F-35 - Runaway Fighter - the fifth estate
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ย. 2024
- It could yet prove to be the most expensive defense purchase in Canadian history -- $25 billion and counting. The military promises it's the best fighter jet available, but some critics are saying it's a turkey hatched from a bad idea: a do-it-all plane that might not do anything well-at-all.
Was Canada pressured to buy the F-35 fighter jet? Will the jet ever deliver on its promise of being the top gun in the sky? Did the government cover up the true costs to win an election? With secret documents and exclusive interviews with Air Force insiders, the fifth estate's Gillian Findlay pieces together the troubling story of the F-35. From Lockheed Martin's first prototype and bungled development process to Canada's decision to buy the fighter jet without an open competition, "Runaway Fighter" raises serious questions about a procurement system seemingly run amok and a jetfighter critics say will never live up to its spin.
Original airdate : September 28th, 2012
For more on the fifth estate : www.cbc.ca/fifth
Follow us on Twitter : / cbcfifth
Like us on Facebook : / thefifthestate
Judging the f35 by its ability to dogfight is like judging a rifle on its ability to be used as a melee weapon.
*A sniper rifle, with a mighty scope installed.
Don't worry Canada The US spent 1 trillion dollars on the F35 project so 25 billion starts to sound cheap.
***** Will spend but 25 billion TOTAL still sounds cheap in comparison.
And a lot of that US$1.0165 trillion has technically already been spent.
Because the strap the RnD cost to each fighter so the money has to some extend already been spent but given dronex tbh I think the US will cut back its plans from the 1700 it was going to order.
Given advancement in drone technology to come. If more advanced drones are not already in service as black projects.
It wouldn't surprise me if we have a fair few stealth drone bombers flying about.
***** Yeah but a predator drone costs less than the price of 4 missiles.
If they really continue full throttle with the F35 project it will be further proof the the US government is beholden to military contractors.
I'm not saying that they should scrap the F35 project but cut back at least somewhat.
***** Also the F35 Project is 163 billion dollars over budget so pleas don't tell me that the US has only spent 50 billion if its that much over budget then the running total is probably a lot more.
Yes I know and I specificity said that they should NOT scrap the F35 project but at least cut back a LITTLE.
because part of its propose as a bomber is much more efficiently done by drones. Supporting drones with fighters and in case of failure scuttling them with the fighters.
Because the great thing about drones is first there lighter so in later iterations they can actually carry more bombs in place of the support systems for the pilot.
Or if satellite uplink problems can be solved you could actually make them faster and more manoeuvrable than manned fighters.
Or you could have a few controller drones out of the combat area relay the uplink via encrypted radio signals and inferred as a secondary backup encase of jamming for example also AI as a fall-back after that which will simply try to move to a position where it can regain uplink.
Also with further development even evade missile fire while the uplink in lost which is actually something that drones should be good at because there ability to react quickly is much higher than humans who have around 200ms lag.
So it is not impossible and actually likely that you will see drones taking the roles of the F35 before its production phase is over. Well maybe you wont see it because it will be classed as a black project but yeh.
Jakob Moller Why do you think congress pulled Lockheed Martin into a secession about going WAY over budget.
Yes it is the nature of the game when making something very complicated that you will end up going over budget fixing unforeseen problems.
But the F35 project went WAY beyond that Congress hardly ever pulls up military government contractors up for overspending or poor budget management.
And they were talking about the several bail outs that they had to do for the F35 Project and they were significant that's the 163 billion I was talking about. Which is not included in the per plain numbers.
Etheoma
On 21 August 2013 C-Span reported that Congressional Quarterly and the Government Accountability Office were indicating the "total estimated program cost now is $400b-nearly twice the initial cost". The current investment was documented as approximately $50 billion. The projected $316 billion cost in development and procurement spending was estimated through 2037 at an average of $12.6 billion per year.
As of August 2013, USA has invested $50 billion into the F-35 program, which is still far from $400 billion estimate.
Rafale's program cost to date is around €45.9 billion (Y2013) with 130 units (as of June 2014).
Imagine that politicians would be lying to you... imagine that.
you mean politicians lie too? them "honourable" people ruling over us, what i heard was they never lie they just never say the truth, am confused about politics
what's it like to be a jerk off hey/ Hahah
@Squirrel - NNoooooooooooooooooooo!!!!! It can't BEEEEEE!!!
Imagine if large private companies lied to you.
I know eh? LOL
This aged well
Hilarious to hear some of the commenters below saying that in the future there will be no dogfighting. We've heard this before; that's what they were saying in the 1950s. It's why they designed the F-4 Phantom with no gun on it, only to find in the 1960s they were getting their arses handed to them by MiGs and had to go back and install guns on the Phantom.
In fact, it is entirely possible that as stealth gets better, and each side finds it harder and harder to detect each other, engagement ranges will get shorter and shorter until it's pretty much *only* dogfighting
LordHealey Absolutely stealth v. stealth is a valid concern for the foreseeable future. Infrared imaging is going to be very important (DAS or similar) for missiles and aircraft or off board sensors.
www.popularmechanics.com/military/a16248/test-pilot-f35-cant-dogfight/
LordHealey No dogfights, then why have pilots? Just use drones everywhere. Miniature drones too to fly into the enemies brains.
LordHealey You can't compare what's going to happen in the future to what has happened in the past. The modern human world doesn't work like that. In the past 50 years technology has changed so much that any predictions of the future based on the past don't work, they just don't work.
LordHealey if you are in a dogfight something has gone very wrong...
Nothing like describing a fighter jet as a turkey! I love it!
It certainly gobble-gobbles up money.
Pierre Sprey is a moron and you are as well to praise to his words.
"Oops! Maybe we fucked up and made a bad investment?"
"Nah it's cool. Just blame America"
"k"
Don't worry for covid south Africa purchased a bunch of motorbikes and strapped beds on the sides as ambulances and the tax payers have to pay millions and it does not work as intended.
Why not...everyone else does. A boot time y’all do it too.
Cost of future events is hard. Inflation, as well as other unknowns, are involved. I understand that the first 500 jets will cost way over budget per plane due to manufacturing pressures. But by the time 2,500 F-35's are made the cost will average out closer to overall estimates. As time goes by, the F-35 will continue to improve with technological advancements. Currently, the F-35 outperforms the F-16 (the plane it is designed to replace.) in every way.
There was an article where the F-35 was outmanouvered by the F-16 in a mock air battle. The F-16 was carrying external fuel tanks. So that says a lot about the F-35.
Now I’m not a fighter pilot or any kind of pilot so I can’t say if the F-35 is any good or not. But I did just watch another fifth estate segment on the procurement of Canada’s next fighter circa the 1970s and watching the fifth estates examination of all the opinions back then it became clear that they knew next to nothing. Every aircraft that was up as an option back then went on to be an exceptionally successful warplane despite the fifth estates reporting that they all would be colossal failures.
EqualizerPG good to have experience persons like yourself around. However, hats off to Fifth Estate nonetheless. They role is to hold the government feet to the fire. It is the governments duty to prove them wrong not right.
All military planes have there critics before production. The Harrier had the same problem.
The idea posited on here by some youtubers, that WVR combat doesn't happen anymore is simply moronic. The combat scenario they depict, where whoever shirts first kills, is video game stuff. It is entirely possible to evade missiles, to manoeuvre until they run out of energy, to turn tail and then loop back for WVR combat. Air combat tactics are much more complex than many commenters seem to understand, they think it's just point, shoot, kill. In fact, a Mig--21 equipped with flare/chaff countermeasures, modern Israeli ECM/RWR, a helmet mounted sight and R-73, and flown by capable pilots with solid AWACs C3I support, could absolutely give an F-35 a run for its money. Ultimately, we don't know how well LPI radars will hold up in the field in terms of detection by enemy ECM
LordHealey You do know that BVR engagements are like only 17 to 20% successful. Not very good
BennyCFD That's exactly my point. BVR is far less successful than many people understand. They see the AMRAAM has a sticker range of 100 miles and they think you would be able to engage at that range.
In fact, the sticker range is really only in the most advantageous conditions; the fighter is at around mach 1.2 and 35,000 feet, and fires in a head-on engagement at a closing target that is large and non-manoeuvring. And at 100 miles you need solid midcourse so you need to keep painting the target with your radar.
A friend of mine with knowlege of this stuff said that 25 to 30 miles is a much more plausible range for an AMRAAM engagement
Guy Smith Did you know the AMRAAM has a Pk of only 59% in BVR engagements? Imagine applying that Pk then to a target that has modern ESM/RWR and is manoeuvring hard
Missiles arent stealth. you can see them coming.
+Monster LMA i believed its the MBDA METEOR. its in my favorite video game
"The point is to spend money."
100% To justify a budget in the trillions.
@@TAXCOLLECTOR-mx3mg who has a budget in the trillions? The U.S or Canada?
@@SpenserRoger The US does and they want us to as well.
Not just "spend money". The point is to waste treasure that otherwise would go improving the lives of the masses, lest they become comfortable and realise that they don't need an elite ruling over them.
Tell that to Russia when they fly cruise missile-equipped bombers with Su-57 fighter escorts all over Canadian air space for sport.
excellent documentary: unbiased, honest, in-depth, good audio & video.
BULLSHIT
Like the F-35 everybody absolutely hated the F-15, F-16 and F-14 while they were iunder development. Now they are legends. The Russian SU-27 and MiG-29 were also criticized at the outset. Now they too are considered legends even though almost all of those fighters killed pilots during testing.
We seem to forget that this story repeats itself over and over again. One day, between 2040 & 2050, the 6th generation fighter will make it's appearance and our grand children will present identical arguments against that future fighter as well. To me the technology isn't the problem. It's politicians and greedy defense contractors ( with their insane manufacturing methods) that blow the price way out of proportion.
In the end we will have to wait and see just like with the much loved (but once hated) fighters that came before the F-35...
***** This liberal is with you all the way!!!
***** well, the difference is that the Americans are building the F 35 and are committed to it whereas the Canadians are going shopping. The whole thing is a bit awkward because Canadians know that if they ever had to use the full features of the f35 fighter by definition they would be fighting along the full force of the Americans meaning it wouldn't be really necessary in terms of the extra cost for stealth. At the same time I don't want to be seen as a token force and want to contribute their fair share. Much was made about the integration between Canadian and American forces with the f-35 systems. However right now honestly the offer from for advanced FA 18's and a couple of growler ECM aircraft look like a far better option given the massive cost of the F 35.
Being a legend is more about past sentiment, and less about objectivity.
Problems with F-16? - stubby wings, and a fuselage that doesn't contribute very much to lift. Short range. Not effective at ground support - too fast. single engine. Newer models weighed down by hefty additional equipment; no longer within design specifications.
Problems with F-14? - unreliable engines, high maintenance hours, considered a turkey in dog fighting. Single purpose only; fleet defence.
Problems with F-15? - high angle of attack not competitive with Sukhoi Flanker. Otherwise, an excellent design at the time.
Some opinions are not biased by nationalism; by their very arguments, are more objective.
Jason Smith It just proves that the hype was wrong
F-16 was not designed to for air to ground initially but has been a dependable workhorse after successive upgrades
The Block 60 can loiter longer and SDB make much more lethal for air to ground support
The F-14 was carrier plane and had to operate within the constraints of a carrier. Its abilities in dogfighting was limited but it could still hold its own. the concept behind was fleet defense. Now if the SDB program hadn't been delayed, then the USN may have considered keeping the F-14 as SDB are lighter than the Mk80 series and more can be carried and the F-14 has slightly longer range than the F-18
The principle problem with the F-14 was not any of the problems listed. The problem was weight. If the Sec of Defense at the time Dick Cheney hadn't blocked the F-14 but instead ordered them to fix the weight problem.
Just like the F-16 E/F Block 60 is quantum leap over F-16 A/B Block 10
The F-14 could have been much better
Sorry but with 100 plus kills in the C model and the E still the best strike platform , there is nothing wrong the Eagle
Flankers claims advantages over the F-15 but in reality most of those were technological. unlike the USN
the USAF has actually put the cash in to keep the F-15 competitive
Only thing is, the F-35 is trying something totally new, none of the aircraft listed where intended to be a one shoe fits all deal, like the F-35 is going to be, history shows us that in any field if you try and make one thing do a lot of things it fails.
As of right now the F-35 is lacking in a lot of area's, and I personally don't think the issues will EVER be resolved.
Expert: One plane can't serve three services.
F-4 Phantom: Hold my beer.
Or F18 even, the USAF doesn't have it but other countries normal AF's do.
@@nighthawk2174 yeah the Royal Australian Air Force uses them and the Growler Variant as a fighter.
CRAZY...F-16 beat the F-35. Older planes beat the new F35.
tinyurl.com/qesezrv
The F35 is being delivered. It can turn tighter then an F18, climbs faster, can carry a heavier bomb load The Americans have built the finest Fighter Jets in the world. The F series fighters all the way back to the F4 Phantom to the F18 are in service with dozens of countries. They have exemplary combat records.
Most people on here struggle with building IKEA furniture. Please don't pretend to know anything about this jet and it's true capabilities. The F35 was developed over 20 years of very aggressive testing. It will deliver.
The F35 is capable of flying with half of one wing blown off. And no amount of bird strike can down an F35.
lairdriver Well we know for a fact that the F-15 can literally fly with one wing.....there is a youtube video of it. Oh and by the way the picture you use associated with your name really fits, Big mouth
Dassault Aimpoint (coighs loudly) griphen (coughs louder) rafale
Dassault Aimpoint Yup, both outperform the JFS in a number of ways. With Dassault transferring intellectual property upon purchase the lifecycle cost will be much lower too, plus you can pretty much do whatever you want for upgrades without running to the manufacturer.
lol
Does anyone know what the term "sunk cost" means? It means you don't keep emotional attachment to an investment because you've spent a lot of cash. You dump what doesn't make sense!
I'm always skeptical when something claims to "do it all" like the F-35
PMeursault Funny but neither the F-35 designers nor the DoD have ever made such a "Do it all" claim. Nor has there been any claims by the DoD that the F-35 was designed to replace any fighter/bomber other than the F-16, F-18 or the AV8B. Three successful multi-role fighters that are already very very very similar in performance and mission roles. I've never read anything from the pentagon that the F-35 was made to replace the F-22 or the B1b. The only people who make "Jack of all trades" claims are the same ignorant critics who have never built an aircraft or flew in a war (that includes Peirre Sprey who did not design the F-16 or A-10). Perhaps you be skeptical of the critics making that claim instead. After all, they get paid to sell junk drama.
DigitalMedia JamesT Well yes they are as those aircraft reach their useful life they won't be replaced by another version of the F/A 18, Harrier, the A-10. It's all going F-35, They intended this to be the last multirole fighter for several decades. That's why the US is buying so many of them
DigitalMedia JamesT
They didn't but at the inception, the requirement was for a common air frame that can be used for Airforce Navy and Marine which should cause red flags.
Besides, suppose the F35 perform as expected, Canada has vast artic landscape to patrol, so chances are a high speed interceptor would better suit their needs
Vinnie Chan Why would a high speed interceptor be better? Are the Soviets coming over the north pole or something? If that is such a big concern, then why invest in CF-18?
DigitalMedia JamesT
They might indeed be concerned with bombers coming over North Pole. I have no idea why CF-18 will be better, probably because of cost and that they are familiar with it.
Canadians seems pretty paranoid about engine failing given th vast landscape they have to cover
Wow this turned out a bit awkward for CBC - thirteen countries have bought F-35 and many more want it badly. In 2017, Israel doubled their order.
Peter Southern Boy well to be fair at that point in time the f-35 program was a disaster, and the procurement process for selecting f-35 for Canada was non existent in 2010 truly corrupt and no better for Norway in 2008 at that point they should have selected the gripen, because the f-35 was a disaster at that point. So there where people in political positions accepting being harassed by US officials and selecting the f-35 based on that. In 2008 Norway with a fair competition would have selected the gripen at that point, if they where to have done the procurement in 2017 or later then the competition would have been different because f35 has proven now after removing most of its fuckups and failures to be a very potent jet fighter and it would have marginally won over the gripen i think. its good to get information out there about the shadow practice of US officials helping us military industry secure contracts instead of them having to prove they are the best option for a particular country. The only way Canada can get the best fighter for its needs, it need to do a thorough competition with airplanes going head to head in simulated fights. Test all there capitalists and then the side on the one that best functions for there need. Finnland is doing this right now and US/lockheed martin has to compete with everyone else on the market, thats fair to the tax payers and to the military because the best jet fighter is selected for that countries need, is not coming from one interest whatever, it comes from many and the only way to not be lured into buying crap 💩 is to have robust transparency and accountability to politicians, pluss unbiased procurement officials that are out to get the best there money can buy, whatever jet that may be or from whatever country that company come from and stand there ground and not buckle under pressure of relations dithering. If they cant deal with it find new relations with other partners, its that easy.
This didn't age well considering how good the F-35 is. The cost is a huge problem, but the plane is a beast. This ain't WW2, there is no more dog fighting.
Got a source? Need to find out more. Not liking anything I'm hearing. To me they for Candian Arctic defense they should asking which plane has the best range and speed? Ok we will take that one.
Its strike first now. Even betwwen Aircraft and Air defense system. (e. g S-500) Those who strikes first wins because both have accurate and hypersonic missiles (can't be intercepted). But I believe F35 has edge because it has decoys.
The procurement process seemingly undertaken by my own little island nation of Australia with regards to this aircraft makes Canada's process look frank, fair and thorough.
Yep, and look what you ended up with. Carrier fighters with defects. I often wonder if the used F-18C fighters you sold us aren't better than the new F-18E models you received. Australia has a bit of a reason to bend to US pressure though. You're all alone in the Pacific Ocean with China on your doorstep and you're not a member of NATO. If China wanted to conquer you, only the USA could stop them so it makes more sense for you. Canada IS a NATO country and the USA would never allow another country to invade us regardless of the plane we chose.
Australia isn't an island
@@AvroBellow The Aussies had F/A-18As, not Cs. But also, just because Canada has the protection of the States, doesn't mean the RCAF should settle for a cheaped-out option.
@@leogibney You are mistaken for associating the burning of money with receiving quality. The F-35 is garbage and Canada made a terrible mistake in purchasing it.
I gotta say, what a nice piece of TV journalism.
There are two phenomenal investigative news shows on the CBC. The Fifth Estate is one and Marketplace is the other. I've never seen their equals anywhere else in the world. They are all about facts, unbiased sources of those facts and when people are acting strangely like Lockheed-Martin and the Harper administration were, they have doubts and are never afraid to say so.
That's what I was going to say. Specially love this lady. Love the way she makes a question and puts her face in a listening pause 🙋
Opposite is true. These “journalists” literally now nothing about aviation, defense contracts, the basic structure of the NORAD partnership, how many thousands of jobs in Canada are already supporting JSF component manufacture, or how modern air combat systems have developed. When you see Pierre Sprey used as an expert resource, you know the story will be total rubbish.
I live in Canada, and boy am I happy hearing this that I do NOT have to pay CANADIAN taxes, :-)))) cheerio and cheers.
Just FYI, pushing Gaddafi out of the power wasn't a noble thing we did. It was a grave mistake in the history. And unfortunately it's the common man living in the streets of Tripoli who is suffering and all the men and women in uniform are having BBQ in their backyards. What's a messed up world we live in.
Especially when the reason for deposing Gaddafi was his intent to drop the US dollar as Libya's petro currency and to replace it with a gold backed alternative currency,the sooner the US is neutralised the better.
At 104 air to air kills to no loss, the F 15 is the most successful american fighter. Sprey was wrong about the F15 and is wrong about the F 35.
Shouldn't have ever cancelled the Avro Arrow, then Canadian manufacturing for aircraft would have remained to be state of the art.
The only reason the F-117 was shot down is because the Serbs were specifically looking for it. They couldn't see it on radar until the bomb bays were opened. They had only seconds to act.
Stealth or no stealth. Those are the options. Stealth works. The so-called expert doesn't know what he is talking about.
12-7-2019, critics of the f35 proved wrong! This plane kicks arse and is worth every cent!
Well, well, turns out the F-35 is very affordable after all, lot 13 has them at $77 million each.
They work unlike the 4 decade used junk we usually buy. Don't get me started on our destroyers, helicopters, submarines, or tanks. They all date to the 60s to 70s and work half the time. Total waste.
Flash forward almost a decade, F35 is a success and more and more countries are buying it. The program was and is plagued with technical problems, bureaucracy, and setbacks. But compared to other defense procurement debacles like the Zumwalt class or the RAH66, this jet is living up to its potential.
2021 it's actually the best aircraft after all..
Ah good ole Woozle Effect Pierre Sprey, the music producer who knew more about Aeronautics than all of the R&D for LHM
25 Billion
"expensive"
as an American it's so easy to forget.
The problem is that the USAF only knows two things new must be better and old is obsolete. Of all the services the Airforce has made the most mistakes when it comes defense and continues to do so in the 21st century. The B29 and B36 was supposed to eliminate the need for aircraft carries, but the Korean War along with the a little plane called the MIG proved that wrong. The B52 remedied many of the problems of its propeller driven ancestors yet Viet Nam still showed their vulnerability to fighters and missiles are still the tip of the nuclear spear. USAF believes that the A10 has been a mistake since it first flew, but Army Infantry and Marines know better yet the brass hats in blue still want its wings clipped. The F35/22 are embarrassments in both cost and ability to deliver what they promised decades ago
Richard Mattingly So true. Miltary spending has become the welfare of America.
+Richard Mattingly - Oh, I don't know that. The Navy is getting in on the pie with cost overruns to! Since the Air Force and the Navy is getting away with it for their contractors, i would assume that sooner or later the army with want a super weapon to, probably from the same people as the AF and Navy, and the contractors will be in each state and will be a jobs program. Oh wait, the Army has the Abrams tank, a great tank, but they are making so many that the Army doesn't want any more so they are stacking them out in fields that will never be used. isn't the US GREAT! Oh yea, lots of money to be made!
Are you kidding me? F22 is by far the best fighter in the airspace right now.
Richard Mattingly So what's the alternatives? Continue using F-16s till eternity?
@H Neilson ironic, given that the F16 is manufactured by Lockheed Martin anyways....and they'll just use the profits to continue developing the new technology they know will replace it.
Given that an F16 rolls off the lot, and serves for 8 years at most before retiring, at a hefty pricetag that makes it not much of a better option than the F35 anyways...that would be an even bigger waste of money. But these armchair experts who don't have a clue how the application of these technologies plays out in the military wouldn't understand that.
when do they learn that all these wars and its weapons are meant to be just a business ( $ ). Not piece or anything close to it.
I never understood the attraction of stealth. They say that on radar a plane the size of a city bus looks like a bird. If I saw a formation of birds approaching at over mach 1 on my radar I think I would intercept.
forget it pal.....F35?F22?......gone......Sorry.The only supersonic planes in real battle fields today are the MIG29,SU35,RAFALE,EURO.F.andF18.That's what i see in Greece,KLIP.EURO Airfield taking off every day,the two birds aren't flying....Maybe at US airshows,but not at war.
STEALTH is a gov invention to steal the tax payers money........!!!(the famous 600 Dollars Pentagon hammer)......
Key word, if you saw. They didn't say a bird was the size of a bird in real life, a plane itself is only a little dot, a bird is a little speck.
And when your Plane is a little speck because of its radar signature, you cant differentiate it from all the other little specks because of the ping delay. Not to mention, Radars that CAN detect stealth have to be MASSIVE, cannot lock onto a moving target, and are easily jam-able, detecting stealth is not possible for a Fighter jet due to the SIZE requirement of the relay.
true, that is why Russia developped the S300 and S400 AA systems though, they can shoot these babies down from 400km and detect them from 600 km ... the S400 is the Russian answer for the B2 F117 and F22 for sure, simply cause they can't go for a 5th gen Jet that is of this calibur for financial reasons
Lightning II? More like Starfighter II.
2015-7-31 F35B already operative
Dassault Rafale-Took 15 years from prototype
Eurofighter Typhoon-Took 17 years from prototype
F-22 Raptor-Took 15 years from prototype
F-35 Lighting II-Took only 14 years from prototype. And it's very much complex.
Best fighter ever
***** Russia propaganda !!
I love how the guy is like: “My boys and I designed the f16, so if this plane doesn’t work like the f16, it suc.”
If you're talking about Pierre Sprey it's F-16, not F-14.
@@AvroBellow sheit you’re right mb
He never designed it.
Spend time learning about it and you’d accept the fact that it does.
you'll know it when you see it... like when you saw the a-10 the f-16 and the "steal"th bomber but sorry to me the yf-23 should have been the 5th gen fighter...
The YF-23 had too many design risks, many of which needed to be corrected for the proposed F-23A to work. Each actuator in the wings for control surfaces was 4 smaller hydraulic actuators so that the wings could remain super-thin for supercrusie performance. There was a complex dual-reservoir hydraulic actuator system for each of the tailplane stabilators.
It never demonstrated weapons bay storage or separation because there wasn’t a functional design to deal with the narrow fuselage and the required weapons count for AAMs. At least 2 of the wind screens cracked during supersonic tests, so that needed to be re-designed.
The intakes did not manage the boundary layer air well enough to allow it to go past Mach 1.81, so the F-23A was going to need totally new intakes and flight testing on the basic airframe and propulsion combination.
For these reasons, the USAF saw a lot of risk in costs with the F-23A proposal, and awarded the ATF contract to the F-22A proposal by Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics. The YF-22 had none of those problems. It had simpler actuators, PAV1 YF-22 flew faster than any of the other 3 ATF PAVs and was the only one to exceed Mach 2.
It demonstrated weapons release from both weapons bays, with the AIM-9 and AIM-120. None of the bowless canopies cracked at even higher speeds that the YF-23, and its intakes perfectly separated boundary later air while also not providing any Line-of-Sight RF wave propagation like the YF-23 did, which is the first signature a LO airframe needs to eliminate, let alone a VLO/Stealth design.
The YF-23 looked and flew superbly because it was an aerodynamic masterpiece, but had a lot of internet problems with the design that needed major attention and billions more in RDT&E. That’s why it was not selected.
Bring the Avro back.
i pity CANADA for choosing F35 after what they call "RIGOROUS TESTS".....don't know what they found so much in f 35...
+sai bhagavan a large brown envelope mailed to the Prime Minister's residence.
+rabbitcancer bingo
+sai bhagavan That's because you haven't looked into it. There are massive advatages that the F-35 has over planes like the CF-18.
Wade French seriously........cf-18 at any point of time is better than f-35...am not the only one who said this even pentagon officials said this.......
sai bhagavan Other than range? What is the F-18's advantage? Don't be shy.
wonder if that bow tie spins!
Back when the Arrow project was cancelled the Canadian government signed an agreement with the US not to develop a standalone weapons system on its own, is that agreement still in affect and is it part of the reason we are stuck with this project?
lol no, we're buying the f18's. but Ikinda want the 15's more
This hasn't really aged well. Now, the f-35 is a pretty good aircraft as a joint strike fighter and are performing well in their respective categories, the F-35c is doing pretty well
Nonsense from start to finish.
@@zoltancsikos5604 Proof pls?
Love how everyone's a pilot.
Kevin James Lol even pilots admitted F-35 is dog dodo.
zack zac why whats wrong with it
Cpt Solo *Can't turn
*Can't fight
*Can only carry 2 bombs
*Plagued with electronic errors
*slow and vulnerable
These aren't my opinions, but the opinions of former and present fighter jet pilots, and fighter jet designers. Billions spent on some bullshit out of science fiction that looks like a flying brick.
zack zac Really, you personally know F-35 pilots?
Nick3111997 The technology is buggy shit, that's why the F-35 is delayed untill 2021. Lmao Canada is full of Washington Ass lickers.
It's not one jet. It is three different jets. F35A conventional take off and landing. F35B short-take off and vertical-landing. F35C carrier-based. When these people talk about the lesser capabilities for dog fighting they are talking about the F35B. This is a fifth generation stealth fighter no other like it with the closest being the F-22 so no other jet can compete against it. No stealth is 100 percent. Stealth is just one of many 5th generation technologies incorporated into this fighter. Final cost may be cut down to 80 million dollars. F35 is a true game changer.
Lockheed cut the department I was in completely, NO Quality control, laid us all off, then the problems show up, I was on the F-16 program and we had patches for Zero defect aircraft delivered patches, I have a jacket covered with them......well this story tells itself, General Dynamics spruced up the Air Force factory #1 and sold it off to Lockheed. oB
This video is kinda like the F-35 because it only offers me one quality setting which happened to be too damn high for me to run........
Tests were made in Burbank California, near my home town hurling 35 pounds of back bacon with maple syrup at the engines and the engine not only worked but cooked the bacon and sliced it evenly in thin slices
when are people gonna realize Pierre sprey is the real turkey lol
designs two overly stable and redundant air-frames in an era when the up and coming technology was cassette tapes and now thinks the modern aircraft are going to be able to go cheep and cheerful against the highest developed technologies of the digital era.
I'm surprised they didn't interview the Canadian Colonel Crossdresser
LOL! Yeah, good old Russell Williams!
LOL
Canada should buy whatever aircraft they want, but before you decide, read up on the latest advances in surface-to-air missiles and ask yourself if you really want to be flying around in aircraft without stealth technology.
the military industrial industry loves this stuff. they build something someone else make a counter measure in arms race that will only end when it is far too expensive to continue... the chances we will use these things are slim and the chances they will become obsolete are high... we can waste trillions on arms races and things in the coming decades will be so complex and advanced and so will the counter measures that it will be very hard to tell who would come out on top... maybe we can save ourselves the expenses and live in peace but that will never happen. I think the best chances are for space exploration so people can escape as far away as possible start anew and then they too will likely go on the same path of arms races... life is fucked....
Just as soon as Russia gives up any claims to the Arctic Ocean and lucrative oil-drilling right off Canada’s borders, sure. The contractors never went to DoD and asked for the opportunity to build the JSF series. The US and UK communities were already planning replacements for their multirole fighters, some of which date back to the late 1960s (Harrier). As the services looked at emerging threats, they updated the requirements for these replacement programs, and all started going to Congress and Parliament for RDT&E money.
There were 6 programs in the US alone, and several in the UK, one of which was already working in research with the USMC, DARPA, and USAF. Congress said they aren’t going to fund 6 programs since so many of the requirements overlapped.
By going with 3 different JSF variants that share critical subsystem components like radar, DAS, EOTS, the Pratt & Whitney motor, E&E, Martin Baker ejection seats, etc., they were able to bring the overall costs way down. 6 airframes would have been far more expensive, because each of them would have ended up with similar systems and requirements, with lack of volume-buying power for the AESA and motors especially, let alone all the other sensors, cockpits, emergency escape systems, weapons bays, etc.
The JSF program specifications were and are set by real and emerging threats.
When I saw Peter Sprey I knew this would be BS. Moved on to watch something else.
BatQuad 888 - Amazing how many people (including the Canadian press) consider Sprey a “current expert” in modern technology and fighter strategies and tactics.
Geez!...with the money currently being spent on the F-35 JSF program; the pentagon had a better chance of creating a real life X-wing starfighter
What tech exists to build one?
become fully aware of public interests and private intentions to know Who Benefits And How
Then ask the question, “Why does Russia not want Canada to have the JSF?”
A total waste of money.
"Astonishingly, the F-35 cannot dogfight, the crux of any fighter jet. According to test pilots, the F-35 is “substantially inferior” to the 40-year-old F-15 fighter jet in mock air battles. The F-35 could not turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane or dodge enemy gunfire." - quoted by Lone Insider defense analyst.
@@RandomRoulett3 The middle portion of your comment is absurd.
F35 is the funniest military program ever.
Funny to end a film with names of characters who did NOT paticipate :)
why funny? the public loves to learn who is or is not accountable.
Pierre Sprey is the real turkey.
The F-22 is faster than the F-35, by like 600km. Like WTF????????
+james wasylyk Yes it is, F-35 don't even have super cruise capability which is considered as aspect of the fifth generation fighter.
Milos Mitrovic it has super cruise
Comparing to the other 5th gen aircraft like the F22, PAK-FA, J31 and J20, the F35 looks puny.. What a waste of money
The trouble is, the for the F-35 is that it may eventually get sorted out...........but by that time its competitors would of surged far ahead not only in the development of their own 5th gen planes, but also in radar detection improvements. As it stands now the F-35 may end up a good plane, but not a game changer. A major handicap of the F-35 is its weapons load, which is far less than its Russian and Chinese counterparts, if it is in stealth mode.
Here are my qualms with Canadian procurement of the F35-
a) Canada doesn't need something so expensive and unproven. In fact, it generally chooses the cheapest possible option when it comes to procurement.
b) Combat proven airpanes like the Dassault Rafale (which offered Canada a pretty whopping economic incentive) or super Hornet or Saab Gripen, would most likely be a better fit- all cheaper and cheaper to maintain, get more airplanes for the same price and in the Saab's case, its maintenance costs are the lowest of any 4.5+ gen airplane in the world. The Rafale and Super Hornet are battle proven, with flying colours.
c) it's uncertain how the F35 would handle consistently cold temperatures, uncertain if it can maneuver better than a Learjet, and finally, uncertain how it would comfortably land on most RCAF runways (FOB strips in the north are much shorter than bases, and most bases runways are barely long enough or so I've heard), the planes in point b have no problems in these regards.
b) to address point c, Lockheed martin suggested retrofitting a garbage can size tube on the F35's back to carry a drag parachute so it can stop quicker- thereby increasing radar cross section, airplane weight and surface drag, reducing performance (and looking stupid)
e)the argument that "canada needs stealth" doesn't make a whole lot of sense- Canada generally uses their fighters as bomb trucks, which only fly in combat zones once air superiority is already attained. All the other airplanes I listed have stealth features on them to reduce RCS anyways
f) the government never put out a tender so that other companies could compete for the contract, which seems sketchy
g) Lockheed Martin has a shady past of paying politicians to buy their airplanes in europe (albeit during the coldwar)
Thoughts?
+ralroost einsnulldrei Two words: Bomark Missiles
+rabbitcancer In reference tithe Avro Arrow, it had various flaws. It had piss poor range -the gov portrayed Arrows screaming at Mach 2 to the article. Unfortunately, aside from Goose Bay, the Arrow could not reach the artic from existing permanent bases. the range citations were with optimal weight, altitude, and allotted roughly 30 seconds supersonic speeds.
+TS Van Had the government elected a different aircraft, I'd agree with you. Except they didn't - they went with a missile that was ultimately deemed inadequate and the Canadian government was forced to engage in ANOTHER procurement. We are heading down that road again. Stop drinking Lockheed's Koolaid.
+Devon Edwards The Bomarc fully removed from service in 1971 and while the missile was in service, Canada maintained a numerous and potent force of interceptors numbering in the hundreds at times via CF104 & 100, but mainly with the CF101. The number of interceptors increased overall during Bomarcs service, not decreased. Actually, I do believe it was not long after the last Bomarc ended service that our interceptor fleet began to decrease.....I am curious about this large procurement of new interceptors that occurred around 1970. These interceptors had 3 times the range of the Arrow and unlike the Arrow, could actually reach the arctic from permanent air bases. The 101 was fast, but not the same as the Arrow...however the Arrow only had a 660km combat radius which only allotted 30 seconds of super sonic speed - add any more, the range drastically decreases from 660km. An Arrow taking off from Southern Ontario can't even in a combat role make it as far as Quebec city, whereas the CF101 could make it to the top of Hudson bay from Windsor ON - the Arrow for this same trip would have to refuel 3 times. The Arrow had no air to air refuel capability and would have to land each time
+TS Van I know the history. My point was that they went with the Bomark instead of the Arrow and still had to buy the 101/104 afterward. The money was completely blown on a solution that didn't work (Bomark)
should have brought back the avro arrow. a 21st century version of course
The company no longer exists. The Arrow was a failed project even if the Government shut it down due to political pressure from the US.
There are no Canadian Aircraft companies that make fighters. Best option is to purchase them from established companies.
Love this stuff, Sprey mentions how the F16 is less expensive than F15, that's true but the F15 is one of the most successful fighters in history, crushing everything it has run into. Not taking away from the F16 but they dont fly the same missions anymore.
They never flew the same missions, however "Fighter Mafia" and in particular Sprey himself always wanted the _F-X_ program to end up like how he wanted the LWF program to become. Sprey wanted both to be lightweight fighters that in the case of the latter lacked radar entirely.
@@peterson7082 BRUH YOU POSTED CRINGE
@@weegeeisskream9544 ?
Very late reply, but, when looking at a multi-role fighter, I’d take the F16. When you want the F15 Mudhen for Ground Attack, you need two guys. That’s expensive as hell to train. However, the F15 is successful for a reason, it’s a brilliant design. Sprey, as usual, doesn’t take into account fuel economy, nor cost to train pilots and wizzos, and then ignores the fact that the F15 has multiple versions for multiple roles, unlike the Viper which has multiple versions that perfect the issues in previous designs. When looking for a sing A/A platform, which a large budget, go for the F15 Eagle. If you want pure ground attack, Mudhen. If you want everything, with only the need for a one-man crew, it’s the Viper.
@@moistman6930 wow this is def the oldest reply I've ever gotten. I had to look at what the original post was about. Have to say I'm still doubtful about F35, did we really need it? If the Ukraine turns into a hot conflict, God please no, for what was spent the black sea fleet better be on the bottom in the first day.
How can people hate fighter jets. their an amazing peice of technology and human accomplishments. Buying them is essentially an investment in lockheed that will allow them to do more r&d which will benefit mankind. if the f35 is a failure, soon theyll have space fighters.
Pluto.
Lockheed spend more on bribes to sell their planes than they do on research.
They certainly do not benefit anyone especially the poor pilots that have to fly second rate planes.
Regarding its undetectability, S-400 is already there to detect them. Not sure what they're talking about when they say it's virtually undetectable.
What it means is that it's much harder to detect than 4. gen fighters, which will be greatly visible to such systems
+Hjembrent Kent
it's not like that. Radar is sending a radio wave which will bounce back and then you calculate where it came back from.
You can send these waves at different frequencies. Large ground stationed radars can use lower frequencies which travel further and seem to have less trouble detecting these planes. That includes very old 1942 radar systems in WW2 which were absolutely massive installations.
Now Stealth may have a distinct advantage on Air plane based Radar. But then these systems will adapt and they will at a certain point be able to see a stealth plane. then you do not have to buy a new plane just fit that radar in a old plane and voila you can see them and shoot them.
This is not a problem for a F22 which can still hold it's own in a dogfight. And it still has a very powerful radar and weapon system.
But for the F35 it's a big issue. It's slow it can't outrun any other jet. It can't climb as fast and it can't compete in acrobatics. So if it's stealth fails your better off ejecting before getting thrashed.
Wavelength=resolution. Low frequency VHF 2-6 meter wavelength radars are fine for long range detection but not vectoring a Mach 4+ missile on a Mach 1+ maneuvering target. N
there are other options.
Getting the missile in close proximity and then let optical sensors take over for example.
Then if you can detect a F35 it's gone. It has to shoot down the Rafale or mig at range or it's toast. The slow top speed lack of decent range at high speed it can be easily outrunned and shotdown.
Pretty desperate to volley a multimillion dollar AA asset at a vague VHF signature and pray it gets a track when it gets there.
As Canadians who Innovate and Improve, it is Great that we may have a handful of Raptors(f-35's) for what applications they may be utilized; but hopefully we will re-invest in Avro Arrows with the great advancements in technology like sensor jamming, vectoring thrusters and high altitude hover(auto-perching) abilities. If Arrows can fly at equal altitudes to bombers at 50 000 ft, whereas Raptors have a flight ceiling height of 30 000 ft, it makes it somewhat impossible for raptors to even fire a missile 20 000 ft upwards at an Arrow; and with Iroquois engines most missiles can be outran by an Arrow if flares or sensor jams have no effect. Missiles and Rockets fired at such high altitudes do not perform the same as when at lower altitudes, a type of rail gun would be another suggestion. Range, Altitude & Speed are probably the most important factors but if you also consider that we will get 100 Arrows for the cost of every 60 Raptors the decision should seem quite clear especially if we consider all the Canadian jobs that will be created. If we also add retractable wings like the Mig23 or f16 Tomcat would that offer high altitude flight with low altitude maneuverability? The Arrow can soar beyond 5th Generation.
You have to buy our shitty planes because we are bros, Camada.
hahaha! :P
Sean Dutton I swear to god, we have secret gov tech that will make this thing teleport and travel through time. We just need another 150 bil bro!!
hahahah!! bro, you just need a trillion don't ya! :P ask China for it... they got shit tons of money... mostly from what we all owe them suckers!!
Mark Wahlberg Not Camada; with these Harpercrite liars it's now CanadUsa eh... Ü
Wahahaha
Did you guys really think they would share classified information with journalists? Wait for half a century and ask again.
If the F-35 sucks so bad at close range. Just pair it up with a F-16/22 and problem solved.
I cant believe that we cant just abandon this design and try and perfect the F22 which is a superior design.
I know right. The F35 is Shit
The whole point was to create a "dumbed-down" F-22. The US will not sell that plane internationally either. The whole point of the F-35 was to make a high tech replacement for the vast array of aircraft that have been in service for decades. Honestly, the F-35 sounds like a good idea on paper, until you objectively examine it's role. If it did work, it would have revolutionized military aviation, creating a single plane that every branch and country used. That would mean cheaper parts, universal flight and maintenance training, and unified service equipment all over the world.
Alexander Smith I think you mean the F15 Eagle that's the supreme of the supreme I'm sorry I do not know what country you're from but unless you're American or Israeli then you can get the F15 Eagle . the f-35 we Americans told you it's better we lied to get you to stop annoying us because ever since the F15 was built many governments have wanted it for their forces, but every time it's no, unless you're Israel then I myself as an American I am happy with that.
You think the F-35 is the next generation fighter, the best okay Image a combat situation F-15 Vs F-35 The F-15 can climb to 30,000ft within 60 seconds that's the height of Everest, now you are asking why is that important well do the maths Stall if you have enemy jet on your six, with The F-15 the pilots able to climb faster than the enemy plane, and dissappear and if the enemy jet tries the same thing he will cause his engines to Stall and thus bang-bang you're dead that is just one example of why we sell you the rubbish stuff like F-35 but not the advanced fighters the F15 eagle, F16 falcoln and the F-22 but hey don't worry don't feel bad We are Americans there is none smarter than the Eagle so don't feel bad okay and if you say well the Brits are smarter than us the brits are the Lions right Go and watch Nation Geographic wildlife channel and observe how Eagles hunt for their prey and how Lions do it, 100% of the time Eagles catch their Salmon 50% of the time lions do, now the only one that might be only same league as us Germany the Leopard
Evangelist Netasyahu Miller I'm a prior service American, by the way. I have no idea what your point is to be completely honest. My statement has nothing to do with the F-15 at all. The F-15, although impressive by world standards, is nowhere near as advanced as the F-22. I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from. The F-22's computing power and abilities are nearly exponential in comparison to any other fighter in it's class. Actually it's so far advanced, that it essentially has opened a new class of fighters. Think of the F-22 as a flying command center. I think you're logic is a bit out of line, and you're misunderstanding what these fighters are capable of. I don't know why you're talking about lions and salmon....but I'm sure you're trying to be sincere...
Alexander Smith Ya, he rambled hard there. An eagle in his terms are no match for a lion. A lion doesn't go after salmon. He goes after the bigger boys, not prey half his size. I can show him pictures of an eagle that actually dropped a Northern Pike on the lake while Ice fishing this year lol
Buy anything but the f35 and you will not get advanced American Avionics ... thats the treat to all nations..
americans aren't known for their build quality I'm afraid...
Sean Dutton Average consumer products like TVs and cellphones have no bearing on what the Military produces. From a military standpoint Americans are known for the most technologically advanced and sophisticated hardware. The British aren't known for quality either but I'd sure as hell take what their military is using over most countries.
in these days i am sure Russians are far ahead in aviation technology then Americans
Бхану Аршавин But they're not. They don't have anything better than the f-22 and f-35 unless you believe their propaganda videos. If you are referring to space flight we contract Russian because its cheaper than the shuttle. Which, even though its decommissioned, is still one of the most advanced things to go into space. This video is bullshit by the way. The dead giveaway is the moment they say stealth is a made up technology. We know its not because it already been successfully used against countries with radar.
dannonyogurt98 Недавно ваши ракеты взорвалась на стартовой площадке и вы снова попросил двигателей в России.
The F35 is a good plane. It doesn't matter if it can be seen as long as you can detect opposing aircraft first, which stealth helps and then you don't really need the manoeuvrability. F22 pilots can lose consciousness pulling hard turns. A stealth aircraft with navy carrier takeoff and landing.
Remember everyone said the Harrier was useless and then when it actually came to an island naval war it was perfect in air to air combat and the F35 is definately an upgrade on the Harrier as it is supersonic and stealth.
The costs seems enormous until you actually have a war in a country and then an aerial advantage is priceless.
And when you learn that the enemy is better than you thought, or your plane isnt as good in realworld as you thought and youve replaced your diverse air capability with half as many planes that the enemy can exploit? Oh, but, but, but... that wont happen... right?
I know I will have to get my tinfoil hat ready but I believe the F-35 will be one of those aircraft that will be much maligned at first but will actually turn out to be a true great in the aircraft world.
Pablo Jay No doubt
Pablo Jay I agree man. Humans are always hesitant when it comes to *change*. When I retire from the Air Force I have a feeling the world will have a completely new, welcoming perspective on the F35.
Jesse Allen I hope so dude, there is a saying, "If it looks right, it IS right", there is just something "right" about this aircraft. I think it will be awesome but maybe not for the maintainers!!!!
Ima SuperPerson Ok, so what holes are in its game?
Are they the same holes that existed in every single aircraft that has ever flown in front line squadrons or special ones just for the F-35?
The F-4 Phantom, no gun, was AWFUL aerodynamically and was hardly "agile" turned out to be a super war fighting aircraft and the beat goes on for virtually every other jet of the last 40 years.
The F-18 was dubbed the "hangar Queen" for a long time, the Harrier`s best trait was "crashing" and killing its pilots in the early days and the F-22 had a bad habit of deciding to offer Oxygen deprivation to its pilots.
***** SO umm, lets see this "leaked" document.
I dont get why you and others think the F-35 is some kind of air superiority fighter like the F-22 it isnt.
Its primary role will be strike but with its low RCS from the frontal arc its going to be difficult for the F-16 to see with its legacy MSA radar.
I can believe the F-16 can out perform the F-35 in BFM but I am not surprised, the F-16 is still a match for almost everything out there in that regard.
Not bad for a 50 year old design and to call the F-35 a "disaster" for allegedly not being able to out perform the Viper in terms of manoeuvre is hardly a disgrace.
Well, couldn't we just design our own aircraft, drafting the advantages based off of existing aircraft?
We tried but it got cancelled remember the arrow
eaglefighter33
B-but that was like, forever ago ;w;
i know if we did it again it would go south I think the f35 is a bad idea in the history of bad ideas
eaglefighter33 it's funny how much trash is talked about the F-35. Yet, if one researches and sees the comments made by pilots from England, Australia and the U.S. get a twinkle in the eye when they talk about the F-35. There are capabilities that no one knows about except those on top. Nothing touches it other than the F-22.
eaglefighter33 it's funny how much trash is talked about the F-35. Yet, if one researches and sees the comments made by pilots from England, Australia and the U.S. get a twinkle in the eye when they talk about the F-35. There are capabilities that no one knows about except those on top. Nothing touches it other than the F-22.
This f35 experience may lead to next best one...nywy appreciate efforts of minds working on this f35
+sandeep tomar Lol dude, then you are lucky it is not 1941. What logic is that?!
I smell corruption.
Bring back the YF 23 Black Widow II
Hell yeah!
Wow. Nice upgrade Canada. Canadians arent playing around anymore. And by the way. These aircraft ensures the brave men and women fighting have the highest chance of survival and coming home. Smh.... You ask people to defend you but you want them to do it with free sticks. Pffffft....
.
And by the way. This is an incredible jet. Smh....
Know your planes people-before you jump on the hate wagon.
The F-35 is a strike-optimised fighter, with robust self-defence and a secondary air-superiority-role.
It's designed to be escorted by F-22s, but can escort itself-as well as help-out the F-22's in the air-to-air role. A single F-35 in a formation, also greatly increases the effectiveness of conventional aircraft flying with it-as it can share data from it's sensors and can also act as ECM/EW support.
It's primary mission, is the most-dangerous of anything airborne; deep-interdiction and strike. As proof, nearly half the F-105 Thunderchiefs built were lost over North Vietnam to mostly SAMS and AAA-over 330, as they were the only aircraft America had which could do the job. Had any other aircraft type been used; the losses would have been higher. The aircraft that eventually replaced the '105 in Vietnam had a near-perfect loss rate [one lost, other sources say none]; but it was also famously a failed-fighter: the F-111 [which led to the F-14 Tomcat, the fighter it could never be]. The highest loss-rate of any allied aircraft in Desert Storm; were Tornados-for the same reason. The interdiction job is dangerous and dictates the shape. Back in the '70's the USAF did a study which came to the conclusion; there was no-future in manned aircraft vs missiles [based on rapidly evolving Soviet technology]; so stealth was born.
The F-35 also needs to carry all it's fuel and armament internally-at least in the opening stages of a conflict [before the air defences are taken down]. Later on; it's a bomb-truck that can lift more than anything shy of an F-111. Interestingly; Formula 1 cars have now started resembling the F-35, just as they started resembling the e.g Su-27 Flanker yrs ago. Aerodynamically, if you want to carry all your mission fuel internally; it's efficient. Other considerations are high-wing loading; as highly-agile air-superiority types flutter and shake too much low and fast-which puts too much strain on the crew for hrs on end. The strike-optimised Panavia Tornado also has high-wing loading, and also comes in a seperate air-superiority version [still retaining the same-wing]. So that alone, doesn't mean squat. Ever see Top Gun? Maneuverability and energy's not everything; the Tomcat's in the same power-to-weight class as the ADV Tornado; about 3-1, much less than the 1-1 of more agile types. In any case, the navy says the F-35's about as agile as an F-18C-the aircraft it's replacing, which is no slouch.
The closest thing to the JSF in WW2; was the P-47, which scored more kills than any other Allied type. The closest Jet, would be the Thunderchief-both are Republic planes. The Thunderchief was exceptionally-well designed, as proven by a) Republic going through 108 configurations-before arriving at the final shape and b) The F-35 is very similiar in a lot of ways-strikingly so, including dimensionally. Add all the 105's internal fuel, plus the bomb bay loaded with fuel + two external tanks=almost as much/near-identical fuel load as what the F-35 carries internally. Both are in the 27 000lb empty weight class, both are designed with a roughly 400nm radius, both have near identical wingspan [though the F-35 has more wing-area] and both are strike-optimised fighters featuring the very-latest technology and built around the most-powerful engine of the time. The '105 had similar cost-overuns, meaning the U.S had to settle for buying less and it also had a troubled development, not to mention featuring the same criticisms-that it couldn't dogfight. Combat experience proved otherwise; with 27.5 migs being shot down [including several MiG-21's-the best dogfighter in-theatre] for 22 losses, 23 kills being achieved with guns. That's better than parity, and all the MiGs shot down-with guns: were more agile. You wouldn't expect an F-16 to get anything close to parity vs an F-15. Like they say; better is the enemy of good-enough. The F-111 couldn't dogfight; but then it was a better strike plane. The 105 and F-35 are multi-role. They also have to be that way, as it's simply too-expensive to design specialized aircraft for every role. There will always be a need for air-superiority fighters, but at 200 million apiece-instead of the projected 80 million for the JSF; you can only ever have a handful of them. At the end of the day; you need ground attackers. The first useful role for aviation-in WW1; was reconnaissance. The most useful role; is ground attack-always has and always will be. Fighters protect the first two. The F-35, of course; can do all of that and more. Also, whilst it looks like some kind of fat-duck from most angles, upside-down; it's perhaps the most beautiful thing yet built. Seriously.
that money could go to space exploration.
that airplane could feed so many African children. take it apart and feed the kids the parts
+Chimp Whisperer or just use the money it took to develop/buy and buy food/wellfare for it.
+silverman That money could go into already existing proven airplanes to be upgraded.
+silverman There are a lot of terrorists in space. They can be controlled by Martian mind rays, but only if we get to them first.
+silverman I Don't Think They Can Afford This Toy :] They All Going To Cry America is The Owner Of The Toy And $$$$$$$
>inferior in a dog fight
"In the IOC tests the 6 F-35Bs involved repeatedly demonstrated 100% kills against F-16C-50s with no losses -- including against heavy adverse numbers of opponents. The F-35B s won every single engagement."
- Patrick Bindner, pilot
Cute propaganda post - doesn’t hold up when examined by those who actually know something. Nice try.
imagine if they would use that money for good
I mean the US has been spending a lot of money on health care, but your health care still stinks
Ya giving the military the equipment it needs to do it's job and protect our troops is a bad use of money,
In Canada's case they are underfunded and we've seen deaths of our troops due to having substandard kit going into combat missions.
Spend in defence is good.
Lockheed Martin s the single largest contributor to American congressional and presidential campaigns. That's the nice way to say that they're the biggest political bribers in America. They got the F-35 contract the same way they got the F-22 contract: they bought it. Buying politicians, mostly republicans, is a tiny investment for LHM, with a massive payoff.
If you want to arm an airforce with the best fight for the best money, buying Swedish or Russian. If you want the prettiest and most maneuverable planes, buy French. If you want the most hyped, least capable, and most expensive, buy American.
The F-35 won't reach full combat capability until the mid to lat 2020's. By then, the Russians will be selling the much cheaper and better in several respects Su-50 like hotcakes to everyone that doesn't like America. The Chinese are working on their own fighters that for the first time aren't cheap copies of Soviet leftovers.
+Larry Phischman No the Chinese are trying to copy the f-35 instead. I have no idea why people try to spin off unfounded remarks such as Lockheed Martin buys contracts instead of earning them.... How can you prove that and why hasn't anyone yet? It leads me to believe that you made it up or are trying to bait someone into giving you more info on the F-35. Or you like to argue for the sake of trying to make a weak point win? That is detrimental to anyone reading your comment if they believe it..... for the safety of the US how would it make more sense to make one defense contractor win? Right because this country is entirely corrupt? Seriously though... not allowing the best fighter jet to win is criminally reckless especially since warfare is largely determined by air superiority. Im certain that all of the reports you have heard cannot prepare you to come to a conclusion that someone would have who is keen on every aspect that is fighter jet. With that I take your statement about the Russians having better tech than the US with a grain of salt. Do the Russians create viable war machines at a lower cost than the US? Yes... is that one of the major reasons that they sell a ton of equipment... yes. Does a couple of countries buying Russian tech mean that it is better than US equipment? No. Are you anti American? Are you Russian?
+Larry Phischman The USMC went full combat capability during 2015, the USAF and USN in the next few years. So much for false accusations.
SequelFinalNight In the past 30 years there have been more accidents with the F-15 then there have been with the F-16 using the same jet engine. Two jet engines cost more to operate, and maintain. Not much different than having two engines for your automobile.
***** There is a difference between development costs, program costs, and production costs. Don't confuse them. Development costs over 20 years is R&D which will apply to other new aircraft in the future as well as including a new generation of missiles and sensors, plus software. Program costs involve not so precise operational costs 40 years into the future. Production costs is the fly away price for buying a aircraft. Read this glimmer about the Eurofighter Typhoon. www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/
+Larry Phischman Yeah, I have a feeling as well that someone is lining their pockets with money because of their connections. It's not about building the best fighter, it's about money.
Should have named it the F35 Turkey Bird.... $178 million each.... what a deal!
This is why the A-10 needs to be kept in service with updates of course. For ground support anyway.
think: Who Actually and Eventually Benefits and How - examine public and private interests [intentions]
I would have to agree that it can't be a good ground support aircraft. The a-10 will always do better ground support than any f 35
I wonder how much these Canadians were paid to choose the flying turkey
What a ridiculous opening to this video. Dear Canadian journalists: Canada cannot build a fighter bomber on the level of the F35. You are lucky to have it.
There was a competition in America between Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Each company had to build two full scale experimental fully functional aircrafts. They had to go through rigorous flight tests to prove their designs met or exceeded design requirements, requirements that the US government put forth, not the aircraft designer/manufactures. Boeing lost that contract but ended up winning a huge contract for unmanned drones. I work for Lockheed Martin, so I can't go in to detail about certain things concerning design and capabilities of this aircraft. But I do know beyond any doubt, certain minor short comings of this aircraft have been compensated for in other ways with other technologies. I believe in time they'll work out the bugs, like every cutting edge design pushing all the limits has. I agree, they are way over projected budgets, but that too also happens pretty much every time for the same reason. Some good reason, some bad. Also keep in mind, this aircraft wasn't designed for one purpose like most fighter jets that came previous. The government was specific. It wanted one plane to do it all. Not an easy task by any means. The down and dirty - Lockheed needs to pull their heads out of their asses, get on the ball, quit funking around, take ownership of the problems, and fix the damn plane :-)
We should buy Gripen NGs.
+TheJewelOfJool Too short in combat range and not that much cheaper than the F-35. By the time you add the pods to improve its performance, it will be more expensive than the F-35.
f-35 combat radius - 613 nmi
Gripen combat radius - 800nmi
TheJewelOfJool With 3 external drop tanks for the Gripen. The F-35 does that with internal fuel, but can go further than the Gripen with 3 external drop tanks. The Gripen with internal fuel combat range is only 432 mmi. 181 mmi less. In large Canada? Don't compare apples to oranges.
***** Then why are more NATO nations and Western friendly nations buying the F-35 over any other aircraft? Duh...
***** Nonsense. No one has yet cancelled the F-35. Only more and more buyers.
This guy has amazing experience ...he's missing the point though. A modern fighter is not about being a space-age Spitfire that can turn tighter, fly faster and drop more bombs
The modern battlefield requires information Tech and sensors close to the point of action where it is difficult to Jam.
Any fighter getting into a "dogfight" has lost control of the battle space. The modern fighter is a command and control hub....dropping weapons is a secondary task.
Close support is becoming a heli-bourn task,,,,risking an asset as expensive as an F35 over a modern battlefield is just nuts
Note that all western Armies are moving away from main battle tanks...why?
Modern missiles are just to sophisticated and powerful,,,,same thins goes for Manpads
An old F5 supersonic jet was 2.1 million in 1970. A country would be better served to have numerous small inexpensive planes, than a few very expensive ones. The fact is, an enemy fighter can only carry a limited amount of missiles. If an opposing force can put up more planes than the others have missiles, the cheap F5 type, wins. When the F14-18 planes were being tested, F5's shot them to hell and back.
If you don't have the pilots to man those planes there's absolutely no point in producing more. That is why moderately expensive but incredibly capable fighters are more beneficial than cheap ones.
Why does Canada need an airforce anyway? Oh it is to bring more refugees in.
+Bountifull Sun Why does Canada need a navy? a army? a police force? a fire department? any government employee? We can save a whole lot of money just sacking every bit of our government.
Good Idea
+Bountifull Sun Or Russia expanding North of you...
+SeaToby11 With Trudeau you never know. It just might happen.
Harry Aiken Canada has a population of 35 million, not 100 million. Quebec has a population of 8 million, less than a quarter of Canada's population. Easily googled with Wiki.... Googling isn't rocket science.....