The money spent of the F35 seems like a huge waste but we really don't understand what we actually payed for. They have solved all the initial problems with the design and the per unit cost for the current block of planes is cheaper than a new F15. Plus the technology developed for F35 is all over the new B21 Raider from the engines to avionics, radars, controls ect.. Making the B21 come in at a fraction of the cost of the B2 and also reducing the cost of maintaining the machines through the lifetime of the system. Also the money spent on F35 includes the cost of maintaining them for life which most people don't know.
Seriously. The only real issue with the F-35 is that it went WAAAY over budget. but at this point the money is spent, the aircraft is excellent, and there is little to no reason not to see it through. The program had some major hurdles, but said issues are behind us at this point.
@@Trindify found the hater. I don't care where my wepons come from. A Chinese SKS. Yugo Ak. America ar15. I shill for no one. F35 is the best most successful fighter in its generation. And I like tullammo as much as freedom munitions.
It's $1 trillion over the entire 60 year planned lifespan. $1 trillion has not already been spent. That's the problem with only reading headlines. It's like saying a baby costs $5 million. Sounds expensive until it's noted that the price includes all of the costs through a 70+ year lifespan.
@@musoseven8218 it costs 50% cheaper than european competitors. it is cheaper than a new F-15, F-16 and F-18 while having significantly more capabilities. How is it overpriced and struggling? Did you know the F-15 program costs 1.5 trillion and couting? why arent you bitching about that aircraft?
I don't think the F-35 is going to replace those platforms, with exceptions for like the Harrier and A10. I think it's more or less just going to work alongside them
@@mr.fighterbomber3345 A-10 is highly specific, the closest thing on earth to a flying tank, imo. For what the US pulled off with the F35, it's an amazing step in the right direction, imo. But upon completion, that role isn't for this plane. But good news, having such a superior AS plane, means the A-10's successor can get even more specialized.
@@marsmotion Absolutely and it is necessary for the simple fact that you need more than one signature out there in the skies. Plus anyone needs to take an account with our systems work directly and indirectly Innamission include Drones and who knows what other type of systems involved. Also other systems that we do not know about. PS food for thought we are not talking about Turkish drones that is nothing more than just a sidekick to confuse Our adversaries. this conflict in Europe shows that the Russians cannot stop any target coming into there air Space. And it is not a slow moving drone or .09 tomb cruise missile. They are vulnerable for a first strike without a response. This is real more than virtual reality.
The F-14 had the same problems as the F-35, if not more. If you look at articles around the time the F-14 was released you’ll see that it had a rough start and end, but many will claim with their dying breath that it was one of the best dog fighters.
The Reformer movement had this weird tendency to love older stuff, back when the F-14 and F-15 were new they used the exact same arguments against them as they're now using against the F-35. It's a very funny cycle to watch.
A friend is a Viper pilot who got a chance to fight against F-35s. He wasn't terribly impressed with the F-35's maneuvering capability, but one thing really opened his eyes: on two occasions when he was briefly in position for gun shots, his gunsight couldn't "see" an F-35 that was filling the windscreen. The stealth is, evidently, real.
The whole idea is that stealth fighters make dogfighting redundant so it doesn't matter how 'deficient' it is at manoeuvring, these days it's about stealth and lethality beyond visual range.
The F-22 actually has a smaller RCS than F-35 and is still the stealthiest fighter on earth. That said, the F-35 can use a helmet mounted display that vastly improves upon the HUD that is still in the F-22. It has cost a fortune, like most state of the art aviation projects have always done, and the issues it has had in development are no worse than most past aircraft, but being in the digital age, every step the program takes is relentlessly scrutinized. To say nothing of the extreme complexity involved in any innovation on the cutting edge of aircraft design in the modern age dwarfs what came in the past. The plane is here to stay and will likely serve its owners well. Once people truly see the F-35C in full action, they likely won't be quite so critical of its agility too..
It costs less per unit than an updated 1970's F-15. Don't see what people are bitching about... And it will fuck up any aircraft outside an F-22, people just don't know what they're talking about.
@@Calzaghe83 i mean in this hypothetical fight between an F-22 and an F-35, sure the F-22 wins in a one on one dogfight (cus the F-22 was specifically designed as an air superiority fighter) but you can practically buy two F-35 for the price of one F-22 lmao and that's infinitely better despite the F-22 being SLIGHTLY better at shooting down other planes
@@Lardum why would the F22 win? Agility is meant for old fighters. The F35 doesnt need to be that agile as its the first fighter that doesnt need to point its nose to get a lock. A F35 pilot can lock and shoot anything 360 degrees. (Unless using board cannon). And yes, for evading incoming missiles a bit of agility is important and thats why it is pretty agile.
@@the_dude182 the F-22 is stealthier than the F-35. It was afterall specifically designed to be an air superiority fighter. It's really good at it, it just is also really expensive
If you're already familiar and/or don't need another history lesson on the JSF beginnings, the topic of this video starts at 5:30 mins, or at 9:55 for the specific issue this episode is trying to point out. But nothing new here. All the points highlighted have already been covered in a plethora of previous videos criticising the F-35. This is just a recycling of old topics. Must be a slow news day.
Yeah, and a lot of them have been addressed, or debunked due to the "criticisms" coming from testing against the early pre-release fighters and forcing it to test without its full EWS functional. A lot of "Nope" in this video.
Not true the F-35 is just a stealth bomber capable of landing on Aircraft carrier that's it it's not a very maneuverable nor very good plane for air superiority and interceptor role, It still is way inferior to other design like the Rafale in almost all role except for stealth bombing while being is much cheaper.
Remember... that price figure is not development expense, it's what the F-35 is expected to cost over the airplane's life span in service, NOT all up front at once. Today, an F-35 costs about the same as a modern commercial airliner.
The initial statement in the video is false. The F-35 was designed as an advanced multirole fighter that combined as many capabilities as possible into a stealthy package. The whole thing was a compromise...a good one, but a compromise nonetheless. 6:10 The F-16 has been published to be significantly faster than the F-35. According to multiple sources the F-16C/D has a top speed of Mach 2 at 40k feet, while the F-35's have a top speed of Mach 1.6. The military has always been ambiguous about the performance data they publish, so it is hard to be certain what the exact top speeds actually are. For example, the F-16C/D has a published top speed of 1500MPH or Mach 2 at 40k feet. The problem is that 1500MPH at 40K feet is in fact Mach 2.25. In the Case of the F-35, Lockheed published a Mach number of 1.6, followed by (~1200 mph). The major confusion has to do with the way the speed of sound is calculated. The Mach number for a given MPH will change depending on the altitude. I am at the limits of my high school science knowledge here, but I believe it has to do with air viscosity and the way sound waves transfer through a more dense gaseous medium...Like how banging rocks together can be heard for greater distances underwater. I'm no expert on the science though. Regardless of the underlying scientific principles, or the games of the military aviation industry, the statement that the F-35 is faster than the F-16 is patently false.
@@corkingcoggo8375 🤣🤣🤣🤣 best in the world according to who again? Come back with facts before you look like an idiot. The 22, 15, 16, and 18 own this plane by a mile
She had teething problems. But she is all fangs now. Truly an amazing piece of tech. Setting the bar is never easy and failures are expected along the way.
I'm getting really tired by takes on the f35 by people who know absolutely nothing about it. You could ask any fighter pilot, and even they wouldn't know much more unless they have access to restricted documents. Budgetary issues aside, I'm willing to bet some people in the government are really pleased by all the talk about the failings of fat Amy. It's a big boon for the U.S if everyone thinks the plane isn't very good.
@@VikingTeddy I don't agree. When Denmark had to choose a replacement for their F16s, Boeing advertised their F18 on Danish busstops. They had some guy argue against the F35 on national televison. He claimed that stealth was a fraud. So I don't think American government wants potential customers to disregard the F35.
@@LarsAgerbk The customers would be well informed. It's the regular dummies like us that they're fine with spreading misinformation. Even if say, the Chinese have a good understanding of the capabilities through espionage, there will still be enough brass among them who take the criticism at face value. Especially when it reinforces what they want to believe. we've seen how dumb some people can be, even in high positions. Granted, it might not be a significant advantage, but every little bit you know?
@@josephthomas3712 Yeah, 20,000 Chinese drones. Planes are cool and all, but what is any plane no matter how advanced going to do when the skies are literally full of drones with missiles?
Such a state of the art aircraft is bound to have 'teething problems', that's only natural. Uncle Sam's decision to put all its eggs in one basket made the F-35 a project too big to fail, meaning that no matter the problems, a solution will always be found. So the future looks bright for this bird, as shown by the increasing number of countries joining the Lightning II community.
I respond back here again. No doubt the F16 is a shit hot fighter even this long after it’s inception. Would you expect less from the fighter mafia. Most people don’t realize how groundbreaking it was. Well at least the people who didn’t have to face it. But in truth it’s a bit long in the tooth. It’s concept was so different from what the US Military complex wanted. Small, lightweight, power to weight ratio beyond belief. Fly by wire, ergonomically state of the art. Fact is no other world power had a clue how to do it. Boyd knew his shit. That is why it has performed so well for so long. We need another Boyd.
The $1 Trillion price tag is always extremely misleading as that's the total cost of for the entire fleet of nearly 2000 aircraft, including training, maintenance, spare parts, etc for 50 years. The projected cost of simply maintaining the current fleet of F-16s and F-18s for the same time frame was nearly double that.
That is the total cost for project before commissioned units delivered, not the maintenance and upgrades necessary for specific deployments. It does NOT cover operational costs as you suggest. You are being disingenuous.
If I'm not mistaken a long time ago the same problems plagued the F111 program, a new generation of aircraft that went from a problem to a fantastic platform. And was cutting edge.
Yet another "multi-role" plane nobody asked for or wanted, that kept getting its specifications changed. The Navy asked for and got its swing-wing F-14, which fit its purposes, and was developed in less time. All planes have teething problems, that's why prototypes are tested, and early versions shouldn't be made in large number. Later versions fix the bugs and provide more functions. However, for the F-35, every airframe gets retrofitted with every revision and upgrade. That's the most-expensive way possible. And the F-35 is 3 distinct, different planes that just look a lot alike. The Navy doesn't even want theirs -- a huge waste of development costs. It would have been much much cheaper, quicker, and the end-products would have been much closer to each branch's needs, had several totally different planes been developed independently. It's almost as if the whole program was concocted to disguise manufacture and upkeep of a super-expensive speciality plane for Israel.
The F-35 was more of a research concept that made it into production. The F-35 was the best it could be at the time of production, but I feel this research will give us the upper hand on developing the sixth and seventh generation of stealth fighters. If they don’t already exist that is😉 Edit:Typo
IMO the biggest take-away from the JSF program was that it could never live up to expectations. The idea was a common platform would produce cost savings, but the reality is that each participant wanted a unique solution, and trying to satisfy a diverse sets of needs in one platform is expensive and ultimately unsatisfying. So, never forget and never again.
Every weapons platform program is a moonshot, in budget, schedule, predicted quantity, and capabilities. And so, for each one of them there’s a ton of articles saying they fell short, cost too much, had teething issues, were a dud, etc. Cause and effect. Most of the journalists have absolutely no clue what they’re writing about, use irrelevant metrics, or just perceived the goals to be the realities. Could an F-18 shoot down an F35? Sure. Can a Swedish diesel sub sink a US carrier? It has torpedoes. Why not? Could you disable a modern high tech security system, blindfolded? If you’re sitting next to the computer that runs it, absolutely. Will any of those things every be in a position to do that stuff? Extremely unlikely. Nobody can predict the cost of building what has never been built. Or the challenges that will come along the way. There’s what we ask for, and what we get. The US got a dominating, multi role fighter that fills its position in the fleet brilliantly. Which is exactly what they paid for.
@@sinisterknight9696 A specific example is VSTOL. Is this a useful feature? Yeah. Does every Air Force fighter need it? No. Do you compromise the airframe and range by having support for this feature? Yeah. Build some VSTOL platforms for the Marines. Build a long-distance fighter for the Air Force. Build a lighter STOL for the Navy. Just don't force them to be built in one air frame by one contractor on one schedule under one budget. Give each service the freedom and responsibility to order what they want on their own budget and schedule. Hopefully, this will result in having multiple consortia building planes instead of fostering a dependence on a sole too-big-to-fail supplier.
Just understand. It was an attempt to pull NATO together before this latest war started. Multi role jets will never do everything all the time. Too many compromises. Expense is so political it doesn’t reflect reality. How many years have they complained the F35 was over budget? Guess what you can now buy an F35 cheaper than most 4 generation fighters. It pays to keep the production lines going.!
Reminds me of the issues with the F-111. It was supposed to be a plane that met the needs of the Navy and Air Force, but in the end only worked for the Air Force.
Probably not but it might be about the Saab Gripen that is twice the fighter for half the price. Admittedly, it does not have stealth but how long before techniques are developed to negate that advantage?
heres a couple things the f-35 has going for it: most advanced sensors, stealth (only other american stealth plane is f-22), multirole (something the f-22 doesn't have as stated in the video), and while it can't outrun or out manouver, i doubt you will be dogfighting with a jet thats past the horizon. another thing is that america doesn't need to *only* use one plane, they can send in multiple, allowing the f-35 to act like a more mobile awacs. another thing it has going for it is that its enemys aren't all that strong as people make them out to be. the su57 might as well be some little timmy's drawing since russia has less su-57s than canada does tanks
Just remember that often tech defeats tech. In fact, that's the point. It's not at all unreasonable to see someone find a way to defeat the F35's stealth, and missiles, and push into dog-fight. Maybe not next year, maybe not in 5 years. But I guarantee you there are people paid to think about this in other places.
@Dark Skies... The F-35 isn't less maneuverable then the F-22 both planes by physically limited by Pilot G lock not by the airframe. Also instead of using thrust vectoring like on the F-22 the engineers maximized the pitching moment from the all moving horizontal stabilizers by putting them as far aft of the C of G as physically possible. It turns out using big horizontal stabilizers is much lighter then thrust vectoring engines.
It is less maneuverable than the F-22. There is a reason F-35 pilots gave it the name "Fat Amy". It plays a different role than the F-22 and is a fantastic jet in its own respects.
I am an idiot. But I’d think the once you hit the G limit for the pilot in both planes that there are many more factors that determine it’s ability to maneuver. Like how quick it reacts or it’s ability to keep up airspeed ect.
@@_Addi_ I have to agree, F-22 takes it in a gun-sight fight. At least in daylight, with decent visibility. But if it has missiles, anything near the F-35 is completely xxxxed. Anything the pilot looks at, is in grave peril, and his helmet display system has everything marked and allows him to see through the plane. Even in a gun fight, at night the 360 degree EOTS + HMDS beats the hell out of the night vision goggles other planes use. And an F-35 is more likely to spot an F-22 first, despite the former's extra-low RCS. It would be an interesting game of cat & mouse, but the 35 has a strong advantage in sensor suite, situational awareness, and the IR stealth arena.
kathrynck Idk, I think it would be a fairly even fight between an F-22 and an F-35 with missiles. At night, the F-35 would probably have the upper hand though. Guns to guns at night, I would probably give it to the F-22 7 times out of 10.
Everyone talks about how it will loose in a dogfight. Imagine a feild 500 yards long. 1 man has a knife, 1 man has a rifle. The guy with the knife would win in a knife fight, but the guy with the rifle isn't in a knife fight. The man with the rifle will win. The f35 will kill its enemy long b4 it finds itself in a dog fight.
Once upon a time, a short story by Arthur C. Clarke titled, "Superiority" was required reading by MIT students as well as in the military colleges. It depicts an arms race during an interstellar war. It shows the side which is more technologically advanced being defeated, despite its apparent superiority, because of its willingness to discard old technology for the bells, whistles, and flashiness of the new. Meanwhile, the enemy steadily built up a far larger arsenal of weapons that while more primitive were also more reliable. In our current situation you then have to take into account the cost of each aircraft and there will inevitably be reluctance to utilize the weapon simply because of it's cost and the threat of it being destroyed. Basically it comes down to numbers.....300 older aircraft armed with 8 missiles each, engaging 100 newer aircraft armed with 10 missiles each, and the newer aircraft still lose. A lesson the Germans learned in the armored battle of Kursk, where the Soviets outnumbered them in tanks 2 to 1.
In this case around 3k F-35s are planned to be built - far more jets than the evil empire in the east has, and these are just F-35s, with thousands of other fighter aircraft parallel in service in several Nato air forces
@@simonm1447 well the problem with your point is planned production. What is planned doesn't always happen. The F-22 planned production run was 750 aircraft and that got cut to 187, The B-2 original planned production run was to be 132 aircraft then got cut to 21. The B-1 bomber production run was supposed to be 244 aircraft then got cancelled then restored but only 100 were built. The US Navy's F-14D and A-6F programs were supposed to produce several hundred aircraft each but only 55 F-14Ds were built and the A-6F got cancelled.
@@simonm1447 All true. But part of the selling point for the F35 was the interchangeability of parts between the different models. What was supposed to be around 70-80% interchangeability in reality is only around 20-25%. Thus increasing costs for parts and serviceability.
@@suflanker45 in the case of the B-2 and the F-22 high production numbers were planned during cold war. After the downfall of the USSR the B-2 numbers were reduced to a minimum, more or less the same happened with the F-22. Both were not exported. At the moment we are sliding into a new cold war (with China and russia), so it's unlikely production numbers will be cut, another difference of the F-35 is it's an export aircraft too and other air forces are deploying them around the world. Most F-35s will be A models, so this variant will be common and not that expensive to maintain, and a successor of many F-16s in different air forces
@@simonm1447 you're forgetting about economics. The US and European economies are nosediving. Their governments have piled up massive debts that are so high they can only pay the interest on their debt and those interest payments are getting higher as they pile up more debt and eats into their overall budget. The European governments have also gutted their defense budgets to pay for all the migrants flooded across the continent right now. I highly doubt 3k plus F-35s will be built.
Problems are common during development of new aerospace products. I remember reports for years that the Osprey was a dud. It turned out to be a fine aircraft.
Uh, no. It's a unique capability that is invaluable, but it's operating cost, reliability, and poor survivability is definitely not on par with calling it a "fine" aircraft
The Osprey is such an excellent aircraft that is why it just had a full fleet grounding lifted.. and the reason for the crash that grounded them is still unknown. Its a flying disaster about to happen at any time.
@@denniswhite166 its one of the USAFs largest air combat exercise, think 6 2 week near nonstop air wars where the US and allies across the world get together and have the closest thing to a shooting war we can. Pilots go through every air combat situation they can think of against the fucking crazy cricket people who fly the aggressor squadrons aka some of our best pilots.
The funniest thing is the F-35 suppose to cut the cost down, compared to the F-22, and ended to be way more expensive ( corruption and incompetence) and be the worst, useless, jet-fighter ever.
That the program is more than twenty years old and they still haven't finished the research and development stage yet is a great example of trying to put too many eggs into a basket from the start. The ORIGINAL program was a study to develop a supersonic stealthy VSTOL aircraft to replace the Harriers used by the UK, USMC, Italy, Spain, and probably India. There was a seperate study going on for a lightweight land based fighter that then got merged into it with the ridiculous theory that removing the vertical lift equipment from the original plane would make room for more fuel and internal weapons and avionics for a land based version and would be a cheap and easy change to make. This btw is why the F-35A and B are the same dimensions externally. Then the Navy had a requirement for a stealthy CTOL carrier aircraft after the failure of the A-12 Avenger II program and hey let's just tack that onto the JSF also. We'll just put on a stronger tailhook, a towbar on the nose gear, and make the wings bigger.... no big deal....right ?
100%, they should have had 2 programs -- one to replace harrier and another to replace F-16 and F-18. And if they wanted something to replace A-10 and take the role of A-12, they should have developed yet another plane
@@BobSmith-jy6oh Certainly more than one program, but it would be possible to actually retire F-16s, F-18s and A-10s, and not spend money on their modernization. Altogether it wouldn't be much more expensive, but would drastically increase US capabilities.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a G version, a G as in Growler version for electronic warfare IE jamming etc. I hear they might already have some capability but I could see a dedicated version for it.
@@saltyfloridaman7163 they're producing a next generation pod specifically for the Growlers that's even more advanced. The Growler can jam multiple directions and objects because it has multiple pods. The next generation jamming pods can also jam low frequency radars now too.
The logistics, the methods, the know how, and the people, that build and make this aircraft able to fly, blows my mind. It's incomprehensible to me. Just watching them testing the engine, watching all its little moving parts.
Yes it had bad teething problems. Mostly due to the "B" version. But when you look at the capabilities of the fighter now with the blk 4 version being upgraded too, its impact on air warfare is over whelming. Theres a reason everybody wants the F-35 and why so many countries are lining up to buy it.
The F-35's biggest flaw is trying to fit 3 completely different aircraft into a single airframe. Something that should have been obvious to anyone familiar with the development of the F-111 Aardvark
So basically the F-35 is a stealthy F-16 and Hornet performance combined that has better instantaneous aoa and sustained turn rate, faster acceleration, greater payload than both, Radar and IR stealth, EW performance greater than a Growler, yet you're saying it's flawed? The F-35B was designed to incorporate STOVL capabilities like the Harrier into the blended F-16 and Hornet multirole fighter performance, meanwhile the F-35C is a better super hornet that can dogfight better. So please tell me where the F-35 is flawed as an Air Dominance fighter? It's absolutely crushes any nato fighter at operation red flag dogfights with a 20-1 win loss against the F-16, F-15, F/A-18 Hornet, Eurofighter, and any other fighter that took part other than the F-22.
The F-111 was a total failure for the Navy to be sure. Some of the later models of the USAF F-111 were a good solid plane. I worked on D models and the F models.
In the long run, the YF-32 in the USAF & NAVY versions may have been the better way to go. The F-35B for the USMC Missions would have dramatically lowered its price.
This aircraft is largely designed for one thing: kicking down a peer enemy's front door on day one of any conflict. It was bound to have issues getting towards full capability. Some of the finest, longest-serving combat aircraft in history have had flaws to start with. The British Hawker Hunter being a good example. The F-35 also has another great thing going for it, beyond its inherent capabilities: sheer weight of numbers. These aircraft are being bought by free nations right around the world, with the UK being a tier 1 partner alongside the US.
I came here to say this. It is so crazy loud. I saw it at an air show and couldn't believe how loud it was. It may not show up on radar screens, but you will still know it's there.
I dunno... ;-) Ever stand close to an F-14 taking off with full burner? I used to think they were designed specifically to make noise. Or have a Harrier in slow hover approach fly directly over you at 200 ft? Maybe I should backtrack... lemme change the loudest to that Harrier if it's close. F-15s are kinda loud too if you're standing a couple hundred feet diagonally behind one at full burner. You can feel it as well as hear it. Oh hell... they're all loud. lol!
When I was in Cyprus in 2006 back when Lebanon was shooting rockets into Israel, I was there as part of a task force to fly Marines in and out of embassy in Lebanon. The USAF had U-2 spy planes there. That is still the loudest noise I have ever heard and I used to have F-16’s take off next to me with full afterburner in Balad, Iraq (LSA Anaconda)
The F-35 A, B and C should really be called the F-35, F-36 and F-37. Every time the Pentagon wants a 'Swiss Army Knife' aircraft, this is what happens. They never learn.
There are already Swiss army aircraft flying. 4th gen aircraft like the f-16 and f-18 are currently very competent multi role fighters. Want proof? Look at the gulf war
F35 is a dog. Any 1980s fighter will beat it in ACM visual range. It's reduced radar reflection will allow it to get a shot off first outside visual range. But this works on aircraft targeting radars not ground based C band. It is a compromise due to VTOL. It is almost a full Mach slower than the F15. The wing loading is very high and it's energy maneuverability plot would demonstrate its weaknesses to older aircraft. Aerodynamics and engine technology has not seen great improvement since 1970s. Sr71 and 747 were designed in the 60s with sliderules. The biggest problem other than its design is production. Typically you build 4 flight test aircraft and put them through a flight test program before you go in to production. The F35 was concurrent engineering and flight test. They were in serial production during flight test. It was crazy. I used to get the annual review of technical problems. Everything from the helmet being too heavy providing info overload to pilots to its gun being off center yawing the aircraft off target when fired. Build the F15s and keep some F35s for special missions.
I usually enjoy your content, but this video is nothing but pathetic clickbait. There is nothing "secret" about the F-35 development or its costs. What you end up with is one of the arguably best multi-role fighters in the world.
Not true the F-35 is just a stealth bomber capable of landing on Aircraft carrier that's it it's not a very maneuverable nor very good plane for air superiority and interceptor role, It still is way inferior to other design like the Rafale in almost all role except for stealth bombing while being is much cheaper.
@@ommsterlitz1805 weird that all the countries involved in the f-35 program haven't dropped out bccause of all the problems and are instead buying more . Even Germany, burned badly by Lockheed in the 60s with the f-104 starfighter is buying them.
@@jthunders Every nato country that participated developement are ordering f35 as per original contract they signed decades ago. That does not mean f35 is good or bad.
If you believe the data from the CCP the J-20 is better in at least some respects, of course believing what the CCP says about their own stuff is foolish, but it does look better than the F-35 in my opinion.
@@MrJC1 Congratulations, you are not a fool. If there's any government I trust less than the Chinese it's probably the North Korean one, but they're basically a joke anyways.
I first read about it in one of Tom Clancy's non fiction books back in 95. I remember the discussion about how it was supposed to be the "budget" fighter to go along with the F-22. How times have changed.
Call me pedantic but when I'm hearing "F-22", I don't want to be looking at a single engine fighter. Same same, when the narrator says "F-35", I would like the video to show that plane. Dark Skies is far from the worst offender with this problem, raising my expectations. Thanks for what you do!
People forget that it's not a dogfighter. It's a strike aircraft. The F-22 is the dogfighter in the house, supplementing the F-15. That said, the F-35 is still able to move around if it has to.
f-22 is not a dogfighter, it stays hidden from enemy planes and launches missiles at them without them knowing until it's too late, dogfighting is a thing of the past really
@@ericwilson2923 Excuse me... if it's not a dogfighter, then why does the F-22 have a gun (M-61 20mm) and an A-A gunsight? It also carries AIM-9 missiles, which are relatively close contact weapons usually shot at an enemy that you are trying to chase down. The F-22 has an enhanced agility airframe and vectored thrust engines. All these are what's expected to be found on a... (wait for it) ...dogfighter. It does carry long range standoff weapons as well, sure... But that old "dogfighting is obsolete" strategy had already turned around and bit the USAF on its ass once before when they started fielding F-4 Phantoms in 'Nam without a gun, believing air to air missiles were the answer to aerial combat. FAIL. Then they had to backtrack and start hanging externally mounted gun pods under the airplanes so it could more effectively defend itself in the same dogfights that had been deemed obsolete by generals flying desks in the Pentagon. Later production Phantoms all had guns again. And that is why the F-22 has a gun and an air-to-air-gunsight. Because it is a dogfighter that has additional operational capabilities.
What a great thumbnail,look at the cost of theB29 it cost more than the bomb,they had magnesium fires in the engines they couldn’t but out, but they went forward with it , but 25 years is long time maybe the aliens 👽 will have to help (sorry couldn’t help it )
“Concurrency”… You can’t really talk about the development of the F-35 without even mention it. It was one of the most controversial and most discussed part of the whole project and construction All the best to everyone
The war in Ukraine might actually be the F-35's saving grace. Before it, most allies stepped down over the years on the numbers they were planning to buy. But that trend will likely be reversed now, which is important for keeping the cost healthy.
It honestly was. Half the countries that have ordered the F-35 in recent times are European counties that weren’t even part of the original JSF program: Germany, Belgium, Finland, Poland and others.
It is prohibitively expensive n should be an expensive luxury hardware for any military. Many would be wise to go with cheaper alternatives like the French rafale or even the J20 or su 57.
@@osuk1 Actually the Rafale is $37 million more per plane than the F-35. Because the F-35 is manufactured more for more customers, that drives down its price significantly
My friend in the pub fat Dave says it can go up against any fighter except a Sopworth Camel. And he should know he's a london cabbie. He also has an enlarged prostate and high blood pressure.
One minor thing, the naming. Yes, it was named after the Lockheed Lightning, but the English Electric Lightning as well. As the UK are a significant partner in the Project, it was agreed by both countries to name the F-35 Lightning II as a homage to both original Lightnings, not just the Lockheed one.
Funny how they cancelled f22 production because of costs, yet due to cost overruns and accidents, the f35 more than likely will in the long run cost even more and be less capable. Politics and cronyism. Remember Dick Jones' line about ed209 in Robocop, "who cares if it works"
They can sell the F-35 abroad to recoup a lot of costs, the F-22s they have are more than enough for the current air-to-air situation they're in (they're not in one).
There is A LOT that goes into making an aircraft capable of taking off/landing on a carrier. The F-22 was made to replace the F-15, so there was little to no thought of making it carrier capable. There was an inquiry, I believe in the 90's, to make a carrier version of the F-22, but it would've had to drastically change the airframe even to a point of sacrificing some stealth and basically creating a new aircraft. It was more practical to start over, designing with carrier capability in mind.
@@BobSmith-jy6oh They've had a bunch of aircraft that were made for both navy and air force. They did it with the F111 and the F4. They had a carrier based F16 prototype called the Model 1600 didn't make it to production. You're right it takes a lot, but it's definitely possible.
Carrier aircraft are very different -they have a far stronger landing gear -they often have folding wingtips -they have a reinforced fuselage -they are made of more corrosion resistant metals, also their engines You end up with a more or less new aircraft, if you don't make it in this way from beginning on
@@mattuw82 the F-111 carrier variant was essentialy a different airplane, and the F-4 started as a Navy fighter. It's much easier to "de-navalize" an aircraft than it is to navalize one.
A naval version was planned but it was essentially a whole new airframe because it was going to be a swing wing design like the F-14. However cost over runs forced the DOD to cancel the naval version as well as a two seat Air Force version.
Well, the development, yeah. Acquisition is fine. Unit cost is 78-105 m depending on model, which is frankly fantastic. Per hour flight costs are modestly high, but less than half that of the F-22.
@@kathrynck yeah acquisition isnt terrible, but its certainly a bit complex. and as for unit cost, youre right, what's not to love? its just half the cost of a brand new F14 Tomcat, while being a powerful little package
Imagine if all of the money that nations have collectively spent on military, could have been put together to further our development as a species. We're truly simultaneously the most amazing, yet the most pathetic species on the planet.
Same here. These videos are so full if errors and junk it's pitiful. They think flashy video and a horribly stiff narration makes it great. Only dumb suckers think so.
I have watched a lot of what this site has to offer. Take it with a grain of salt. Often times either the operational specifications are incorrect or displayed video doesn’t match historical fact. But if you ignore that there is some really good video.
No what I am saying is that these guys try to do a video. Whoever their editors are have little to no love for the topic. I would never for example show you a video of a Hellcat and claim it shot down so many zeros at midway. I also wouldn’t make a claim that the F22 (a 30 year old aircraft) has better technology than an F35
So many people make the same criticism about how “video doesn’t match historical fact,” I guess they think they’re the first to say it.” However in the About section of the channel it states that sometimes video that lines up exactly with the narration is hard to come by, so they substitute video that’s roughly similar.
I was using that as an example. I am an aerospace person. I will put it that way. 62 years old, took care of a lot of different aircraft over the years. Also a big history buff. Many of the the aircraft you have profiled I have actually put my hands on. I am just saying double check your research. You lose credibility when you don’t.
Agreed, but it's in limited numbers, production machinery scrapped, and getting physically old. We should be into the C and D models by now. When the next big shooting war comes (Against China most likely) we will sorely miss all those unbuilt F-22 Raptors.
F-22 is the best Air to Air system in the world. BUT it is already showing it's age. It can't really be upgraded, so it's shelf life is already pretty well known.
This click bait title was enough for me to unsubscribe. Finally. Just like every other fighter in the universe, the f-35 program is still undergoing constant upgrades. Think about how the F-16 is on its block 70+ upgrade program (most USAF F 16s are actually sitting somewhere around block 50 to 60, because f-35 was on the horizon so no need to upgrade) f-35 is just now entered block 4. The f-35 program will cost near or exceed 1 trillion over the next 40 to 50 years, the US GDP in 2022 alone is estimated to be $20 to $25 trillion. I'm not trying to justify the costs but it's useless to fear-monger over the costs. I've also seen people on here talk about how bad the f-35 is and it's just not true. Every recent red flag exercise has shown that the f-35 is an incredible platform. And also having spoken to several actual f-35 pilots as well as f16 aggressor pilots who practice against f-35s all atest that the f-35 is far and away a great fighter jet. I'm really just tired of the fake news on this UA-cam channel.
I would suspect that all countries that develop military aircraft, especially fighters, would if put on the spot admit their countries frontline fighters have faults and design errors too… there’s been many. Anyway, isn’t this title wrong? It can’t be‘secret’ as we’ve known about these problems for many years now 🤣
While you thank everyone for watching I wanna thank you for making your videos on every channel, as they are always excellent and cover so much without going into insane over 2 hours plus each video would be if you covered them in as much depth as I'm sure all the research done for each 10-15 video probably gives you enough information to make a 2 hour long video at the shortest So again while you thank us for watching, thank you for making so many videos with so much information in just the 10-15 each video is Never stop making videos! Each one is always amazing!
Just remember the F16 had a dreadful beginning, and i reckon if the internet was around back when the F16 was being developed there probably would have been similar videos on it's issues. All new tech is going to have problems, they just cost more to rectify now days.
Give it 10-15 years, when the Pacific heats up again. As soon a the J20 paper dragons start falling out of the sky every penny spent on the F35 will make sense.
It was NOT, "Designed to be the pinnacle of modern aerial combat". But still has a 20:1 kill ratio in ACM. With Today's HOBS, LOAL, air to air weapons, maneuverability is rather moot. Its been deployed to penetrate, successfully into iranian airspace to map out their underground missile bases without the iranians knowing it was there. No modern airship is without teething problems, from the sensitivity of the F 16's fly by wire input, to the Tomcat's tendency to compressor stall. Manufacturing the heretofore impossible and rendering it deployable is difficult. Those driving the airship, from the myriad of Nations have only praise. That Trillion+ dollar price tag is over a 66 year lifespan. Its now less expensive than new versions of the 4th gen F 15.
Even the F16 had problems due to its then revolutionary fly-by-wire system. Was even the subject of a movie. Also, with the F35B, other nations can confidently invest in small aircraft carriers that can carry planes that can have more than a small chance to dominate the skies compared to the Harrier.
With that powerhouse of an engine, Mach 1.6 only - i dont even know.. must have aerodynamics like a brick?! Agility somewhere between a F-4E and an F-15E probably.. i wonder if it really was not doable to make it better (all sacrificed for stealth reasons maybe)? This project is maybe a good example for "Escalation of Commitment"
If you’ve seen one, you’ll know it does not fly like a brick. And besides, in the near future the F-35 will be equipped with a new GE engine with 10% additional thrust and 25% additional range.
It's not built with area ruling (which is needed for Mach 2). But it's still fast enough, since legacy fighters are not faster if they carry external loads which cause additional drag
Should have made a Naval twin engine, two seat stealth F/A first. If Air Force found value then they could adapt their variant to the platform. The B model should never have been in the program but an entirely different system, that's where most of the problems and compromises came.
I agree about the B model which I think was specifically for the USMC and RAF/Royal Navy. I recall there being a lot of debate in the UK parliament about building our new carriers with catapults and arrester gear in order to purchase the C model as the B model was proving to be troublesome to develop. I've watched the B model displayed and it's impressive - it certainly looks like the issues have been overcome but as for how many of these machines the UK ends up buying... well that's another matter.
@@andywhite40 One of the problems about the B is that for CAS (which doesn't rely on stealth), they are slightly more mission capable than the Harrier. We sacrifice so much capability for V/STOL. UK's force projection would have been much better served going the CATOBAR route, and I'm afraid our allies are following UK's lead. B is a marvel of engineering, for sure.
Leading edge development programs end with some minor difficulties that are too expensive and/or time consuming to fully resolve. Because minor difficulties in meeting a few requirements is inevitable, the means to approve relaxation of contract requirements in such cases is well established. As they say, "Nobody can afford perfect."
The money spent of the F35 seems like a huge waste but we really don't understand what we actually payed for. They have solved all the initial problems with the design and the per unit cost for the current block of planes is cheaper than a new F15. Plus the technology developed for F35 is all over the new B21 Raider from the engines to avionics, radars, controls ect.. Making the B21 come in at a fraction of the cost of the B2 and also reducing the cost of maintaining the machines through the lifetime of the system. Also the money spent on F35 includes the cost of maintaining them for life which most people don't know.
Seriously. The only real issue with the F-35 is that it went WAAAY over budget.
but at this point the money is spent, the aircraft is excellent, and there is little to no reason not to see it through. The program had some major hurdles, but said issues are behind us at this point.
Finally someone who has a brain.
Found the Lockheed Martin shill.
@@Trindify found the hater. I don't care where my wepons come from. A Chinese SKS. Yugo Ak. America ar15. I shill for no one. F35 is the best most successful fighter in its generation. And I like tullammo as much as freedom munitions.
Why do we guard the f22 so closely and not the f35 ? We will sell the f35 to Ally’s but not the f22
It's $1 trillion over the entire 60 year planned lifespan. $1 trillion has not already been spent. That's the problem with only reading headlines.
It's like saying a baby costs $5 million. Sounds expensive until it's noted that the price includes all of the costs through a 70+ year lifespan.
Exactly.
Yeah news articles just take information and instantly say that with nothing to back up that point
It's still overpriced and struggling - we must be mugs to enable the people at the top to endlessly waste our money and feather their own nests.
@@musoseven8218 it costs 50% cheaper than european competitors. it is cheaper than a new F-15, F-16 and F-18 while having significantly more capabilities. How is it overpriced and struggling? Did you know the F-15 program costs 1.5 trillion and couting? why arent you bitching about that aircraft?
@@musoseven8218 The only true problem WAS it's development. It can perform many roles and can do them pretty good.
Trying to build a single aircraft to replace many different types was never going to be easy.
I don't think the F-35 is going to replace those platforms, with exceptions for like the Harrier and A10. I think it's more or less just going to work alongside them
@@mr.fighterbomber3345 A-10 is highly specific, the closest thing on earth to a flying tank, imo. For what the US pulled off with the F35, it's an amazing step in the right direction, imo. But upon completion, that role isn't for this plane. But good news, having such a superior AS plane, means the A-10's successor can get even more specialized.
@@mr.fighterbomber3345 airforce is buying f15 exs that tells you alot
@@marsmotion the f-15ex is a missile carrier, where the F-35 is a stealthy strike fighter
@@marsmotion Absolutely and it is necessary for the simple fact that you need more than one signature out there in the skies. Plus anyone needs to take an account with our systems work directly and indirectly Innamission include Drones and who knows what other type of systems involved. Also other systems that we do not know about. PS food for thought we are not talking about Turkish drones that is nothing more than just a sidekick to confuse Our adversaries. this conflict in Europe shows that the Russians cannot stop any target coming into there air Space. And it is not a slow moving drone or .09 tomb cruise missile. They are vulnerable for a first strike without a response. This is real more than virtual reality.
The F-14 had the same problems as the F-35, if not more. If you look at articles around the time the F-14 was released you’ll see that it had a rough start and end, but many will claim with their dying breath that it was one of the best dog fighters.
The first F-14 even crashed on its second flight
The flight tests for the F16 killed several pilots. The F35 had no fatal crashes.
It Still is way inferior to other design like the Rafale in almost all role except for stealth bombing while being is much cheaper
The Reformer movement had this weird tendency to love older stuff, back when the F-14 and F-15 were new they used the exact same arguments against them as they're now using against the F-35. It's a very funny cycle to watch.
@@IgnoredAdviceProductions I’m well aware, the reformers talk about the old days, but in those old days they criticized the same fighters the pray to.
A friend is a Viper pilot who got a chance to fight against F-35s. He wasn't terribly impressed with the F-35's maneuvering capability, but one thing really opened his eyes: on two occasions when he was briefly in position for gun shots, his gunsight couldn't "see" an F-35 that was filling the windscreen. The stealth is, evidently, real.
F-16 got F-35 in gunsights.....
That’s not what stealth is about. Your friend was pulling your leg.
@@Frankie5Angels150 this whole story is bullshit. Isnt a viper a helo? The f35 uses thrust vectoring which give it serious advantage and capability.
Your confused. The F35 doesn’t have thrust vectoring. That would be the F22.
The whole idea is that stealth fighters make dogfighting redundant so it doesn't matter how 'deficient' it is at manoeuvring, these days it's about stealth and lethality beyond visual range.
The F-22 actually has a smaller RCS than F-35 and is still the stealthiest fighter on earth. That said, the F-35 can use a helmet mounted display that vastly improves upon the HUD that is still in the F-22.
It has cost a fortune, like most state of the art aviation projects have always done, and the issues it has had in development are no worse than most past aircraft, but being in the digital age, every step the program takes is relentlessly scrutinized. To say nothing of the extreme complexity involved in any innovation on the cutting edge of aircraft design in the modern age dwarfs what came in the past.
The plane is here to stay and will likely serve its owners well. Once people truly see the F-35C in full action, they likely won't be quite so critical of its agility too..
It costs less per unit than an updated 1970's F-15. Don't see what people are bitching about... And it will fuck up any aircraft outside an F-22, people just don't know what they're talking about.
@@Calzaghe83 i mean in this hypothetical fight between an F-22 and an F-35, sure the F-22 wins in a one on one dogfight (cus the F-22 was specifically designed as an air superiority fighter) but you can practically buy two F-35 for the price of one F-22 lmao and that's infinitely better despite the F-22 being SLIGHTLY better at shooting down other planes
@@Lardum why would the F22 win? Agility is meant for old fighters. The F35 doesnt need to be that agile as its the first fighter that doesnt need to point its nose to get a lock. A F35 pilot can lock and shoot anything 360 degrees. (Unless using board cannon). And yes, for evading incoming missiles a bit of agility is important and thats why it is pretty agile.
@@the_dude182 the F-22 is stealthier than the F-35.
It was afterall specifically designed to be an air superiority fighter. It's really good at it, it just is also really expensive
@@Lardum And the F35's better radar wouldnt help to level the odds? Not that i dislike the F22 haha just wondering.
If you're already familiar and/or don't need another history lesson on the JSF beginnings, the topic of this video starts at 5:30 mins, or at 9:55 for the specific issue this episode is trying to point out. But nothing new here. All the points highlighted have already been covered in a plethora of previous videos criticising the F-35. This is just a recycling of old topics. Must be a slow news day.
Yep, disappoining video
Yeah, and a lot of them have been addressed, or debunked due to the "criticisms" coming from testing against the early pre-release fighters and forcing it to test without its full EWS functional.
A lot of "Nope" in this video.
@@kevindonville8185 I was going to say the same thing. Majority of the issues raised here have already been sorted.
Not true the F-35 is just a stealth bomber capable of landing on Aircraft carrier that's it it's not a very maneuverable nor very good plane for air superiority and interceptor role, It still is way inferior to other design like the Rafale in almost all role except for stealth bombing while being is much cheaper.
They also literally repeat themselves over and over. They do this in every video to pad the video length.
When a trillion dollars is spent on developing a fighter ...
"hold up, wait a minute, something ain't right."
Remember... that price figure is not development expense, it's what the F-35 is expected to cost over the airplane's life span in service, NOT all up front at once. Today, an F-35 costs about the same as a modern commercial airliner.
The initial statement in the video is false. The F-35 was designed as an advanced multirole fighter that combined as many capabilities as possible into a stealthy package. The whole thing was a compromise...a good one, but a compromise nonetheless.
6:10 The F-16 has been published to be significantly faster than the F-35. According to multiple sources the F-16C/D has a top speed of Mach 2 at 40k feet, while the F-35's have a top speed of Mach 1.6.
The military has always been ambiguous about the performance data they publish, so it is hard to be certain what the exact top speeds actually are. For example, the F-16C/D has a published top speed of 1500MPH or Mach 2 at 40k feet. The problem is that 1500MPH at 40K feet is in fact Mach 2.25. In the Case of the F-35, Lockheed published a Mach number of 1.6, followed by (~1200 mph).
The major confusion has to do with the way the speed of sound is calculated. The Mach number for a given MPH will change depending on the altitude. I am at the limits of my high school science knowledge here, but I believe it has to do with air viscosity and the way sound waves transfer through a more dense gaseous medium...Like how banging rocks together can be heard for greater distances underwater. I'm no expert on the science though.
Regardless of the underlying scientific principles, or the games of the military aviation industry, the statement that the F-35 is faster than the F-16 is patently false.
Correct!
It’s costly and flawed.
@@MattKearneyFan1 yet still the best in the world
Yea true.XD
@@corkingcoggo8375 🤣🤣🤣🤣 best in the world according to who again? Come back with facts before you look like an idiot. The 22, 15, 16, and 18 own this plane by a mile
The F-35, though very costly, is definitely a capable aircraft in multiple roles, but you have to admit that it’s nickname “Fat Amy” is pretty funny.
Is that really it's nickname? I can't wait to tell my sister-in-law that. Guess what her name is. LOL
There's 3 variants I heard. 1 that doesn't need a runway. F-35A F-35B AND F-35C .
Fat Amy aka Battle Penguin
Fat chicks need love too, craig.
I call it "The flying Dustbin".
She had teething problems. But she is all fangs now. Truly an amazing piece of tech. Setting the bar is never easy and failures are expected along the way.
Agreed
She has set the bar really, _really_ high.
no
2:45 I love the F22 Raptor with it's dual thrust vectoring engines.
Dual engine jet aircrafts will always be superior in sex appeal. That's just a fact
So just the same issues that all aircraft developments have
If people are going to hate on the F-35 then they might as well hate on the P-51 as well.
very impressed with how Dark Skies managed to get access to the development offices and manufacturering process of this plane.
I'm getting really tired by takes on the f35 by people who know absolutely nothing about it. You could ask any fighter pilot, and even they wouldn't know much more unless they have access to restricted documents.
Budgetary issues aside, I'm willing to bet some people in the government are really pleased by all the talk about the failings of fat Amy. It's a big boon for the U.S if everyone thinks the plane isn't very good.
@@VikingTeddy I don't agree. When Denmark had to choose a replacement for their F16s, Boeing advertised their F18 on Danish busstops. They had some guy argue against the F35 on national televison. He claimed that stealth was a fraud.
So I don't think American government wants potential customers to disregard the F35.
@@LarsAgerbk The customers would be well informed. It's the regular dummies like us that they're fine with spreading misinformation.
Even if say, the Chinese have a good understanding of the capabilities through espionage, there will still be enough brass among them who take the criticism at face value. Especially when it reinforces what they want to believe. we've seen how dumb some people can be, even in high positions.
Granted, it might not be a significant advantage, but every little bit you know?
@@josephthomas3712 Yeah, 20,000 Chinese drones. Planes are cool and all, but what is any plane no matter how advanced going to do when the skies are literally full of drones with missiles?
so flawed that almost every country that has had the option to buy them has chosen them over the competition.
@@K1N3T1C4L_K4OS Not sure: South Korea, Israel, Finland, Canada and Switzerland are not known for buying garbage military hardware!
@@K1N3T1C4L_K4OS So everyone is stupid but you and Dark Skies.
@@K1N3T1C4L_K4OS Israel loves the f35
t of the cost of doing business with the US. Its junk.
Remember, no matter how fast or slow it is, if you cannot see it, you cannot kill it, but, it can kill you!
Such a state of the art aircraft is bound to have 'teething problems', that's only natural. Uncle Sam's decision to put all its eggs in one basket made the F-35 a project too big to fail, meaning that no matter the problems, a solution will always be found. So the future looks bright for this bird, as shown by the increasing number of countries joining the Lightning II community.
I respond back here again.
No doubt the F16 is a shit hot fighter even this long after it’s inception. Would you expect less from the fighter mafia.
Most people don’t realize how groundbreaking it was. Well at least the people who didn’t have to face it. But in truth it’s a bit long in the tooth. It’s concept was so different from what the US Military complex wanted. Small, lightweight, power to weight ratio beyond belief. Fly by wire, ergonomically state of the art. Fact is no other world power had a clue how to do it. Boyd knew his shit. That is why it has performed so well for so long. We need another Boyd.
The $1 Trillion price tag is always extremely misleading as that's the total cost of for the entire fleet of nearly 2000 aircraft, including training, maintenance, spare parts, etc for 50 years. The projected cost of simply maintaining the current fleet of F-16s and F-18s for the same time frame was nearly double that.
That is the total cost for project before commissioned units delivered, not the maintenance and upgrades necessary for specific deployments. It does NOT cover operational costs as you suggest. You are being disingenuous.
If I'm not mistaken a long time ago the same problems plagued the F111 program, a new generation of aircraft that went from a problem to a fantastic platform. And was cutting edge.
Yet another "multi-role" plane nobody asked for or wanted, that kept getting its specifications changed. The Navy asked for and got its swing-wing F-14, which fit its purposes, and was developed in less time.
All planes have teething problems, that's why prototypes are tested, and early versions shouldn't be made in large number. Later versions fix the bugs and provide more functions. However, for the F-35, every airframe gets retrofitted with every revision and upgrade. That's the most-expensive way possible. And the F-35 is 3 distinct, different planes that just look a lot alike. The Navy doesn't even want theirs -- a huge waste of development costs.
It would have been much much cheaper, quicker, and the end-products would have been much closer to each branch's needs, had several totally different planes been developed independently. It's almost as if the whole program was concocted to disguise manufacture and upkeep of a super-expensive speciality plane for Israel.
Hey @DarkDocsSkies could you eventually do a video on the EA-6B Prowler??
The F-35 was more of a research concept that made it into production. The F-35 was the best it could be at the time of production, but I feel this research will give us the upper hand on developing the sixth and seventh generation of stealth fighters. If they don’t already exist that is😉
Edit:Typo
Exactly. In a lot of ways it is the dress rehearsal for the next revolutionary leap.
And knowing the F-22 is ¡25 years old! ...
IMO the biggest take-away from the JSF program was that it could never live up to expectations. The idea was a common platform would produce cost savings, but the reality is that each participant wanted a unique solution, and trying to satisfy a diverse sets of needs in one platform is expensive and ultimately unsatisfying. So, never forget and never again.
Every weapons platform program is a moonshot, in budget, schedule, predicted quantity, and capabilities. And so, for each one of them there’s a ton of articles saying they fell short, cost too much, had teething issues, were a dud, etc.
Cause and effect.
Most of the journalists have absolutely no clue what they’re writing about, use irrelevant metrics, or just perceived the goals to be the realities.
Could an F-18 shoot down an F35? Sure.
Can a Swedish diesel sub sink a US carrier? It has torpedoes. Why not?
Could you disable a modern high tech security system, blindfolded?
If you’re sitting next to the computer that runs it, absolutely.
Will any of those things every be in a position to do that stuff? Extremely unlikely.
Nobody can predict the cost of building what has never been built. Or the challenges that will come along the way. There’s what we ask for, and what we get.
The US got a dominating, multi role fighter that fills its position in the fleet brilliantly. Which is exactly what they paid for.
Yeah, they tried that with the F-4 and there wound up being a bunch of different models for different uses.
@@sinisterknight9696 A specific example is VSTOL. Is this a useful feature? Yeah. Does every Air Force fighter need it? No. Do you compromise the airframe and range by having support for this feature? Yeah.
Build some VSTOL platforms for the Marines. Build a long-distance fighter for the Air Force. Build a lighter STOL for the Navy. Just don't force them to be built in one air frame by one contractor on one schedule under one budget. Give each service the freedom and responsibility to order what they want on their own budget and schedule. Hopefully, this will result in having multiple consortia building planes instead of fostering a dependence on a sole too-big-to-fail supplier.
Just understand. It was an attempt to pull NATO together before this latest war started. Multi role jets will never do everything all the time. Too many compromises. Expense is so political it doesn’t reflect reality. How many years have they complained the F35 was over budget? Guess what you can now buy an F35 cheaper than most 4 generation fighters. It pays to keep the production lines going.!
Reminds me of the issues with the F-111. It was supposed to be a plane that met the needs of the Navy and Air Force, but in the end only worked for the Air Force.
Well, for a flawed platform, the “B” are flying their butts off out here in Yuma 😂😂😂
The next video is about how the SU57 is the best fighter and had no initial development issues.
Ikr
😂
Your a smart guy. I have a deal for you. Beachfront property about 150 miles west of LA
Go get another hot pocket
Probably not but it might be about the Saab Gripen that is twice the fighter for half the price. Admittedly, it does not have stealth but how long before techniques are developed to negate that advantage?
heres a couple things the f-35 has going for it: most advanced sensors, stealth (only other american stealth plane is f-22), multirole (something the f-22 doesn't have as stated in the video), and while it can't outrun or out manouver, i doubt you will be dogfighting with a jet thats past the horizon. another thing is that america doesn't need to *only* use one plane, they can send in multiple, allowing the f-35 to act like a more mobile awacs. another thing it has going for it is that its enemys aren't all that strong as people make them out to be. the su57 might as well be some little timmy's drawing since russia has less su-57s than canada does tanks
Last count on the 57s were 8 testers 7 serial...
@@00Athus1 the way the russians bend testers, you may wanna rethink that number
And Canadas military is a joke 🤣
Just remember that often tech defeats tech. In fact, that's the point. It's not at all unreasonable to see someone find a way to defeat the F35's stealth, and missiles, and push into dog-fight. Maybe not next year, maybe not in 5 years. But I guarantee you there are people paid to think about this in other places.
It Still is way inferior to other design like the Rafale in almost all role except for stealth bombing while being is much cheaper
@Dark Skies... The F-35 isn't less maneuverable then the F-22 both planes by physically limited by Pilot G lock not by the airframe. Also instead of using thrust vectoring like on the F-22 the engineers maximized the pitching moment from the all moving horizontal stabilizers by putting them as far aft of the C of G as physically possible. It turns out using big horizontal stabilizers is much lighter then thrust vectoring engines.
big stabilizers increase drag when using them though
It is less maneuverable than the F-22. There is a reason F-35 pilots gave it the name "Fat Amy". It plays a different role than the F-22 and is a fantastic jet in its own respects.
I am an idiot.
But I’d think the once you hit the G limit for the pilot in both planes that there are many more factors that determine it’s ability to maneuver. Like how quick it reacts or it’s ability to keep up airspeed ect.
@@_Addi_ I have to agree, F-22 takes it in a gun-sight fight. At least in daylight, with decent visibility.
But if it has missiles, anything near the F-35 is completely xxxxed.
Anything the pilot looks at, is in grave peril, and his helmet display system has everything marked and allows him to see through the plane.
Even in a gun fight, at night the 360 degree EOTS + HMDS beats the hell out of the night vision goggles other planes use.
And an F-35 is more likely to spot an F-22 first, despite the former's extra-low RCS. It would be an interesting game of cat & mouse, but the 35 has a strong advantage in sensor suite, situational awareness, and the IR stealth arena.
kathrynck Idk, I think it would be a fairly even fight between an F-22 and an F-35 with missiles. At night, the F-35 would probably have the upper hand though. Guns to guns at night, I would probably give it to the F-22 7 times out of 10.
Everyone talks about how it will loose in a dogfight. Imagine a feild 500 yards long. 1 man has a knife, 1 man has a rifle. The guy with the knife would win in a knife fight, but the guy with the rifle isn't in a knife fight. The man with the rifle will win. The f35 will kill its enemy long b4 it finds itself in a dog fight.
Love your content been watching for over 2 years 🤘🏻
P-51 and F-111 (to name a few) where also a duds..... How did they end up?
EXACTLY!!!
People still say the F-35 cant dogfight💀💀💀💀💀
@@thecommentator3732 those are usually the people who say the Earth is flat
@@thecommentator3732 ...cuz it's not a dogfighter, it's a strike A/C. The F-22 is the dog in the bunch.
@@tonyunderwood9678 Excuse me?
If its not a dogfighter then why bother adding a 360 bore off HMDS??
Once upon a time, a short story by Arthur C. Clarke titled, "Superiority" was required reading by MIT students as well as in the military colleges. It depicts an arms race during an interstellar war. It shows the side which is more technologically advanced being defeated, despite its apparent superiority, because of its willingness to discard old technology for the bells, whistles, and flashiness of the new. Meanwhile, the enemy steadily built up a far larger arsenal of weapons that while more primitive were also more reliable. In our current situation you then have to take into account the cost of each aircraft and there will inevitably be reluctance to utilize the weapon simply because of it's cost and the threat of it being destroyed. Basically it comes down to numbers.....300 older aircraft armed with 8 missiles each, engaging 100 newer aircraft armed with 10 missiles each, and the newer aircraft still lose. A lesson the Germans learned in the armored battle of Kursk, where the Soviets outnumbered them in tanks 2 to 1.
In this case around 3k F-35s are planned to be built - far more jets than the evil empire in the east has, and these are just F-35s, with thousands of other fighter aircraft parallel in service in several Nato air forces
@@simonm1447 well the problem with your point is planned production. What is planned doesn't always happen. The F-22 planned production run was 750 aircraft and that got cut to 187, The B-2 original planned production run was to be 132 aircraft then got cut to 21. The B-1 bomber production run was supposed to be 244 aircraft then got cancelled then restored but only 100 were built. The US Navy's F-14D and A-6F programs were supposed to produce several hundred aircraft each but only 55 F-14Ds were built and the A-6F got cancelled.
@@simonm1447 All true. But part of the selling point for the F35 was the interchangeability of parts between the different models. What was supposed to be around 70-80% interchangeability in reality is only around 20-25%. Thus increasing costs for parts and serviceability.
@@suflanker45 in the case of the B-2 and the F-22 high production numbers were planned during cold war. After the downfall of the USSR the B-2 numbers were reduced to a minimum, more or less the same happened with the F-22. Both were not exported.
At the moment we are sliding into a new cold war (with China and russia), so it's unlikely production numbers will be cut, another difference of the F-35 is it's an export aircraft too and other air forces are deploying them around the world.
Most F-35s will be A models, so this variant will be common and not that expensive to maintain, and a successor of many F-16s in different air forces
@@simonm1447 you're forgetting about economics. The US and European economies are nosediving. Their governments have piled up massive debts that are so high they can only pay the interest on their debt and those interest payments are getting higher as they pile up more debt and eats into their overall budget. The European governments have also gutted their defense budgets to pay for all the migrants flooded across the continent right now. I highly doubt 3k plus F-35s will be built.
Problems are common during development of new aerospace products.
I remember reports for years that the Osprey was a dud. It turned out to be a fine aircraft.
Many of us would disagree.
Same with the eurofighter typhoon, I was a kid when that first started, I'm 47 now and we have one hell of a aircraft
Many families of deceased Marines would tell you otherwise.
Uh, no. It's a unique capability that is invaluable, but it's operating cost, reliability, and poor survivability is definitely not on par with calling it a "fine" aircraft
The Osprey is such an excellent aircraft that is why it just had a full fleet grounding lifted.. and the reason for the crash that grounded them is still unknown. Its a flying disaster about to happen at any time.
F-35--F-22 combo is unbeatable at Red Flag.
What's Red Flag in this sense mean? IDK, really.
@@denniswhite166 Red Flag is the biggest exercise in the world. Multiple countries are participating each year.
@@denniswhite166 its one of the USAFs largest air combat exercise, think 6 2 week near nonstop air wars where the US and allies across the world get together and have the closest thing to a shooting war we can. Pilots go through every air combat situation they can think of against the fucking crazy cricket people who fly the aggressor squadrons aka some of our best pilots.
@@denniswhite166 Google! Smh kids don't even know how to look things up.
F35 can't fly in rain smh
The funniest thing is the F-35 suppose to cut the cost down, compared to the F-22, and ended to be way more expensive ( corruption and incompetence) and be the worst, useless, jet-fighter ever.
That the program is more than twenty years old and they still haven't finished the research and development stage yet is a great example of trying to put too many eggs into a basket from the start. The ORIGINAL program was a study to develop a supersonic stealthy VSTOL aircraft to replace the Harriers used by the UK, USMC, Italy, Spain, and probably India. There was a seperate study going on for a lightweight land based fighter that then got merged into it with the ridiculous theory that removing the vertical lift equipment from the original plane would make room for more fuel and internal weapons and avionics for a land based version and would be a cheap and easy change to make. This btw is why the F-35A and B are the same dimensions externally. Then the Navy had a requirement for a stealthy CTOL carrier aircraft after the failure of the A-12 Avenger II program and hey let's just tack that onto the JSF also. We'll just put on a stronger tailhook, a towbar on the nose gear, and make the wings bigger.... no big deal....right ?
100%, they should have had 2 programs -- one to replace harrier and another to replace F-16 and F-18. And if they wanted something to replace A-10 and take the role of A-12, they should have developed yet another plane
@@jimmcneal5292 I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I wonder what the combined cost would've been to develop 3 separate airframes from the ground up.
@@BobSmith-jy6oh Certainly more than one program, but it would be possible to actually retire F-16s, F-18s and A-10s, and not spend money on their modernization. Altogether it wouldn't be much more expensive, but would drastically increase US capabilities.
Extreme speed isn’t needed anywhere anymore.
This is cool! Now do a segment of the new B-21!!!❤
I wouldn't be surprised to see a G version, a G as in Growler version for electronic warfare IE jamming etc. I hear they might already have some capability but I could see a dedicated version for it.
All F-35 variants have superior EW performance than Growlers
@@saltyfloridaman7163 they're producing a next generation pod specifically for the Growlers that's even more advanced. The Growler can jam multiple directions and objects because it has multiple pods. The next generation jamming pods can also jam low frequency radars now too.
Nope...no need, search Speed Racer.
Don’t need them any longer, drones do that function now and can be controlled from an F-35
if you thought of it, the military certainly has and has likely already made one, within reason of course
The logistics, the methods, the know how, and the people, that build and make this aircraft able to fly, blows my mind. It's incomprehensible to me. Just watching them testing the engine, watching all its little moving parts.
There isn’t a lot of small moving parts in the engine, that’s why it’s good.
Yes it had bad teething problems. Mostly due to the "B" version. But when you look at the capabilities of the fighter now with the blk 4 version being upgraded too, its impact on air warfare is over whelming. Theres a reason everybody wants the F-35 and why so many countries are lining up to buy it.
The F-35's biggest flaw is trying to fit 3 completely different aircraft into a single airframe. Something that should have been obvious to anyone familiar with the development of the F-111 Aardvark
So basically the F-35 is a stealthy F-16 and Hornet performance combined that has better instantaneous aoa and sustained turn rate, faster acceleration, greater payload than both, Radar and IR stealth, EW performance greater than a Growler, yet you're saying it's flawed? The F-35B was designed to incorporate STOVL capabilities like the Harrier into the blended F-16 and Hornet multirole fighter performance, meanwhile the F-35C is a better super hornet that can dogfight better. So please tell me where the F-35 is flawed as an Air Dominance fighter? It's absolutely crushes any nato fighter at operation red flag dogfights with a 20-1 win loss against the F-16, F-15, F/A-18 Hornet, Eurofighter, and any other fighter that took part other than the F-22.
The F-111 was a total failure for the Navy to be sure. Some of the later models of the USAF F-111 were a good solid plane. I worked on D models and the F models.
Oh yeah, engineers live forever. You know real history isn’t taught any longer?
They’ve delivered almost a thousand of them. It’s winning every procurement bake off. What flaws?
In the long run, the YF-32 in the USAF & NAVY versions may have been the better way to go. The F-35B for the USMC Missions would have dramatically lowered its price.
It's a sophisticated invisible flying gold plated turd.
This aircraft is largely designed for one thing: kicking down a peer enemy's front door on day one of any conflict. It was bound to have issues getting towards full capability. Some of the finest, longest-serving combat aircraft in history have had flaws to start with. The British Hawker Hunter being a good example. The F-35 also has another great thing going for it, beyond its inherent capabilities: sheer weight of numbers. These aircraft are being bought by free nations right around the world, with the UK being a tier 1 partner alongside the US.
F-16, C-17, CV-22 all had issues but 2 of the 3 here are awesome
What we are NOT seeing is the smaller, faster, stealthier drones being built with these same technologies.
Another record:
It´s one of the loudest planes ever built!
I came here to say this. It is so crazy loud. I saw it at an air show and couldn't believe how loud it was. It may not show up on radar screens, but you will still know it's there.
✨️ thunderscreech ✨️
@@nico.a06 NOOO
I dunno... ;-) Ever stand close to an F-14 taking off with full burner? I used to think they were designed specifically to make noise. Or have a Harrier in slow hover approach fly directly over you at 200 ft? Maybe I should backtrack... lemme change the loudest to that Harrier if it's close. F-15s are kinda loud too if you're standing a couple hundred feet diagonally behind one at full burner. You can feel it as well as hear it. Oh hell... they're all loud. lol!
When I was in Cyprus in 2006 back when Lebanon was shooting rockets into Israel, I was there as part of a task force to fly Marines in and out of embassy in Lebanon. The USAF had U-2 spy planes there. That is still the loudest noise I have ever heard and I used to have F-16’s take off next to me with full afterburner in Balad, Iraq (LSA Anaconda)
Our adversaries hate it too..."Hey, my wingman just blew up, where the fuck did that come from?"
The F-35 A, B and C should really be called the F-35, F-36 and F-37. Every time the Pentagon wants a 'Swiss Army Knife' aircraft, this is what happens. They never learn.
They make the most advanced plane on earth? They should do this more often
There are already Swiss army aircraft flying. 4th gen aircraft like the f-16 and f-18 are currently very competent multi role fighters. Want proof? Look at the gulf war
F35 is a dog. Any 1980s fighter will beat it in ACM visual range. It's reduced radar reflection will allow it to get a shot off first outside visual range. But this works on aircraft targeting radars not ground based C band. It is a compromise due to VTOL. It is almost a full Mach slower than the F15. The wing loading is very high and it's energy maneuverability plot would demonstrate its weaknesses to older aircraft. Aerodynamics and engine technology has not seen great improvement since 1970s. Sr71 and 747 were designed in the 60s with sliderules. The biggest problem other than its design is production. Typically you build 4 flight test aircraft and put them through a flight test program before you go in to production. The F35 was concurrent engineering and flight test. They were in serial production during flight test. It was crazy. I used to get the annual review of technical problems. Everything from the helmet being too heavy providing info overload to pilots to its gun being off center yawing the aircraft off target when fired. Build the F15s and keep some F35s for special missions.
I usually enjoy your content, but this video is nothing but pathetic clickbait. There is nothing "secret" about the F-35 development or its costs. What you end up with is one of the arguably best multi-role fighters in the world.
yup, this video is such a shame.
Not true the F-35 is just a stealth bomber capable of landing on Aircraft carrier that's it it's not a very maneuverable nor very good plane for air superiority and interceptor role, It still is way inferior to other design like the Rafale in almost all role except for stealth bombing while being is much cheaper.
@@ommsterlitz1805 again not true.
@@ommsterlitz1805 weird that all the countries involved in the f-35 program haven't dropped out bccause of all the problems and are instead buying more . Even Germany, burned badly by Lockheed in the 60s with the f-104 starfighter is buying them.
@@jthunders Every nato country that participated developement are ordering f35 as per original contract they signed decades ago. That does not mean f35 is good or bad.
Lockheed MArtin *Northrup GRUMAN has things you woultnt believe and that was 20 years ago
It just needs to be better than Russian and Chinese fighters and it is infinitely superior so mission accomplished 💪🇬🇧🇺🇦
x=doubt
@@jussi8111 LMFAO! give over.
If you believe the data from the CCP the J-20 is better in at least some respects, of course believing what the CCP says about their own stuff is foolish, but it does look better than the F-35 in my opinion.
@@lonelystrategos spoiler alert: i dont believe anything the ccp says.
@@MrJC1 Congratulations, you are not a fool. If there's any government I trust less than the Chinese it's probably the North Korean one, but they're basically a joke anyways.
Trillion dollar fighter is a total myth.
I've been saying this for years, and have been following the JTF program since the 80s as a kid. that is where this plane came from.
And yet it's most lethal fighter we have, according to almost every pilot who flew it and against it in traning.
@@00Athus1 Basically a stealth awacs... with missiles... that can fire it's buddies missiles...
so a multitude of countries are all idiots. making multi billion purchases of a flawed aircraft
I first read about it in one of Tom Clancy's non fiction books back in 95. I remember the discussion about how it was supposed to be the "budget" fighter to go along with the F-22.
How times have changed.
@@cugamer8862 It's cheaper than an updated F-15. It is the budget fighter. What on earth are you talking about?
Call me pedantic but when I'm hearing "F-22", I don't want to be looking at a single engine fighter. Same same, when the narrator says "F-35", I would like the video to show that plane. Dark Skies is far from the worst offender with this problem, raising my expectations. Thanks for what you do!
People forget that it's not a dogfighter. It's a strike aircraft. The F-22 is the dogfighter in the house, supplementing the F-15. That said, the F-35 is still able to move around if it has to.
f-22 is not a dogfighter, it stays hidden from enemy planes and launches missiles at them without them knowing until it's too late, dogfighting is a thing of the past really
@@ericwilson2923 Excuse me... if it's not a dogfighter, then why does the F-22 have a gun (M-61 20mm) and an A-A gunsight? It also carries AIM-9 missiles, which are relatively close contact weapons usually shot at an enemy that you are trying to chase down. The F-22 has an enhanced agility airframe and vectored thrust engines. All these are what's expected to be found on a... (wait for it) ...dogfighter. It does carry long range standoff weapons as well, sure... But that old "dogfighting is obsolete" strategy had already turned around and bit the USAF on its ass once before when they started fielding F-4 Phantoms in 'Nam without a gun, believing air to air missiles were the answer to aerial combat. FAIL. Then they had to backtrack and start hanging externally mounted gun pods under the airplanes so it could more effectively defend itself in the same dogfights that had been deemed obsolete by generals flying desks in the Pentagon. Later production Phantoms all had guns again. And that is why the F-22 has a gun and an air-to-air-gunsight. Because it is a dogfighter that has additional operational capabilities.
What a great thumbnail,look at the cost of theB29 it cost more than the bomb,they had magnesium fires in the engines they couldn’t but out, but they went forward with it , but 25 years is long time maybe the aliens 👽 will have to help (sorry couldn’t help it )
“Concurrency”…
You can’t really talk about the development of the F-35 without even mention it.
It was one of the most controversial and most discussed part of the whole project and construction
All the best to everyone
Summary
Its a supercomputer, that has wings
Get it now
The war in Ukraine might actually be the F-35's saving grace. Before it, most allies stepped down over the years on the numbers they were planning to buy. But that trend will likely be reversed now, which is important for keeping the cost healthy.
It honestly was. Half the countries that have ordered the F-35 in recent times are European counties that weren’t even part of the original JSF program: Germany, Belgium, Finland, Poland and others.
It is prohibitively expensive n should be an expensive luxury hardware for any military. Many would be wise to go with cheaper alternatives like the French rafale or even the J20 or su 57.
@@osuk1 Actually the Rafale is $37 million more per plane than the F-35. Because the F-35 is manufactured more for more customers, that drives down its price significantly
My friend in the pub fat Dave says it can go up against any fighter except a Sopworth Camel. And he should know he's a london cabbie. He also has an enlarged prostate and high blood pressure.
One minor thing, the naming. Yes, it was named after the Lockheed Lightning, but the English Electric Lightning as well. As the UK are a significant partner in the Project, it was agreed by both countries to name the F-35 Lightning II as a homage to both original Lightnings, not just the Lockheed one.
This video should come out in 2015.
Funny how they cancelled f22 production because of costs, yet due to cost overruns and accidents, the f35 more than likely will in the long run cost even more and be less capable. Politics and cronyism. Remember Dick Jones' line about ed209 in Robocop, "who cares if it works"
They can sell the F-35 abroad to recoup a lot of costs, the F-22s they have are more than enough for the current air-to-air situation they're in (they're not in one).
Bingo!
It should be a big hit at airshows
We don’t even know 90% of what the thing can do… we still don’t even fully know what the f-22 can do😂
Didn’t they ground the whole F-35 fleet due to issues with its canopy a few months back?
Well probably end up using these marvels on ourselves!
I wonder why they didn't make a carrier based version of the f-22. That would have been useful.
There is A LOT that goes into making an aircraft capable of taking off/landing on a carrier. The F-22 was made to replace the F-15, so there was little to no thought of making it carrier capable. There was an inquiry, I believe in the 90's, to make a carrier version of the F-22, but it would've had to drastically change the airframe even to a point of sacrificing some stealth and basically creating a new aircraft. It was more practical to start over, designing with carrier capability in mind.
@@BobSmith-jy6oh They've had a bunch of aircraft that were made for both navy and air force. They did it with the F111 and the F4. They had a carrier based F16 prototype called the Model 1600 didn't make it to production. You're right it takes a lot, but it's definitely possible.
Carrier aircraft are very different
-they have a far stronger landing gear
-they often have folding wingtips
-they have a reinforced fuselage
-they are made of more corrosion resistant metals, also their engines
You end up with a more or less new aircraft, if you don't make it in this way from beginning on
@@mattuw82 the F-111 carrier variant was essentialy a different airplane, and the F-4 started as a Navy fighter. It's much easier to "de-navalize" an aircraft than it is to navalize one.
A naval version was planned but it was essentially a whole new airframe because it was going to be a swing wing design like the F-14. However cost over runs forced the DOD to cancel the naval version as well as a two seat Air Force version.
Too many ads
The fighter isn't flawed.
The acquisition and development are.
Exactly
Well, the development, yeah.
Acquisition is fine. Unit cost is 78-105 m depending on model, which is frankly fantastic. Per hour flight costs are modestly high, but less than half that of the F-22.
@@kathrynck yeah acquisition isnt terrible, but its certainly a bit complex. and as for unit cost, youre right, what's not to love? its just half the cost of a brand new F14 Tomcat, while being a powerful little package
Don't send the Viper and Hornet to the boneyard yet.
I’ve never seen a so-called “flawed” plane sell so quickly to so many countries. But what do they know 🤷♂️
I know right? It seems youtubers know about military planes that the military. LOL.
Imagine if all of the money that nations have collectively spent on military, could have been put together to further our development as a species. We're truly simultaneously the most amazing, yet the most pathetic species on the planet.
recycling 2017 'news', unsubbed
Same here. These videos are so full if errors and junk it's pitiful. They think flashy video and a horribly stiff narration makes it great. Only dumb suckers think so.
Amazing run-down of the new Lightning - warts and all!
I have watched a lot of what this site has to offer. Take it with a grain of salt. Often times either the operational specifications are incorrect or displayed video doesn’t match historical fact. But if you ignore that there is some really good video.
So if you ignore the bad info it is good.
No what I am saying is that these guys try to do a video. Whoever their editors are have little to no love for the topic. I would never for example show you a video of a Hellcat and claim it shot down so many zeros at midway. I also wouldn’t make a claim that the F22 (a 30 year old aircraft) has better technology than an F35
So many people make the same criticism about how “video doesn’t match historical fact,” I guess they think they’re the first to say it.” However in the About section of the channel it states that sometimes video that lines up exactly with the narration is hard to come by, so they substitute video that’s roughly similar.
I was using that as an example. I am an aerospace person. I will put it that way. 62 years old, took care of a lot of different aircraft over the years. Also a big history buff. Many of the the aircraft you have profiled I have actually put my hands on. I am just saying double check your research. You lose credibility when you don’t.
"Severe flaws in testing"? That's the purpose of the testing. Duh!
I think the F-22 is where it is at to be honest.
EDIT: No doubt they will sort this beast out in the long term, but damn... that F-22 is da bomb!
Agreed, but it's in limited numbers, production machinery scrapped, and getting physically old. We should be into the C and D models by now. When the next big shooting war comes (Against China most likely) we will sorely miss all those unbuilt F-22 Raptors.
F-22 is the best Air to Air system in the world. BUT it is already showing it's age. It can't really be upgraded, so it's shelf life is already pretty well known.
I saw one (F-22) flying at the Dayton Air Show a few years back. I was impressed.
@@scottpoole2182 what? of course it could be upgraded.
@@lancerevell5979 reverse those problems, and get it back in production. that is all I can say. haha.
Faster than f-16?
Stealthier than f-22?
I dont think so for this 1tr. f-ailure of the century.
This click bait title was enough for me to unsubscribe. Finally. Just like every other fighter in the universe, the f-35 program is still undergoing constant upgrades. Think about how the F-16 is on its block 70+ upgrade program (most USAF F 16s are actually sitting somewhere around block 50 to 60, because f-35 was on the horizon so no need to upgrade) f-35 is just now entered block 4. The f-35 program will cost near or exceed 1 trillion over the next 40 to 50 years, the US GDP in 2022 alone is estimated to be $20 to $25 trillion. I'm not trying to justify the costs but it's useless to fear-monger over the costs. I've also seen people on here talk about how bad the f-35 is and it's just not true. Every recent red flag exercise has shown that the f-35 is an incredible platform. And also having spoken to several actual f-35 pilots as well as f16 aggressor pilots who practice against f-35s all atest that the f-35 is far and away a great fighter jet. I'm really just tired of the fake news on this UA-cam channel.
Bye
I would suspect that all countries that develop military aircraft, especially fighters, would if put on the spot admit their countries frontline fighters have faults and design errors too… there’s been many.
Anyway, isn’t this title wrong? It can’t be‘secret’ as we’ve known about these problems for many years now 🤣
While you thank everyone for watching
I wanna thank you for making your videos on every channel, as they are always excellent and cover so much without going into insane over 2 hours plus each video would be if you covered them in as much depth as I'm sure all the research done for each 10-15 video probably gives you enough information to make a 2 hour long video at the shortest
So again while you thank us for watching, thank you for making so many videos with so much information in just the 10-15 each video is
Never stop making videos! Each one is always amazing!
100 mil apiece and they don't seem to be able to land or takeoff very well, lookup f35 crashes.
It can’t be a secret if you know.
Just think of it: War breaks out and no one can afford to fight.
Just remember the F16 had a dreadful beginning, and i reckon if the internet was around back when the F16 was being developed there probably would have been similar videos on it's issues. All new tech is going to have problems, they just cost more to rectify now days.
Give it 10-15 years, when the Pacific heats up again.
As soon a the J20 paper dragons start falling out of the sky every penny spent on the F35 will make sense.
Ah yes, because just like any new revolutionart aircraft F15 didnt have any teething problems, cost overruns budget and maintenance problems
And the F-14's had no maintenance woes. And the F-16's didn't have any issues with falling out of the sky.
hehe ;)
It was NOT, "Designed to be the pinnacle of modern aerial combat". But still has a 20:1 kill ratio in ACM. With Today's HOBS, LOAL, air to air weapons, maneuverability is rather moot. Its been deployed to penetrate, successfully into iranian airspace to map out their underground missile bases without the iranians knowing it was there.
No modern airship is without teething problems, from the sensitivity of the F 16's fly by wire input, to the Tomcat's tendency to compressor stall. Manufacturing the heretofore impossible and rendering it deployable is difficult. Those driving the airship, from the myriad of Nations have only praise. That Trillion+ dollar price tag is over a 66 year lifespan. Its now less expensive than new versions of the 4th gen F 15.
So now that the secret is out, what's next?
F-36?
I don’t know, Russia and China will probably gang up on us now that this video told them everything
Even the F16 had problems due to its then revolutionary fly-by-wire system. Was even the subject of a movie. Also, with the F35B, other nations can confidently invest in small aircraft carriers that can carry planes that can have more than a small chance to dominate the skies compared to the Harrier.
A promising aircraft. One wonders what a twin engine version would be like.
yea it exists. its called the f22 and is way better lol.
They should have ommitted the VTOL capability. The weight savings alone would improve performance.
@@colonelradec5956
As an air dominance fighter, not a multi-role.
@@mill2712 f22 definitely was used multirole. it dropped bombs in Afghanistan and probably Iraq.
@Lance Revell it's a variant. They have 2 versions without it.
With that powerhouse of an engine, Mach 1.6 only - i dont even know.. must have aerodynamics like a brick?! Agility somewhere between a F-4E and an F-15E probably.. i wonder if it really was not doable to make it better (all sacrificed for stealth reasons maybe)? This project is maybe a good example for "Escalation of Commitment"
If you’ve seen one, you’ll know it does not fly like a brick. And besides, in the near future the F-35 will be equipped with a new GE engine with 10% additional thrust and 25% additional range.
It's not built with area ruling (which is needed for Mach 2). But it's still fast enough, since legacy fighters are not faster if they carry external loads which cause additional drag
It's actually an amazing aircraft, far above its competitors and tremendous value for money. Ask the pilots.
I see. Just taking whatever you heard of and jump on the wagon eh? lol
Should have made a Naval twin engine, two seat stealth F/A first. If Air Force found value then they could adapt their variant to the platform. The B model should never have been in the program but an entirely different system, that's where most of the problems and compromises came.
I agree about the B model which I think was specifically for the USMC and RAF/Royal Navy. I recall there being a lot of debate in the UK parliament about building our new carriers with catapults and arrester gear in order to purchase the C model as the B model was proving to be troublesome to develop. I've watched the B model displayed and it's impressive - it certainly looks like the issues have been overcome but as for how many of these machines the UK ends up buying... well that's another matter.
@@andywhite40 One of the problems about the B is that for CAS (which doesn't rely on stealth), they are slightly more mission capable than the Harrier. We sacrifice so much capability for V/STOL. UK's force projection would have been much better served going the CATOBAR route, and I'm afraid our allies are following UK's lead.
B is a marvel of engineering, for sure.
+
Leading edge development programs end with some minor difficulties that are too expensive and/or time consuming to fully resolve. Because minor difficulties in meeting a few requirements is inevitable, the means to approve relaxation of contract requirements in such cases is well established. As they say, "Nobody can afford perfect."
I can just imagine the issues Boeing would have had to work out with their fighter.
well we can start with the god awful looking intake, aka the real reason it wasnt chosen lol
@@shiphappens8491
Most don't know the Late Bob Ross was involved in the Boeing X-32's design. He made a happy little combat aircraft...😉
Aahhh the happy face jet they could probably make a toy/animatie like Disney/Pixar planes😊😊😅😅