Why This Controversial Jet May Cost $1.7 Trillion | True Cost | Business Insider

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 11 лис 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 5 тис.

  • @andrewperez7992
    @andrewperez7992 2 роки тому +9664

    When an aircraft is worth more than the entire economy of my country.

    • @theinformationbomber7102
      @theinformationbomber7102 2 роки тому +210

      LMAOOOOOOO

    • @codyhernandez791
      @codyhernandez791 2 роки тому +88

      LMFAO

    • @lightswitch7424
      @lightswitch7424 2 роки тому +579

      Imagine Joe Biden giving this to the Taliban

    • @freshfrozen7612
      @freshfrozen7612 2 роки тому +210

      @@lightswitch7424 he has dementia, i can see this happening

    • @lightswitch7424
      @lightswitch7424 2 роки тому +134

      @@freshfrozen7612When you can't feed the poor but give Billion dollar military weapons to terrorists. Joke Biden for president

  • @DevoutSkeptic
    @DevoutSkeptic 2 роки тому +5429

    It's $1.7 trillion for the entire lifecycle of the program, not just the cost of buying the jets. That means R&D, Procurement, O&M, and Disposal for 2,000+ jets over a 50+ year lifespan.

    • @mogh2603
      @mogh2603 2 роки тому +551

      man, 1.7 TRILLION is almost
      half the cost of WWII, no nation should pay such a figure for a fighter plane.

    • @tucuruicomercioerepresenta2308
      @tucuruicomercioerepresenta2308 2 роки тому +394

      They are jornalists, they dont know How to read.

    • @DevoutSkeptic
      @DevoutSkeptic 2 роки тому +749

      @@mogh2603 Comparing the cost of WW2 to the cost of the F-35 is like comparing the cost of a Wright Flyer to a Jumbo Jet.

    • @boratb258
      @boratb258 2 роки тому +47

      Don't forget they also designed three jets that only share 20% of the parts.

    • @HFApizzamaker
      @HFApizzamaker 2 роки тому +50

      What a waste

  • @adamhale6672
    @adamhale6672 2 роки тому +9076

    “The F35 still has over 600 known problems, mainly related to computer software and hardware”
    Dear business insider, software and hardware encompasses literally every function of a system. Thank you.

    • @andypozuelos1204
      @andypozuelos1204 2 роки тому +117

      Lmao

    • @Freemouse159
      @Freemouse159 2 роки тому +405

      The dude did say "computer software... Hardware..." Does that mean specifically the computers that fly the machine? Not say the flaps or the guns etc?

    • @cheekibreeki6255
      @cheekibreeki6255 2 роки тому +194

      It could be non computer related? Believe it or not there are actually a lot of mechanics and engineering that go into a 1.7 trillion dollar state of the art flying death machine.

    • @mr2octavio
      @mr2octavio 2 роки тому +124

      @@cheekibreeki6255 that's literally the definition of hardware.
      A fan or an engine is, indeed, hardware. But I don't expect you to understand that, after all, the us is 1.7T USD in student debt

    • @theacefromspace3810
      @theacefromspace3810 2 роки тому +190

      @@mr2octavio I don’t think a jet engine is “computer” hardware

  • @ben_rez08
    @ben_rez08 Рік тому +6

    A small bird: "imma end this jet's whole career"

    • @vonxoliver
      @vonxoliver 3 місяці тому

      there are no any kinds of birds that fly that high in their elevations

  • @majorchungus
    @majorchungus 2 роки тому +2929

    The biggest problem is too many fingers in the cookie jar. New requirements are added in real time never allowing the engineers to find a finishing point. Almost everytime something is changed, alot of the associated components require retesting to makesure the aircraft is still airworthy. This takes alot of time and money, sometimes the goal posts are moved before initial testing is finished.

    • @Lykapodium
      @Lykapodium 2 роки тому +18

      Truer words have never been spoken

    • @budekman
      @budekman 2 роки тому +50

      Yup it's project manager 101 problem

    • @woozy607
      @woozy607 2 роки тому +18

      Just like nasa look what Elon musk did, half the cost of nasa if not more

    • @Honestandtruth007
      @Honestandtruth007 2 роки тому +4

      You sound like you there with or something 😜

    • @truthhurts3896
      @truthhurts3896 2 роки тому +1

      He's an armchair engineer

  • @Thatdude_Nik
    @Thatdude_Nik 2 роки тому +1914

    In a nutshell:
    Is the high cost really worth the advancements?
    US Defence Budget: yes

    • @masternobody1896
      @masternobody1896 2 роки тому +36

      yes it will help us win more wars

    • @motolola
      @motolola 2 роки тому +185

      @@masternobody1896 Like defeating the Taliban ...

    • @dankschang
      @dankschang 2 роки тому +78

      @@masternobody1896 real conflict are solve by diplomacy...if USA begin to learn the true meaning of diplomacy that budget can go to built more free hospital and save Americans life. The pandemic is a painful ordeal.

    • @Aqabal
      @Aqabal 2 роки тому +2

      Yes more wars

    • @bruhSaintJohn
      @bruhSaintJohn 2 роки тому +8

      Yes it's worth the cost.
      I mean if we don't spend 1.7t this quarter, no way we'll get to spend 1.7t (or more) in the next one.
      Besides, you usually ask "is it worth building a $2 trillion jet?" BEFORE you start building it. So it's a little too late here bud.

  • @droolalot5795
    @droolalot5795 2 роки тому +92

    You can tell ghost doesn't care about budget.

    • @jlopez1017d
      @jlopez1017d 2 роки тому +33

      I wouldn’t neither if I got paid to fly the baddest fighter jet in the world. Let the taxpayers worry lol

    • @wisanu99
      @wisanu99 2 роки тому +22

      Ghost will only have good thing to say. Anything else, and he is going to go back to fly C130 cargo, or worse.

    • @droolalot5795
      @droolalot5795 2 роки тому +4

      @@wisanu99 banished to the T30 training jet

    • @lokisg3
      @lokisg3 2 роки тому +2

      Because he know, he will be alive when the dogfight end.

    • @pogs_for_pogs1605
      @pogs_for_pogs1605 2 роки тому

      @@lokisg3 before it begins these things strike from miles away

  • @ANDREW-cc4wg
    @ANDREW-cc4wg 2 роки тому +107

    There's also the point that the f35 is the first plane being developed in the internet age where everyone is an expert and has something to say.

    • @rectaldestructionisnotlove6596
      @rectaldestructionisnotlove6596 2 роки тому

      Go watch your bouncing ball nun cens flagwaver.

    • @ancapeancape9829
      @ancapeancape9829 2 роки тому +10

      Rightfully so imho they’re paying for this thing

    • @rectaldestructionisnotlove6596
      @rectaldestructionisnotlove6596 2 роки тому

      @@ancapeancape9829 F16 has to travel with Growlers and Prowlers. And Awacs. To suppress air defenses. Running cost is more than 22K an hour. Try 200K an hour for an f16. This is a bargain. It has its own prowling and growling. And also stealth. Media always got to turn people against their governments.

    • @Cynycter
      @Cynycter 2 роки тому

      Thank you!

  • @DonVigaDeFierro
    @DonVigaDeFierro 2 роки тому +479

    Basically, they went and said:
    "Yo, we want a new jet... But carried-based... But that can also operate on an amphibious assault ship... Oh and it also has to be stealth... And it has to be compatible with all our weapons systems... And to _simplify_ everything we want the _same airframe_ to cover _all_ possible roles..."

    • @chongjunxiang3002
      @chongjunxiang3002 2 роки тому +33

      Basically Oversimplified meme where dude demand King Henry a pig that fly and shoot laser.

    • @TheBenLemonade
      @TheBenLemonade 2 роки тому +8

      Honestly sounds exactly like working a project in a big corporation. Everyone bickers with each other and wants a million things that are all absolutely essential requirements (plus a list of ‘nice-to-haves’ twice as long). In the end, reaching a state where the project is complete is basically impossible.

    • @chucklakeridge7944
      @chucklakeridge7944 2 роки тому +1

      @@TheBenLemonade LOL, totally true!

    • @chucklakeridge7944
      @chucklakeridge7944 2 роки тому +1

      Lol, thats exactly how that went down!

    • @tylerhousden4944
      @tylerhousden4944 2 роки тому +4

      Not how that works at all. A,b,and c models all have distinct differences. As are conventional, Bs, are stovl, Cs are carrier. A and b are most alike air frame wise. Cs are bigger. All are stealth. As don’t go on boats, they are strictly usaf. B and c are navy and usmc.

  • @zacharyhenderson2902
    @zacharyhenderson2902 2 роки тому +928

    The problem is they spend 20 years building an airplane predicated on the idea that was going to incorporate technology that did not exist at all when development began, and ran the very real risk at the time of being obsolete by the time it was completed.

    • @soysauce4087
      @soysauce4087 2 роки тому +24

      @r_ elentless01 lol k

    • @Crisis-xw3wg
      @Crisis-xw3wg 2 роки тому +8

      @r_ elentless01 cap

    • @zacharyhenderson2902
      @zacharyhenderson2902 2 роки тому +10

      @r_ elentless01 did you know some scaled back versions of this airplane are in other countries air forces, right?

    • @jeremymendoza1465
      @jeremymendoza1465 2 роки тому +14

      True 1. You can't predict the future or threats you may face and 2. Technology is advancing so quick that it only takes 1 year to be left behind much less 20

    • @BorntoYeet
      @BorntoYeet 2 роки тому +10

      @@soysauce4087 name one plane that's better?

  • @dallaswood4117
    @dallaswood4117 2 роки тому +291

    I’ve lived within two miles of hill Air Force base my entire life these planes are beautiful but loud as hell compared to the f16

    • @EbuzzNYC
      @EbuzzNYC 2 роки тому +11

      There's a great Intercept article about that, it's supposed to be a nightmare of residents near the vicinity of the bases. I recommend you read it.
      WHEN THE JETS FLY: NEW WARPLANES TURN U.S. TOWNS INTO SONIC HELLSCAPES
      U.S. communities are beset by deafening roars from a generation of louder military aircraft - and they are fighting back.
      Nina Berman

    • @ericlane3256
      @ericlane3256 2 роки тому +9

      I think the loudest aircraft I’ve ever heard was the B-1B

    • @cartergruber9066
      @cartergruber9066 2 роки тому +3

      I live like a walk away from the base

    • @sealand000
      @sealand000 2 роки тому +12

      They may be stealth to radars, but perhaps sound detectors can pick them up?

    • @alexanderbemar2637
      @alexanderbemar2637 2 роки тому +2

      I can't imagine how you sleep at nights when this planes are at practice.
      In Guam during the Vietnam war, the B52's we're based there. Flying out in the mornings to bomb Vietnam, an uncle was a student there said, the ground shakes and the sound was very loud.

  • @jimmcneal5292
    @jimmcneal5292 2 роки тому +258

    One of the biggest mistakes was trying to combine 3 planes in one, especially the STOVL F-35B. It's basically a stealthy supersonic Harrier successor.
    The other one is not using all those methods to cheapen it up, like they do with new designs(NGAD, B-21 etc.)

    • @dmvairsoft9243
      @dmvairsoft9243 2 роки тому +14

      well they didn't do that. Which is why there are three different serial production variants, each with different structures and internal setup's.

    • @AA-xo9uw
      @AA-xo9uw 2 роки тому +7

      "One of the biggest mistakes was trying to combine 3 planes in one, especially the STOVL F-35B."(sic)
      The primary purpose of CALF/JAST/JSF from the get go was to produce a STOVL platform. The B ended up producing the A and C.
      "The other one is not using all those methods to cheapen it up, like they do with new designs(NGAD, B-21 etc.)"(sic)
      Neither one of which will be cheap.

    • @jimmcneal5292
      @jimmcneal5292 2 роки тому +1

      @@AA-xo9uw >The primary purpose of CALF/JAST/JSF from the get go was to produce a STOVL platform.
      Yes, mostly because it's possible to make a bad fighter/carrier fighter from STOVL, but not vice versa. They definitely should have made 2 different planes -- F-35 for Marines and some other plane for Air Force and Navy.
      >Neither one of which will be cheap.
      Yes, but they would have costed more without those methods

    • @jimmcneal5292
      @jimmcneal5292 2 роки тому +3

      @@dmvairsoft9243 It's basically one plane still, even despite 3 modifications

    • @PauloPereira-jj4jv
      @PauloPereira-jj4jv 2 роки тому +2

      @@jimmcneal5292 ... the Marines F-35 and the USAF F-35 are different, they're not the same aircraft.

  • @jaridkeen123
    @jaridkeen123 2 роки тому +513

    The F35 just came out and Northrop Grumman is already working on the next Jet

    • @anishk7625
      @anishk7625 2 роки тому +10

      Yes

    • @FloofyMinari
      @FloofyMinari 2 роки тому +44

      I'm assuming the Air Force will need a replacement for the F-22 and F-15. the Navy would also need a replacement for its Super Hornets.
      Currently, the F-35 is meant to replace the F-16, A-10, and F-18 Hornet.

    • @kaystephan2610
      @kaystephan2610 2 роки тому +71

      That's what you gotta do. You always have to work on the next 2 gens already when the latest stuff has entered serial prodocution. Other countries aren't waiting either.

    • @TheBooban
      @TheBooban 2 роки тому +8

      @@kaystephan2610 not really. They could just do incremental designs rather than revolutionary. 6th is supposed to be with drones. Oh thats going to be so messed up. They should just stretch the f-35 to increase range and armament capacity as that is the area that is lacking to compete with the f-15 and f-18. But the even bigger problem is dollars per flight hr. That is likely more the reason why it can’t replace the legacy jets. But they make too much money on that to want to solve that problem.

    • @lappo7290
      @lappo7290 2 роки тому +1

      The Next Generation Air Dominance Program?

  • @wazdude101
    @wazdude101 2 роки тому +290

    In the days of Kelly Johnson, Lockheed would occasionally deliver aircraft ahead of schedule and under budget. How times have changed.

    • @adamhale6672
      @adamhale6672 2 роки тому +38

      As the last chapter of the book on the Skunk Works states, that way of doing things is now rendered impossible from the amount bureaucratic oversight placed on government projects.
      Projects like this usually have more people overseeing the project than people actually working on it, often by a factor of two. Requirements keep changing in real time which makes it difficult to get anything some effectively.

    • @bignope5720
      @bignope5720 2 роки тому +31

      before lockheed found out how much easier it is to just buy every elected official. now they never have to make anything work - in fact it's better for their bottom line if it stays in development forever!

    • @flakgun153
      @flakgun153 2 роки тому +20

      Kelly Johnsons's team was also just a couple dozen people.
      The bureaucracy must expand to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy

    • @DonVigaDeFierro
      @DonVigaDeFierro 2 роки тому +5

      I, too, remember when companies had to show their work to get money from the government...
      But nowadays it's just a bunch of paid lobbyists dictating how much they get for doing nothing.

    • @user-pd9ju5dk5s
      @user-pd9ju5dk5s 2 роки тому +3

      @@flakgun153 wasnt it his rule to only let an extremely small group of people work on a project

  • @afon_s
    @afon_s 2 роки тому +35

    still cheaper than nvidia gtx 3090

  • @muhammadzinc5228
    @muhammadzinc5228 2 роки тому +103

    The real reason why it costs so much is that companies like Lockheed Martin can charge whatever they want because Govt pays regardless due to MIC lobby

    • @donaldclifford5763
      @donaldclifford5763 2 роки тому

      So they just cut orders. And the defense budget isn't limitless, and needs to be prioritized.

    • @Harshil2456
      @Harshil2456 2 роки тому +1

      Moreover, US senators in fact have a conflict of interest as many of them own stocks in US defense companies. So, in fact they have an incentive to go to war and increase federal funding to these defense companies so they can prop up their own stocks! 😅

    • @user-vc5rp7nf8f
      @user-vc5rp7nf8f 2 роки тому +4

      that's true. i know they have the same issue with other things like flashlights, guns, and other defense products. the government will agree to pay whatever because it's not really "their" money, it's the taxpayer's, so they don't care as much. if it was a private company paying for it, i'd bet they'd be much more careful about the costs and planning.

    • @Harshil2456
      @Harshil2456 2 роки тому

      @@user-vc5rp7nf8f Yea, true that! In fact, a bunch of govt people end up making a lot of money by spending tax payers' money. In fact, a bunch of senators made a fortune from the War in Afghanistan in which the Govt didn't shy from spending as much as $2 trillion of tax payers' money. It doesn't need common sense to figure out that the US system is fucked up!

    • @mugnuz
      @mugnuz 2 роки тому

      Still buying it is just a fraction of the running cost...

  • @alman5568
    @alman5568 2 роки тому +51

    F-15 program ended up costing more money in the 1970's.

    • @SlumdogMillionaire248
      @SlumdogMillionaire248 2 роки тому

      How many jets were ordered back then.

    • @ericlane3256
      @ericlane3256 2 роки тому +2

      And we’re still buying F-15’s

    • @alman5568
      @alman5568 2 роки тому

      @@ericlane3256 Ones with F-35 tech in them.

  • @established_1803
    @established_1803 2 роки тому +87

    I just really love the F-22 raptor:/ sad to see they couldn’t make it work

    • @peeedroooD
      @peeedroooD 2 роки тому +26

      The f22 was almost triple the price of a f35

    • @worldtravel9967
      @worldtravel9967 2 роки тому +2

      Sad part is new x series 6th gen already testing

    • @spitfire3032
      @spitfire3032 2 роки тому +27

      The F-22 just got born at the wrong time. The idea was that it would fight the soviet union and give the US a massive upper hand in air superiority. But with the soviet union falling very soon after, the F-22 didn't have a purpose. It just became a display with the US saying "HEY LOOK AT THIS VERY POWERFULL, BETTER THAN ANYTHING ELSE, AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER JET!" but nobody was interested, because it was just a waste to have such a powerful fighter when it wasn't really needed. I still like it, it just never had a chance to really prove it self.

    • @fartnutssupreme4930
      @fartnutssupreme4930 2 роки тому +2

      Love it too but they didn’t make it work and it serves us well.

    • @mikedavis7065
      @mikedavis7065 2 роки тому +1

      @@peeedroooD If we built as many F22's as we do F35's the prices would have been closer. Also it's much easier to negotiate down pricing on something already developed than to ask LM for a discount on a brand new plane they're piling engineering resources into.

  • @PartTimeLaowai
    @PartTimeLaowai 2 роки тому +85

    I hope they sort out the problems soon. Mine is nearly always at the garage 😪

    • @virtuousfrequencies2512
      @virtuousfrequencies2512 2 роки тому +3

      You own one? Wow you must be rich! What problems are wrong with it?

    • @deveon2353
      @deveon2353 2 роки тому +6

      @@virtuousfrequencies2512 I think he is a fighter pilot of the USAF

    • @prakhargupta3739
      @prakhargupta3739 2 роки тому +13

      thank god I bought the extended warranty while i was flying over Iran

    • @PartTimeLaowai
      @PartTimeLaowai 2 роки тому +10

      @Virtuous Frequencies mainly annoying rattles in the dashboard, and wind-related whistles from the canopy when I hit Mach 1 😟 I'm seriously considering a refund under the Lemon Law and going back to a Hornet as my daily.

    • @deveon2353
      @deveon2353 2 роки тому +1

      @@PartTimeLaowai 🤪

  • @mariusw.3561
    @mariusw.3561 2 роки тому +13

    "Instead of spending trillions to destroy the world, we can unite and invest trillions to transform the universe."

    • @weeguy52
      @weeguy52 2 роки тому +5

      No because I'm a nation leader and some other countries leader called my mum fat so now i threaten them with war

    • @traceler
      @traceler 2 роки тому +2

      Tell that to PUtin or China, be naive.. even in nature if you project weakness others will try to take advantage, you need to be strong, courageous and be wise and loving at the same time but not naive.

    • @grimaffiliations3671
      @grimaffiliations3671 2 роки тому +1

      @@traceler The US could cut back 90% and still be stronger than those two

    • @seanriopel3132
      @seanriopel3132 2 роки тому +1

      Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex. Maybe when A.I. becomes self aware and takes over the world it will be benevolent and prevent people from waging wars anymore so there is no more needs for militaries and we can instead spend that money on more socially beneficial programs.

    • @AMAZING-bi6ib
      @AMAZING-bi6ib 5 місяців тому

      Universe lol, we can go the moon after how many years. It takes over 80 -100 thousand years to leave to the nx solar system

  • @luisl691
    @luisl691 2 роки тому +66

    I dreamed of being in the Air Force as a kid. Awesome seeing this.

    • @Tamilz
      @Tamilz 2 роки тому +13

      I dreamed of a peaceful world then forgot we got usa 🇺🇸 jk

    • @cashewnuttel9054
      @cashewnuttel9054 2 роки тому

      @@Tamilz Is this another "I hate America, I want them destroyed" comment? Because if so then this is my grandest solution: unite the world against them, just like how the Allies united against Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan, and do to them what the Allies did to those two.
      I know that this is incredibly deadly but this is the only solution.
      Don't wait for them to "collapse", whatever that means, make them collapse.

    • @abisinan3976
      @abisinan3976 2 роки тому

      @@Tamilz what are you talking about. Murica🤡 all about peace.

    • @Tamilz
      @Tamilz 2 роки тому

      @@abisinan3976 lmfao what r u on about 🤡

    • @abisinan3976
      @abisinan3976 2 роки тому +1

      @@Tamilz now i am confused. If you think 🤡 meant for you it isn't.

  • @KNGexp
    @KNGexp 2 роки тому +113

    The F-35's radar cross-section is about the size of a bumblebee. Amazing!

    • @HHSGuins16
      @HHSGuins16 2 роки тому +2

      Is it the f-35 or f-22 that has an rcs of a bumblebee

    • @restricted1475
      @restricted1475 2 роки тому +2

      @@HHSGuins16 both

    • @vprithviraj175
      @vprithviraj175 2 роки тому +23

      @@HHSGuins16 do you mean the transformer or the arthropod

    • @Mediiiicc
      @Mediiiicc 2 роки тому

      Depends which way you look at it

    • @RealisiticEdgeMod
      @RealisiticEdgeMod 2 роки тому +5

      s400 and s500 SAM units can still detect the f35.

  • @JS-fb6ww
    @JS-fb6ww 2 роки тому +63

    So just name the aircraft after how many thousands of dollars that it costs per hour to use.

    • @savejeff15
      @savejeff15 2 роки тому +3

      F100 coming in 2040 to boost the failing military industrial complex!

    • @grugbug5615
      @grugbug5615 2 роки тому +1

      F-35,000,000

    • @pauloaz496
      @pauloaz496 3 місяці тому

      F-40000 in this case, not including pilots and USAF's engineers

  • @Loco141.
    @Loco141. 2 роки тому +3

    0:55 * modern warfare flashbacks *

  • @nitinkumar7329
    @nitinkumar7329 2 роки тому +52

    Lockheed Martin is too big to fail and whatever they build government will have to buy it.

    • @Mtdna5
      @Mtdna5 2 роки тому

      You could argue that Lockheed Martin is really just a wing of the department of defence they are so interwoven, more complicated then just “too big to fail”. Lockheed have developed the most advanced tech since the 50-60s for the military

    • @dannyzero692
      @dannyzero692 2 роки тому

      When you build the best products, people buy things from you, what a shocking revelation! My god how could we’ve not thought of this?!

  • @sevrent2811
    @sevrent2811 2 роки тому +303

    The F-35 is proven to be wildly successful at this point. The cost of each fighter has dramatically gone down due to the insane amount of them being built. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Switzerland all chose the F-35 even over 4.5 gen counterparts. Switzerland themselves stated it was the cheaper option, and now Thailand expressed interest in the F-35 saying it was cheaper than the Gripen. The 1.7 Trillion dollar is an estimate of the cost of procuring thousands of F35's, the R&D, maintenance. upgrades, flight time, all over the span of 50+ years.
    The F35 also has the most advanced sensor suite of any fighter right now, and the ability to data link with other fighters, warships, and ground systems as well. An F35 can provide targeting data to an AEGIS destroyer, and that AEGIS destroyer can launch missiles based on that, just as an example. Even in terms of maneuverability, it is said to be comparable to a combat-loaded F-16. But with how advanced the F-35's sensors are, maneuverability doesn't matter that much if you can snipe your targets from 100+ miles away with a missile; also the extreme high off-boresight capabilities for the AIM 9X make maneuverability less important even within visual range situations.

    • @SlumdogMillionaire248
      @SlumdogMillionaire248 2 роки тому +2

      It’s successful in other countries because our requirements are constantly changing. Ours isn’t proven outside of exercises in reality. Even a A-10 can shoot a F-22 out of the sky with a Aim 9

    • @Lykapodium
      @Lykapodium 2 роки тому

      You should check out link 16

    • @SlumdogMillionaire248
      @SlumdogMillionaire248 2 роки тому

      A-10 has it too bro beans

    • @SlumdogMillionaire248
      @SlumdogMillionaire248 2 роки тому +5

      A-10 is more effective when doing it’s designed role. F-35 is too multi-purpose

    • @genstudio7859
      @genstudio7859 2 роки тому +9

      Yeah bcz the US never bullies anyone to make them buy

  • @MZ99698
    @MZ99698 2 роки тому +397

    1.7 trillion to buy, operate and maintain 2500 planes for 50+ years - sounds like a bargain tbh

    • @chazdomingo475
      @chazdomingo475 2 роки тому +31

      I have a feeling that just like the proposed amount of planes, the 50 years lifespan is also greatly exaggerated. This thing is being sold to other countries. Enemies will get their hands on one, likely already have, implement the technologies and make it obsolete within 50 years.

    • @tomlxyz
      @tomlxyz 2 роки тому +7

      @@chazdomingo475 A plane is still useful when better ones exist

    • @MiserableAmerica
      @MiserableAmerica 2 роки тому +38

      Or, we could have healthcare and infrastructure that isn’t crumbling 😎 but you’d rather have military spectacle and suffering citizens? Ahhhhh that’s sad, but also the American way.. big shiny bright things over improving material conditions!!

    • @rbvfeehfbudenrj
      @rbvfeehfbudenrj 2 роки тому +8

      @@chazdomingo475 china could barley reverse engineer crappy Russian stuff what makes you think they can get there hands on an f35 type plane

    • @marconka441
      @marconka441 2 роки тому +27

      @@MiserableAmerica I think the best indication of why this argument does not make sense is the war in Ukraine. Analysts and high ranking military personnel have been warning of Russian danger for a long time, while people wanted to defund the military, because they thought a major superpower would never set foot again on foreign soil in Europe. Look at what is going on right now, and say it to me with a straight face that you want to defund the military and let the world be at Russia's mercy (don't forget that most of NATO's military equipment is produced in the States).
      The ideal thing to do would be to rechannel military spending towards improving quality of life, but we are not living in an ideal world, and you have to let go of the fantasy that defunding the military is a sensible idea.

  • @jonafoto
    @jonafoto 2 роки тому +133

    It makes me wonder if the costs are that high because of the actual costs of production or if those who sell these items to the military are just trying to gouge them on the pricing knowing they'll either eventually fork it over or ask for more tax dollars from Congress? Just something to think about.

    • @onuq3r4y478
      @onuq3r4y478 2 роки тому +23

      It's $1.7 trillion for the entire lifecycle of the program, not just the cost of buying the jets. That means R&D, Procurement, O&M, and Disposal for 2,000+ jets over a 50+ year lifespan.

    •  2 роки тому +1

      They’re gouging the US government. The military companies have armies of lobbyists that pay millions to politicians to drive business to them. They then gouge the US government blind. It’s a big cycle and bribery is everywhere.

    • @jonafoto
      @jonafoto 2 роки тому

      @ A buddy of mine in the Air Force told me about this very same thing recently.

    • @onuq3r4y478
      @onuq3r4y478 2 роки тому +3

      @ except it isnt really that high cost, considering everything factored in

    • @Kenny-yl9pc
      @Kenny-yl9pc 2 роки тому +4

      The price includes the inflation rate of the year 2070 with every cost included like acquisition r&d, upgrades, training, maintanence etcetera and that over the lifetime of over 50 years of the plane. If you would compare it to a 4th generation aircraft like the f15ex the price difference would not be that much. So you really have to see it in perspectivce. The price hysteria is really just a media hysteria without putting it into context and fair comparison to other aircrafts. So basically just a media hysteria without any understanding of the price composition and in context with other aircraft. And one should not forget the benefits and advantages this special aircraft brings it is by far the best plane out there and if a war happens it will play a crucial part in winning it. Many operational capabilities are curcially linked to this aircraft since only this aircraft has very important capabilities that are required in many tactical operations. It is surely good if one can reduce prices thats always the case but it is worth its price definetly when it comes to a conflict with a peer opponent.

  • @avocadogaming3942
    @avocadogaming3942 2 роки тому +65

    A-10 Warthog still my fav.

    • @mrchocolatebean8878
      @mrchocolatebean8878 2 роки тому +7

      a10 my favorite allies killer :D

    • @larrysouthern5098
      @larrysouthern5098 2 роки тому

      Yep... It has a face only a mother could love.... 💘 I love A 10s...

    • @eliwatson7936
      @eliwatson7936 2 роки тому +11

      I hear it’s popular with Russian anti-air crews as well

    • @UnsungAces
      @UnsungAces 2 роки тому +3

      @@eliwatson7936 2K22 goes brrrrt

    • @khairulnabilakmal33
      @khairulnabilakmal33 2 роки тому +6

      @@eliwatson7936 lazerpig moment

  • @deepintheabyss5915
    @deepintheabyss5915 2 роки тому +295

    1.7 trillion on a plane but we can’t pass an infrastructure bill lol

    • @admiraldraconis
      @admiraldraconis 2 роки тому +38

      See the true cost of the infrastructure bill. Your comment is silly. Also, speaking of the military, we spend only about 13% of our budget on the military. We don't make money through war. Stop the tired worn out tropes.

    • @dracoii1147
      @dracoii1147 2 роки тому +6

      @Paul C bad logic war makes america lose money

    • @jcmc9378
      @jcmc9378 2 роки тому +23

      @@dracoii1147 Ask where that money goes? Public funds into private pockets (tax dollars passed to shareholders + others). Have you never heard of the "military-industrial complex"?

    • @PETE4955
      @PETE4955 2 роки тому

      Yep it's all about priority, says a lot .

    • @youmad7495
      @youmad7495 2 роки тому +1

      Clearly weapons are more important than anything else in America.

  • @yalz302
    @yalz302 2 роки тому +83

    I am not anti military. But it's painful to see so much money being used (wasted) for the F-35.

    • @LighterBen
      @LighterBen 2 роки тому +20

      And when you break it down piece by piece Component by component it would cost range 20 to 40 millions
      I cannot accept the terms of R&D department
      Launching apollo to moon landing was not even close to this price

    • @wgoulding
      @wgoulding 2 роки тому +10

      They've actually reduced the prices down to levels less than what it would be for fourth gen jet. Fighter jets are just expensive.

    • @hanznathanpo
      @hanznathanpo 2 роки тому +9

      Surprisingly, they've managed to get the unit cost down by a lot. A brand new, fifth generation F-35 now costs less than a brand new, fourth generation Gripen

    • @domitravel795
      @domitravel795 2 роки тому +7

      with 1,7 trillion they could solve the homeless and extreme poverty in the us instead of wasting money on these stupid planes

    • @Jhonatan4262
      @Jhonatan4262 2 роки тому

      @@domitravel795 América is gone

  • @raw1175
    @raw1175 2 роки тому +1

    Only the quality reporting I expect from mainstream media

  • @amorosogombe9650
    @amorosogombe9650 2 роки тому +73

    It's so strange how much we spend on getting ready to kill each other as mortals stuck on the same rock. Bizarre. Mankind is insane.

    • @Mediiiicc
      @Mediiiicc 2 роки тому +10

      Greed. Defend yourself or have everything stolen.

    • @drejade7119
      @drejade7119 2 роки тому +1

      Isn't it more strange how we spend need to spend in almost everything.

    • @caesr21
      @caesr21 2 роки тому

      wow so deep

    • @emam_speeches
      @emam_speeches 2 роки тому +1

      So what should we do stop protecting our homeland so other person could attack and capture it

  • @stormyprawn
    @stormyprawn 2 роки тому +59

    The people: "Yeah I think we should cancel student debt"
    Government: "I understand, we'll begin funding development on this aircraft immediately"

    • @JollyOldCanuck
      @JollyOldCanuck 2 роки тому +11

      The entire US manufacturing industry is being propped up by defence spending, not only through the manufacturing of weapons but through the parts sourced to facilitate the manufacturing process such as steel, artificial rubber, etcetera. The defence budget essentially funds public works programs, it’s basically a convoluted way for the US government to create jobs through public spending without looking like socialists.

    • @stormyprawn
      @stormyprawn 2 роки тому +7

      @@JollyOldCanuck true, good point
      In my original comment I made it seem like the US government funds the military industrial complex out of a genuine wish to improve people's lives but doesn't implement popular policies due to misunderstandings or ignorance.
      However, you're completely right and the reality is far worse. They know exactly what they're doing and both parties are donated to by the military industrial complex.
      The idea that the US government uses it as a means of creating jobs through public spending is an interesting concept that I've not really thought about though, so thanks for sharing. It really puts another layer of "bending the truth" onto the whole issue.

    • @JamesJoyce12
      @JamesJoyce12 2 роки тому +4

      the people who did not go to university or who paid their university debt after getting real degrees and real jobs: "suck it Philosophy grads"

    • @lppoqql
      @lppoqql 2 роки тому +4

      This is just corruption, we all know it.

    • @ngolong4070
      @ngolong4070 2 роки тому +2

      blanket student loan forgiveness is regressive redistribution to the upper middle class and you would be a fool to believe otherwise

  • @mauricehustles
    @mauricehustles 2 роки тому +25

    Nobody talks about inflation when it comes to bloated military spending. Imagine investing 1.4T in the American people.

    • @lirne7251
      @lirne7251 2 роки тому +4

      nobody gives af

    • @xenbtw9336
      @xenbtw9336 2 роки тому

      There wouldn’t be a hospital if we didn’t have a good military most places want us gone lmao

    • @TheSneakyOne-1
      @TheSneakyOne-1 2 роки тому +2

      When ww3 breaks out I'm sure the American people will be pretty grateful for their superior military.

    • @mrknowitall8663
      @mrknowitall8663 2 роки тому +2

      Yea its really a shame. In the 1st day of a major war lots of these are going to be blown out of the sky and that money could have been used elsewhere.

    • @chucklakeridge7944
      @chucklakeridge7944 2 роки тому +3

      @@mrknowitall8663 Do people tell you to shut up a lot?

  • @jackalt8846
    @jackalt8846 2 роки тому

    Call-sign ghost is cold 🥶

  • @michaelbeary
    @michaelbeary 2 роки тому +42

    So, is it reasonable to assume that the 6th gen fighter program will be an even more hot mess?

    • @jeremymendoza1465
      @jeremymendoza1465 2 роки тому +18

      Military aviation will always be a hot mess since it takes so much time/resources to develop and even then the threats you designed it to take out may not even be relevant once it's developed and you just end up using it to bomb pick up trucks in the desert

    • @michaelbeary
      @michaelbeary 2 роки тому +1

      @@jeremymendoza1465 There's gotta be a better way

    • @iseytheteethsnake6290
      @iseytheteethsnake6290 2 роки тому +7

      @@michaelbeary yeah! No more money for military! They have too much! Use that money for education, repair the flawed economy, debts, reduce the inflation, and literally anything else!

    • @rickv9180
      @rickv9180 2 роки тому +3

      @@iseytheteethsnake6290 Nah, oligarchs will always find a way to swindle taxpayer money with the help of their stooges in the Congress and Senate - overpriced materials, miscellaneous costs, nonsense budgets for whatnot and so on

    • @grugbug5615
      @grugbug5615 2 роки тому +2

      @@iseytheteethsnake6290 how would they pay the soliders?

  • @derHallen_Ch.
    @derHallen_Ch. 2 роки тому +10

    Surprising how SAAB hasn't advertised their Gripen in the comments yet

    • @angryfinn7737
      @angryfinn7737 2 роки тому +1

      l have already seen the SAAB trolls in the comment section. You’re just lucky.

    • @derHallen_Ch.
      @derHallen_Ch. 2 роки тому

      @@angryfinn7737 Why don't you buy a few Gripens, maybe they will go away.
      hehe boi

    • @angryfinn7737
      @angryfinn7737 2 роки тому

      @@derHallen_Ch. No.

  • @Zov631
    @Zov631 2 роки тому +40

    “F-35 conducted strikes against IS in Iraq. “
    Business Insider: *proceeds to show B-52 strikes on IS
    Lol

    • @delgermuruntsagaankhuu6951
      @delgermuruntsagaankhuu6951 2 роки тому +1

      It’s difficult to get a hold of specific military footage

    • @cjmartinez8318
      @cjmartinez8318 2 роки тому

      @@delgermuruntsagaankhuu6951 Yeah some really needs to be classified.

    • @boratb258
      @boratb258 2 роки тому

      See stealth works :D

  • @macgoob3214
    @macgoob3214 2 роки тому +1

    “To replace the A-10” hahaha y’all funny 😂

    • @Moving504
      @Moving504 2 роки тому +3

      The a10 isn’t that good ,so yeah it’ll get replaced by the F 35

  • @youtubeairways8646
    @youtubeairways8646 2 роки тому +4

    Gründer Industries: 'Look what Lockheed Martin needs to mimic a fraction of our power!'

  • @theujwalnambiar
    @theujwalnambiar 2 роки тому +13

    It's 1.7 trillion for the entire lifespan of the program so assuming it's used till the 2050s-60s, it won't be that significant of a hit, money-wise.

    • @leeroyjenkins3677
      @leeroyjenkins3677 2 роки тому

      How about inflation?

    • @dannyzero692
      @dannyzero692 2 роки тому +3

      @@leeroyjenkins3677 they also accounted it in the $1.7 trillion. Of course this is calculation and does not factor in events that have not yet happen.

  • @nesseihtgnay9419
    @nesseihtgnay9419 2 роки тому +7

    The f35 is such a great plane.

  • @jackreacher.
    @jackreacher. 2 роки тому

    3:12 "...three aircraft rolled into one...."; Finally. Modular competency.

  • @SaiGurubhyo
    @SaiGurubhyo 2 роки тому +4

    “Integrity, transparency and the fight against corruption have to be part of the culture. They have to be taught as fundamental values.”

  • @pjg1216
    @pjg1216 2 роки тому +21

    The way it's being phrased is not necessarily accurate.

    • @ladydara7446
      @ladydara7446 2 роки тому +1

      That's the rub, is your preferred phrasing more accurate, or merely reflective of some bias you hold? As citizens, shouldn't we be concerned that there isn't an easy way for the public to even understand how much we are paying for something? Maybe we can split the difference and let Congresswoman Porter tell us how expensive it is?

  • @naturecallakbar1080
    @naturecallakbar1080 2 роки тому +26

    Funny things is F16V or newer varian can cost $100 million USD, more than 20 million more than F35A.

    • @ericlane3256
      @ericlane3256 2 роки тому +4

      Turns out modern aircraft are very expensive. Gone are the days when you can churn out 50 P-51’s in a day

    • @naturecallakbar1080
      @naturecallakbar1080 2 роки тому +1

      @@ericlane3256 well mustang don't have computer at all that time.

    • @ericlane3256
      @ericlane3256 2 роки тому

      @@naturecallakbar1080 that’s my point

    • @pompano_jedi172
      @pompano_jedi172 2 роки тому

      Yes. The Rafale and Gripen are actually more expensive per aircraft

  • @gawnpa
    @gawnpa 2 роки тому +4

    Comparing the cost of national defense to student loan debt was hilarious.

    • @leomartin1903
      @leomartin1903 2 роки тому

      I don't know why, because ain't shit funny. THE AMOUNT of money spent on SHIT THE COUNTRY already has in terms of national defense is ridiculous. Got money for war but CANT FEED THE POOR.

  • @CAfakmykak
    @CAfakmykak 2 роки тому +21

    When you think about it the F-35 is supposed to replace the F-16, A-10, and Harrier jets and maybe some others. The price doesn't seem so bad. I'd also say a big part of the reason for setbacks and extra spending is because those politicians wanted to combine 3 planes into 1.

    • @FloofyMinari
      @FloofyMinari 2 роки тому +2

      Its still cheaper than an F22 and can be exported unlike the F22

    • @cobytang
      @cobytang 2 роки тому

      No, the price is ridiculous. I doubt making three different jets for the three branches would be more expensive than the F-35 three-in-one option.

    • @TheBooban
      @TheBooban 2 роки тому +2

      @@cobytang it definitely would be. It would be 3 more companies looking for their chance to low ball prices and add on costs and delays. Every single separate program has to have its share or costs increases.

    • @FloofyMinari
      @FloofyMinari 2 роки тому +1

      @@cobytang The price is fine and is cheaper than an F22.
      A 3 in 1 option wouldn't be ideal as each branch has varying criteria. There are tradeoffs to every feature, whether it be weight, range, or maneuverability,.
      The Navy needs larger wings and tougher landing gear,, the Air Force needs the range, and the marines need the vertical take off. You can't do all 3 and expect it to be good on all 3.

    • @cobytang
      @cobytang 2 роки тому

      @@FloofyMinari That's what I said. Trying to make one airframe serve three services would only result in a product that's jack of all treats, master of none.

  • @djuliano4484
    @djuliano4484 2 роки тому +90

    Literally so many problems with these
    Numbers. They don’t take into consideration time of project, or time of use. The f-16 was extremely costly for its time, but now it’s one of the most affordable. It’s conceivable that it sustainability will get better

    • @F4Wildcat
      @F4Wildcat 2 роки тому +21

      Not to mention that the F-16 had over a hundred crashes in its first 6 years of operation. in 8 years, the F-35 has 8. Even when nnumbers are accounted for, the F-35 has probaly the lowest failure rate of any single engine fighter

    • @djuliano4484
      @djuliano4484 2 роки тому +2

      @@F4Wildcat yes! Great point. Thanks!

    • @visassess8607
      @visassess8607 2 роки тому +1

      Yeah people seem to think it should start off being as reliable as the F16

    • @francinii
      @francinii 2 роки тому +8

      people continually fail to realise (or care, many of them are just seeing crazy stats in headlines and getting mad over it) that just about every "revolutionary" jet program in the last 80 years has repeatedly gone over budget or had the budget increased, faced failures, crashes, expansion of operational envelopes etc. The difference is that stories now can be spread in seconds over the internet where the authors don't do their due diligence in ensuring information is correct, whereas previous claims would have been made in newspapers and would have been thoroughly researched prior to publication.

    • @drgoutbreak7934
      @drgoutbreak7934 2 роки тому

      And that 1.7 number is the life time costs of the program excluding maintenance and consumables

  • @Shahzada
    @Shahzada 2 роки тому +37

    With future gens price will just simply go up. Not just because of hardware alone but also because of the people who work on these machines needs to be specialists.

    • @twinturbo9113
      @twinturbo9113 2 роки тому

      Not to mention just normal economics lol. Inflation factors into all of this as well.

    • @fanfest750
      @fanfest750 2 роки тому

      F35 is big joke

    • @fanfest750
      @fanfest750 2 роки тому

      F35 is big joke

  • @bigjay3385
    @bigjay3385 Рік тому +1

    Do whatever it takes to keep this great country safe.

    • @oddn6158
      @oddn6158 Рік тому

      Freedom!!! 🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅

  • @chucklakeridge7944
    @chucklakeridge7944 2 роки тому +50

    Love to see people's reaction to this. It's only $1.7T, yall! But that's actually spread over up to 2500 aircraft over 60 years, give or take. Can't put a price on air superiority. Also, the US is selling F-35's to all our allies which will defray cost through long term sustainment and economies of scale. When multiple air forces can standardize training, spares, repair facilities, technical support and reach design maturity simultaneously, there's a cumulative intrinsic cost curve that reduces over time at a greater rate than if each country has their own aircraft that each fleet bears the non-recurring costs and independent support infrastructure separately.
    This aircraft is several generations ahead of anything else that's ever flown. It can detect and destroy most non-Nato aircraft below the horizon line. Think about that - no more Top Gun dog-fights. Migs are down before they even establish line of sight of several hundred miles. Also, F-35' are both air-to-air fighters and air-to-ground fighters.
    Lastly, most of the hype around cost and development problems is not all that outrageous compared to the scope and numbers of craft. If you do a side-by-side with the prior 2500 aircraft the US procured (over multiple fighter types and in today's dollars), the F-35 is not ridiculously more expensive or problematic than historical production, especially considering how advanced it is. But the media loves to use the total dollars for shock value and talk about the problems out of context. Furthermore, this information is so much more widely known nowadays than it would have been in the 80's-90's, so very few of the audience will have a basis for understanding the context of this info.

    • @Jonifico
      @Jonifico 2 роки тому +1

      GREAT comment. Props.

    • @theneighborsdog5625
      @theneighborsdog5625 2 роки тому +1

      @@Jonifico Agreed. Thank you op for clearing everything up.

    • @ysylbattle7523
      @ysylbattle7523 2 роки тому

      U know media exaggerating every information so that they can get more views.

    • @ghazanhussain2070
      @ghazanhussain2070 2 роки тому +1

      Lol. Money is an essential part of the equation. If you would make your military equipment too costly to built and maintain , it will definitely undermine the overall efficiency of your war machine.

    • @visassess8607
      @visassess8607 2 роки тому

      @@ghazanhussain2070 Except there's nothing to suggest that the F35 is going to be too costly to fly and maintain

  • @TracksideViews
    @TracksideViews 2 роки тому +5

    It’s better to have and not need than need and not have.

  • @piyasabulteni4438
    @piyasabulteni4438 2 роки тому +55

    The main flaw of this plane is that it combines various mission types too expensive ,while you can do them at a lower cost separately. Particularly, you can do drone strikes at a cheaper cost now compared to 15 years earlier which makes close air support role of F-35 at this higher cost obsolete.

    • @tarotaro6933
      @tarotaro6933 2 роки тому +4

      well said, also some of it's key features isn't ideal for all missions type anyway, in fact they could even be a burdens. Take vertical take-off as an example, it is not a mandatory feature for airforce and army, it is mainly a navy thing; and single engines jet maybe ok for army and Navy but definitely not ideal for airforce.

    • @Acrid93
      @Acrid93 2 роки тому +1

      Don't forget that the AF recognized this problem at the start and commisioned the F-22!

    • @brandonl8039
      @brandonl8039 2 роки тому +6

      @@tarotaro6933 lol like none of that statement was accurate.

    • @jaybartgis5148
      @jaybartgis5148 2 роки тому

      But what about all the cool fighter pilot jobs? :(

    • @millionaireno1382
      @millionaireno1382 2 роки тому +1

      The US needs to get rid of the warthog and combining the F-22 with the A-10 is a great cost.

  • @rhrh2025
    @rhrh2025 2 роки тому +1

    That's absilutely ridiculous!

  • @regolith1350
    @regolith1350 2 роки тому +20

    6:28 "The F-35 still has more than 600 known problems, mainly related to computer software, and hardware."
    "Software & hardware", by definition, includes EVERY possible component. This is just like the phrase "up to X number or more", which quite literally includes EVERY number.

    • @justinc2633
      @justinc2633 2 роки тому +1

      the keyword here is computer, a jet engine itself is not computer hardware, even if its controlled using computer hardware and software. also the ability to train people to fly it would most definitely be a problem which isn't a hardware or software problem (im not saying it's a real problem, just an example)

  • @hiran4935
    @hiran4935 2 роки тому +3

    Spending trillion on a fighter aircraft while the common people can't buy an inhaler from a hospital without a million dollar bill. Progress!

    • @ImStillWoody
      @ImStillWoody 6 місяців тому

      Its 3 aircraft so in reality its about $550 Billion per branch, This would be like combining the F-18, F-22 and F-15 programs into one and saying its the same thing when they all perform different task and are built differently.

  • @pirozigzigwam8594
    @pirozigzigwam8594 2 роки тому +28

    “The US military” *first shot is of a British aircraft carrier*
    Well done insider, well done...

    • @haihengh
      @haihengh 2 роки тому +5

      that's LHA-6 USS America. also even if you mistake it as HMS Queen Elizabeth, there were two squadrons of US Marine F35B helping to fill the flight deck of Queen Elizabeth as the royal navy only has one operating F35B fighter squadron in 2021.

    • @pirozigzigwam8594
      @pirozigzigwam8594 2 роки тому +5

      @@haihengh THE VERY FIRST SHOT clearly shows the flight deck of the queen Elizabeth and a Royal Navy sailor, you can tell by the uniform. You are the one who is mistake sir.

    • @Imperium83
      @Imperium83 2 роки тому

      The UK is part of the Joint Strike Fighter program... so?

    • @oli3492
      @oli3492 2 роки тому +1

      @@pirozigzigwam8594if you look towards the left you'll see the US flag painted on the wall. I don't know if the HMS Elizabeth has an American paint job

    • @pirozigzigwam8594
      @pirozigzigwam8594 2 роки тому +1

      @@oli3492 Clearly you can’t read. The very first shot is the one of the F35B landing there is no wall in sight anywhere. You’re talking about the later shots.

  • @afvet5075
    @afvet5075 2 роки тому

    That is one badass fighter.

  • @adityashelar8025
    @adityashelar8025 2 роки тому +6

    Man that's expensive 😮😮

    • @rohitw614
      @rohitw614 2 роки тому +1

      For Indian not for them everything in that plane is homebuilt so eventually all money goes back in US economy

    • @SLX997
      @SLX997 2 роки тому +4

      @@rohitw614 It's expensive regardless, homebuilt or not 😂

    • @rohitw614
      @rohitw614 2 роки тому

      @@SLX997 if we can afford Rafael they can afford f35 with 10x millitary budget 😂

    • @Mediiiicc
      @Mediiiicc 2 роки тому

      @@rohitw614 f35 cheaper than Rafale according to Switzerland and finland who just bought f35

  • @lukedelport8231
    @lukedelport8231 2 роки тому +53

    Hey insider this is over a 50+ year life span for what is in effect 3 different platforms with parts modularity. Do not forget it is replacing legacy aircraft as well so the cost of retraining is included. You can't take a A-10 piolt and stick him/her in to an F35A and say fly they will crash. Also the cost includes RnD training both of piolt and ground crew/filght deck handlers, rebuilding of the factory and disposal of aircraft after service, however knowing the US they will keep the aircraft in service long after its life span. The aircraft represent a fundamental shift in thinking of the US military, instead of having multiple aircraft to meet the needs of the different branches buy creating a fighter that includes all with parts modulelarity is in the long run cost effective. Remember it is the same thing with tanks one baise model then specially models built on the original.

    • @christophegroulx7816
      @christophegroulx7816 2 роки тому +2

      I don't think you watched the video, they don't imply that it's for a single aircraft lmao

  • @NorCalark
    @NorCalark 2 роки тому +18

    Seems cool and all, unless you've lived in Clinton or Hooper or West Haven and these guys are flying over your house, a couple times at night when they were doing exercises out of hill

    • @skynut38
      @skynut38 2 роки тому +5

      You knew the risk buying your house near a military base. :)

    • @mrreisskeks3441
      @mrreisskeks3441 2 роки тому +2

      @@skynut38 I don`t think so, you hardly ever inspect a house at night and sellers don`t mention it or play it down.

    • @djlolypop
      @djlolypop 2 роки тому +1

      @@mrreisskeks3441 Flight paths of CONUS airbases are public record. In the thousands of things you do while buying a house, a google search of this is nothing if you’re going to complain about it.
      Being a prior network engineer for this aircraft at this base, I don’t see why people complain about it. Utah is lucky to have Hill AFB for it’s economy.

  • @noag829
    @noag829 Рік тому +1

    6:35 Gulp

  • @RandomUserOnTheInterWebs
    @RandomUserOnTheInterWebs 2 роки тому +6

    This fails to mention that this is a project of the cost of a fleet of fighters 20 times larger than what we have now, with 60 years of maintenance. This is a 60 year projected cost for a huge number of aircraft. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

    • @bighands69
      @bighands69 2 роки тому

      It does not take into account the revenue generated by sales.

  • @ernieojeda
    @ernieojeda 2 роки тому +8

    Imagine what this country has and doesn’t show

    • @wildanh7806
      @wildanh7806 2 роки тому

      Imagine discovering those on WikiLeaks

    • @Briggsian
      @Briggsian 2 роки тому

      Imagine what it could have if it didn't spend more than most other countries' GDPs on weapons. The world's second largest airforce is the US Navy for fuck's sake.

  • @samholland7650
    @samholland7650 2 роки тому +11

    using Best aircraft in the world against the group that doesn't have a single aa missile.👍

    • @loganjones5461
      @loganjones5461 2 роки тому +1

      Who?

    • @atrece13
      @atrece13 2 роки тому +1

      @@loganjones5461 cares

    • @satanicgrapefruit
      @satanicgrapefruit 2 роки тому +1

      It was meant to fight China not your cobbled together Army consisting of old pickups and military vehicles that are from a bygone era

  • @peeratatr1492
    @peeratatr1492 2 роки тому +1

    worth it to protect our freedom

  • @gwydionrusso3206
    @gwydionrusso3206 2 роки тому +13

    Basically at the military was overly ambitious and they realize they had to separate it out into three planes rather than just one although the F35 is an amazing fighter

    • @JeremyS95
      @JeremyS95 2 роки тому +8

      It was intentional to make 3 variants… cost savings from building a single plane to replace 3 (F16, F18, Harrier)

  • @markoconnell804
    @markoconnell804 2 роки тому +45

    Since this aircraft in a 4 man configuration per mission replaces 24 legacy planes it is still far far cheaper on a per mission basis then all those other supporting aircraft in fuel savings alone. Then there are the parts for those extra 20 planes. Then there is the repair crew for each of those 20 extra planes. This plane is far far far far cheaper than the legacy craft it makes unnecessary on a per mission basis.

    • @ell442sugarbae8
      @ell442sugarbae8 2 роки тому

      Bi how's thanks baby to be born in the morning times foohow's your morning going so I love you too baby I love much to do in tire asked me about it tiller to you plenty of time to makeup on the road to recovery is going well in your world to makeup for the update on your face and how's your morning going so we are all on the same password as to why you are doing well in your morning going to ask do that too if you are busy so much baby and how's your doing ok I guess we are all sorry for not sure how was your flight info for the doctor breakfast with the bank to get to know when you are busy so much baby I love much to do in tire asked if I was just going to ask do in the morning times Flipping through the doctor breakfast with Santa to bring the car in front of my house for you to come over to my heart is everything okay on my way to go life is everything okay in the loop on this message is to be in the loop on opening date of birth is everything going with me to get my phone so we are going to have to get a payment on the way carpet cleaning and I live in the United States to you to make sure that you received my email+1399437224 the doctor breakfast at your place at meeting with the doctor tomorrow to see you and your face too much to me and off all sorry I didn't get back door is unlocked and off all doing good payment on the road to recovery to go back to work on and off all sorry to makeup on and how's your flight was cancelled so much baby I love you so much and I had to go back to the bank account details for you to have a look at the attached file of the fridge for the doctor to get the doctor breakfast at meeting truck is everything okay in the loop on opening doors and off all sorry for the next few hours on diet Coke for the cute little guilty about loved babes know if you are doing good and I will be in my office veterans affairs of the fridge for the doctor to come to the bank to makeup on girl I was just going to ask detour today but I'm not strut on the way to go life and I live the rest is everything okay on my way to the airport now waiting for my updated CV for the post jack up from the bus on the road right now can't wait for this message cards catmoney you are doing today I have to do amazin you to make Google play store cards catmoney to make a criteria to make a credit to my eye on the way to the bank to get box's of timeto know when you're on. Going so we're.?

  • @PirrePirre
    @PirrePirre 2 роки тому +16

    Finland has ordered 64 F-35, they could had ordered 120 Gripen E for that price if not more. Gripen is also low cost in operation and maintenance.

    • @angryfinn7737
      @angryfinn7737 2 роки тому +5

      Complete b*llshit. Perkeleen SAAB:in trolli...

    • @SVNLVN
      @SVNLVN 2 роки тому +5

      The gripen is more expensive than the F-35 according to google.

    • @seantaggart7382
      @seantaggart7382 2 роки тому

      Well yeah but i mean let them have it
      I mean worse comes to worse they still have a backup plane

    • @angryfinn7737
      @angryfinn7737 2 роки тому +3

      @@seantaggart7382 Wtf you are talking about?

    • @ilynpayne7491
      @ilynpayne7491 2 роки тому

      Why does Finland need war planes 🤣😂😂 they're stupid

  • @viracuscarrion8648
    @viracuscarrion8648 2 роки тому

    Damnn that staff sergeant is a snacc.

  • @yutakago1736
    @yutakago1736 2 роки тому +5

    The F-35 is actually 3 different fighter jets with 3 different R&D.

  • @phillm156
    @phillm156 2 роки тому +10

    No one mentions the cost of the fighters the F35 is replacing. F18- $80 million, F15- $100 million, Euro Fighter Typhoon- $120 million. As of 2022 the cost of each F35 is $88 million, with each iteration costing less with refinement.

    • @Muralidharan001
      @Muralidharan001 2 роки тому

      No, F-35 costs over $150 million with high maintenance cost.

    • @phillm156
      @phillm156 2 роки тому

      @@Muralidharan001 your wrong. Check the current facts.

    • @Muralidharan001
      @Muralidharan001 2 роки тому

      @@phillm156 Only you have to check, In 2021 Swiss govt. proposed a deal for purchase of 36 jets for $6.5 billion, that comes over $180 million a piece.

    • @phillm156
      @phillm156 2 роки тому

      @@Muralidharan001 you need to understand the price is not just for the jets. It includes ground equipment, maintenance for the life of the jets. Have you ever purchased a vehicle and never paid for maintenance for the life of it? A 30k car over a 10 year life span easily adds 40% to its price. Have you ever owned a home that does not require upkeep?

    • @phillm156
      @phillm156 2 роки тому

      @@Muralidharan001 2019 article:
      The price of the F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing variant will officially fall below the $80 million mark in lot 13, a goal Lockheed Martin had been touting since earlier this year when it reached a handshake agreement with the Joint Program Office. And by 2022, the F-35A fighters produced as part of lot 14 will cost $77.9 million apiece. That is about 12.8% less than the aircraft’s price in 2019.
      Lockheed Martin is advertising the lowered cost of the F-35 as making the fighter price competitive with older, less expensive fourth generation fighters.
      “The sub $80 million unit recurring flyaway cost for an F-35 represents an integrated acquisition price for the 5th generation weapon system,” the company says in a media release. “With embedded sensors and targeting pods, this F-35 unit price includes items that add additional procurement and sustainment costs to legacy 4th generation aircraft.”
      F-35 PRICES FOR NEXT THREE YEARS
      Variant Lot 12 (2020) Lot 13 (2021) Lot 14 (2022) % change from Lot 11 to 14
      F-35A $82.4m $79.2m $77.9m 12.8% decrease
      F-35B $108m $105m $101m 12.3% decrease
      F-35C $103m $98.1m $94.4m 13.2% decrease
      Lockheed Martin
      The bulk of aircraft delivered over the next three years - 351 units - will be the conventional “A” variant of the F-35. The bulk of aircraft delivered over the next three years - 351 units - will be the conventional “A” variant of the F-35. Some 86 examples of the F-35B, the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variant, and 41 examples of the F-35C, the larger carrier variant, are under contract to be delivered.
      Lockheed Martin says there are more than 450 F-35 aircraft operating from 19 bases around the world. Eight countries have F-35s operating from a base on their home soil. Seven military services have declared Initial Operating Capability for the stealth fighter.
      More than 910 pilots and 8,350 maintainers have been trained on the aircraft, says Lockheed Martin. And, the F-35 fleet has accumulated more than 220,000h of flight time.

  • @thomasknight-wagener6630
    @thomasknight-wagener6630 2 роки тому +3

    it doesn't matter what people say... the fact that so many of these things are flying around in the air is pretty extraordinary. The prerequisites to pilot the aircraft mold the person that becomes the pilot. They are a thing to behold, such a wonder... a true death machine.

  • @JPmaxlevel
    @JPmaxlevel 2 роки тому

    the shame #2 🤣🤣 "yeah lets continue this way"

  • @zasta7
    @zasta7 Рік тому +3

    I think the tech at Government level gets messed up because there is no healthy side to side competition like it's in the case of private companies.

    • @VinylUnboxings
      @VinylUnboxings Рік тому

      You realize private companies compete for government contracts, right?

    • @zasta7
      @zasta7 Рік тому +1

      @@VinylUnboxings
      I do realize that. What I actually meant was that constantly changing governments bring constantly changing policies that harm the funding processes in these contracts. The competition faced by the one who funds the research is different in nature by the competition faced by the contract chasers.

  • @ZER0-C00L
    @ZER0-C00L 2 роки тому +14

    Military industrial complex.

  • @alans9707
    @alans9707 2 роки тому +31

    Advanced toys for the military are always expensive. That is what it costs for cutting edge military equipment. The rest of the worlds powers are desperate to keep up...that is the point...to have the best. They are expensive, loud and powerful. You can't build a low tech fighter and expect it to keep up and be the best.

    • @marleychronic8530
      @marleychronic8530 2 роки тому +7

      America! Keeping the Military-Industrial Complex and the PetroDollar going 🥴

    • @anthonypittman9791
      @anthonypittman9791 2 роки тому +5

      Yeah our weapons are superior but our cyber security still is having a hard time keep up compared to other world powers

  • @aflyingcone_2840
    @aflyingcone_2840 2 роки тому

    those jets got me bricked up.

  • @DjHazardous
    @DjHazardous 2 роки тому +11

    *I'm still here wondering if there's going to be a next gen A-10 warthog.*

  • @vido7027
    @vido7027 2 роки тому +17

    One of the problems with war is that the amount of capital needed is infinity.

    • @jackg93
      @jackg93 2 роки тому +2

      You get defence from it though and it deters other nations from invading and stealing your resources

    • @TheBooban
      @TheBooban 2 роки тому +4

      Infinity sounds like an exaggeration.

    • @marleychronic8530
      @marleychronic8530 2 роки тому +1

      @@jackg93 Who’s invading the US???

    • @Mediiiicc
      @Mediiiicc 2 роки тому

      No just need more than your adversary.

    • @youtubeairways8646
      @youtubeairways8646 2 роки тому

      Unless you're Belka, which manages to have a cripplingly weak economy, but an OP stronk military.

  • @oonchi
    @oonchi 2 роки тому +10

    Speaking from experience piloting these things in Battlefield 4, they’re hard to fly and don’t provide much impact on the outcome

    • @dant1310
      @dant1310 2 роки тому +1

      Gunned down after 30 seconds, Hail Fantan!

    • @Kurogumo
      @Kurogumo 2 роки тому

      Comparing Battlefield 4 to real life is like comparing Mario Kart to NASCAR. Your opinion is completely useless.

    • @oonchi
      @oonchi 2 роки тому +2

      @@Kurogumo no sh** lol you definitely missed the joke

    • @Kurogumo
      @Kurogumo 2 роки тому

      @@oonchi You know, I’m something of an idiot myself.

  • @georgerominski4476
    @georgerominski4476 2 роки тому

    Ghost has to be the coolest call sign I’ve ever heard

  • @Aggie1295
    @Aggie1295 2 роки тому +4

    How does it compare to what the opposition has or will have? Being able to be dominant prevents conflicts before they start and that requires being three or four times better than possible opponents.

    • @jlwilliams
      @jlwilliams 2 роки тому

      Saab Gripen/E, anyone? Multi-role, least expensive to operate of all competitors (which equals more training time on the same budget), designed for 50-year lifespan, low maintenance, short/rough field capable. Currently the Gripen and the F-35 are going head-to-head as the finalists for Canada's fighter-upgrade program... amid widespread complaints that the US government is putting its thumb on the scales in favor of Lockheed-Martin.

    • @drperky7008
      @drperky7008 2 роки тому +3

      @@jlwilliams Sabb Gripen E is has a higher unit cost per unit compared to the A, and the only advantages it holds over the f-35 are top speed and maneuverability. No one cares about muh road landing, its a feature that the Swedish wanted. If you can afford it, the F-35A is light years ahead of the Gripen, jus ask the Finnish. If your only care is total lifetime cost go for the Gripen.

  • @user-zz6iv2ou6f
    @user-zz6iv2ou6f 2 роки тому +7

    Bad press is irrelevant when you need the best tech in the skies. Not to mention how versatile this airframe is. F-35 is only controversial to those who don’t understand it’s capabilities or it’s broad applications.

  • @corrion1
    @corrion1 2 роки тому +4

    If they think this costs alot imagine how much they have spent on their TR3b flying triangle project

  • @closetcleaner
    @closetcleaner Рік тому +1

    And this, my friends, is the real reason why we need a steady oil supply.

  • @owendickson9507
    @owendickson9507 2 роки тому +15

    The title is very misleading the individual cost of making this 5th gen fighter is 78 million dollars. Yes, that is a lot of money but the 4th gen fighter the f-15EX costs 87.7 million dollars per aircraft, more than the f-35. Now the f-35 gets a bad wrap because it has always had software problems but really it is the best fighter in the world. I have seen numerous pilots say that so I do very much believe that the title of this video is misleading. The helmet literally has a projector inside it to display the HUD on the pilot's helmet and they can pretty much see through the plane. There is no fighter like this and it will be the future of the US military.

    • @boratb258
      @boratb258 2 роки тому +1

      Not to mention that none of these hit pieces ever compare the lifecycle costs of the F16, F15 or F18 to the F35... They don't share them cause they are high as well.

    • @steveno2760
      @steveno2760 2 роки тому

      The F22, J20, and Su-57 may have something to say about that "best fighter" claim

    • @josueperez4333
      @josueperez4333 2 роки тому +1

      Steve'n o: not so sure about the j20 and the su57 there are like 10-15 built

    • @deathdragon2283
      @deathdragon2283 2 роки тому

      @@steveno2760 the SU-57 is a joke. 2 production aircraft have been made, and one of them crashed. It’s not really stealthy, it’s RCS is many orders of magnitude larger than the F-35. It’s got a first generation AESA radar that has a SAR resolution comparable to what the US was using in the 80s. It’s missile approach warning system is UV based, so it’s of little use against long range missiles whose rocket motors have burned out. It’s nothing more than a desperate attempt at a cash grab by a dying regional power.
      The F-22 is certainly on par with the F-35 in many aspects, but it’s got several drawbacks.
      It lacks the DAS, EOTS, and HMD of the F-35 (which are truly game changers as far as situational awareness goes. Especially the DAS, No other aircraft has anything comparable), so it’s got less situational awareness than the F-35. The F-22 had very limited strike capability aswell. The F-22 is also incredibly expensive to maintain, far more than the F-35.
      The J-20 is hard to really judge, but it’s absolutely better than the SU-57, aswell as any 4th Gen fighter jet. We do know it’s really struggling in the engine department. It’s IRST has a more limited FOV then the F-35s EOTS. The J-20 has a IR missile approach warning system, which could possibly have DAS like capabilities. However it’s extremely unlikely that China has achieved parity with the US in regards to imaging IR sensors. It’s also going to behind the F-35 as far as networking is concerned.

  • @ivyyoung521
    @ivyyoung521 2 роки тому +5

    We need universal healthcare!!! Not to mention mental health service for our Veterans.

    • @MrStamperh
      @MrStamperh 2 роки тому +1

      Universal healthcare costs $11 trillion a year….this is just 1.7 trillion over 50 years.

  • @TheVision-gd7np
    @TheVision-gd7np 2 роки тому +6

    Literal Meaning of Burning Money

  • @overland1178
    @overland1178 2 роки тому

    No ones gonna talk about how he has a cool ass callsign 😂 “Ghost”

  • @TheGrenadier97
    @TheGrenadier97 2 роки тому +10

    Lobby is the key word. I wonder if these expensive machines would sustain high attrition in a major war, or be financially clever in a small-scale conflict.

    • @ell442sugarbae8
      @ell442sugarbae8 2 роки тому

      Thanks you're baby to sleep on the flooring is everything okay with your company as below the details of the end of this evening or tomorrow morning to pick up a payment plan to be there for you and I can meet with your company access box's of time was In the doctor breakfast with the queue for you to have been able love you so very happy for me plenty of time to makeup on girl is off to tell me what time you were comings loved babes know what you think Aletta you to make sure eye doctor breakfast with my phone so we can get a room taki everything going with tomorrow morningfor you to have a good time with your company as to why the bank account number is right officer shopping for a few changes morning times credit shop now I don't have been trying to call to make sure I don't know how to send me your address so I love much to do betterment to makeup for stores in for you to come home to make sure I don't miss the deadline and I don't know how long the process of getting a payment of the end of the end of this message to the schedule for next few minutes ago send me your address cards to Stone Creekhours on girl certificate of completion for you to come over to makeup for stores are closed today so I was just checking in for doing the research I did not sure how was your night last night to makeup on girl is off to make sure I love you too baby I just going so we will be able to do in rutting.?

  • @Methxdz
    @Methxdz 2 роки тому +4

    If anyone has had the chance to see the F-35 Lightning II at an air show. It’s amazing. Being in the Air Force it’s been great to see our advancements.

  • @o.h.a9826
    @o.h.a9826 2 роки тому +5

    If there's one lesson for the future it's that developing specific planes for specific branches is far easier.

    • @TheBooban
      @TheBooban 2 роки тому +1

      Are you sure? You can’t be sure of that. R&D is where the costs are and you would have to pay that 3 times. Unless it was the same company that made all 3. And then whats the point. And one of them would look like a flying toad.

    • @o.h.a9826
      @o.h.a9826 2 роки тому +1

      @@TheBooban but they essentially developed 3 different planes, they mentioned that in the vid

    • @TheBooban
      @TheBooban 2 роки тому +1

      @@o.h.a9826 yes, 1/3 commonality. 1/3 is alot and not “essentially” different planes. Saving 1/3 the cost for such a big program would be significant. And since you’ve watched the vid, you know most of the costs were because they bungled it. As usual. With 3 separate programs, they would just triple the amount of bungling (some would call it corruption) by 3 companies. If they could do the same with the next program, they would hopefully have learned some lessons, like start with the hardest one to design, the f35b and change from there.

    • @o.h.a9826
      @o.h.a9826 2 роки тому

      @@TheBooban they also aren't as versatile as they were supposed to be. The f-35 is much worse than the A10 for CAS

    • @Mediiiicc
      @Mediiiicc 2 роки тому

      @@o.h.a9826 F16 provided the most Cas of any jet. F35 has the best sensors, much less likely to fire on allied troops like the A10 did several times...

  • @outdoorsy01
    @outdoorsy01 2 роки тому

    2:25 BEAST

  • @djwilliams3058
    @djwilliams3058 2 роки тому +17

    The Untied States is developing Aircraft carriers and plans while China and Russia are developing software and hypersonic missiles.

    • @justinlance4174
      @justinlance4174 2 роки тому +9

      We are developing software and hypersonic wepons as well. The agm183a hypersonic strike missile entered military service. As well as the (Black Eagle) hypersonic missile defense system.

    • @boratb258
      @boratb258 2 роки тому +2

      Because right now no one can match U.S air power, their counter defensive strategy is to saturate their coasts with hypersonic anti ship missiles and S-400's to keep those carriers at a distance.

    • @dallaswood4117
      @dallaswood4117 2 роки тому +4

      Defense against the weapon is always cheaper than the weapon itself. An antitank rifle is thousands and a tank, well….a lot more than thousands

    • @rubenlopez3364
      @rubenlopez3364 2 роки тому +1

      Lmao US Navy Railguns laugh at dumbass Hypersonic Missiles. There's a reason we didn't pursue that tech.

    • @KlASELI
      @KlASELI 2 роки тому +1

      Why is China building an aircraft carrier

  • @amorosogombe9650
    @amorosogombe9650 2 роки тому +16

    What exactly costs $35000 an hour? Fuel?

    • @XeonAlpha
      @XeonAlpha 2 роки тому +10

      Maintenance.
      All military aircraft require EXTENSIVE inspection and maintenance after every flight.

    • @Ry_TSG
      @Ry_TSG 2 роки тому +6

      Jet engines are complex. Add in advanced stealth coating, and you get a high operating cost.

    • @christopherwarsh
      @christopherwarsh 2 роки тому +3

      It’s definitely not the crew chiefs salary… 😂

    • @teoengchin
      @teoengchin 2 роки тому +2

      Also lobbying costs and election campaign contribution costs

    • @MASB29
      @MASB29 2 роки тому

      @@christopherwarsh pretty sure the 35k includes salaries

  • @larrysouthern5098
    @larrysouthern5098 2 роки тому +14

    Everybody remembers the X wing fighters from : "Star Wars"... That's what a F 35 is supposed to be...only it doesn't fly into space or go into lightspeed...an X wing fighter would probably cost about 10 billion dollars....each.

  • @frescoservice5124
    @frescoservice5124 2 роки тому

    I’m in love with this aircraft 😍