And you would be right calling it trouble. It is considered by many to be the most expensive aviation debacle since Howard Hughes and his Spruce Goose. Its cannon cannot aim correctly (the brackets holding it together break). And even the Navy has requested more F-18 E/F and there was even a study if the F-22 could potentially be restarted and a Naval version produced. It's a political headache and nightmare and it really doesn't reflect so called "state of the art" just look at the Russian PAK-FA and new Chinese fighter. I think we had a better plane with the F-22 and a solid upgrade plan for it than this trillion dollar mess.
@@deathstrike The F-35C's gun is fine, and the F-35A's gun not working properly doesn't have any impact at all on it's role. The Navy has bought more Super Hornets because they transferred most of their Hornet fleet to the USMC and need to procure more aircraft quickly. They did so because the USMC Hornets were falling apart from over-use. FYI the F-35C was never supposed to replace the Super Hornet, so your point is invalid regardless. The Navy are allowed to operate 2 types of fighters and frankly relying on the Super Hornet isn't a very good idea. The study into restarting F-22 production had nothing to do with the F-35 and everything to do with the F-15Cs that had to be kept in service after the F-22 was cancelled in 2009. The USAF needs to replace those F-15Cs before they start falling apart like the USMC F/A-18s. The last time a study was done into a naval F-22 was before the F-22 even existed. But even if they did do a study into such a concept today it would be replacing the Super Hornet, not the F-35C. The F-35 program has cost less than half a trillion since 2001. $1.1 trillion is the projected cost of everything related to maintaining an F-35 fleet of 2000 aircraft including upgrades and pilot/ground crew training all the way out to 2065. it is the very first time a fighter aircraft program has been managed for a 50 year cycle, all older projections for aircraft like the F-22 were done in 10 year increments hence why every other aircraft program seems cheaper...
@@dumdumbinks274 I'd strongly suggest you please take a look at the most recent article in Time Magazine in where the Air Force clearly has given a LONG and difficult list of "critical items" the F-35 must meet to make it's mission readiness which is now hovering around the 72% mission capability. And one glaring item that is shown in the report, is the F-35 gun accuracy which has been quoted as "glaringly inaccurate". That is not assumption, that is fact and the problem is we can become clouded by articles and reports that can clearly skew the issue by giving the "company" side, and the programs detractors. There is also considerable problems with the F-35 software suites. Now in its defense it is a new airplane and will inevitably have teething problems as all new jets do. But to call the F-35 a runaway success is premature. Perhaps in a few more years, but not just yet. As for the 50 year anticipated life cycle, that is also premature as fighters are used much more than say the B-52 bomber and will wear quicker and require many more parts being they are many more of them. But the fact remains that the F-35 looks great in simulation ,will give many years of jobs and stability to contractors, and a few politicians will see huge smiles from their constituents. But the question remains, will it provide a return to the taxpayers? My money is on no, 50 years is a lot of advancement in that time and if anything "faster, better, cheaper" is often on the minds of taxpayers and the government at large.
@@deathstrike No, I suggest you do actual research and try to understand what is being said - not by Time, but by the Air Force. You won't be able to do much of that if you listen to or read mainstream media because those organisations make drama, not actual journalism with accurate reporting. There are plenty of examples of bad reporting surrounding the F-35 program. - Remember the ejector seat issue? Solved in 2017 and only potentially affected an insignificant number of pilots who were very short, yet the media erupted claiming the F-35 to be a deathtrap. - Remember the "oxygen issues" that grounded 50 F-35s? The issue was inadequate training in relation to breathing techniques while maneuvering. Nothing at all had to be done to the aircraft yet the media claimed once again that the F-35 was in real trouble. You'll actually find that the F/A-18 has had a heck of a lot more oxygen problems than the F-35, even if you compare year to year. - Remember the Australian F-35s that didn't attend that one airshow in 2016? Yeah that's because the F-35A they scheduled to be at the airshow was a Block 2 produced in 2014 that hadn't been certified to fly near lightning. The media interpreted that event to affect ALL F-35s no matter which version or block, but fact of the matter was that the Australian F-35 was the odd one out because it lacked a fairly significant upgrade that became standard equipment at the beginning of 2015, and most F-35s had been upgraded with that system by 2016. As I have already stated the gun issue has no effect whatsoever on the F-35A's ability to perform it's roles, and the USAF consider the gun issue to be a minor and low priority problem that will get fixed sometime in the next few years. Software issues are almost all minor issues, and once again none affect the F-35's ability to perform missions. The fact the F-35 is 3 different aircraft should tell you to expect more issues than any other single-aircraft program. Per design it isn't so bad. You're confusing lifecycle with lifespan. We're not talking about the F-35 itself when referring to lifecycle. We're talking about the fleet's service life and hte fact it will be actively supported for the next 50 years. It's not supposed to provide a return for the taxpayers. What the *nation* gets is a fighter that can operate in modern combat environments and perform very well against the biggest potential threat. And FYI unlike older fighters the F-35 is designed to be upgrade-friendly which is part of the reason for the 50 year lifecycle in the first place.
22:05 “... this may have been a heavy to price to pay but what isn’t is a subscription to Curiosity Stream” Good to know the service costs less than the F-35 JSF development program.
the f-35 is not designed to dogfight. It is designed to shoot down it's targets before visual range, just for anyone who thinks dogfighting is still extensively used in modern combat. Even the f-14s were able to shoot down targets that were 100 nautical miles away.
@JJ 1 Over the horizon radar doesn’t work if you can’t pick up the F35 before it blows you out of the sky. The reason say the F14 was so effective as a BVR was it’s radar was the best there was at the time. Now that radars are reaching there limits, stealth is the new factor that will decide fights, and on that front, nothing exists better then the F35
@@georgemavrides3434 yes, which is why the f-35 was designed to not be a specialist like the a-10 or f-22, but a flexible platform for different mission types, and so wasn't designed to excel in air to air combat at close range, all you need to do well in bvr combat is to have good missiles.
@Urazz then again, the B is really the one that brings a tactical benefit to the table, unlike the A and C which can easily be outclassed by other jets in their designated roles. I mean for the US army, the A and C are outclassed by other american jets, and in term of multi role abilities on foreign markets, they are outclassed in versatility and overall effectiveness by crafts like the french raffale. Also the F-35's role as a stealth CAS really fails to catch a market since conflicts nowadays involve fighting guerillas where really loiter time, overall payload and ease of maintenance are the main factors. in thar regard the F-35 A and C aren't worth their weight in drones. The B at least brings the versatility of being able to land and take off on short runways or heli pads which would benefit in increasing its potential coverage
@@thestudentofficial5483 I never expect educational channels to swear either, but especially Real Engineering. It really just came out of nowhere, and surprised me quite a bit.
I think he slipped and either forgot to redo the part or just left it and didn't care. Saying shit is enough for youtube censors to do its fascism work.
@@Bebeu4300 He's always very strategic with his"s-bombs". I remember looking up at the SpaceX Starship video when he described the Starhopper fabrication effort as a "shitshow" and useful info followed after.
The B2 bomber program came to about 20x per plane, or almost $2.1billion. Was that worth that? Good planes are always worth it, as they fly forever (B52?) while bad ones quietly are mothballed.
"Good planes are always worth it" That has never been true, hence why the F22 was cancelled. Performance wise, the F22 was a marvel. The problem is it costs way too much to operate. It's per hour cost dwarfed that of the F15 by nearly a factor of 3. It was also very maintenance intensive. It doesn't matter how fancy your plane is if you're always fixing it or run out of money and parts to keep it airborne. The F35 has many similar problems to the F22. It is far too expensive to fly. The original intention of the F35 program was to create cheap fighters that were easy to operate. Somehow, Lockheed Martin gave us the exact opposite.
That helmet is absolutely amazing! How long until soldiers on the ground are also kitted out with these AR helmets, receiving live enemy and friendly troop locations. We're so close to video game HUDs becoming a reality it's quite scary.
Amazing that the F-35A is now coming in at less than 80 million a copy...amazing improvement in manufacturing efficiency and cost reduction in a short time frame.
@@flufffycow Don’t quote me on this, but I’m pretty sure no they can’t, since they have no affiliation with any branch of the military or even the government itself. Besides, Musk would need a two seater version, since if he hopped in a F35, he wouldn’t even be able to get the plane ready to fly, let alone get it off the runway.
@@flufffycow Don’t quote me on this, but I’m pretty sure no they can’t, since they have no affiliation with any branch of the military or even the government itself. Besides, Musk would need a two seater version, since if he hopped in a F35, he wouldn’t even be able to get the plane ready to fly, let alone get it off the runway.
That's funny because it was exactly the truth. The F-35 WAS in beta. The flight with the F-16 was to tune to flight computer and they flew it with an F-16 because that plane is cheap to fly with detailed measurement on it's performance.
The F35A last confirmed price was under 80 million USD. The F35B was like 115 million, but it's also way more complicated. The F35C is built in much smaller volume and hence more expensive than the A by a decent margin at 105mil I think it was
@@jlight7346 the real problem with the f35 is its bugs and running costs, but that is why they made the f35 program to include technologies from different countries, it helps offset the cost to the economy for many of the participating countries. Canada for example, has made over 2bil in revenue so far off the f35 program while being one of the prime investors, even if they dont have any at the moment, but they most likely will. that revenue over time can offset running costs
@@projecttitanium-slowishdriver the prices tend to vary per country it seems from what I can find. For example the UK ended up paying more than expected due to inflation
@@invertedv12powerhouse77 Another thing, contracts also vary with what’s included. The Finnish price is what is known as the “Fly-Away Cost”, i.e. this is everything included in the plane so you can “fly it away” from the factory….Well…..Maybe except a tank of gas…that is….Me and other sometimes have to slap people’s head when they say, “HA! You forgot the price of the engine”! And we have to slap them on the head and go, “just what part of Fly-Away, that is FLY-AWAY don’t you understand?!?!?”…..Well….Ok….Ummmm…..Yeah, maybe except the tank of gas and….and…..Well….Hire a pilot to fly the plane out of here….. …..Well, that leads to my next point. If you see a jet’s price that states the F-35 is 250 million, then start looking at the contract’s fine print. This means the jet usually has things like pilot training, maintenance crew training, use of overhaul facilities (U.S. is located in Fort Worth, Europe in Italy), especially engine overhaul facilities and weapons cause no country will buy something like this without all of these in tow and they usually receive a large discount too. Hence why, if the press scream, “WAAaaaHaaaaa!!!! The F-35 cost $400 million a pop!!!!” Just roll your eyes and look at the fine prints when it should be a “Fly-Away” comparison. But yeah, for countries…..They just don’t go and buy a useless lawn ornament if you know what mean.
the good thing is the F-35 is not 115 million, no variant is, the F-35A is $77 million, the F-35B is $101 million and the F-35C is $94 million give or take, which is LEAGUES cheaper than any other Fighter especially 5th gen
I'm 31. I remember going to a "take your child to work day" when my dad worked at lockheed. they had a presentation about all the cool stuff the f-35 does. i can't believe it's been in development so long.
That's cool! About that time my dad brought me to work and I struggled at doing "file -new" in windows 3.1 paintbrush because I didn't know what to do when the next screen "do you want to save "untitled" " came up. When I grew up more I got to go into the data center but I got kicked out because I rode an office chair down a ramp to pop bubble wrap (next to financial systems servers).
your dad sounds cool. I remember when I was 5 my family went to califarona and I had a Meltdown when we couldn't go to the Lockheed facility I wanted to go there over disneyland
@Hernando Malinche yeah but that project was never going to be on budget or on time. Way to many technologies that hadn't been invented yet where essential to its design.
Worked on the F-35 project, some random info: The X-32 was dubbed "the guppy" because of its large intake. One is on display at Pax River NAS in Southern MD last I saw. Knew a pilot who had to eject an AV-8 and was injured, he was later the big boss at the F-35 engine maintenance and test facility at Pax River. The F-35B's entire exhaust nozzle points downward and incorporates a separate lift LPC in front of the jet engine, hence its much higher weight capacity compared to the AV-8. Had a beer with the test pilot Jon Beesley, happened to be at the same bar, while we were at a test facility in NJ.
the thing is about the dogfight reports you mentioned, the F-35 was a plane designed for only BVR fighting, so if an F-35 made it to the range where they started dogfighting, then the pilot of the F-35 has made some serious mistakes, the only reason the F-35 is said to out maneuver any plane except for the F-22 and its competition (the Su-57) is because it needs to do BVR fights which still require enough maneuverability to evade missiles. bonus note: I know I said the F-22 and the Su-57 can out maneuver it but it still can very well match those planes, and realistically if we factor in costs the F-22 and the Su-57 would be fighting multiple F-35s, so that's why its better, but its still capable enough to destroy 4th gen planes like the JF-17, J-15, and more
@@jlight7346 I think you actually missed what he was trying to say. Pretty sure he was trying to be smart ass, like, "You must work for Lockheed to be Simping/Shilling for them like that."
Adding a SVTOL version of the F-35 was expensive. The Marines really wanted it, but in my opinion it was the British that got it over the finish line. Without an SVTOL version of the F-35, they probably wouldn't buy it and they are a major foreign partner in the project.
@@jlight7346 The F-35B is indeed STOVL, although it can also do vertical/short take off and landing (V/STOL). The F-35B is the only variant with this capability. The F-35A and F-35C (CTOL and CV/CATOBAR) will make up the bulk of the fleet at 85%, so yes runways will still be relevant (and not nearly as long as months to repair). While the adaptive basing you described will be an important part of military strategy going forward, it has its drawbacks. STOVL flight burns a lot of fuel, which cuts severely into the jet's range. Not optimal when the role is "strike" fighter.
@@jlight7346 STOVL is the way Lockheed Martin describes it, so you can take it up with them. No, fuel is not negligible, it consumes about 1/3 of the fuel tank than it would otherwise.
@@jlight7346 Direct copy paste quote from Lockheed Martin's website describing the f35b: "Can land vertically like a helicopter and take-off in very short distances. This allows it to operate from austere, short-field bases and a range of air-capable ships". While it is capable of vtol, it can carry a significantly larger payload when its stovl. I'm unsure about the other claim, it does sound off for sure.
@@jlight7346 With a bit of further reading, it seems Lockheed doesnt call it vtol anywhere because the low weight needed makes it near useless in combat, cant find a concrete source on that, but nowhere is it listed as VTOL even though it is technically capable of it.
@@Shmozone For vtol the engine is at full trust without afterburner, that means it can stay hovering for about 2 hours definitly not using 1/3 of its fuel tank
The F-35 is by far the most advanced jet out there, all this bad press started due to one guy who had zero clue but there is a reason so many countries are buying it.
@@orion_6346 With the new upgrades the F-22 will be a monster and possibly the best air to air fighter but it will never match the sensor fusion package the F-35 has. Either way, both are great. I can't wait to see what upgrades if any they will get.
@@michaelgfyau4514 It's not. The system was purchased from the Russians who used it on one of their fighters but the Russians did not find it suitable and did not produce it in numbers. news.yahoo.com/see-f-35-stealth-fighter-145500246.html www.military-today.com/aircraft/yak_141.htm
@@anthonyrosa5006 well, no will admit it cuz it is belongs to USA. If is China, many people will say it's copycat or crap. 😂 This is what is happening now around the globe. Most people only aware now USA and China on economy war but they don't realize the media war is even greater than economy war.
@@anthonyrosa5006 False. The Russians didn't have the money to fund the project, and the lift system of the F-35B is completely different to that of the Yak-141, not to mention the Yak lift system almost exactly resembles the layout of the Convair Model 200's lift system from the late 1960s.
I don't think it's entirely fair to argue the F-117 'failed' given the fact only one single plane was shot down in ten thousands of sorties - that's actually very impressive insofar strike ratio's go. Especially considering how badly the deck was stacked against it in Serbia: Its radar signature flared up because of open bomb bays, no prowler jamming escort, the flight path was known by the enemy, long wavelength radar was used. They would likely have lost a lot more if it wasn't for its already outdated stealth technology at that time. The US deliberately didn't destroy the plane's remains because at that point the F-117's stealth capabilities were 30 years old and only of limited value to the opposing force. It's a shame it's remembered for being shot down once because it had a very good run.
Shot down by Russian made systems from the 60s, nowhere near capable air defebses. There's no such thing as stealth unless you fly blind, which becomes a suicide mission over enemy airspace.
Aircraft maneuverability is becoming increasingly irrelevant since missiles like AIM9-X have off-bore targeting and can pull much more Gs than any plane. No matter how maneuverable a plane is, it does not even close to that of a missile.
This is what most people have trouble wrapping their head around. After watching so many Hollywood movies it must be difficult for them to learn that aerial combat is NOTHING like they see in cinema. If 2 planes ever got into a dogfight 90% of the time they'll both die.
@@vincentphan5097 If they both cross the MAR they will. If they go to a dogfight, then most likely, only one will come out victorious. This is where missile maneuverability for the F35 really matters, cause fat amy can't turn for ****.
@Saturated sausage If they are both good pilots, they'll go to the MAR. If they ran out of missiles, they would probably opt to RTB than to dogfight as the airframe and pilot are extremely valuable to both respected countries.
steve crawford this is an Irish channel. By the living lord Jesus, an American dumber than his president. I've never seen the like. As much as I like a drink, it's not even 11 in the morning here, and that would be too early even for me, especially on a Sunday. You on the other hand can drink as much as you like whenever you like, no one will notice the difference.
Nice video with all the bells and whistles but he failed to mention how inaccurate the F-35's long range missiles are. During testing their missiles blew on their own in the middle of the distance or completely missed the target. Numerous times. Also the electronic system isnt very reliable in f-35. they have had many problems with the electronics (due to the fact it has so many capabilities it requires many electronic systems and they fail many times). So yeah this is why they keep reworking the F-35. Even many US pilots are doubtful about the F-35 in a dog fight because if they miss the long range missile (while in stealth) on say a dassault rafale (its extremely agile, it can even dodge missiles), the rafale can easily close in spot the F-35 and take it out (F-35 is bigger, almost twice as big and not as agile as the rafale). Many US pilots are aware of this fact and they dont rate the f-35 so highly because of its unreliable electronic system and missile target system. 100 million down the drain I would say. On paper it appears to be the god of all planes, in implementation its weak. I have even heard they have secretly tested these jets against top of the line Migs, sukhois and rafales and the F-35 got beat in almost all of the dog fights when it missed its long range missiles. F-22 raptor is much better.
@@kinghoola4926 They have gotten around the problem of long-range missile inaccuracy, by going back to the pigeon guidance system witch outperformed the Norton bomb site.lol
@@kinghoola4926 That sounds really cool if they secretly test fighter jets against each other. I tried Googling it but couldn't find anything. Do you know of any source, reliable or not that suggests that idea?
@Mark Fischer they van fly autonomous maneuvers to avoid hazards that are so drastic the human passes out or dies and it keeps flying the mission by itself or remotely.
Why do I have a feeling that Zack is going to get his pick set to scratch an F-35B, saying: "It's seems that they're using the same weird composite glass used on apple phones a year ago. Kinda disappointed for a plane that costs this much, at this price, its better to get a J-31."
Engineers: we made the Stealth fighter that you wanted. Pentagon: Great! now we want it to have STOVL, a new targeting system, and for it to fit seamlessly into every part of the armed forces. of are country and our allies for 1/2 of the cost. We will be mass producing the aircraft, So invest heavily in non-flexible assembly lines. We also want it to perfectly fill the roll of evere 4th generation fighter. Engineers: Okay but that will require lots of up front Investment and we will have to decrease the amount of weapons. Pentagon: M O R E W E A P O N S Engineers: We could add pylons, but that will make it less stealthy. Pentagon: Nevermind apparently the Air force is doesn't want STOVL, and navy doesn't want the plane, so now you are making 3 variants. They all have to have 70% of the same parts though. Engineers: But- Pentagon: Make that 30 variants. Apparently different countries need weapons equipped for different roles. Good thing that this plane will be good at everything, RIGHT? Engineers: Okay, but that will cost more. Pentagon: That is A OK. we'll just order fewer units. Engineers: Okay, but that will cost more per unit. Pentagon: ALL I ASKED FOR WAS ONE WEAPON THAT COULD DO EVERYTHING TO A DEGREE BETTER THAN ANY OTHER WEAPON IN THE WORLD, THAT WOULD SEAMLESSLY INTEGRATE WITH THE MILITARIES OF US AND ALL OF OUR ALLIES. Is that to much to ask? Engineers: Yes. Pentagon: Fine, we will give the contract to Boeing. Engineers: Okay, we will do it, but the R&D alone will be over- Pentagon: Here is a blank cheque.
Amazing how clueless some people are about military procurement processes. The F35 is not expensive, it's ridiculously cheap. It costs about the same amount of money as a modern 4th gen fighter. But the F35 provides more capability for that money than any plane before it. It's a MASSIVE leap in technology from previous generations. As a fighter F35's are getting insane kill ratios in excercises, out performing anything but the F22. And as a bomber it is completely unparallelled, easily able to go into areas defended by sophisticated integrated air defenses that would cause horrific losses against any 4th gen plane. If you had to do that same mission with F16's it would actually end up much more expensive because you'd need dozens or even hundreds of planes and you'd lose a big chunk of them. The fact that the F35 is so versatile that many countries in vastly different circumstances have ordered it only makes it more impressive. You should be damn proud of the Pentagon instead of making these dumb jokes.
15:57 the furthest object we have ever detected that MAY be an Exoplanet is about 28million light years away, aside from that all planets we have found are in the milky way
I think most people vastly underestimate the strategic and tactical implication VTOL aircraft have. General Norman Schwarzkopf later named the AV-8B among the seven weapons-along with the F-117 Nighthawk and AH-64 Apache-that played a crucial role in the Gulf War.
One thing that has remained constant in aircraft development is that they all had huge issues when first brought out. The P-51 Mustang was a marginal aircraft at first, F-22 went through development problems and so it goes with the F-35. Those earlier planes became the best in the air, the F-35 has done the same thing. Relentless pursuit of the initial problems with one of, if not the most complex aircraft built for combat has made this a really formidable aircraft. The MSM will have you think it's an abysmal failure, but if you get a chance to see it go through it's paces at a flight show, take it. Check out Curious Droid channel's piece on this plane.
The plane itself wasn't a failure - but the PROGRAM was. Not because the plane didn't eventually turn out fine, but because we wasted BILLIONS of dollars getting there. I imagine any idiot could produce a quality result if you gave them an unlimited budget and made sure that delays would never result in cancellation of his contract. The "MSM" as you put it isn't the only one calling this a failure. A huge range of experts do as well. And the reason isn't that the tech was eventually worked out, its for exactly the reasons mentioned in the video: That the strategy and approach decided on by politicians was an absolutely stupid way to achieve the intended capabilities.
27 years - still a long list of problems. No other aircraft in the history of the US has taken so long nor has been so expensive. The P51 just needed an engine, The Phantom you had the tail and the wings modified, The F16 took what a couple years? The F15 was pretty much a hit from day one. i don't know if they keep spending sooner or later they will have a jet that works but the f35 has no middle ground. love it or hate it the US will continue to twist arms to get sales
The biggest complaint I've heard is that the F22 would destroy the F35 in a straight on dog fight. But the F35 is so much more than a plane-on-plane fighter. It's versatility is its selling point. It can be a very competent dog fighter, a stealth bomber, reconnaissance, and more. You could mount a whole bunch of wildly different missions with a team of 5 F35s vs F22s. Sure the program was long and wildly expensive. But it is still the finest jet in the air today. Hopefully the F4x won't experience development hell.
@@Kabodanki He was essentially the only president to acknowledge the dangers of massive military spending and the only one who understood the power the military industrial complex had.
Ike is considered to be a top ten us president of all time thanks to his contribution to the civil right movement even though he was not that into it and was very important in the beginning of the American highway system.
What people think will happen in a 21st century conventional air war: high tech planes, missiles, lasers What will likely happen after about a year: D r o n e s w a r m
Drone is new part in air combat, It has advantage and disadvantage compare to conventional aircraft. Not mean it just 'better' just new way of new applications.
@@DOSFS my guess is that for the first part of a war, jets will still have an edge in the air, but as many militaries have many ways to take them down easily it would make more sense in some scenarios or combat roles to use a drone swarm
Would have been better to just add an inflated initial cost for each of the planes it will be replacing (F15, AV-8B, F18) and then compare the total cost of them to the current sticker price of the F35B. At least, that's how I would think of it... then again... can you really put a price on having a cutting edge air fleet that is able to defend against other 5th gen aircraft in other nations already? (the answer of course is yes.)
@@PytonPagom If there was a way to make the F14 supercruise more efficiently with that advanced radar, I'd suggest going back to that honey of an aircraft.
@@eErudius I meant AA radar sytems ... opposing F35. Plus combinaton with EW and the possible near future photon radars and civillian structure assisted passive radars ( witch is possibly Russias reason to jump on 5G as much, opposed to the rest of western world aside the foreign tech company reason ) - that is, no need for few more radars, if you have your airspace saturated with loads of everything, giving stealth small rooms to maneuver and no early active homing signal for anti-radar rockets. I also remember some talk about the specific type of stealth used ... something about chiselling off the surface to gain access to panell-screws ( ... not sure how much relevance here, but if true, its a big boomer ... and is definitely usable only if hi-tech prevalence is ensured - meaning, in a war like WW2, where money runs out fast and conditions need practical all-out service and on-hand parts ... well, its easy to see it be going back to stored 3-4 gen fighters then - and we haven't had any comparable war-situation at modern level warfare ... with with rise of china, could eventually happen )
@@InfuriatedHawk Basic Astronomer: Hold my dark matter. Cosmologist: That's adorable. Also cosmologist: Would you mind helping me look for my dark energy? Can't seem to find it.
"Everything is worth what it's purchaser will pay for it." -Publilius Syrus The cost per jet in itself is not very useful. If you want a more comprehensive look at cost you need to include things like the amount purchased and the cost to operate and maintain. The actual sale of the jet is one of least expensive factors in owing one of these in the long run. You need to build facilities to house them, fuel, parts, maintenance...Etc. There is so much money going to the support system to keep them operational.
@Sebastian Thor Idiot. The video is about the jet. Using all of your logic, you need to include the land on which the facilities are built, the air needed for the people to breathe, the physics that allow things to be built, the Earth itself for allowing us humans to be able to live and be able to build things, the gravity to hold us in place, the Earths magnetic sphere, The sun for producing us heat, the Universe for creating us and allowing us to exist, and so on. We're talking about the jet itself idiot.
@Sebastian Thor Used all of your guys' logic. See how stupid it is? and the fuel cost doesn't drastically alter the price. What did you think the fuel cost would be 5 million USD per liter?
@Sebastian Thor The jet is what were accounting for. The title states. Is the F-35 worth 110 Million, not "Is The total production cost of the F-35 worth 110 million?" No cause the total cost for producing the F-35 has been out and is in the billions.
Weapons are no use at all and wasting of our earth resources on earth to build if devil nations in the world are not creating troubles or provocations against other nations for wars in the world!! The nation building up most of the weapons in the world is a devil which will be condemned and punished by God for sure . No wars then no markets for weapons, so this nation must keep creating troubles in the world so as to keep their weapons markets in the world ......really devils!!!!
Three years later would be a good time to answer the question again. Now the F-35 is operational with full capabilities with several military branches. It is this fully operational F-35 that Finland chose to buy recently.
Other considerations for ongoing price reductions: as manufacturers in the supply chain for these planes continue to build and improve their own production methods, they can reduce their cost base/scrap rate, thereby continuing to reduce the overall price of the aircraft as well. With current production numbered in the hundreds and target production in the thousands, the program is still relatively young, so there is a lot of room for improvement.
That's one of the reasons the US has dominated cutting edge aircraft, they're one of the best and biggest sellers of military and civilian aircraft. Their biggest competitor in both markets was the USSR and VERY recently China, but theres an old saying that countries "buy American if they can afford it but Russian if they cant". A "secret" to Americas success in war and politics is their extensive network of alliances and trade agreements which leads to countries across north America, south america, europe, and asia buying american aircraft which leads to surprisingly high sales for such expensive aircraft while much cheaper Russian and chinese aircraft dont sell nearly as well even in the rare situations where they make something of comparable quality and lower price. Recently China made a fighter that supposed to be of comparable quality but is still very cheap thanks to china having rock bottom labor and material costs and selling it for a low rice to get into the military aircraft market. No one trusts china enough to buy it because china is a worse bully than America and has proven to have zero issue attacking or extorting allies to get concessions.
@@arthas640 China "selling it for a low rice" - hmm, not sure if pun or not. 🤔🤭 But otherwise I agree with your assessment. I don't trust America, I've never trusted Russia, but China I can trust - to screw me over.
hey guy, if a supplier can build a part cheaper it keeps the extra money, they don't drop the cost of the part. there is no way they would. its the same when the part gets expensive, LM won't pay more for it. They point at the contract and say but you said this price. No kidding imagine free enterprise making manufacturing more profitable, who would have thought
@@menotyou7762 ummm yes it does. Price is usually decided on supply and demand and material cost. If the supplier finds better ways to build something with less scrap, the price will for sure drop. If they have complications or can't get materials (materials get very expensive) the price rises. It's why now all cars, gpus, phones... basically everything with a chip is more expensive, there just isn't enough silicon.
It was not the pretties aircraft. Though it was also a prototype. I have seen some later concepts of what the production variant would look like and if it looks that wins you contracts, then the F-32 would beat the F-35 in my book. But that is based on plans that never came to be so we never know. Some say it the same reason the YF-23 lost to the YF-22. The YF-22 which became the basis for the F-22 having a more classic fighter jet look. But I somewhat doubt that. Still these crafts are all fairly close to each other in many respect and often have a lot of pros and cons that are hard to compare. So it would not suspire me in the end if looks was what determined the outcome. Looks have played a small role in what won a contract in the past.
The F-117 we lost that was shot down wasn't a failure of the aircraft , or pilot. It was shot down because mission planners had the planes following the same flight path to the targets over and over again and even if you can't see a plane you can hear it and if it follows the same path enough times it can be tracked and shot down. They broke the age old rule of when in battle never be predictable.
Well it was a mixture of things. As you said it was planners sending them down the same routes but it was also the fact that the nighthawk wasn't flying with the usual A6 Intruder escorts it'd have normally running radar interference, as well as the bomb bay doors being jammed open, significantly increasing it's visibility on radar.
Connor O'Brien Are you kidding? The A-10 is one of the most favorite aircraft ever made and does its job so efficiently there’s no point of making another one. Ask any ground troop if they should decommission it and they will say no. It’s CAS ability is unmatched and wreaks havoc.
There's a good chance this plane will prove itself in the future by dominating whatever conflict it finds itself in. It will likely prove the capability to network share information between other planes and commanders on the ground as the decisive factor in its domination.
Yeah, but if you're going to talk aesthetics I'd rather have had an F23... Those things are truly gorgeous. I'm glad they ended up in a museum. That was not all that likely given the tech involved...
If only other documentaries were this brave. Here kids, watch this educational programme on UA-cam. 30 minutes later... Mom how much is a shitload of money?
I think it’s really stupid when people bring up that ”oh but it lost to a f16 in a dogfight so bad plaen” because they fail to mention that, in this day and age, dogfighting isn’t even relevant. If you have a plane that can spot you before you know it’s there and blow you out of the sky with a aim-120, it doesn’t matter whether or not you turn faster. The f35 has changed the game, and I look to it’s insane capabilities with open arms. Such a remarkable piece of equipment. Also, its super common for aircraft to have delays in production or issues from the get go. Look at the f15 eagle, the legendary fighter with an astounding 103:0 loss ratio. It took 13 years to fully develop and had lots of issues but in the end it’s high tech equipment changed the battlefield and it dominated the skies. I believe the f35 will(hopefully) be just as successful.
This is a common complaint but really it makes perfect sense. The value of a brand new JSF plane is that you have warranty, and you know it's coming fresh. Once you've given this thing to a pilot you just never know what they've done with it, you know? How gentle were they on those carrier landings? Have they eaten a flock of geese? Maybe they were actually 50 cal. "geese". Of course they're not going to tell you. It is what it is.
If we adjust to gdp of the country its a cheaper project than the b29 bomber that was replaced by the twice as large b36 that was replaced by the b52 that could carry twice the payload, yet the b29 tecnology was esential to create the later models yes costs can look huge but moving foward is not free
It’s amazing how the cost of the f35 has plummeted as the kinks were worked out. And its reputation has been really unfairly biased. For the price, there’s no better fighter. The tech, the stealth, the versatility, VTOL & STOL capabilities, the situational awareness, and kill ratio. Nothing can touch it except the Raptor. But for the price, nothing can touch it.
- Holy crap, somebody who actually properly mentioned the MIC. Good job on that. - "Combining multiple roles" Isn't what the F-35 does. The F-16 and F-18 (C and E variants) are already "multirole" and perform the same role the F-35 will. The F-35 is simply continuing what those aircraft already do (and then extending that capability to the poor Marines). - I'd also add, that the cost of developing three separate airframes is far more than a single airframe with three variants. Code, sensors, stealth and cousin parts significantly reduce costs compared to wholly designing a new aircraft. You were able to compare the protractors and detractors on the maneuverability side but sadly didn't do so here. If you need any amount of proof that having several different aircraft is more expensive, look at standalone developments like the Rafale or Eurofighter. Despite them lacking the advanced sensors or technology in the F-35, they cost way more both in PAUC and APUC measurements. - I like how you pointed out the protractors and detractors of maneuverability. Basically, there are two types of turn fighters. One turn fighters, and two turn fighters. One turn fighters are built to immediately point their nose/weapons at an opponent and achieve the first shot (F/A-18, F-35). They're characterized by very high AoA capability. Two turn fighters are built to sustain their turn rate, and use E-M theory to overcome their opponents (F-16, F-15). This was the "fighter mafia" ideology. However, significant studies by the USAF in the 1990s showed that the most significant factor in winning a dogfight is firing first (which two turn fighters are bad at doing). Not only did USAF studies point to this, but later experimentation with German Migs proved just how far behind in the WVR game US E-M theory was. HOBS missiles proved to be by far and away the most dominant WVR technique. Thus, we come to the F-35. It combines the lessons learned by the USAF (E-M theory is outdated), becoming a one turn fighter (like what the USN has been using) and incorporating HOBS missiles along with DAS (360 degree targeting) to create by far one of the most advanced WVR fighters to date. - On the F-117 shootdown, the radar was not modified to use low wavelengths. It was a normal X-band targeting radar. The battery commander has since walked back on his claim that he modified the FCR (which doesn't really make sense in the first place). The far more logical explanation is a very smart placement and operation of a radar battery, combined with knowledge of exactly where the aircraft would fly. Even then, the radar didn't pick up the F-117 until its bay doors were opened and basically on top of the FCR. In other words, the FCR was looking inside the aircraft rather than on the stealth optimized outside. - Your F-22 costs are a bit off. The overall APUC (per the F-22's last SAR) is $160 million. The last lot of aircraft reached an APUC of ~$120 million though. You could also include more modern 4th generation aircraft into your comparison. Depending exactly on the block or model, F-16 bl60+/F-18E costs are around $70-$80 million, while the Rafale costs ~$110 million and the Typhoon costs a bit more than that. And these are all fourth generation aircraft with far fewer sensors, less powerful sensors, and little (or no) sensor fusion.
@@soulsphere9242 I think you're misunderstanding the point of one turn and two turn fighters. They don't literally make one turn, or two turns, it's a point about their capabilities. A one turn fighter is built to get their sights on target and shoot first. That's the most basic design philosophy behind them. A two turn fighter is built to sustain a fight with E-M theory. I'd also heavily question your anecdotal evidence regarding pilots, as few fighter pilots will concede to their peers. An F-35 is in many ways not a peer to the F-18 or F-16, while the F-18 and F-16 are literal peers. E-M theory is not obsolete in the sense of maintaining energy, but designing an aircraft wholly around E-M, like the F-16 and F-15, is completely outdated. With more advanced missile systems than what was available in the 60s and 70s, there's simply a lot more to consider when designing an aircraft doctrine. In exercises and trials, the F-16 was found to be far inferior to just about any aircraft utilizing HOBS. And that's not a hit at the F-16 as a whole, that's a doctrinal problem that caused a severe lack of foresight. Whatever allows a plane to get a missile off quicker is going to be the more advantageous characteristic in a do or die situation. This is not only true in a WVR scenario, but also BVR. It's also true for ground vehicles, naval ships, or basically any combat. Quite simply; getting shot at while you wait for your opponent to run out of energy before you can offensively position your aircraft - is a very poor survival strategy.
@@NymbusCumulo928 yeah hate to break it to you, buddy, but VTOL is pretty useless outside of navy operations (which the A isn't meant for). And it's not meant to dogfight, it's designed to cover CAS and long range stand off. Want you G's? Go with the F-22.
Just an additional note, the F-35 discussed in the mock dogfight section had G and thrust limiting software so that it would not damage the few units in use at the time
@@commandopengi Basically the guy is a detractor that has formed his opinion off false facts. No one knows what the plane can really do. Its all classified. Its the same for the guys in the comments thats sayin this is what navy guys say or airforce guys say. If they said this shit they must not like their careers to be intact.
I always laugh at the comment section here. First of all, no matter what actually happens in real life Lockheed will cherry pick the results they want. If they can’t get the results they want they’ll simply alter the testing parameters until they get what they want so the end result is always guaranteed. Second the fact that we are even bothering to discuss dogfighting in an aircraft that’s supposed to Stay invisible and fight from over the horizon…Kind of gives you a hint that it’s not all it was cracked up to be.
User Name well, try to think about the number of medals we get in Europe with a comparable population size ... Europe does dominate sports globally no questions ...
I'm American and work out every day, but I'm not offended by saying Americans are fat. A lot of them are. Our poor people have a being too fat problem.
We just launched our new channel ua-cam.com/users/realscience last week. Check it out!
Thank you for being an Engineer
@Real Engineering Just subscribed, I hope it's just as good as this channel, (but we all know it's going to be).!
very well reseched video i liked taht you metioned the radar freq range
Whatching it rihght away!
You are doing animations anyway so why can't you upload that in 4k 60fps?
Thanks man, I wasn't sure on whether to get one now or wait till it's on sale
Same I’m still wondering if I should get it in on my card or on cash
😂😂
Wait.
Bought one last year's Black Friday, can comfirm it't a great ride to work everyday. Still, i prefer my F-22 and F-15 for the weekends.
They are on gta online now? WTF
“So what should we name the F-35 for the Navy any ideas?”
The guy at the back “The F-35 Sea”
Badum tiss
And you would be right calling it trouble. It is considered by many to be the most expensive aviation debacle since Howard Hughes and his Spruce Goose. Its cannon cannot aim correctly (the brackets holding it together break). And even the Navy has requested more F-18 E/F and there was even a study if the F-22 could potentially be restarted and a Naval version produced. It's a political headache and nightmare and it really doesn't reflect so called "state of the art" just look at the Russian PAK-FA and new Chinese fighter. I think we had a better plane with the F-22 and a solid upgrade plan for it than this trillion dollar mess.
@@deathstrike The F-35C's gun is fine, and the F-35A's gun not working properly doesn't have any impact at all on it's role.
The Navy has bought more Super Hornets because they transferred most of their Hornet fleet to the USMC and need to procure more aircraft quickly. They did so because the USMC Hornets were falling apart from over-use. FYI the F-35C was never supposed to replace the Super Hornet, so your point is invalid regardless. The Navy are allowed to operate 2 types of fighters and frankly relying on the Super Hornet isn't a very good idea.
The study into restarting F-22 production had nothing to do with the F-35 and everything to do with the F-15Cs that had to be kept in service after the F-22 was cancelled in 2009. The USAF needs to replace those F-15Cs before they start falling apart like the USMC F/A-18s.
The last time a study was done into a naval F-22 was before the F-22 even existed. But even if they did do a study into such a concept today it would be replacing the Super Hornet, not the F-35C.
The F-35 program has cost less than half a trillion since 2001. $1.1 trillion is the projected cost of everything related to maintaining an F-35 fleet of 2000 aircraft including upgrades and pilot/ground crew training all the way out to 2065. it is the very first time a fighter aircraft program has been managed for a 50 year cycle, all older projections for aircraft like the F-22 were done in 10 year increments hence why every other aircraft program seems cheaper...
@@dumdumbinks274 I'd strongly suggest you please take a look at the most recent article in Time Magazine in where the Air Force clearly has given a LONG and difficult list of "critical items" the F-35 must meet to make it's mission readiness which is now hovering around the 72% mission capability. And one glaring item that is shown in the report, is the F-35 gun accuracy which has been quoted as "glaringly inaccurate". That is not assumption, that is fact and the problem is we can become clouded by articles and reports that can clearly skew the issue by giving the "company" side, and the programs detractors. There is also considerable problems with the F-35 software suites. Now in its defense it is a new airplane and will inevitably have teething problems as all new jets do. But to call the F-35 a runaway success is premature. Perhaps in a few more years, but not just yet. As for the 50 year anticipated life cycle, that is also premature as fighters are used much more than say the B-52 bomber and will wear quicker and require many more parts being they are many more of them. But the fact remains that the F-35 looks great in simulation ,will give many years of jobs and stability to contractors, and a few politicians will see huge smiles from their constituents. But the question remains, will it provide a return to the taxpayers? My money is on no, 50 years is a lot of advancement in that time and if anything "faster, better, cheaper" is often on the minds of taxpayers and the government at large.
@@deathstrike No, I suggest you do actual research and try to understand what is being said - not by Time, but by the Air Force. You won't be able to do much of that if you listen to or read mainstream media because those organisations make drama, not actual journalism with accurate reporting. There are plenty of examples of bad reporting surrounding the F-35 program.
- Remember the ejector seat issue? Solved in 2017 and only potentially affected an insignificant number of pilots who were very short, yet the media erupted claiming the F-35 to be a deathtrap.
- Remember the "oxygen issues" that grounded 50 F-35s? The issue was inadequate training in relation to breathing techniques while maneuvering. Nothing at all had to be done to the aircraft yet the media claimed once again that the F-35 was in real trouble. You'll actually find that the F/A-18 has had a heck of a lot more oxygen problems than the F-35, even if you compare year to year.
- Remember the Australian F-35s that didn't attend that one airshow in 2016? Yeah that's because the F-35A they scheduled to be at the airshow was a Block 2 produced in 2014 that hadn't been certified to fly near lightning. The media interpreted that event to affect ALL F-35s no matter which version or block, but fact of the matter was that the Australian F-35 was the odd one out because it lacked a fairly significant upgrade that became standard equipment at the beginning of 2015, and most F-35s had been upgraded with that system by 2016.
As I have already stated the gun issue has no effect whatsoever on the F-35A's ability to perform it's roles, and the USAF consider the gun issue to be a minor and low priority problem that will get fixed sometime in the next few years.
Software issues are almost all minor issues, and once again none affect the F-35's ability to perform missions. The fact the F-35 is 3 different aircraft should tell you to expect more issues than any other single-aircraft program. Per design it isn't so bad.
You're confusing lifecycle with lifespan. We're not talking about the F-35 itself when referring to lifecycle. We're talking about the fleet's service life and hte fact it will be actively supported for the next 50 years.
It's not supposed to provide a return for the taxpayers. What the *nation* gets is a fighter that can operate in modern combat environments and perform very well against the biggest potential threat. And FYI unlike older fighters the F-35 is designed to be upgrade-friendly which is part of the reason for the 50 year lifecycle in the first place.
22:05 “... this may have been a heavy to price to pay but what isn’t is a subscription to Curiosity Stream”
Good to know the service costs less than the F-35 JSF development program.
Smooth transition 👍
Imagine if it would be more expensive.
The airplanes has to be light and not heavy lik a freight rrai or it will not get off the gounfs.
@@ilovecops5499 You drunk?
AugmentedGravity: Airplane has to be strong to get past steel columns. Aluminum and steel with so mnay cycles to failure. WHy?
the f-35 is not designed to dogfight. It is designed to shoot down it's targets before visual range, just for anyone who thinks dogfighting is still extensively used in modern combat. Even the f-14s were able to shoot down targets that were 100 nautical miles away.
Over the horizon radar is a 1980's technology as is multi-spectral scanning.
@JJ 1 Over the horizon radar doesn’t work if you can’t pick up the F35 before it blows you out of the sky. The reason say the F14 was so effective as a BVR was it’s radar was the best there was at the time. Now that radars are reaching there limits, stealth is the new factor that will decide fights, and on that front, nothing exists better then the F35
BVR is not unique to F35 but all modern fighters of the last 30 decades.
@@georgemavrides3434 yes, which is why the f-35 was designed to not be a specialist like the a-10 or f-22, but a flexible platform for different mission types, and so wasn't designed to excel in air to air combat at close range, all you need to do well in bvr combat is to have good missiles.
@@jimothywhimothy8683 its generous to call the a 10 specialist when its ass at the job it was designed to do
The sapphire windows scratch at level 8, with deeper groves at level 9.
Zach should test a f35
Why they did not use gorrila glass 6😜
Damn sapphire that's nice but glass is glass, and glass cracks
Doesn't make any sense ? It does ? (I understand the ref)
Bullet holes at level 10
*** Is The F-35 Worth $115 Million?
That depends on whether you are selling one or buying one.
@Urazz then again, the B is really the one that brings a tactical benefit to the table, unlike the A and C which can easily be outclassed by other jets in their designated roles. I mean for the US army, the A and C are outclassed by other american jets, and in term of multi role abilities on foreign markets, they are outclassed in versatility and overall effectiveness by crafts like the french raffale. Also the F-35's role as a stealth CAS really fails to catch a market since conflicts nowadays involve fighting guerillas where really loiter time, overall payload and ease of maintenance are the main factors. in thar regard the F-35 A and C aren't worth their weight in drones. The B at least brings the versatility of being able to land and take off on short runways or heli pads which would benefit in increasing its potential coverage
Definitely not...
😆
@Repomeister it is about the money.... military complex has to profit from these sales...
@Repomeister well when you kill people it is wrong.
The X-32 always just looks so happy to see you.
;D
Lmao
It looks like a Moth, Don’t you think?.
They had to cancel that one. Pilots would need a paper bag over their heads to walk across the flight line. That is one Ugly, ugly airplane!
They should make a plane so obnoxious that the enemy is busy laughing till they get deepthroated by a nuke
03:39 Outlet Nozzle
07:15 Total Lift
07:59 Empty Weight
08:10 MTOW
09:37 F-35C
14:21 EOTS
16:17 F-117 in Gulf War
16:57 Simple Shape
17:40 LF Radar vs HF Radar
18:50 Complex Shape
19:30 Precision
Thanks man
20:45 I really did not expect to hear you say "A shitload of money" ever in my lifetime
Ikr. I never expect any educational channel to swears. A surprise to be sure, but a welcomed one.
@@thestudentofficial5483 I never expect educational channels to swear either, but especially Real Engineering. It really just came out of nowhere, and surprised me quite a bit.
I think he slipped and either forgot to redo the part or just left it and didn't care. Saying shit is enough for youtube censors to do its fascism work.
@@Bebeu4300 He's always very strategic with his"s-bombs". I remember looking up at the SpaceX Starship video when he described the Starhopper fabrication effort as a "shitshow" and useful info followed after.
He did say "shitshow" in his Mars SpaceX video.
Nice, the perfect thing to procrastinate with than studying to be an engineer
Same here XD
My man
Truth.
Definitely.
Ever heard of online poker?
this is certainly the smoothest transition to advertising I have ever seen
IN RUSSIA ..THEIR BEST JET FIGHTER COST AROUND ,20,000,000,in america their priced a lot higher,you got a lot of hands to grease....
they all try but that pause we all know what is coming and its like the same 5 companies hell I feel I should buy all of them
I thought I was on the same track! wiered
true
@@thomasjefferson4492 capitalist pigs
The B2 bomber program came to about 20x per plane, or almost $2.1billion. Was that worth that? Good planes are always worth it, as they fly forever (B52?) while bad ones quietly are mothballed.
The F20 is angry at you.
The B-52 will outlive us all
it’s an absolute waste of taxpayer money lol amazing engineering but not at all necessary and simply wasteful
"Good planes are always worth it"
That has never been true, hence why the F22 was cancelled. Performance wise, the F22 was a marvel. The problem is it costs way too much to operate. It's per hour cost dwarfed that of the F15 by nearly a factor of 3. It was also very maintenance intensive. It doesn't matter how fancy your plane is if you're always fixing it or run out of money and parts to keep it airborne. The F35 has many similar problems to the F22. It is far too expensive to fly. The original intention of the F35 program was to create cheap fighters that were easy to operate. Somehow, Lockheed Martin gave us the exact opposite.
@@Maniac742 the F-22 was never cancelled?
It's still in service as the US's air superiority fighter
That helmet is absolutely amazing! How long until soldiers on the ground are also kitted out with these AR helmets, receiving live enemy and friendly troop locations. We're so close to video game HUDs becoming a reality it's quite scary.
I'd rather look to integrated weapon sights on trial right now with laser range finder and a ballistics computer. Much higher hit probability.
Yeaaaaaa get the cost down to maybe 400-500 a pair and then they’ll maybe consider giving it to troops on the ground.
I’m not sure that will happen given the high chance that it could fall into enemy hands
They did made one, here take a look
News:
ua-cam.com/video/XTV13SDWB-g/v-deo.html
How it looks:
ua-cam.com/video/oow8bP37v3k/v-deo.html
seriously, they can see through their damn plane to look around them! I feel like that must be such a huge advantage in a fight
The Boeing X-32 looks like that Shark from "Finding Nemo"
"'Ello. Name's Bruce"
Nah, it looks like a whale shark
ikr
It looks like its eating itself and laughing at the same time
More like a basking shark
"As an Irish Citizen, that is not for me to decide." *Shows half of the entire Irish air force*
@Greg Moonen Northern Ireland.
The great and almighty british emipire
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
@@ClintThrust-e8r Norther Ireland is not a real country.
Would you want your government to buy them?
Exile 1 I don’t think you need an F-35 to fight the IRA
Amazing that the F-35A is now coming in at less than 80 million a copy...amazing improvement in manufacturing efficiency and cost reduction in a short time frame.
Really? That is so cool.
Can a civilian with the money, Musk, buy one?
@@flufffycow Don’t quote me on this, but I’m pretty sure no they can’t, since they have no affiliation with any branch of the military or even the government itself. Besides, Musk would need a two seater version, since if he hopped in a F35, he wouldn’t even be able to get the plane ready to fly, let alone get it off the runway.
@@flufffycow Don’t quote me on this, but I’m pretty sure no they can’t, since they have no affiliation with any branch of the military or even the government itself. Besides, Musk would need a two seater version, since if he hopped in a F35, he wouldn’t even be able to get the plane ready to fly, let alone get it off the runway.
@@flufffycow they wouldn't be able to the US is only willing to sell to allied government buyers no individuals or of course perceived hostile nations
Pilot: the plane sucks at turning
Lockheed Martin: Bruh it's in beta
F 35 A is better than j 31 in all aspects and the b and c versions dont have rivals .
@@RicardoMrMendes yeah man
That's funny because it was exactly the truth. The F-35 WAS in beta. The flight with the F-16 was to tune to flight computer and they flew it with an F-16 because that plane is cheap to fly with detailed measurement on it's performance.
@@RicardoMrMendes I very much like your sense of humor. You think like the F-104 and the Boulton-Paul Defiant had no rivals..?
@@RicardoMrMendes It does have rivals.
The F35A last confirmed price was under 80 million USD.
The F35B was like 115 million, but it's also way more complicated. The F35C is built in much smaller volume and hence more expensive than the A by a decent margin at 105mil I think it was
@@jlight7346 the real problem with the f35 is its bugs and running costs, but that is why they made the f35 program to include technologies from different countries, it helps offset the cost to the economy for many of the participating countries.
Canada for example, has made over 2bil in revenue so far off the f35 program while being one of the prime investors, even if they dont have any at the moment, but they most likely will. that revenue over time can offset running costs
Finland just bought 64 units, the unit price was under 74 million euros
@@projecttitanium-slowishdriver the prices tend to vary per country it seems from what I can find.
For example the UK ended up paying more than expected due to inflation
Bargain!
I'll take 2!
@@invertedv12powerhouse77 Another thing, contracts also vary with what’s included. The Finnish price is what is known as the “Fly-Away Cost”, i.e. this is everything included in the plane so you can “fly it away” from the factory….Well…..Maybe except a tank of gas…that is….Me and other sometimes have to slap people’s head when they say, “HA! You forgot the price of the engine”! And we have to slap them on the head and go, “just what part of Fly-Away, that is FLY-AWAY don’t you understand?!?!?”…..Well….Ok….Ummmm…..Yeah, maybe except the tank of gas and….and…..Well….Hire a pilot to fly the plane out of here…..
…..Well, that leads to my next point. If you see a jet’s price that states the F-35 is 250 million, then start looking at the contract’s fine print. This means the jet usually has things like pilot training, maintenance crew training, use of overhaul facilities (U.S. is located in Fort Worth, Europe in Italy), especially engine overhaul facilities and weapons cause no country will buy something like this without all of these in tow and they usually receive a large discount too. Hence why, if the press scream, “WAAaaaHaaaaa!!!! The F-35 cost $400 million a pop!!!!” Just roll your eyes and look at the fine prints when it should be a “Fly-Away” comparison. But yeah, for countries…..They just don’t go and buy a useless lawn ornament if you know what mean.
F-35 dev team: 27 years of development
Star citizen dev team: *Mr Incredible looking at his watch* "Ive still got time..."
... ... and the biggest avionic disaster.
@@hikvision1019 No it's not. This shit gets said about every US aircraft program until people finally understand that technology has moved on.
CIG backers could have bought three F-35As with their money! Timeshare Jet!
@@hikvision1019 like russian jets
the good thing is the F-35 is not 115 million, no variant is, the F-35A is $77 million, the F-35B is $101 million and the F-35C is $94 million give or take, which is LEAGUES cheaper than any other Fighter especially 5th gen
I'm 31. I remember going to a "take your child to work day" when my dad worked at lockheed. they had a presentation about all the cool stuff the f-35 does. i can't believe it's been in development so long.
That's cool! About that time my dad brought me to work and I struggled at doing "file -new" in windows 3.1 paintbrush because I didn't know what to do when the next screen "do you want to save "untitled" " came up. When I grew up more I got to go into the data center but I got kicked out because I rode an office chair down a ramp to pop bubble wrap (next to financial systems servers).
The F-35 will likely be in development through its lifecycle. They will always be upgrading it and improving it.
your dad sounds cool. I remember when I was 5 my family went to califarona and I had a Meltdown when we couldn't go to the Lockheed facility I wanted to go there over disneyland
@Hernando Malinche yeah but that project was never going to be on budget or on time. Way to many technologies that hadn't been invented yet where essential to its design.
I remember reading about it in a picture book almost two decades ago when I was a kid.
"More V-LOL"... XD that one got me laughing.
Lmao looks like the pidgeon who gets feed a lot
Scary pigeon 😂
it was pretty corny
VLOL. Very Laughing Out Loud? That air intake looks like a joke.
No, it actually wasn't funny.
Real engineering: Everything is detectable
MH-370: Haha
Im sure, the US satellite detected it but they just wont say a word
HHHMMMMOKH
@@navyseal1689 What other conspiracy theories you got for us?
Corona from china
Now we're going to have to search your garage and your secrete Chinese underground lair.
Worked on the F-35 project, some random info: The X-32 was dubbed "the guppy" because of its large intake. One is on display at Pax River NAS in Southern MD last I saw. Knew a pilot who had to eject an AV-8 and was injured, he was later the big boss at the F-35 engine maintenance and test facility at Pax River. The F-35B's entire exhaust nozzle points downward and incorporates a separate lift LPC in front of the jet engine, hence its much higher weight capacity compared to the AV-8. Had a beer with the test pilot Jon Beesley, happened to be at the same bar, while we were at a test facility in NJ.
OK your comment should have a thousand likes. Very cool, man!
Actually it was called the MONICA
That ad transition snuck up on me like a stealth bomber.
Before you knew what was happening, BOOM, you're ded.
It is a result from 27 years of intensive marketing
Best Segway ever. You might not have 115 million to buy a plane but maybe 2.99 for a website
Is that your birb? What a cutey :)
“This sounds like a shit load of money..” first time hearing him curse lmfao
I noticed that too
Caught me off-guard as well. Had to rewind it to make sure I heard right lol
"shit" isnt a curse word in alot of places
$1.7 TRILLION + flushed down the toilet would make any one curse.
Same
Think I will hold out until the Black Friday sales before I pick one up
gav_fitzpatrick you cant buy it dummy butt it is owned by the amreca untead states
Just use cheat codes to spawn one
SrbsfnenfokcdnwkowfnckjfsbkbkhsfvkönOöjfranrf I like your style
Just spawn it
ACT governing resumption of work Supreme Court of the USSR
the thing is about the dogfight reports you mentioned, the F-35 was a plane designed for only BVR fighting, so if an F-35 made it to the range where they started dogfighting, then the pilot of the F-35 has made some serious mistakes, the only reason the F-35 is said to out maneuver any plane except for the F-22 and its competition (the Su-57) is because it needs to do BVR fights which still require enough maneuverability to evade missiles.
bonus note: I know I said the F-22 and the Su-57 can out maneuver it but it still can very well match those planes, and realistically if we factor in costs the F-22 and the Su-57 would be fighting multiple F-35s, so that's why its better, but its still capable enough to destroy 4th gen planes like the JF-17, J-15, and more
Are you a manager in lockheed?
@@vidyutdevam9204 guess who is bombing Latakia?
@@vidyutdevam9204 he is member of India unemployed youth
@@jlight7346 I think you actually missed what he was trying to say. Pretty sure he was trying to be smart ass, like, "You must work for Lockheed to be Simping/Shilling for them like that."
@@IqbalIqbal-kx9pf and you are from Pakistan Terror Organisation.
Airplane Designer: So, what would you like this plane to be able to do?
United States: Yes...
Yes
More like:
Airplane Designer: So how many variants of this plane would you like?
United States: Yes
@@myusername3689 You make a good point🤔
@@myusername3689 The only thing I need to know is, does it come with cup holders?
@@mattienorml349 Hmmm what about a bottle opener? Does it have those?
It helped me to make an important purchase decision ... ✌
i assume that you are a saudi prince
Yes exactly, photos are way too expensive to buy. Why do you try toys instead 😂
Curious Definitley not, moreover I live in Dubai :)
How will it be transported for customers without a runway?
@@aslatabistaalphonso4250 That's where the vertical takeoff comes into play 😌
Adding a SVTOL version of the F-35 was expensive. The Marines really wanted it, but in my opinion it was the British that got it over the finish line. Without an SVTOL version of the F-35, they probably wouldn't buy it and they are a major foreign partner in the project.
@@jlight7346 The F-35B is indeed STOVL, although it can also do vertical/short take off and landing (V/STOL).
The F-35B is the only variant with this capability. The F-35A and F-35C (CTOL and CV/CATOBAR) will make up the bulk of the fleet at 85%, so yes runways will still be relevant (and not nearly as long as months to repair).
While the adaptive basing you described will be an important part of military strategy going forward, it has its drawbacks. STOVL flight burns a lot of fuel, which cuts severely into the jet's range. Not optimal when the role is "strike" fighter.
@@jlight7346 STOVL is the way Lockheed Martin describes it, so you can take it up with them. No, fuel is not negligible, it consumes about 1/3 of the fuel tank than it would otherwise.
@@jlight7346 Direct copy paste quote from Lockheed Martin's website describing the f35b: "Can land vertically like a helicopter and take-off in very short distances. This allows it to operate from austere, short-field bases and a range of air-capable ships". While it is capable of vtol, it can carry a significantly larger payload when its stovl. I'm unsure about the other claim, it does sound off for sure.
@@jlight7346 With a bit of further reading, it seems Lockheed doesnt call it vtol anywhere because the low weight needed makes it near useless in combat, cant find a concrete source on that, but nowhere is it listed as VTOL even though it is technically capable of it.
@@Shmozone For vtol the engine is at full trust without afterburner, that means it can stay hovering for about 2 hours definitly not using 1/3 of its fuel tank
The F-35 is by far the most advanced jet out there, all this bad press started due to one guy who had zero clue but there is a reason so many countries are buying it.
I agree that it’s extremely over hated and very very useful. But as an all around fighter, the F22 is superior.
@@orion_6346 With the new upgrades the F-22 will be a monster and possibly the best air to air fighter but it will never match the sensor fusion package the F-35 has. Either way, both are great. I can't wait to see what upgrades if any they will get.
pierre spray the bane of all modern military aviation
@@orion_6346 How is your F-22 going to hit a ground target? Ram into it?
@@thecatalyst6212don't forget the reformers, they nearly ruin the m2 bradley.
Looking at you Burton.
Lockheed: We could make this plane like the Harrier or the B-2 or the F-16 or the F-22 or the F-117 or the F/A 18
US Government: Yes
Trump said : it just tremendously perfect.
@@michaelgfyau4514 It's not. The system was purchased from the Russians who used it on one of their fighters but the Russians did not find it suitable and did not produce it in numbers. news.yahoo.com/see-f-35-stealth-fighter-145500246.html www.military-today.com/aircraft/yak_141.htm
@@anthonyrosa5006 well, no will admit it cuz it is belongs to USA. If is China, many people will say it's copycat or crap. 😂
This is what is happening now around the globe. Most people only aware now USA and China on economy war but they don't realize the media war is even greater than economy war.
Chetto
@@anthonyrosa5006 False. The Russians didn't have the money to fund the project, and the lift system of the F-35B is completely different to that of the Yak-141, not to mention the Yak lift system almost exactly resembles the layout of the Convair Model 200's lift system from the late 1960s.
I don't think it's entirely fair to argue the F-117 'failed' given the fact only one single plane was shot down in ten thousands of sorties - that's actually very impressive insofar strike ratio's go. Especially considering how badly the deck was stacked against it in Serbia: Its radar signature flared up because of open bomb bays, no prowler jamming escort, the flight path was known by the enemy, long wavelength radar was used. They would likely have lost a lot more if it wasn't for its already outdated stealth technology at that time. The US deliberately didn't destroy the plane's remains because at that point the F-117's stealth capabilities were 30 years old and only of limited value to the opposing force. It's a shame it's remembered for being shot down once because it had a very good run.
The only failure was in using the same flight plan day after day.
The f-117 had no jamming and limited sensors. The F-35 can Jam multiple targets at once and out-range Sam sites
One broke its wing off and fell on a residential house ,everybody took a piece of the composite material for soveneir showoff
Shot down by Russian made systems from the 60s, nowhere near capable air defebses. There's no such thing as stealth unless you fly blind, which becomes a suicide mission over enemy airspace.
Shot down by a 1961 soviet sam...
i'm glad UA-cam recommended this video to me. I'm in the market for a new fighter jet. Thanks!
Is it actually possible for a citizen to buy one? Without all the missiles and such.
Yep I can trAde in lots of school and hospitals to get a pair of these.
@@ASLUHLUHC3 I don't remember the name of the airplane, but it's like a fighter jet. Yes, it's expensive.
Morgan Freeman is Zoroastrian, he only wants it for the flames.
Its out on Flight Simulator Programs!!! FS 2020 will have all modern fighters ...bombers.. in its ..future packages!!!
Aircraft maneuverability is becoming increasingly irrelevant since missiles like AIM9-X have off-bore targeting and can pull much more Gs than any plane. No matter how maneuverable a plane is, it does not even close to that of a missile.
This is what most people have trouble wrapping their head around. After watching so many Hollywood movies it must be difficult for them to learn that aerial combat is NOTHING like they see in cinema. If 2 planes ever got into a dogfight 90% of the time they'll both die.
@@vincentphan5097 If they both cross the MAR they will. If they go to a dogfight, then most likely, only one will come out victorious. This is where missile maneuverability for the F35 really matters, cause fat amy can't turn for ****.
@Saturated sausage If they are both good pilots, they'll go to the MAR. If they ran out of missiles, they would probably opt to RTB than to dogfight as the airframe and pilot are extremely valuable to both respected countries.
"Commercially available" - that means you can buy it on the open market. The correct description is "joint adoption".
don't tell the ancaps, they still haven't gotten over the lack of recreational McNukes
damn, there goes all my plans
fredmdbud that's cos they have to force people to take it
steve crawford this is an Irish channel. By the living lord Jesus, an American dumber than his president. I've never seen the like. As much as I like a drink, it's not even 11 in the morning here, and that would be too early even for me, especially on a Sunday. You on the other hand can drink as much as you like whenever you like, no one will notice the difference.
Sure as hell ain't giving it to Turkey after they bought the S-400.
"Is The F-35 Worth $115 Million?"
*spends 20 minutes explaining it*
"As an Irish citizen that's not for me to decide"
Nice video with all the bells and whistles but he failed to mention how inaccurate the F-35's long range missiles are. During testing their missiles blew on their own in the middle of the distance or completely missed the target. Numerous times. Also the electronic system isnt very reliable in f-35. they have had many problems with the electronics (due to the fact it has so many capabilities it requires many electronic systems and they fail many times). So yeah this is why they keep reworking the F-35. Even many US pilots are doubtful about the F-35 in a dog fight because if they miss the long range missile (while in stealth) on say a dassault rafale (its extremely agile, it can even dodge missiles), the rafale can easily close in spot the F-35 and take it out (F-35 is bigger, almost twice as big and not as agile as the rafale). Many US pilots are aware of this fact and they dont rate the f-35 so highly because of its unreliable electronic system and missile target system. 100 million down the drain I would say. On paper it appears to be the god of all planes, in implementation its weak. I have even heard they have secretly tested these jets against top of the line Migs, sukhois and rafales and the F-35 got beat in almost all of the dog fights when it missed its long range missiles. F-22 raptor is much better.
@@kinghoola4926 They have gotten around the problem of long-range missile inaccuracy, by going back to the pigeon guidance system witch outperformed the Norton bomb site.lol
@@kinghoola4926 I'm pretty sure it uses the same missiles as any other air to air fighter AMRAAM and sidewinder.
@@kinghoola4926 That sounds really cool if they secretly test fighter jets against each other. I tried Googling it but couldn't find anything. Do you know of any source, reliable or not that suggests that idea?
@@kinghoola4926 F-22 is so old it has 25mhz processors. Missiles will be fixed, sam's are a threat for a reason, missiles work.
Husband: "Honey, why is there an F-35 on the kitchen table?" Wife: "It was on sale!"
Sounds like me when I got my RC F-35 😝
“That’s Jimmy’s Christmas present.”
Robert Oschler I wouldn’t be mad
Other way around.
more like the other way around, usually a husband would buy that 😂
Lot 14 F-35A (Air Force variant) unit cost is $77.9M. Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle unit cost is $100M. F/A-18E unit cost is around $67M.
The f35 pointing its nozzle down looks like a nervous dog taking a dump
lol
LMFAOOO
Like a whippet taking a shit !
it knows what it did.
@Mark Fischer they van fly autonomous maneuvers to avoid hazards that are so drastic the human passes out or dies and it keeps flying the mission by itself or remotely.
*The public* "it costs so much money omg"
*The government* "haha money printer goes brrrr'
@Glacier The Husky how isnt expensive tho?
@@batur_psychology19 so, Apple is worth over a trillion. TRILLION. That is one million million. 150 million for the government isn't a huge deal
@@ilikepegasi6449 "War is never going to go away." It won't as long as you keep saying it.
More like *brrrrrrt*
A10 supposed to be cheap but just look at its freaking price
Dang, that last transition from information to the Curiosity Stream plug was smooth as hell man. Almost couldn't tell it switched. Nice job there lol.
Ad Block Plus. Come on, folks.... It's been out longer than I've been alive, lol.
I was an Airframes mechanic in the marines on the F-35B And even served on some of the ships shown in this video. You covered the subject very well.
"Making this less VTOL and more VLoL" xD
Gottem!
The windows are made of sapphire, JerryRigEverything: Minor scratches at level 8 with deeper grooves at level 9.
Comments didn't disappoint 🤣
Then find out the US military did an Apple leading to...
Scratches at a level 6
Deeper grooves at a level 7
Why do I have a feeling that Zack is going to get his pick set to scratch an F-35B, saying: "It's seems that they're using the same weird composite glass used on apple phones a year ago. Kinda disappointed for a plane that costs this much, at this price, its better to get a J-31."
Durability test would be fun to watch!
My ears are bleeding from that metal scratching.
Engineers: we made the Stealth fighter that you wanted.
Pentagon: Great! now we want it to have STOVL, a new targeting system, and for it to fit seamlessly into every part of the armed forces. of are country and our allies for 1/2 of the cost. We will be mass producing the aircraft, So invest heavily in non-flexible assembly lines. We also want it to perfectly fill the roll of evere 4th generation fighter.
Engineers: Okay but that will require lots of up front Investment and we will have to decrease the amount of weapons.
Pentagon: M O R E W E A P O N S
Engineers: We could add pylons, but that will make it less stealthy.
Pentagon: Nevermind apparently the Air force is doesn't want STOVL, and navy doesn't want the plane, so now you are making 3 variants. They all have to have 70% of the same parts though.
Engineers: But-
Pentagon: Make that 30 variants. Apparently different countries need weapons equipped for different roles. Good thing that this plane will be good at everything, RIGHT?
Engineers: Okay, but that will cost more.
Pentagon: That is A OK. we'll just order fewer units.
Engineers: Okay, but that will cost more per unit.
Pentagon: ALL I ASKED FOR WAS ONE WEAPON THAT COULD DO EVERYTHING TO A DEGREE BETTER THAN ANY OTHER WEAPON IN THE WORLD, THAT WOULD SEAMLESSLY INTEGRATE WITH THE MILITARIES OF US AND ALL OF OUR ALLIES. Is that to much to ask?
Engineers: Yes.
Pentagon: Fine, we will give the contract to Boeing.
Engineers: Okay, we will do it, but the R&D alone will be over-
Pentagon: Here is a blank cheque.
Facts
Samuel Fischman
Didn’t Robert McNamara. Try this with the F-111A back in the late 60s?
Amazing how clueless some people are about military procurement processes. The F35 is not expensive, it's ridiculously cheap. It costs about the same amount of money as a modern 4th gen fighter. But the F35 provides more capability for that money than any plane before it. It's a MASSIVE leap in technology from previous generations. As a fighter F35's are getting insane kill ratios in excercises, out performing anything but the F22. And as a bomber it is completely unparallelled, easily able to go into areas defended by sophisticated integrated air defenses that would cause horrific losses against any 4th gen plane. If you had to do that same mission with F16's it would actually end up much more expensive because you'd need dozens or even hundreds of planes and you'd lose a big chunk of them. The fact that the F35 is so versatile that many countries in vastly different circumstances have ordered it only makes it more impressive. You should be damn proud of the Pentagon instead of making these dumb jokes.
@@duxd1452 facts right there my man
it was made with STOVL and to be adaptable as a goal all along.
20:46 Rare moment of Real Engineering swearing
Real Engineering: “everything is detectable”
MH370: “are you sure about that?”
They know where it is, off the coast of Western Australia
Turbotroll presumed
@@turbotroll8605 Only the wreckage was discovered. But It was not detected when the plane was still in the air.
The vietcong
Alien: "we will see about that"
i wasn't expecting the "a shit load of money" line, had me dying.
weak
@@David-jm5rj Shut up.
@@wizzotizzo rude
"less VTOL and more VLOL" omg that cracked me up!
Same tho
VLOL
@@OBLOfficiall Vlol
Why do people reveal jokes like this?
Why does UA-cam show comments weight clicking the button?
F 35 is "SVTOL" I think.that means its "Super VLOL" aircraft.
15:57 the furthest object we have ever detected that MAY be an Exoplanet is about 28million light years away, aside from that all planets we have found are in the milky way
Im gonna wait till next year when they release the next version then buy this model.
I hear they're bringing back the headphone jack on next years model.
I need this in DCS. Too modern tho unfortunately.
Ill wait for the black friday sale
lol the comment section is a gold mine
@@volvo09 I miss the FM radio, hope it comes back with the new model.
The F-35D is a 1/20 scale model that they send to the army so they have something to play with instead of their food.
hahahahha good one
"VLOL"
- Real Engineering
Happiest jet every made.
Laughing to the bank..
ua-cam.com/video/3PNqkfCJzDk/v-deo.html
@ 🤣
I think most people vastly underestimate the strategic and tactical implication VTOL aircraft have. General Norman Schwarzkopf later named the AV-8B among the seven weapons-along with the F-117 Nighthawk and AH-64 Apache-that played a crucial role in the Gulf War.
6:00 , "Why are the hatches comin out, Mav?"
One thing that has remained constant in aircraft development is that they all had huge issues when first brought out. The P-51 Mustang was a marginal aircraft at first, F-22 went through development problems and so it goes with the F-35. Those earlier planes became the best in the air, the F-35 has done the same thing. Relentless pursuit of the initial problems with one of, if not the most complex aircraft built for combat has made this a really formidable aircraft. The MSM will have you think it's an abysmal failure, but if you get a chance to see it go through it's paces at a flight show, take it. Check out Curious Droid channel's piece on this plane.
The plane itself wasn't a failure - but the PROGRAM was. Not because the plane didn't eventually turn out fine, but because we wasted BILLIONS of dollars getting there. I imagine any idiot could produce a quality result if you gave them an unlimited budget and made sure that delays would never result in cancellation of his contract.
The "MSM" as you put it isn't the only one calling this a failure. A huge range of experts do as well. And the reason isn't that the tech was eventually worked out, its for exactly the reasons mentioned in the video: That the strategy and approach decided on by politicians was an absolutely stupid way to achieve the intended capabilities.
27 years - still a long list of problems. No other aircraft in the history of the US has taken so long nor has been so expensive. The P51 just needed an engine, The Phantom you had the tail and the wings modified, The F16 took what a couple years? The F15 was pretty much a hit from day one.
i don't know if they keep spending sooner or later they will have a jet that works but the f35 has no middle ground. love it or hate it the US will continue to twist arms to get sales
The biggest complaint I've heard is that the F22 would destroy the F35 in a straight on dog fight. But the F35 is so much more than a plane-on-plane fighter. It's versatility is its selling point. It can be a very competent dog fighter, a stealth bomber, reconnaissance, and more. You could mount a whole bunch of wildly different missions with a team of 5 F35s vs F22s.
Sure the program was long and wildly expensive. But it is still the finest jet in the air today. Hopefully the F4x won't experience development hell.
@@TheCuriousNoob argueaqbly the best. I say that because it fails in many regards in comparison to other jets
You can't expect journalists who most get C+ in Science and Math to appreciate what 30000 engineers took 30 yrs to accomplish.
0:38 Eisenhower must be rolling over in his grave.
The best Republican president ever.
@@lukeg8466 And why that hyperbolic based on nothing statement ?
If he ran now, he’d be pretty much be considered a Bernie Sanders level liberal.
@@Kabodanki He was essentially the only president to acknowledge the dangers of massive military spending and the only one who understood the power the military industrial complex had.
Ike is considered to be a top ten us president of all time thanks to his contribution to the civil right movement even though he was not that into it and was very important in the beginning of the American highway system.
Any chance there will be a bundle edition with helmet? Little confused which one to get and discouraged by scalpers though…
22:07 Seamlessly integrated advertising .
What people think will happen in a 21st century conventional air war: high tech planes, missiles, lasers
What will likely happen after about a year: D r o n e s w a r m
Drone is new part in air combat, It has advantage and disadvantage compare to conventional aircraft. Not mean it just 'better' just new way of new applications.
@@DOSFS my guess is that for the first part of a war, jets will still have an edge in the air, but as many militaries have many ways to take them down easily it would make more sense in some scenarios or combat roles to use a drone swarm
115 million buys a LOT of cheap drones
good thing the f35 is designed to control drone swarms and have AI loyal wingmen
Question. Do you think working with drone swarms is not part of the F35s capabilities?
Q: Is the F-35 Worth $115 Million?
20+ minutes of video later...
A: That is not for me to say.
What? Bah... :)
I like the why you say bah
Would have been better to just add an inflated initial cost for each of the planes it will be replacing (F15, AV-8B, F18) and then compare the total cost of them to the current sticker price of the F35B.
At least, that's how I would think of it... then again... can you really put a price on having a cutting edge air fleet that is able to defend against other 5th gen aircraft in other nations already? (the answer of course is yes.)
@@eErudius Not sure if new gen radars make their way to make it irrelevant ...
@@PytonPagom If there was a way to make the F14 supercruise more efficiently with that advanced radar, I'd suggest going back to that honey of an aircraft.
@@eErudius I meant AA radar sytems ... opposing F35. Plus combinaton with EW and the possible near future photon radars and civillian structure assisted passive radars ( witch is possibly Russias reason to jump on 5G as much, opposed to the rest of western world aside the foreign tech company reason ) - that is, no need for few more radars, if you have your airspace saturated with loads of everything, giving stealth small rooms to maneuver and no early active homing signal for anti-radar rockets. I also remember some talk about the specific type of stealth used ... something about chiselling off the surface to gain access to panell-screws ( ... not sure how much relevance here, but if true, its a big boomer ... and is definitely usable only if hi-tech prevalence is ensured - meaning, in a war like WW2, where money runs out fast and conditions need practical all-out service and on-hand parts ... well, its easy to see it be going back to stored 3-4 gen fighters then - and we haven't had any comparable war-situation at modern level warfare ... with with rise of china, could eventually happen )
Checking back after two years- Finland orders 64 units
"Short of physically not existing, everything is detectable'. Lmao😂😂
Quantum Physics: "Hold my hadron."
@@InfuriatedHawk lmao!
@@InfuriatedHawk Basic Astronomer: Hold my dark matter.
Cosmologist: That's adorable.
Also cosmologist: Would you mind helping me look for my dark energy? Can't seem to find it.
@@GeneralAblon Other Cosmologist: I think you left it near the Higgs Boson...
*Laughs in string theory*
"Everything is worth what it's purchaser will pay for it." -Publilius Syrus
The cost per jet in itself is not very useful. If you want a more comprehensive look at cost you need to include things like the amount purchased and the cost to operate and maintain. The actual sale of the jet is one of least expensive factors in owing one of these in the long run. You need to build facilities to house them, fuel, parts, maintenance...Etc. There is so much money going to the support system to keep them operational.
Facilities aren't the jet. We're talking solely how much each Jet is actually worth.
Add the cost of preparation and training: pilots, ground crew, tactical ops, theater intel, equipment, real estate, logistic planning and upkeep...
@Sebastian Thor Idiot. The video is about the jet. Using all of your logic, you need to include the land on which the facilities are built, the air needed for the people to breathe, the physics that allow things to be built, the Earth itself for allowing us humans to be able to live and be able to build things, the gravity to hold us in place, the Earths magnetic sphere, The sun for producing us heat, the Universe for creating us and allowing us to exist, and so on. We're talking about the jet itself idiot.
@Sebastian Thor Used all of your guys' logic. See how stupid it is? and the fuel cost doesn't drastically alter the price. What did you think the fuel cost would be 5 million USD per liter?
@Sebastian Thor The jet is what were accounting for. The title states. Is the F-35 worth 110 Million, not "Is The total production cost of the F-35 worth 110 million?" No cause the total cost for producing the F-35 has been out and is in the billions.
Yeah, it ain't cheap. But compare the cost of an F-35 to what the Jacksonville Jaguars are paying Nick Foles.
One kills the other one doesn't.
One had a service time of fifty years
BORTLES
Hannah Ni is that a good place reference?
Weapons are no use at all and wasting of our earth resources on earth to build if devil nations in the world are not creating troubles or provocations against other nations for wars in the world!! The nation building up most of the weapons in the world is a devil which will be condemned and punished by God for sure . No wars then no markets for weapons, so this nation must keep creating troubles in the world so as to keep their weapons markets in the world ......really devils!!!!
Three years later would be a good time to answer the question again. Now the F-35 is operational with full capabilities with several military branches. It is this fully operational F-35 that Finland chose to buy recently.
And still a flying tub.
Other considerations for ongoing price reductions: as manufacturers in the supply chain for these planes continue to build and improve their own production methods, they can reduce their cost base/scrap rate, thereby continuing to reduce the overall price of the aircraft as well. With current production numbered in the hundreds and target production in the thousands, the program is still relatively young, so there is a lot of room for improvement.
That's one of the reasons the US has dominated cutting edge aircraft, they're one of the best and biggest sellers of military and civilian aircraft. Their biggest competitor in both markets was the USSR and VERY recently China, but theres an old saying that countries "buy American if they can afford it but Russian if they cant". A "secret" to Americas success in war and politics is their extensive network of alliances and trade agreements which leads to countries across north America, south america, europe, and asia buying american aircraft which leads to surprisingly high sales for such expensive aircraft while much cheaper Russian and chinese aircraft dont sell nearly as well even in the rare situations where they make something of comparable quality and lower price. Recently China made a fighter that supposed to be of comparable quality but is still very cheap thanks to china having rock bottom labor and material costs and selling it for a low rice to get into the military aircraft market. No one trusts china enough to buy it because china is a worse bully than America and has proven to have zero issue attacking or extorting allies to get concessions.
@@arthas640 China "selling it for a low rice" - hmm, not sure if pun or not. 🤔🤭
But otherwise I agree with your assessment. I don't trust America, I've never trusted Russia, but China I can trust - to screw me over.
December 2021 report that F35 cost was down to 79 million per aircraft. Estimates that at end of year 2022, the cost could be down to 76 million.
hey guy, if a supplier can build a part cheaper it keeps the extra money, they don't drop the cost of the part. there is no way they would. its the same when the part gets expensive, LM won't pay more for it. They point at the contract and say but you said this price.
No kidding imagine free enterprise making manufacturing more profitable, who would have thought
@@menotyou7762 ummm yes it does. Price is usually decided on supply and demand and material cost. If the supplier finds better ways to build something with less scrap, the price will for sure drop. If they have complications or can't get materials (materials get very expensive) the price rises. It's why now all cars, gpus, phones... basically everything with a chip is more expensive, there just isn't enough silicon.
The X-32 looks like a generic cartoon happy whale... with wings
Looks like from Pixar's Planes
Reminds me General Aladeens discussion with nuclear Nadal.
It was not the pretties aircraft. Though it was also a prototype. I have seen some later concepts of what the production variant would look like and if it looks that wins you contracts, then the F-32 would beat the F-35 in my book. But that is based on plans that never came to be so we never know.
Some say it the same reason the YF-23 lost to the YF-22. The YF-22 which became the basis for the F-22 having a more classic fighter jet look. But I somewhat doubt that. Still these crafts are all fairly close to each other in many respect and often have a lot of pros and cons that are hard to compare. So it would not suspire me in the end if looks was what determined the outcome. Looks have played a small role in what won a contract in the past.
It’s such a cute lil plane
I remember seeing that and thinking, no way is that gonna win the contest. lol It makes the A-7 look sexy. :D
That Boeing Jet looks like it needs to lay off on the donuts.
2:59
Oh dear
i'm guessing the idea was its so ugly the enemy would poke out their eyes rather than look at it
2:59
Somebody described it saying it had a look only a mother could love…
Lazerpig has a good video on this too
The F-117 we lost that was shot down wasn't a failure of the aircraft , or pilot. It was shot down because mission planners had the planes following the same flight path to the targets over and over again and even if you can't see a plane you can hear it and if it follows the same path enough times it can be tracked and shot down. They broke the age old rule of when in battle never be predictable.
Same thing happened in Mogadishu. Remember Black Hawk Down?
Well it was a mixture of things. As you said it was planners sending them down the same routes but it was also the fact that the nighthawk wasn't flying with the usual A6 Intruder escorts it'd have normally running radar interference, as well as the bomb bay doors being jammed open, significantly increasing it's visibility on radar.
21:57 Source: The entire Irish Air Corps . I'm dying
🤣🤣🤣
Ah, Finnally a worthy opponent for my country Slovenia ! 😆
"A stealth plane" *proceeds to show an A-10 Thunderbolt II*
the A-10 really doesnt have any place on a modern battlefield anymore than battleships
It’s very stealthy if there’re no witnesses
@@sashali6666 thats y theres *BRRRRRRRT*
Connor O'Brien Are you kidding? The A-10 is one of the most favorite aircraft ever made and does its job so efficiently there’s no point of making another one. Ask any ground troop if they should decommission it and they will say no. It’s CAS ability is unmatched and wreaks havoc.
FPS Elwin can’t be detected if everyone is dead
There's a good chance this plane will prove itself in the future by dominating whatever conflict it finds itself in. It will likely prove the capability to network share information between other planes and commanders on the ground as the decisive factor in its domination.
The helmet alone is an engineering wonder
its not even a new concept TBH.. Apachie Helo's have had that caspiblity since they where being manufactured.
Street S W A T in 1965 lol?
@@StreetSWAT yes they have some of that stuff but this one has so much more.
@@sx3137 1975.
Kevin Doyle the Russians have already figured out how to scramble it making the pilot blind
22:00 lmao "The entire Irish air corps"
*Engineers debating which plane has the best vtol
*me, knowing hydra from gta san andreas had the best vtol*
😂😭😂
LOL
its a herrier tho....
@@MrCGangsta it's called Hydra in game
@@bondrewdthelordofdawn3744 yeah its a wordplay same shit rockstar does
Three years later and it's down to $75 million and up to 900 airframes delivered.
"This sounds like a shitload of money..."
That's because it is.
Snow Ng well worth it
I mean, relative to the US' economy it's a drop in an ocean.
Not really. The per unit flyaway cost as of this year is $80MM and an F-15K is $100MM and the F-15X is $110MM
@@spike51234 actually poland just paid 144 Million
@@Karl-Benny Really? They cut the US a check for $144MM? Wheres your proof bud?
I have a preference for the F22's aesthetics.
I wonder what's the difference of the radar signature... the MIGs seems to have a minimal signature even in 4th gen
@@PrograError migs have a huge radar signature though
Yeah, but if you're going to talk aesthetics I'd rather have had an F23...
Those things are truly gorgeous.
I'm glad they ended up in a museum. That was not all that likely given the tech involved...
@@KuraIthys True. Too bad it got shelved.
Agreed
At 20:45 "This sounds like a shitload of money"
Antar Das hon Ireland !!
Caught me off guard so hard xDdd
DEMONETIZED 😒
If only other documentaries were this brave. Here kids, watch this educational programme on UA-cam.
30 minutes later... Mom how much is a shitload of money?
'"This sounds like a shitload of money"' I know. Just shows how deceptive appearance can be!
I think it’s really stupid when people bring up that ”oh but it lost to a f16 in a dogfight so bad plaen” because they fail to mention that, in this day and age, dogfighting isn’t even relevant. If you have a plane that can spot you before you know it’s there and blow you out of the sky with a aim-120, it doesn’t matter whether or not you turn faster. The f35 has changed the game, and I look to it’s insane capabilities with open arms. Such a remarkable piece of equipment.
Also, its super common for aircraft to have delays in production or issues from the get go. Look at the f15 eagle, the legendary fighter with an astounding 103:0 loss ratio. It took 13 years to fully develop and had lots of issues but in the end it’s high tech equipment changed the battlefield and it dominated the skies. I believe the f35 will(hopefully) be just as successful.
X-32: Less V-TOL and more V-LOL 🤣🤣🤣
Priceless
I'm dyin yo😭😭
Those things start to depreciate the second you fly 'em off the lot.
This is a common complaint but really it makes perfect sense. The value of a brand new JSF plane is that you have warranty, and you know it's coming fresh. Once you've given this thing to a pilot you just never know what they've done with it, you know? How gentle were they on those carrier landings? Have they eaten a flock of geese? Maybe they were actually 50 cal. "geese". Of course they're not going to tell you. It is what it is.
I’m getting mine delivered next week, it’s coming off a lease.
Scotty Kilmer says it’s a Money Pit
22:07 That was a very smooth segway.
it's seque 😂
i was like "pffffff"
Segue not seque
If we adjust to gdp of the country its a cheaper project than the b29 bomber that was replaced by the twice as large b36 that was replaced by the b52 that could carry twice the payload, yet the b29 tecnology was esential to create the later models yes costs can look huge but moving foward is not free
It’s amazing how the cost of the f35 has plummeted as the kinks were worked out. And its reputation has been really unfairly biased. For the price, there’s no better fighter. The tech, the stealth, the versatility, VTOL & STOL capabilities, the situational awareness, and kill ratio. Nothing can touch it except the Raptor. But for the price, nothing can touch it.
F-15EX.
Saab gripen
Possibly the SU-57. Depends on if the su-57 stealth technology is as good as the Russians claim.
@@Franfran2424 The f-35 is cheaper than the f-15EX but more expensive to maintain
@@akfin4763 lol
- Holy crap, somebody who actually properly mentioned the MIC. Good job on that.
- "Combining multiple roles" Isn't what the F-35 does. The F-16 and F-18 (C and E variants) are already "multirole" and perform the same role the F-35 will. The F-35 is simply continuing what those aircraft already do (and then extending that capability to the poor Marines).
- I'd also add, that the cost of developing three separate airframes is far more than a single airframe with three variants. Code, sensors, stealth and cousin parts significantly reduce costs compared to wholly designing a new aircraft. You were able to compare the protractors and detractors on the maneuverability side but sadly didn't do so here. If you need any amount of proof that having several different aircraft is more expensive, look at standalone developments like the Rafale or Eurofighter. Despite them lacking the advanced sensors or technology in the F-35, they cost way more both in PAUC and APUC measurements.
- I like how you pointed out the protractors and detractors of maneuverability. Basically, there are two types of turn fighters. One turn fighters, and two turn fighters. One turn fighters are built to immediately point their nose/weapons at an opponent and achieve the first shot (F/A-18, F-35). They're characterized by very high AoA capability. Two turn fighters are built to sustain their turn rate, and use E-M theory to overcome their opponents (F-16, F-15). This was the "fighter mafia" ideology. However, significant studies by the USAF in the 1990s showed that the most significant factor in winning a dogfight is firing first (which two turn fighters are bad at doing). Not only did USAF studies point to this, but later experimentation with German Migs proved just how far behind in the WVR game US E-M theory was. HOBS missiles proved to be by far and away the most dominant WVR technique. Thus, we come to the F-35. It combines the lessons learned by the USAF (E-M theory is outdated), becoming a one turn fighter (like what the USN has been using) and incorporating HOBS missiles along with DAS (360 degree targeting) to create by far one of the most advanced WVR fighters to date.
- On the F-117 shootdown, the radar was not modified to use low wavelengths. It was a normal X-band targeting radar. The battery commander has since walked back on his claim that he modified the FCR (which doesn't really make sense in the first place). The far more logical explanation is a very smart placement and operation of a radar battery, combined with knowledge of exactly where the aircraft would fly. Even then, the radar didn't pick up the F-117 until its bay doors were opened and basically on top of the FCR. In other words, the FCR was looking inside the aircraft rather than on the stealth optimized outside.
- Your F-22 costs are a bit off. The overall APUC (per the F-22's last SAR) is $160 million. The last lot of aircraft reached an APUC of ~$120 million though. You could also include more modern 4th generation aircraft into your comparison. Depending exactly on the block or model, F-16 bl60+/F-18E costs are around $70-$80 million, while the Rafale costs ~$110 million and the Typhoon costs a bit more than that. And these are all fourth generation aircraft with far fewer sensors, less powerful sensors, and little (or no) sensor fusion.
This guy out here with the actual facts !
@@soulsphere9242 I think you're misunderstanding the point of one turn and two turn fighters. They don't literally make one turn, or two turns, it's a point about their capabilities. A one turn fighter is built to get their sights on target and shoot first. That's the most basic design philosophy behind them. A two turn fighter is built to sustain a fight with E-M theory. I'd also heavily question your anecdotal evidence regarding pilots, as few fighter pilots will concede to their peers. An F-35 is in many ways not a peer to the F-18 or F-16, while the F-18 and F-16 are literal peers.
E-M theory is not obsolete in the sense of maintaining energy, but designing an aircraft wholly around E-M, like the F-16 and F-15, is completely outdated. With more advanced missile systems than what was available in the 60s and 70s, there's simply a lot more to consider when designing an aircraft doctrine. In exercises and trials, the F-16 was found to be far inferior to just about any aircraft utilizing HOBS. And that's not a hit at the F-16 as a whole, that's a doctrinal problem that caused a severe lack of foresight.
Whatever allows a plane to get a missile off quicker is going to be the more advantageous characteristic in a do or die situation. This is not only true in a WVR scenario, but also BVR. It's also true for ground vehicles, naval ships, or basically any combat. Quite simply; getting shot at while you wait for your opponent to run out of energy before you can offensively position your aircraft - is a very poor survival strategy.
You must be some sort of UN/NATO shill.
@@BestintheWest25 what kind of counter argument is that 🤔
I think I could sit an entire day with you listening to all that knowledge and I wouldn't get tired even at the end of the day. Truly fascinating.
“Lockeed Maehrtin”. What a fine Irish accent
Lol. Name Loockeed cames from Loughead. A stew eater..
I like how "but" sounds like "bosh"
Now you know how it's pronounced correctly.
"Manny" of his pronunciations were quite unusual.
@@cholesterol6703 A is distinct from E in Ireland.
"This sounds like a sh*tload of money" caught me off guard lol
"A single plane" - in three very distinct and separate versions.
That all suck total ass . . . . the A model can barely pull 9 Gs . . . . and it cant VTOL . . .
Many airplanes have multiple variants.
@@NymbusCumulo928 yeah hate to break it to you, buddy, but VTOL is pretty useless outside of navy operations (which the A isn't meant for). And it's not meant to dogfight, it's designed to cover CAS and long range stand off. Want you G's? Go with the F-22.
@@NymbusCumulo928 Because that's thats not the purpose of it... The different variants have different features, it's not that hard to understand.
@@commiespy4908 not to mention future air combat is BVR
Thanks for the look at the entire Irish Air Corps!
Just an additional note, the F-35 discussed in the mock dogfight section had G and thrust limiting software so that it would not damage the few units in use at the time
F16 that won 4 out of 5 scenarios was crippled with wing tanks and forced to use active radar. F35 cant fight, turn,or run.
@@eleventy-seven Block 3F F35s steamroll F16s so badly that F16s have to go clean to have a chance. Source: www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=54012
@@eleventy-seven Who cares if proper dogfights don't actually happen.
@@commandopengi Basically the guy is a detractor that has formed his opinion off false facts. No one knows what the plane can really do. Its all classified. Its the same for the guys in the comments thats sayin this is what navy guys say or airforce guys say. If they said this shit they must not like their careers to be intact.
I always laugh at the comment section here. First of all, no matter what actually happens in real life Lockheed will cherry pick the results they want. If they can’t get the results they want they’ll simply alter the testing parameters until they get what they want so the end result is always guaranteed. Second the fact that we are even bothering to discuss dogfighting in an aircraft that’s supposed to Stay invisible and fight from over the horizon…Kind of gives you a hint that it’s not all it was cracked up to be.
"This sounds like a shitload of money (...)" Well I wasn't expecting that lmao
"Stealth technology requires precision beyond any other type of manufacturing"
*10nm silicon has entered the chat*
AMD's 7nm architecture would like to have a word with you.
Samsung's 5nm
Oops we have 1nm too.
Bruh, you just comparing the manufacturing of 10 cm squared chip to an aircraft 16 m long and 11 m wingspan.
10 nm? What is this, 2015? Oh wait... Lol, sorry Intel!
V-TOL, more like V-LOL
Comedy Gold
What? It does VTOL, it's the best VTOL aircraft currently in the world
@@weasle2904 Clearly you didn't get the joke...
@@goodputin4324 I understood that he was trying to make fun of the F-35
@@weasle2904 nope it the X-32 joke not F-35
@@weasle2904 According to who?
The helmet alone needs a ground crew of 7 and a watchdog.
Lol
Lol.
Thats bonkers I wonder if we will ever get to watchdogs level augmented reality in this century.
@Nybbl er that isla different
@Nybbl er You do have a point.
The F35 looks like an F22 that's been eating Twinkies and sitting on the couch instead of going to the gym.
If you watch it from below it is really fat!
User Name well, try to think about the number of medals we get in Europe with a comparable population size ... Europe does dominate sports globally no questions ...
User Name uh... I believe the us hasn’t “dominated” the olympics since the end of the Cold War, nowadays is mostly china and Europe
It _is_ a flying PlayStation...
I'm American and work out every day, but I'm not offended by saying Americans are fat. A lot of them are. Our poor people have a being too fat problem.