Evolution of F-35 Lightning-II (F-35A to CF-35)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ก.ค. 2024
- With unparalleled stealth, advanced sensors, supersonic speed, weapons capacity and increased range, the F-35 is the most advanced, survivable and connected fighter jet ever built. Stealth is a critical capability to pilot survivability and the F-35’s unique mix of stealth and sensor technology can enable the Air Force to patrol, monitor and conduct surveillance without being detected. This video presents the Evolution of F35 lightning II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credits:
free3d.com/3d-model/lockheed-...
www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/... tartino
www.codeonemagazine.com/galler...
www.pixelsquid.com/png/lockhe...
theaviationgeekclub.com/canad...
3dexport.com/3dmodel-lockheed...
• The F-35B Fighter Shor...
• First F-35B Vertical T...
• F-35C Carrier Testing ...
• USAF F-35A Lightning I...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
* Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.
The Buzz does not own the rights to these videos and pictures. They have, in accordance with fair use, been repurposed with the intent of educating and inspiring others. However, if any content owners would like their images removed, please contact us by email at-thebuzz938@gmail.com. - บันเทิง
![[MIRRORED] LISA - ROCKSTAR 🎸 MV version #LISA #BLACKPINK #ROCKSTAR](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-U58DuCCtZk/mqdefault.jpg)
Everyone's always mentioning a 2 seater F-35... but what about a 5 seater for the whole family? 👁👄👁
😂😂😂😎
Well the EA-6b was a 4 seater.
😅🤣
Lol
There's a reason they call it a generation 5 fighter
You forgot to mention that the F-35B has also been adopted by the British Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm to replace their own Harrier fleet just as with the USMC. The F-35B will be the sole fixed-wing aircraft embarked aboard the Royal Navy's new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think they are all flown by RAF pilots now
@@anthonyfursey5505wrong the Royal Navy pilots fly the F-35B too
Thanks for this info..👍
Man I love this vid. Its my 8th in my favorite plane list :D
Pretty good video, and fairly accurate IMHO.
Hello, Canada has selected the F35, please check your facts. Also, Canada being a parts
builder for the F35 makes it a no brainer. They have 800 million already invested in the F35.
Lockhead Martin.... you're Da Man!!!!
I've heard a version suggested using the B's power take off engine being used to run a generator, instead of the the lift fan. The generator powering a massive electronic countermeasures suite.
The F35i Adir is the one most heavily modified, and it is already combat-proven. that includes the engine software and hardware. plus engine's cooling system. and a new weapons bay. has a 30% longer range. and 18% thrust increase. vs the F35A
The F-35i has the same engine thrust as a regular F-35A, they both use the same F-135 engine. Israel doesn’t have the capability to produce fighter jet engines.
And the best F-35 will be the block 4 F-35 which will have a larger weapons to carry 6 air to air missiles like the F-22 and also a 6th generation adaptive engine with 30% greater range and 20% greater thrust
All the newer block 4 F35s come with expanded weapons bay, software and engine tweaks. Every run they improve more. Not 30% longer range
@@MeanLaQueefa The generation adaptive engine will improve range
Ahhh no Sam .............your way over exaggerating most of everything you said
Co Bat proven where? By bombing innocent kids? Been detect abd get shot in syria,?
I fall in love with F-22 and F-35😘😘😘😘🥰🥰
Next Su 27/30 please :))
I didn’t know about the d! I hope it gets the maneuverability upgrade. And no Forbes the f-35 hasn’t failed. Awesome channel
There is no D variant. Just block upgrades. The different letters after, C is just to distinguish what country it goes to. The D variant was just a concept version that was brought up but immediately shot down
@@nexpro6118 I wish it wasn’t. It could use some more maneuverability
@@choasisgoated
compared to what? F35 can easy out fly and out dogfight a f16.
@@Albertkallal it can’t out do the f-16. Also it should be better then the su-57. Remember with stealth it will be hard to get off long rang missile shots
@@choasisgoated true but it wasn't built for air to air superiority
When the Saab Gripen flies by at 2460km/h, the f35 follows with 1960km/h (but only for a few seconds otherwise the color will disappear).
... But it is "invisible" exept for the new russian rockets....
@@jackstreet6979
How so? do they teach grade school math where you come from?
Typhoon: 115 million each
Rafale: 94 million each
F15: 88 million each
Saab Gripen JAS 39 E/F: 85 million
F35: 77.8 million
So, how is the F35 high cost or price when the Gripen costs more?
And the Gripen is VAST under-powered. In fact with JUST a simple fuel payload of 5,000 lbs, the Gripen now weighs MORE then total engine power (thrust). That means it can't even fly straight up on its own engine power!!! How silly is that!!!
There is the power to weight (thrust to weight rating) for the fighters in question:
Fuel
payload Rafale F35 F16 Gripen 39 E/F
0 1.4137 1.3984 1.4784 1.2617
700 1.3737 1.3672 1.4284 1.2130
2500 1.2806 1.2932 1.3141 1.1035
3500 1.2341 1.2555 1.2581 1.0508
3750 1.2230 1.2464 1.2449 1.0384
5000 1.1704 1.2028 1.1826 0.9805
6000 1.1314 1.1701 1.1371 0.9387
7000 1.0950 1.1391 1.0950 0.9003
7500 1.0777 1.1242 1.0751 0.8822
9125 1.0249 1.0784 1.0151 0.8283
10362 0.9880 1.0459 0.9737 0.7914
12000 0.9431 1.0058 0.9239 0.7474
13500 0.9055 0.9718 0.8825 0.7111
15000 0.8707 0.9399 0.8447 0.6782
18250 0.8038 0.8776 0.7729 0.6165
20900 0.7564 0.8325 0.7228 0.5739
So, in above, we see the F35 has the BEST thurst to weigh rating - EVEN better then a duel engine Rafale!!!
From above, we see:
A f16 has to burn fuel down to a rather low 3,500 lbs to match the power to weight of the F35
The duel engine Rafale fairs even worse - down to a bone dry 700 lbs.
And the poor Gripen - even starting with 0 payload, it fails to match the above fighters - let alone the F35.
And we see in above with 10,000 lbs payload, the F35 is the ONLY figher with more engine power then total weight - can fly straight up. In fact the F35 can do this with 11,000 lbs or even 12,000 lbs - none of the other fighters can do that - they are too heavy, or lack engine power - take your pick.
*_And this power to weight advantage holds in favor of the F35 as you increase payloads compared to the other fighters in above list_*
While the F35 often called fat amy?
Note how it has a better thrust to weight (power to weight) rating then a F16, or even a duel engine Rafale. and the Gripen? Well, it does not compare to anything in the above - and is dead last in the power to weight department.
Yes, great fighter the Gripen is - can't even fly straight up on its own engine power with a small payload of only 5,000 lbs.
Horses for courses. I different scenarios, different planes will excel. I'm therefore glad that NATO has variety.
Saab gripen I think is the greatest shadow fleet aircraft of all time very very versatile
Finally! A video not about top gun.
You don't like Top Gun ????
And Canada 🇨🇦 u never fail good thing the USA 🇺🇸 is here to look out for my good friends to the north
Pls do f-16 next
I love your voice
do not forget that Israeli air force got the first air to air kill with the f-35 i , i think there is talk about a two seat variant.
Imagine what Borat would say about that.
@@mombaassa wa wa wee wa
I hope to see a tween engine f35 with larger internal weapons bay
Idk if only I feel it, that the F35 D paint scheme seems like 'frogfoot' paint scheme in the list view
Todos tienen la misma cantidad de problemas?
A-10 will not be replaced by the F-35A, as the A-10 itself is right now going threw a upgrade program with new wings and more Integration to already existing systems, making it capable for 15-20 more years in service. the F-35I has it's own Isreaeli designed wing, other then that it is more or less a F-35A
Probably more likely a mission overlap, than a replacement.
Oh great, a reformist. I'm sorry but the A-10s days are numbered. Too slow, can't turn, killed more friendlies than any other modern US fighter and doesn't have as advanced equipment as the F-35
@@oxide8696 hmm, just read the other day the congress has removed the F-35 as close air support, and approved 20 more years for the A-10, including new wings, new flight suit, more hard Points and better datalink system....so...more A-10 coming with it's BRRRRT ! :P
@@FritzOFN Link me the source. I wanne see what idiot decided that was a good idea
@@FritzOFN Also, that big BRRRRT won't do shit to modern tanks. Let alone survive ground to air missile systems
can u do about f16
🤙🏾
I would like to see some promo on the narrator
And I’d like to know why -love narrator
What you’re saying doesn’t add up to what you are showing it says the F-35D is a upgrade to the F-35B not F-35A like you claim
F-35d is basically a raptor
Do the F-22- oh wait…
6th gen come out in 2035-2040 and they will make the F-35 more obsolete than it already is
“Will replace the A10” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
How will the a-10 get into enemy airspace?
@@choasisgoated same as always, it will be led in by air superiority fighters.
Sams bro
@@choasisgoated It is a flying tank. The enemy combatants learn to fear the A-10. You don't throw that away
@@choasisgoated it has done so for over 40 years now right? What makes u think it won't be able to now? Also I have nothing against the f35, it can lead the a10 into combat but it could never replace the a10. It has about one fifth the bomb capacity and fires a round half as big with a quarter the energy at less than half the rate of that of an a10. That's not a replacement, that's a downgrade.
Mình là người hâm mộ hãng sản xuất máy bay chiến đấu Sukhoi hơn so với Looked Martin :))
Ok i accept it, but planes of lockheed martin are far better than sukhoi
@@menlay2k That is not true in my country :))
@@menlay2k US planes are very expensive and hard to buy.
@@SUNNYSTARSCOUT365 that's doesn't make its better
@@menlay2k wrong, go kick dirt yankee sukhoi power
SU-27
The F35 is not replacing the A10. Originally it was, but that got canceled years ago.
Not really, the F35 is VAST superiors to the a-10 for CAS (close air support).
Why?
The basic issue comes down to that jets now have precision weapons and smart weapons. The a10 was around before these types of weapons really became widespread.
In Afghanistan and most places, the close air support is done by f18’s if you call in a strike. VERY little is done by the a10.
As noted, these days, an air strike from an f18 or f35 is just as effective anyway.
And the F35 in fact is MUCH better then most fighters, and it takes a bit of explain as to why.
Recall the 1967 (6 day war). In that war, Israeli just slaughtered everyone (they had the upper hand in regards to air power).
But, the F35 changes EVERYTHING and will re-define how you fight wars. It is really like comparing an old phone to a new smartphone, and the key concept is software.
The DAS (disturbed aperture system) on the F35 is those 6 high resolution optical digital cameras. ALL of the inputs are being processed in “real time” by some real serious computer power.
Lockheed states that mortar fire and tank fire on the ground can now be detected by the F35. And at considerable distance!!!
(Read above again - considerable distance!!!).
Do you know what the above now means?????
So, if someone is stupid enough to fire a mortar, or fire a main battle tank gun? Well, if there are ANY f35’s flying above, in seconds, a volley of weapons will be deployed to those targets!
Take a look at this video:
th-cam.com/video/L2q65qOl1tM/w-d-xo.html
The F35 can target a window on a building at 40 miles.
40 miles!!!
Have you ever seen an a10 trying to support troops on the ground? All you hear is ground folks screaming though their radio and the a10 pilot has ZERO clue as to what bunker, or who the hell just stared firing mortars. The a10 pilot can’t see anything compared to the F35. Ground troops say things like: next to the bunch of trees, or the big rock! (The pilot then says - which big rock???).
NOT with the F35!!! The computers are fully processing ALL of the ground inputs in real time. You so much as fire off a mortar or a tank gun fires? The f35’s above will INSTANT know where, and what spot that occurred. The pilots are not looking down at the battle field, but those F35’s are sweeping the ground in REAL TIME - and constantly!!!!
Those f35’s will turn on a dime, and deploy weapons on those ground targets in seconds.
In other words, do you want a few f35’s sweeping the battlefield, and looking for ANY tank or mortar fire? And if you are so silly to simply fire off a mortar, then the f35 “eyes” above will log, track, and catalog where that silly person was to fire off that rocket launcher, or mortar. You are now near as dead.
The F35 will GPS tag that mortar , or main tank or howitzer just being fired.
so, way up high, there is a pizza
You fire that mortar from a trench? A-10? (huh??? - did not know).
detected
The a10 is fantastic machine. But, if you take 15 a-10s, and all of their ground support to keep 15 a10’s flying? Well, then you have 15 less f35’s flying. (People, jets, pilots are a limited resource - you can’t trade 15-20 pilots to fly the a10, and then give up air superiority.
With the f35 you don’t have to.
If I was a grunt on the ground, and you gave me a choice of 3 f35’s or 3 a-10’s? I would take the 3 f35’s any day of the week. It can be pitch dark out, and if some fool fires a mortar at me during the night, that f35 will be dropping a bomb or sending a hellfire missile to that target in seconds.
Hint:
If you are running equipment on the ground, and an f35’s is flying above? Hide, run, don’t fire, and keep your head down. You so much as let out a peep, the sensors on the F35 will see you, find you, and kill you.
The F35 is a flying information sponge. A pilot can’t look down at the battlefield and figure out which person fired a tank, or a rocket, or some silly mortar.
The F35 can not only see, find, and know this, but then ANY of the F35’s above have the SAME information. And any F35’s above will now take out that target.
The F35 is a flying AWACS without the AWACS, and even better this is information gathering ability ALSO applies to ANYTHING that occurs on the ground - including enemy troops silly enough to fire rockets mortars, or a tank. You do that, and the F35’s will eat your lunch.
Yes, once ground troop find out that F35’s are not only able to fire missiles thought a window at 30 miles away, but WORSE is that they see, look and MOST important log and track anything that occurs on the ground.
Remember, the F35 can also provide fire and control to those large ground based missile launcher trucks. This in effect gives the F35 unlimited weapons to deploy on the battle field.
And if you see, track and gather information about what’s occurring on the ground, then you become a target of the F35.
And the F35 can do this at night. Gone are the days of some pilot listening to frantic troops on the ground attempting to direct air power. And gone is some a10 pilot trying to fly with one eye on the dash, and the other eye covered by night vision goggles. And while flying overhead, that a10 pilot will not see who fired a tank or mortar, but the F35 can.
All the F35 will be doing is flying overhead, grabbing information about someone STUPID enough to fire some weapon. And when they do, the F35’s will NOT miss or fail to see who did that firing. And if you know who is firing and doing things, then you can target that event.
The F35 is so beyond anything we deployed over the battle field.
And they just added software for the F35 to be able to fire and control those large ground based missile truck launchers. So park a few of those trucks? Now the F35 has unlimited ammunition. And nothing comes close to being able to target things like the F35. But now you’re feeding the fire and control system to ground assents like missile launchers. And that B52 overhead is ALSO being feed by the F35.
Talk about shooting fish in a barrel!!! I mean, all of the big truck based missile launchers are now under control of the F35? Are you kidding me!!!! Help!!!
Seriously, you give anyone a choice here? Put some F35’s above, and it really is just game over for anything on the ground that decides to move, fire, or fire some silly mortar at our troops. The F35 will use the same sensors, and is now directing and firing some nasty ground based missiles at you.
Really, the F35 simply changes everything.
As for payload and weapons load? The F35 can quite much match the a10 in terms of missile and weapons loadouts anyway, but that's not how you do CAS anymore -
The a-10 is a sitting duck, not stealth, and can't help the troops below since it has no ability to see and figure out that a tank driver was so silly to fire its gun when F35's are flying above. The a-10? -- not a clue that some tank just fired its main gun.
1 F35 overhead is = to 25 a-10s in terms of the damage and destruction it will rain below. Don't move, don't fire, don't do anything when a F35 is above - and if you do, you are dead.
@@Albertkallal please read my comment first. Nothing you said has anything to do with my comment.
As I stated. It was supposed to replace the A 10, but it isn't anymore. That is asper the airforce. Same with the F16. The usaf, has stated the the f35 is normore effect at weapon deployment than that of the f16 or a10 who operate at a fraction of the price.
@@collins3D
No worries - I did not want to toss cold water on your comments. I quite much just took advantage of your post to point out to the readers how and why the F35 can do CAS - and how it works very different then say past platforms like the a-10. No worries, and my apologies if my post seem "only" to correct you, or suggest what you trying to say was wrong, bad or even incorrect (your comments were fine, not wrong, not incorrect --- so my apologies ).
However, I did want readers to get a feel, an idea, a narrative as to how this CAS concept has changed.
And to be fair? yes, I am suggesting that the F35 and how it can and will and does replace the role of the a-10? Yes, I do maintain that this concept does exist, and that the F35 was NOT dropped as a means to replace the a-10. I maintain this idea is still alive and well, and that the F35 can not only replace the a-10, but can do a far better job. I have not really seen any narrative that suggested the F35 now not able to, or is now not going to replace the role of the a-10. As far as I know this concept and ability of using the F35 to replace the a-10 still exists.
@@Albertkallal I am surprised that you haven't. I first heard that in 2016ish. Sinc3 then I've heard and seen specials on the usaf and the senate using their under over airforce plan. The usa cut their oder for the F-35 because their own testing didn't show the fighter being effective enough for the cost. Thus the US airforce is looking at a new program to replace the A10 and also possibly buying upgraded versions of the F16 or a new program to replace it too. I think the only fighter that is being replaced by the F35 is the F18.
@@collins3D
Utter nonsense. the Air force is not even diverting funds from F35 to NGAD. And their suggested purchase reduction was to wait until block 4 updates were ready . There is no reason to be a lying scum on this issue - there is just not on your part.
The press been REALLY trying hard to put a spin on this issue.
General Brown suggested NO such back tracking on the F35 - the press and MSN stated that, not General brown.
Lets clear this issue up, shall we??
As for the Air Force dropping, or not choosing the F35?
Nope, the press and MSM made those claims - NOT the Air Force.
General Brown was in fact so pissed, that he had to make follow up statements later that week.
General Brown had ONLY asked if there is a less cost way to replace the aging F16 fleet. He did NOT say that the F35 program was a failure, nor that the Air force was pivoting away from the F35.
Quote:
*_ The US Air Force (USAF) Chief of Staff, General Charles Q. Brown Jr. , took everyone by surprise when he announced that the USAF is conducting a study to define the right future 'mix' of fighters, attack aircraft, bombers and other strategic aircraft_*
And:
*_ General Brown added: “If we have the ability to build something with even more capacity at a lower cost and faster, why not do it? I am not talking about buying something ready, but looking out towards a solution that we can manufacture_*
The press response to above? the press reporting to above?
F35 is a failure!!
talk about utter rubbish!!!
General Brown did not EVEN mention the F35 in those statements!
Quote:
On February 25, just eight days after the first statements, General Brown himself clarified his position during a speech at the Air Force Association's Aerospace Warfare Symposium:
When asked about the F35?
Quote:
Brown, when asked Thursday if the F-35 program is a failure
*_He said that is “nowhere near” the case_*
*_The F-35 is a cornerstone of our [tactical aircraft] capability and for our fighter capability,” he said_*
And General Brown EVEN clarified that the NGAD program (next gen advanced fighter) would NOT get or SEE ANY funds from the F35 program:
Quote:
*_ As far as NGAD versus F-35, we’re not going to take money from the F-35 to [fund] the NGAD,” Brown said. But, Brown said the Air Force will look to take money from “other parts of the fighter force” to “help fund” the NGAD project_*
In other words, we not gutting the F35 program or EVEN diverting funds from the F35 program!!
So General Brown asked if cost of F16 replacement can be reduced. That is his job!!!
The press THEN spun above into how the Air Force F35 program is a failure!!! - What utter rubbish!!!
Genera Brown stated NOTHING of sort!!
General Brown was pissed beyond belief how the press spun his words. It FLAT out even MADE CRYSTAL clear that they not even to touch, or get ANY F35 funds diverted to NGAD program.
Serious - you have to stop reading that crap, since there is no other words for such crap.
Now, you seem to be mentioning somthing stated in 2016? That was 6 years ago, and I am unable to find ANY credible quote or statement (unless garbage from the MSN that supports that to quote you:
"own testing didn't show the fighter being effective enough for the cost."
Please stop your public lying and making up junk - it just not required here.
Really? And how can that be when the F35 costs less then a F15? how can that be when the F35 costs less then a similar equipped F18?
And how can that be when the F35 costs less per hour to run then F15, and less then a F18 per hour to run? And it takes less maintains then the F15, F18 or F16 to keep running????
Canada needs to get some b variants yea Canada isn’t a war craving nation but if war happens air strikes are always targets
Literally Canada is shielded by US Navy, if anything Canada needs F-18 Super Hornet to aid US Navy if needed.
@@niweshlekhak9646 yea I know but navy doesn’t stop missles we need vtol in our fleet we don’t need super sonic or even stealth so really just need to build new harriers Canada will never launch a assault without USA backing them so we don’t need stealth we do need to become a more independent military tho why should we depend on USA to back us we need to be able to hold our own we are a big country with one of the smallest weakest militaries we are to dependant America has more at stake so they are gonna defend themselves before Canada and only areas USA will concentrate on are border areas when it comes to Canadian defence BC Alberta should be ok as USA has Alaska so there’s plenty of defence there but we should have a stronger military so USA can use Canada for defence while we use USA as offence we can’t do so while we have a weak military
@@wargodsix Than we must only agree to buy CF-35 because it was supposed to be built for Canada and Norway instead of pursuing F-35B which is more like all-purpose aircraft.
US military have been complaining about not making aircraft with longer range/longer combat range fighters. yet, US made the F35B variant which has shit for combat range lol. personally, I believe that the US contractors that build the shit for US, is more of a money making tool for these companies that give massive kickbacks to the politicians that approve the building of these things. the US pays the contractors a set percentage of the cost of the aircraft that is build for the companies profit. so, this incentives the contracting companies to massively inflat the cost of said product and also incentives delays in the product because when these things occur, the contracting companies make more money. everything a US project goes over schedule and cost over runs and failures in the product, the contractors make so much more money. there is ZERO incentive to make the manufacturing process more stream lined and efficient. way do those things when doing the opposite makes you more money. the US should instead have a process of the contractors only making money or more money if there are little to no cost over runs and close to no delays and close to no failures/malfunctions and a better manufacturing process. paying the contractors and higher profit when they do these things, will then make for better aircraft and save more money for the US tax payer. saving more money per aircraft or product, will make it to where the US can buy more of said product will cause a higher percentage of the product to be combat ready. yeah, US has 160 some F22s but only like, 60% are able to be immediately deployable at a time. US planned to buy 700 F22s.....but because of MASSIVE over runs in cost, that 700, went down to, 170ish. lol. which makes it to where if a major air war broke out with the US, using the F22s won't be that affective and using as many as the US can to fight an air war, will just cause the US to loose too many to justify using em because we cannot replace em with anything else since US doesn't manufacture the F22s anymore. for every F22 lost in combat, takes a massive toll on the US air capability. US honestly has very few types of fighter type aircraft that are in large numbers. the F16, F18 and F15s. however, majority of the F15s were built back in the 1800s lol. the newer and better multi capable F15s are in very very very small numbers. right now, the US has planned to purchase just 2 to 5 new F15s per year right now. lol. wtf. also, the new version F15s cost just as much as an F35A right now. only major benifit of the new F15s vs the US stealth aircraft is that the maintenance cost for the new F15s are much cheaper and have a better turn around rate to get em back in the air. so.....the aircraft that the US has in major numbers to be able to keep a large number of them in the air during a major air war, are 4th Gen aircraft.....and its mainly the older 4th generation versions, not a multi upgraded 4th Gen that are considered 4++ Gen. I know i wrote a lot but I wanted to get my thoughts across and maybe have someone who knows more than I do to maybe correct anything I wrote. (you DCS video gamers are not considered experts opinion makers on this topic to me. lol) I know you are all triggered now with me writing that DCS part, but try to set aside your big (I'm a real pilot now ego because I'm a, super ACE expert, better than a made up fighter pilot Maverick) and respond with kindness lop. good day
US can always resort for F-15 which it has tons of.
The F-35A has one of the largest internal fuel loads on a fighter. Using the F-35B for a comparison is unfair as it was made specifically for the Marines, who won't have the luxury of large airfields. The point of the F-35 is to be able to do missions safer and more efficiently than an F-15 or F-16. Once enemy air defenses are gone, then the US will uses more 4th gens
F-22 was not shut down due to cost overruns, F-22 was an air superiority fighter when US was fighting war on terror, there was no need of it at that time.
.... Andthe best variant is the su75 checkmate...! 😊😊😊👍
no
The difference between an F35 fighter and Saab's new Gripen E is the F35B STOVL version, of the rest, Saab's new Gripen E is superior in "almost everything", it's just not stealth but it has the lowest RCS-Radar ratio of all fighters of its 4th generation plus from 0.01 to 0.05.
There is no way any of us will know the true capabilities of these aircraft.
Damn, if the Gripen has an RCS of 0.01 to 0.05 (from your words), then you might as well call it as a stealth fighter. Unfortunately, RCS reduction wasn’t in the minds of engineers for the Gripen so, no it is definitely not stealthy.
Are you serious? Have you seen the low power rating of the JAS 39 E/F?
You have this power to weight rating for these fighters:
(higher = better).
Fuel
(payload) Rafale F35 F16 Gripen 39 E/F
0 1.4137 1.3984 1.4784 1.2617
700 1.3737 1.3672 1.4284 1.2130
2500 1.2806 1.2932 1.3141 1.1035
3500 1.2341 1.2555 1.2581 1.0508
3750 1.2230 1.2464 1.2449 1.0384
5000 1.1704 1.2028 1.1826 0.9805
6000 1.1314 1.1701 1.1371 0.9387
7000 1.0950 1.1391 1.0950 0.9003
7500 1.0777 1.1242 1.0751 0.8822
9125 1.0249 1.0784 1.0151 0.8283
10362 0.9880 1.0459 0.9737 0.7914
12000 0.9431 1.0058 0.9239 0.7474
13500 0.9055 0.9718 0.8825 0.7111
15000 0.8707 0.9399 0.8447 0.6782
18250 0.8038 0.8776 0.7729 0.6165
20900 0.7564 0.8325 0.7228 0.5739
From above we find that:
The F16 has to burn fuel down to a rather low 3,500 lbs to match the power to weight of the F35.
The duel engine Rafale fairs even worse!!! - has to burn fuel down to a bone dry 700 lbs to match the F35.
The poor Gripen? even with 0 payload - it FAILS to match ANY of the above fighers.
In fact, we see the Gripen with JUST a payload of 5,000 lbs now weighs MORE then total engine power! that means the Griipen with that small fuel load can't even fly straight up!!!
The f35 has a better thrust to weight (power to weight) then ALL OF the above fighters with a combat payload, and more amazing is that as you increase payloads, this remains so in favor of the F35.
Trying to pawn off a lighter smaller class of fighter, and play with the big boys? Well, if nations could buy that smaller and lighter airframe, and then simple try to load up with fuel, or bombs for range and to bring weapons to the fight? Then all nations would buy those smaller and lighter fighters (and then try to load them up with fuel + weapons) - but they attempted that joke over and over - and it DOES NOT WORK!!! There is a thing called physics and lack of power.
So, when the Swiss looked at the Gripen? Too low power - can't even fly straight up with just 5,000 lbs of fuel. Yes, some fighter that will make - so the Swiss choose the F35. Finland - same result.
What is even more amazing?
Typhoon: 115 million per copy
Rafale: 94 million per copy
F15: 88 million per copy
Gripen E/F : 85 million per copy
F35: 77.8 million per copy.
Sorry, the Gripen is higher cost, has a VERY low and poor thrust to weight, and is much worse then the F35. And WHEN you try to load up the Gripen for combat? Your done, your toast, and you have no power. It can't even fly straight up with a small payload of 5,000 lbs of fuel, and we NOT even added any weapons' or bombs yet!!!
Talk about cruel joke!!!
In fact, looking at the above power to weight table? We see that with just 10,000 lbs of payload, the ONLY fighter that has more power then total aircraft weight is the F35 (still over 1:1 power to weight rating). And in fact with 11,000 lbs, or even 12,000 lbs, the F35 can still fly straight up - and none of the other fighters in above can with those payloads.
so, the F35 has a higher and better thrust to weight then the F16, the duel engine Rafale, and of course by a HUGE amount the Gripen 39 e/f
Its RCS is based on no weapons. Think about that. It only has a thrust to weight ratio of 1:1 if it has no weapons and 5000 pounds of fuel. Gripen has the same range without external fuel tanks and can carry 17,000 lbs of fuel and bombs. The f35 can carry 40,000 pounds of fuel and bombs. The F35 will win in air to air first shot/kill over the Gripen every time, it just isnt as good of a dogfighter. It will also get far closer to enemy radars than the Gripen. The f35 has far better radar and electronic warfare excluding the EW Gripen version.
The F35 is also on its block4 upgrade, plus new and improved stealth coating. Its engine upgrades allow it to fly 30% farther, and give it 20% more thrust than its current engines.
As good as the Gripen is, it isnt close to the same capabilities. It DOES however give the best bang for the buck of any fighter jet in the world, so if price is your main concern, it wins.
@@watcher63034
Well, while Saab is well known for their low cost fighters? The Gripen JAS 39 E/F is not low cost.
Typhoon: 115 million per copy
Rafale: 94 million per copy
F15: 88 million per copy
Gripen JAS 39 E/F: 85 million per copy
F35: 77.8 million per copy
So, the F35 now cost less then the Gripen.
You missed out the yak that this is a copy of 🤣
Ah yes, the fabled F-35.
Prize Steed of the UNAF.
And yet, as of this past late Winter, the UNAF actually made changes in regards to the purchase and use of the F-35, as the costs of not only purchasing but the operational costs are still too high.
The UNAF is instead focusing on upgrading current F-16, F-15, F-22, A-10, which is actually cheaper then replacing them with a bunch of F-35.
Don't get me wrong, the F-35 has a lot of potential, but it still has high costs, issues that get fixed, but then new ones show up as new requirements add more stress on the systems via the DOD.
Sorry, but their are other aircraft that do the F-35 job better, cheaper, and are less likely to have issues. The only saving grace for the F-35 is its VTOL, and that's not a big deal to be honest.
ah yes I have spotted the “SU-57 is the strongest aircraft” person, I’m sure upgrading the A10 and f15 is DEFINITELYYYY worth it, A10 is only SLIGHTLY good if the enemy you’re fighting has an ak47 and wears sandals
Nah, the "only saving grace" for the F-35 is that when it flies into contested airspace, it does everything many, many times better than anything else. And that's a pretty f*** big deal in wartime. All the rest, the endurance of the airframe, economy and sortie rate, may eventually look up, if they throw enough money and time on it. And if it doesn't, well, it'll still have to do until there is something new, because there is no alternative.
The F-35 is cheaper than F-15s at this point, and the cost per hour is only 10k more expensive than the F-16, but F-16 doesn't take offboard sensors maintenance time and cost into account.
The A-10 is loved, and very survivable. But whenever it takes damage from strafing runs, it needs additional maintenance to patch it up. None of the other aircraft that you mentioned, save for the F-22, would be survivable in a near peer conflict.
The F-35 has better networking than any other aircraft, it has the best sensors, one of the best AESA radars out there, and is stealthier than the F-22 from the forward area apparently. It lacks only in supercruise and weapons payload. So there would be more cost effective ways of doing ground strikes for example, but these more cost effective solutions are not capable of operating alone or without a lot of support in contested air space
Lets get some numbers here.
First up, purchase cost The F15 is WAY more expensive to buy then the F35. F15: 88 million vs 77.8 million for F35.
However, it gets MUCH worse!!!
The F15 88 million is a "air show" ready to fly price.
F15: REAL cost:
Airframe: 73.2 (non stealth airframe)
Two engines 2 x 11.31 million each = 22.62 million
Eagle Passive Active Warning and Survivability system (EPAWSS = 13.6 million
IRST targeting pods: 10.9 million
So, we NOW have a F15 that can go to fight.
cost: 120 million.
F35 cost:
AirFrame: 53.4 million
engine: 12.8 million
Offensive and defensive electronics package (software): 12.2
Total: 78.4 million
so, F35: 78 millon
F15: 120 million
but it gets EVEN worse!!!!
The IRST pods, and the electronic software + system package in the F15 is NOT included in the per hour operating cost!!!! In other words, those system packages for the F15 have separate service contracts!!!
The simple matter is in the BEST cost compare, the F15 is at least a WHOPPING 40 millions more to buy!!!!
Now, lets go to the office of USA accounting, get the per hour rates for both F35, and the f15.
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Management and Comptroller: Year 2022
Office of USA accoutining
we see:
Air Force Numbers:
F-16C $10,866
F-16D $10,782
F-15C $23,537
F-15D $23,564
F-15E $18,799
F-15EX $16,467
F-22A $50,334
A-10C $8,130
F-35A $13,185
So, F35 is less then older F15's (no surprise), and STILL LESS then the new F15 per hour. But, as I stated, the F15 numbers do NOT include the per hour service contracts for their weapons pods and systems - they are SEPERATE cost items for the F15, but NOT for the F35.
The F35 is the WHOLE package, and includes everything ready to go and fight.
based on cost, or per hour cost to run?
The F35 easy beats the F15.
And the F15 has no ability to enter ANY air space that is contested with today's modern weapons - it will be seen and targeted in a instant.
The F35 has a lower and better RCS then even a F22 (F35 has better stealth), and the F35 represents the only fighter we have that can enter into such contested airspaces and will be able to survive.
So what is the UNAF? Do you mean the USAF? The most powerful Air Force in the world?
China Fujian aircraft carrier.
The F35I should never have been allowed. The whole point of the F35 program and the international partnership was that all models would be built the same, hence reducing costs and assuring sales to the partners. This included (or didnt include) access to the source code which is needed to do anything to the jet. The UK asked for access to this as the largest non-US partner and were refused point blank. Up rocks Israel and not only demands access to the sources code to add there own weapons but also to integrate there own sensors and ECM suites . That should have been a flat no but instead it was all handed over.
Baloney! Being the first nation likely to test them in actual combat rightly affords them privileges.
@@lokisgodhi Wrong, the first combat missions by F35's was flown by USMC F35B's
@@simongeorge2505 Not Wrong. The Israelis were far more likely to be the first nation to engage in combat with the F35 than anyone else. They're far more likely to be shot at and engage Syria or Russian assets.
But they made it better, in every aspect. Your nation's defence is more important than international partnership. Costs for Israel's upgrades are paid for by Israel, other F-35 users shouldn't be affected. In fact, they can possibly borrow some tech from Israel to enhance their own F-35s.
@@simongeorge2505 yes but Israel helped build a lot of other weapons for US.
2nd
35+22=57
F F su
su57 is bad
But they still run from Afghanistan
hail israel canada usa
Why the robot voice I hate that .
Trial flight 2006.
Programme start before y 2000.
Did Tiger win the war?
No.
Did sherman win it?
Yes.
Simplifying to the absurd.
Ww2 was around 80 years ago, you didn’t see the news on tv but heard it on radio. Car crashes were deadly and commercial jet aircraft did not exist. Tactics have changed
The design still derived from yakolev 141... a russian technology 😄😄😄
The first fighter aircraft used by a military with vtol was the harrier