In early 2006 I worked in the Public Affairs Department aboard USS Abraham Lincoln CVN 72. One of my tasks at that time was escorting a couple Lockheed engineers around the ship while we were underway so they could better understand the environment the F-35 would be operating in and the capabilities we had for servicing aircraft at sea. One thing which I remember clearly was their surprise at seeing flight deck crew members physically pushing aircraft around the flight deck by hand. Essentially, a number of flight deck crew would go up to an aircraft which needed to be moved and move it by pushing on the wings leading edges. The engineers immediately stated they would need to strengthen the wings of the Navy version to accommodate this practice. I still have the hat and F-35 pin they gave me as a thank you for showing them around the ship.
@@keirfarnum6811 Carriers do have a couple tow tugs, but during the carefully choreographed chaos that is flight ops at sea they are not always available to move every aircraft.
It's an air show dumbass... they aren't gonna push the jets to their limits for a bunch of random ass civilians who want to see cool stunts in expensive military aircraft.
@@Beshman12 you're lucky. I see... actually more HEAR them daily. One seriously just flew over my house while typing this. They're fucking loud. Especially when they're practicing VTOL.
To be fair, the $1.7T figure is the through life cost of the aircraft and reflects operating 2,000 F-35s until 2077, including capital cost, fuel, weapons, spares, maintenance and wages.
This is true, and for a 5th generation fighter, the F-35 looks like it will be a decent price. That being said, not everything is a 5th generation fighter problem. Dropping bombs on terrorists (and we drop a lot of bombs on terrorists) can be done better by far cheaper aircraft, but while we seem to be fine spending $1.7T on 2400 fighters, we balk at buying 100 light attack aircraft, aircraft that would be far better at this task than the F-35, and could do it for a small fraction of the price. The other issue is that we're in an arms race with China right now. With a lifecycle of 50+ years, barring something crazy happening, China is going to have some very good answers to the F-35 well before it's ready for retirement. Already, the ballistic/cruise/hypersonic missile threat from China to F-35 basing seems to be somewhere between high and unmanageable. A new basing strategy could mitigate this, but we won't be able to shift to that if we have 1000 F-35As that don't have an ability to adapt to this new basing strategy sucking up the bulk of the Air Force's funding. The F-35B could be an answer, as well as fast, long-range, probably multi-crew aircraft, and/or UCAVs that don't require runways. The point is, locking ourselves into a 50+ year commitment to an aircraft, when we're in an arms race against a capable opponent probably isn't a good idea. We need to iterate faster than that to stay ahead.
@@JZ909 Dude. The F35 is the last manned aircraft US will develop for mass adoption. It's the electronic-warfare system intended to act as eyes on the Loyal Wingman programs with fighter jet, unmanned drones taking over in the coming decades. The F35 does exactly what we need it to and it's been a huge success, even commercially.
Right,we don't care about the cost of the wages, that is to our own people.But we should realize that every penny Eu sends to Russia for coal gas and oil and every cent we send to China for batteries and solar panels strengthens our enemies and weakens us and our friends as well as harming the climate.
1.7? In the real world you times your lifetime cost analysis by a factor of 5, and that comes closer to the truth. So instead of 1.7 billion expect to pay 8.5 billion for 2,000 units or thereabouts.
this quote is ALWAYS used incorrectly. "A jack of all trades is master of none but it still always better than a master of one" people dont understand how much this aircraft if capable of. the F35 leaped years ahead of the market had to offer and it completely changed how air control is/will be achieved.
This. Here in Finland our air force chose F-35 as the new fighter. It will replace f/a-18's . F-35 was clear winner against super Hornet, Gripen, eurofighter.
PILOT: "F35: add lasagne sheets, milk and some recces pieces to my list" F35: "Lasagne sheets, milk and recces pieces, should I order those now"? PILOT: "F35: Let's not tempt fate, order once we've left enemy airspace"
LOL This is basically how the F-35 was designed too. It's like a child throwing every random ingredient that they love into one bowl and mixing it all up, then tossing it into the oven to bake. Including the Tupperware bowl! It's a miracle that it works, at all, in the end. But it's no wonder that some people still have a problem stomaching it.
why bother to have a pilot? Make it a drone, save at least 200 million for the cockpit system, ejector seat, canopy... At least 1 ton which can be used for payloads. Then you get a video game whiz kid to handle it from Creech AFB
@@Joshua_N-A For the F-35, the idea of making it a Jack of all trades seems unwise to me. We need the best fighter planes - not the best multi-role plane that can be used as a fighter. I just wanted to point out what the full quote is, since very few people seem to be familiar with the full quote.
The F35 is not 1 jet anymore, its 3. The A, B and C "variants" were suppose to share 80% of the same components, now they share less than 20%. They should have just made 3 separate jets in the first place, not only would they be even better than the f35, they would have been in service now and cheaper in the long run.
As an aviation Officer, in my opinion the aircraft is overall outstanding.. not perfect.. but logistically and functionally outstanding which over time DOES save money with interchangeable parts and making maintenance and the logistics of supporting the aircraft much more efficient.
One thing you didn't mention about the VTOL. An inherent weakness in the harrier is when landing it's a controlled crash and taking off it still requires a bit of runway. This is because of the vectored thrust. IF or WHEN the engine sucks up its own exhaust if causes a flame out situation and a stalling of the engine. When landing the last 30 to 50 feet are very fast due to this known issue. The side effect of the F35's shaft driven fan is by sucking fresh air from above the aircraft and pushing it below it effectively creates and air curtain that prevents the engine from sucking up its own exhaust.
That's one one thing, the other one thing is that Lockheed bought that snappy VTOL technology from the Russians. It's not a secret, it's the Yak-41 VTOL engine... it's just that no one likes to mention it for some reason... wonder why.
@@glandhound I don't think any American will be very happy if they found out about it. Also military suppliers must preserve the image of nationalism and patriotism even if they don't follow it in practice
Some correction. They didn't yet spend $400B for the F-35 as of now. That $400B development and procurement cost of over 2,447 F-35(all variants). At the moment from what i recall reading they spend around $150+B for buying around 800 jets and its development. The $1.7T cost of the F-35 include the following 1. Development Cost 2. Procurement of 2,447 jets 3. Upgrades until 2070 4. Operational cost of the jets until 2070+(includes everything from salary of crews and pilots, spare parts and the estimated inflation to that date)
Mad money , and how can they set aside money for upgrades until the year 2070 ??, nobody knows what tech is coming along in the next 50 years and it will not even be around in 50 years from now
Actually, the development costs are pegged at 80 billion. Total money spent is about 400 billion, but that includes the delivery of 600 jets (which would not, and should not be noted as development costs. Given that they built 3 very different airframes and 3 models? Well, the F16 (in adjusted dollars)? The program cost MORE then doubled, and in adjusted 2021 dollars the f16 cost 54 billion dollars. So the F35 had some cost overruns, but then again, 3 fighter jets, and 3 VERY different airframes? If only one model F35, and NOT the VSTOL model? And not the carrier model? The cost of the F35 program would in fact be about the same as the f16 cost to develop!!! I always though the F35 developer costs were high, but now, it actually looks to be normal based on past jets. Given the f16 was 54 billion, and they did the F35 with 3 variants for 80 billion? That's not really that much different in terms of development costs then, is it?
Budgets are moral documents because they do not lie. The F-35 is the most expensive weapon in history, with a projected lifetime cost of $1.7 trillion. That’s more than Russia’s GDP, all spent on a single-seat plane. In fact, if this aircraft were a country, its GDP would rank 11th in the world, ahead of Saudi Arabia. Buying one costs around $110 million a copy, nearly double the price of a Boeing 737-600 airliner. F-35s are also expensive to fly. Each hour in the air costs $44,000, more than twice the cost of the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Super Hornet.
Aren't the salary's of crews and pilots already incorporated into the militarys budget someplace. Seems kind of weird because they're already in the military and getting paid no matter what they're doing.
I'm sorry, but are you kidding me that the F-35 "has a less powerful engine than the Harrier"? The Pratt-Whitney F135-PW600 engine used on the F-35B has a maximum hovering thrust of 180kN, compared to around 106kN of thrust provided by the Harrier's Rolls-Royce Pegasus. Even without the lift-fan, the F135 generates 120kN of thrust, not to mention it could be further boosted by the afterburner in-flight. The F135 is actually the SINGLE MOST POWERFUL jet engine to have ever been mounted on a fighter jet.
This guy needs to research the f35 a bit better. It has had problems but the engine has more thrust than any other jet that we have. So he clearly needs a new job
40,000lbs of thrust versus harriers 23800lbs. I think it breaks down on the f35b to 20,000lbs for the lift fan and 1,000lbs for each roll post. Maybe that would give u less thrust out the back end in vtol but without some quick research I couldn’t be sure
I used to work on AV-8B Harrier (the only foreign weapons system that the US military had accepted in more than 50 years), and that thing.. the F-35, is far superior and more flexible. It was a good choice and a smart investment.
I completely agree. If you look at all the facts what the F-35's capabilities and what it is meant to be, and what the program has achieved engineering wise and ironing out the flaws and problems, it literally is the best investment ever made in the long run by not just the United States but other Western Allies as well. The only thing which makes the F-35 more expensive is flight hour cost, which in of itself is decreasing. But per unit cost of the F-35 and lifetime cost is ultimately cheaper than many fourth generation aircraft currently in service in the world. And in comparison to something like the F-22, the F-35 is much cheaper to operate long term, and think about all that it provides OVER the F-22 as well. Sure it failed the affordable test compared to fighters like the F-16 but given all its capabilities and that the F-16 is getting old, I don't see how that is an issue.
The F-35 gets an extremely undeserved amount of flack. I love the F-35 and think it was an amazing plane and an amazing concept especially for the Marines, I mean that's a huge upgrade for me harrier. You got a Beyond visual range beast that is completely unmatched, and the funny thing is an F-35 is not designed to shoot down their planes, say it again for the people who don't understand LoL. It actually was replacing the F-117 nighthawk is its main purpose. A F-35 is mostly an attack plane, and it leads groups of at least three unmanned drones to penetrate enemy lines and sweep out air defense systems, so the fourth generation fighters and bombers can advance. It also is a superpowered advanced AI with the ability to do amazing electronic warfare against radar systems. The F-35 is a small one engine aircraft and has amazing range considering what it is, and people underestimate It's ability to hover in mid dogfight, that gives it a really tricky advantage at super low speed low altitude, because it can recover from a stall turn into a helicopter and shoot you down then fly off. I have been playing combat simulators for a long time with aircrafts that can hover, it gives you something else to think about. And the engine problems people complain about is really ridiculous, they just had to beef up to turbine blades after 12 years. And they were literally never even offline for maintenance, all they did is simply replace parts sooner than predicted. And the F-35 is about to get a huge engine upgrade it will have a XA101 Ramjet engine hybrid. It is a rebuild kit that drops straight into its existing engine casing.
The F-35 is “capable” of hovering mid dogfight but the jet isn’t designed to be a dog fighter and with “full bags” (full fuel weight) and probably carrying some sort of armament would burn wayyyy too much fuel to make hovering mid dogfight feasible without having to land for fuel or meet a tanker VERY shortly after.
@@MLaak86 It was never designed to be a fighter, a bomb truck, or any of that. It could never expend a single munition and still be a complete success. It is first and foremost a flying supercomputer that has integrated every single sensory pod we currently have and more with moderate defensive/offensive fire solutions all in a single stealth chassis. You are talking about a forward operating AWACS that can also handle targeting of virtually everything on the battlefield for everyone else so that the 4th gen F-15 trucks can drop their payload and go cold or vector the F-16/18's in and let them get the drop. If I may, I would like to point you to the Abrams-X project which shares many of the same technologies pertinent to ground force combat. Additionally, part of the Next Generation Squad Weapon program is the very little talked about Fire Control (NGSW-FC) that features a little system called Intra-Soldier Wireless. Just with these technologies alone one cannot tell me that there isn't a way to integrate these technologies at the command level and push these out to the field in real time. And this completely ignores the US Army's air conditioned helmet patented in 2013 that has underwent a few revisions to now include an augmented reality interface. The next generation of warfare is knocking at the door.
I laughed but I wouldn't be surprised if "looking really stupid" were actually a determining factor. Bunch of military tough guys don't want to be flying around in a death machine that looks like a meme.
It actually was. They were quoted as remarking about how the US had a recent history of ungainly looking aircraft, and even though some of these became very iconic, like the A-10 Warthog, it was a matter of pride that they wanted something that couldn't be mocked for its looks. Rather tragic that vanity and pride influenced a decision that should be entirely about capability.
Say that to the A-10 pilots! :-P A plane so notorious that it's not even called by its actual name. "Thunderbolt II? Oooooh, you mean the Warthog..." But it's so fugly that you can't not love it!
A weapon doesn't have to look good to do its job well, so you're likely right that part of Boeing's loss was the silly first look, even though it could have changed as it evolved into an actual combat version. Granted, the lift fan concept from Lockheed is a legitimate game changer over the Harrier's old means of VTOL, and some stealth capability was also a factor at play, which forces a bit of a design change to reduce RCS. The A-10 is a perfect example of your statement though; it wasn't pretty, but it did, and still does, its job so well. It's also pretty cheap to maintain and deploy in comparison to other ground-attack-equipped fighters that aren't turbo-prop powered (Super Tuscano and similar), but it definitely can't handle combat in an area without suppressed anti-air defenses. The biggest issue with the JSF program really is the idea of trying to adapt one design into 3, instead of just going with 3 proper variants that may share some superficial design elements. The Air Force should have gotten a true F-15 successor, but didn't and had to end up splitting duties again with the F-15EX. The Navy should have had a true F-18 Super Hornet successor, but didn't. Only the Marines got what they wanted; a true successor to the Harrier that was more combat capable and could forgo stealth in favor of more ordinance.
@@nathan_middleton_ I was reading in an aviation magazine about the JSF competition. Now of course this was the author's opinion, but he had a lot of experience with the Air Force. He said something to the effect that the Air Force really wants their planes to look "right" and because of that, the Boeing could have only one if the Lockheed had been a complete design failure.
Simon, the image at 7:51 is actually F22s in production, you can see the two engine compartments and neck down in the center. The 35 has a single central engine.
@@JimBrodie the F22 is still the primary fighter to fighter aircraft in the US for the same reason the US used f15’s while having access to f-16’s. Also, its just cheaper.
I live by Luke Airforce base in Phoenix. And you can hear the difference when they are flying F-16/F-22/F35. The F22 is a loud beast, but holy crap, the F35 is an amazing machine to see in the skys and the sound is earth shattering.... LOVE IT!
A lot of wrong information at 10:33. The F35 does not have less thrust than the Harrier, it has nearly double. The best version of the Pegasus engine only makes 23800 lbf of thrust compared to the F35's 40000 lbf. These are both single engine aircraft.
@@Joshua_N-A Whole world uses S.I (Metric System). Get used to it mate. Also it makes more sense. I mean just look at the calculation of lbf. It's 1 lbs multipled by "g"(which is SI unit), which again is multipled by metric to imperial ratio... so that it becomes metrix. Why not directly use metric?
@@nucleargandhi101 to continually piss off people like you lol, Metric to calculate everything important then use imperial online to piss off people. its a win win
The F135 engine in the F35 produces nearly twice the thrust of the Pegasus in the Harrier. 40,000 lbs vs 23,000 lbs. the lift system on the harrier is more efficient than the F35 however it uses a high bypass turbofan which limits the top speed to subsonic. Lift fans are less efficient but mean you can use a turbojet engine and so go supersonic. To go supersonic in a Harrier you would need to develop plenum chamber afterburners to increase the exhaust gas airspeed.
I disagree, A radial fan converts HP into thrust much more efficiently, It allows streamlining of the air frame, it reduces the hot exhaust exposure on landing and makes it possible to have a stealthy airframe. It has never been done because the HP transmitted to the fan is about half of the power driving a Ticonderoga class cruiser. IN other words without the fan the F35 would be just another Harrier.
@Andy Man To be fair, there are a fair few accounts of harrier pilots going supersonic, obviously in a dive, but they still did it. I'm sure it did some damage to the airframe but they won't fall apart immediately.
The F135-PW-400 alone generates 40,500lb of thrust in STOVL mode without afterburner, while also driving the geared lift fan. It is able to generate that thrust due to additional airflow paths opened into the intake feed.
Along with everything that is said in these comments which i agree with, the internal bomb bay is such an insane feature. Every plane with external armament is extensively hindered compared to its empty configuration, but an internal bomb and missile bay on a fighter alone makes control consistency and usability leaps and bounds above contemporary aircraft
Let me know when you find a military project that hasn’t had cost overruns and set backs. Trust me, I won’t hold my breath. The F-16 had so many problems in the beginning and yet it is the most successful jet fighter ever produced.
I love it when 'serious' media outlets cannot disclose particular items of a newly developed jet and have to fall back on spurious quotes from 'sources', to cover their lack of information, while SW just admits "they won't tell us" .... and we all go "That's okay, we still love your channels"
I was really glad when he specified that the high total cost estimate was from a 3rd party and likely is the upper end. Most media outlets would just say the lifetime cost is 1.7trillion dollars as if it was fact. That number may well be true. but it's certainly not a fact yet. So specifying the origin of the number and how it compares to other estimates is really refreshing. Keep up the good work Simon.
When you consider that the US is selling this aircraft to other major allies of the US, such as australia. Who did not previously have, any sort of stealth aircraft. It is a massive boon.
@Andy Man no need to call me out on being misinformed my man, it was a crappy joke that wasn't intended to hurt or insult you in any way xo. I love aviation and both the f35 and f22, and I understand they are for completely different roles. it's just a shame the US won't sell us f22's, cos what new generation fighter are we going to use instead?
@@WalrusWinking it was a test bed for potential technologies that could be integrated on a potential future fighter jet, and really that was to say that using new emergent technologies (like 3D printing and AI) they could build and design new airframes far faster than before
Simon, you should look at the F-111. Many of the same issues with trying to get one airframe to do so many wildly different things at once and it costing MUCH more than simply developing more specialized airframes to fit the goal. With the F-111, the naval variant was canceled and resulted in the development of the iconic F-14 Tomcat.
@@robh3267 It has nothing to do with the techs. The F-35A has a completely different mission to the F-35B which has a completely different mission to the F-35C. the F-35A's requirements could easily be taken over with better performance and range by simply adopting the F-35C for the Air Force (as happened before with the F-4 vs the F-106). Meanwhile this *exact same airframe* must be VTOL capable for the Marines' F-35B. The Air Force wanted a bomb truck that could defend itself (what the F-16 evolved into), the Navy wanted a replacement for the F/A-8 family with similar overall performance, and the Marines needed a replacement for their Harriers. That's a LOT to ask out of one basic airframe design and it is documented that the overwhelming source of the cost overruns is getting that universal airframe to do so much shit that it can't help but suck.
The pratt whitney company used to have a skunk works in south Florida, when i was a kid we used to hunt in a small preserve (corbett area) that shared a border with pratt whitney test facility. Relatively often in the evenings you would hear the roar of a jet engine and see a blinding light, shooting flames a couple hundred feet into the air. The test pad held the rocket motors horizontally and directed the exaust vertically into the air. You could hear and see the exaust from well over a mile away.
Suggestions: The Blue Angels. How jet fighter pilots are trained. The Navy hospital ships the USS Hope and the USS Mercy. The steel industry of Pittsburgh, PA. The California Mission system.
It's often said that with any project you have three aspects you can apply to it: speed of completion, quality of work, and low cost but you can only pick any two of them. With any project involving researching materials you can only pick one of those three options.
Ah yes, the old pick two out of the following three. It DOES apply to so many things. Women (or whatever your preference is, I'm not going to judge!): Hot, Single, Sane; if they are single and "hot", they aren't sane. If they are sane and "hot" they aren't single. If they are single and sane, they aren't "hot". Unless you find that super rare exception to the rule unicorn. relating it to something VASTLY similar, body armor; pick two of the following following the logic above: weight, cost, protection.
I was in the Air Force when they started building the F-35. The Air Force and Lockheed Martin were bragging up a new concept for producing the F-35 called "concurrency." That is, it was going to go into full production with the design still being refined very little flight testing. The testing and completing the design would happen while the planes continued to roll of the assembly lines. It was supposed to get the jets into service much faster and save money with this streamlined process. Even as a young lieutenant, I thought it sounded like a scam. And eventually, they had to admit that concurrency didn't work as planned and because the first few hundred produced needed a lot of retrofitting and updating, it ended up driving up the price. Of all the controversies around the F-35, I think concurrency is the worst one. What other product is sold to customers before the design is finished and it's been tested?
A good video would be on the Americas inter waterways. How they control all the rivers, including the mighty Mississippi River. With the use of lock and dams, dikes, and levees. Then look at how much product is shipped on river giving it a advantage over any other country for farming.
@@CornPopsDood I hope you do know that Simon is just the narrator and other people are responsible for writing the script, research and other aspects of the video production.
Small note here but the F-35 was not intended to replace the F/A-18 Super Hornets instead it was supposed to replace the older legacy hornets like the A-D models. The super hornets are almost an entirely different plane and are designed to serve alongside the F-35
@@0311Mushroom the harrier is the primary one really for the marines (as well as the Royal navy and Air force, though they retired their harriers ages ago now! ). The A10 is getting a update programme to extend it's service life as well.
That’s not what he meant though. The engine itself only produces around 90kN of thrust while hovering and another 80kN with the fan. So while hovering the engine alone does in fact produce less thrust than the pegasus.
@@foobarmaximus3506 I am not wrong. The engine in the F-35 is far more powerful than the engine in the harrier. In fact the engine in all 3 versions is far more powerful
@@marksman712 Why does it matter where the thrust comes from? Are pilots of the F-35 not going to use it if they need it? Also, please use lbs of thrust. Elon Musk says Newtons and Pascals are the 2 dumbest units of measurement he knows of.
@@marksman712 dont use the after burner.... the after burner on the f-35 can be fully engaged and it does nothing to deter its stealth so yes we are going to be using it and its going in the comparison when its a system thats used pretty anytime you would be anywhere near combat.
@@sssbob not sure why Elon Musk gets any weight in the discussion on what SI units are "dumbest" or not. He isnt an engineer or even in STEM as a professional, he is in it as an entrepreneur. He can have his opinion but it aint gonna mean fucking shit to me when it comes to actual STEM topics and it shouldnt mean shit to you either dude. Soon that alone i wont acquiesce your demand to use lbf. I also wont use it cos i couldnt tell you what the fuck a "pound" is except iirc 2.2 of them make a kg, i doubt 80% of the world would be able to actually apply what a pound scale is to anything. You also missed my point ENTIRELY. Which is you cant compare the thrust of 1 plane to another if youre using AB on one and not the other.
F-35s are produced in part at the Lockheed Martin plant at JRB Fort Worth. I used to see them thunder past my apartment when I lived in Fort Worth, Texas. You really couldn't miss them because they're so loud.
Funny how people often forget or simply don't know the full quote. "A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one."
My only issue with the f35 is it relies on to many variables to be as effective as it is. Data links are great but what happens when the enemy downs the awacs/satellites or jams transmissions. What happens once the bad guys can get through the stealth. What happens when china/Russia can just track engine thermals from space satellites. It definitely excels in it's role but I don't think it will be as hard as they say to negate it's advantage.
@@Spectre-wd9dl The F-35 has fantastic jamming performance due to its huge radar array, as well as rather effective passive sensors. If there were to be jamming, the F-35 would be more of a threat in this area than the other way around. How do you plan to get "through" the stealth? Unless you find a way to bypass the laws of physics, all methods of fighting stealth are impractical and rather ineffective compared to what you could do against non-stealth aircraft. The F-35 engine has a high bypass ratio, so combined with IR reduction measures on the nozzles, it's a lower risk than other aircraft. But here's the problem, you're looking at highly impractical and limited methods of fighting the F-35, but you aren't accounting how badly this would affect a 4th generation aircraft for example.
One of my uncles worked for a while on this project when he still worked for BAe. His specialist area being engine fuel systems. He'd previously worked on the eurofighter, tornado and the harrier (though most of the time on the harrier was as part of his raf career until he joined BAe just as the first gulf War started). The aims of the f35 project were certainly admirable, if probably unrealistic knowing how military projects always tend to bloat, suffer delays and over spending. However, the f35 will eventually be the primary multi role fighter for most services using it, alongside the f22 in the USAF and UAVs as well as things like eurofighter in the RAF. The f16, a10, f/a18 and harrier will all have had to be replaced by something and rather than the cost of how things traditionally would have worked, each would probably have had a protracted development programme of replacement and each having decades of support, training and development. Potentially the f35 might over its service life save on some of these potential costs by having all the requirements in one design with support and training costs likely to be smaller over time. But time will tell with that really. A project to replace the eurofighter has of course already begun, with two potential outcomes, one being joint by airbus and the other by BAe for the RAF, they may eventually merge or remain split (to some extent this happened with eurofighter, with the French going alone for the rafale).
The F-35 will be a jack of all trades. However, it WILL be a master of one. It is the best strike fighter in the world, today. Right now. It gives us what the old F-117 did, a stealthy ground attack plane. The only two fighters in history that could have bombed Bagdad on day of Desert Storm at the F-117 and F-35. Nothing else in service had the range, stealth, payload and hardware to drop those guided munitions.
You're rewriting history here. The F-117 dropped bombs from the safety of high altitude in Desert Storm. The plane that did all the high risk dangerous low level ground attack in Desert Storm was the British Panavia Tornado.The British pilots suffered the highest casualties in Desert Storm because they did all the dangerous missions while US pilots flew the low risk missions.
@@oot007 Yeah, exactly like the F-35 would. You are trying to argue with me by reinforcing my point. At no time did I mention low level penetration bombing, although the F-111 did plenty of that in the first Gulf War.
@@Elthenar >"You are trying to argue with me by reinforcing my point." No you are wrong. You got your facts wrong by pretending that the F-117 was a ground attack plane. It did no such thing but dropped bombs from high altitude because the US was afraid it would get shot down.
@@Elthenar You're the idiot. The F-117 was not used a ground attack plane as you stated. It dropped bombs from high altitude just like a B52 because the US didn't want to risk it being shot down if it did real ground attack runs like the Tornado. This is well documented at the time. Quit sniffing that white powder of yours.
I just went to the air show at Tinker AFB and the F35 is pretty amazing in the air. It can do things with thrust vectoring that made people's jaws drop.
With respect, we don't have the classified information about the jet yet. We have never seen it in actual combat. Some say it's the worst most overpriced thing ever. That it can't do shit and costs a fortune. Like it's supposedly inferior to F-16 in every way. Then others claim it's the messiah of jet fighters. It's able to singlehandedly fulfill any mission, ground attack or air superiority. It will never take any losses. It's just so great that in every exercise it blows the minds of supervisors and analysts. We just won't know what's true until we see one in actual combat. However, the most convincing information about the fighter, is that Finland is acquiring like 60+ of them. And if you know anything about Finnish defense spending, the people responsible are very careful with the funds they have. The current Finnish fighter fleet is F-18 hornets. If the people responsible for the upgrade, see value in it after getting to combat test the fighter and see classified information about it, it must be good. And Finland is known for not overspending on overpriced shit. Finnish armed forces have zero attack helicopters for the sole reason that they saw it as an overpriced counter insurgency tool with zero value against a near peer opponent. Finland is not interested in overpriced tools for shooting Toyota's and camel farmers. The Finnish army is only interested in cost effective weapons that are capable of inflicting disproportionate damage on a modern powerful military.
I'm about at racist towards Europe as one comes (I'm Australian, they're pissing contest is the reason I live in danger land, fuck em). But Finland is one that I actually respect, so that's the best endorsement that I could have gotten for it.
The F-35 is superior in A2A because of it’s effective targeting range. About 30% further. It’ll get target lock on the f-22 before it comes up on radar. It can also transmit that targeting data to other F-35 aircraft. Meaning you can have one plane “take point” and guide all the smart munitions being fired from other positions. It’s exceptionally good at flanking, so despite the f-22 being faster and more agile in a traditional sense, it can’t fend off from attacks coming from multiple directions
Common Affordable Lightweight Figher. LOL That seems like a million years ago now. We want a plane that will replace these 4 excellent planes" -Ok, what's the budget? "Well ideally it should only cost as much as any one of those planes did, but feel free to make it cost as much as all 4 planes if you need to." -Throw in the development budget for the Osprey and Apache and adjust it all to 2021 dollars and you got a deal.
Yes, the F35 looks to be the lower cost jet: Typhoon: 120 million per copy Rafale: 94 million per copy. F15: 88 million per copy F35: 77 million per copy. So yes, it does look like the F35 is the lower cost jet to buy. And the F35 being a single engine fighter also has a lower cost per hour then a F15, F18, Typhoon, and Rafale. So, F35 is not the lowest cost jet, but it certainly the lower cost choice compared to most well equipped 4th gen jets.
Speaking as one that literally lives next to the runway of AFB#4 (L/M FtWTx) you can not imagine the window shaking the vertical takeoffs and landing can do! How the house doesn’t just crumble at the next gust of wind amazes me. Where as this would usually be the reason for people to complain, I don’t. I’ve grown up in the area for 5 decades now and I assure you, it a minor inconvenience and not near as annoying as the B-52’s deafening air noise used to make. I accept this as the reassurance of my personal freedom. Plus none of the houses have crumbled when the wind blows.
Some extra info about that programme cost is that the total 1.1 to 1.7 trillion is that the amount is what is expected until 2070, and has taken inflation into account, meaning the total cost is what it will be in 2070.
cool, that in 2070 simple economic firms will have access to time machines to tell us the inflation of the us dollar for the next 50 years. It would be much more important and useful counter argument that it is representing most of the US and other airforces planes, or at least intended to represent. In many case this project failed because few started to whisper about it ovebudget, which led to cuts in order and overbudget, and the spiral still spins.
What also wasn't mentioned that this was three distinct planes for three different military branches, in one program. Given that the life cycle cost of the Superhornet program is estimated at almost 1 trillion and only serves the US NAVY and a little bit the Marines, you'd be normally looking at 2-3 trillion life cycle for three different distinct aircraft programs for three different branches of the military.
I have no knowledge of the F35 contract specifically, but I do know these larger acquisitions contracts tend to be firm fixed price with incentive fees. So I would say its probably the opposite of what you said. Running over budget likely cuts into/eliminates their profit and running late loses them their incentive fees.
You know what's hilarious? Congress has tried to "cut costs" by unifying the branches' fighters before with the F-111 Aardvark. The Aardy was loved by the airforce after some kinks were smoothed out, but the Navy hated it, and so decided to keep its fleet of F-14s. When will they learn that every branch just needs its own aircraft?
F-111 flew way before the F-14 was designed. The problem was that the Air Force wanted a large bomber type fighter while the Navy wanted a fleet defense fighter. The Air Force had more say in its design so the F-111 was a fighter bomber. Unsurprisingly a fighter bomber isn’t the best at intercept and defense missions. The fact that you have to go around 50 years back for an example of a multi role aircraft not working says something. There are many fighters used successfully by many air forces and navy’s across the world, the Rafael is one. It’s not the concept of a multi service fighter that’s bad, it’s the purpose of the aircraft that often conflicts with the different branches. Of course the navy wasn’t happy with the F-111, the navy needed something to primarily shoot down aircraft, the F-111 was designed as a bomb truck. If there had been two programs odds are that we would have two over budget and behind schedule programs instead of one.
The F-4 Phantom is a perfect counterexample. It was far and away the best combat aircraft in service until the F-18 entered service several decades later. Nowadays, when weapons systems and electronic warfare matter infinitely more than kinematics, it's even more possible to give both services the same airframe, and still have it be the best aircraft of its type in existence -- as the F-35 is.
Partially inaccurate. The F14 was designed because the F111 could not do what the navy wanted. The navy needed a fighter/interceptor, and the F111 really wasn't capable of the fighter role. Given its size and weight, I'd be surprised if the F111-B could even match the existing F4s in the fighter role. They cancelled their participation in the F111 program and issued a new contract for what became the F14 and was actually able to perform in either role. So they didn't "keep" them, they were actually designed as a result of.
@@darrel7589 The F-4 was marginally inferior to the Tomcat as a pure interceptor, but unlike the Tomcat, it had capabilities other than slinging missiles from long range - something that is non-negotiable in a carrier aircraft. The Tomcat was, in short, a fine interceptor but a terrible carrier aircraft.
@@drcruelty The Navy needed a newer fighter, yes. But the F-14 was only ever capable of being a fighter, and carriers do not exist to serve as mobile fighter bases. They exist to actively strike at enemy forces, and that requires strike aircraft. And covering your deck in unreasonably large Tomcats does not allow that. Hence my statement that the F-14 was a perfectly good interceptor, but a poor carrier aircraft.
@@chrisspley99 don't fall for the simplistic rhetoric out of context. the entire US history culminated inexorably in the intervention of Afghanistan including a very important factor in this theater: the antagonism of capitalism or communism in the dispute for the dominant hegemony of the planet. Afghanistan was just another country involved in this indirect war as it was in Korea and Vietnam, but tempered with the volatility of a region permeated by permanent theocratic conflict between medieval-minded peoples.
10:31 in what world does a Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine of the AV-8B Harrier with 23,800 LBF thrust have more power than the F35 with it's F135-PW-600 putting out 27,000 LBF dry, or 41,000 LBF wet? The F135-PW-100 in the A and C models is even more impressive at 28,000 LBF dry and 43,000 LBF wet, respectively. The F135 series may be the single most powerful afterburning turbofan engine made. The F22 Raptor's F119-PW-100 may be the second most powerful with 26,000 LBF dry and 35,000 LBF wet, but you get two of those with your plane. And of course there are plenty of commercial non-afterburning turbofans that make a lot more thrust than these. But those engines are HUGE!!! Edit: So it seems that the Russians have the most powerful afterburning turbofan engine that makes 55,000 LBF of thrust in full afterburner. This engine is what powers the supersonic Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack. It's a faster and larger version of the US's B1-Lancer, the Bone.
Actually there is weight per thrust - in it the F135 is the leader till article 30 engine gets into serial production - it is both a bit lighter and has a bit more thrust. The ratio for Tu-160 engine (not modernized) is just over 7. while F135 is over 9. 1980s Su-27 engine is over 8. The current best Su-35 is under 9. The production engine for Su-57 will be almost 10 or around 10. But its not in serial production yet.
@@quinndenver4075 Hardest part of 5th gen jet is the engine. But Russians are catching up. Russians were behind the US in this department since WWII (roughly) and breakup of Soviet Union did not help.
@@tomk3732 I’m not really seeing a lot of evidence that they are catching up. They are still trying to reach the level of the f119 which is 20+ year old U.S technology.
The helmet is developed and prodused by Elbit Systems, and Israeli company. This is the 3rd or 4th itteration of Elbit's helmet concept, innitially a "brain fart" by a few IAF pilots who said "wouldn't it be nice not to have to point the whole plane to fire a missile ?". It's a force multiplier.
I still think it the A-10 may need some form of replacement, regardless of how cool it is. Given it can only really operate in areas that don’t have modern anti-air defenses, I imagine there is a more affordable platform that can be created that will have similar if not greater capacity.
For close air support of ground troops in danger close situations what is needed is something that can fly low and slow and literally put eyes on target. Anything that can handle the situation will be vulnerable to modern anti-air defenses. The pending A-10 upgrade presumably includes improved ECM; it is already hardened about as well as can be expected and still be able to fly. Apaches are a close 2nd, but are not fixed-wing. "In combat, second best is not good enough."
@@oopswrongplanet4964 i’m aware, my point wasn’t that a new platform with similar capacity would be capable of surviving modern air defenses. My point was that the A-10 has fallen into that role because it can no longer fulfill its original purpose, and it is too expensive for what it actually does now. So you need something specifically designed for the kind of low-Ish threat CAS the A-10 handles, and there are already cheaper platforms that can do that. It is an aging platform, and regardless of the deserved affection it has it’s eventually going to need to be replaced by something. I get it, the A-10 is great but at the end of the day something has to give there.
You can't put a price on maintaining moral in a combat situation and the A10 is worth it's weight in gold for that alone. Its a ridiculous, ugly underdog compared to these sleek ultramodern jets - and people love them for it. Oh and it goes brrrrrrrt like some kind of ultra loud kids toy that happens to demolish everything in front of it.
@@finscreenname Well like all marine and Navy aircraft? Substantial corrosion resistance has to be built into the airframe, and even the engine turbine blades. So both Navy f35C model and the Marines f35b models are thus designed to operate at Sea and in salt water conditions for their rated life. Same goes for navigation and avionics systems .
I’d love to see you do an in depth video on the F-20 ‘Tigershark’. According to many, an outstanding fighter developed from the F-5 Tiger. It was so good that it gave the F-16 a run for its money.
The F-20 Tigershark is a classic example of missing the market. The military viewed it as a replacement for the F-5. In reality, it's best role was as an export product that could be affordable to smaller militaries with basic patrol and intercept needs. The main sticking point against the sale of the F-20 was the US military did not accept it. Who wants to buy the rejects, right? Even a squadron of F-20 in the US Air Force would have opened up numerous markets in Third World militaries and governments that chose foreign competitors because of the lower cost than the F-16.
Great video, as always, blaze boy, I live in NC, I can remember back in either the late 70s or early 80s Apache attack choppers, doing emergency landings in Charlotte
That's a nice and non-judgemental look at an aircraft many people love to hate. For now it seems that pilots love it, commanders are glad to have new planes, and only the taxpayers have their doubts. I'm into fighter jets but some of its advantages seem so abstract and complex that we really will not know how well it works until it's forced to the front line of a real war.
I doubt it's really replacing any of the platforms they originally claimed it would, however each branch (air, marine, navy) would probably have wanted a stealth program if these weren't combined...
The F35 is a very capable aircraft. It is most likely the most capable BVR fighter flying today. Its stealth and sensors allow it to penetrate enemy airspace and act as a sort of forward AWACS. The F35 EWS is even more powerful than a Growler.
And, IMO, quite applicable here. It’s unfortunate that the majority of its usage will probably involve human rights abuses because it really is a technological marvel.
@@MrMadsci7 it wont involve human rights abuses. The USAF said that they want a cheaper airframe to be used on missions where the cost of the enhanced capabilities of the F35 arent needed. Most likely it will be an F15 or something new. An aircraft based on the P51 has been comsidered for that role.
The other misnomer is that Common part of the program name, as they are actually 3 different jets kind of shoved into a similar box. Sort of like the F/A-18A Super Hornet is an entirely different aircraft from the F-18 Hornet, except that was just a shell game of names to befuddle congress that they were funding an entirely new jet.
I’ve read several articles over the years on this very subject, stating that they should’ve been given three different fighter designations…such as F-35, F-36, F-37.
If you use the quote correctly, then it does paint the f-35 as it is. A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one. Fits its description perfectly imo
Those are joke with the radar cross section of a tire it’s as stealthy as the French raffle which is a 4.5 gen which causes the argument that are they even 5th gen which I say no.
Having had the "honor" of working on the JSF program while working for Lockheed, the aircraft is impressive. Nevertheless, many thought if you get on the JSF program then you'll be set until retirement. Thankfully I found other employment. Blood pressure went down 20 points!
I gotta say tho. The top gun movie from last year has rekindled my interest in fighter jets in a big way. I’d never sign up for the navy in hopes of being an aviator who lands on carriers it did get me into a rabbit hole of updating my knowledge of jet fighters from when i was a kid and the technology and development and operational histories behind them is absolutely fascinating. I’d love to have been an engineer developing cutting edge technology and then seeing the fruits of my labor take form into something with incredible destructive power. That’s probably romanticizing it a great deal given that the very nature of that technology involves accidents and deaths of test pilots, pilots during service and of course enemy pilots and casualties of collateral damage. Honestly the part about the top gun movies is the line they walk between serving the interests of the military, being as truthful for the sake of authenticity as they can about the nature of that life and the technology they use and the liberties they take for the sake of a compelling story. Maverick would be a significantly less interesting movie if they took out the target using drones and F35s that can strike a target from well beyond Visual range. I can appreciate that the parameters of the mission do line up well with the capabilities off the FA18. But for the movie to act as if America doesn’t even have any fifth gen fighters that or even drones that could support the pilots doing the canyon run borders on absurd. Not enough to break the movie when watching it but enough to get a chuckle outta me when i give it some thought afterwards.
A lot of people out there like to say that the F-35Bs STOVL system (lift fan and swivel nozzle) is based on the YAK-141s STOVL system. Many also say that the partnership with LM and Yakovlev supports this claim. This claim is incorrect and everyone who claims this is bad and should feel bad. Here is why. To start, the swivel nozzle originates from the Convair model 200 in the 1950s up the the early 60s.1 The 3 bearing swivel design was simply not created by Yakovlev, and thus not original. None of the dates match up either. The JSF program originates from the ASTOVL program that started around 1980, and: "Between 1980 and 1987, NASA funded studies at all of the major aircraft companies to devise innovative concepts for a supersonic successor to the AV-8B Harrier, and the British Ministry of Defence conducted similar studies in the United Kingdom. Lockheed’s ASTOVL concept was based on the tandem fan engine advocated by Rolls-Royce [2,3]." Keep in mind, the Yak-141 flew in 1987 The tandem fan engine is an early predecessor to the F-35Bs STOVL system. The concept dates back to 1984,4 and the filing date for the patent was very soon after the Yak-141 first flew.5,6 There are also all the patents filed for the swivel nozzle design which dont line up with the first flight of the Yak-141. Source 7 has a very, very early on design of the swivel nozzle, dated to 1956. Boeing made a design in 1963.8 In 1979 Boeing filed a patent for a type of swivel nozzle design, although with only one bearing. One of the most important examples was in 1970, where general electric filed a patent for a 3 bearing swivel nozzle with a gear system to change it between modes.10 In 1980 Rolls Royce filed a patent for some sort of turning nozzle.11 Lastly, in 1984 Rolls Royce filed a patent vectorable nozzle, very similar to the F-35s.12 Source 15 may also be related, dating back to 1986. All this being said, the lift fan and swivel nozzle design was already almost completed by the time the Yak-141 flew. By the summer of 1987 Paul Bevilaqua was almost finished with the design, and finally completed it by connecting the engine to the lift fan. 2,3 So what about the lift fan being right behind the pilot? This was also apart of the design since the convair model 200, and were also present in the EWR VJ 101. It was also thought two main lift posts would be more stable than the harrier or boeing designs. So what about that thing with Lockheed Martin and Yakovlev? As it turns out, in the summer of 1995, after all these designs existed, Yakovlev assisted Lockheed by giving design data. Source 13: Lockheed Martin also turned to Russia for technical expertise, purchasing design data from Yakovlev; and used an 86 per cent subscale model (originally developed for the CALF project and fitted with a Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 engine plus an Allison shaft-driven lift fan) for testing. While this was happening Rolls Royce bought the Allison Engine company, which had of course been testing the lift fan. All of this was happening at the same time. Pictures dating back to 1983 www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/jsf/pics01.shtml Note how Mcdonnel douglas had a similar design, but not a lift fan. Here is this image translated: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Scheme_of_Yak-141_powerplant.png/2560px-Scheme_of_Yak-141_powerplant.png передний струйный руль is "front jet rudder" подъёмные двигатели are "lifting engines" then the "air transfer canal from the PMD to the PD (the lifting engines) and the front jet rudder" pod'ëmno-marševyj dvigatel' appears to be a "lifting-sustaining engine"; that's the PMD then on top you have the air transfer canal between the PMD and the jet rudders at the end of the wings please note that the sources might be a bit fucked up. www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137 www.scribd.com/document/284662003/PaulB-F35 citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.711.2806&rep=rep1&type=pdf ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19840016511.pdf www.freepatentsonline.com/EP0426500.html patents.google.com/patent/EP0426500A1/en patents.google.com/patent/US2951660A/en?q=Swivel+nozzle&assignee=Rolls+Royce&before=filing:19880101&after=filing:19500101 patents.google.com/patent/US3260049 patents.google.com/patent/US4343446A/en?q=Swivel+nozzle&assignee=Rolls+Royce&before=filing:19880101&after=filing:19500101 patents.google.com/patent/US3687374A/en patents.google.com/patent/US4913354A/en ttps://patents.google.com/patent/US4679732A/en web.archive.org/web/20090226130458/www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jawa/jawa010103_1_n.shtml www.aeroflight.co.uk/aircraft/types/type-details/yakovlev-yak-41-freestyle.htm (not used) patents.google.com/patent/DE3711197C2/en?q=Swivel+nozzle&assignee=Rolls+Royce&before=filing:19880101&after=filing:19500101
Having seen one of these take off from a carrier I can only say this video doesn’t come close to being able to show how cool it is when you first see this, or how loud it is. When it first sets off down the deck and then up the ramp it looks like it’s going straight into the water only to bounce back up and set off into this distance
When it comes to military aircraft, looks should count for nothing. HOWEVER, there was no way the U.S. was gonna fund an aircraft & make it it's front line joint strike fighter that looked THAT bad, I don't care how good it was. The X-32 was the 1st sign that something was TERRIBLY wrong at Boeing. They built some of the most iconic aircraft in history, militarily & commercially, but if they honestly thought an aircraft looking like the X-32 would get the contract speaks volumes to the decline into what is Boeing's current state unfortunately.
The ungainly looks helped sink the X-32, but it was the underperformance of the VSTOL capability that doomed it when compared to the X-35. As one of the linchpins of the program, VSTOL capability was necessary and Boeing's did not cut it. Otherwise it was a wash, some X-32 metrics were better and some X-35 metrics were better.
What is Ironic, was that the Boeing team that designed the X-32 came from McDonnel Douglas. The same company that made the F-15 and F-18 (Boeing bought out MD). This was a time with AC companies were merging. Lockheed absorbed Martin Aircraft (who experimented with lifting bodies) and the military division of General Dynamics (creators of the F-16). General Dynamics by then owned Convair, who was test developing the Convair model 200 for the USNavy back in 1969-1972. Although the program was cancelled, that is where Lockheed got the 3BSD lift system design for the F-35. They got it from the purchased archives of General Dynamics which means Lockheed owned the patents too. A little re-design and the addition of the lift fan....And there you go. So as much as Russophiles try to paint Lockheed as ripping off the design from the YAK-141, Lockheed already had it. Since the YAK-141 didn't start until 1976 (after the Convair 200 program was closed down), the question is, where did the Russians get their 3BSD design from? KGB perhaps?
The main thing Boeing was trying to achieve with the X-32 was affordable manufacturing with the uni-wing design, but they utterly failed at addressing one of the main requirements for the weapons bays. The STOVL approach they used had the issue of causing hot ground effect. DFLCS would have helped with that, but direct lift was never as capable as the Lockheed-Martin 3BSD plus lift fan approach. Boeing was never able to demonstrate a full-up STOVL variant, and used one aircraft to demo certain features, while another demonstrated STOVL mode flight configuration.
Please do the De Havilland Mosquito. I don't care if it's relegated to Side Projects. The F-35 is a special plane. Not quite as good the F-22 but a damned sight cheaper. I wonder how Russia's 'Checkmate' will compare?
Also, the F-35 has capabilities in most cases far beyond the planes it's replacing. Replacing 4 planes with one at less than 4 times the cost. I worked on some of the electronics before I retired and it's incredibly capable.
Same. Wonder how good Russia can make the checkmate when it only cost 1/4 of a F-35. If its almost as good that just proves that lockheed is ripping of the US government, but we have to wait and see
To get a true perspective of the cost of the program, what were the total inflation adjusted costs added together of the programs the F-35 was meant to replace: F-16, A10, F/A 18, and AV-8B Harrier. I'll bet the F-35 cost wouldn't seem as exorbitant as opponents make it out to be...
It says as it gets blown out of the sky from a fighter far out of their radar range. I'm no fan of the pointless F-35 project(a project some dummy thought up and convinced other dummy's that it would save money when it did the exact opposite) but I will give credit where credit is due.
@@joedufour8188 That's not what the A-10 is for, and the F-35 can't do that job, which is the point. It can't do any other job, either, apparently, as they just asked for an upgrade for the F-15, extended the life of the F-16, and announced that the F-18 will be in service for at least 10 more years.
@@badmojomagic Apparently you missed the OP which completely justifies my comment and makes yours look like it was made by someone with little to no reading comprehension skills.
@@joedufour8188 OP: "And once again the A-10 is laughing, "You can't kill me..."" You can't kill it because the F-35 can't do its job. Reading comprehension FTW
@@badmojomagic I think part of the reason for this also has to do a lot with money. For the price of one F35 you can get a couple of other planes. And with the way the military is trying to cut spending its better to get a few things for your money instead of just one. Not to mention Ive had this thought say your told you can only spend X amount on something would you rather have 50 planes or somewhere between 100 and 150 planes? Id think if there was a war it would be better to have more planes.
@@ethannorton564The earlier F 4 was McNamara's shot at the "Swiss Army knife of planes". The A 10 has been a great success at doing what it does- but it isn't a lot of other things. And having endured all this "for a fighter that can be updated and reprogrammed to extend it's useful life, the Sixth Generation fighter is already percolating. It would seem the arms race wasn't nearly over with the fall of the USSR at all. FR
But they are NOT the same airframe. They only share 20% common. So, 3 very different airframes and jets were built. The C model is 3,000 lbs heaver then the B model. It has a double nose wheel to straddle the catapult. It also has flaperons on the wings like the f22, or many commercial airliners (a, b model do not have flaperons). And front nose wheel assembly on C model has to pull + hold FULL weight of the jet on catapult launch. Large changes to airframe exist as a result. Same goes for tail hook area - has to pull/hold/stop full weight on a cable trap landing. B model has a bulge on sides and tops - A,C model do not. In fact, you can't even swap the landing gear assembly between any of the 3 models. A model uses "probe" refueling, B,C use drogue (basket) refueling. B model has more doors, puffer vents on wings - A, C do not. In fact can't even swap the external skin and plating between the 3 models. The F35A model has a better thrust to weight rating then a f16, or even a duel engine Rafale. Sorry, but 3 high customized jets and airframes WERE built. The dirty little secret is that only 20% common is shared between the jets, and that is a GOOD thing, since then 3 very high customized and specific jets were built on requirements of the 3 branches (Air Force, Navy, and marines).
Replace A10 .... lol xD I think that quiet bomber/tank buster is impossible to replace because as i said its quiet, small, cheap and don't forget that sweet 30 mm gun.
Ah yes.. the 30mm gun that can't score a tank kill to save it's life... i mean, it's a beautiful plane but the cannon is a gimmick, it's severely outdated for peer conflicts... since the cold war itself.
As of September 2021, US and foreign nation orders for F-35 fighters count at 2,500 planes to date (including 300 already delivered to the USAF). Lockheed will be producing 156 planes per year 2023, and will retain that production rate for the forseeable future. Divide that by the 1.7 trillion dollars and that they expect to produce this plane until 2050 we can expect to see the total lifetime production of this plane to reach 7,500 planes over the coming 50 years. Current retail price of the plane is actually about $72 million, making it cheaper than the latest versions of the F-16 and F-15EX as well as the Gripen and Rafale.
looper pedals with inbuilt drum machines for under $50 that work fine and foot pedals that are great mimics for other musical instruments for around $75. all they have to do is work when need arises, if they can do that, job done. same with military equipment, work when need arises.
@@knoahbody69 The F-4 made its operational debut in 1961, and it's still in service in a few places. That's 60 years. In the U.S., it was used for 35 years before being relegated to being a target drone. It was truly a great aircraft. However, it flew alongside a lot of specialized aircraft. A-4s, A-6s, A-7s and F-111s for strike, EA-6s, EB-66s and later EF-111s for electronic warfare, A-1s, OV-10s and later A-10s for FAC/CAS, and AV-8s for VTOL once that requirement came about. Also, when the F-4 had to do something more specialized, they built specialized variants for those missions, like RF-4s for recon, and F-4Gs for SEAD. The F-35 has to do all of this, and it's expected to do it without major changes to the airframe. I think the replacement of dedicated strike aircraft by multirole fighters in the 1990s was a pretty dubious decision, as they are objectively worse at conducting strikes in a lot of ways. Trying to replace COIN aircraft, like the A-10, dedicated electronic warfare aircraft, and possibly even recon aircraft with a single fighter is a little bit ridiculous IMO. It's going to very suboptimal at a lot of these roles, and the Air Force is already making plans to buy cheaper aircraft, because the plane is prohibitively expensive for what they need it to do.
PBS FRONTLINE did a great documentary on the process of deciding between the Boeing or Lockheed submissions for this new plane. Its a great doc, covering much of what Simon has covered here but more in depth and more critical of the decisions made at the time. Basically everyone involved in the process knew beforehand that neither plane would individually be able to best serve so many varied purposes, but the money was given by congress and The Armed Forces was more than happy to spend it all and more! Who the hell believed this plane could actually replace the A-10!?
The F-35 is a jack of all trades: Better than a Harrier for the Marines, better than the Superhornet for the Navy, and better than the F-15 for the Air Force. Ah! and it's second to none in BVR.
Unless an actual war breaks out that calls for the use of the Lightning in combat, one will never truly know. At least the F-14 got to demonstrate its combat capabilities in the mid eighties.
The US Navy defied Quadaffi’s so called ‘Line of Death’ in 1986 and shot down 2 Migs. In any event, as good as the Lightning is, the real deciding factor will be her pilot.
@@dinomonzon7493 It seems that the Navi and Air force are not full convinced about the F35, because the whole concept based on BVR-fights and air superiority. But the F35 is already without weapons neither a fast nor an agile plane. Further the possible weapon load is low. So the Navi buy the F18 superhornet Block 3 and the airforce decide zu buy the F15 EX. They also search a new replacement for the F16 Block 5. At the Moment they try to use the F35 and her advanced electrics as a "quaterback". This is basically the same way the russians use their SU 57.
The point of our national defense is to have an advantage in the case of tragedy rather than cause a tragedy because we have an advantage. Also, what is the point of comparing it to the F-14? It's an almost completely different aircraft in terms of it's role and capabilities. Not only that, they belong to completely different generations/eras.
@@lancemurdoc6744 Actually the F35 is fast, and is agile in the flight envelope it needs to be. The F35 has a better power to weight rating then the f16. And when group of F16's fly with F35'? They have to repeated use their afterburners to keep up. F16: fuel tank: 7,000 lbs F35: fuel tank: 18,500 lbs. So, to fly a F16, you have to saddle it up with fuel bags on the wings - the result is 5g limits, and slower speeds, and less range. F16 pilots now flying the F35 note they have more power, and better maneuverability then the F16.
people say it was expensive because they think it was one plane, if you think about it... it was 3 different plane. the cost was 3x higher than normal one plane. maybe.
The idea was to save money and gain a strategic advantage by using as many common parts between them as possible. Probably they were looking at needing stealth versions of each of these planes, for Air Marine and Navy...
Thank you for giving the jet's range in nautical miles 🙌🏼 This sets you apart from many other channels as one who knows what he's talking about and who he's talking to.
Nautical measurements were developed for nautical machines. Boats. When airplanes came along, the military chose to think of aircraft as flying boats and, indeed, many were. So, in the military world, at some point, nautical miles were chosen as the unit of measurement for aircraft. Digging up the history of just how and when this decision was made would make an interesting video all on its own. I promise you Oliver and Wilbur did not use nautical miles to measure their speed nor for navigation. Nor did the blossoming civilian aviation industry that followed. Using NM was a military decision at some point - for reasons I can barely guess at. Everybody else, including many of those who design and fly Experimental category aircraft today, measure their speed and range with MPH. Many older commercial aircraft and many homebuilt aircraft are fitted with airspeed indicators calibrated in MPH. NM continue to be used for nautical applications. Using this measuring system for aircraft is as silly as using it for our automotive odometers. Using nautical miles may have had some justification for the military - probably because they already had existing nautical charts measured in NM, but adopting this system for airplanes in the civilian market was a mistake that continues to be carried on - one that will continue to force aviators to conform to the use of NM while, in their heads, converting everything to SM or KM in order to think of what the "real" distance is. It's a dumb convention that has never been corrected and is now widespread, although not certainly by everyone who flies. Most electronic navigators allow for the choice between NM, SM and KM, so using NM in the aviation workspace is no big deal, but I still think it's silly. The history of how this situation came to be would make an interesting TH-cam video I think.
@@mikestirewalt5193 1 nautical mile is the meridian arc length of one minute of latitude. So it still measures something arguably more specific and useful for navigation than a statue mile or kilometer on virtually any navigational chart. The Wright Brothers used feet per second for their airspeed units as I believe I have read or seen in their letters in museums. The leap from nautical measurements to aviation is not much of a mystery. Sailing used knots to measure velocity through a fluid, much like the air. Knots were also used to measure wind speed for this purpose. So it is a logical leap to borrow that practice along with long-range non-overland navigational practices used by seafarers. Whether or not continuing to use knots in aviation applications is "useless" or "dumb" is a matter of opinion-an opinion this GA and USAF pilot happens to disagree with. And many other credible and intelligent pilots will agree or disagree. The F-35 is a military aircraft. And it measures all of its airspeeds in either knots or Mach. And that's a fact that this video does well to represent.
What’s wild about the F-35 is that any country who buys them has to stay on the USA’s good side. Unlike Iran and their F-14s you can’t just keep F-35s flying with duct take and JB Weld… without access to the software suites required to maintain them they’re basically really expensive bricks.
It's now cheaper than the competing 5th and 4th-plus generation competitors, e.g., it's $40 million cheaper than the Euro fighter. And it absolutely dominated in the recent red flag war games. Unprecedented kill ratio, a ratio that will likely be even better in the near future and far better in real world combat. The F-15 has a real world kill ratio of 104 kills to zero losses. The F-15's initial red flag results were not published but it's very unlikely that its red flag results were anywhere near as good as the F-35's 20-to-one kill ratio at red flag. Because, if the F-15's red flag results had been that good, they would've been published. Given that the F-15's inferior red flag results still translated into real world results of 104 to zero, the F-35's real world kill ratio will likely be something insane -- like, say, 200 to one, 500 to one, 1000 to one, who knows... But one thing is clear: the F-35 is worth its price. Indeed, all things considered, it's the biggest bargain out there.
You sound like a sale's man and apparently you are involved with the f35 and you know as well as anyone that thef35 has a lot problems not to mention if goes over the speed of sound there will be structure damage and we should probably keep what works and improve on are real planes ! 🔚
@@einosiirila7093 Problems are being worked out day-by-day, that's part of what makes the F-35 so versatile. You can change things on the aircraft and make improvements quickly and easily. The list of problems that need attention has been getting smaller and smaller. Also, regarding supersonic flight, only the B and C models have that issue, and only at extended periods of flight. And damage only occurs to hardware attached to the tail, not the structure itself. Talk to any fighter pilot, spending 30+ minutes at supersonic speeds is almost never needed. I hear there might be a fix for that down the road anyways....
Apparently the UK has abandoned the F-35 in favour of the BAE Systems Tempest which is meant to go into service in 2035, but given the UK's record on bringing things in on budget and on time (I'm looking at you Wembley stadium) will probably be closer to 3035 and Britain will have gone bankrupt in the meantime.
This is a nice OVERVIEW for individuals who are not familiar a number of associated factors. Several thoughts come to mind that are important to consider and I'll just point out three considerations that were missed and are exceptionally important. First, It was designed to be 'stealthy'. Associated with that is the expected threat environment in Areas of Operation (AOR). Stealth characteristics are not only expensive, but continue to be BLEEDING edge, since it always involves a compromise between stealth and performance (one need only consider the F-117, which was only called a fighter plane to induce more USAF pilots to venture into that domain, since it had absolutely no real fighter plane attributes (and hence was used as fundamentally a NIGHT BOMBER!). Second, the entire evolution of fighter plane design has resulted in ever more complex and costly planes. The fact is that the leap from 3rd to 4th generation design represented not an evolution, but a revolution in design ... the move from 4th to 5th, with it's complete reliance on software (and we all KNOW about the complexities of software!!) as been yet another enormous leap. The problem with this kind of leap is that much of it involves a move into that bleeding edge technology to SIMULTANEOUSLY move MULTIPLE aspects of bleeding edge technology into one integrated design that meets a HOST of requirements ... not just in terms of stealth, but pilot workload, weight and balance, evolving technology, evolving threats, variable operating environments ... and the list goes on and on. I think that some of the narrative paints a 'cost-overrun' negativity that makes things appear a bit shady, or deceptive. Well, this is why they do not use Fixed Price contracts ... there are simply so many requirements and so many changing requirements, and so many budgetary considerations (cost is of course related to production quantities, and volume of production runs over specific time periods ... slow down the production rate, decrease the number of planes sold and GUESS WHAT happens! Finally --- again, my discussion here is NOT complete!! --- the question also becomes whether we want to take the route of the early 1970s (where we designed and procured four 4th generation air superiority jets ... Lightweight (F-16, F-18) and 'heavyweight' (F-14, F-15). Consider the cost of operating, training, maintaining 4 different fighter jet programs! Now I am not a great fan of the 'one plane, multi-purpose' fighters ... the F-4 Phantom, while revered and in the hands of well trained pilots it performed remarkably well, but the F-4 Phantom was precisely the reason why we designed that next generation of fighters. There was a lot of head shaking with the development and procurement of those four 4th generation jets noted above. But let's also recall that one of the drivers of going that route was that it would provide for a competition base in the future .(mfgrs: General Dynamics, McDonnel Douglas, Northrop Grumman). That, in fact is one of the drawbacks that I see with this plane ... I mean, who in the future will be able to have the technological or skills base to compete in the future ...Lockheed has effectively wrapped up the fiighter plane business for the next 50 years ... is that a good thing? hmmmm .... Remember that in WWII we had how many designs for fighter planes ... Just thinking about the Grumman series: Wildcat, Hellcat, Bearcat ... competition was a key to driving us forward! The final thing I'll say is that in the limited documentation about performance, in 1-on-1 and up to 1 on 5 against 4th generation jets, it is not even a contest ... the F-35 wins hands down in seconds. Just my thoughts
My uncle Roy worked on this plane after the Air Force forced his retirement twice; once from the actual Air Force mechanics corps., and a second time after he transferred to be a mechanic on the Thunderbirds. After his forced retirement, he was drafted for a government black project which he couldn't talk about for nearly 10 years. It turned out to be this plane. Today, when the family asks what he working on, he just chuckles and says, "The U2."
They just added Amazon Alexa support to the F35. Seriously, the pilot can manage their audible library, Prime subscription and home deliveries while on missions. Yes the app cost $38 billion to develop, but it's well worth it.
I’m not even 2 minutes into the video and there are already 2 gross errors. The 2nd one is that replacements for the F-16, A-10, AV-8B, and F/A-18 would all be rolled into 1. There is no such thing as a singular JSF design, never was. There have always been 3 distinct and significantly different airframes for each take-off and recovery method for the 3 services and Tier 1 partners. JSF needs to be understood as a multivariant program, not “F-35”. The costs savings were realized in the critical core avionics, propulsion, power generation, and other common sub systems, with separate airframes.
@@CODYoungGunna It was never part of the plan for F-35As to replace F-22As. I lived through all of this from when ATF was just a concept. ATF was always meant to replace the F-15C. ATF and JSF were supposed to be a Hi-Lo mix.
Make no mistake, this is an assassin of a fighter jet. Compared to a 4th gen fighter, the F-35 has a BVR of 3x that of even the most advanced 4th gen fighter’s current capabilities. Meaning, it’s going to see you long before you are even aware you’re even being locked on to. In Red Flag, basically a competition between fighter jets, the F-35 had a staggering 20:1 kill ratio to virtually every single 4th gen fighter it was pitted against. When the competition started, pilots flying in opposing aircraft were flagged as dead before they even knew they were shot at. And yes, it is super-maneuverable, probably only second currently to the F-22 in air superiority capability. The reason is its advanced computational avionics being able to correct and counter acute pilot error, and even physical challenges the fighter encounters due to forces on the aircraft. Nearly every single pilot interviewed said they would choose the F-35 over the field of currently active aircraft, and even the Lockheed test pilot of both the F-22 and F-35 said that the F-35 is capable of doing nearly everything the F-22 is in terms of low and high speed maneuverability, minus the thrust vectoring, which the F-22 has. But it is EXPENSIVE, and unfortunately, that’s looking to be the reality of all 5th generation fighter jets. They’re just expensive. In all, I’d still consider it a success, since the fighter has accomplished every single one of its goals, and then some, and does multiple jobs very, very well, even better than the predecessors it is replacing. That’s a win.
In early 2006 I worked in the Public Affairs Department aboard USS Abraham Lincoln CVN 72. One of my tasks at that time was escorting a couple Lockheed engineers around the ship while we were underway so they could better understand the environment the F-35 would be operating in and the capabilities we had for servicing aircraft at sea. One thing which I remember clearly was their surprise at seeing flight deck crew members physically pushing aircraft around the flight deck by hand. Essentially, a number of flight deck crew would go up to an aircraft which needed to be moved and move it by pushing on the wings leading edges. The engineers immediately stated they would need to strengthen the wings of the Navy version to accommodate this practice. I still have the hat and F-35 pin they gave me as a thank you for showing them around the ship.
They probably expected high tech tugs to be used. Doh! Muscle power to the rescue!
That's such a cool little fact :)
@@keirfarnum6811 Carriers do have a couple tow tugs, but during the carefully choreographed chaos that is flight ops at sea they are not always available to move every aircraft.
A very cool and yet at the same time a simple story! It just goes to show how field experience often is overlooked here!
The wings could not withstand being pushed on ??
YIKES
Saw one live at one of the Farnborough Air Show. Zoomed in, stopped, hovered, did a 360° on the horizontal and zoomed off again. Cool stuff
That's it? A 40-year-old Harrier can do all that. And it's been doing that for 40 years.
@@nogod7184 Never seen a harrier in person
@@nogod7184 The Harrier is no competition for a F-35
It's an air show dumbass... they aren't gonna push the jets to their limits for a bunch of random ass civilians who want to see cool stunts in expensive military aircraft.
@@Beshman12 you're lucky. I see... actually more HEAR them daily. One seriously just flew over my house while typing this. They're fucking loud. Especially when they're practicing VTOL.
To be fair, the $1.7T figure is the through life cost of the aircraft and reflects operating 2,000 F-35s until 2077, including capital cost, fuel, weapons, spares, maintenance and wages.
Sir, this comment section is reserved for making hate comments, not to discuss facts and such.
This is true, and for a 5th generation fighter, the F-35 looks like it will be a decent price. That being said, not everything is a 5th generation fighter problem. Dropping bombs on terrorists (and we drop a lot of bombs on terrorists) can be done better by far cheaper aircraft, but while we seem to be fine spending $1.7T on 2400 fighters, we balk at buying 100 light attack aircraft, aircraft that would be far better at this task than the F-35, and could do it for a small fraction of the price.
The other issue is that we're in an arms race with China right now. With a lifecycle of 50+ years, barring something crazy happening, China is going to have some very good answers to the F-35 well before it's ready for retirement. Already, the ballistic/cruise/hypersonic missile threat from China to F-35 basing seems to be somewhere between high and unmanageable. A new basing strategy could mitigate this, but we won't be able to shift to that if we have 1000 F-35As that don't have an ability to adapt to this new basing strategy sucking up the bulk of the Air Force's funding. The F-35B could be an answer, as well as fast, long-range, probably multi-crew aircraft, and/or UCAVs that don't require runways. The point is, locking ourselves into a 50+ year commitment to an aircraft, when we're in an arms race against a capable opponent probably isn't a good idea. We need to iterate faster than that to stay ahead.
@@JZ909 Dude. The F35 is the last manned aircraft US will develop for mass adoption. It's the electronic-warfare system intended to act as eyes on the Loyal Wingman programs with fighter jet, unmanned drones taking over in the coming decades. The F35 does exactly what we need it to and it's been a huge success, even commercially.
Right,we don't care about the cost of the wages, that is to our own people.But we should realize that every penny Eu sends to Russia for coal gas and oil and every cent we send to China for batteries and solar panels strengthens our enemies and weakens us and our friends as well as harming the climate.
1.7?
In the real world you times your lifetime cost analysis by a factor of 5, and that comes closer to the truth.
So instead of 1.7 billion expect to pay 8.5 billion for 2,000 units or thereabouts.
this quote is ALWAYS used incorrectly.
"A jack of all trades is master of none but it still always better than a master of one"
people dont understand how much this aircraft if capable of.
the F35 leaped years ahead of the market had to offer and it completely changed how air control is/will be achieved.
This. Here in Finland our air force chose F-35 as the new fighter. It will replace f/a-18's .
F-35 was clear winner against super Hornet, Gripen, eurofighter.
The trick to being a successful military contractor is to employ people in as many congressional districts as possible.
That just makes it difficult for politics to kill. That doesn't mean it'll be difficult for The Enemy to kill i.e. F111A
Raytheon is a huge scammer for DoD. 🙂
Whenever I hear "Industrial Military Complex" I always remember that unmentioned, inseparable component of that "special interest" group...
This hurts my soul with its truth.
@@thekidfromcleveland3944 Your right, but I think all of the f111's lost during the Vietnam war were due to hydraulic failures.
PILOT: "F35: add lasagne sheets, milk and some recces pieces to my list"
F35: "Lasagne sheets, milk and recces pieces, should I order those now"?
PILOT: "F35: Let's not tempt fate, order once we've left enemy airspace"
Reese's
@@mirzaahmed6589 Do ya know, I knew i'd spell it wrong whichever version I picked 🤣 - TY for the correction
*lasagna
Lasagne is the dish itself.
LOL This is basically how the F-35 was designed too. It's like a child throwing every random ingredient that they love into one bowl and mixing it all up, then tossing it into the oven to bake. Including the Tupperware bowl! It's a miracle that it works, at all, in the end. But it's no wonder that some people still have a problem stomaching it.
why bother to have a pilot? Make it a drone, save at least 200 million for the cockpit system, ejector seat, canopy... At least 1 ton which can be used for payloads. Then you get a video game whiz kid to handle it from Creech AFB
"A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one."
Everyone forgets the second part of this saying.
Looks like multirole has become a specialized role itself. Wouldn't that be making training a lot longer?
@@Joshua_N-A For the F-35, the idea of making it a Jack of all trades seems unwise to me. We need the best fighter planes - not the best multi-role plane that can be used as a fighter.
I just wanted to point out what the full quote is, since very few people seem to be familiar with the full quote.
But it was promised to be a master of three with a price tag to match
I didn’t know this quote had a second part. Where is the quote from if you know?
The F35 is not 1 jet anymore, its 3. The A, B and C "variants" were suppose to share 80% of the same components, now they share less than 20%. They should have just made 3 separate jets in the first place, not only would they be even better than the f35, they would have been in service now and cheaper in the long run.
As an aviation Officer, in my opinion the aircraft is overall outstanding.. not perfect.. but logistically and functionally outstanding which over time DOES save money with interchangeable parts and making maintenance and the logistics of supporting the aircraft much more efficient.
And your opinion is actually valuable, unlike many of these keyboard warriors in these comments
One thing you didn't mention about the VTOL. An inherent weakness in the harrier is when landing it's a controlled crash and taking off it still requires a bit of runway. This is because of the vectored thrust. IF or WHEN the engine sucks up its own exhaust if causes a flame out situation and a stalling of the engine. When landing the last 30 to 50 feet are very fast due to this known issue. The side effect of the F35's shaft driven fan is by sucking fresh air from above the aircraft and pushing it below it effectively creates and air curtain that prevents the engine from sucking up its own exhaust.
Don’t go giving away secrets now.
That's one one thing, the other one thing is that Lockheed bought that snappy VTOL technology from the Russians. It's not a secret, it's the Yak-41 VTOL engine... it's just that no one likes to mention it for some reason... wonder why.
@@glandhound I don't think any American will be very happy if they found out about it. Also military suppliers must preserve the image of nationalism and patriotism even if they don't follow it in practice
@@CornPopsDood I was very careful to only state the facts that I've seen in documentaries not what I know or what I've seen on flight decks.
And the technology was bought out from Yakovlev.
Some correction.
They didn't yet spend $400B for the F-35 as of now. That $400B development and procurement cost of over 2,447 F-35(all variants). At the moment from what i recall reading they spend around $150+B for buying around 800 jets and its development.
The $1.7T cost of the F-35 include the following
1. Development Cost
2. Procurement of 2,447 jets
3. Upgrades until 2070
4. Operational cost of the jets until 2070+(includes everything from salary of crews and pilots, spare parts and the estimated inflation to that date)
Mad money , and how can they set aside money for upgrades until the year 2070 ??, nobody knows what tech is coming along in the next 50 years and it will not even be around in 50 years from now
Actually, the development costs are pegged at 80 billion. Total money spent is about 400 billion, but that includes the delivery of 600 jets (which would not, and should not be noted as development costs.
Given that they built 3 very different airframes and 3 models?
Well, the F16 (in adjusted dollars)? The program cost MORE then doubled, and in adjusted 2021 dollars the f16 cost 54 billion dollars.
So the F35 had some cost overruns, but then again, 3 fighter jets, and 3 VERY different airframes?
If only one model F35, and NOT the VSTOL model? And not the carrier model?
The cost of the F35 program would in fact be about the same as the f16 cost to develop!!!
I always though the F35 developer costs were high, but now, it actually looks to be normal based on past jets.
Given the f16 was 54 billion, and they did the F35 with 3 variants for 80 billion? That's not really that much different in terms of development costs then, is it?
@@Albertkallal STILL A TURKEY.
Budgets are moral documents because they do not lie. The F-35 is the most expensive weapon in history, with a projected lifetime cost of $1.7 trillion. That’s more than Russia’s GDP, all spent on a single-seat plane. In fact, if this aircraft were a country, its GDP would rank 11th in the world, ahead of Saudi Arabia. Buying one costs around $110 million a copy, nearly double the price of a Boeing 737-600 airliner. F-35s are also expensive to fly. Each hour in the air costs $44,000, more than twice the cost of the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Super Hornet.
Aren't the salary's of crews and pilots already incorporated into the militarys budget someplace. Seems kind of weird because they're already in the military and getting paid no matter what they're doing.
I'm sorry, but are you kidding me that the F-35 "has a less powerful engine than the Harrier"? The Pratt-Whitney F135-PW600 engine used on the F-35B has a maximum hovering thrust of 180kN, compared to around 106kN of thrust provided by the Harrier's Rolls-Royce Pegasus. Even without the lift-fan, the F135 generates 120kN of thrust, not to mention it could be further boosted by the afterburner in-flight. The F135 is actually the SINGLE MOST POWERFUL jet engine to have ever been mounted on a fighter jet.
This guy needs to research the f35 a bit better. It has had problems but the engine has more thrust than any other jet that we have. So he clearly needs a new job
Either he doesn't do thorough research or he's still stuck in 2016 when the F-35 got beaten by the F-16 in exericise.
40,000lbs of thrust versus harriers 23800lbs. I think it breaks down on the f35b to 20,000lbs for the lift fan and 1,000lbs for each roll post. Maybe that would give u less thrust out the back end in vtol but without some quick research I couldn’t be sure
@@barryklinedinst6233 Actually, the F-119 has more thrust than the F-135 engine.
@@NationChosenByGod no it doesn’t lmao
I used to work on AV-8B Harrier (the only foreign weapons system that the US military had accepted in more than 50 years), and that thing.. the F-35, is far superior and more flexible. It was a good choice and a smart investment.
I completely agree. If you look at all the facts what the F-35's capabilities and what it is meant to be, and what the program has achieved engineering wise and ironing out the flaws and problems, it literally is the best investment ever made in the long run by not just the United States but other Western Allies as well. The only thing which makes the F-35 more expensive is flight hour cost, which in of itself is decreasing. But per unit cost of the F-35 and lifetime cost is ultimately cheaper than many fourth generation aircraft currently in service in the world. And in comparison to something like the F-22, the F-35 is much cheaper to operate long term, and think about all that it provides OVER the F-22 as well. Sure it failed the affordable test compared to fighters like the F-16 but given all its capabilities and that the F-16 is getting old, I don't see how that is an issue.
The F-35 gets an extremely undeserved amount of flack. I love the F-35 and think it was an amazing plane and an amazing concept especially for the Marines, I mean that's a huge upgrade for me harrier. You got a Beyond visual range beast that is completely unmatched, and the funny thing is an F-35 is not designed to shoot down their planes, say it again for the people who don't understand LoL. It actually was replacing the F-117 nighthawk is its main purpose. A F-35 is mostly an attack plane, and it leads groups of at least three unmanned drones to penetrate enemy lines and sweep out air defense systems, so the fourth generation fighters and bombers can advance. It also is a superpowered advanced AI with the ability to do amazing electronic warfare against radar systems. The F-35 is a small one engine aircraft and has amazing range considering what it is, and people underestimate It's ability to hover in mid dogfight, that gives it a really tricky advantage at super low speed low altitude, because it can recover from a stall turn into a helicopter and shoot you down then fly off. I have been playing combat simulators for a long time with aircrafts that can hover, it gives you something else to think about. And the engine problems people complain about is really ridiculous, they just had to beef up to turbine blades after 12 years. And they were literally never even offline for maintenance, all they did is simply replace parts sooner than predicted. And the F-35 is about to get a huge engine upgrade it will have a XA101 Ramjet engine hybrid. It is a rebuild kit that drops straight into its existing engine casing.
Good thing Sprey isn't around anymore to spout more nonesense.
The F-35 is “capable” of hovering mid dogfight but the jet isn’t designed to be a dog fighter and with “full bags” (full fuel weight) and probably carrying some sort of armament would burn wayyyy too much fuel to make hovering mid dogfight feasible without having to land for fuel or meet a tanker VERY shortly after.
@@Minox_We are all very thankful Pierre Sprey has finally shut the fuck up
@@MLaak86 It was never designed to be a fighter, a bomb truck, or any of that. It could never expend a single munition and still be a complete success. It is first and foremost a flying supercomputer that has integrated every single sensory pod we currently have and more with moderate defensive/offensive fire solutions all in a single stealth chassis. You are talking about a forward operating AWACS that can also handle targeting of virtually everything on the battlefield for everyone else so that the 4th gen F-15 trucks can drop their payload and go cold or vector the F-16/18's in and let them get the drop.
If I may, I would like to point you to the Abrams-X project which shares many of the same technologies pertinent to ground force combat. Additionally, part of the Next Generation Squad Weapon program is the very little talked about Fire Control (NGSW-FC) that features a little system called Intra-Soldier Wireless. Just with these technologies alone one cannot tell me that there isn't a way to integrate these technologies at the command level and push these out to the field in real time. And this completely ignores the US Army's air conditioned helmet patented in 2013 that has underwent a few revisions to now include an augmented reality interface.
The next generation of warfare is knocking at the door.
@@apersonontheinternet8006 I have since come across vids explaining this reality and changed my position.
I laughed but I wouldn't be surprised if "looking really stupid" were actually a determining factor. Bunch of military tough guys don't want to be flying around in a death machine that looks like a meme.
It actually was. They were quoted as remarking about how the US had a recent history of ungainly looking aircraft, and even though some of these became very iconic, like the A-10 Warthog, it was a matter of pride that they wanted something that couldn't be mocked for its looks. Rather tragic that vanity and pride influenced a decision that should be entirely about capability.
@@nathan_middleton_ and the F-35 does still get mocked for the way it looks, being too "fat". I love it personally, but you can't please everyone
Say that to the A-10 pilots! :-P A plane so notorious that it's not even called by its actual name. "Thunderbolt II? Oooooh, you mean the Warthog..." But it's so fugly that you can't not love it!
A weapon doesn't have to look good to do its job well, so you're likely right that part of Boeing's loss was the silly first look, even though it could have changed as it evolved into an actual combat version. Granted, the lift fan concept from Lockheed is a legitimate game changer over the Harrier's old means of VTOL, and some stealth capability was also a factor at play, which forces a bit of a design change to reduce RCS.
The A-10 is a perfect example of your statement though; it wasn't pretty, but it did, and still does, its job so well. It's also pretty cheap to maintain and deploy in comparison to other ground-attack-equipped fighters that aren't turbo-prop powered (Super Tuscano and similar), but it definitely can't handle combat in an area without suppressed anti-air defenses.
The biggest issue with the JSF program really is the idea of trying to adapt one design into 3, instead of just going with 3 proper variants that may share some superficial design elements. The Air Force should have gotten a true F-15 successor, but didn't and had to end up splitting duties again with the F-15EX. The Navy should have had a true F-18 Super Hornet successor, but didn't. Only the Marines got what they wanted; a true successor to the Harrier that was more combat capable and could forgo stealth in favor of more ordinance.
@@nathan_middleton_ I was reading in an aviation magazine about the JSF competition. Now of course this was the author's opinion, but he had a lot of experience with the Air Force. He said something to the effect that the Air Force really wants their planes to look "right" and because of that, the Boeing could have only one if the Lockheed had been a complete design failure.
Simon, the image at 7:51 is actually F22s in production, you can see the two engine compartments and neck down in the center. The 35 has a single central engine.
There's a lot of chatter about bringing the F22 back in some guise, but that's just that, chatter.
He has a fascinating egg skull
its just b roll
@@JimBrodie the F22 is still the primary fighter to fighter aircraft in the US for the same reason the US used f15’s while having access to f-16’s. Also, its just cheaper.
@@goldenhate6649
I'm a div, typo.. Meant the YF-23.
The F-22 has a fair few years under it's belt now and proved itself quite capable.
I live by Luke Airforce base in Phoenix. And you can hear the difference when they are flying F-16/F-22/F35. The F22 is a loud beast, but holy crap, the F35 is an amazing machine to see in the skys and the sound is earth shattering.... LOVE IT!
A lot of wrong information at 10:33. The F35 does not have less thrust than the Harrier, it has nearly double. The best version of the Pegasus engine only makes 23800 lbf of thrust compared to the F35's 40000 lbf. These are both single engine aircraft.
F135 makes 43000 lbf, in hover mode it's actually over 44000 lbf.
I too wrote this comment.
105kn vs 190Kn lol
@@nucleargandhi101 I'm used to lbs, kn makes me wanna wiki.
@@Joshua_N-A Whole world uses S.I (Metric System). Get used to it mate.
Also it makes more sense.
I mean just look at the calculation of lbf.
It's 1 lbs multipled by "g"(which is SI unit), which again is multipled by metric to imperial ratio... so that it becomes metrix.
Why not directly use metric?
@@nucleargandhi101 to continually piss off people like you lol, Metric to calculate everything important then use imperial online to piss off people. its a win win
The F135 engine in the F35 produces nearly twice the thrust of the Pegasus in the Harrier. 40,000 lbs vs 23,000 lbs. the lift system on the harrier is more efficient than the F35 however it uses a high bypass turbofan which limits the top speed to subsonic. Lift fans are less efficient but mean you can use a turbojet engine and so go supersonic. To go supersonic in a Harrier you would need to develop plenum chamber afterburners to increase the exhaust gas airspeed.
I disagree, A radial fan converts HP into thrust much more efficiently, It allows streamlining of the air frame, it reduces the hot exhaust exposure on landing and makes it possible to have a stealthy airframe. It has never been done because the HP transmitted to the fan is about half of the power driving a Ticonderoga class cruiser. IN other words without the fan the F35 would be just another Harrier.
@Andy Man it goes 1,200 mph thats nearly double the speed of sound. Wrong.
@Andy Man To be fair, there are a fair few accounts of harrier pilots going supersonic, obviously in a dive, but they still did it. I'm sure it did some damage to the airframe but they won't fall apart immediately.
The F135-PW-400 alone generates 40,500lb of thrust in STOVL mode without afterburner, while also driving the geared lift fan. It is able to generate that thrust due to additional airflow paths opened into the intake feed.
would love one on the F-22 as well if there isn't already. Probably another hard one with all the classified info but it'd be cool to compare/contrast
Along with everything that is said in these comments which i agree with, the internal bomb bay is such an insane feature. Every plane with external armament is extensively hindered compared to its empty configuration, but an internal bomb and missile bay on a fighter alone makes control consistency and usability leaps and bounds above contemporary aircraft
Mach 1.6 and 8g maneuvers with two AIM-120s and two 2000lb JDAMs. Show me a 4th gen fighter that can do that.
Let me know when you find a military project that hasn’t had cost overruns and set backs. Trust me, I won’t hold my breath. The F-16 had so many problems in the beginning and yet it is the most successful jet fighter ever produced.
Hasard Lee is a USAF pilot and explained this exact thing in a video on his TH-cam channel.
There's cost overruns and cost overruns though... The F-35's really are extreme.
The U2 came in under budget.
T-34?
France Mirage IV twin engines jet bomber. On time on budget
I love it when 'serious' media outlets cannot disclose particular items of a newly developed jet and have to fall back on spurious quotes from 'sources', to cover their lack of information, while SW just admits "they won't tell us" .... and we all go "That's okay, we still love your channels"
Hollywood media is really just a show with globalist narrative.
I was really glad when he specified that the high total cost estimate was from a 3rd party and likely is the upper end.
Most media outlets would just say the lifetime cost is 1.7trillion dollars as if it was fact.
That number may well be true. but it's certainly not a fact yet. So specifying the origin of the number and how it compares to other estimates is really refreshing.
Keep up the good work Simon.
When you consider that the US is selling this aircraft to other major allies of the US, such as australia. Who did not previously have, any sort of stealth aircraft. It is a massive boon.
BS! sell us the f22 pls so we don't have to continue having to fund this flying pig f35
@Andy Man no need to call me out on being misinformed my man, it was a crappy joke that wasn't intended to hurt or insult you in any way xo. I love aviation and both the f35 and f22, and I understand they are for completely different roles. it's just a shame the US won't sell us f22's, cos what new generation fighter are we going to use instead?
@@triumphdollysprint not even the US can buy more F-22s
Lmao the US Federal government told the American people not too long ago they've already built, tested, and flown their new 6th generation fighter.
@@WalrusWinking it was a test bed for potential technologies that could be integrated on a potential future fighter jet, and really that was to say that using new emergent technologies (like 3D printing and AI) they could build and design new airframes far faster than before
Simon, you should look at the F-111. Many of the same issues with trying to get one airframe to do so many wildly different things at once and it costing MUCH more than simply developing more specialized airframes to fit the goal. With the F-111, the naval variant was canceled and resulted in the development of the iconic F-14 Tomcat.
Techs always hate working on anything new and unfamiliar, really has nothing to do with the jet itself.
@@robh3267 It has nothing to do with the techs. The F-35A has a completely different mission to the F-35B which has a completely different mission to the F-35C. the F-35A's requirements could easily be taken over with better performance and range by simply adopting the F-35C for the Air Force (as happened before with the F-4 vs the F-106). Meanwhile this *exact same airframe* must be VTOL capable for the Marines' F-35B. The Air Force wanted a bomb truck that could defend itself (what the F-16 evolved into), the Navy wanted a replacement for the F/A-8 family with similar overall performance, and the Marines needed a replacement for their Harriers. That's a LOT to ask out of one basic airframe design and it is documented that the overwhelming source of the cost overruns is getting that universal airframe to do so much shit that it can't help but suck.
The pratt whitney company used to have a skunk works in south Florida, when i was a kid we used to hunt in a small preserve (corbett area) that shared a border with pratt whitney test facility. Relatively often in the evenings you would hear the roar of a jet engine and see a blinding light, shooting flames a couple hundred feet into the air. The test pad held the rocket motors horizontally and directed the exaust vertically into the air. You could hear and see the exaust from well over a mile away.
The Pilot's helmet is more expensive than my house.
Its a dumb world
5x mine...
Suggestions: The Blue Angels.
How jet fighter pilots are trained.
The Navy hospital ships the USS Hope and the USS Mercy.
The steel industry of Pittsburgh, PA.
The California Mission system.
USNS Mercy and USNS Comfort are the current US Navy hospital ships.There is a USNS Bob Hope but it's a vehicle cargo ship.
Heh, I love the snark and irony when you say, "enlightened age" while discussing a weapon of death and destruction!
It's often said that with any project you have three aspects you can apply to it: speed of completion, quality of work, and low cost but you can only pick any two of them. With any project involving researching materials you can only pick one of those three options.
This holds true for so many things.
Ah yes, the old pick two out of the following three.
It DOES apply to so many things.
Women (or whatever your preference is, I'm not going to judge!): Hot, Single, Sane; if they are single and "hot", they aren't sane. If they are sane and "hot" they aren't single. If they are single and sane, they aren't "hot". Unless you find that super rare exception to the rule unicorn.
relating it to something VASTLY similar, body armor; pick two of the following following the logic above: weight, cost, protection.
@@Evinthal84 there is a video on that.
@@Evinthal84 haha the crazy/hot scale. Definitely good videos on this one.
I was in the Air Force when they started building the F-35. The Air Force and Lockheed Martin were bragging up a new concept for producing the F-35 called "concurrency." That is, it was going to go into full production with the design still being refined very little flight testing. The testing and completing the design would happen while the planes continued to roll of the assembly lines. It was supposed to get the jets into service much faster and save money with this streamlined process. Even as a young lieutenant, I thought it sounded like a scam. And eventually, they had to admit that concurrency didn't work as planned and because the first few hundred produced needed a lot of retrofitting and updating, it ended up driving up the price. Of all the controversies around the F-35, I think concurrency is the worst one. What other product is sold to customers before the design is finished and it's been tested?
A good video would be on the Americas inter waterways. How they control all the rivers, including the mighty Mississippi River. With the use of lock and dams, dikes, and levees. Then look at how much product is shipped on river giving it a advantage over any other country for farming.
more a *geographics* kind of thing i think
@@mho... That’s at least two, if not three videos to Simon. C’mon man.
@@CornPopsDood well he can start a series then
@@fatroth He’s probably never thought of that.
@@CornPopsDood I hope you do know that Simon is just the narrator and other people are responsible for writing the script, research and other aspects of the video production.
Small note here but the F-35 was not intended to replace the F/A-18 Super Hornets instead it was supposed to replace the older legacy hornets like the A-D models. The super hornets are almost an entirely different plane and are designed to serve alongside the F-35
As well as the aged Harrier.
@@0311Mushroom the harrier is the primary one really for the marines (as well as the Royal navy and Air force, though they retired their harriers ages ago now! ). The A10 is getting a update programme to extend it's service life as well.
It's replacing the F-16 and the A-10 and Harrier aircraft.
@@nexpro6118 it has failed at replacing either the F-16 or A-10.
Wrong...it was originally made to replace the F117... now they just make up shit that hope this aircraft can do...
Well, it is a master of one thing, arguably the most important thing as it relates to the F-35’s purpose: it is a flying supercomputer
18:37
Ahh, fighter jet as a service, now that's a good business model
We got an IT guy here :)
EA working with Lockheed Martin.
It's Platform as a service no? Lol
*FaAS*
Hell yeah
The F-35’s jet engine produces about twice the thrust of the Pegasus engine in the Harrier
no, it doesnt. it produces 125kN of thrust, the Harrier produces 105. 125=/=105x2
@@marksman712
The F-35 produces 191kN of thrust
That’s not what he meant though. The engine itself only produces around 90kN of thrust while hovering and another 80kN with the fan. So while hovering the engine alone does in fact produce less thrust than the pegasus.
@@The_real_Arovor
The engine powers the fan. The engine in the F-35 is more powerful
@@foobarmaximus3506
I am not wrong. The engine in the F-35 is far more powerful than the engine in the harrier. In fact the engine in all 3 versions is far more powerful
The f-35 puts out almost 2x the thrust of the harrier. Not the other way around.
in what fucking world is 125= 2x105, 125kN thrust of thrust on the F-35, 105kN thrust out of the AV8B
please go back to school and no dont use the afterburner thrust of the F-35, the AV8B doesnt have AB, you cant compare it
@@marksman712 Why does it matter where the thrust comes from? Are pilots of the F-35 not going to use it if they need it? Also, please use lbs of thrust. Elon Musk says Newtons and Pascals are the 2 dumbest units of measurement he knows of.
@@marksman712 dont use the after burner.... the after burner on the f-35 can be fully engaged and it does nothing to deter its stealth so yes we are going to be using it and its going in the comparison when its a system thats used pretty anytime you would be anywhere near combat.
@@sssbob not sure why Elon Musk gets any weight in the discussion on what SI units are "dumbest" or not. He isnt an engineer or even in STEM as a professional, he is in it as an entrepreneur. He can have his opinion but it aint gonna mean fucking shit to me when it comes to actual STEM topics and it shouldnt mean shit to you either dude. Soon that alone i wont acquiesce your demand to use lbf. I also wont use it cos i couldnt tell you what the fuck a "pound" is except iirc 2.2 of them make a kg, i doubt 80% of the world would be able to actually apply what a pound scale is to anything.
You also missed my point ENTIRELY. Which is you cant compare the thrust of 1 plane to another if youre using AB on one and not the other.
I was on the USS Nimitz during some of the sea trials of the plane. It was amazing to see the power and speed of the craft.
When you leave what appears to be a default title "F-35 Lightning Script" as the image for the thumbnail.
RIP
F-35s are produced in part at the Lockheed Martin plant at JRB Fort Worth. I used to see them thunder past my apartment when I lived in Fort Worth, Texas. You really couldn't miss them because they're so loud.
Funny how people often forget or simply don't know the full quote.
"A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one."
Sucks that doesn't apply to the F35 though lol
@@MisterPuff18 Oh, it most certainly does apply. Sure it’s expensive, but also singlehandedly better than any other aircraft out there.
@@MisterPuff18 It does, it's just that people are 30+ years late in their understanding of modern battlefields.
My only issue with the f35 is it relies on to many variables to be as effective as it is. Data links are great but what happens when the enemy downs the awacs/satellites or jams transmissions. What happens once the bad guys can get through the stealth. What happens when china/Russia can just track engine thermals from space satellites. It definitely excels in it's role but I don't think it will be as hard as they say to negate it's advantage.
@@Spectre-wd9dl The F-35 has fantastic jamming performance due to its huge radar array, as well as rather effective passive sensors. If there were to be jamming, the F-35 would be more of a threat in this area than the other way around.
How do you plan to get "through" the stealth? Unless you find a way to bypass the laws of physics, all methods of fighting stealth are impractical and rather ineffective compared to what you could do against non-stealth aircraft.
The F-35 engine has a high bypass ratio, so combined with IR reduction measures on the nozzles, it's a lower risk than other aircraft. But here's the problem, you're looking at highly impractical and limited methods of fighting the F-35, but you aren't accounting how badly this would affect a 4th generation aircraft for example.
One of my uncles worked for a while on this project when he still worked for BAe. His specialist area being engine fuel systems. He'd previously worked on the eurofighter, tornado and the harrier (though most of the time on the harrier was as part of his raf career until he joined BAe just as the first gulf War started).
The aims of the f35 project were certainly admirable, if probably unrealistic knowing how military projects always tend to bloat, suffer delays and over spending. However, the f35 will eventually be the primary multi role fighter for most services using it, alongside the f22 in the USAF and UAVs as well as things like eurofighter in the RAF. The f16, a10, f/a18 and harrier will all have had to be replaced by something and rather than the cost of how things traditionally would have worked, each would probably have had a protracted development programme of replacement and each having decades of support, training and development. Potentially the f35 might over its service life save on some of these potential costs by having all the requirements in one design with support and training costs likely to be smaller over time. But time will tell with that really. A project to replace the eurofighter has of course already begun, with two potential outcomes, one being joint by airbus and the other by BAe for the RAF, they may eventually merge or remain split (to some extent this happened with eurofighter, with the French going alone for the rafale).
The F-35 will be a jack of all trades. However, it WILL be a master of one. It is the best strike fighter in the world, today. Right now. It gives us what the old F-117 did, a stealthy ground attack plane. The only two fighters in history that could have bombed Bagdad on day of Desert Storm at the F-117 and F-35. Nothing else in service had the range, stealth, payload and hardware to drop those guided munitions.
You're rewriting history here. The F-117 dropped bombs from the safety of high altitude in Desert Storm. The plane that did all the high risk dangerous low level ground attack in Desert Storm was the British Panavia Tornado.The British pilots suffered the highest casualties in Desert Storm because they did all the dangerous missions while US pilots flew the low risk missions.
@@oot007 Yeah, exactly like the F-35 would. You are trying to argue with me by reinforcing my point.
At no time did I mention low level penetration bombing, although the F-111 did plenty of that in the first Gulf War.
@@Elthenar >"You are trying to argue with me by reinforcing my point."
No you are wrong. You got your facts wrong by pretending that the F-117 was a ground attack plane. It did no such thing but dropped bombs from high altitude because the US was afraid it would get shot down.
@@oot007 You are trying to criticize the plane for doing exactly what it was made to do?
Sir, how much crack do you smoke?
@@Elthenar You're the idiot. The F-117 was not used a ground attack plane as you stated. It dropped bombs from high altitude just like a B52 because the US didn't want to risk it being shot down if it did real ground attack runs like the Tornado. This is well documented at the time. Quit sniffing that white powder of yours.
I just went to the air show at Tinker AFB and the F35 is pretty amazing in the air. It can do things with thrust vectoring that made people's jaws drop.
With respect, we don't have the classified information about the jet yet. We have never seen it in actual combat.
Some say it's the worst most overpriced thing ever. That it can't do shit and costs a fortune. Like it's supposedly inferior to F-16 in every way.
Then others claim it's the messiah of jet fighters. It's able to singlehandedly fulfill any mission, ground attack or air superiority. It will never take any losses. It's just so great that in every exercise it blows the minds of supervisors and analysts.
We just won't know what's true until we see one in actual combat. However, the most convincing information about the fighter, is that Finland is acquiring like 60+ of them. And if you know anything about Finnish defense spending, the people responsible are very careful with the funds they have. The current Finnish fighter fleet is F-18 hornets. If the people responsible for the upgrade, see value in it after getting to combat test the fighter and see classified information about it, it must be good.
And Finland is known for not overspending on overpriced shit. Finnish armed forces have zero attack helicopters for the sole reason that they saw it as an overpriced counter insurgency tool with zero value against a near peer opponent. Finland is not interested in overpriced tools for shooting Toyota's and camel farmers. The Finnish army is only interested in cost effective weapons that are capable of inflicting disproportionate damage on a modern powerful military.
I'm about at racist towards Europe as one comes (I'm Australian, they're pissing contest is the reason I live in danger land, fuck em). But Finland is one that I actually respect, so that's the best endorsement that I could have gotten for it.
In Red Flag exercise in Nevada the F35 shot down 20 agressor's F16 for one lost. It's the biger kill ratio !
The F-35 is superior in A2A because of it’s effective targeting range. About 30% further. It’ll get target lock on the f-22 before it comes up on radar. It can also transmit that targeting data to other F-35 aircraft. Meaning you can have one plane “take point” and guide all the smart munitions being fired from other positions. It’s exceptionally good at flanking, so despite the f-22 being faster and more agile in a traditional sense, it can’t fend off from attacks coming from multiple directions
Common Affordable Lightweight Figher. LOL That seems like a million years ago now.
We want a plane that will replace these 4 excellent planes"
-Ok, what's the budget?
"Well ideally it should only cost as much as any one of those planes did, but feel free to make it cost as much as all 4 planes if you need to."
-Throw in the development budget for the Osprey and Apache and adjust it all to 2021 dollars and you got a deal.
Yep then it will be capable of flying the title or deed to the United States on over to another country just f****** give it to them...smh
And it didn’t replace any of those planes except the harrier which was already leaving service anyways.
@@92HazelMocha Imagine this thing trying to do the CAS role of the A10 from 15,000 ft. The "F" will stand for "Friendly Fire".
@@criticalevent Luckily the USAF saw reason, and un-retired the A10 before someone got hurt.
Yes, the F35 looks to be the lower cost jet:
Typhoon: 120 million per copy
Rafale: 94 million per copy.
F15: 88 million per copy
F35: 77 million per copy.
So yes, it does look like the F35 is the lower cost jet to buy.
And the F35 being a single engine fighter also has a lower cost per hour then a F15, F18, Typhoon, and Rafale.
So, F35 is not the lowest cost jet, but it certainly the lower cost choice compared to most well equipped 4th gen jets.
Military machines are truly amazing... I just wish and pray they can see very, very little use...
Fthat... I want our moneys worth! hahahaha j/k
I used to assemble the forward cockpit cameras for the F35; daytime & night vision.
_China would like to know your location_
Forward probably should be foremble... ass-emble sounds backwards :p
Speaking as one that literally lives next to the runway of AFB#4 (L/M FtWTx) you can not imagine the window shaking the vertical takeoffs and landing can do! How the house doesn’t just crumble at the next gust of wind amazes me. Where as this would usually be the reason for people to complain, I don’t. I’ve grown up in the area for 5 decades now and I assure you, it a minor inconvenience and not near as annoying as the B-52’s deafening air noise used to make. I accept this as the reassurance of my personal freedom. Plus none of the houses have crumbled when the wind blows.
Some extra info about that programme cost is that the total 1.1 to 1.7 trillion is that the amount is what is expected until 2070, and has taken inflation into account, meaning the total cost is what it will be in 2070.
cool, that in 2070 simple economic firms will have access to time machines to tell us the inflation of the us dollar for the next 50 years.
It would be much more important and useful counter argument that it is representing most of the US and other airforces planes, or at least intended to represent. In many case this project failed because few started to whisper about it ovebudget, which led to cuts in order and overbudget, and the spiral still spins.
What also wasn't mentioned that this was three distinct planes for three different military branches, in one program. Given that the life cycle cost of the Superhornet program is estimated at almost 1 trillion and only serves the US NAVY and a little bit the Marines, you'd be normally looking at 2-3 trillion life cycle for three different distinct aircraft programs for three different branches of the military.
I have no knowledge of the F35 contract specifically, but I do know these larger acquisitions contracts tend to be firm fixed price with incentive fees. So I would say its probably the opposite of what you said. Running over budget likely cuts into/eliminates their profit and running late loses them their incentive fees.
Yeah wouldn't be a very good contract if they didn't agree on a price. Basically handing them a blank check.
@@foobarmaximus3506, do you have insight into the F35 contract? I would be very interested to learn more about how it is structured if I am incorrect.
You know what's hilarious? Congress has tried to "cut costs" by unifying the branches' fighters before with the F-111 Aardvark. The Aardy was loved by the airforce after some kinks were smoothed out, but the Navy hated it, and so decided to keep its fleet of F-14s. When will they learn that every branch just needs its own aircraft?
F-111 flew way before the F-14 was designed. The problem was that the Air Force wanted a large bomber type fighter while the Navy wanted a fleet defense fighter. The Air Force had more say in its design so the F-111 was a fighter bomber. Unsurprisingly a fighter bomber isn’t the best at intercept and defense missions.
The fact that you have to go around 50 years back for an example of a multi role aircraft not working says something. There are many fighters used successfully by many air forces and navy’s across the world, the Rafael is one. It’s not the concept of a multi service fighter that’s bad, it’s the purpose of the aircraft that often conflicts with the different branches. Of course the navy wasn’t happy with the F-111, the navy needed something to primarily shoot down aircraft, the F-111 was designed as a bomb truck.
If there had been two programs odds are that we would have two over budget and behind schedule programs instead of one.
The F-4 Phantom is a perfect counterexample. It was far and away the best combat aircraft in service until the F-18 entered service several decades later. Nowadays, when weapons systems and electronic warfare matter infinitely more than kinematics, it's even more possible to give both services the same airframe, and still have it be the best aircraft of its type in existence -- as the F-35 is.
Partially inaccurate. The F14 was designed because the F111 could not do what the navy wanted. The navy needed a fighter/interceptor, and the F111 really wasn't capable of the fighter role. Given its size and weight, I'd be surprised if the F111-B could even match the existing F4s in the fighter role. They cancelled their participation in the F111 program and issued a new contract for what became the F14 and was actually able to perform in either role. So they didn't "keep" them, they were actually designed as a result of.
@@darrel7589 The F-4 was marginally inferior to the Tomcat as a pure interceptor, but unlike the Tomcat, it had capabilities other than slinging missiles from long range - something that is non-negotiable in a carrier aircraft. The Tomcat was, in short, a fine interceptor but a terrible carrier aircraft.
@@drcruelty The Navy needed a newer fighter, yes. But the F-14 was only ever capable of being a fighter, and carriers do not exist to serve as mobile fighter bases. They exist to actively strike at enemy forces, and that requires strike aircraft. And covering your deck in unreasonably large Tomcats does not allow that. Hence my statement that the F-14 was a perfectly good interceptor, but a poor carrier aircraft.
“Enlightened age”
_glances at Afghanistan…_
20 years gone to waste by one president. Hoo boy we are fucked.
@@cherrydeathclaw it went to waste 20 years ago when we invaded
@@chrisspley99 don't fall for the simplistic rhetoric out of context. the entire US history culminated inexorably in the intervention of Afghanistan including a very important factor in this theater: the antagonism of capitalism or communism in the dispute for the dominant hegemony of the planet. Afghanistan was just another country involved in this indirect war as it was in Korea and Vietnam, but tempered with the volatility of a region permeated by permanent theocratic conflict between medieval-minded peoples.
10:31 in what world does a Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine of the AV-8B Harrier with 23,800 LBF thrust have more power than the F35 with it's F135-PW-600 putting out 27,000 LBF dry, or 41,000 LBF wet? The F135-PW-100 in the A and C models is even more impressive at 28,000 LBF dry and 43,000 LBF wet, respectively. The F135 series may be the single most powerful afterburning turbofan engine made. The F22 Raptor's F119-PW-100 may be the second most powerful with 26,000 LBF dry and 35,000 LBF wet, but you get two of those with your plane. And of course there are plenty of commercial non-afterburning turbofans that make a lot more thrust than these. But those engines are HUGE!!!
Edit: So it seems that the Russians have the most powerful afterburning turbofan engine that makes 55,000 LBF of thrust in full afterburner. This engine is what powers the supersonic Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack. It's a faster and larger version of the US's B1-Lancer, the Bone.
Actually there is weight per thrust - in it the F135 is the leader till article 30 engine gets into serial production - it is both a bit lighter and has a bit more thrust. The ratio for Tu-160 engine (not modernized) is just over 7. while F135 is over 9. 1980s Su-27 engine is over 8. The current best Su-35 is under 9. The production engine for Su-57 will be almost 10 or around 10. But its not in serial production yet.
The tu-160 and b-1b have nothing to do with each other they simply look relatively similar
@@tomk3732 the Russians have a bad habit of underachieving in the engine department recently
@@quinndenver4075 Hardest part of 5th gen jet is the engine. But Russians are catching up. Russians were behind the US in this department since WWII (roughly) and breakup of Soviet Union did not help.
@@tomk3732 I’m not really seeing a lot of evidence that they are catching up. They are still trying to reach the level of the f119 which is 20+ year old U.S technology.
10:52 might be the first edit messup in the hundreds of Simon's videos I've watched that's impressive
Standards are slipping, that’s it I’m unsubscribing!!
Not the first lol
I wish you would have talked about the cost of the helmet and the tech...it's alot and very game changing
The helmet is developed and prodused by Elbit Systems, and Israeli company. This is the 3rd or 4th itteration of Elbit's helmet concept, innitially a "brain fart" by a few IAF pilots who said "wouldn't it be nice not to have to point the whole plane to fire a missile ?".
It's a force multiplier.
We get the F35 but not the F22 Raptor? Come on Simon...
GAO: "the F-35 will also replace the A-10"
Everybody else: "NO!"
Warthog: "Brrrrrrrrt"
I still think it the A-10 may need some form of replacement, regardless of how cool it is. Given it can only really operate in areas that don’t have modern anti-air defenses, I imagine there is a more affordable platform that can be created that will have similar if not greater capacity.
For close air support of ground troops in danger close situations what is needed is something that can fly low and slow and literally put eyes on target. Anything that can handle the situation will be vulnerable to modern anti-air defenses.
The pending A-10 upgrade presumably includes improved ECM; it is already hardened about as well as can be expected and still be able to fly. Apaches are a close 2nd, but are not fixed-wing.
"In combat, second best is not good enough."
USAF: Okay, we'll keep the A-10 around for show and for use in places that don't have MANPADS. We'll use the F-35 for everything else.
@@oopswrongplanet4964 i’m aware, my point wasn’t that a new platform with similar capacity would be capable of surviving modern air defenses. My point was that the A-10 has fallen into that role because it can no longer fulfill its original purpose, and it is too expensive for what it actually does now.
So you need something specifically designed for the kind of low-Ish threat CAS the A-10 handles, and there are already cheaper platforms that can do that. It is an aging platform, and regardless of the deserved affection it has it’s eventually going to need to be replaced by something. I get it, the A-10 is great but at the end of the day something has to give there.
You can't put a price on maintaining moral in a combat situation and the A10 is worth it's weight in gold for that alone. Its a ridiculous, ugly underdog compared to these sleek ultramodern jets - and people love them for it. Oh and it goes brrrrrrrt like some kind of ultra loud kids toy that happens to demolish everything in front of it.
I served on the first US ship to deploy with those. On one hand, looked really cool, on the other, the technician’s absolutely hated working on it
Well, can't be all that bad. That single engine fighter takes less maintains and less ground crews to run and maintain then a F18a.
How does all that tech like the salt air?
@@finscreenname
Well like all marine and Navy aircraft? Substantial corrosion resistance has to be built into the airframe, and even the engine turbine blades. So both Navy f35C model and the Marines f35b models are thus designed to operate at Sea and in salt water conditions for their rated life. Same goes for navigation and avionics systems .
@@Albertkallal absolutely not true.
@Grand Master
I'm betting the Komet or one of the early helicopter designs are worse.
I’d love to see you do an in depth video on the F-20 ‘Tigershark’.
According to many, an outstanding fighter developed from the F-5 Tiger. It was so good that it gave the F-16 a run for its money.
The F-20 Tigershark is a classic example of missing the market. The military viewed it as a replacement for the F-5. In reality, it's best role was as an export product that could be affordable to smaller militaries with basic patrol and intercept needs.
The main sticking point against the sale of the F-20 was the US military did not accept it. Who wants to buy the rejects, right?
Even a squadron of F-20 in the US Air Force would have opened up numerous markets in Third World militaries and governments that chose foreign competitors because of the lower cost than the F-16.
How about an episode on Bagger 293? It is a very impressive machine, in the way of it being mind boggling in scope.
Great video, as always, blaze boy,
I live in NC, I can remember back in either the late 70s or early 80s Apache attack choppers, doing emergency landings in Charlotte
Lol!!! NC is a third world hole!! You from seven devils or banner elk, rube?
People forget the full phrase! “A Jack of all trades is master of none, but often better than a master of one.”
Just what I was thinking a lot of technology proves this point .
Indeed. See also: Curiosity killed the cat (but satisfaction brought it back).
That's a nice and non-judgemental look at an aircraft many people love to hate. For now it seems that pilots love it, commanders are glad to have new planes, and only the taxpayers have their doubts. I'm into fighter jets but some of its advantages seem so abstract and complex that we really will not know how well it works until it's forced to the front line of a real war.
I doubt it's really replacing any of the platforms they originally claimed it would, however each branch (air, marine, navy) would probably have wanted a stealth program if these weren't combined...
@@jeebus6263 Good point.
Jack of all trades, master of none. Though oftentimes better than master of one.
Too bad plenty of people forget the 2nd part
The F35 is a very capable aircraft. It is most likely the most capable BVR fighter flying today. Its stealth and sensors allow it to penetrate enemy airspace and act as a sort of forward AWACS. The F35 EWS is even more powerful than a Growler.
And, IMO, quite applicable here. It’s unfortunate that the majority of its usage will probably involve human rights abuses because it really is a technological marvel.
@@MrMadsci7 it wont involve human rights abuses. The USAF said that they want a cheaper airframe to be used on missions where the cost of the enhanced capabilities of the F35 arent needed. Most likely it will be an F15 or something new. An aircraft based on the P51 has been comsidered for that role.
Rafale jet fighter is an actual effective, reliable, cheap to operate, easy to maintain, highly disponible Jack of all trade.
The other misnomer is that Common part of the program name, as they are actually 3 different jets kind of shoved into a similar box. Sort of like the F/A-18A Super Hornet is an entirely different aircraft from the F-18 Hornet, except that was just a shell game of names to befuddle congress that they were funding an entirely new jet.
I’ve read several articles over the years on this very subject, stating that they should’ve been given three different fighter designations…such as F-35, F-36, F-37.
If you use the quote correctly, then it does paint the f-35 as it is. A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one. Fits its description perfectly imo
Nice vide man. I appreciate your candor. It's good to see you laugh even if the subject is a bit sore.
"People call into question the need for such a destructive aircraft in our 'enlightened' age"
Well that didn't age well
Like fucking milk.
you should make a trilogy: Russia's Su-57 and China's J-20.
Yeah it would be best to worst lol
Those are joke with the radar cross section of a tire it’s as stealthy as the French raffle which is a 4.5 gen which causes the argument that are they even 5th gen which I say no.
Having had the "honor" of working on the JSF program while working for Lockheed, the aircraft is impressive. Nevertheless, many thought if you get on the JSF program then you'll be set until retirement. Thankfully I found other employment. Blood pressure went down 20 points!
On my way out in feb, opted for a job working on crj's instead. maybe hearing will improve also.
I gotta say tho. The top gun movie from last year has rekindled my interest in fighter jets in a big way. I’d never sign up for the navy in hopes of being an aviator who lands on carriers it did get me into a rabbit hole of updating my knowledge of jet fighters from when i was a kid and the technology and development and operational histories behind them is absolutely fascinating. I’d love to have been an engineer developing cutting edge technology and then seeing the fruits of my labor take form into something with incredible destructive power. That’s probably romanticizing it a great deal given that the very nature of that technology involves accidents and deaths of test pilots, pilots during service and of course enemy pilots and casualties of collateral damage.
Honestly the part about the top gun movies is the line they walk between serving the interests of the military, being as truthful for the sake of authenticity as they can about the nature of that life and the technology they use and the liberties they take for the sake of a compelling story. Maverick would be a significantly less interesting movie if they took out the target using drones and F35s that can strike a target from well beyond Visual range. I can appreciate that the parameters of the mission do line up well with the capabilities off the FA18. But for the movie to act as if America doesn’t even have any fifth gen fighters that or even drones that could support the pilots doing the canyon run borders on absurd. Not enough to break the movie when watching it but enough to get a chuckle outta me when i give it some thought afterwards.
I love these stories.
A lot of people out there like to say that the F-35Bs STOVL system (lift fan and swivel nozzle) is based on the YAK-141s STOVL system. Many also say that the partnership with LM and Yakovlev supports this claim. This claim is incorrect and everyone who claims this is bad and should feel bad. Here is why.
To start, the swivel nozzle originates from the Convair model 200 in the 1950s up the the early 60s.1 The 3 bearing swivel design was simply not created by Yakovlev, and thus not original. None of the dates match up either. The JSF program originates from the ASTOVL program that started around 1980, and:
"Between 1980 and 1987, NASA funded studies at all of the major aircraft companies to devise innovative concepts for a supersonic successor to the AV-8B Harrier, and the British Ministry of Defence conducted similar studies in the United Kingdom. Lockheed’s ASTOVL concept was based on the tandem fan engine advocated by Rolls-Royce [2,3]."
Keep in mind, the Yak-141 flew in 1987
The tandem fan engine is an early predecessor to the F-35Bs STOVL system. The concept dates back to 1984,4 and the filing date for the patent was very soon after the Yak-141 first flew.5,6 There are also all the patents filed for the swivel nozzle design which dont line up with the first flight of the Yak-141. Source 7 has a very, very early on design of the swivel nozzle, dated to 1956. Boeing made a design in 1963.8 In 1979 Boeing filed a patent for a type of swivel nozzle design, although with only one bearing. One of the most important examples was in 1970, where general electric filed a patent for a 3 bearing swivel nozzle with a gear system to change it between modes.10 In 1980 Rolls Royce filed a patent for some sort of turning nozzle.11 Lastly, in 1984 Rolls Royce filed a patent vectorable nozzle, very similar to the F-35s.12
Source 15 may also be related, dating back to 1986.
All this being said, the lift fan and swivel nozzle design was already almost completed by the time the Yak-141 flew. By the summer of 1987 Paul Bevilaqua was almost finished with the design, and finally completed it by connecting the engine to the lift fan. 2,3
So what about the lift fan being right behind the pilot? This was also apart of the design since the convair model 200, and were also present in the EWR VJ 101. It was also thought two main lift posts would be more stable than the harrier or boeing designs.
So what about that thing with Lockheed Martin and Yakovlev? As it turns out, in the summer of 1995, after all these designs existed, Yakovlev assisted Lockheed by giving design data. Source 13:
Lockheed Martin also turned to Russia for technical expertise, purchasing design data from Yakovlev; and used an 86 per cent subscale model (originally developed for the CALF project and fitted with a Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 engine plus an Allison shaft-driven lift fan) for testing.
While this was happening Rolls Royce bought the Allison Engine company, which had of course been testing the lift fan. All of this was happening at the same time.
Pictures dating back to 1983
www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/jsf/pics01.shtml
Note how Mcdonnel douglas had a similar design, but not a lift fan.
Here is this image translated:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Scheme_of_Yak-141_powerplant.png/2560px-Scheme_of_Yak-141_powerplant.png передний струйный руль is "front jet rudder"
подъёмные двигатели are "lifting engines"
then the "air transfer canal from the PMD to the PD (the lifting engines) and the front jet rudder"
pod'ëmno-marševyj dvigatel' appears to be a "lifting-sustaining engine"; that's the PMD
then on top you have the air transfer canal between the PMD and the jet rudders at the end of the wings
please note that the sources might be a bit fucked up.
www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137
www.scribd.com/document/284662003/PaulB-F35
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.711.2806&rep=rep1&type=pdf
ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19840016511.pdf
www.freepatentsonline.com/EP0426500.html
patents.google.com/patent/EP0426500A1/en
patents.google.com/patent/US2951660A/en?q=Swivel+nozzle&assignee=Rolls+Royce&before=filing:19880101&after=filing:19500101
patents.google.com/patent/US3260049
patents.google.com/patent/US4343446A/en?q=Swivel+nozzle&assignee=Rolls+Royce&before=filing:19880101&after=filing:19500101
patents.google.com/patent/US3687374A/en
patents.google.com/patent/US4913354A/en
ttps://patents.google.com/patent/US4679732A/en
web.archive.org/web/20090226130458/www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jawa/jawa010103_1_n.shtml
www.aeroflight.co.uk/aircraft/types/type-details/yakovlev-yak-41-freestyle.htm (not used)
patents.google.com/patent/DE3711197C2/en?q=Swivel+nozzle&assignee=Rolls+Royce&before=filing:19880101&after=filing:19500101
The A10 is still the best ground support aircraft out there. The F 35 would never be able to replace it.
GAU go brrrrrrrrrrrrrt
Having seen one of these take off from a carrier I can only say this video doesn’t come close to being able to show how cool it is when you first see this, or how loud it is. When it first sets off down the deck and then up the ramp it looks like it’s going straight into the water only to bounce back up and set off into this distance
When it comes to military aircraft, looks should count for nothing. HOWEVER, there was no way the U.S. was gonna fund an aircraft & make it it's front line joint strike fighter that looked THAT bad, I don't care how good it was. The X-32 was the 1st sign that something was TERRIBLY wrong at Boeing. They built some of the most iconic aircraft in history, militarily & commercially, but if they honestly thought an aircraft looking like the X-32 would get the contract speaks volumes to the decline into what is Boeing's current state unfortunately.
Yeah, it looks like a baleen whale with it’s mouth open. They blew it.
The ungainly looks helped sink the X-32, but it was the underperformance of the VSTOL capability that doomed it when compared to the X-35. As one of the linchpins of the program, VSTOL capability was necessary and Boeing's did not cut it. Otherwise it was a wash, some X-32 metrics were better and some X-35 metrics were better.
What is Ironic, was that the Boeing team that designed the X-32 came from McDonnel Douglas. The same company that made the F-15 and F-18 (Boeing bought out MD). This was a time with AC companies were merging. Lockheed absorbed Martin Aircraft (who experimented with lifting bodies) and the military division of General Dynamics (creators of the F-16). General Dynamics by then owned Convair, who was test developing the Convair model 200 for the USNavy back in 1969-1972. Although the program was cancelled, that is where Lockheed got the 3BSD lift system design for the F-35. They got it from the purchased archives of General Dynamics which means Lockheed owned the patents too. A little re-design and the addition of the lift fan....And there you go. So as much as Russophiles try to paint Lockheed as ripping off the design from the YAK-141, Lockheed already had it. Since the YAK-141 didn't start until 1976 (after the Convair 200 program was closed down), the question is, where did the Russians get their 3BSD design from? KGB perhaps?
The main thing Boeing was trying to achieve with the X-32 was affordable manufacturing with the uni-wing design, but they utterly failed at addressing one of the main requirements for the weapons bays. The STOVL approach they used had the issue of causing hot ground effect. DFLCS would have helped with that, but direct lift was never as capable as the Lockheed-Martin 3BSD plus lift fan approach. Boeing was never able to demonstrate a full-up STOVL variant, and used one aircraft to demo certain features, while another demonstrated STOVL mode flight configuration.
Please do the De Havilland Mosquito. I don't care if it's relegated to Side Projects.
The F-35 is a special plane. Not quite as good the F-22 but a damned sight cheaper. I wonder how Russia's 'Checkmate' will compare?
Also, the F-35 has capabilities in most cases far beyond the planes it's replacing. Replacing 4 planes with one at less than 4 times the cost. I worked on some of the electronics before I retired and it's incredibly capable.
Well, the F-22 is just a fighter while F-35 is multirole. What I wonder is how Freestyle compares to Lightning.
Same. Wonder how good Russia can make the checkmate when it only cost 1/4 of a F-35. If its almost as good that just proves that lockheed is ripping of the US government, but we have to wait and see
Well the checkmate wont ever be adopted so I’d say the f35 will be the winner
@Grand Master 241-2 kill/death ratio in war games. f-22 is definitely a fighter of high capabilities
"But then, we entered the age of the drone"
or
"I hope drones won't do so well"
or
"Man, putting a pilot in it, does cost a lot of money! "
To get a true perspective of the cost of the program, what were the total inflation adjusted costs added together of the programs the F-35 was meant to replace:
F-16, A10, F/A 18, and AV-8B Harrier.
I'll bet the F-35 cost wouldn't seem as exorbitant as opponents make it out to be...
so yea it a good plane
And once again the A-10 is laughing, "You can't kill me..."
It says as it gets blown out of the sky from a fighter far out of their radar range.
I'm no fan of the pointless F-35 project(a project some dummy thought up and convinced other dummy's that it would save money when it did the exact opposite) but I will give credit where credit is due.
@@joedufour8188 That's not what the A-10 is for, and the F-35 can't do that job, which is the point. It can't do any other job, either, apparently, as they just asked for an upgrade for the F-15, extended the life of the F-16, and announced that the F-18 will be in service for at least 10 more years.
@@badmojomagic Apparently you missed the OP which completely justifies my comment and makes yours look like it was made by someone with little to no reading comprehension skills.
@@joedufour8188 OP: "And once again the A-10 is laughing, "You can't kill me...""
You can't kill it because the F-35 can't do its job.
Reading comprehension FTW
@@badmojomagic I think part of the reason for this also has to do a lot with money. For the price of one F35 you can get a couple of other planes. And with the way the military is trying to cut spending its better to get a few things for your money instead of just one. Not to mention Ive had this thought say your told you can only spend X amount on something would you rather have 50 planes or somewhere between 100 and 150 planes? Id think if there was a war it would be better to have more planes.
The Dream: Lets makes a jet that does it all!
Reality: Well... its going to be three types of jets, but they all look the same!
Yeah every attempt at this has failed the f-111 the f-16 and the f-35 projects ended in multiple jets for each branch of the military
"Ok, it's going to be 3 jets but the are going to have high compatibility in parts!"
The jet's can share 10-20% of the parts...
@@jonnekallu1627 10-20% by weight or by number of parts ? Not at all the same thing
@@ethannorton564The earlier F 4 was McNamara's shot at the "Swiss Army knife of planes". The A 10 has been a great success at doing what it does- but it isn't a lot of other things. And having endured all this "for a fighter that can be updated and reprogrammed to extend it's useful life, the Sixth Generation fighter is already percolating. It would seem the arms race wasn't nearly over with the fall of the USSR at all. FR
But they are NOT the same airframe. They only share 20% common. So, 3 very different airframes and jets were built.
The C model is 3,000 lbs heaver then the B model. It has a double nose wheel to straddle the catapult. It also has flaperons on the wings like the f22, or many commercial airliners (a, b model do not have flaperons).
And front nose wheel assembly on C model has to pull + hold FULL weight of the jet on catapult launch. Large changes to airframe exist as a result. Same goes for tail hook area - has to pull/hold/stop full weight on a cable trap landing.
B model has a bulge on sides and tops - A,C model do not.
In fact, you can't even swap the landing gear assembly between any of the 3 models.
A model uses "probe" refueling, B,C use drogue (basket) refueling.
B model has more doors, puffer vents on wings - A, C do not. In fact can't even swap the external skin and plating between the 3 models.
The F35A model has a better thrust to weight rating then a f16, or even a duel engine Rafale.
Sorry, but 3 high customized jets and airframes WERE built. The dirty little secret is that only 20% common is shared between the jets, and that is a GOOD thing, since then 3 very high customized and specific jets were built on requirements of the 3 branches (Air Force, Navy, and marines).
Replace A10 .... lol xD I think that quiet bomber/tank buster is impossible to replace because as i said its quiet, small, cheap and don't forget that sweet 30 mm gun.
Its kinda slow tho, frogfoot is faster
@@collinbetten5631 but you can shoot down a frogfoot with a well aimed pea shooter
In the normal planes:Look my plane have a gun.
In the A10: look, my gun have a plane (the GAU 8 AVENGER2)
Ah yes.. the 30mm gun that can't score a tank kill to save it's life... i mean, it's a beautiful plane but the cannon is a gimmick, it's severely outdated for peer conflicts... since the cold war itself.
@@collinbetten5631 doesn't matter. It's not what it was designed for.
As of September 2021, US and foreign nation orders for F-35 fighters count at 2,500 planes to date (including 300 already delivered to the USAF). Lockheed will be producing 156 planes per year 2023, and will retain that production rate for the forseeable future. Divide that by the 1.7 trillion dollars and that they expect to produce this plane until 2050 we can expect to see the total lifetime production of this plane to reach 7,500 planes over the coming 50 years. Current retail price of the plane is actually about $72 million, making it cheaper than the latest versions of the F-16 and F-15EX as well as the Gripen and Rafale.
"Hey, Im going to design a guitar that is also a bass, drums, violin and vocalist."
20 years later: $25,000 Banjo.
The same thing was said about the F4, but it was used for two decades or more.
@@knoahbody69 Yes, and it was also said of the RAH-66 Comanche. Just because the F-4 had a modicum of success doesn’t mean the F-35 will do the same.
looper pedals with inbuilt drum machines for under $50 that work fine and foot pedals that are great mimics for other musical instruments for around $75. all they have to do is work when need arises, if they can do that, job done. same with military equipment, work when need arises.
@@knoahbody69 The F-4 made its operational debut in 1961, and it's still in service in a few places. That's 60 years. In the U.S., it was used for 35 years before being relegated to being a target drone. It was truly a great aircraft.
However, it flew alongside a lot of specialized aircraft. A-4s, A-6s, A-7s and F-111s for strike, EA-6s, EB-66s and later EF-111s for electronic warfare, A-1s, OV-10s and later A-10s for FAC/CAS, and AV-8s for VTOL once that requirement came about. Also, when the F-4 had to do something more specialized, they built specialized variants for those missions, like RF-4s for recon, and F-4Gs for SEAD. The F-35 has to do all of this, and it's expected to do it without major changes to the airframe.
I think the replacement of dedicated strike aircraft by multirole fighters in the 1990s was a pretty dubious decision, as they are objectively worse at conducting strikes in a lot of ways. Trying to replace COIN aircraft, like the A-10, dedicated electronic warfare aircraft, and possibly even recon aircraft with a single fighter is a little bit ridiculous IMO. It's going to very suboptimal at a lot of these roles, and the Air Force is already making plans to buy cheaper aircraft, because the plane is prohibitively expensive for what they need it to do.
Horrible analogy
I absolutely love all Simon’s nine channels. What’s next on the list of interesting things you never knew about?
Next for you is finding which channel of Simon's you're missing.
PBS FRONTLINE did a great documentary on the process of deciding between the Boeing or Lockheed submissions for this new plane. Its a great doc, covering much of what Simon has covered here but more in depth and more critical of the decisions made at the time. Basically everyone involved in the process knew beforehand that neither plane would individually be able to best serve so many varied purposes, but the money was given by congress and The Armed Forces was more than happy to spend it all and more! Who the hell believed this plane could actually replace the A-10!?
The F-35 is a jack of all trades: Better than a Harrier for the Marines, better than the Superhornet for the Navy, and better than the F-15 for the Air Force. Ah! and it's second to none in BVR.
Unless an actual war breaks out that calls for the use of the Lightning in combat, one will never truly know.
At least the F-14 got to demonstrate its combat capabilities in the mid eighties.
Yes, but as part of the air force of Iran.
The US Navy defied Quadaffi’s so called ‘Line of Death’ in 1986 and shot down 2 Migs.
In any event, as good as the Lightning is, the real deciding factor will be her pilot.
@@dinomonzon7493 It seems that the Navi and Air force are not full convinced about the F35, because the whole concept based on BVR-fights and air superiority. But the F35 is already without weapons neither a fast nor an agile plane. Further the possible weapon load is low. So the Navi buy the F18 superhornet Block 3 and the airforce decide zu buy the F15 EX. They also search a new replacement for the F16 Block 5. At the Moment they try to use the F35 and her advanced electrics as a "quaterback". This is basically the same way the russians use their SU 57.
The point of our national defense is to have an advantage in the case of tragedy rather than cause a tragedy because we have an advantage. Also, what is the point of comparing it to the F-14? It's an almost completely different aircraft in terms of it's role and capabilities. Not only that, they belong to completely different generations/eras.
@@lancemurdoc6744
Actually the F35 is fast, and is agile in the flight envelope it needs to be.
The F35 has a better power to weight rating then the f16.
And when group of F16's fly with F35'? They have to repeated use their afterburners to keep up.
F16: fuel tank: 7,000 lbs
F35: fuel tank: 18,500 lbs.
So, to fly a F16, you have to saddle it up with fuel bags on the wings - the result is 5g limits, and slower speeds, and less range.
F16 pilots now flying the F35 note they have more power, and better maneuverability then the F16.
people say it was expensive because they think it was one plane, if you think about it... it was 3 different plane. the cost was 3x higher than normal one plane.
maybe.
Yep, that really is the reason. I think most of the cost actually went to the B variant anyway.
The idea was to save money and gain a strategic advantage by using as many common parts between them as possible.
Probably they were looking at needing stealth versions of each of these planes, for Air Marine and Navy...
Thank you for giving the jet's range in nautical miles 🙌🏼 This sets you apart from many other channels as one who knows what he's talking about and who he's talking to.
Nautical measurements were developed for nautical machines. Boats. When airplanes came along, the military chose to think of aircraft as flying boats and, indeed, many were. So, in the military world, at some point, nautical miles were chosen as the unit of measurement for aircraft. Digging up the history of just how and when this decision was made would make an interesting video all on its own.
I promise you Oliver and Wilbur did not use nautical miles to measure their speed nor for navigation. Nor did the blossoming civilian aviation industry that followed. Using NM was a military decision at some point - for reasons I can barely guess at. Everybody else, including many of those who design and fly Experimental category aircraft today, measure their speed and range with MPH. Many older commercial aircraft and many homebuilt aircraft are fitted with airspeed indicators calibrated in MPH.
NM continue to be used for nautical applications. Using this measuring system for aircraft is as silly as using it for our automotive odometers. Using nautical miles may have had some justification for the military - probably because they already had existing nautical charts measured in NM, but adopting this system for airplanes in the civilian market was a mistake that continues to be carried on - one that will continue to force aviators to conform to the use of NM while, in their heads, converting everything to SM or KM in order to think of what the "real" distance is. It's a dumb convention that has never been corrected and is now widespread, although not certainly by everyone who flies.
Most electronic navigators allow for the choice between NM, SM and KM, so using NM in the aviation workspace is no big deal, but I still think it's silly. The history of how this situation came to be would make an interesting TH-cam video I think.
@@mikestirewalt5193
1 nautical mile is the meridian arc length of one minute of latitude. So it still measures something arguably more specific and useful for navigation than a statue mile or kilometer on virtually any navigational chart.
The Wright Brothers used feet per second for their airspeed units as I believe I have read or seen in their letters in museums.
The leap from nautical measurements to aviation is not much of a mystery. Sailing used knots to measure velocity through a fluid, much like the air. Knots were also used to measure wind speed for this purpose. So it is a logical leap to borrow that practice along with long-range non-overland navigational practices used by seafarers.
Whether or not continuing to use knots in aviation applications is "useless" or "dumb" is a matter of opinion-an opinion this GA and USAF pilot happens to disagree with. And many other credible and intelligent pilots will agree or disagree.
The F-35 is a military aircraft. And it measures all of its airspeeds in either knots or Mach. And that's a fact that this video does well to represent.
What’s wild about the F-35 is that any country who buys them has to stay on the USA’s good side. Unlike Iran and their F-14s you can’t just keep F-35s flying with duct take and JB Weld… without access to the software suites required to maintain them they’re basically really expensive bricks.
Can I suggest these three planes as subjects for future Megaprojects videos?
Eurofighter Typhoon
McDonald Douglas Eagle
English Electric Lightning
Phwoar. Lightning!
It's now cheaper than the competing 5th and 4th-plus generation competitors, e.g., it's $40 million cheaper than the Euro fighter. And it absolutely dominated in the recent red flag war games. Unprecedented kill ratio, a ratio that will likely be even better in the near future and far better in real world combat. The F-15 has a real world kill ratio of 104 kills to zero losses. The F-15's initial red flag results were not published but it's very unlikely that its red flag results were anywhere near as good as the F-35's 20-to-one kill ratio at red flag. Because, if the F-15's red flag results had been that good, they would've been published. Given that the F-15's inferior red flag results still translated into real world results of 104 to zero, the F-35's real world kill ratio will likely be something insane -- like, say, 200 to one, 500 to one, 1000 to one, who knows... But one thing is clear: the F-35 is worth its price. Indeed, all things considered, it's the biggest bargain out there.
!
You sound like a sale's man and apparently you are involved with the f35 and you know as well as anyone that thef35 has a lot problems not to mention if goes over the speed of sound there will be structure damage and we should probably keep what works and improve on are real planes ! 🔚
@@einosiirila7093 Problems are being worked out day-by-day, that's part of what makes the F-35 so versatile. You can change things on the aircraft and make improvements quickly and easily. The list of problems that need attention has been getting smaller and smaller. Also, regarding supersonic flight, only the B and C models have that issue, and only at extended periods of flight. And damage only occurs to hardware attached to the tail, not the structure itself. Talk to any fighter pilot, spending 30+ minutes at supersonic speeds is almost never needed. I hear there might be a fix for that down the road anyways....
Apparently the UK has abandoned the F-35 in favour of the BAE Systems Tempest which is meant to go into service in 2035, but given the UK's record on bringing things in on budget and on time (I'm looking at you Wembley stadium) will probably be closer to 3035 and Britain will have gone bankrupt in the meantime.
Yeahno, tempest is replacing the typhoons, not the F35B
Yeah I have no idea why, they are making themselves wait like at least 10 more years before they get the tempest best case scenario
Those F-35Bs look nice on HMS Queen Elizabeth.
This is a nice OVERVIEW for individuals who are not familiar a number of associated factors. Several thoughts come to mind that are important to consider and I'll just point out three considerations that were missed and are exceptionally important. First, It was designed to be 'stealthy'. Associated with that is the expected threat environment in Areas of Operation (AOR). Stealth characteristics are not only expensive, but continue to be BLEEDING edge, since it always involves a compromise between stealth and performance (one need only consider the F-117, which was only called a fighter plane to induce more USAF pilots to venture into that domain, since it had absolutely no real fighter plane attributes (and hence was used as fundamentally a NIGHT BOMBER!). Second, the entire evolution of fighter plane design has resulted in ever more complex and costly planes. The fact is that the leap from 3rd to 4th generation design represented not an evolution, but a revolution in design ... the move from 4th to 5th, with it's complete reliance on software (and we all KNOW about the complexities of software!!) as been yet another enormous leap. The problem with this kind of leap is that much of it involves a move into that bleeding edge technology to SIMULTANEOUSLY move MULTIPLE aspects of bleeding edge technology into one integrated design that meets a HOST of requirements ... not just in terms of stealth, but pilot workload, weight and balance, evolving technology, evolving threats, variable operating environments ... and the list goes on and on. I think that some of the narrative paints a 'cost-overrun' negativity that makes things appear a bit shady, or deceptive. Well, this is why they do not use Fixed Price contracts ... there are simply so many requirements and so many changing requirements, and so many budgetary considerations (cost is of course related to production quantities, and volume of production runs over specific time periods ... slow down the production rate, decrease the number of planes sold and GUESS WHAT happens! Finally --- again, my discussion here is NOT complete!! --- the question also becomes whether we want to take the route of the early 1970s (where we designed and procured four 4th generation air superiority jets ... Lightweight (F-16, F-18) and 'heavyweight' (F-14, F-15). Consider the cost of operating, training, maintaining 4 different fighter jet programs! Now I am not a great fan of the 'one plane, multi-purpose' fighters ... the F-4 Phantom, while revered and in the hands of well trained pilots it performed remarkably well, but the F-4 Phantom was precisely the reason why we designed that next generation of fighters. There was a lot of head shaking with the development and procurement of those four 4th generation jets noted above. But let's also recall that one of the drivers of going that route was that it would provide for a competition base in the future .(mfgrs: General Dynamics, McDonnel Douglas, Northrop Grumman). That, in fact is one of the drawbacks that I see with this plane ... I mean, who in the future will be able to have the technological or skills base to compete in the future ...Lockheed has effectively wrapped up the fiighter plane business for the next 50 years ... is that a good thing? hmmmm .... Remember that in WWII we had how many designs for fighter planes ... Just thinking about the Grumman series: Wildcat, Hellcat, Bearcat ... competition was a key to driving us forward! The final thing I'll say is that in the limited documentation about performance, in 1-on-1 and up to 1 on 5 against 4th generation jets, it is not even a contest ... the F-35 wins hands down in seconds. Just my thoughts
My uncle Roy worked on this plane after the Air Force forced his retirement twice; once from the actual Air Force mechanics corps., and a second time after he transferred to be a mechanic on the Thunderbirds. After his forced retirement, he was drafted for a government black project which he couldn't talk about for nearly 10 years. It turned out to be this plane. Today, when the family asks what he working on, he just chuckles and says, "The U2."
Try harder not believable f35 doesn't even come close the secretive nature of the u2 or sr71 Have a good day.
They just added Amazon Alexa support to the F35. Seriously, the pilot can manage their audible library, Prime subscription and home deliveries while on missions. Yes the app cost $38 billion to develop, but it's well worth it.
That is dumb
I’m not even 2 minutes into the video and there are already 2 gross errors. The 2nd one is that replacements for the F-16, A-10, AV-8B, and F/A-18 would all be rolled into 1. There is no such thing as a singular JSF design, never was. There have always been 3 distinct and significantly different airframes for each take-off and recovery method for the 3 services and Tier 1 partners. JSF needs to be understood as a multivariant program, not “F-35”. The costs savings were realized in the critical core avionics, propulsion, power generation, and other common sub systems, with separate airframes.
No it's not. That was the Air Force's plan. To have the 35 replace the 22, 16 ans A-10
@@CODYoungGunna It was never part of the plan for F-35As to replace F-22As. I lived through all of this from when ATF was just a concept.
ATF was always meant to replace the F-15C. ATF and JSF were supposed to be a Hi-Lo mix.
@@LRRPFco52 Except it was. The plan was to have the 35 do the role of 35 aircrafts.
Make no mistake, this is an assassin of a fighter jet. Compared to a 4th gen fighter, the F-35 has a BVR of 3x that of even the most advanced 4th gen fighter’s current capabilities. Meaning, it’s going to see you long before you are even aware you’re even being locked on to. In Red Flag, basically a competition between fighter jets, the F-35 had a staggering 20:1 kill ratio to virtually every single 4th gen fighter it was pitted against. When the competition started, pilots flying in opposing aircraft were flagged as dead before they even knew they were shot at. And yes, it is super-maneuverable, probably only second currently to the F-22 in air superiority capability. The reason is its advanced computational avionics being able to correct and counter acute pilot error, and even physical challenges the fighter encounters due to forces on the aircraft. Nearly every single pilot interviewed said they would choose the F-35 over the field of currently active aircraft, and even the Lockheed test pilot of both the F-22 and F-35 said that the F-35 is capable of doing nearly everything the F-22 is in terms of low and high speed maneuverability, minus the thrust vectoring, which the F-22 has. But it is EXPENSIVE, and unfortunately, that’s looking to be the reality of all 5th generation fighter jets. They’re just expensive. In all, I’d still consider it a success, since the fighter has accomplished every single one of its goals, and then some, and does multiple jobs very, very well, even better than the predecessors it is replacing. That’s a win.
F-35 price is comparable to 4th gens tho. And sometime cheaper.
its about 70 mil now and will go down too. Its great to see people not shitting on this jet.
The F-35 is very affordable with a 87 million USD price tag for the Á model !