Thank you for all the support on this video guys! Really nice after taking a break. Just to clear things up - the $1.6 Trillion stat is for the entire service life of the program, from inception to retirement in around 2070…

@Milo-id9qd

3 ай бұрын

Afaik, Israel is not a partner nation, as they did not pitch in with the development of the aircraft. They just to happen to be very influential in US politics.

@christophermonani-mz6im

3 ай бұрын

Appreciate you very much making this known. It is an important detail in characterizing the “$1.6 trillion” figure accurately.

@jaybravo2199

3 ай бұрын

Great video, and thanks for the correction. Quality content.

@jg3000

3 ай бұрын

F-35 cannot VTOL. It can STOVL. Short take off, vertical landing. Kind of failed in that.

@RedWrenchFilms

3 ай бұрын

@@jg3000 It VTOL’s in the video. It’s capable of doing so.

1.7 Trillion is the ESTIMATED LIFETIME COST, thats 50 years worth of fuel, maintenance cost, training cost, not to mention buying the actual aircraft.

@aymonfoxc1442

3 ай бұрын

Adjusted for inflation, the per unit cost of the F-35 is significantly cheaper than the F-15 was.

@Utubesuperstar

3 ай бұрын

It is also the cost of every single support, logistical, and training asset and personnel associated with the program. So that includes salaries benefits etc

@BARelement

3 ай бұрын

So it’ll cost more when account for buying the actual aircraft?…

@bleachorange

3 ай бұрын

It also includes the estimated lifetime upgrade costs for the aircraft - whenever they update the aircraft with more modern equipment.

@DefaultProphet

3 ай бұрын

@@BARelementNo that’s in the 1.7 trillion already

The purpose of the ski jump is not to save fuel, it is to allow takeoff at a heavier weight than can be accomplished vertically.

@mosesracal6758

3 ай бұрын

Originally maybe (for the Harriers carrying more fuel) but since the UK is operating the F-35B which can already take off vertically even if it is fully combat loaded, the ski jump serves to save fuel in this context.

@gort8203

3 ай бұрын

@@mosesracal6758 Fuel savings are not the purpose of the ski jump, fuel savings are incidental. The purpose is to be able to lift more weight off the deck. Even if the airplane is not heavily loaded there is no reason to make a VTOL takeoff when the ramp is there.

@eco.

3 ай бұрын

not to mention less maintenance on a catapult system

@BrySkye

3 ай бұрын

@@mosesracal6758 An F-35B is not going to perform a VTO with a full combat load unless its fuel tanks are practically empty. In fact, an F-35B cannot really perform a VTO with full internal fuel and no weapons at all. But that's fine, VTO was never a design requirement. The purpose of a ski jump remains exactly the same as it was with the Harrier. To allow takeoff at a higher weight, which translates to being able to carry more weapons AND fuel for a given takeoff run versus a flat deck. It's not that VTO's really use that much more fuel, it's just that you end up having to make sure you load a LOT less fuel in the first place so the aircraft is not too heavy. The whole point for the British pushing for "Shipborne rolling vertical landing" instead of purely vertical ones in the F-35B is to allow it land on the deck with a higher payload as well, rather than jettisoning weapons into the sea before recovery.

@achillesa5894

3 ай бұрын

@@mosesracal6758 Wait, I believe the B can't take off vertically at full combat load, only at very reduced load

The 30 percent parts commonality between the legacy Hornet and the Super Hornets is all bolt-on, modular parts. The airframes themselves are different, and rightfully it's best considered to be an entirely new aircraft that just is SIMILAR to the legacy Hornet. Somehow Boeing managed to con Congress into accepting it as an upgrade and not an all new aircraft, thus avoiding the competitive bidding process that really should have happened.

@smalltime0

3 ай бұрын

I might be misremembering something about it, but it also meant that the Navy handled approvals for foreign sales - rather than it needing to be specifically approved by congress to be eligible for the Foreign Military Sales program, or something like that

@carlosandleon

3 ай бұрын

This. As soon as I saw that number I thought Bullshit. all the proportions are out of whack.

@c182SkylaneRG

3 ай бұрын

It's easy to fool a bunch of aging lawyers who don't know anything about airplanes by making them look the same on the outside. Likely the exact reason that the Super Hornet looks so very similar externally, despite having no parts commonality with its smaller predecessor on the base airframe.

@Mythxiir

3 ай бұрын

It’s the Boeing way after all

@lutze5086

3 ай бұрын

*Somehow*

0:19 Wrong. It's not 1.7trillion for the US taxpayer. That includes the full life of the aircraft and all the other countries paying for theirs. I am amazed people literally refuse to understand this. The UK makes and maintains 20% of all of them too.

@ThatSpecificIndividual

3 ай бұрын

Not to mention it would cost more than 5 trillion to maintain and upgrade all the aircraft it's replacing.

@EwanMarshall

3 ай бұрын

indeed, and the idea the UK can't customize it if they wanted to is also wrong, in fact UK plans are to have them launching meteor missiles in the next few years. Being primary partner it is just why would we do it alone rather than use the same perfectly functional software and such? I would also point out that the F-35C was also designed for the British Queen Elizabeth class carrier in CATOBAR configuration, however this is not how we built the 2 carriers of the class at this point.

@InsufficientGravitas

2 ай бұрын

@@EwanMarshall They also got the aim-132 asraam and plan to integrate Spear 3

@EwanMarshall

2 ай бұрын

@@InsufficientGravitasOh, for sure, just was giving an example of a non-US weapon the UK is integrating with the plarform :D

@criticalevent

2 ай бұрын

The gymnastics you guys do to justify an 80% budget overrun is a real testament to how well Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon conspired to design this program to be completely, internationally, unkillible and impossible to predict the lifetime cost of. See you next year when that number is $1.9 Trillion.

Afaik the 20% commonality figure covers all 3 variants, which adds a nuance that there's considerable more commonality between A & B or A & C. The 20% wouldn't cover the engine for example, despite A & C models carrying the exact same one, while B had a modified version the still retains some internal parts nevertheless.

@rdwolv3377

3 ай бұрын

Do you know what the numbers are between two?

@tsubadaikhan6332

3 ай бұрын

And while it's 20% parts commonality across all 3, what is the parts commonality for the wearing components? As long as the engines are similar, that reduces your logistical tail mightily. And maybe they put computers in different parts of the plane, and need different leads and harnesses, as long as they're all compatible with the same software, again your costs drop dramatically. And having the same Radars etc.? To get real cost savings you'd need to see quartermasters and acquisition Officers. Having 8 different Planes from 4 different suppliers, in all their own variants is probably a nightmare compared to this admittedly complicated setup.

@DBravo29er

3 ай бұрын

It's actually far lower. The Dod only claimed 17% PC across all three models in 2021. Several analysts have stated that this could actually get closer to 10% by the end of Block IV deployment.

@jyy9624

3 ай бұрын

@@tsubadaikhan6332 but the whole point was to have distributed manufacturing of common parts for a networked airframe, so why would there be commonality issues?

@JonMartinYXD

3 ай бұрын

@@jyy9624 That wasn't the point. The distributed manufacturing has always been a purely political requirement. Every single US congressional district has some business contributing to the F-35 program. Or to put it another way, the F-35 program is spending taxpayer money in every single US congressional district. A few crumbs go to partner nations, depending on how many of their taxpayer pounds/euros/krones/loonies/dollarydoos went into the program's development.

I think the F-35 might actually be the first prominent example of an airframe managing to fulfil all the initial requests of all of the different branches. *edit* because people keep bringing it up yes I am aware that all 3 branches accepted the F-4 phantom but back in the 60s and early 70s the 3 branches didn't have such divergent requirements for aircraft and the F-4 was the first of its kind for a very ahead of its time Multi-role combat aircraft so it was pretty simple for it to get adopted by all the branches because it was either adopt that or wait a decade or more to be using something that was even remotely close in capabilities. things like the F-14, the F-15, the F-111 are all examples of multirole fighters that failed to meet the requirements of the different branches yet they all tried to do so. (these are all multirole strike fighters too)

@DanielDracohun

3 ай бұрын

Despite all the trashing the program gotten, pretty sure its the most succesfull major program that the US had in the last 30 or so years.

@bryanhoppe1481

3 ай бұрын

​@@DanielDracohunAnd, that's despite all of the changing requirements that occurred/occurs during pre-production/current production from the 3 branches that use it. Much of which is classified. The only thing that ever gets reported is rising costs/cost overruns and behind schedule. Rarely reported is why. That being said it is an amazing technological achievement. Israel has already demonstrated just how potent it is.

@InsertSomenickorsomethingOK

3 ай бұрын

​@@DanielDracohunB21 raider: hello there👋

@dianapennepacker6854

3 ай бұрын

When you think about it. Yeah. Is it the best at any particular tasj? No. Yet it is good enough to destroy everything the enemy has, and gives even our allies a fighting chance? Yes. It can bomb. Can fight for air shperiority, and win. Can gather intelligence like no other fighter. Works well with more specialized aircraft. The B 21 is a sleeper. I gaurentee you that thing can destroy aircraft just as easily as others. Some think it will be a missile truck for others, and will only be able to destroy fighters in conjunction with other aircraft like the F 35... Yet something tells me it can also find, target, and send out a bunch of A2A missiles on its own. We've had fighters that can bomb. B21 is a bomber that can fight.

@yomama629

3 ай бұрын

@@bryanhoppe1481 comes down to Western media always looking to frame the MIC and their respective nations' defense procurements as ineffective, costly to the taxpayer, and money better spent elsewhere, as well as Russian and other unfriendly nations' propaganda machines wanting to downplay the West as incompetent and corrupt. None of which are anywhere near true

Former Mil Engineer here, with no current ties to the Military Industrial Complex. $1.7t is the lifetime cost of the program... to include manufacturing, maintenance, training, gas, etc.... and that's cheap, and worth every penny! I'll tell you why that is, and the factors that people aren't considering. Let's use the classic comparison of the F-35 vs the A-10 for CAS as an example: $6k was the original cost PFH of new A-10s at 1970's inflation (the value the media uses most often). You can't fly a 10 passenger business jet for $6k PFH today. The A-10 is now way beyond it's service life so it requires much more maintenance than when it was new. This is not to mention the SLE mandatory wing replacement program and out of production parts that have to be special ordered. The A-10 now costs $30k PFH and the F-35 is $35k PFH. However, let's say the A-10 was still $6k. The F-35 would still be cheaper to field. The A-10 requires about a dozen support aircraft to operate in any AO, hostile environment or not. They require an AWACS with their fighter escort, 2 flights of fighters for CAP overwatch, and SEAD aircraft to take care of ground anti-air threats. Let's say those aircraft average $20k PFH each. That's $240k PFH to support A-10 operations. The F-35 on the other hand, was designed to operate with minimal support. It has better sensors than the AWACS, it's capable of a 70-1 air-to-air kill ratio so it can clearly fight it's own air battles, and the onboard AI can identify/target/prepareWeapons for a ground threat in less than a second while still outside of its WEZ .. which is better than any SEAD dedicated aircraft in the inventory (not that the F-35 really cares about ground threats..). The A-10 has to wait for the AO to be cleared by it's support aircraft before it can go in. That can take hours. This is why the A-10 has a long loiter time, because it's not built to fly in a contested AO. Once the AO is cleared, the A-10 can stay there for a long time and wait for CAS requests. However, what if your son is pinned down by an ambush and his unit is requesting CAS, but the threat to our aircraft is uncertain? An A-10 isn't going there to help him, but an F-35 will have no problem. But let's pretend that it's a 100% uncontested AO and the A-10 can safely fly in to provide Close Air Support. That bird is only capable of 300knots, that's 20min for 100nm (typical size of grid). Once the A-10 arrives he gets 9-line talkon by the JTAC to start identifying his target, which takes 5min. He has to put his targeting pod on coordinates and slew around and visually identify the good guys and the bad guys; that takes 10 min avg. The A-10 is doing a gun run (yay, brrrrt.. :p ). He's carrying 1200 rounds of 30mm (which was meant to kill primitive tanks.. it's as long as your forearm). They do an average of 3 runs with 3sec bursts firing 70 rounds per second (at $140 a round that's $88,200 in bullets). It takes 10 more minutes to spend half his load blanketing an area the size of a football field to make sure the threats are all dead (can't see them after the first run due to the smoke and dust). Total time was 20min to get there and 25min to lay down the brrrrt. A dozen aircraft were tied up the entire time to support him. An F-35 is called in, contested or uncontested it doesn't matter. 5min to fly to the AO, alone and invisible to radar. *Before* he arrives the JTAC on the ground provides grid coords via toughbook straight to the aircraft AI computer (which is even more powerful than Submarine computers). The AI (which is like a "digital RIO", think Goose from Top Gun trapped in a black box) has already zoomed the EOTS lenses many miles away and visually identified friendlies and enemies via transceiver and optical recognition, cross referenced with ground based intelligence systems... within milliseconds. The pilot *looks through the cockpit floor* with augmented reality in his visor, at 5 red circles superimposed on the ground many miles away. The computer provides recognition profiles which the pilot validates by marking the contacts as fair targets, indicating their agreement. The pilot can also see several green circles on the ground for visualization of friendly positions. The computer has prepared a Small Diameter Bomb dialed in to create a cone of blast 100ft off the ground and in the proper direction to ensure only those 5 enemies will be eliminated with the lowest probability of collateral damage. From CAS request to this moment, only 3 seconds have elapsed. The pilot decides that he's going to use guns (despite the superior performance of the SDBs and the AI's recommendation). He gets 10 miles from the target, nose level, and pulls the gun trigger on the stick. This trigger doesn't fire the 25mm GAU-22 cannon but rather says "OK computer, you can kill those targets" as long as he's holding it down (man-in-middle autonomy). The AI autopilot takes control of the flight surfaces and steers the nose onto the 5 soft targets. At 4nm the bird puts out 5 bursts of 5 rounds very rapidly, correcting between each burst and firing only at the exact millisecond when the highest probability of hit exists based upon thousands of sensors updating millions of times per second. This takes another 3min.. and 25 rounds total. Subsequent gun runs are not necessary. Total time was approx. 5min transit then 6min to perform like an electronically invisible aerial sniper. Zero additional assets required, except maybe a refuel tanker sometimes. Total cost of CAS mission for F-35: $7,000 for 11min and ammo. Total cost of CAS mission for A-10: $268,200 for 45min and ammo. Total value to Father with son on active duty: Take my tax money and support my boy with the F-35 please!

@jailbird1133

3 ай бұрын

F35 can't loiter, nor can do close in support. Much like any high speed, high performance jet, it simply isn't a good aircraft for that job.

@perrinromney4555

3 ай бұрын

The f14,15,16, and 18 all disagree. They are or were used heavily for CAS. The best argument I've seen for the A10 is that its pilots are so good at CAS, due to the focus of their training. This isn't to take away from the A10, it's my favorite. But it's not what it once was.

@mimimimeow

3 ай бұрын

​@@jailbird1133"close air support" doesnt mean you have to fly close. B-1s have been doing CAS for almost 2 decades with precision bombs. Ask yourself why no one else needs an A-10.

@ImBigFloppa

3 ай бұрын

​@@jailbird1133The F-35 has only a slightly worse loiter time, and is actually able to loiter closer to a battlefield because it is stealthy. The F-35s radar and IRST, both the best on the planet for a multi role fighter, give it unparalleled situational awareness, being able to create detailed maps of the terrain and any trucks, tanks, or people on them in 3D space out to more than 10 miles. That means that not only will accuracy and precision on targets be improved, as well as finding those targets in the first place, it will slash friendly fire incidents, which is something the A-10 is known heavily for

@ahhmm5381

3 ай бұрын

How is TR-3 getting on? Hmm?

CATOBAR actually stands for Catapult Assisted Takeoff - BARRIER Assisted Recovery.

@RedWrenchFilms

3 ай бұрын

It can be both! But the A is always for Arrested I believe.

@KaiserStormTracking

3 ай бұрын

It’s kinda both. CATOBAR is also stands as Catapult assisted takeoff but assisted recovery

@GrapeFlavoredAntifreeze

3 ай бұрын

@@KaiserStormTrackingArrested not assisted, but you can use “but” or “barrier”

@ComfortsSpecter

3 ай бұрын

I Hate Alphabet Vomit Acronyms

@gsamov

3 ай бұрын

@@ComfortsSpecter IHAVA :^)

I note that the UK left one of the two intake covers to the engine in place while trying to take off, this time. Perhaps not so hard not to duplicate this error.

@suzukirider9030

3 ай бұрын

Hard to be sure what happened there - might've been an attempted landing but failed to catch arresting wire and failed to go-around. Also, if if was an attempted STOL - short takeoff - then the aircraft is in a particular configuration for that, i.e. the main engine's exhaust is tilted down halfway at 45 degrees, perhaps the lift fan is also in some intermediate state...

@kimjonglongdong3158

3 ай бұрын

​@suzukirider9030 pretty sure the outcome of the official report was an air intake cover being left inside and missed during pre-fligjt checks due to both human error and design issues with the size of the covers and the fact they can quite easily end up inside the intake in a spot that cannot be seen externally.

@DayMatthew968

3 ай бұрын

@@suzukirider9030as OP has said, it was unfortunately an accidental failure to remove an engine intake cover which caused the fatal cut in power as the aircraft reached the apex of the ski ramp, the pilot realised this as he was going up the ramp, and punched out at the top, the complete lack of power was also noticed by the duty FDO who tried to abort the take off but it was too late. The recovery of the aircraft and subsequent investigation did indeed show it was an intake cover left in place to be the cause, not an improperly aligned rear engine, or failed go around attempt. If you can, watch the Warship life at sea episode on BBC IPlayer, S1 Ep6, it covers the whole event as the TV show was being filmed onboard when it happened. Also the QE class does not have arrestor wires as such the current design only allows for STOVL aircraft, there was a point in its design stage where CATOBAR and arrested landing was put forwards with designs drawn up but they were put to one side with STOVL taking priority and overall design

@johnmarley6695

3 ай бұрын

That’s not what happened, but I’ll not elaborate further.

@AA-xo9uw

3 ай бұрын

The port cover was left lying inside the intake during overnight maintenance being conducted on the flightdeck. Two different mechanics involved which occurred as a result of a shift change and a poor brief/debrief between the two.

1.7 trilllion dollars cost is the total cost of the procurment, design, testing, production and maintainig aircraft, crew and facilities for the nex 40 ish years. Someone didnt read the entire report ;)

@RedWrenchFilms

3 ай бұрын

Yep! Until 2070 I believe.

@dominuslogik484

3 ай бұрын

@@RedWrenchFilms yeah when you spread out 1.7 trillion over a few decades it seems more like pennies rather than a fortune lol

@lagrangewei

3 ай бұрын

if the F35 was on budget, it is not. many of the parts fitted was faulty and had to be replaced out of safety concern, and who foot the bill to replace the part before their end of life? to assemble the aircraft before fullying testing them was a mistake. if caught before production, these issue can be address without duiplicating cost.

@ronjon7942

3 ай бұрын

@@lagrangeweiCompared to gen4 development woes and safety records, the F-35 is right in line and mostly significantly better. A lot of pilots died during the 'teens fighters, and the F-14 costs were about what's expected for the NGAD. Taken in context, there is no scenario where F-35 costs and time to production are any worse than any other program. What do you think the 50 year lifecycle costs for the F-15, B-52, B-2, B-1, or F-18 are?? Free??

@davedixon2068

3 ай бұрын

of course they read the report but they need to have a clickbait item so they miss out the important information

Imagine if just 1% of the F-35's budget was instead used for my personal War Thunder account

@zawojtek

3 ай бұрын

You would still suck just in higher tiers ? Sure thing I would....

@elvpse

3 ай бұрын

Thats like 1 billion tho

@arberchabot8760

3 ай бұрын

​@@zawojtekwho says he will be playing fair XD

@HIFLY01

2 ай бұрын

​@@elvpse17 billion bro...

@elvpse

2 ай бұрын

@@HIFLY01 "thats like"

People only see the BIG 1.7 trillion number but never saw the small fine print (for the entire life of the program).

@dominuslogik484

3 ай бұрын

yeah until 2070, ill be retired before the f-35 is if everything goes according to plan and I am only in my mid 20s

@ronjon7942

3 ай бұрын

Yes. Annoying.

@alexturnbackthearmy1907

3 ай бұрын

And 1.7 trillions is not a lot for military spendings of that size.

@DancerVeiled

3 ай бұрын

And not only for the US either, but all partner countries.

@criticalevent

2 ай бұрын

No, people never see the fine print that $1.7 Trillion is an 80% increase over the original projected life of the program. And that's not even based on recent numbers, it's going to keep going higher as more and more problems arise.

9:00 Japan isn't operating their F-35Bs from their amphibious assault ships. They are going on the helicopter destroyers.

@Clemdauphin

3 ай бұрын

that just an aircraft carrier name defferently because they can't name it "aircraft carrier"

@herbderbler1585

3 ай бұрын

@@Clemdauphin yup, Japan cleverly built a bunch of ships that are totally definitely not aircraft carriers, but if the need arises, they could mysteriously disappear into drydock for a month and come out functioning suspiciously like an aircraft carrier.

@whyno713

3 ай бұрын

And last I heard Italy passed on the Bs, but are still committed to the much more capable As.

@SoloNit

3 ай бұрын

Japan literally pulled "I will make it legal" when building those totally-not-aircraft-carrier helicopter destroyers, as of 2020 the cabinet voted to allow the conversion of then helicopter carrier into de-facto aircraft carrier.

@cowbertnet

3 ай бұрын

@@whyno713 no both the air force and navy ordered 15 F-35Bs each. Both the air force and navy have conducted exercises flying off and on Cavour already. Navy is planning to announce IOC soon.

That X-32 slander was uncalled for, the X-32 is the happiest and handsomest plane in the last 30 years.

Tbh the f35 has probably evolved into a bigger (and better) project and will also last longer than the original project could ever imagine

@ahhmm5381

3 ай бұрын

Considering its horrid mission capable rate, along with somewhat expensive $ per flight hour, doubt it.

@dangersnail5839

3 ай бұрын

@@ahhmm5381The USA pays for capability, a western nation can’t afford massive casualties like Russia or Ukraine. So they get around this problem by having extremely good combat survivability.

@My_initials_are_O.G.cuz_I_am

3 ай бұрын

​@@ahhmm5381 You are conflating "mission capable" rates and "fully mission capable" rates. "FMC" means it can perform literally every task the system was designed for, without encountering issues. "MC" means that at least one task may cause some issues. For an instance, if there are suspected quality issues for a part of the gun-mount, on an aircraft that will, almost definitely, only use its gun a once or twice at most, in its entire lifetime, outside of excercises, That aircraft is, still, no longer FMC. In a more hypothetical example, a ladder hatch of the aircraft getting jammed and needing to be opened manually, would make the aircraft no longer FMC. F-35s have a 95+% MC rate, on par with other western multirole fighters. It also helps that the mission set of a MC F-35C is still broader than that of a FMC F/A-18 Super Hornet, and the same goes for F-35B and AV-8B or F-35 and F-16.

@ThisHandleIsTakenTryThis

3 ай бұрын

@@ahhmm5381what the guy above me said

@ahhmm5381

3 ай бұрын

@@My_initials_are_O.G.cuz_I_am According to GAO: 'The F-35 fleet mission capable rate-the percentage of time the aircraft can perform one of its tasked missions-was about 55 percent in March 2023, far below program goals.' Not sure where you are getting your info, but there are ALOT of articles that back me up on the MC rate.

The estimated lifetime cost of 1.7 trillion covers 50 years' worth of expenses, including fuel, maintenance, and training costs, not to mention the initial acquisition of the aircraft. The F-35 might be the first notable example of an airframe successfully meeting the initial requirements of various branches.

@ahhmm5381

3 ай бұрын

Minus replacing the F-16

@derekeastman7771

3 ай бұрын

Except the small print where it’s more like three aircraft in a trench coat

@patrickd7890

2 ай бұрын

it also includes the space to store spare parts

@jeromeportier4914

10 күн бұрын

It's not even considered as meeting requirements until TR3 / Block4 is delivered...

You're not the only one who considers the F-35 "variants" to be completely different aircraft - the Government Accountability Office has been known to complain about it as well.

@braindeadjet8086

3 ай бұрын

Can someone explain why most modern carrier based fighters don’t have thrust reversing?

@jeffbenton6183

3 ай бұрын

@@braindeadjet8086 It's probably because carrier landing zones are so short that thrust reversing wouldn't even help. They typically land using the arrestor-wire and tailhook system. If that fails, then the procedure is to abort the landing and do a touch and go (which is why Navy pilots actually increase throttle to full as soon as they get a good connection with one of the wires). Given that the wire-traps work, thrust reversing is just unneeded cost, mass and complexity which would actually make operations more dangerous rather than less dangerous. On another note, just looking at fighter engines, it appears to me that thrust reversers would be even more complicated than for civilian aircraft. Cold-stream is out of the question, since they use low-bypass engines which don't produce enough by-pass air. That leaves the redirected thrust option, but that would somehow need to be made to work with the complex nozzles they already have, which seems to be a significant challenge to me. Anyways, that's just my educated guess.

@philipthecow

2 ай бұрын

@@braindeadjet8086 lookup "Pier 11 Norfolk" and then compare the "super carrier" lengths to that of any international airport runway. The breaking done by planes is nowhere near enough compared to what must be done by arrestor cables. A regular runway is 10 times longer.

@dredriesen2827

Ай бұрын

@@braindeadjet8086 It's because they have to catch an arrester cable. Sometimes it happens that they skipped over them, and have to go around for a second attempt. Because of this, they go to full throttle when they land. Thrust reversers would make it more dangerous.

@tealshift2090

14 күн бұрын

@@braindeadjet8086 The reasons other people just gave (it doesnt do anything for the plane in the space you have). But also cause they are heavy. You dont want to chuck another thousand pounds on your plane that is effectively useless, when that 1000 pounds could be more fuel or bombs.

I think more important than how many parts do they have in common is how much additional tooling and change over is needed on the manufacturing line to produce the different versions

I love how people are continually surprised by something going over budget when it seems literally every project ever goes overbudget

@ronjon7942

3 ай бұрын

Right? Every project's budget needs to be immediately doubled as soon as it gets approved. There's always the incentive to understate budgets prior to approval.

@suzukirider9030

3 ай бұрын

I don't think anyone in the DoD is surprised. But they assume that if i.e. Raytheon promises something for $5b and Lockheed for $6b - the assumption is probably that they are bullshitting by roughty the same amount, so chances are Raytheon will actually deliver it for $20b, while Lockheed would for $24b, so they go with Raytheon. So if Raytheon suddenly decided to become more truthful, lie less, and claim that they'd accomplish something for i.e. $10b (while still actually planning for $20b) - they wouldn't get the contract at all.

@COLT6940

3 ай бұрын

B-21 prototype managed to be delivered ahead of time and was underbudget.

@ricomock2

3 ай бұрын

There is also the fact that the Pentagon has a long history of making changes midway through development

@Horible4

3 ай бұрын

​@@COLT6940B-21 has not been delivered yet and is based off of already proven designs. The R&D team at northrupp didn't need to go through the same headaches lockheed martin did with the F35 because the technology and infrastructure was already in place when they finished full scale production of the F35. Just because a plane design is ahead of another project doesnt mean that the procurement process is equal or that someone was incompetent or it's "just the MIC trying to make more money". Rather the basis for designing the next generation of planes wasn't in place. The F-15 took decades to get off the ground, needed a ton of new testing technology to fix it's issues and is now known as the best fighter ever. The F-16 got to take advantage of all of that testing done for the F-15 and thus was able to make it to the production line faster. Contrary to what the boomers will tell you, it's a lot more complicated than just "lol just make a good plane in a year and underbudget lol"

Little gripe but it’s a multi-role aircraft, not just an attacker or fighter.

@jyy9624

3 ай бұрын

Its also a cough cough close air support role filler

@topaz2821

3 ай бұрын

@@jyy9624 yk and recon, electronic warfare, and being able to operate sufficiently in GPS jammed locations. It’s about as good in a CAS role as an f16 or f18 while only bro marginally worse than the f15. All this while being the most affordable and capable modern stealth aircraft.

@jyy9624

3 ай бұрын

@@topaz2821 I was being facetious it is the future

@notsure6182

3 ай бұрын

whi9ch means it can do neither well

@topaz2821

3 ай бұрын

@@notsure6182 that is by no means, what that means.

I've always thought a 'D'- model, the A with larger C-sized wings (no fold, obviously) for greater fuel and payload, as well as improved low-speed handling, would be a good next step.

@mosesracal6758

3 ай бұрын

It would kind of defeat the purpose of the specialization between the Navy and Air Force designs. The larger wings might improve low speed handling but its definitely going to impact its G-Force tolerance and the fuel load issue can always be improved with strategic tankers. Other nation's F-X programs might see a design choice like that though. ROKAF's KF-21 Boromae will be less stealthy than its F-35 counterpart (I heard they would even have the weapons in weapon racks instead of inside a weapons bay) but it is much larger and would use domestic components to circumvent US' strict technology transfer protocols (and would probably be cheaper overall because it is not as sophisticated as the USAF's). JASDF's Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin goes on the other direction with emphasis on stealth which they are now actually developing a sixth-gen aircraft from what they have learned from it, co-developing it with a bunch of Western European Aerospace companies. Turkey's TF-X Kaan would probably be like a beefed up version of the KF-21 since it is going to be a twin-engine design but its still far from a finalized design (I think they might have to settle for less firepower though since they want it to be as lightweight as possible like the Gripen). China's designs however is something exciting as it's Chengdu J-20 is essentially a 'what if we continue to develop the F-22' design. It is by far the largest of the 5th gen aircraft and already is confirmed to be able to carry the humongous PL-21 VLRAAM missile. The defeated design Shenyang FC-31 is still as capable though and is often touted as China's answer to the F-35 and while the PLAAF will not be operating them (I think), Pakistan and other of China's allies will. A very different story to the SU-57 Checkmate which does not even look like is going to be adopted by the Russian Airforce.

@petesheppard1709

3 ай бұрын

@@mosesracal6758 Good points!

@Fordmister

3 ай бұрын

Eh I think more likely than any newF-35 models aside from upgrade packages to the existing three the next steps are going to be totally new aircraft. Everybody with a weapons industry rn is developing what they claim are 6th gen air superiority airframes (us with F-X, France and Germany with FCAS and the UK Italy and Japan collaborating on Tempest) and for all its qualities the F-35s relatively high cost per flight hour opens a gap in the market for a stealth equivalent to the F16. In much the same way as the high cost per flight hour of the F-15 and the fact that smaller nations could never have afforded it led to the development of the F-16.

@Whiskey11Gaming

3 ай бұрын

​@@mosesracal6758G Force does not equal turn performance. The missing features here are lift and drag. One need only look at the F14 and F16 EM charts to prove this. In spite of having an operational limit imposed on it of just 7.5G (before the 90s), the F14A has a tighter turn radius and can match the 9G F16C in turn rate to nearly the exact degree. It did so with large control surfaces, low drag, and high lift.

@shadvan9494

3 ай бұрын

@petesheppard1709 - there was a plan for a D variant. It was a F35c model with but with a electronic warfare suite, it was meant to Replace the E/A-18G growlers. Think of it as an F35c combined with the Israeli F35i electronic warfare suite.

While capable of VTOL, the F-35B usually operates in STOVL (short-takeoffs and vertical landings) so it can takeoff with more weight than it could from a fully vertical takeoff. Once the plane returns, its fuel and weapons payload would be largely depleted by then so it’s light enough to perform a safe vertical landing.

@naksachaisaejane1982

3 ай бұрын

More of this "STOVL v VTOL" shit. STOVL is DECK/GORUND OPERATION, NOT AIRCRAFT TYPE. I'm sick and tired at making this over and over.

@memofromessex

3 ай бұрын

It was the same with Harrier, it would perform a STOL over-weight

@cowbertnet

3 ай бұрын

@@naksachaisaejane1982both the DoD & Lockheed Martin officially calls the -B variant the STOVL variant.

@constantinethecataphract5949

2 ай бұрын

Still think that the b should have kept it's cannon.

@cowbertnet

2 ай бұрын

@@constantinethecataphract5949 war on weight is what killed it. There is an LO conformal gunpod designed to be mounted on the ventral side of the airframe and the USMC has procured & integrated it. It carries 40 more 25mm rounds than the internal version too.

I remembered something: i played a game called "Joint Strike Fighter" in ~1998, it had the X-32 and X-35 in it.

@KC_Smooth

3 ай бұрын

I remember that game! Can’t believe it’s been over 25 years lol.

the cheapest f35A production run per unit is at 78 million last i check, with most being at 80-82 million

@n3v3rforgott3n9

3 ай бұрын

yup the most expensive version is the B variant which makes sense with the added complexity and smaller production order.

@Conserpov

2 ай бұрын

You are mistaken. The cheapest was in 2020 - 94 million. It's 115 million now. 122 million on average so far, since 2007. Your figures are without engines or something like that.

@n3v3rforgott3n9

2 ай бұрын

@@Conserpov My guy you can look it up. New F35As are around 80 million while F35Bs are 100 million.

@Conserpov

2 ай бұрын

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 I did look it up, and unlike you I chose DOD budget as my source instead of Wikipedia.

@invertedv12powerhouse77

2 ай бұрын

@@Conserpov that number im assuming you split with the number of airframes, but that cost includes auxiliaries, maintenance facilities, etc. For example Canada's procurement was at like 200 some million per plane, but thats because the two airbases getting F35As are basically getring completely rebuilt from the ground up. In reality the flyaway lone plane costs 82 mil per. For canada this also includes attachments like pylons and support equipement.

3:50 hey, i recognise that pic That was the first time an F 35 made a landing on a highway during a joint exercise in Finland. The plane itself is from the Norwegian Air Force

Despite the demonstration used in the video, the F-35B cannot take off vertical in practical operations (meaning with a fuel load of fuel and weapons). As it says right on that aircraft, it is a STOVL design: Short Take Off and Vertical Landing

Fascinating aircraft and engineering. Also interesting how an US built plane managed to become a true "Eurofighter" being adopted by so many European nations.

@suzukirider9030

3 ай бұрын

Simple - USA is the empire and provides it's colonies in western europe with means to defend themselves, and also to pay for the protection they receive by virtue of being colonies.

@EwanMarshall

3 ай бұрын

"From the Martin-Baker ejection seat, to the Cobham refueling probe, to the BAE Systems-built horizontal tails, every F-35 has British parts incorporated from nose to tail." Yep, 100% US built aircraft right there. No part of it is from a European nation.

@Carewolf

2 ай бұрын

It is also built using parts of the European partners. It isn't solely US built. Just like the F16 before it.

modern electronic warfare relies on software as well, so perhaps there is also some software commonality between the different models to compensate for the lack of hardware commonality. other thing I've heard is that the X-35, which became the F-35, was in some sense a smaller and cheaper F-22 with a single engine instead of two or at least both were made by Lockheed Martin and the development of the F-22 heavily influenced the X-35. for example one of the X-35s had the same engine as the F-22 and the F-35 engine is based on that engine, although there was also another engine in the running, which was not chosen. as a sidenote while the X-32 looked extremely goofy, I think the YF-23 (the F-22 competitor) looked very cool, although the F-22 and the F-35 aren't ugly either.

@forzaelite1248

3 ай бұрын

iirc software and flight feel is the same across all 3 except for how you land

@Appletank8

3 ай бұрын

The X32 prioritized stealth over outright maneuverability, but with how modern fighters don't even need thrust vectoring to hit 9G and still move well enough, maybe it would've been an even better sniper?

@michaelbarnard8529

3 ай бұрын

Basically all of the electronics and software are common across the ABC, and that is the bulk of the cost long term.

@ahhmm5381

3 ай бұрын

Nah, the F-35 looks kinda stubby

@ronjon7942

3 ай бұрын

@@ahhmm5381yeah, I always thought it just missed being able to use 'sleek' as a descriptive term.

It's more fair to compare F-35A and F-35C parts commonality. The B is a small quantity, specialized design. Also that 20% figure is for parts which are common across all 3 models A B C. Also it should be noted that "parts" can be a wing or a bolt that both count as one part each. One VERY EXPENSIVE "part" is the software. Having the same software run is a huge savings over multiple softwares.

One big difference left out of the video. Only the F-35A has an internal gun. The B and C models would need an external gun pod mounted.

@thomasjoyce7910

2 ай бұрын

Another one is how they do in-flight refuelling. The Air Force and Navy have two different systems.

The goal of the F-35 program was to lower the lifetime system costs. Most of the costs occur at the design phase, and the program successfully designed three distinct aircraft well suited to the users' needs at a cost that was lower than three separate programs designing unique aircraft. The lifetime logistics savings will also be lowered. It's interesting to compare this program to the TFX program, which attempted to replace air force and navy bombers and fighters with the F-111.

Feel like 20% parts share isn’t that significant when a lot of the advantage of the f35 family is the sensor and stealth capability

I was under the impression that B in CATOBAR stood for barrier, as in that large net-like thing they use on carriers when an aircraft is coming in too hot or the tail hook isn't working. Also I'm pretty sure the F-35B is more commonly refered as a STOVL (Short Take Off/ Vertical Landing) as it doesn't have the thrust-to-weight (~0.89) to take off vertically when its fuel tanks are full. Now you can easily offset this by just dropping about 5,000 lbs (~40%) of fuel, but you're gonna see a similar reduction in range as a consequence.

@suzukirider9030

3 ай бұрын

Is the 0.89 at full fuel - with some weapons attached or no? But yeah, even from a marine carrier it makes more sense to do a short takeoff, rather than a truly vertical one. The deck offers SOME runway in any case, even without any ramp! And the carrier itself can also be going ~30 kts to help aircraft takeoff from it.

@pyronuke4768

3 ай бұрын

@@suzukirider9030 yes, I believe that is with 4 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders. Crunching some quick numbers that saves about 1,800 lbs which would push the thrust-to-weight up to around 0.93

I love that last clip of it accidentally flopping into the sea. Awesome.

Great OVERVIEW of the different versions! 👍🏼✈ As a former Army Broadcaster, I like how we see almost exactly what your dialogue is talking about. Again...nice job. 🎯

nice to see you covering aircraft.

Red Wrench Films and fighter jets, my two favorite things combined ❤

@michaelhowell2326

3 ай бұрын

Aww, how cute, you got your heart.

Very nice overview. Crisp, clear, and with concise voice over. Many could learn from that.

There was a brilliant documentary about 25 years ago called “The Battle of the X Planes” that was about the fly off between the Boeing X-32 and the Lockheed Martin X-35. The documentary very clearly explained the financial difficulties that US military planners faced. The airforce had just completed the B-2 which was the most expensive aircraft ever built as well as the F-22 which was also eye watering lay expensive. Then they looked at their inventory and realized the F-16 is old, and no longer survivable in a modern battle space and needed a replacement, the marine Corp harriers were old, no longer survivable in a modern battle space and needed a replacement and while the Navy’s F-18s were newer , they’re navy aircraft which wear out faster, are less survivable and need replacing. So they have three very different aircraft that need to be replaced and they simply cannot afford to go through the design and development process 3 more times. The JSF was the solution. A common airframe so that the R&D costs could be shared and then they wouldn’t have to build 3 new aircraft for their three branches. 1.7 trillion is a big number, but it would have been bigger if they hadn’t built the F-35A, B and C.

Excellent video, as always! I think putting the quotation marks around "The" rather than "F-35" in the title would make your meaning more clear in the title.

My country is getting the f35b as well. Because we don't have large aircraft carriers, the ones we use are mainly for helicopters. Plus there's the threat that all our runways get taken out in the first few days of a war starting.

@homurseempsone154

3 ай бұрын

Which country?

@silkplayer9

2 ай бұрын

Sound like Japan to me.

@Rose_Butterfly98

2 ай бұрын

@@homurseempsone154 Singapore

@Rose_Butterfly98

2 ай бұрын

@@silkplayer9 no, although an American once thought Japan was in my country. Which is hilarious seeing as Japan is more than 500 times larger lol

@homurseempsone154

2 ай бұрын

@@Rose_Butterfly98 Singapore?

To those who are quibbling about how expensive F-35 really is: When the JSF program went to proposal stage, the target cost was $35 million per aircraft, or thereabouts - slightly different numbers for CTOL USAF, CTOL USN, and STOVL USMC/RN variants, but average around $35 million. Lockheed promised to meet those costs, and the IOCs (Initial Operational Capability) years for each variant. As soon as Boeing was knocked out of the competition, Lockheed immediately started hiking prices and extending IOC timelines, because at that point they knew that DoD had absolutely no choice but to agree. It wasn't politically possible to cancel the program; too many statements had been put in the press about the urgent need for stealth for anyone to seriously suggest continuing with 3rd and 4th generation fighters already in production. So, secure in that knowledge, Lockheed began to admit that their design was so poorly thought out that years would go by and billions in overruns would be incurred before they got anything in service.

Great video! I love these, very informative and fun to watch.

The F-35B is capable of STOVL (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing), which is a little different from VTOL in the fact that the latter can take off and land like a helicopter or Harrier. STOVL implies that the aircraft can get airborne at significantly shorter takeoff roll distances and can land vertically thanks to the vectoring exhaust nozzle and lift fan powered by the powerful Pratt & Whitney F135 turbofan engine (technically could also be considered turboshaft)

@naksachaisaejane1982

3 ай бұрын

Yet F-35 can do both vertically. 8:01

@cowbertnet

3 ай бұрын

@@naksachaisaejane1982 typically you only see vertical takeoffs performed at demonstrations (the video shows a flight test aircraft). The F-35B cannot carry any appreciable fuel or weapons load to support vertical takeoff. It could lift off with 2 AMRAAMs and immediately perform inflight refuelling but if the unit is already able to coordinate a tanker on station for such a mission, then most likely there is an available runway nearby anyway (see also FARPs).

@naksachaisaejane1982

3 ай бұрын

@@cowbertnet and it's still possible in a pinch of reduce response time. And no, that's not demonstrator X-35. X-35 has notably different fan hatch from production model, namely the number of moving parts. The fan door in this video is single giant lid of production aircraft.

@cowbertnet

3 ай бұрын

​@@naksachaisaejane1982 I never said it was X-35. The tail art clearly shows it was BF-01 and the clip was taken during flight test 286 at Pax River in 2013. And when I said demonstration I was talking about air shows & other media events, because such a maneuver is cool-looking but doesn't have much operational purpose (like Pugachev's Cobra) except for repositioning the AV to hopefully something with enough runway distance to STOVL.

@hb9145

3 ай бұрын

This adds weight. There is no free lunch, just tradeoffs.

Minor additional point, being the only level 1 partner in the program the UK has also fought for and been granted the ability to upgrade their F35's, including full access to the aircraft's source code. That said, I don't believe the UK has any plans to actually do this (other than integration of Meteor), but they do atleast have the capability to upgrade their F35's independent of US permission.

@hoovysimulator2518

3 ай бұрын

As far as I know, even US can only do minor repair work on the craft, as the manuals are property of Lockheed. It is surprising how limited the contracts between manufacturer and customer are! (reinforced by the Israel model. Which I wasn't even aware of until now lol)

@dumdumbinks274

2 ай бұрын

The reason they have access to the source code is because they've been involved since the design phase back in 1990. Lockheed subcontract to BAe for a lot of software related development and some parts, while P&W subcontract to Rolls Royce for the lift system.

I originally balked at the idea of "one plane to rule them all", knowing the history of the F-4 Phantom. That said, seeing this system pan out in operation has been eye opening.

Great video! Neatly explains the differences without getting too deep into the weeds. Nice graphics too! Thank you for posting!

@RedWrenchFilms

3 ай бұрын

Thanks Glenn!

Ill be damned if I see the F-35 replace the A-10

@GenghisX999

Ай бұрын

It really shows the level of military operational ignorance here to suggest that an F35 can do the mission of an A10. Total mismatch of asset to mission.

@Jude_M

Ай бұрын

It will because the a10 is a shitbox

@kennedywilson8825

Ай бұрын

@@Jude_M how many times have you called Air support in your career?

@NeurodivergentSuperiority

4 күн бұрын

@@Jude_M Finally someone says it, the Messerschmit ME-262 is a far more futuristic looking plane compared to the A-10 Warthog

Great overview on the F-35 but what myth is this video trying to bust? Aside from the fact that F-35I is somewhat of a 4th variant of the fighter to better suite the Israeli Air Force.

@stickman3214

2 ай бұрын

I believe it is the myth that the F-35 has all of its commonly known features in one airframe. Some people (including myself) were unaware of the existence of different models of F-35 and how they differed.

Fascinating and Informative. Nice One ~ Cheers

“Mr Wrench,” I have come to rely on you for solid introductory material on the topics you cover, and I thank you for that. This is the first piece I have seen on the F-35 that limits itself to the mechanical aspects of the airframe (landing gear, wing area, etc.) without going into the stealthy and electronic properties of the thing. And that, in itself, is amazing. I was completely unaware of the mechanics at play, in particular the differences between carrier- and land-based versions; again, I thank you for THAT. Really, this is a striking primer on a modern combat plane, which I appreciate for its own sake-both the airframe and the KZread presentation. Well done, friend.

@RedWrenchFilms

3 ай бұрын

Thank you very much Richard! Kind words.

I despise the leway we give Israel, especially after they attempted to sell the Phalcon system to China. Not to mention the actual sale of the Python 3 to China.

I like the idea of one military fighter aircraft for all purpose like this

@gansior4744

3 ай бұрын

Especially when its a best fighter in the world

@theodoreolson8529

3 ай бұрын

They tried years ago with the F-111 but technology wasn't what it is today.

@cugamer8862

3 ай бұрын

Well enjoy it, because it will be a very long time before the military tries something like this again. For one thing, the F-35 isn't one aircraft, it's three separate aircraft that happen to look kinda similar. When the program started thirty years ago they thought that they could build one air frame that would fill the needs of three different services, but that's just not possible so they designed three different aircraft and let them keep the same name. Thankfully it seems as if the pentagon has learned from this and they're not going to try to force the Air Force and Navy to use the same design for the next generation of fighter aircraft.

@gort8203

3 ай бұрын

@@theodoreolson8529 The problem with the F-111 was not the technology, it was the changing requirements of the Navy. They originally asked for a fleet defense fighter (or radar missileer), but combat experience in Vietnam indicated that they needed an air superiority fighter that could also perform the fleet defense mission, and the F-111 airframe was not suited for both roles.

@Aereto

3 ай бұрын

​@@cugamer8862 F-35 being actually different frames on the inside but similar on the outside would actually be helpful on the initiative and confuses opposing recon accuracy. As that would be a form of counterintelligence.

Love all the charts and graphics. Made all those details so clear the differences in the 3 models

Underrated channel. Keep up the hard work.

This may be the best video explaining the differences between the F35's. Well Done!

Cracking short look at another large 'fits-all-sizes' program that has mixed results. I thought your wording on the total cost of the contract was fairly clear, certainly better than MSM, I'm a little surprised to find people so upset at it.

@dominuslogik484

3 ай бұрын

that 1.7 trillion in total cost is combined procurement, training, R&D and maintenance estimated until 2070 so its actually pretty cheap for a year on year analysis.

@RedWrenchFilms

3 ай бұрын

Thanks for saying that! I thought my wording was ok but I understand if people want a bit more clarification :)

@PrograError

3 ай бұрын

Pretty sure it's all due to the peace dividend of the 2000s... All sort of modularity minded programs was all the rage then... do more with less and able to upgrade for better

Excellent intro into the topic. As one with auASD I find intros like these to be extremely helpful so thank you.

@RedWrenchFilms

3 ай бұрын

My pleasure Jon! Anything in particular that made it more helpful? Would love to know what works best for everyone!

10:41 this is a great way to sum up the differences in one picture, great video as always

The fact that there is any parts compatibility between what are essentially 3 entirely different aircraft fulfilling entirely different roles is an achievements all by itself. They may look largely the same but the engineering challenges the have to overcome are so different. More parts compatibility would have compromised its ability to perform those roles. That said the project was majorly mis managed and the decision to start production while the aircraft was still in development has made the issue of parts compatibility even harder

With VTOL you can theorically land on any ship with helicopter capacity, which is nearly every surface combatant in the U.S. fleet. Thus increasing offensive and defensive air capability immensely. 16 F35B can give you 24/7 two aircraft combat air patrol. Normally that would require a LHD minimum. Now you can put a single F35B on an Burke and a significant capacity is added. Even a single F35B on a single destroyer can make sending strike air craft a damage idea. This gives flexibility and gives you opponents a dilemma. Is the long range air defense in the capacity of a F35B on the ship and if not what is your window to be certain it is not added. With a conventional navy the window is often measured in months if not years. An F35B gives that capacity within days if not hours. Full support for continuous operations are a different matter but enough for several flights can be done easily.

@metalogic1580

3 ай бұрын

realistically though, no F35 are gonna operate normally from heli pads. In order to be able to take off vertically, it needs a minimal payload of fuel and ammo, which isn't really useful in a combat scenario. It can land vertically on a heli pads in case of an emergency but the navy is always gonna prefer using them on aircraft carriers or amphibious assault ships with short take offs.

@joehealy6376

3 ай бұрын

@metalogic1580 true but just the ability to surge a single F35 to a helicopter capable ship would give Iranian or other nations with a third or fourth generation fighter force pause in deployment of those assets as anti ship missile launchers. Your force the opponent to consider it in mission planning. Don't consider it and a F35 or two ruin a significant part of your air capability or plan much further out and degrade the system by increasing detection and intercept time of anti missile systems. Dilemmas, multiple responses all with bad outcomes if you gamble wrong.

@derekeastman7771

3 ай бұрын

But our navy is pretty much built entirely around giant aircraft carriers that you can basically stuff as many F-35Cs as you want onto. I’m not sure slapping an additional B on any ship that *might* be able to make use of one would be a worthwhile endeavor with that in mind.

@criticalevent

10 күн бұрын

Except you can't because this thing burns deck plates off.

That was absolutely fascinating. Now i understand why I have seen such contradictory information about the F-35. different sources were talking about different versions, probably not knowing other ones existed. Thank you,

In the late 1960s I knew a USAF F-4 pilot. He told me that some Navy pilots had come to Eglin AFB and were slamming their planes down on its runway like they'd land on a carrier. Two USAF pilots tried to do the same with their aircraft. One collapsed his landing gear. The other managed to limp back into the air with his landing gear damaged. That's one of the key differences you mentioned with the F-35s.

CATOBAR stands for Catapult Assisted Take Off Barrier Assisted Recovery You got one of the words wrong in the acronym. Its not "But", it's "Barrier"

@RedWrenchFilms

3 ай бұрын

It can be both/either. “But” makes more sense to me as the “barrier” is very rarely used.

@paulsmith2125

3 ай бұрын

@@RedWrenchFilms "Barrier" Assisted Recovery is the official USN term for this method of recovering aircraft on carriers.

@brianb-p6586

2 ай бұрын

@@RedWrenchFilms "But" makes no sense at all, if you understand English. Would you expect a catapult to be used for landing? If not, why "but"?

@RedWrenchFilms

2 ай бұрын

@@brianb-p6586 I didn’t invent the terms Brian I just know what they stand for! Barrier also makes little sense as the “barrier” is very very rarely used…if we are going to bash those who came up with these acronyms.

@brianb-p6586

2 ай бұрын

@@RedWrenchFilms try reading it as "Catapult Assisted Take Off; however, Assisted Recovery": it should mean the same thing as with "But", but it even more clearly makes no sense. The arresting cable is a barrier. I've only see "But" used in this term in countries where English is not the first language... On the other hand, some US military acronyms are twisted to make a pronounceable word as an acronym, so they don't necessarily make much sense. 🙂

Could you make the same video about the French Rafale, which is supposed to be multirole*? It's a milder success than the F-35 but they still made 200 of them. There are the C, B, M and N (Nuclear, which is a fucking cool denomination). *They even call it "omnirole": the distinction is that it can switch from air superiority to attacking a ship during the same mission.

As many people correctly stated in the comments, the cost of the program does not necessarily mean taxpayers are funding all of it. The US is also one of the biggest weapons exporters, translating to funds covering some of this cost. Take recent news, for example. The State Department notified Congress of its approval of the $23 billion F-16 sale to Turkey, along with a companion $8.6 billion sale of advanced F-35 fighter jets to Greece, late Friday. The United States accounts for more than 40 percent of the world's weapons exports. Sales of U.S. military equipment to foreign governments rose 49% to $205.6 billion in the latest fiscal year. The US is the leading R&D and manufacturer of advanced military hardware for NATO and many other countries. So, don't only consider the price tag.

@criticalevent

10 күн бұрын

The proceeds of weapons sales for other countries doesn't go to the US taxpayer, it goes to General Dynamics and Lockeed Martin's shareholders and C-suite bonuses. "The US" doesn't make anything except conditions for corporations to sell more weapons.

This was fascinating and very well presented, thank you.

Its kinda bummer that czech airforce ditched the grippens but this plane slaps

Finland also operates F-35

@hoghogwild

2 ай бұрын

When they get them they will. They ordered 64 Block 4 F-35A 2 years ago tomorrow.

@vaenii5056

2 ай бұрын

-operates- will operate

@aapovaarala

2 ай бұрын

@@vaenii5056 We already have them, You can literally see them on google maps

@aapovaarala

2 ай бұрын

@@hoghogwild Yes, Idk do we have all of them but you can see them in google maps

I was almost under a 35-b when it was hovering at an airshow. you could feel it in your lungs because it was so loud. It was amazing!

I did learn! I've been looking for this explanation of the difference between models of the F-35. Thanks 👍

@RedWrenchFilms

3 ай бұрын

Glad it was helpful!

So only a small amount of shared components, but what about manufacturing? If the same facility can use the same tooling to make any of those parts without being changed out then isn’t that where the cost saving would be? So the question in terms of if they are the same plane or not, is can the same factory make all 3 or only 1 version?

The $1.7 trillion cost is the total lifecycle cost.

The biggest weakness of the F35 program is stealth. If within 10 years radar technology keeps upgrading, F35 and the like may not still be stealth fighters anymore which will leave them with only the integrated technology in the middle of their service life because so much capabilities have been gutted including manoeuvrability and payload and top speed to make of it a stealthy aircraft.

@RedWrenchFilms

2 ай бұрын

Not really. Stealth is not a binary quality - it is just an effort to reduce your radar cross section (RCS). Even if radars improve, the F-35 will still be stealthier than the F-15/16/18. Relative to other aircraft it will still be significantly harder to track, spot and target.

Excellent timely vid, as I visited the UK Fleet Air Arm Museum. The museum is rather coy about the decision making process of planes for the QE Class carriers, and I couldn't quite recall it myself.

@notmenotme614

3 ай бұрын

Because the Royal Navy did consider designing and building a conventional aircraft carrier that would operate the much better F-35C like the US Navy. However the UKs design was changed back to the ski jump STOVL, forcing the Royal Navy to use the compromised F-35B instead. Critics argue if you are building a new aircraft carrier just for the F-35, then why would you use the worse F-35B variant?

@kalashnikovdevil

2 ай бұрын

@@notmenotme614 The wanted to avoid nuclear powered carriers I assume.

"Jets for aircraft carriers are vary rarely operated from land" No, not really. I'm pretty sure Finland, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Spain, Malaysia, Kuwait, and Iran, just to name a few would disagree with that assessment. Also, every single jet that the USN has operated from a carrier has operated from land for at least some part of its operational life.

@AA-xo9uw

3 ай бұрын

Incorrect. When not embarked aboard a boat those aircraft spend the majority of their lifetime operating from shore installations.

@letsgetsteve

3 ай бұрын

@@AA-xo9uw Thank you for repeating what I said...

He's back!!!

The notes about the special nature of carrier aircraft are interesting. Many aircraft have been operated from carriers even though not initially designed for that, and in Canada our only fighters are the CF188A - our version of the F/A-18 - even though we don't even have any carriers; the type was chosen over the F-16 for the twin engines desired for operation over remote areas.

THE RED WRENCH RETURNS

I've seen the F35B at an airshow, it's a nice plane.

You managed to bring absolutely nothing new to the table...? Perpetuating the tabloid press 1.7 trillion sticker value is just absurd. Compared to what? It´s lifetime cost of operation, including but not limited to, clean underwear for the pilots! - A detailed overview of parts commonality would perhaps have made the video watchable. You also overstate unit cost. (The F-35A's unit cost for LRIP Lot 13 was $79.2 million), and most importantly, since it´s the subject matter of your video, the parts commonality; which the Pentagon reports a 25%. You can do better, I hope! - Well at least you got an extra comment...

@RedWrenchFilms

3 ай бұрын

A bit of a rude way to go about discussing it. The $1.6 trillion is the total cost of the program (1995-2070). The unit cost for the F-35A is cheaper than that of its brothers, both of which average more than $100 million. The source from the pentagon stated 20-25% commonality.

@msytdc1577

3 ай бұрын

​@@RedWrenchFilmsRude? No name calling, no personal insults, constructive criticism on how things could be improved... bro, you won't find a nicer, more helpful, critical comment on the Internet. Fact is that you come across as a not subject matter expert who has included a number of errors and omissions in your video. My own personal recommendation is that you get a Discord group of viewers or reach out to actual subject matter experts to preview and advise prior to video release, ideally during the script writing process.

@RedWrenchFilms

3 ай бұрын

@@msytdc1577 Still rude. Throughout this comment section there are much better examples of constructive criticism. Not to mention that, in this case at least, the criticism is unfounded.

@msytdc1577

3 ай бұрын

@@RedWrenchFilms Perhaps there were nicer critical comments, I didn't view them all. But IMO just because 10s exist I don't think that justifies calling 9s ugly, nor to judge this comment as rising to the level of "rude", instead of perhaps 'direct', 'blunt', or 'unpolished', or another similar descriptor. And I disagree with your assessment that the criticism is unfounded, the majority of the other comments pertained to the treatment of the lifetime cost (OP point one), many others to the omission that the flyaway cost of the F-35 is actually less than competing generation 4 and 4.5 alternatives (OP's second point), and if OP states that the high number published was 25%, and you yourself provide that the Pentagon assessment was 20-25%, that's agreeing that OP's provided information is valid. Now, OP is wrong for not pointing out that the source of their stated information was a range instead of quoting only the high number, and if your video did the same thing, quoting only the low number then you'd be equally wrong, and both of you would be presenting a biased viewpoint by means of omission of critical data that is counter to the point you both wish to make, not good. In short, OP is batting 100 with regards to the points brought up, and those points are not unique compared to other comments, and while OP perhaps could have shown a bit more respect, tact, and kindness in how they phrased things, I don't think that should cloud one's opinion as to the validity of the points raised in their comment. Wishing you well, and encouraging you to continue with your videos, and like all content creators, hoping you will see continual improvement in your creative endeavors, and find fulfillment in doing so. And to take negative comments in stride and not have that be what sticks in mind-though often human nature for many makes that a darn near impossible task. Cheers mate 🍻

@jeromeportier4914

10 күн бұрын

@@msytdc1577 Like most people you're completely missing the point: - Even if the $1.7T is the lifetime cost, that's still a gigantic figure, AND way more than initially planned. To put things in perspective the same cost for the Rafale (albeit for less airframes) is $65B. Even if you correct the figure to match the number of airframes, and multiply it by 2 because stealth is expensive, you're still nowhere near target; - That unit cost that gets bandied about is complete BS. That's the cost per airframe for production only. That does not count R&D efforts. The GAO report states that the acquisition of under 2500 units will cost the DOD $400B. That's $160M per unit, and that probably does not even include the TR3 upgrade. Germany was quoted $240M per unit (of course with training and parts, but not necessarily with weapons);

I like how someone complained which is straight from Pierre Sprey you know, I like how he take away stealth and Turn fighter : I have to dodge ALL missile like Touhou Project for 90km long and blackout cuz dogfight with random jet like Ace Combat for 2 minutes Ground Attack Aircraft : I have to kiss ground target from 1000m high to almost crash into ground, plain eye stare as them, kill everything include our friend, and cope with variable size bullet and pray my body would dodge all bullet like Reimu Which I doubt S400 and Pantsir gonna let you joy in first place

Hell yes love it when this guy uploads

The latest F-35A ($89M) is significantly cheaper than the latest Eurofighter Typhoon ($100M) and is better than the competition, Gripen ($70M) and ($80M) and Rafale ($80M). F-35 has stealth and has more features and more room for development than the current competition.

@RW-zn8vy

3 ай бұрын

I do believe the f35A is actually 78 million not 89. Could be a bit cheaper now I’m not sure.

@n3v3rforgott3n9

3 ай бұрын

Rafale is between 100-120 million and the typhoon is more expensive than that for anyone who wasn't apart of the development. Also the newer more modern Gripen is also more expensive.

@jeromeportier4914

11 күн бұрын

Except no one outside of the US pays the airframe $78M or 89M. You never know what the contracts include (training, simulators, parts, weapons, etc.) but other countries have paid anywhere between $120M and $240M. We're quoted $1.7T over the lifespan of the plane, but it's difficult to find the exact value of what the airframe actually costs. I'm not convinced the airframe values published include the whole R&D expense, so the US taxpayer is basically subsidising the planes. Hence the low figures. I'm not even sure those values include the TR3/Block4 upgrades...

@n3v3rforgott3n9

11 күн бұрын

@@jeromeportier4914 the 1.7T number is the RND, 2000+ planes, training, logistics being set up, anf maintenance for 50 years.

@jeromeportier4914

10 күн бұрын

I've found a figure for the actual cost. The GAO's report states: "DOD plans to acquire nearly 2,500 F-35 aircraft for about $400 billion". That $160M per unit. And that probably does not include the TR3 upgrade that would come under maintenance... That might not even include the whole R&D!

i think it's very reductive to say 1.7trillion is the total cost to the taxpayers lol and most articles you've shown use this figure to tell whatever they want and it's usually to say how bad the f35 is

@RedWrenchFilms

3 ай бұрын

Reductive how? That is the total (estimated) cost of the program from inception to retirement.

@dominuslogik484

3 ай бұрын

@@RedWrenchFilms I would argue that there should be a caveat in the video stating how that 1.7 trillion is over the course of several decades.

I would've guessed that an aircraft designed to be used by multiple branches to be like 70% parts interchangeable, and the historical aircraft from the same manufacturer to be 20%. Thanks for teaching me that my intuition is 180° backwards!

Excellent video! Full of info without the fluff.

The actual cost is MUCH MUCH higher

@n3v3rforgott3n9

3 ай бұрын

Cost for what?

THE X-32 ISN'T UGLY IT'S SPECIAL

It's fascinating to compare the F-35 program with the F-111 program. In both cases huge cost savings were realized by executing all acquisition into one program. Remember that the F-111 was supposed to perform air superiority, carrier-based interceptor, and attack, which is also true for the F-35. The F-111 program resulted in a pretty good attack aircraft, but otherwise failed. The F-35 program gave us three distinct aircraft, each optimized for its own mission but taking advantage of the expensive design work on aerodynamics, stealth, structure, and software. The aircraft is supposedly an aerodynamic brick, but the pilots love it, so it's doing something right. I have absolute confidence that IF the aircraft was a failure, the pilots would be getting the word out. If they're happy, I'm happy.

@naksachaisaejane1982

3 ай бұрын

It's only a brick compared to 4th gen, but again, battle is not a dragstrip race.

@Albertkallal

3 ай бұрын

Actually, the F35 not that slow. Since the F35 gets to fly clean wings, then that makes up for a lot here. The F35 actually winds up with higher top speeds then a F16 or F18 with weapons on the wings. Hang just 4 AIMS on a F18 and now your top speed has dropped down to about Mach 1.4 (slower then the F35). Same goes for the F16. And the F16 has a small fuel tank, so in additional to the missiles dropping top speed down below that of the F35? Well, you then put external fuel tanks, and the F16 is now flying even slower. F16: fuel tank size: 7,000 lbs F35A: fuel tank size: 18,500 lbs So, as a result, both top speed and operational speeds of the F35 are higher then the F16. pilot Lt. Col. Hank “Hog” Griffiths *_Even when loaded internally with two 2,000lb GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munitions and two AIM-120 AMRAAMs, Griffith says the sheer power of the Pratt & Whitney F135 is evident. “The engine has a lot of thrust. It’s been fun to outrun the F-16 (chase aircraft). They can’t keep up. If we go to full military power the F-16 has to go to afterburner to keep up_* Norway pilots ALSO note the same - they flew F16's, and are now flying F35's. quote: *_We who fly the F-35 daily, can establish the following: The aircraft is faster, more maneuverable, has more range and, can carry a significantly higher payload and provides the pilot with a significantly better situational awareness than what we are used to from the F-16_* Col De Smit - RNLAF Quote: *_F35 climbs, descends & accelerates like a clean F-16_* QUOTE: *_Compared to the F-16, the F-35A with “full war equipment” can cruise 10-15k feet higher without afterburner and cruise 50-80 knots faster, all of this additional energy is imparted on missiles_* Quote: *_In full war gear, the F-35 operates effortlessly 10,000 to 15,000 feet higher than our F-16s can, without using an afterburner. The speed of the "cruise" is easily 50 to 80 knots higher. In F-16 I have to use afterburner and take running speed before a missile shot."_* Quote: *_U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Eric Smith, director of operations at the 58th Fighter Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., and F-35 test pilot, said that flying the aircraft is a thrilling experience._* *_“I can’t even explain the adrenaline rush you get when you light the afterburner on that thing,” Smith said. “The acceleration is much better than an F-16.”_* Quote: *_The F-35′s acceleration is “very comparable” to a Block 50/52 F-16. “Again, if you cleaned off an F-16 and wanted to turn and maintain Gs and [turn] rates, then I think a clean F-16 would certainly outperform a loaded F-35,”Kloos says. “But if you compared them at combat loadings, the F-35 I think would probably outperform it.” The F-16, Kloos says, is a very capable aircraft in a within visual range engagement-especially in the lightly loaded air-to-air configuration used during training sorties at home station. “It’s really good at performing in that kind of configuration,” Kloos says. “But that’s not a configuration that I’ve ever-I’ve been in a lot of different deployments-and those are the configurations I’ve never been in with weapons onboard._* The F-35A’s are currently defeating F-16s in close combat by using their advantages in acceleration, AoA & yaw, coupled with their solid capabilities in turn, pitch & roll, AND higher and better power to weight rating with combat loads.

Transition of flight modes occurs when the aircraft is moving forward fast enough, not (as claimed at 8:39) "when the aircraft is high enough".

If a difference in radars and electronic warfare equipment creates a half different aircraft according to you, then your numbers are really off. The Block 30 F-35 how's the new radar and electronic warfare equipment. And the Block 40 will have a different engine

@AA-xo9uw

3 ай бұрын

"The Block 30 F-35 how's the new radar and electronic warfare equipment."(sic) Block 3 "And the Block 40 will have a different engine"(sic) No new engine on tap for Block 4, yet.

GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RAHHH

@Faiarozu

Ай бұрын

HUUUU RAHHHHH

@fitzachella

Ай бұрын

@@Faiarozu RAHHH

Ya know, the F-35 variants having different performance abilities kinda makes it difficult to face against. With other fighters an adversary only has to know “This is an F-16. I expect it to be able to do this.” But with the F-35 there’s an added question in their head of “which F-35 is this and do I know the difference.” If it’s enough is yet to be determined.

@dumdumbinks274

3 ай бұрын

They'd probably just prepare to face the A model, since that version has the best combat performance.

@leovang3425

3 ай бұрын

It's not that simple, There are a lot (over 40) different upgrades to the F-16 so an F-16 might have the capability of an 80s fighter or that of an 2010s 4.5 gen fighter.

$90M is amazing value!!! An A321 NEO is $110M!! I can’t believe they got the cost of the F35 that low. Truly incredible.

Except the US Airforce is buying more F-15EX instead because the F-35 can't be made fast enough, and is too expensive per flight hour to run. F-15EX is more affordable and economical to use. Lockeeds production factories can't keep up with demand, and the current F-15 airframe have reached their limit and need to be retired. Something needs to replace them now.

@dominuslogik484

3 ай бұрын

The F15-EX isn't cheaper at all, the reason they wanted it was for the significantly higher arms payload with IIRC something akin to 22 air-to-air missiles able to be carried by the thing. The F-35 is definitely still being bought by the US airforce which already has 310 F-35 A and another 59 on order. meanwhile the F-15EX the airforce has 8 of them and plans on using them to replace the old F-15 fleets of E/D variants. the F-35 is meant to replace the F-16 which we still have 775 in service.

@COLT6940

3 ай бұрын

Bullcrap f15ex is more expensive than f35 block 4. It's quite the opposite Airforce will cut down f15ex orders while increase more f35s instead. F15ex is mainly for air national guard.

@TheBigExclusive

3 ай бұрын

@@dominuslogik484 - The F-15EX costs $29,000 per hour to run. The F-35 costs $45,000 per hour to run. The F-15EX is cheaper to run.

@dominuslogik484

3 ай бұрын

@@TheBigExclusive that is the only metric where it is cheaper, the F-15EX comes out to 31.5 million dollars more expensive in its fly away cost. even after flying both for 1000 hours you would still have spent less money on an F-35. I don't feel like spending a while doing a formula to figure out at what point you break even but if after 1000 flight hours the F-35 was still cheaper than the F-15EX was not adopted due to price but instead due to capabilities.

@COLT6940

3 ай бұрын

​@@TheBigExclusivethat's a stupid argument, f35 cost of operation will be 30k by 2027 and 28k by 2030. J20 will easily shoot down f15ex while f35 can counter j20 with sensors and stealth.

Over all this is a pretty good video of the F-35. What is important about the F35 is to note is that all 3 airframes were designed to use a common manufacturing line with parts designed for the requirements unique to the 3 aircraft and not to use parts designed to meet requirements for all 3 aircraft. This produces a cost effective aircraft tailored to each of its roles as opposed to achieving a mediocre air vehicle given to multiple services such as the F-4 Phantom.

The important commonality in these aircraft are the electronic systems, active and passive sensors and related data link systems. That is the real strength of these aircraft.

Thank you for the explanation....I always wondered!