Lockheed was given requirements that virtually guaranteed this aircraft would take longer to refine, cost more than estimated and be aerodynamically inferior to what it might have been - the B variant being the fly in the ointment. Given those factors and the aircraft's current dominance, I'd say they did a good job meeting those requirements. Hopefully, this will be the last time the government requires a 'do everything' aircraft.
Did not a smaller version of this same thing happen in the 60’s with what the F-111 was conceptualized to be? The F-35 B is the compromise too far that has significantly weakened the other versions. The F-35 is more a transportation system for a “weapons platform”.
Yea its a good job. But its a recipe for high costs. One should never look at the numbers like in this video because they are easy to argue for. "Our pilots need the best, it need to be survivable and so on" but if you turn that argument upside down. It becomes more clear. How many schools, teachers, doctors, hospitals, fully equiped fire departments could have been had for this money. How many died due to long waiting time for surgery and how many did not get access to qualified helthcare due to this projec. Just ask how many submarines US dont have as a result and the quality of the ones excisting. If this platform can be proven to win wars that saved more lives it migh be worth is but that need to be hell of a war. That impact civilians in the worst way possible.
@@Albertkallal I would be interested in how you define “commonality” and how you “count” an identified single “common” component to establish your percentage?! So at what granularity was an “item” established? How did you factor in “software” commonality and associated “cost” per some sort of “abstract unit”? You put in a lot of effort in your comment but some of the statements / premises need clarification.
So, even though Lockheed bought the rights to the YAK-141, the X-35B was actually not designed from the Yak-141. In fact by the time Lockheed got involved with Yakovlev the first X-35B prototype had already flown. Also the 3BSD design was part of Convair Model 200 which became a part of Lockheed when they bought Convair
It's deceptive to speak of the F-35 as costing $1.7 trillion. Over the years, for instance, Americans have spent around $1.5 trillion buying Toyotas. Would it make sense to refer to "Toyota -- The $1.5 trillion car"? Of course not. Same deal with the F-35. The F-35A is $40 million cheaper than the much less capable Eurofighter. Indeed, overall the F-35 (especially the A version) is a BARGAIN.
The bigger question would be: what if you spend these money on producing 3 different aircraft (3 separate airframes would mean no compromises that had to be made to fit everything in a relatively similar airframe of F-35 A-B-C) would you achieve a better result? Lot of military experts say "yes". And as a bonus you would've avoided having a huge fighter monopoly which is LM now.
3 different smaller multirole aircraft are gonna have fairly minimal differences assuming each manufacturer makes optimal decisions for the size class and role. Not to mention: 3 development cycles at the same time, potentially 3 engines, 3 manufacturing lines, 3 opportunities for the leadership in the military to royally screw everything over (imo the core of the majority of issues programs see, difficulty is the nature of innovation), amongst other things. You might see lower costs for each program, but altogether the numbers aren't gonna be pretty, especially if they're meant to last for as long as the 35 will. Should also be noted Lockheed is a bit more than just one company, and the other names in the MIC have their own holds over other areas of defense. By comparison over the pond, Saab and Dassault have Sweden and France respectively in their hand.
@@forzaelite1248 SAAB and Dassault are US companies? Or would you like also include Sukhoi in that list if we go global? 3 different development cycles, yes, however you would not need to construct a compromise of three and try to comply with different requirements. So far F-35 is the most expensive program that had to be restarted in late 00 due to lot of issues, 20 years since officially declared as the winner of JSF and yet still has issues and only having full scale production of A model. And I am honestly sick of this "Lawn Dart" mantra -- 20 years after the end of LWF program F-16 already saw action in multiple conflicts and proven to be quite good airplane. What F-35 did accomplish in 20 years? And speaking of the money: let's not forget that b/c of F-35 F-22 funding was cut which also going to result in the early retirement of the F-22 as well as F-15EX was bought. As well as Navy purchasing minimum of the airplanes and keeping Rhino as their primary guy till NGAD would be introduced. Which means they did not get what they wanted.
The Su-35 is an advance variant of the Su-27., not the MiG-29. The MiG-35 is an advanced variant of the MiG-29. I’m sure that mistake was an honest and momentary lapse in concentration.
GE Aviation has completed the detailed design process of its XA100 engine under the U.S. Air Force's Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) and it is extremely likely that the F-35 A & C will transition to it in the future to deal with a number of issues more than just cooling.
First, what is the source of the claim "The Joint Strike Fighter...will cost a staggering $1.7 trillion during its operational lifetime."? I remember the claims that the F-35 program in total will cost up to one trillion dollars over 50 years. That included: development, testing, production, pilot training, fuel, spare parts, maintenance, and basing costs. It turns out that number would be essentially the same for any fighter purchased at those numbers (2,000+) over 50 years. Now it's $1.7 trillion? Really? Says who?
The Government Accountability Office or GAO: "The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter program remains DOD’s most expensive weapon system program. It is estimated to cost over $1.7 trillion to buy, operate, and sustain " here's the link: www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105128-highlights.pdf#:~:text=Congress%20included%20provisions%20in%20two%20statutes%20for%20GAO,describes%20DOD%E2%80%99s%20plan%20for%20improving%20its%20logistics%20system.
@@forzaelite1248 The vast majority of the costs for aircraft are after-purchase costs. The fuel, maintenance, training, basing, etc. That suddenly doubled? And let's pretend they did double, they would double for any fighter we purchased. Given its capabilities, the F-35 is the best bargain for a fighter aircraft on the world market, which is why every serious air force is choosing it.
@@StereoSpace ''every serious airforce is choosing it'' Oh really? Which ones? The Taiwan fascists? Why did Brazil choose the Gripen? Why did some countries like germany cancel their order huh? CUZ USA CAN'T DELIVER THEM FAST ENOUGH, they take years to build, they are too cmplicated and only delivered fast enough to US airforce and navy....only NATO countries choose the F-35 because lockheed and USA backed them into a corner...
@@interpl6089 a lot to break down here but here goes: Australia, Britain, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany (never cancelled their order), Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, South Korea, and Switzerland, that's 15 countries on order or delivered and in active use, a couple of which aren't NATO members. Which one of their AFs would you not consider "serious" and why? Also, there are quite literally over 100 F-35s sitting in the final assembly plant waiting on the green light for touch ups and then delivery coming later this year.
@@LordEmperorHyperion what are you talking about? It’s cheaper than most Gen 4plus aircraft that compete with it. Plus the cost per flight hour is continuously falling. Also, considering the +20-1 kill ratio it’s getting in war game exercises, it will live to fly another day more often than competitors. Not to mention the fact that the others need a lot more support systems to remain survivable.
@@jimmyw7530 probably doesn't have one most negative comments about the F35 are just people parroting old issues before it got its updates, was fully combat ready. Older less capable aircraft cost as much or far more than the F35 in today's money it's really a powerful aircraft. It even gives F16s a run for its money in rate fights fully loaded for a mission. Another thing people miss when they try to bring up stats is the difference between a clean fighter and loaded 4gen fighters.
Currently working on a video for this myself (if I ever get it done), and the money side of things is so insanely misunderstood and misrepresented. The fact that so many are seeing the number for the ENTIRE lifespan of the F-35 with every cost included and just brushing it off at that just don't understand how these figures are worked out. If this same method of looking ahead in the budget, and accounting for inflation, wages, parts, maintenance, upgrades etc for any popular airframe such as the F-15 or A-10 would conclude similar if not worse results. Look forward to seeing your takes on this, love the content.
Thank you and I hope you enjoy the video and my take on the subject. Let me know if there are some of my animations you'd like to use with attribution for your video.
@@Mentaculus42 he's counting on commieboos clicking and saying "ha! You see?!" Followed up by some random b.s.. Or people like me that got pissed off at a b.s. number and were like WTF.
Very interesting start on this video. Pointing out some good and bads that are all highly relevant not dure one can dra any conclusions though. If you see it from a project/program pointof view its almost a catastrophe. Porly managed and the mentioned delays and changes in requirement is a good proof of that probably it would have been best to devide the development in to smaller steps in technology. Right not you conclusion is based on that all the issues will be resolved. They might very well be but its a bit sharp to have any strict conclusions. A last point regarding later procurements of the platform. No not at all true. Two of the one you mentioned did not have a competition and one of them had very strange situation where the main contender after previously been elected sudenly was excluded to take part. And germany had only one choice as it need to fullfill its commitment to the nuclear sharing policy and the process finnished with a sudden war on Ukraina. So no. That can on no way or form be framed like it was in this video.
The F-35 allows you to see the enemy first. Ask any fighter pilot what their #1 priority is for a warplane & they’ll 100% tell you SEE FIRST, SHOOT FIRST
In hostile defended airspace, the F-35 will have to contend with VHF ground radars that can detect it. They can't get a weapons lock on it, but they can vector interceptors, and these can be passive and stealthy to the F-35's radars. The result will be engagement at visual range against bogies approaching at angles optimal for the intercept. That is, it will come down to dogfighting again, and the F-35 is not optimized for that, nor does it carry sufficient A2A weapons.
You omitted the Electronic Warfare in the platforms it consolidated. The right way to look at this jet's price tag can be done looking at attack missions during Gulf-1 When A6 did bombing runs, it required ~5:1 aircraft for the AA, EW, etc, support aircraft... The most dangerous tasks went to the F-117, which did them absolutely by themselves. Shouldn't we be comparing the strike PACKAGE'S cost to that of the F-117..? And likewise, isn't that how the F-35 should be evaluated..? It's possible each F-35 can do what previously took 4 aircraft to do, or can be done instead of not at all.
Yes 100% worth the money. If we didn’t want it to cost so much, we shouldn’t have asked so much from it. Either way its become one of the most successful fighter programs in US history. With the cost of the F35A now being lower than many 4th generation platforms, there’s little doubt we got our money’s worth.
F-35 was designed multirole. Concept was both air to air to be first shooter and killer with Amraam from 60miles away against 4th gen fighters like Mig-29, Su-27 and air to ground attack from 45-60miles away to target SAM batteries using with JDAM in era 90s. But today reality is different. For air to air, question is that what is the engagement range of F-35 against su-57 or J-20 or a drone with RCS 0.01m2? Answer is 30miles. We don't know RCS of Su-57 and J-20 and radar performance but F-35's radar was designed almost 25 years ago with technology GaAs APG-81 and now F-35 is trying to update with GaN APG-85 (but not earlier than 2030 operational). So air to air with 2 numbers (1x F-35 and 1x su-57/J-20) 5th gen fighter (or 4.5gen su-57 and J-20 as you assumed) but more powerfull radar of adversary fighter than F-35, with compound effect of radar and RCS , it can be predicted that F-35 has no advantage as against 4th gen has. Almost F-35 air to air BVR advantage is balanced by Su-57 and J-20 or any air to air LO Drone (RCS 150mile range stealth kamikaze drones. No need to use fighter to neutralize a SAM battery using with high costly crewed F-35 even though B variant never will have HARM anti radiation missile. F-35''s engine enhancement effords such as ECU upgrade or similar has only capable to cover cooling needs of Block4. Not possible to use NGAD's adaptive cycle engine for F-35A/C variant due to weight and size so there will be no Block5 of F-35. Block5 means that more advanced and additional electronics and cooling demands than Block4. Today F-35's engine F135 is hottest turbofan engine of the planet (3600 °F of TIT). Also, USA knows this fact and wants to sell as much as can to its allies. For example But British Navy had cancelled to purchase more B variant after having experience about flight cost as 125k$ per hour (A variant around 30k$ per hour). It's not sustainable even today for B variant. Limited life not beyond Block4. It was good idea in 90s but has not a future advantage.
You need to update where you get your intel from as that rambling incoherent attempt at, well I'm not sure what your point was meant to be. Most of everything you said is incorrect. No I'm not going to explain or correct anything as it would be a waste of time. I'm not trying to be a jerk either.
@@TURKWING LOL I guess you were looking in the mirror when you replied. Either way thank you for making me smile. Hopefully I made you smile in return. Have a nice day.
Hate & Criticism about F-35 is better for F-35. Its very good motivation for Russia & its allies for not to research & invest their fortune on stealth design for upcoming decades.
Yes. Due to the fact that it can be tracked. Wooden aircraft, like the Mosquito of WW2, would still be better that over spending on, well let's just face it, stealth paint. If you don't have the money, you don't buy it. I would love to have a lot of things. As a vet, I know that our military/government has always overspent on every weapon we have ever had. Yes, some of that money goes to fund dark projects. How much deeper in debt to we get to the same most dangerous country to America? That's the real question you should be asking. Thank Mr. Nixon for selling our debt to China in 1974.
@@briantaylor6562 Sir you dropped your clown nose. If you think stealth is only about the paint you’re a very silly human. A Mosquito isn’t fit to tow an F35 let alone be better than it in literally any way.
@briantaylor6562 Seriously? You do understand the difference between tracking and locking, and holding lock enough for a firing solution. Stealth does not mean invisible...
What even is a trillion dollars? I don't think anyone in charge even looks at the budget. Money isn't money anymore. It's never going to be paid back so what difference does it make if it's $500B or a 45 quadrillion Star Wars Republic Credits. It's just stuff only worth the cost of ink and paper.
For a peace time best plane to be in at the start of the next war... Yes it is as good as a P-38, F-14 or F-22 but for different reasons... It's a dirt cheap Gen 5 you can buy today that is ok even good at every thing you could ask a combat aircraft to do... Sure we all would want to divide that money for an A-10,000, Darkstar fighter and Super tomcat.... But I don't think unless they all shard the same sensor suite and helmet they would not have that gen 6 senor fustion goodness... Yes the F-35 can't replace anything the USAF/USN has but I'd rather have it as an bulk frontline unit with the gen 4+++ and F-22s,A-10s,NGAD and B-21s then just more of them which all are limited.
Is this fighter worth the cost? No. No aircraft is worth 1.7 trillion. Nothing would be worth that, unless it secured the nations of the west against the real threats to them - weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. The F-35 is completely irrelevant to those. That doesn't mean that it's useless. No doubt it'll be good at what it does - stealth intrusion into defended enemy airspace - although the intrusions can't be deep, because fuel limitations. Still, that would be a satisfactory result, at a hundredth of the cost. For what it's actually cost, no way.
Have you ever watched an air show exhibition of a F-22 and then one of an F-35? A rather stark and obvious difference. The F-35 is NOT a knife fight in a phone booth type of aircraft, it is a long distance weapons platform that is also equipped to drop bombs on ground targets.
And the J-10? Mirage? Gripen? All the single engine fighters of WW1 and 2? Especially when 2 engines would come at the cost of space and engine cycle efficiency, there are reasons to have it and reasons not to have it, and when the reliability of single vs twin is just about the same and incredibly rare, it's hard to justify buying and maintaining twice asany engines
7:07 The Su-35 isn't an advanced version of the MiG-29! 🙄 Did you perhaps mean the Mig-35? It's errors like this that make me question the knowledge of this channel. The successor to the Mig-29 (which was widely exported) was supposed to be the Mig-35, which was aimed primarily for export, but there were delays in production and potential export customers (such as India) have opted for alternatives, such as the Dassault Rafale. The Su-35 is an advanced Su-27 (NATO code "Flanker"), which is the main air superiority fighter of the Russian Air Force. It hasn't been widely exported compared to earlier Russian planes, but variants of the earlier Su-30 were exported to China and India.
False! F-35 is not a fighter, nor 5th gen, nor one airplane. It's tree diffdrent strike aircrafts with limited range, speed, agility, weapons load and limited self defence. It's definitly not worth the extremely high costs. All other modern aircrafts have at least as good avionics. The VLO doesn't help it from being detected at long distances, by developed countries. VLO air frames is possible for every country to make today. But the cost in the form of less capabilities is not worth the small advantage of it.
Like the F-16 that it was designed to replace, the F-35 is expected to continue flying until at least the 2080s. Orders/service for thousands of foreign sales will easily cover the 1.7 Trillion.
@@interpl6089 they wont have 6th gen fighters for another 15-20 years, at least. If you think the F35 is expensive, the 6th gen platforms are going to be multiple times more expensive.
@@dr.j5642 Who cares about the 6th generation opposition fighters, the threat is in the surface to air missile SYSTEMS that are adapting to the F-35 just as they did against the F-117. The Chinese are the future BIG THREAT and they are more than competent to marginalize the F-35!
@@interpl6089 Given that Russia doesn't even have a proper fifth-gen and China's J-20 is only fifth-gen if you really stretch the definition, while the NGAD is expected to reach service early in the next decade and the F-35 is receiving continuous upgrades, this isn't likely to be a huge problem
The idea of sharing one platform for the Air Force, Navy and Marines is just idiotic. The F35 development project is a perfect example of too many chefs in the kitchen.
Worth every penny. You can't replace freedom. Autocratic rule is not an option, it is an insidious blight on humanity. Long live the F35 Lightning - rod of Democracy.
I'll call Bullshit on your F35 price tag of 80 million dollars 😂😂😂😂 for 80 million you can buy a second hand 737 NG😂😂😂Lockheed dont know how to make cheap aircrafts that why its a few F22 ever built and F35 is sold to American allies to share the cost.
All things considered, the F-35 (especially the F-35A) is a BARGAIN. For starters, it's $40 million cheaper than the less capable Eurofighter. Second, consider the F-35's 24-to-one kill ratio in Red Flag exercises. The F-15 never enjoyed a Red Flag kill ratio anywhere near that yet, in the real world, the F-15 enjoys a kill ratio of 104 kills to zero losses! Apparently, a fighter's real world kill ratio tends to dramatically exceed its Red Flag kill ratio, possibly by orders of magnitude. As such, the F-35's Red Flag kill ratio of 24 to one could translate into the F-35 enjoying a real world kill ratio of perhaps hundreds of kills for every loss. Third, as the Ukraine war shows, non-stealthy fighters are largely USELESS in highly contested environments especially when they operate without guidance from a fifth generation fighter like the F-35.
@@Mentaculus42 Shot down once after destroying hundreds of targets only because they were being so predictable that they could "mad dog" a missile over and hit isn't a failure of stealth, of anything it's a testament to it and a bit of tactical stupidity for lack of better phrasing. Turkey's situation is different: they were told either F-35 or S-400, not both at the same time unless they leaked the S-400 engineering. They bought the S-400 and didn't play ball so their order was cancelled.
@@forzaelite1248 Actually the F-117 could be tracked and was in the Gulf War by Coalition Ships. It was just a matter of time before the Serbians dialed in on the return signal. If you believe that it was taken down by basically shooting blind then that is your opinion which is not backed up by reports. What happened in Serbia is precisely why Turkey did not get the F-35 as they and their friends from Vlad Land would have had the ability to characterize the F-35 signal returns under controlled conditions and significantly weakened the evasion capabilities.
@@forzaelite1248 Right, it's cognitive bias, stubbornness, pride among others. Has stated, now you know or the more you know. I just happen to be on the program developmental test and I confidently correct people what they do after that is another story.
@@karldergrosse-333 it's not cope, it's developmental testing along with the mention in the video if you watched it. You obviously don't know anything about it otherwise you wouldn't sit so stubbornly with your cognitive bias not willing to learn anything. I will also point to you all of the flight hours compared to the mishaps that are far above anything before it. That you didn't know that did you?
Where have you been the past 4 years? Red flag dominant and customers are buying it so... Used in Syria by the IAF successfully 2017 up to present. It's doing well you just don't know about it. Also eavesdropped on Chinese Navy, let them know about it and sent them receipts that they got targeted and didn't know it.
ok so its a worthless pile of garbage: why are people buying it? "oh their paid to buy it!" WHAT COMPANY PAYS THEIR CUSTOMERS TO BUY THEIR PRODUCT!?!?!?!? "politics" oh so they just were like "hey little guy buy the f-35 pwease" and every country gave in???
The F22 was also a lot more expensive. If we ran the same numbers of the F22, the number would be way more like nearly double over a similar lifespan that we project for the F35
Lockheed was given requirements that virtually guaranteed this aircraft would take longer to refine, cost more than estimated and be aerodynamically inferior to what it might have been - the B variant being the fly in the ointment. Given those factors and the aircraft's current dominance, I'd say they did a good job meeting those requirements. Hopefully, this will be the last time the government requires a 'do everything' aircraft.
FAX
Did not a smaller version of this same thing happen in the 60’s with what the F-111 was conceptualized to be? The F-35 B is the compromise too far that has significantly weakened the other versions. The F-35 is more a transportation system for a “weapons platform”.
Yea its a good job. But its a recipe for high costs. One should never look at the numbers like in this video because they are easy to argue for. "Our pilots need the best, it need to be survivable and so on" but if you turn that argument upside down. It becomes more clear. How many schools, teachers, doctors, hospitals, fully equiped fire departments could have been had for this money. How many died due to long waiting time for surgery and how many did not get access to qualified helthcare due to this projec. Just ask how many submarines US dont have as a result and the quality of the ones excisting.
If this platform can be proven to win wars that saved more lives it migh be worth is but that need to be hell of a war. That impact civilians in the worst way possible.
@@perelfberg7415 You talk a big circle.
@@Albertkallal
I would be interested in how you define “commonality” and how you “count” an identified single “common” component to establish your percentage?! So at what granularity was an “item” established? How did you factor in “software” commonality and associated “cost” per some sort of “abstract unit”? You put in a lot of effort in your comment but some of the statements / premises need clarification.
The Su-35 is an advanced version of the Su-27. Not the Mig-29
he meant mig-35 and with this one is correct
@@rocketman1058 that makes more sense lol
@@rocketman1058 Nope, SU-35 has nothing to do with Mig-35
@@interpl6089 not, but Mig-35 is same as mig-29 with some alleged improvements
@@rocketman1058 yes, but SU-35 is based on the SU-27 platform
So, even though Lockheed bought the rights to the YAK-141, the X-35B was actually not designed from the Yak-141. In fact by the time Lockheed got involved with Yakovlev the first X-35B prototype had already flown. Also the 3BSD design was part of Convair Model 200 which became a part of Lockheed when they bought Convair
Excellent points, thank you!
Yup. They actually purchased the Yak just to gain additional test points and their experience in regards to the swivel mechanism of the engine.
the su57 isn't actually stealthy, it's just an expensive 4.5 gen interceptor
Indeed, just like the T14 tank it is essentially just a propaganda unicorn.
4.75 gen actually, like KF-21 and Turkey's KAAN!
it has stealth characteristic and is stealthier than most, but either way is still far worse then their US counterparts
5th gen characteristics is kinda obscure. Like a 5th fighter is supposed to supercruise but the f35 cannot.
8:33
Dude's literally describing Cyberpunk 2077.
Hahah. Playing the game while it was being develop
That's actually a great comparison and should have gone with that - thanks for commenting!
It's deceptive to speak of the F-35 as costing $1.7 trillion. Over the years, for instance, Americans have spent around $1.5 trillion buying Toyotas. Would it make sense to refer to "Toyota -- The $1.5 trillion car"? Of course not. Same deal with the F-35. The F-35A is $40 million cheaper than the much less capable Eurofighter. Indeed, overall the F-35 (especially the A version) is a BARGAIN.
But the operational cost is much much higher…
False equivalency.
The bigger question would be: what if you spend these money on producing 3 different aircraft (3 separate airframes would mean no compromises that had to be made to fit everything in a relatively similar airframe of F-35 A-B-C) would you achieve a better result? Lot of military experts say "yes". And as a bonus you would've avoided having a huge fighter monopoly which is LM now.
3 different smaller multirole aircraft are gonna have fairly minimal differences assuming each manufacturer makes optimal decisions for the size class and role. Not to mention: 3 development cycles at the same time, potentially 3 engines, 3 manufacturing lines, 3 opportunities for the leadership in the military to royally screw everything over (imo the core of the majority of issues programs see, difficulty is the nature of innovation), amongst other things. You might see lower costs for each program, but altogether the numbers aren't gonna be pretty, especially if they're meant to last for as long as the 35 will.
Should also be noted Lockheed is a bit more than just one company, and the other names in the MIC have their own holds over other areas of defense. By comparison over the pond, Saab and Dassault have Sweden and France respectively in their hand.
@@forzaelite1248 SAAB and Dassault are US companies? Or would you like also include Sukhoi in that list if we go global?
3 different development cycles, yes, however you would not need to construct a compromise of three and try to comply with different requirements. So far F-35 is the most expensive program that had to be restarted in late 00 due to lot of issues, 20 years since officially declared as the winner of JSF and yet still has issues and only having full scale production of A model. And I am honestly sick of this "Lawn Dart" mantra -- 20 years after the end of LWF program F-16 already saw action in multiple conflicts and proven to be quite good airplane. What F-35 did accomplish in 20 years? And speaking of the money: let's not forget that b/c of F-35 F-22 funding was cut which also going to result in the early retirement of the F-22 as well as F-15EX was bought. As well as Navy purchasing minimum of the airplanes and keeping Rhino as their primary guy till NGAD would be introduced. Which means they did not get what they wanted.
Indeed a lot of this $1.7 trillion is standard operational costs of an air force with airplanes
The Su-35 is an advance variant of the Su-27., not the MiG-29. The MiG-35 is an advanced variant of the MiG-29. I’m sure that mistake was an honest and momentary lapse in concentration.
Indeed it was, and thank you for pointing that out - I meant to say MiG-35 instead of Su-35. Cheers!
GE Aviation has completed the detailed design process of its XA100 engine under the U.S. Air Force's Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) and it is extremely likely that the F-35 A & C will transition to it in the future to deal with a number of issues more than just cooling.
First, what is the source of the claim "The Joint Strike Fighter...will cost a staggering $1.7 trillion during its operational lifetime."? I remember the claims that the F-35 program in total will cost up to one trillion dollars over 50 years. That included: development, testing, production, pilot training, fuel, spare parts, maintenance, and basing costs. It turns out that number would be essentially the same for any fighter purchased at those numbers (2,000+) over 50 years. Now it's $1.7 trillion? Really? Says who?
I think DoD estimates but they used to be a range of 1.1 to 1.7 and they expected about 1.5; the news only sells if it's salacious....
The Government Accountability Office or GAO: "The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter program remains DOD’s most expensive weapon system program. It is estimated to cost over $1.7 trillion to buy, operate, and sustain " here's the link: www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105128-highlights.pdf#:~:text=Congress%20included%20provisions%20in%20two%20statutes%20for%20GAO,describes%20DOD%E2%80%99s%20plan%20for%20improving%20its%20logistics%20system.
@@forzaelite1248 The vast majority of the costs for aircraft are after-purchase costs. The fuel, maintenance, training, basing, etc. That suddenly doubled? And let's pretend they did double, they would double for any fighter we purchased. Given its capabilities, the F-35 is the best bargain for a fighter aircraft on the world market, which is why every serious air force is choosing it.
@@StereoSpace ''every serious airforce is choosing it'' Oh really? Which ones? The Taiwan fascists? Why did Brazil choose the Gripen? Why did some countries like germany cancel their order huh? CUZ USA CAN'T DELIVER THEM FAST ENOUGH, they take years to build, they are too cmplicated and only delivered fast enough to US airforce and navy....only NATO countries choose the F-35 because lockheed and USA backed them into a corner...
@@interpl6089 a lot to break down here but here goes:
Australia, Britain, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany (never cancelled their order), Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, South Korea, and Switzerland, that's 15 countries on order or delivered and in active use, a couple of which aren't NATO members. Which one of their AFs would you not consider "serious" and why?
Also, there are quite literally over 100 F-35s sitting in the final assembly plant waiting on the green light for touch ups and then delivery coming later this year.
The amount of Nation's involved is just as staggering ;)👍
I feel that is the biggest indicator of success for the program - thanks again for commenting - now you know!
@@PilotPhotog very true! Thanks again!
Great video! Despite the development issues the F-35 is so far ahead of the competition it’s well worth the cost.
Until you are paying for it , all the best getting the most of it if you can't use it to fulfill it's purpose
@@LordEmperorHyperion what are you talking about? It’s cheaper than most Gen 4plus aircraft that compete with it. Plus the cost per flight hour is continuously falling. Also, considering the +20-1 kill ratio it’s getting in war game exercises, it will live to fly another day more often than competitors. Not to mention the fact that the others need a lot more support systems to remain survivable.
@@LordEmperorHyperion just curious, what purpose do you think the F-35 is not fulfilling?
@@jimmyw7530 probably doesn't have one most negative comments about the F35 are just people parroting old issues before it got its updates, was fully combat ready. Older less capable aircraft cost as much or far more than the F35 in today's money it's really a powerful aircraft. It even gives F16s a run for its money in rate fights fully loaded for a mission. Another thing people miss when they try to bring up stats is the difference between a clean fighter and loaded 4gen fighters.
@@specrtre indeed, well said. Stats alone rarely give the full and accurate picture.
The analogy at the start of the video is actually pretty easy - just stuff a Mercedes interior into a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo.
Currently working on a video for this myself (if I ever get it done), and the money side of things is so insanely misunderstood and misrepresented. The fact that so many are seeing the number for the ENTIRE lifespan of the F-35 with every cost included and just brushing it off at that just don't understand how these figures are worked out. If this same method of looking ahead in the budget, and accounting for inflation, wages, parts, maintenance, upgrades etc for any popular airframe such as the F-15 or A-10 would conclude similar if not worse results.
Look forward to seeing your takes on this, love the content.
Thank you and I hope you enjoy the video and my take on the subject. Let me know if there are some of my animations you'd like to use with attribution for your video.
So is it not disingenuous to use the total program cost as a clickbait title?!?!
@@Mentaculus42 he's counting on commieboos clicking and saying "ha! You see?!" Followed up by some random b.s.. Or people like me that got pissed off at a b.s. number and were like WTF.
"su 35, an advanced version of their mig 29"
??????????
i presume you meant mig 35????????
Correct, I misspoke, thank you for pointing that out. MiG-35 not Su-35, cheers!
Love the work, keep it up!
Thanks, will do!
Very interesting start on this video. Pointing out some good and bads that are all highly relevant not dure one can dra any conclusions though. If you see it from a project/program pointof view its almost a catastrophe. Porly managed and the mentioned delays and changes in requirement is a good proof of that probably it would have been best to devide the development in to smaller steps in technology. Right not you conclusion is based on that all the issues will be resolved. They might very well be but its a bit sharp to have any strict conclusions.
A last point regarding later procurements of the platform. No not at all true. Two of the one you mentioned did not have a competition and one of them had very strange situation where the main contender after previously been elected sudenly was excluded to take part. And germany had only one choice as it need to fullfill its commitment to the nuclear sharing policy and the process finnished with a sudden war on Ukraina. So no. That can on no way or form be framed like it was in this video.
The F-35 allows you to see the enemy first. Ask any fighter pilot what their #1 priority is for a warplane & they’ll 100% tell you SEE FIRST, SHOOT FIRST
In hostile defended airspace, the F-35 will have to contend with VHF ground radars that can detect it. They can't get a weapons lock on it, but they can vector interceptors, and these can be passive and stealthy to the F-35's radars. The result will be engagement at visual range against bogies approaching at angles optimal for the intercept. That is, it will come down to dogfighting again, and the F-35 is not optimized for that, nor does it carry sufficient A2A weapons.
7:14 that's a MIG not a SU35 when Im not mistaken... and the SU35 is not an upgraded version of the MIG29 but of the SU27 when Im not mistaken...
You are correct, I accidentally said Su-35 instead of MiG-35. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Romania announced its intention to get some
You omitted the Electronic Warfare in the platforms it consolidated.
The right way to look at this jet's price tag can be done looking at attack missions during Gulf-1
When A6 did bombing runs, it required ~5:1 aircraft for the AA, EW, etc, support aircraft...
The most dangerous tasks went to the F-117, which did them absolutely by themselves.
Shouldn't we be comparing the strike PACKAGE'S cost to that of the F-117..?
And likewise, isn't that how the F-35 should be evaluated..?
It's possible each F-35 can do what previously took 4 aircraft to do, or can be done instead of not at all.
I did a 50 page research paper on this topic and all I can say is that the F-35 is the best fighter jet that the U.S. has ever produced.
Can you link it? I'd be interested to see what you learned/discussed
@@forzaelite1248 I’m not sure you are going to be able to see it, it’s on my university’s library, let me see
@@forzaelite1248 same
Yes 100% worth the money. If we didn’t want it to cost so much, we shouldn’t have asked so much from it. Either way its become one of the most successful fighter programs in US history. With the cost of the F35A now being lower than many 4th generation platforms, there’s little doubt we got our money’s worth.
Still not combat proven.
I thought the Yak lineage was a myth. Yeah Dalek14mc MK2 thoroughly debunked this
How much USA spend money to update and upgrades all F35s
Well, it's included in the price and did you happen to notice the price came down way down. Below 90 million for a CTOL.
F-35 was designed multirole. Concept was both air to air to be first shooter and killer with Amraam from 60miles away against 4th gen fighters like Mig-29, Su-27 and air to ground attack from 45-60miles away to target SAM batteries using with JDAM in era 90s.
But today reality is different. For air to air, question is that what is the engagement range of F-35 against su-57 or J-20 or a drone with RCS 0.01m2? Answer is 30miles. We don't know RCS of Su-57 and J-20 and radar performance but F-35's radar was designed almost 25 years ago with technology GaAs APG-81 and now F-35 is trying to update with GaN APG-85 (but not earlier than 2030 operational). So air to air with 2 numbers (1x F-35 and 1x su-57/J-20) 5th gen fighter (or 4.5gen su-57 and J-20 as you assumed) but more powerfull radar of adversary fighter than F-35, with compound effect of radar and RCS , it can be predicted that F-35 has no advantage as against 4th gen has. Almost F-35 air to air BVR advantage is balanced by Su-57 and J-20 or any air to air LO Drone (RCS 150mile range stealth kamikaze drones. No need to use fighter to neutralize a SAM battery using with high costly crewed F-35 even though B variant never will have HARM anti radiation missile.
F-35''s engine enhancement effords such as ECU upgrade or similar has only capable to cover cooling needs of Block4. Not possible to use NGAD's adaptive cycle engine for F-35A/C variant due to weight and size so there will be no Block5 of F-35. Block5 means that more advanced and additional electronics and cooling demands than Block4. Today F-35's engine F135 is hottest turbofan engine of the planet (3600 °F of TIT). Also, USA knows this fact and wants to sell as much as can to its allies. For example But British Navy had cancelled to purchase more B variant after having experience about flight cost as 125k$ per hour (A variant around 30k$ per hour). It's not sustainable even today for B variant. Limited life not beyond Block4. It was good idea in 90s but has not a future advantage.
You need to update where you get your intel from as that rambling incoherent attempt at, well I'm not sure what your point was meant to be. Most of everything you said is incorrect. No I'm not going to explain or correct anything as it would be a waste of time. I'm not trying to be a jerk either.
@@djvertigo72 you said nothing technically. It's normal since you dont know tecnical facts about this topic.
@@TURKWING LOL I guess you were looking in the mirror when you replied. Either way thank you for making me smile. Hopefully I made you smile in return. Have a nice day.
Hate & Criticism about F-35 is better for F-35. Its very good motivation for Russia & its allies for not to research & invest their fortune on stealth design for upcoming decades.
Any country that has F-16's...
Wait...the lift tech on the B was designed by the Russians?
Nice content❤
The real question is can you afford not to have it.
Yes. Due to the fact that it can be tracked. Wooden aircraft, like the Mosquito of WW2, would still be better that over spending on, well let's just face it, stealth paint. If you don't have the money, you don't buy it. I would love to have a lot of things. As a vet, I know that our military/government has always overspent on every weapon we have ever had. Yes, some of that money goes to fund dark projects. How much deeper in debt to we get to the same most dangerous country to America? That's the real question you should be asking. Thank Mr. Nixon for selling our debt to China in 1974.
@@briantaylor6562 Sir you dropped your clown nose. If you think stealth is only about the paint you’re a very silly human. A Mosquito isn’t fit to tow an F35 let alone be better than it in literally any way.
Can you avoid bribery and support aerospace companies in your continent?
@briantaylor6562 Seriously? You do understand the difference between tracking and locking, and holding lock enough for a firing solution. Stealth does not mean invisible...
@@briantaylor6562where did you get that from? NBC? Rachel maddow? Tell us more.
What even is a trillion dollars? I don't think anyone in charge even looks at the budget. Money isn't money anymore. It's never going to be paid back so what difference does it make if it's $500B or a 45 quadrillion Star Wars Republic Credits. It's just stuff only worth the cost of ink and paper.
1.7 trillion is roughly 1 budget year for the US government
or
Roughly 2 budget years of the total US military budget
Uh no, not even close. US budget was 6.3 trillion last year. 4.4 in 2019. 1.7 was the 1998 and 1999 budget
@@DefaultProphet you are correct. 1.7 trillion was the “discretionary” spending budget, roughly half of which is for defense.
For a peace time best plane to be in at the start of the next war... Yes it is as good as a P-38, F-14 or F-22 but for different reasons... It's a dirt cheap Gen 5 you can buy today that is ok even good at every thing you could ask a combat aircraft to do... Sure we all would want to divide that money for an A-10,000, Darkstar fighter and Super tomcat.... But I don't think unless they all shard the same sensor suite and helmet they would not have that gen 6 senor fustion goodness... Yes the F-35 can't replace anything the USAF/USN has but I'd rather have it as an bulk frontline unit with the gen 4+++ and F-22s,A-10s,NGAD and B-21s then just more of them which all are limited.
Is this fighter worth the cost? No. No aircraft is worth 1.7 trillion. Nothing would be worth that, unless it secured the nations of the west against the real threats to them - weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. The F-35 is completely irrelevant to those. That doesn't mean that it's useless. No doubt it'll be good at what it does - stealth intrusion into defended enemy airspace - although the intrusions can't be deep, because fuel limitations. Still, that would be a satisfactory result, at a hundredth of the cost. For what it's actually cost, no way.
Anyone who doubts that the F-35 is worth it should put some skin in the game & go 1-on-1 with it. If you lose, you die.😂
Spoken like a video gamer.
@@FIREBRAND38 Let's play a game. The next time there's a real fight & an opponent loses to an F-35, you self-inflict gunshot wound to your head.
Have you ever watched an air show exhibition of a F-22 and then one of an F-35? A rather stark and obvious difference. The F-35 is NOT a knife fight in a phone booth type of aircraft, it is a long distance weapons platform that is also equipped to drop bombs on ground targets.
@@Mentaculus42either way the F-35 would beat the F-22 on BVR, EODAS would detect it before radar. But they would DESTROY the enemy working together.
F-35s don't need to dogfight/knife fight. They can use their off-bore targeting ability to shoot even targets BEHIND THEM. This ain't Top Gun son.
Not if the engine can’t cool down, why only one engine rest of the planes have at least two?
Like the f16?
And the J-10? Mirage? Gripen? All the single engine fighters of WW1 and 2? Especially when 2 engines would come at the cost of space and engine cycle efficiency, there are reasons to have it and reasons not to have it, and when the reliability of single vs twin is just about the same and incredibly rare, it's hard to justify buying and maintaining twice asany engines
Single engine, so what so is the A4 and the A7 and the F8, That's when engines were not reliable. when's the last time the engine quit on the F-35?
Please take cold aisberg with red under coat to proceed with F-35B LIGHTNING 11 LOCKHEED LUCKY MARTINES STLETH NASA USA
NGO
7:07 The Su-35 isn't an advanced version of the MiG-29! 🙄 Did you perhaps mean the Mig-35?
It's errors like this that make me question the knowledge of this channel.
The successor to the Mig-29 (which was widely exported) was supposed to be the Mig-35, which was aimed primarily for export, but there were delays in production and potential export customers (such as India) have opted for alternatives, such as the Dassault Rafale.
The Su-35 is an advanced Su-27 (NATO code "Flanker"), which is the main air superiority fighter of the Russian Air Force. It hasn't been widely exported compared to earlier Russian planes, but variants of the earlier Su-30 were exported to China and India.
I don't care if US have health care as long as they make these amazing machines for us, haha
Too many analogies in the beginning.
Thanks for the feedback, I'll use less analogies in the next video, and thank you for being a long-time subscriber!
A rabbit hole and just another threat to the taxpayers National Security.
False! F-35 is not a fighter, nor 5th gen, nor one airplane. It's tree diffdrent strike aircrafts with limited range, speed, agility, weapons load and limited self defence. It's definitly not worth the extremely high costs. All other modern aircrafts have at least as good avionics. The VLO doesn't help it from being detected at long distances, by developed countries. VLO air frames is possible for every country to make today. But the cost in the form of less capabilities is not worth the small advantage of it.
Like the F-16 that it was designed to replace, the F-35 is expected to continue flying until at least the 2080s. Orders/service for thousands of foreign sales will easily cover the 1.7 Trillion.
How will it fare against 6th gen aircraft from China and Russia? Who knows...but it's costs are too great to keep it flying beyond 2040s
@@interpl6089 they wont have 6th gen fighters for another 15-20 years, at least. If you think the F35 is expensive, the 6th gen platforms are going to be multiple times more expensive.
@@dr.j5642
Who cares about the 6th generation opposition fighters, the threat is in the surface to air missile SYSTEMS that are adapting to the F-35 just as they did against the F-117. The Chinese are the future BIG THREAT and they are more than competent to marginalize the F-35!
@@interpl6089 Given that Russia doesn't even have a proper fifth-gen and China's J-20 is only fifth-gen if you really stretch the definition, while the NGAD is expected to reach service early in the next decade and the F-35 is receiving continuous upgrades, this isn't likely to be a huge problem
The Russian bear is terrified of F-16s being given to Ukraine. F-16s is 1970s tech from 50 YEARS AGO! 😄
It's a high price that in my humble opinion will pay itself in the long run. Stunning piece of work Juan.👍
Thanks Juan! Always appreciate your comments
The F35 is far advanced than a motor vehicle. Should build one like a space ship far more advanced technology. God Speed to Ukraine.
The idea of sharing one platform for the Air Force, Navy and Marines is just idiotic. The F35 development project is a perfect example of too many chefs in the kitchen.
Worth every penny. You can't replace freedom. Autocratic rule is not an option, it is an insidious blight on humanity. Long live the F35 Lightning - rod of Democracy.
Reth kidge yow h'we, mr sharktooth.@@mr.sharktooth
I'll call Bullshit on your F35 price tag of 80 million dollars 😂😂😂😂 for 80 million you can buy a second hand 737 NG😂😂😂Lockheed dont know how to make cheap aircrafts that why its a few F22 ever built and F35 is sold to American allies to share the cost.
All things considered, the F-35 (especially the F-35A) is a BARGAIN. For starters, it's $40 million cheaper than the less capable Eurofighter. Second, consider the F-35's 24-to-one kill ratio in Red Flag exercises. The F-15 never enjoyed a Red Flag kill ratio anywhere near that yet, in the real world, the F-15 enjoys a kill ratio of 104 kills to zero losses! Apparently, a fighter's real world kill ratio tends to dramatically exceed its Red Flag kill ratio, possibly by orders of magnitude. As such, the F-35's Red Flag kill ratio of 24 to one could translate into the F-35 enjoying a real world kill ratio of perhaps hundreds of kills for every loss. Third, as the Ukraine war shows, non-stealthy fighters are largely USELESS in highly contested environments especially when they operate without guidance from a fifth generation fighter like the F-35.
Don’t forget that the F-117 got shot down by ground to air missiles. Is this not the very issue that the F-35 was not sold to Turkey?
@@Mentaculus42 Shot down once after destroying hundreds of targets only because they were being so predictable that they could "mad dog" a missile over and hit isn't a failure of stealth, of anything it's a testament to it and a bit of tactical stupidity for lack of better phrasing.
Turkey's situation is different: they were told either F-35 or S-400, not both at the same time unless they leaked the S-400 engineering. They bought the S-400 and didn't play ball so their order was cancelled.
@@forzaelite1248
Actually the F-117 could be tracked and was in the Gulf War by Coalition Ships. It was just a matter of time before the Serbians dialed in on the return signal. If you believe that it was taken down by basically shooting blind then that is your opinion which is not backed up by reports. What happened in Serbia is precisely why Turkey did not get the F-35 as they and their friends from Vlad Land would have had the ability to characterize the F-35 signal returns under controlled conditions and significantly weakened the evasion capabilities.
In a word, no
Sea red flag for best results. Update your fixed mindset if you have one.
@@JSFGuy I quite literally had someone tell me "yeah well you can't change my mind", can't argue with emotions no matter how much you know 😁
@@forzaelite1248 Right, it's cognitive bias, stubbornness, pride among others. Has stated, now you know or the more you know. I just happen to be on the program developmental test and I confidently correct people what they do after that is another story.
@@JSFGuy The cope for the f-35 is so insane. I guess people really don't care how the federal government pisses your hard earned money down the drain.
@@karldergrosse-333 it's not cope, it's developmental testing along with the mention in the video if you watched it. You obviously don't know anything about it otherwise you wouldn't sit so stubbornly with your cognitive bias not willing to learn anything. I will also point to you all of the flight hours compared to the mishaps that are far above anything before it. That you didn't know that did you?
This plane is such a dud. Good thing we spent 2 trillion dollars on it.
People seem to be buying them.
You’re a disgrace to the Primarch
@@ChironZore politicians love bribery
Where have you been the past 4 years? Red flag dominant and customers are buying it so... Used in Syria by the IAF successfully 2017 up to present. It's doing well you just don't know about it. Also eavesdropped on Chinese Navy, let them know about it and sent them receipts that they got targeted and didn't know it.
ok so its a worthless pile of garbage:
why are people buying it?
"oh their paid to buy it!"
WHAT COMPANY PAYS THEIR CUSTOMERS TO BUY THEIR PRODUCT!?!?!?!?
"politics"
oh so they just were like "hey little guy buy the f-35 pwease" and every country gave in???
Overrated money pit. The F22 was just fine
See red flag for best results and update your rather baseless outdated opinion.
The F22 was also a lot more expensive. If we ran the same numbers of the F22, the number would be way more like nearly double over a similar lifespan that we project for the F35
@@cj64343 I dont care if you don’t agree. We had an amazing plane already we didnt need this crap
@@JSFGuy no I wont. I still think we didnt need it
@@emaheiwa8174 what amazing plane did we have that we don't need-JSF?
It wasn’t 1.7 Trillion. Investigate money laundering.
Yes, yes it is.