Why This Controversial Jet May Cost $1.7 Trillion | True Cost | Business Insider
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 січ 2022
- The US military designed the F-35 to fill roles for the Air Force, Marines, and Navy. US taxpayers could be on the hook for $1.7 trillion over the lifetime of the ambitious and versatile F-35 fleet. We went to Hill Air Force Base in Utah to get an up-close look at the F-35 and why it's part of the most expensive weapons program in US history.
MORE TRUE COST VIDEOS:
The True Cost Of The Human Hair Trade | True Cost
• The True Cost Of The H...
How 1,000 Turkeys Are Slaughtered For Thanksgiving | True Cost
• Thanksgiving Turkey Sl...
The True Cost Of Avocados | True Cost
• The True Cost Of Avoca...
------------------------------------------------------
#USMilitary #TrueCost #BusinessInsider
Business Insider tells you all you need to know about business, finance, tech, retail, and more.
Visit us at: www.businessinsider.com
Subscribe: / businessinsider
BI on Facebook: read.bi/2xOcEcj
BI on Instagram: read.bi/2Q2D29T
BI on Twitter: read.bi/2xCnzGF
BI on Snapchat: / 5319643143
Boot Camp on Snapchat: / 3383377771
Why This Controversial Jet May Cost $1.7 Trillion | True Cost | Business Insider
When an aircraft is worth more than the entire economy of my country.
LMAOOOOOOO
LMFAO
Imagine Joe Biden giving this to the Taliban
@@lightswitch7424 he has dementia, i can see this happening
@@freshfrozen7612When you can't feed the poor but give Billion dollar military weapons to terrorists. Joke Biden for president
“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.
Lmao
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?
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.
@@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
@@mr2octavio I don’t think a jet engine is “computer” hardware
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.
Go watch your bouncing ball nun cens flagwaver.
Rightfully so imho they’re paying for this thing
@@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.
Thank you!
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.)
well they didn't do that. Which is why there are three different serial production variants, each with different structures and internal setup's.
"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.
@@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
@@dmvairsoft9243 It's basically one plane still, even despite 3 modifications
@@jimmcneal5292 ... the Marines F-35 and the USAF F-35 are different, they're not the same aircraft.
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.
man, 1.7 TRILLION is almost
half the cost of WWII, no nation should pay such a figure for a fighter plane.
They are jornalists, they dont know How to read.
@@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.
Don't forget they also designed three jets that only share 20% of the parts.
What a waste
In a nutshell:
Is the high cost really worth the advancements?
US Defence Budget: yes
yes it will help us win more wars
@@masternobody1896 Like defeating the Taliban ...
@@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.
Yes more wars
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.
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
So they just cut orders. And the defense budget isn't limitless, and needs to be prioritized.
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! 😅
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.
@@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!
Still buying it is just a fraction of the running cost...
0:55 * modern warfare flashbacks *
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.
Truer words have never been spoken
Yup it's project manager 101 problem
Just like nasa look what Elon musk did, half the cost of nasa if not more
You sound like you there with or something 😜
He's an armchair engineer
The funny thing is, they stopped producing the F22, because "too expensive" . The 2nd thing: This was supposed to be a low-cost jet like the F16 was in the 1960s /1970s. I love the fiscal madness at play here.
Plus it’s restricted to the U.S. There is no reason to keep it going if the military has enough.
Edit: March 2022* Some of y’all do not use context clues and it shows.
Do you mean the f35?
@@getrappt1870 He probably ment the f22
It's like half the price so I'd say that's much cheaper
@@inflation5196 exactly, the f-22 raptor will easily cost more than $200m each, and theres a HUGE cost just to restart the production line. Also, it's an air superiority fighter instead of a multi-role, like the f-16 and f-35.. the raptors is and will still be the best fighter jet in the decades to come, and also the best looking IMO =D
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.
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.
@Hot Toymania A buddy of mine in the Air Force told me about this very same thing recently.
@Hot Toymania except it isnt really that high cost, considering everything factored in
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.
You know they most certainly are. Every government contractor does it. Motorola charged $5000 per walk-in talkie and tried to make up some bs about the vocoder, which is a lie. I do digital HAME radio and know how it works. That was 8 years ago too, lord knows how much they gouge now, and they do it because the government has no choice but to buy from them.
"Instead of spending trillions to destroy the world, we can unite and invest trillions to transform the universe."
No because I'm a nation leader and some other countries leader called my mum fat so now i threaten them with war
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.
@@traceler The US could cut back 90% and still be stronger than those two
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.
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..."
Basically Oversimplified meme where dude demand King Henry a pig that fly and shoot laser.
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.
@@TheBenLemonade LOL, totally true!
Lol, thats exactly how that went down!
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.
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.
@r_ elentless01 lol k
@r_ elentless01 cap
@r_ elentless01 did you know some scaled back versions of this airplane are in other countries air forces, right?
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
@@soysauce4087 name one plane that's better?
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.
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)
Comparing the cost of national defense to student loan debt was hilarious.
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.
You can tell ghost doesn't care about budget.
I wouldn’t neither if I got paid to fly the baddest fighter jet in the world. Let the taxpayers worry lol
Ghost will only have good thing to say. Anything else, and he is going to go back to fly C130 cargo, or worse.
@@wisanu99 banished to the T30 training jet
Because he know, he will be alive when the dogfight end.
@@lokisg3 before it begins these things strike from miles away
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
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
I think the loudest aircraft I’ve ever heard was the B-1B
I live like a walk away from the base
They may be stealth to radars, but perhaps sound detectors can pick them up?
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.
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.
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.
Don't forget that the AF recognized this problem at the start and commisioned the F-22!
@@tarotaro6933 lol like none of that statement was accurate.
But what about all the cool fighter pilot jobs? :(
The US needs to get rid of the warthog and combining the F-22 with the A-10 is a great cost.
A small bird: "imma end this jet's whole career"
In the days of Kelly Johnson, Lockheed would occasionally deliver aircraft ahead of schedule and under budget. How times have changed.
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.
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!
Kelly Johnsons's team was also just a couple dozen people.
The bureaucracy must expand to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy
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.
@@flakgun153 wasnt it his rule to only let an extremely small group of people work on a project
1.7 trillion to buy, operate and maintain 2500 planes for 50+ years - sounds like a bargain tbh
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.
@@chazdomingo475 A plane is still useful when better ones exist
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!!
@@chazdomingo475 china could barley reverse engineer crappy Russian stuff what makes you think they can get there hands on an f35 type plane
@@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.
Spending trillion on a fighter aircraft while the common people can't buy an inhaler from a hospital without a million dollar bill. Progress!
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.
Still better than Sprey's spew-out, that was supposed to have no electronics, no radar, no advanced weapons guidance systems, no detection system whatsoever, no *bulletproof glass in the cockpit*, and was supposed to work on a principle of "flying low" and "pilot using binoculars for IFF"
The F35 just came out and Northrop Grumman is already working on the next Jet
Yes
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.
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.
@@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.
The Next Generation Air Dominance Program?
The F-35's radar cross-section is about the size of a bumblebee. Amazing!
Is it the f-35 or f-22 that has an rcs of a bumblebee
@@HHSGuins16 both
@@HHSGuins16 do you mean the transformer or the arthropod
Depends which way you look at it
s400 and s500 SAM units can still detect the f35.
Call-sign ghost is cold 🥶
3:12 "...three aircraft rolled into one...."; Finally. Modular competency.
The people: "Yeah I think we should cancel student debt"
Government: "I understand, we'll begin funding development on this aircraft immediately"
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.
@@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.
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"
This is just corruption, we all know it.
blanket student loan forgiveness is regressive redistribution to the upper middle class and you would be a fool to believe otherwise
F-15 program ended up costing more money in the 1970's.
How many jets were ordered back then.
And we’re still buying F-15’s
@@ericlane3256 Ones with F-35 tech in them.
the shame #2 🤣🤣 "yeah lets continue this way"
No ones gonna talk about how he has a cool ass callsign 😂 “Ghost”
still cheaper than nvidia gtx 3090
1.7 trillion on a plane but we can’t pass an infrastructure bill lol
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.
@Paul C bad logic war makes america lose money
@@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"?
Yep it's all about priority, says a lot .
Clearly weapons are more important than anything else in America.
“To replace the A-10” hahaha y’all funny 😂
The a10 isn’t that good ,so yeah it’ll get replaced by the F 35
Thanks for sharing too much intel🤓
I hope they sort out the problems soon. Mine is nearly always at the garage 😪
You own one? Wow you must be rich! What problems are wrong with it?
@@virtuousfrequencies2512 I think he is a fighter pilot of the USAF
thank god I bought the extended warranty while i was flying over Iran
@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.
@@PartTimeLaowai 🤪
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.
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
You should check out link 16
A-10 has it too bro beans
A-10 is more effective when doing it’s designed role. F-35 is too multi-purpose
Yeah bcz the US never bullies anyone to make them buy
Only the quality reporting I expect from mainstream media
Subbed 👍🏻
So just name the aircraft after how many thousands of dollars that it costs per hour to use.
F100 coming in 2040 to boost the failing military industrial complex!
F-35,000,000
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.
Greed. Defend yourself or have everything stolen.
Isn't it more strange how we spend need to spend in almost everything.
wow so deep
So what should we do stop protecting our homeland so other person could attack and capture it
Ghost has to be the coolest call sign I’ve ever heard
Damnn that staff sergeant is a snacc.
I dreamed of being in the Air Force as a kid. Awesome seeing this.
I dreamed of a peaceful world then forgot we got usa 🇺🇸 jk
@@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.
@@Tamilz what are you talking about. Murica🤡 all about peace.
@@abisinan3976 lmfao what r u on about 🤡
@@Tamilz now i am confused. If you think 🤡 meant for you it isn't.
I just really love the F-22 raptor:/ sad to see they couldn’t make it work
The f22 was almost triple the price of a f35
Sad part is new x series 6th gen already testing
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.
Love it too but they didn’t make it work and it serves us well.
@@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.
If you want to push the envelope be the best there is - there will be costs involved.
That plane is amazing !
Subbed 👍
This is needed when you act as a world police instead of focusing on anti-corruption and making the world health better.
China and Russia are real.
Usa is definitely biggest war mongrer in the history ever created jih@di's earlier for ussr which backfired, nowadays usa creates sells weapons so peace can never be established. Further goes on to kill some terrorists in isis regions so as to show the world , with hell to usa you're not the leader of free world . It's just my country's need of the hour that it is building a strategic partnership with 🇺🇸 otherwise 🇺🇸 is not trustworthy partner , ally my foot , we all know 🇺🇸 has same racist colonizer, divide and rule mind set as the British . Anyway we are not the same. times,things have changed and a lot , and are changing further we are catching up.
@@ivana.medina3126 Climate change is more real than china, russia and north korea combined
@@ivana.medina3126 yeah and they each spend 1/3 of what we do and still produce reliable equipment.
@@linusmlgtips2123 climate change happens even without humans. I'm not going to waste my efforts trying to stop the inevitable.
I am not anti military. But it's painful to see so much money being used (wasted) for the F-35.
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
They've actually reduced the prices down to levels less than what it would be for fourth gen jet. Fighter jets are just expensive.
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
with 1,7 trillion they could solve the homeless and extreme poverty in the us instead of wasting money on these stupid planes
@@domitravel795 América is gone
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.
It does everything. Instead of doing anything. If you have to sacrifice in order to keep other functionalities possible, it may help you to never be totally outmatched, but you will also never outmatch your opponent.
Lockheed Martin is too big to fail and whatever they build government will have to buy it.
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
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?!
What a lot of people need to keep in mind is that this bird takes the place of the F16,
F/A18, F15E/X, A10, Harrier, F22 and F117.
Yes the cost of procurement, development and maintenance is staggering, but keep in mind that it stands in the place of seven separate procurement processes that would eat up trillions of dollars as well.
But in reality, it doesn't
huh? it doesnt replace the f22, it works with the f22. its not replacing the a-10. its too much of a risk to fly low altitude in an enemy occupied area
@@jordanc.3453 A-10 is used in places that don’t have air control and also used for infantry support
F-35 is used for air superiority and controlling airspace
It’s not replacing the f22 or the f117. F117 replacement is the b2. And f22 is actually better then f35 at what it does. F35 while had air superiority in mind, it wasn’t its main goal. It’s maneuverability is behind other supermaneuverable fighter jets
Nothing can replace the A-10s low CAS support. This Tin can plane will bankrupt this country currency…
$1.7T is the entire project, not one plane.
It has many flaws....even revealed by South Korean Air Force.
@@Bond047 All aircraft have “growing pains” in the initial stages of their life. Over 16 nations have ordered the F-35 and if it was bad I don’t think it would be selling.
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.
You realize private companies compete for government contracts, right?
@@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.
“F-35 conducted strikes against IS in Iraq. “
Business Insider: *proceeds to show B-52 strikes on IS
Lol
It’s difficult to get a hold of specific military footage
@@delgermuruntsagaankhuu6951 Yeah some really needs to be classified.
See stealth works :D
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.
How about inflation?
@@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.
We paying all that taxes to an airplane with ejection seat problems. Loll.
Navy should just keep using fa18 super hornet. Worked well
The f-18 super hornet cost the us military 5x more too make tho.
@@logical128 do we need more though? We could probably make so just with the current supply
What people fail to understand is that: 1 trillion involves maintenance, software, operator training, and other costs for its operational life until 2070. No "Legacy"/"Teen Series" fighter development (F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18) has been calculated this way.
The F-35, despite all the Woozle/disinformation effect on the fighter, will be the main face of Western fighter aviation for decades to come.
A-10 Warthog still my fav.
a10 my favorite allies killer :D
Yep... It has a face only a mother could love.... 💘 I love A 10s...
I hear it’s popular with Russian anti-air crews as well
@@eliwatson7936 2K22 goes brrrrt
@@eliwatson7936 lazerpig moment
Surprising how SAAB hasn't advertised their Gripen in the comments yet
l have already seen the SAAB trolls in the comment section. You’re just lucky.
@@angryfinn7737 Why don't you buy a few Gripens, maybe they will go away.
hehe boi
@@derHallen_Ch. No.
I’m always astonished by fighter aircraft development. How do they account for technological change throughout its production timeline? By the time it’s finished, technological advancements in software might be drastically different than from wen it’s development began
Military technology is always decades ahead of its time. With such massive budget they can research areas that are impossible or not worth for any private company. GPS project started in 1973, was released in 78, made public in 83, made mainstream in 2007 and still impressive today, 49 years later. If no one else is researching, the only outcome is you having a new technology besides being from 20 years ago.
Because everything else is 20+ years old already
And there isn't really anything in the F-35 that is going to be outdated, even in another few decades
Being stealthy will always be an advantage, just because it's much easier to hide it in electronic clutter, it will get detected much later than a non stealthy jet, and it will always be an advantage
That’s addressed in the video. It will get software and sensor updates every few years. Also engine and other hardware suite updates throughout it’s 50 year service life. That’s all part of 1.7T dollar projected program cost including projected inflation, R and D, procurement and production, maintenance, training, expected flight time, the whole package. 1.7T spread over 50 years for 2000+ units and keeping them up to date while continuously lowering maintenance cost is a good value for any fighter jet when adjusted for inflation. And don’t forget that isn’t 1.7T that the US will pay for fully, NATO allies are purchasing this jet from the US which subsidizes the cost.
Now specifically how was that cost analysis broken down? I don’t know. I’m not an engineer in the aeronautics, mechanical, software, or electrical field. Was it done accurately? Will it be worth that amount to safeguard the people, ideals, and economies of all NATO countries? No one knows. It hasn’t been 50 years since the development started to add it all up and then attempt to quantify what net economic benefit having this fighter and its capabilities spread all through NATO countries will be vs not having it at all.
Please do an updated piece on this issue with the development of drone fighters
Gotta love the military industrial complex!!!
I love how this stuff is hardly debated but Congress will say our over priced healthcare system is alright
Not really. We needed a replacement.
When Americans engage in a 2+ decade war against insurgents that they then lose, your airframes are going to be worm out. As for American healthcare, the problem isn’t spending, it’s how you’re spending it. The medical system has it’s own version of the MiC. America’s spending has too much waste everywhere.
@@FloofyMinari lol for what?
To fight a bunch of insurgents with 2002 Toyota Tacomas?
@@wingrchy8646 im sure there is way more options than a fleet of the MOST expensive fighter aircraft smh
@@pieceofshitzu2 Mostly to maintain the balance of power and deterrence.
Nobody talks about inflation when it comes to bloated military spending. Imagine investing 1.4T in the American people.
nobody gives af
There wouldn’t be a hospital if we didn’t have a good military most places want us gone lmao
When ww3 breaks out I'm sure the American people will be pretty grateful for their superior military.
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.
@@mrknowitall8663 Do people tell you to shut up a lot?
"mmm yeah ... I'm a defenseless little stealth jet mmm you have to pay meeeee... You have to pay for my defense budget 😩😩"
With a budget that size, why aren't they thinking unconventional, like a real-life, working Quinjet 👍🏾 🖤
I’m not a military pilot, but I used to call in close air support when I was in Special Forces, so my comments on the F-35 come primarily from the ground side of things. I can see the F-35 being a replacement for the F-16 or F-18, but it cannot replace the A-10. The A-10 is a unique aircraft with the ability to loiter and provide CAS in a way that no fighter can do. It’s heavily armored, has a gun that’s absolutely incredible and can carry a massive payload for the purpose of CAS, that’s its sole mission. As for the F-35 being used against ISIS and the Taliban, I don’t see that as a big deal. Both of these forces are fought in asymmetrical warfare, they have little to no aircraft and to use a platform like the F-35 against them is more of a training exercise than anything else, against these forces they can do nothing that the F-16 or F-18 can’t already do. In a symmetrical war, such as a fight against Russia or China I can see this aircraft being a major asset, but I have very limited knowledge when it comes to the role of a fighter aircraft.
Pretty impressive my dude. I can say that I have learnt a thing or two about these fighter jets from your comment.
I doubt we'll ever see a F-35 return home as beat up as many A-10s were. Or offer the level of pilot protection.
The A-10 is built for ground attack, with slow speeds, incredible durability and powerful armament making it perfect for close air support and a beast at air to ground attacks. The F-35 is geared towards being more technologically advanced and multi-purpose, making it a “jack of all trades” to some extent. Each aircraft has a unique role or purpose they were built for, and the A-10 and F-35 should not be compared because of that, let alone have the latter replace the former. Both aircraft are good in their own terms, but that does not simply make one better than the other.
@@deegsupreme3796 A-10 is a tank buster and actually over kill for CAS. Actually all of them mentioned are overkill, f-16 and f-18 included. Which is why the AF is starting a new program looking for a light fighter like turning the t-7 Redhawk trainer or similar jet into a CAS substitute.
a10 is far and above the leader of blue on blue incidents. pilots have been taking binoculars into the plane to try and identity targets. and the gun has got a large enough splash zone in large bursts that it endangers friendly. and the asymmetrically has to be enough that the enemy doesn't have an old zsu-23 that would just shread any slow, low flying, non-stealth planes.
So this explains why my barracks room lights haven’t worked since I was a private.(Camp Lejeune BTW)
"Operating this fleet of plan could cost taxpayers a total of $1.7 Trillion dollars, that's equivalent to the total amount of student debt in America". Speaks lot about a nation's priorities.
We are making the same mistake as the German did in WW2. We are making incredibly complicated and expensive machines that will end up beaten by simpler, mass produced, easy to repair machines.
lol do you even understand how warfare works during exercises F35s were scoring 17 to 0 kill ratios against 4th gen jets , and America has about 200 of them delivered , those alone are more than enough to wipe out over 3000 jets , this is the era of guided missiles the most advanced tech survives, Iraq operated numerous old soviet tanks that got chewed up to bits by advanced british and American tanks with superior targetting systems
150 F-35s have been built this year alone, more than any other modern combat aircraft
@@moonbear2130 and ya know that the enemy could just mass produce anti aircraft weaponry? , dont need another jet to take out another jet
@@taylorgarrett793 easier said than done, modern SAM systems are expensive as well and not nearly as versatile
@@eduwino151 Jas 39 C has a 15 to 1 score against fourth gen fighters.
What news channels are forgetting to mention is that the F-35 program consists of 3 different aircrafts. The F-35A for the Airforce, F-35B for the Marines, and F-35C for the Navy.
A much fair comparison is to combine the R&D and Lifecycle Costs for the F-16, F/A-18, and the Harrier Jumpjet together, adjusted to inflation, then we can see how cost effective the F-35 program really is instead of constantly shitting on it with selective misinformation.
Btw every F-35 variants can do a significantly better job than the legacy aircrafts that they are replacing, bringing in new techs and capabilities with a cheaper price tag, Just ought to mention it
You're definitely right about that! It replaces three entirely different planes as three new, entirely different planes. Not one.
I heccin love the F35. All of 'em!
To be fair, the F-35 barely started its lifecycle so only time will tell if it really is that cost effective in the end.
@@mangatom192 It's showing it already. Finland is set to acquire the F-35, when among the alternatives was the Saab Gripen.
For the technology given, the price tag is a bargain. Why get a non-stealth fighter when you can get a stealth one for the same price, give or take?
with 1,7 trillion they could solve the homeless and extreme poverty in the us instead of wasting money on these stupid planes
@@domitravel795 You can say that about any other military projects or even the military itself, this isn't relevant to what I said, this is a another conversation that I have no energy to partake.
Like I said, the F-35 program will be even more cost effective than the F-16, F/A-18 and the Harrier Jumpjet, so should we turn back time and cancel those programs too?
those jets got me bricked up.
2:25 BEAST
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.
Not to mention just normal economics lol. Inflation factors into all of this as well.
F35 is big joke
F35 is big joke
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
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
@@F4Wildcat yes! Great point. Thanks!
Yeah people seem to think it should start off being as reliable as the F16
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.
And that 1.7 number is the life time costs of the program excluding maintenance and consumables
Do whatever it takes to keep this great country safe.
Freedom!!! 🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅
And this, my friends, is the real reason why we need a steady oil supply.
Funny things is F16V or newer varian can cost $100 million USD, more than 20 million more than F35A.
Turns out modern aircraft are very expensive. Gone are the days when you can churn out 50 P-51’s in a day
@@ericlane3256 well mustang don't have computer at all that time.
@@naturecallakbar1080 that’s my point
Yes. The Rafale and Gripen are actually more expensive per aircraft
“Integrity, transparency and the fight against corruption have to be part of the culture. They have to be taught as fundamental values.”
"They don't see me 8:20"
it seem amusing how most commentators miss the fact that only this fighter jet program cost more than the entire student debt of America.
Gründer Industries: 'Look what Lockheed Martin needs to mimic a fraction of our power!'
The Marine requirement that it be able to have the giant fan in the center for vertical take off really limited the aircraft in so many ways. It's also not suitable for Pacific operations because of fuel and weapons capacity.
For one, it absolutely is capable of operating in the Pacific. But more importantly, the F-35B is less about being an amazing fighter and more about being able to have a fighter at all. You know those Wasp and America class ships? I would be willing to guess that you'd rather have the F-35 B to operate on those rather than the decades old Harrier.
@@Ry_TSG I would rather have had the Marines get their own purpose built aircraft.
@@Ry_TSG I am Indonesian and we were able to detect F35B in Guam from Indonesia lmao. maybe because they dont turn off detectors. but still I think its not that hard to detect F35 with new integrated 3d radar mation. it detect based on movement and motion of air molecule including any form of sound vibration my best friend is a Fighter pilot he told me about it. I notice one of the biggeest arguement by F35 defenders are always that delay reaction. but I disagree in a combat ready situation it would not be in the case. it will work in a sudden unexpected attack but it will not work in an expected attack.
@@rolandgonzales3343 you are correct as someone who lived in pacific Fuel size and weapon capacity does matter. if USA navy intends to defend the vast pacific from country like China. USA most likely will need to have better covrage. and heavy reliance on aircraft carriers, carry a risk.
Nope. F35B for marine already in Japan for several years, no major problem.
That is one badass fighter.
F35 self diagnostic program : "Please, kill me !!" ^^
So, is it reasonable to assume that the 6th gen fighter program will be an even more hot mess?
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
@@jeremymendoza1465 There's gotta be a better way
@@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!
@@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
@@iseytheteethsnake6290 how would they pay the soliders?
“The US military” *first shot is of a British aircraft carrier*
Well done insider, well done...
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.
@@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.
The UK is part of the Joint Strike Fighter program... so?
@@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
@@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.
Had there ever been a plane without cost overruns and delays?
There's a spectrum
I just want to not worry about being in an emergency room all of a sudden and worry more about my hospital bill than my life
Other governments: let's have universal healthcare for our citizens
US government: let's have universal healthcare for our jets
Anyone that wants to pay 3x the income tax and sales tax for "free healthcare" hasn't looked at the actual data of the universal healthcare outcomes. They just read headlines from propaganda outlets. Stay uninformed though 👍
@@Sandlin22 bruh. I'm actually living in a country with universal healthcare. I paid little in income tax and probably 1k in government service taxes (GST) per year The differences between other countries and US is the big companies and the rich have to pay taxes, not get more taxpayers money from the government. Sorry for my shitty grammar.
@@Sandlin22 I'm waiting for you to put up a source for the "3x income tax and sales tax" claim.
No, your ass is not a legit source
Nah I rather pick who I get healthcare from. Also insurance is super cheap, I don’t think I’ve ever had to pay in the US actually.
You can have a large Military and Universal Health coverage. They are not mutually exclusive. Military spending only makes up about 11% of all Federal Spending and 3.7% of our GDP, compared to Russia who spends over 4.0% of its GDP.
I like how you put the cost of $1.7 trilion as if all that money is paid towards an fictional third party entity never to be seen. That money goes on the salary of engineers that maintain, fly and supply the jet. The companies that produce the components, the fuel etc... Almost all that money returns back into the pocket of Uncle Sam, one way or the other...
You'd be foolish to think that less than half of that amount doesn't find itself in the hands of Lockheed's shareholders.
They contributed nothing financially to the design/engineering of the aircraft¹ and yet, but for their "ownership" of the company, they're entitled to a share of the obscene profit the _congressional military industrial complex_ has doled out to them. i.e. publicly funded corporate welfare for profit (a.k.a. "socialism"). And here I thought "socialism" was bad in America.
¹ because this is a public works project in which you, the taxpayer, are paying for every prototype, design feature and change ("improvement") made to the project until the end of its production run.
@@BugJuiceFlavor Yep, do you those investors contribute back to society?
While true, you have to think about opportunity cost as well. What could $1.7 trillion dollars of skilled labour across engineering, operations, R&D do for the healthcare system?
@@andrewwong7617 Exactly... Imagine what that money could do to USA infraestructura, education, healthcare and more...
@@MelioraCogito I sure haven’t become a trillionaire off my Lockheed stock
Just shows how lucrative conflict is for business!
Years behind schedule, over run with costs and problems. Yup that sounds right. 🇺🇲
The cost overruns really come down to mismanagement. Its a great plane
I can’t say this with certainty, but I would imagine that part of the cost overruns and the drive for this aircraft to achieve so much comes down to politicians, since I would bet that the manufacture of the various systems contained within it are spread around a lot of different congressional districts, and no congressman wants to cut a program that’s providing jobs in their district.
it has no role. it's payload is small compared to other jets. what is it's purpose? its not a dogfighter, not a bomber?
@@patricklarry6645 Does it have a gun at all? I never thought about dogfighting in particular, just general air to air combat.
@@RobinP556 it does have a gun and has the "high alpha" flight characteristics of the f-18 but also more thrust. It can dogfight just fine but no pilot worth his salt would ever purposely engage in dogfighting.
@@patricklarry6645 I know it's particularly good at SEAD. That's why in the video, they called it the one to kick the door open.
The official cost of the Royal Navy’s f35b’s is £100m, ($135m) but the British ministry of defence’s internal accounts figures state £170m ($230) each. Or twice what Boeing and the politicians are claiming😳
These numbers explain why the UK have reduced the f35b purchases from the proposed 148 down to 50.
Don’t put Boeing into this. The F-35 programme is managed and manufactured by Lockheed Martin and not Boeing. Boeing had nothing to do with this at all.
@@seananlinjunxi868 “nothing to do with this at all” buddy you clearly don’t know anything bout Fat Amy. A very high percentage of each F-35 is built by Boeing.
the UK should use non-stealth aircraft instead of the F-35, and equivalent the the US's F/A-18's or F-15's
The reason the numbers are being cut is because the penny pinchers are winning vs what the military needs actually are.
I believe that the confusion is because one group is using the flyaway or per jet cost with the program cost divided by number of jets expected to be purchased. Flyaway costs is your "out the door" price tag similar to buying a car. Program costs account for the gas, oil changes, tires, bombs, training, and everything else needed over the years of ownership. Thus the difference in accounting numbers.
The US has the same problem with different numbers too. This program mentions $78 Million for the F-35A and two higher numbers for the B and C models. If we divide the program cost of $1.7 Trillion by 2500 jets we get $680 Million per jet. Again each jet is expected to fly some 10,000 hours each with the fleet staying in service over 50 years. So, what inflation numbers you decide to use can grossly change this number every time you recalculate it.
@@Ooog__ Or just build our own, we are more than capable and have created experimental 5th gen jets.
i think no “controversy “ is here. no civilian gets a choice on our equipment.
That f35 pilot sounds very confident when he says I'm stealth to other planes.
Just imagine how many infrastructure could’ve been developed for this price.
Imagine what China would do to the Asian pacific or Russia do to smaller states on its boarder without the U.S military spending. WW1 happened cause the world was even in regards to the military, WW2 happened cause the wrong nation advanced its military past the nations around it.
If the west stops spending on the military it will shift the balance of power.
@@boratb258 I'm imagining what the USA has been doing in the Middle East. Millions dead for nothing.
@@johnny_eth
It keep the status quo