays were modernized systems from the mid eighties and the 250th Missile Air Defense Brigade were professionals. They noted through IR systems an aircraft was flying on the same route as other aircraft that day- and thus fired two missiles. The first failed to lock on, the second did.
GoFundMe link in 3....2....1....
Jet fighters are already dead there are Hyper-sonic Ballistic missiles you can kill anyone where ever without going any where
22:05 That was one hell of a segue
And the Su 57 cist 40 million . And again reports that say F35 lost all samulation to older planes like Mirage and and f-16 , reports from other planes said that this plan is to slow.
Su-57 prototypes cost between 50-60 million each and were only configured with specific systems for testing purposes. Considering an Su-35S is worth about $80 million the Su-57 is certainly not going to be cheaper than the F-35. I suggest doing some actual research into what pilots think. The F-35 is not slow at all and is quite literally superior to the F-16 in every aspect of performance.
Nothing can replace the A-10
It's a high price and one wonder if the dollars spent could have done better somewhere else?
Guess I'm Anglish. Best thing about this to me was the novelty of hearing science and economics with an Oirish accent. Not 'manny' of them te be shah.
Anything is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.
Just a little tip: if you have white in your video (like here 11:20) never make it super white but at a little bit of color.
no. nothing designed to end lives is worth a spittle. and you could indeed go in to the politics, or better yet, it's role in international relations. you could at least drop the excitement and smiley-voice antics, you could at least make it perfectly clear that the f 35 is a weapons platform designed for the sole purpose of killing.. you could have some respect for the innocents the US government inadvertently slaughters in passing while bombing terrorists they themselves created. being an engineer doesn't need to mean you become a shallow amoral peasant, wee man.
Yakolev giggles in the background
I'd rather fly the aircraft in the "Gimbal Video" , but it's a cool airplane.
NO is the honest answer, Boeing has made the modern day equivalent of the Starfighter, it is unstable and ill suited for the purpose to which is was "designed". The only reason the NATO countries are buying them is because the Americans threaten everyone with economic cuts and higher trade costs if they buy from someone else. The US economy is so closely tied to Boeing and the F35 project that if it were to fail the US economy would collapse as a result, the fact is there are better planes being designed at a better cost with more secure developments and actual testing performed before production is started.
As funded by Lockheed Martin.
The short answer is no, its the greatest military resource sink of all time and a project that has gotten to big to fail without someone losing face. Did you mention that every flight deck in the navy has to be replaced to use the F-35 properly because its engine would melt the deck?
The Taxpayers will be raped by the government again to support military with out victory or profit
@Nathan Peterson yak141 Boeing stole the blue prints
There goes our tax dollar enriching a selective few - the military industrial complex is one hella rich men's legal corruptio scheme that our government is happy to support. IN ANY OTHER INDUSTRY - private or public - multiple failures would've shut down the project so fast you wouldn't have known it even existed! THE ONLY Exception is that if PRIVATE money was used! NOT GONNA HAPPEN? YEA? See Blue Origin from Bezo. YEP. He used his own money!
Bullshit, the F35B is not VTOL, it is STOVL only and has no advantages over the Harrier other than speed.
F-35 has evolved significantly since that report. That F-35 had G limits in addition to what you mentioned.
More expensive than the B-2 and the F-22?? Interesting.
I can’t even make a paper airplane
Problem with trying to replace the A 10 is that it is a huge flying gun. Anyone interested in Lockheed's development of stealth, read the book Skunk works by Ben Rich, great book!
How did you even get the information of the fighter jet?
lot of people don't realize just like a car when it's assembled it's not just the part you're paying for it's all the design research and testing that way into producing those parts fitting them together and engineering them so that they can work together as one
Judging what some companies pay for software I think it’s cheap
Is any killing machine worth any price?
1:25.....the f35 sought to be an air superiority machine to replace the F16 and A10, neither of which are air superiority machines. I stopped watching there, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
I would just like to point out that the marines are actually part of the Navy.
Being an 'engineering' channel, assumed you would actually extrapolate the cost of building with known materials.
Prices for lot 11, today: F-35A 089.2 m F-35B 115.5 m F-35C 107.7 m https://www.f35.com/about/cost Prices for lot 12, 2020: F-35A 082.4 m F-35B 108.0 m F-35C 103.0 m https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-martin-f-35a-to-be-priced-at-779m-by-2022-461870/ Convergence.
Thanks Youtube. Off to buy one.
Where can I get that paint for my car? Cut down on getting caught by radar traps for speeding!! Yeah it is expensive, but puts lots of money into the execs pockets. War is profitable to many people, and dead bodies are just the cost. All the rebuilding that needs to be done creates jobs, and the people killed, well the the ones who survive can have their jobs. The only war humans should be worried about is full scale Nuclear war.
In terms of the sounds made, you're absolutely correct. =D
Bullshit. It takes a lot of research to figure out how to SEE that plane. China has the money but lacks a lot of what it takes to do the job. Then in war its still very VERY hard to know what you seeing is a plane or a damn bird flying.. Either way we take every advantage we can .. If not you might be forced to be a chinaman...
That ass nozzle looks like a Botfly laying an egg on someone's head.
That ad transition was so smooth.
They should made it faster to atleast mach 2. Mach 1.6 seems a little bit slow even for a multirole fighter
Hang on. You did not explain, at all, how this thing is supposed to replace the A-10 Warthog. despite you claiming you did in the video. How does this thing do close air support better? or at least equal to a warthog?
I wouldn't pay a dime for this pile of composite crap! American test pilots say it is slow, hard to maneuver and inferior to existing American fighters... Why would I disagree?
The investment for this aircraft is 406.5 billion dollars .... hahaha with such a sum of money the French would have made a plane flying faster than light, totally invisible and covered with fine gold with platinum instead of an airplane that is sensitive to rainwater! loool. The frenchies invested 12 billion euros only to create a plane (the Rafale, who flies for the first time more than 32 years ago, in 1986), which leaves no chance for the F35 and F22 (aircraft which were developed in 2008 hehe ! see how a Rafale shot down an F22 ! it's here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOswfrc7Xtg
Yeah yeah - but what’s the mpg on this puppy.
so worth it
Sorry not worth it , the Russian just need to develop good SAM missiles at a fraction of a cost , like 1/100 cost that could shoot down these birds like ducks . why do US allies need a plane with vertical landing ? most of them dont even have aircraft carriers....
GET OUT OF MY RECOMMENDED I DONT CARE HOW MUCH THIS COSTS
Didn't Lockheed receive a $34 billion contract for 438 F-35's? $34 billion/438 = approx. $77.6 million each. No?
just can't imagine the pressure for pilots ... when you know the price of those birds.
@flip inheck An _AV-8B+_ or the contemporary British variant couldn't takeoff vertical with anything more than two air-to-air missiles or 300gal./ 330gal. drop tanks. The notion the _F-35B_ has to be completely empty of munitions is based on what? > *_"... the F35B does not have the manouverability of the Harrier nor can it reverse thrust like the Harrier."_* Regarding the latter, you have a point, however for the former, the _F-35B_ has comparable flight characteristics to a _F-16C,_ save in the case of the _F-35B_ versus an _F-35A_ climb rate (I will need to double check the source here ) and of course energy preservation in a sustained turn.
@Nathan Peterson The F35B can only VTO with zero weapons or munitions, a half stripped loading bay and with near empty fuel tanks, the F35B does not have the manouverability of the Harrier nor can it reverse thrust like the Harrier.
The _F-35B_ is capable of vertical takeoff- but like the _AV-8B_ neither will carry a considerable payload doing such due to weight constraints. That being said the _F-35B_ has over twice the potential payload any _AV-8B+_ would carry, farther range, lower radar cross section, and maneuverability.
the f15 rules the sky
The great British Harrier should have been re-desighned and kept.
over priced,
~12 it would be fair to compare it to an F16 but it doesn't make sense to compare it to a dual-engine fighter...
The Thunderbold II won't be replaced by the Lightning II. No Tank killing gatling gun. No built in ability to survive AAA fire from closer distances.
Sad... I signed onto curiosity stream months ago through a youtube link. Then I find I don't get access to Nebula with a pre-existing curiosity stream account!?!?! C'mon really?
So they designed a single fighter with it's *primary* selling point being the VTOL capabilities, to be used by three branches of the military for a wide range of different roles, but the only variant that actually ended up with the true VTOL capabilities went to the Marines? and the other two just basically said, "Yeah, you know what? we have long runways and big enough ships, that whole VTOL party trick; get rid of it we changed our mind."
In case WWII breaks out again tomorrow, I am confident that this will be quite an ace.
They break down constantly -- that according to the Pentagon 11-11-19
What people don’t understand about the F-35 is that it’s not designed to be in a dogfight. It’s designed to win any fight before the enemy even knows it’s there.
It's rated at 1.6M.+ This speed is with a combat load mind you.
The _A-10_ is simply not survivable in an environment with any level of air-to-air or ground-to-air threats compared to multi-role fighters. So since the mid nineties the _F-16C_ has been supplementing and to a degree replacing the _A-10,_ and the _F-35A_ is the one supplementing and eventually replacing the _F-16C._
@Nathan Peterson I watch several videos on Youtube and read many articles about the subject and many don't see that much credit of the F35, that is all, I do not take note of one by one. The crap never saw combat, it is a nice looking craft that is all. Till it is tested against the best American enemies have it is just a pile of flying composites waiting test.
@AcidBot66 You've avoided my question, what particular pilots are saying this? Because I've come across none that have unfavorable views on the aircraft specifically. Critical certainly. What are you to say these pilots *are* lying? The _F-35A_ and _F-35B_ have seen combat, but like all other new aircraft, not against other aircraft as of yet.
@AcidBot66 One USMC pilot, LT COL David "Chip" Berke was retired by the time he made his commentary on the aircraft's performance. So had nothing to lose save NDA covered details. Which pilots do you refer to? How would they lose their jobs by saying what they like or don't like about it? They're not the manufacturer.
@Nathan Peterson Who would dare to say American war hardware is crap? Who wants to loose their jobs?
@AcidBot66 How is that the case? Most of these pilots who claim the contrary (not just Americans, but British, Norwegian, and Dutch pilots to ) are still quite critical of the aircraft- they just favor it more over the _F-16_ and _F/A-18._
@Nathan Peterson It takes only one with enough courage to disclose such an embarrassing fact to spoil the party!
Quite a lot of pilots have said the contrary...
David Haha, Dont sweat kid, I just added my upvotes to all yours.
@En Win I didn't upvote myself. There are other people who know how untrue the F-35 being a lemon is.
David I do know u upvoted yourself, here u go champ.......
@En Win You don't even know what the F-35 is supposed to do
@David More like a box of lemons.
A lemon? ???
These things are such a waste. Many of them still have god damn machine guns/cannons. Why? These guns are simply not needed and haven't been for decades. They haven't been relevant or fired in anger since like the 60s. Plus jet fighters cost millions to train but they are even more absolute and useless than the guns. A simple AI could easily replace them. This simple AI would do everything like 10X better with none of the mistakes. These planes literally fire their A2A missiles like 20 miles away from the enemy. They don't need to do any of that moronic dogfight stuff. They haven't for decades. Having the cannons/machine guns on a jet fighter is like giving the pilots grenades they can toss out the window like they did in WW1. Imagine if we still spend millions equipping every fighter/bomber with these grenades and spending vast sums training the pilots how to use them effectively. Sounds absurd yes? It is NO DIFFERENT from these jets having the guns. They will never, ever use the damn things. They simply fire their smart missiles 20+ miles away. If we invest some of this wasted money we can make missiles and rockets even better and simply equip relatively UAVs with them. A drone could simply launch, as that is the only thing they do....hundreds of millions of dollars for a hard surfice that you can attach missiles to. Perhaps these new missiles can take down an enemy from 200 miles away and creating those missiles and rockets will only cost like 5% of the money you save by ditching these outdated and obsolete battleships of the sky. You know how in WW1 and especially WW2 countless lives and resources were wasted because the generals were using tactics and equipment from the previous war (i.e. battleships, the french maginot line, human wave attacks by the japs, polish nights charging tanks with lances and swords. ). This same concept applies to jet fighters and their pilots. They are unneeded. Planes like the A10 are perfect. They don't cost billions, the pilots can be trained in a fraction of the time. If you put a smart missile with a 200 mile range on an A10 it can take down anything from russia or china. Hell, you could put said missiles on a small cessna plane, the ones civilians use, and it could take down the 100 million dollar fighter jets from anywhere. You just need something solid to attach the missile to. A cheap news helicopter armed with the missiles we could develop by scrapping most of these insane fighter programs and the pilots with millions in training invested in them and using just a few percentage of the funds could take out an F35. For most purposes you don't even need the plane. A fleet of 10 trucks with launchers with these new missiles could take out an entire airforce in most countries. Hell, you could use $50 worth of junk from the hardware store and install these missiles on a hotair balloon and you will be able to destroy these top fighter jets and their useless, overly-expensive pilots. The whole "Ace" thing should have died by the Korean war at the latest.
12:36 what's that monster which has a third jet on its tail wing?
Yes if you don’t think so you haven’t read enough about it or seen it in action.
if it's to save us from alien invasion, then yes. if it's to point it to our own kind, then no. $115 mil is enough to utilize to make a world where you don't need a $115mil flying killing machine
The F-22 still looks better, which according to the intergalactic engineering law of "cool = superior", makes the F-35 a waste.
They are paying less than that for the latest version as.
cool but is it worth 115 million tho?
The whole "it's gotta do everything" is a govt./military strength stupid idea. It would only be MARGINALLY more stupid to make it perform the role of a surface ship, submarine, tunnel drilling machine, interplanetary space ship, and any other totally unrelated thing any other vehicle type might do (OK, not really, but it does entirely too closely APPROACH being THAT dumb). It makes so much more (complete and total) sense to build a FIGHTER to fight, a bomber to bomb, and a tunnel driller to drill underground, etc.....just sayin'. Things get exponentially more expensive and exponentially LESS capable when you do not. Only our govt would continue to NOT learn this lesson over and over and over again, year after year, decade after decade. Ya gotta wonder. The days of the fighter/bomber/recon./support...aircraft should have been long abandoned by now. An F22 doing tank busting....seriously???? Complaining that the F35 can't dogfight, is like complaining that an F16 can't fly out of the atmosphere. Nothing to do with its intended mission. If you are dogfighting in an F22, you have failed at every aspect of your mission. Ask the F16 pilots how many times they got to dogfight with the F22 in war games....in fact, ask them how many times they even knew the F22 was there??? Zero, is the answer, and over one hundred downed planes by the F22 was the result...other than keepin them flying, that's about the ONLY thing that really matters as to whether they are "worth it".
Funny you say that because the F-16 won a bombing accuracy competition against 2 dedicated strike aircraft in 1981. The F-16 is a fighter.
Not the case at all with multi-role fighters.
We now know because of back in 1980 a British radar system tracked B1 and B2 aircraft from America to an air show. America asked the British to stop making the system and the company went bust. But now another company has the same exact system but smaller able to track any stealth and any aircraft even tiny drones from 150 miles away. So as this came out in the news means any stealth is now useless and the end of stealth anything because before that Russia could track a stealth by the radar jamming system they could lock on to where the jamming is. So it was pointless back then. America claimed the B1 B2 did not have radar jamming if that was true then why stop making the UKs radar system? The Radar that UK had back in 1980 was a passive radar mixed with other systems and could track anything from over 600 miles away in all directions. I think with our Euro fighter which is faster than the Russian high speed bombers in constant flight is interesting and Underrated. But a UK company just announced a cheaper and new aircraft that would be taking the place of the tornado if built and would have a signature of less than an average size drone also the engine would be built with power of over Mach3 sustained flight. But as far as I know not tested or built yet.
That’s 115 Million dollars more than what Russia could afford for its Su-57 to continue its program.
Yooo, that segue tho!!!
in what way?
@Christopher DomanExcept the analogs to a _F-35A_ is other multi-role fighter like the _F-16C, Typhoon, Su-30, CF-18_ and _Rafale F._ Not the dedicated air superiority aircraft like some variants of _Su-27,/_ the _F-15C/ F-15DJ,_ and the _F-22A._ The _F-35C's_ analogs are the _F/A-18E/ F, Rafale M,_ and to a lesser extent due to this aircraft's limited payload- the _MiG-29K_ derivitaves.
@Nathan Peterson I didn't consider the low cost of having multiple air frames with a lot of the same components. That makes more sense and I agree there, I still *do* think the immediate replacement of any one role-specialized aircraft with that of a "jack-of-all-trades-master-of-some" is a bad idea at the moment, with the exception of the Harrier and the F-16. the former is really a 1st gen F-35B which is the one I see as the most well deserving replacement and the latter is an aging air superiority/strike fighter that, barring a *major* upgrade, cannot match the abilities of latest gen air superiority fighters like the F-22 or it's foreign equivalents.
Not the case. They are three different aircraft with high percentage of parts and equipment commonality. Only one variant was intended to be SVTOL from the get-go.
Amalgamated Potato Packing Pocatello that’s mostly because of the stealth coating but they are definitely three different planes and the A is almost exactly where it needs to be with the b and c not that far behind.
@AcidBot66 Saying you haven't heard of it isn't argument buddy. That is by the very definition a personal incredulity fallacy. < https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/09/27/f-35-flies-first-combat-mission-in-afghanistan/ > < https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a20872619/israel-first-f-35-combat-mission/ > What specific interviews with pilots back the claim the _F-35_ is not liked among pilots? < https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-most-critical-test-180971734/ > < https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/what-31-us-air-force-pilots-who-flew-f-35-really-think-24857 > < http://centralblue.williamsfoundation.org.au/test-pilot-report-f-35-major-morten-hanche-rnoaf/ >
@Nathan Peterson Haven't heard about. probably another lie.
@AcidBot66 What specific interviews? But the _F-35A_ has already seen combat with the IDF, and the same with the _F-35B_ for the USMC.
They also need to develop a whole range of radars and platforms to use those missiles. You might as well claim the Russians don't need good guns or optics because they have good bullets that will kill US soldiers. You know only 1 F-35 variant has a lift fan right? Most nations are buying the conventional F-35A, not the STOVL F-35B.
it's not the type of sapphire your thinking of.....this is a man made material
HELL NO!!!
Your forgetting BAE they went 50/50 on investment and work force with Lockheed. You’ve not really told the story mate.
Nope, is a costly, compromised piece of American shit......Its the new Shuttle.......
Copied from Russian Yak 141. Watch "Yakovlev Yak-41M/Yak-141 Soviet supersonic VTOL fighter" on YouTube https://youtu.be/6R18uBA-QfY
India going deel f35
Since trump has spent about the same amount on golf at his OWN clubs, I think the F-35 is one hell of a buy.
We bought this POS instead of universal health care and high speed rail lmao
no not a bid.
The Boeing prototype makes me think they didn't really want the contract but they had to put in a bid as a courtesy so they put forward a design that looked so ridiculous it would not be taken seriously unfortunately every other company knew this was Lockheed's contract to win so they either didn't bother or sent in some napkin sketches and so Boeing was selected to build a prototype and the rest is history. THE END
Profit margin is 80%, what do you think?
@Nathan Peterson thanks
_KC-10._
@John Sikes The point is that a fighter is perfectly capable of ground attack duties. Dedicated platforms are a secondary platform at best i.e the hi-lo mix that the USAF have been fond of since the early 70s. The fact the F-16 is short ranged is not because it is a fighter but rather that it was designed to be a lightweight and 'cheap' aircraft, not a heavyweight such as the F-15E which is better than all the dedicated strike aircraft in every practical aspect while also being a respectable air to air fighter. So you noticed the date, but failed to assess what it means... 1981 was back when 95% of bombs in the US inventory were unguided. A fighter having superior bombing accuracy compared to a dedicated platform back then was a huge advantage as it meant nations did not have to limit their capabilities by buying 2 dedicated platforms. The fact that you know bombing accuracy is no longer a big advantage should also tell you there is no need for a dedicated strike aircraft, because literally anything that can link with the guidance system can achieve very high accuracy. What this also means is that the days of large payloads are far gone. Back in the Vietnam war for instance the lack of smart munitions meant that a strike aircraft would need on average 8 bombs to hit a target the size of a large bridge. These days we only need 1 bomb, even if the target is a single person. Carrying 8 bombs when you only need to hit a single target is a waste of fuel and a waste of valuable weapons if you have to drop them to defend yourself. All that's left is the range of the platform carrying the bomb, and that isn't something unique to strike aircraft. Both the F-15E and F-35A/C have very long range and both are multi-role fighters. As for your point that a dedicated platform is better... definitely not in terms of logistics and mission effectiveness. A multi-role fighter is nothing like your comparison with a evac x attack helicopter... a multi-role fighter is still a fighter and not a transport aircraft. Say a nation buys 2 dedicated platforms... they might have 200 fighters and 200 bombers. The enemy that builds 400 multi-role fighters has 400 aircraft available for ANY mission. If the dedicated fighters wipe out 250 multi-role fighters while being wiped out themselves, you now have 150 multi-role fighters against 200 dedicated bombers, so which do you think will win? The answer is quite obviously the multi-role fighters which can wipe out the bombers on an offensive mission i.e either the bombers scramble and try to strike targets, or they get destroyed on the ground.
@Nathan Peterson OK, I understand you have named three multi role fighters. I still don't understand what your point is. What am I missing (sorry if I'm being dense)? My point was that a machine designed for one specific aspect of service would be better suited FOR that specific service than one designed to perform two (or several) not tightly related functions, and that "watering down" that specificity is always to its detriment at performing each one of those specific functions as well as an aircraft would designed specifically for the one function. I'm not talking about designing say, a fighter, with a carrier package for one application and another with different gear, no hook, etc. for a "runways only" application. That is just modifying a specific type for "minor" roll variations, which is more than reasonable. And I'm not talking about derivations of say, Apache, some with Longbow additions. In fact, that system was designed to be useful to more than just the chopper it's mounted on, at least it was intended to be when I left the program..."handing off" target locations after the pop-up/ rehide...which it really couldn't do very often in the desert environment anyway, as there are not a lot of trees. Obviously it was still of major use, but in a wooded the idea was REALLY slick, find and designate several targets (with fire and forget missiles ALSO launched from "hiding"). I actually have no idea how they were really used as I was long gone to another program by the time the thing was fielded. Lets take that particular type and see what I am talking about, though. Do you think a chopper that was designed for both extraction and attack would perform EITHER role as well as two separate choppers designed specifically for their separate respective functions? The answer (I believe) is of course not. They have many design requirements that not only do not overlap, they are CONTRARY, in some cases mutually exclusive (cross section/human carrying capacity). That might even be more extreme than the fighter/bomber differences, but not by all that much. It can become much more specific though, suppose I spec a pure fighter with VTOL, supercruise, VERY low RCS, AND low acquisition and maintenance costs....good luck with that. As soon as you add high stealth (pretty easy to beat, by the way, and NOT the way 3rd worlders THINK they did it), with today's tech, low maintenance costs are then a pipe dream. Things like supercruise and VTOL don't talk to each other worth a damn either until you start DUMPING in the cash, unless there's tech out there that I don't know about. That is, by the way, a no-brainer given, as we were working stuff twenty years ago, some of which has just recently "shown up", and things like materials technology are currently going nuts with new capabilities, but as far as I know no real large scale applications yet, (carbon nanotubes, graphene, etc). I don't even REMOTELY pretend to know everything that is going on right now, even the most knowledgeable of those in the middle of it probably do not, and I'm utterly completely clueless compared to them. One day a "one vehicle does all" may be possible, I just don't think we are anywhere near being able to accomplish that yet.
@John Sikes The _F-16_ is also a multi-role fighter. As is the _Typhoon,_ and the _Su-27/ 30._
@Nathan Peterson Meaning?
@dumdumbinks274 Really, and how much bomb load will it carry, and how far will it carry it's max bomb load unrefueled? I'm sure it will do both these things better than ANY dedicated bomber....is that what you are saying? I just love people who pick one stupid rather insignificant (in today's world, with today's weapons...below) aspect and hang their hat on it. You should be a politician or a general...or ARE you? I'm not even sure what a "bombing accuracy" competition even means. I designed the Longbow servo electronics in the same (very large) room with the guys that were designing Hellfire II. I also worked on the WCMD tail kit, a "smart" guided addition for previously "dumb" bombs, to make high altitude drops "pin point". Another program was Thirsty Saber, an autonomous sensor fused weapon, legacy tech that current weapons like JASSM employ. As far as I know it wouldn't make a rats ass worth of difference WHAT aircraft you launched EITHER of those weapons from, as far as "accuracy" is concerned. And yes...I caught that...."in 1981" LOL What supreme application that has to an argument FORTY years later. Priceless! ;-)
It's 71M now.
115 mil & 70 in upgrades over 8 years = Ponzi scheme.
Real Engineering: Paid by Lockheed Martin.
I think its worth every penny. I'll be ordering one after my next pay check. I would imagine I can expense it on my income tax, Yes?
If its suite of sensors are what sets it apart why not put them on an f15.
US planes (and therefore, increasingly, NATO aircraft are far too technical. Some are so advanced they need special mechanics and special, atmospheric controlled hangars, crazy expensive tools and spares; plus the planes are very fragile in terms of super-dooper paints, etc. Meanwhile, the Russians essentially make tanks with wings; robust yet agile planes. Remember how the German tanks of WW2 became overly technical while the Russian ones were pretty much tractors with guns. As the narrator said, it would have been better, cheaper and fitting for each branch of the military's needs to develop a plane that each wanted. If I need a scalpel and you end up giving me an expensive Swiss Army knife, it's not really going to help me do my job.
It's WELFARE for the weapons companies, the states and the politicians that represent those states. Hence the need to keep demonising and creating bogey men so the pork barrel gravy train can continue. War on sickness? Too expensive. War on illiteracy? Too expensive. War on faux enemy du jour? Unlimited billions and anyone who says the defence budget should be capped - never mind cut - must be a pinko-commy-anti-American-terrorist-loving-Nazi. And the people who are at the bottom of this system are the very same who go out to fight to keep it rolling. A teacher wanting $40k a year is called greedy, but a top jet costing $40k PER HOUR to run? No problem.
This F35 will go down in History as one of the worst stealth aircraft in history. Each aircraft will cost half a billion throughout it's life !
Well, not exactly. It is a theoretical lowered cost based on production numbers. It can only occur once those aircraft have been delivered and in full operation.
@dumdumbinks274 Yes, I get the duplicates, too. Apaches carried Hellfires in Desert Storm, which were laser guided. I don't know if you consider that smart, but it is certainly "smarter" than a truly ballistic totally dumb weapon. There were other laser guided bombs carried on other platforms, as well. Most smart weapons today aren't "smart" either, just GPS/Inertial nav systems directed to pre set target positions. ICBMs have had this tech (IMU based only, obviously) since the 60s, and not for ranges of a couple of miles, but a significant portion of the way around the Earth. Laser guided bombs were actually around LONG before Desert Storm, going back into Viet Nam. I don't think one was ever used there, but there was a mission to try to take out a dam that was not completed due to weather. You are correct that no external tank exists YET for the F35, I should have said is being discussed seriously and will likely be built and utilized. Autonomous drones are not ONE BIT more easily countered with electronic warfare than manned aircraft. I think you are confusing remote piloted with autonomous. Autonomous vehicles require NO communication to or from the vehicle. They are completely self contained. Same sensor suite and instrumentation gathered as a manned aircraft...no difference in that respect. Remotely piloted, yes, there there is a big difference in countermeasure vulnerability. You completely missed my point. The AI will make the "moral" decisions, as well, and will do it MUCH more quickly and much more accurately than any human ever could or ever will...if we allow it, which eventually we will have NO choice in doing. Put any human against a future AI pilot and the human will lose EVERY single time. Already (and we are just barely scratching the surface beginnings of AI, not really yet even true AI in my opinion), they can drive better, diagnose illness better, play chess PERFECTLY, working the possible results of EVERY possible series to a possible outcome for any move (brute force, that one, not AI, but it gives you a feeling of the computing power that AI will harness). And a quantum computer was just demonstrated that performed, in a handful of seconds, what the BEST non quantum computer out there couldn't possibly accomplish in TEN THOUSAND years. The science is advancing MUCH faster than you think it is. I predict there will be autonomous personal aircraft flying within a decade, and there already are autonomous drones making deliveries, planting trees, etc. There are also tractor trailer 18 wheelers out there as we "speak" hauling freight that are COMPLETELY self driven (there may still be overseers in the seat, not sure if we've crossed that bridge, but very soon that won't be the case, and those human backups are not intervening now, for entire hauls). This tech is starting to move up the exponential curve, and the increases you've seen in the last ten years, will soon happen in a year, then a month, then a day, then seconds, then milliseconds, because it won't be people making those leaps. That curve has held for many many years, and if anything knowledge will leap ahead of it, in every area, when some true AI comes on line. IF you think the internet changed things, it was NOTHING compared to what is on the horizon, for better or worse.
@John Sikes "I even discussed some of those "smart" bomb programs BY NAME." - They didn't exist in large numbers back in 1981. As I said 95% of the entire US inventory was dumb bombs, and there were very few aircraft capable of using smart munitions of any sort. The only bombers during the Gulf war (10 years later) that had smart bomb capability were the F-111, F-117A, and in far fewer numbers the F-15E. That is why bombing accuracy mattered hugely back then. "It is short range because it is a fighter...PERIOD, all of them are." - You're confusing range for the difference between tactical and strategic platforms. If we're discussing multi-role fighters we're talking about tactical platforms, and tactical bombers are aircraft such as the F-111. Strategic bombers are used in a completely different way and I don't know why you'd bring them up in the first place considering nobody is trying to use tactical aircraft in a strategic role. The F-35 is not trying to be a strategic bomber and has an extremely good combat range of roughly 750nmi on internal fuel. The F-15 is down around 600nmi even with external fuel tanks (about 680nmi for the F-15E). The F-35B for the USMC has much shorter range, but it is more focused on CAS than strike and is still the longest ranged fixed-wing combat aircraft that can operate from LHD sized ships. FYI there is no such thing as an external fuel tank for the F-35. "I think you fail to realize where tech is heading (very quickly) on that one...non piloted drones/cruise missiles/etc. will be the way of the future, almost certainly completely autonomous.." - Not really. Fully autonomous drones are very far off into the future, and there will always be a human in the loop (moral obligation). They are more vulnerable to electronic warfare and currently the only real advantage they have is not putting a pilot in danger. G tolerance is mostly related to airframe lifetime, not the pilot. Limitations are due to physics, and a drone of similar capability to a fighter is only going to have a minor performance advantage in exchange for being easier to counter with electronic warfare. "What did it take us to shut down the entire Iraqi air defense system, about 15 minutes" - No it was more like 1.5 weeks. There were several instances of air to air combat after the initial attack and Iraq's last offensive air operation occurred on 30 January 1991, though it was a small OCA operation, not a strike. "Weird, you get that same triple spacing between paragraphs that I do. I usually go back in edit and fix it. I wonder if everyone else has the problem, too, and just post edits it out, like I do? I have tried a few different browsers and nothing seems to help." - Youtube sucks these days. I get the issue you noted, but I'm not often bothered enough to clean up my paragraphs because 1 click of the reply button sometimes duplicates my comment multiple times, and I spend a little extra time deleting the duplicates (worst I've had was 14 duplicates). EDIT: This comment had 6 duplicates...
@dumdumbinks274 "So you noticed the date, but failed to assess what it means... 1981 was back when 95% of bombs in the US inventory were unguided" WTH??? Not only did I not MISS the dumb/smart bomb point, that was pretty much the ENTIRE POINT of what I said...read it again, or maybe you wrote that before you read it all, I do that sometimes, addressing points while reading. I even discussed some of those "smart" bomb programs BY NAME. It is short range because it is a fighter...PERIOD, all of them are. It takes a much larger aircraft to fly long range bombing missions unsupported, and a much larger aircraft is NEVER going to be a fighter. ALL of the non bomber dedicated aircraft pale in range to our dedicated bomber. That is why even our military, even today, ceeds to its necessity. Here is the openly available data I could glean: B2 range: 6000 miles...STEALTH is its defense, obviously. If, say the Russians or some other very capable military are the adversary and have located it, it is probably quite defeatable, true. But so, likely are the fighter/bombers, deep (but not nearly AS deep ;-) ) over enemy territory, unsupported. I will ad a caveat that our 5th gen stuff will not even remotely be EASILY defeated, but defeated it would be, eventually, outnumbered many many to one...as it doesn't carry an unlimited supply of weapons, ESPECIALLY if it is operating at the its extremes of range. And as soon as that Fbay door is opened, it will light up every radar within a fairly large radius, as you likely know. F15 range: 3450 miles, not bad, I'll give you, but not even REMOTELY 6000 miles, and I'll bet it carries very little to that range, don't know for sure, though. F35 range UNDER 600-700 miles (xternal tank)!!! - Their range is SO BAD that they are HANGING DROP TANKS on them to increase it...REALLY!!! What do their stealth and performance numbers do with a few boat anchors attached? Without the tanks their strike range is under 6 HUNDRED miles, with them under 700! F22, 1850 miles, no external tanks. With those external tanks, ANY bomb carrier is going to instantly jettison them if "found" to defend itself, and then the original mission would be over, unaccomplished, anyway. The two points you made that did make sense to me were the one about logistics...supply/maintenance/training, and the rest that entails. That one I WILL concede is benefited by a multirole platform. If that, for some unforseen reason, was a big issue in some specific scenario, it certainly would be one very valid argument for multirole over specific. The other is MAYBE also mission effectiveness IF you are limited in what you can send on a specific mission, numbers wise, otherwise that is an inconsequential argument as well, I think. You said "The fact that you know bombing accuracy is no longer a big advantage should also tell you there is no need for a dedicated strike aircraft" I think you fail to realize where tech is heading (very quickly) on that one...non piloted drones/cruise missiles/etc. will be the way of the future, almost certainly completely autonomous.. As soon as you put a pilot in a plane you are SO VERY LIMITED as to what the plane can do. You must build in all kinds of support systems for that pilot...readable instruments, cockpit room, a canopy, pressurization, air supply, ejection seat, and on and on, all of which take up volume, add complexity, and cost weight. Furthermore, you are limited to basically NO g force for evasion and attack trajectories, if necessary (9 gs is NOTHING compared to what a properly designed airframe, sans pilot could do), and that very large acceleration capability would make the vehicle virtually impervious (computer controlled) to even salvo rocket attempts, especially at altitude. You just wait until they get close enough to where you can vector to a new area that is excluded from their future location performance and "kill" envelope at that moment. The other, even MORE obvious benefit is you don't lose the pilot (and crew if applicable) if the aircraft is lost, and eventually, you likely won't need or want a human in the loop, at all, as autonomous systems will be more capable (advanced AI) in EVERY respect. Musk's paraphrased "it will be like talking to a tree for advanced AI when they communicate with us" is not an exaggeration. Of course, at that point, this entire discussion will likely become moot (his and other's warnings). I expect those days aren't as far away as some people think, almost certainly within the current youngest alive now if knowledge continues to expand exponentially, which it will if "civilization" continues. :-( It really all comes down in the end even now though, in a world level conflict of nuclear capable countries on both sides, when one side or the other is "down for the count" all those ICBMs that have been sitting there waiting all this time will be utilized. There is NO aircraft, aircraft carrier, and pretty much anything else (save maybe nuclear armed subs, for a further strike) that will mean much of anything at that point. And I have to assume that when you are talking about an entire functional group of aircraft being taken out, that HAS to be what you mean, as that is obviously not even in the realm of rational reality against some Iran, Pakistan, Saudi, or equivalent adversary....not even remotely. What did it take us to shut down the entire Iraqi air defense system, about 15 minutes, as I remember, and pretty much the only flying they did after that (according to media, anyway, I wasn't there, if you were maybe you know better) was to high tail some of their jets out of the country to safety. An aside: remember "Bagdad Bob", going on about how the US military had been held up hundreds of miles outside the city when you could hear explosions occurring over his denials. Another aside you probably don't know about but might be interested in (cause it never really got all that far) was a program at one company I worked for that was an attempt to get an F14 to SPACE...very very very high anyway, to allow some small (but larger than current) aircraft boosted satellite launch capabilities. It was a water injection (and a couple of other tricks) modification. Just a POP type program, though. No hardware was ever built. There was some feasibility there, though. Weird, you get that same triple spacing between paragraphs that I do. I usually go back in edit and fix it. I wonder if everyone else has the problem, too, and just post edits it out, like I do? I have tried a few different browsers and nothing seems to help. Sorry for all the tangential drifting off topic, that happens with me, kind of lateral. ;-)
It's always fun to see how military vehicles' MPG can be so horrible compared to civilian stuff- e.g. the Abrams with a whopping 0.6 MPG
@Harris Naseem Over Syria recently? Yeah, they have a ridiculous flight to maintenance ratio.
And yet the skin of the F22 was bubbling and peeling over Iraq.......
russians are tracking F35 by heat signatures, after 3k feet air is at zero, after every 1k feet up, it drops by mines 6- C... the radar detects heat 40 Cel:above,. from 350 klm away. with heat coming out at 950 Cel: from F35 it glows like a lite bulp on radar & locks on heat signature with trace active microvave/ oscillation gigahertz..the S400 (40N6E missile) & ..(48N6 missile) both lock on heat by utilises an active electronically scanned array..once its locked all pilots can do eject couse coming at speeds off 6950klm you only have seconds. in 16 october 2018 Russian old style S200 even tracked & hit israely f35. that radar track& lock system was 70s & still hit , off course israel denyed it saying it was a bird but never showed the damaged plane..I got this info from russian FSB LT which he checked, scrutinized & wrote a report to Strategic Air Defence Corps to Sergei Vladimirovich,Commander of the Aerospace Forces,in Russia. he loud mouthed while he was blind drunk at holiday.while giving key info....... this is a fact.
It's not a bad price when you consider how much the missiles cost to fully arm one of these jets.
FYI it's not "corpse" like a dead body, it "core"
Building a jet for multi national use is a significant reason for the cost problems.
Answer to question posed by video title. “Yes and no.”
All this beautiful tech being developed and China will just steal it.
Considering china can probably hack it ,using a solar driven calculator, I say no
F-35 is a Joke the SU-57 Fly Circles around it. Who in their Right Mind thought F-35 Single Engine Plane would be a good Choice for the U.S. Navy for Decades U.S Navy had Twin Engine Fighters F-4 F-14 and for Good Reasons Speed and Flying over Ocean where as if one Jet Engine Failed Mechanically or taken out in Dog Fight Still had Better Chances of Survival than Single Engine Plane, OOps they Didn't take that in Serous Consideration or just didn't give a F. What they spent on F-35 they could have Up graded F-14D Weak points and had Twice the Fighter to go against SU-57 and could have Bought 700 Up Graded F-14 Super Tom Cats and yes the Navy Miss's those Fighters the F-18 would get inailated by SU-57. All U.S. Naval Fighter Pilots Should go to Top Gun Training The Plane is only Good what the Pilot can Do - Period. F-35 on a Carrier Deck just Doesn't look right Hmm like a Turd in Picnic Basket , Watching a F-14 Muscle Fighter Launched off a Deck is Beauty Bad Ass Power at its Best
The helmet alone needs a ground crew of 7 and a watchdog.
Lol
AWESOME!! A NEW PLATFORM to compete with YouTube. Please expand Nebula or even start a new platform to offer a genuine alternative to YouTube that does not sell personal info, or better yet to drive the corrupt youtube out of business. Thank you!!
This was never going to be a great dogfighter. It should never get into a dogfight, if it has something went wrong.
In time we will have MIU in our planes, tanks, ships and in our soldiers
If it is the most exspensive program ever , find out how much that boat it lands on cost and do a episode, just follow the rabbit! This is just a carrot
What a transition
Damn you wasting like 40 million lol
How much to refit an old jet with the F35 sensors package? O_o That's one of the two big selling points from the video, the other being stealth. Slap the sensors on a F16 that has a 1/3 cost price tag.... let's just guess it would be 5 million per unit to do the upgrade, of which the US has 900-ish units... so $4.5B USD, which would buy 45 F35's, assuming $100M per unit. Can 45 F35's take down 900 F16's with updated sensors? My money is on no, especially since the details of the 15:1 or 20:1 (depending on who you ask) kill ratio from february are an absolute mystery (knowing some political bullshit we get fed, it could have been a single F35 doing a kamikaze attack into a formation of first world war artillery spotter balloons). The vtol model looks like a viable replacement for harriers, but I'm not so sure about the other two. =/
Should have asked SpaceX to design it. Would have costed $10mils.
Reminiscent of MRCA Tornado it's like governments figure that jet engines mean an aircraft can do anything. A bomber can be as fast as a fighter right so there's no prob having a single aircraft fill 3 or more roles. Well I don't know a bunch about avionics and all that technical jazz either so maybe it's understandable. Still it's kinda stupid that they tried to get one aircraft design but at the same time they got 3 different companies involved, why not just order 3 different aircraft and spread the work around don't they like that sorta thing?
to think you could make almost 4 F-14s for each F-35
why do no video on the F35 take up the fact that its the base of a russian jet from the beginning ? Lockheed had the luck that the cold war ended, sovjet imploded and Yakovlev needed money for the YAK-141 aircraft they were developing.
i just thought you should know - we can't find planets billions of light years away
The F-35 cost is 80 Million each.
@CplGoon exactly!
@Random User It's "corps" but he's referring to the pronunciation.
It's corp...
China is years and years away from being able to maintain something on the level of the F-35 platform, even if they did manage to steal the plans or a finished copy. Despite all we read about how China is taking over the world, China is actually pretty fucked up and has many, many problems that threaten its stability.
You think fighter pilots give a shit about the taxpayer? LOL.
thats why they don't let anyone fly things like those, also pilots are hardly allowed to do whatever they want, all operations are pretty well defined before the plane takes off. if something goes wrong is usually either mechanical or operations fault
Has anyone noticed a trend of minor nations shooting down America’s super stealth planes?
When Russian Su-57 costs about 40 million and seems to be a better aircraft...something's wrong in US industry...
Still doesn’t have thrust vectoring either, a joke and German Radar has tracked 2 already for 100 miles at a recent Airshow late October/ November 2019. A waste of money !
The Germans already tracked 2 F-35’s for 100 miles recently at an Airshow by its new Radar System. You know that the Russians can’t be far behind or already have the ability. A complete waste of Taxpayer money
A-10 Thunderbolt II: Yeahhh I'm not getting replaced.
I'm a 20 year Air Force Air Battle Manager veteran. This was pretty good.
Yes it is worth 115 Million, keep moving.....
F-35 Worth $115 Million???? ......now that the new Russian planes (sukhoi and mig) have been unveiled, the F-35 is worth ....maybe.... scrap value at best....
It was always going to be 3 variants. The issue with the Boeing prototype was that the requirements for the VTOL version specified that it needed to be supersonic. Having two prototypes for one version didn't give enough confidence they would figure it out.
The A-10 is battle proven and has a bigger gun for CAS missions with a bigger payload and ammo stores. It is old, but like the 1911 it still works. The F-35 will not be able to completely do this job.
It would be interesting to see if the F-35 can doge an S-400 missile or S-300 in real combat.
Gold plated
He said x-35 at 5:56
The X 32 looks like a flying chicken
Just look a yachts you can buy for just 5 million dollars it cost 23 of those
So, no answer to the question then...
@dumdumbinks274 maybe I haven't been keeping up with the releases of the data from the February exercise, did they release the this-plane-acquired-a-lock-on-that-plane stats? In any case, there wasn't room on the F-4 for a gun either. Re-case a sensor package for the F35 to fit a couple of hard points. Can 45 F35's beat 900 upgraded F16's?
A modern F-16 is only $10 million cheaper than an F-35A at best and has all-round worse performance, and you physically cannot modify F-16s to use the F-35's sensor suite... there's not enough space The details of the 21:1 ratio from Red Flag 17-1 are well known and amounts to about 2 kills per mission.
You could possibly make 1 F-14 per F-35 considering the F-35 is cheaper than the F-15.
Because it isn't. The F-35 has just as much in common with the YF-22 and is actually an evolution of a NASA-Lockheed design concept from 1987. Lockheed didn't get anything from Yak until 1995, and what they got was not design data.
IDK why they would let all those F4 Phantom pilots back in the 60s and 70s get into dogfights with their plane with no gun that wasn't meant for dogfighting, they should have just told the enemy to never get close enough to dogfight or something.
SACK OF SHIYTE , Now all the BRIBERY and CORRUPTION has done its work, along with SPINELESS, BACKWARDS thinking BRITISH POLITICIANS, there is NO competition so the GRASPING THIEVING YANKS can charge what the FU** they want !!!!
Yes it is The words to big to fail have been bandied about. And that is true also but a plane with the capability they have will be relevant in fifty years. It's an investment.
She has damaged that cable at 2:05
Well you have to ask yourself - how much is the cheaper F-35?
What am I on about. German Radar has tracked 2 F-35’s for 100 miles at a recent Airshow ! Do you understand me NOW it’s a waste of money. 3 times I’ve mentioned this to you and if the Russians can’t now, they will soon !
I want 10 with a huge discount >_
How much is a 12 m refugee worth?
One correction: the Serbian serviceman who shot down the F-117 did so by eye (i.e. manual fire control) so the comments about radar locks and "if only the jammers were there" was irrelevant.
Stunning Work, I Liked it a lot, See this New Album 'Monish Jasbird - Death Blow', channel link www.youtube.com/channel/UCv_x5rlxirO-WKjLIyk6okQ?sub_confirmation=1 , doo check :)
It's a Starfighter 2.0 Another shit plane of Lockheed (Fam. Bauer) Waste of money.
The biggest reason to have a jack of all traits is to save costs and to be able to focus power more. Like, if you have 200 aircraft but your enemy has 450, if you can use all your aircraft in any way, and your enemy has 150 per role, you will be able to focus your 200 in a way to allow you superiority. This means that it's of the most use to countries who are to poor to have superiority in all ways of the given unit. So, for a country like the US, who has the biggest econnomy and millitary budget in the world, by far. It's not the optimal strattegy when it comes too development, in my opinion. And then it's like, yes, they are meant to be sold. But if they are being sold, and the ones wanting it the most are small economies, they can't be expensive. So, the costs would really have to go down for that. In other words, either they make the planes WAY cheaper, or they should've specialized. If not, I don't think it will be what the US wanted it to be.
Oh, this isn't political at all...
The _Su-57's_ unit cost is in excess of $60,000,000. But the thing is the Russian servicing and maintenance programs are comparatively more expensive because its less encompassing, on top of the fact Russian workers typically get paid less.
mlgorcadork only with another, new a10.
@Travis George Maybe upgrading 60 or 70 of them versus of the 45 _F-35A_ sure. 900. No.
@Nathan Peterson NEW upgraded ones would be. I'm talking upgrading the 900 we already have.
@Travis George Except the upgraded _F-16's_ would be outstandingly more expensive...
@Gritos Incoherentes yes but also...its entire ideal is interior, they are not looking to conquest, any border issues htey have are deep, traditionally historic ones that are more than just economic or strategic, with the exception being Taiwan of course as the mainland will come knocking on that little island so fast if it wasnt having its security guaranteed by several other nations. It is evident in their military layout, its almost entirely short ranged strategically, their subs are all small, they have a massive, large calibre, artillery corps with a focus on SAM's, their aircraft are mostly intermidiate in combat range except for their transports and recon assets, they have a relatively small amphibious force and similarly small carry capacity logistically, enough to be a big threat to Taiwan but Taiwan is within helicopter range of the mainland so its more to complement the threat. The Chinese military would be hard pressed to operate even just as far away as India or Afghanistan and they both are just 2 border crossings away. China is an interesting beast in that it wants influence but not conquest, it simply wants ot keep its massive middle class content, lest another civil war starts brewing.
BlackHawkBallistic The missiles and radar systems were supposed to provide stand-off range that would mean no one ever got close enough to dogfight an F-4. The F-35 works off the same theory, but may have the technology to make it work now.
@P Davis It might pull 9g briefly but can it maintain a high rate of turn without loosing speed like a Typhoon? The design now is as good as it gets fot F35, Typhoon thrust vectoring is in developement.
@P Davis thats not overly impressive, most air combat aircraft can pull those, they can pull more, the pilot is the limitation. Humans dont tend to do well in 9g's let alone anything double digit, thats just BEGGING for almost instant GLOC
Maybe you should watch some recent airshow footage of the f-35, they're incredibly maneuverable - and reportedly can pull 9.5G with a full internal weapons load, which is very impressive if true.
"Shit ton of money." Ya... dollar doesnt have the buying power it did back in the 70-80's there bud.
one to rule them all ❤️
Is it worth to defend ourselves from our enemies, who are itching to rip us to shreds?! Hmmm
F35 was not meant for dogfighting and maneuverability. It’s stealth plane, you’ll never see it coming, and it will destroy you before you see it.
Comparing the single engine f35 to the f15 eagle on energy manoeuvres isn’t really fair. Also any two aircraft designed for air to air have areas where they excel and others where they’re weaker and it’s a matter of a pilot making the fight which suits his aircraft’s strengths. The argument about the f35’s stealth and sensor advantages do give it a massive advantage over potential enemies but even without that those clinging to the old ‘can’t climb, can’t turn, can’t run’ crap want to watch it fly. It takes lift from the body not just the wings so traditional wing loading stats need adjusting and it’s TWR ratio is only surpassed by the likes of the raptor, Typhoon and rafale - nothing to be ashamed of there. It also has better high AoA than any fighter I can think of so will be no slouch in an a2a when driven by a pilot who knows her. Finally for the US and U.K. other platforms will be doing their air superiority (at least in airforces) so whilst more than capable of protecting itself it’s likely to only spend a tiny amount of combat flying time in these types of scenarios. Finally all the advantages brought up for the F35 are only magnified and made even greater when its flying with wingmen and other aircraft and weapon systems making it an even more revolutionary and capable aircraft.
Yakovlev Yak-41M/Yak-141 Soviet supersonic VTOL fighter https://youtu.be/6R18uBA-QfY
I've met a few navy F35 mechanics, they hate these things
Yes, _F-35's_ flying with Luneberg lenses being lit up by ATC radar...
Name more than one stealth jet shot down in recent years. Ill wait.
Uh huh when we get real life star wars sht then we'll talk I mean we have stuff from b02 black ops 2 it's not long
@QurttoRco Your information is nothing but total Hog wash. You better go back to school because your math is horrible.
Development cost alone put every f-35 at 1 billion+ before it even starts assembly. In other words every american paid 50k for the plane. When all the profits go to lockhead martin. So yeah its a great deal for people outside of us
@sensible driver Nope, not at all. "Michael D. Jackson (Lockheed Martin test pilot) For four years, all people could talk about was how we’d lost a dogfight against a 40-year-old F-16. Paris was the first time we showed what the airplane could do. The F-35 engine is the most powerful fighter engine in the world, so on takeoff, I pulled straight up. The F-22 Raptor is an airshow favorite because it is super maneuverable. It has thrust vectoring; It controls the engine exhaust with paddles that move. The F-22 can do a downward spiral, and I did the same thing in the F-35—without thrust vectoring. I pull up to vertical, skid the airplane over the top, and spiral down like a helicopter hovers. That pedal turn [executed with rudder inputs] ended the discussion of how an F-35 would perform in a dogfight". It can pull maneouvers that only the raptor and a few Su's can do - and you knock it? It's competing with the very best - and would slaughter them in the real world as they'd not see the f-35 until it's too late. And bear in mind, it's a strike fighter, not an air supremacy aircraft... So it's performance is rather impressive. If you want to see what f-35 pilots actually think: https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-most-critical-test-180971734/
@P Davis So, after much discussion we are back to my original point. The F35 should never get into a dogfight unless the standoff engagement didn't work.
@Matthew Ray Rubbish. The f-16 could pull 9.0g lightly loaded, the f-18 about 7.5 etc, and no, 9.0 G isn't instant glok. Watch the Iraq f-16 footage of one pilot evading 6 SAMs - you can see him frequently pull 9g over and over on his HUD. no doubt the aircraft required very serious maintenance afterwards, but a pilot can repeatedly pull such G's for short periods without blacking out or greying out. Stop getting your information from movies.
@sensible driver Fighter pilots train according to A) the aircraft they fly, B) in opposition to all likely enemy aggressors, So each aircraft type has its known weaknesses and strengths - there is NO aircraft that does everything excellently, there are ALWAYS compromises - so it's the pilots job to identify an enemy aircraft type, and then engage only in ways which maximise your own abilities whilst downplaying enemy strengths. Eg, the f-35 would likely sneak around a typhoon to its side or rear and then engage at will... it can do this because it's sensors are a generation ahead of the typhoon. It also has better countermeasures etc. I'd rather be in the f-35 in a 1 v 1 matchup with a typhoon, unless starting from low level/close range.
@J C You can stop them protests are always started by one person and the govern works for you. You employed them if they don't follow physical remove them. By targeting the corporate scums who are controlling them with the technology you have any thing is possible.
Steven Utter The Rich and powerful who run this country desire Americans to be stupid, at least a good portion of them to control us better. If you doubt it ask some Teachers ! Yes building a Jet the Germans have already tracked, 2 at a recent Airshow for 100 miles is going forward. Not one person on here bothered to care ! Money talks and well you know the rest
It was proven in an American court of law that the anti-American spies were JEWS who betrayed America and gave our secrets of the Atom-Bomb to Joseph Stalin (Joseph Stalin had mass-murdered over 50 million CHRISTIANS in the USSR)!
Nothing but business
@Real Enginieering Nice flying bass.
We just launched our new channel www.youtube.com/c/realscience last week. Check it out!