The money spent of the F35 seems like a huge waste but we really don't understand what we actually payed for. They have solved all the initial problems with the design and the per unit cost for the current block of planes is cheaper than a new F15. Plus the technology developed for F35 is all over the new B21 Raider from the engines to avionics, radars, controls ect.. Making the B21 come in at a fraction of the cost of the B2 and also reducing the cost of maintaining the machines through the lifetime of the system. Also the money spent on F35 includes the cost of maintaining them for life which most people don't know.

@Dubanx

Жыл бұрын

Seriously. The only real issue with the F-35 is that it went WAAAY over budget. but at this point the money is spent, the aircraft is excellent, and there is little to no reason not to see it through. The program had some major hurdles, but said issues are behind us at this point.

@aurabanda6144

Жыл бұрын

Finally someone who has a brain.

@Trindify

Жыл бұрын

Found the Lockheed Martin shill.

@jjjr.1186

Жыл бұрын

@@Trindify found the hater. I don't care where my wepons come from. A Chinese SKS. Yugo Ak. America ar15. I shill for no one. F35 is the best most successful fighter in its generation. And I like tullammo as much as freedom munitions.

@danw1089

Жыл бұрын

Why do we guard the f22 so closely and not the f35 ? We will sell the f35 to Ally’s but not the f22

It's $1 trillion over the entire 60 year planned lifespan. $1 trillion has not already been spent. That's the problem with only reading headlines. It's like saying a baby costs $5 million. Sounds expensive until it's noted that the price includes all of the costs through a 70+ year lifespan.

@bullreeves1109

Жыл бұрын

Exactly.

@mr.fighterbomber3345

Жыл бұрын

Yeah news articles just take information and instantly say that with nothing to back up that point

@musoseven8218

Жыл бұрын

It's still overpriced and struggling - we must be mugs to enable the people at the top to endlessly waste our money and feather their own nests.

@kali7148

Жыл бұрын

@@musoseven8218 it costs 50% cheaper than european competitors. it is cheaper than a new F-15, F-16 and F-18 while having significantly more capabilities. How is it overpriced and struggling? Did you know the F-15 program costs 1.5 trillion and couting? why arent you bitching about that aircraft?

@mr.fighterbomber3345

Жыл бұрын

@@musoseven8218 The only true problem WAS it's development. It can perform many roles and can do them pretty good.

A friend is a Viper pilot who got a chance to fight against F-35s. He wasn't terribly impressed with the F-35's maneuvering capability, but one thing really opened his eyes: on two occasions when he was briefly in position for gun shots, his gunsight couldn't "see" an F-35 that was filling the windscreen. The stealth is, evidently, real.

@mattrubin89

Жыл бұрын

F-16 got F-35 in gunsights.....

@Frankie5Angels150

Жыл бұрын

That’s not what stealth is about. Your friend was pulling your leg.

@BenS3.

Жыл бұрын

​@@Frankie5Angels150 this whole story is bullshit. Isnt a viper a helo? The f35 uses thrust vectoring which give it serious advantage and capability.

@voivode2591

Жыл бұрын

Your confused. The F35 doesn’t have thrust vectoring. That would be the F22.

@The24Gamer

Жыл бұрын

The whole idea is that stealth fighters make dogfighting redundant so it doesn't matter how 'deficient' it is at manoeuvring, these days it's about stealth and lethality beyond visual range.

Trying to build a single aircraft to replace many different types was never going to be easy.

@mr.fighterbomber3345

Жыл бұрын

I don't think the F-35 is going to replace those platforms, with exceptions for like the Harrier and A10. I think it's more or less just going to work alongside them

@up4open763

Жыл бұрын

@@mr.fighterbomber3345 A-10 is highly specific, the closest thing on earth to a flying tank, imo. For what the US pulled off with the F35, it's an amazing step in the right direction, imo. But upon completion, that role isn't for this plane. But good news, having such a superior AS plane, means the A-10's successor can get even more specialized.

@marsmotion

Жыл бұрын

@@mr.fighterbomber3345 airforce is buying f15 exs that tells you alot

@mr.fighterbomber3345

Жыл бұрын

@@marsmotion the f-15ex is a missile carrier, where the F-35 is a stealthy strike fighter

@californiabreeze2182

Жыл бұрын

@@marsmotion Absolutely and it is necessary for the simple fact that you need more than one signature out there in the skies. Plus anyone needs to take an account with our systems work directly and indirectly Innamission include Drones and who knows what other type of systems involved. Also other systems that we do not know about. PS food for thought we are not talking about Turkish drones that is nothing more than just a sidekick to confuse Our adversaries. this conflict in Europe shows that the Russians cannot stop any target coming into there air Space. And it is not a slow moving drone or .09 tomb cruise missile. They are vulnerable for a first strike without a response. This is real more than virtual reality.

The F-14 had the same problems as the F-35, if not more. If you look at articles around the time the F-14 was released you’ll see that it had a rough start and end, but many will claim with their dying breath that it was one of the best dog fighters.

@cab6273

Жыл бұрын

The first F-14 even crashed on its second flight

@Shoeg4zer

Жыл бұрын

The flight tests for the F16 killed several pilots. The F35 had no fatal crashes.

@ommsterlitz1805

Жыл бұрын

It Still is way inferior to other design like the Rafale in almost all role except for stealth bombing while being is much cheaper

@IgnoredAdviceProductions

Жыл бұрын

The Reformer movement had this weird tendency to love older stuff, back when the F-14 and F-15 were new they used the exact same arguments against them as they're now using against the F-35. It's a very funny cycle to watch.

@pollo4744

Жыл бұрын

@@IgnoredAdviceProductions I’m well aware, the reformers talk about the old days, but in those old days they criticized the same fighters the pray to.

If you're already familiar and/or don't need another history lesson on the JSF beginnings, the topic of this video starts at 5:30 mins, or at 9:55 for the specific issue this episode is trying to point out. But nothing new here. All the points highlighted have already been covered in a plethora of previous videos criticising the F-35. This is just a recycling of old topics. Must be a slow news day.

@docmccoy9813

Жыл бұрын

Yep, disappoining video

@kevindonville8185

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, and a lot of them have been addressed, or debunked due to the "criticisms" coming from testing against the early pre-release fighters and forcing it to test without its full EWS functional. A lot of "Nope" in this video.

@HammerRocks

Жыл бұрын

@@kevindonville8185 I was going to say the same thing. Majority of the issues raised here have already been sorted.

@ommsterlitz1805

Жыл бұрын

Not true the F-35 is just a stealth bomber capable of landing on Aircraft carrier that's it it's not a very maneuverable nor very good plane for air superiority and interceptor role, It still is way inferior to other design like the Rafale in almost all role except for stealth bombing while being is much cheaper.

@CheapSushi

Жыл бұрын

They also literally repeat themselves over and over. They do this in every video to pad the video length.

The initial statement in the video is false. The F-35 was designed as an advanced multirole fighter that combined as many capabilities as possible into a stealthy package. The whole thing was a compromise...a good one, but a compromise nonetheless. 6:10 The F-16 has been published to be significantly faster than the F-35. According to multiple sources the F-16C/D has a top speed of Mach 2 at 40k feet, while the F-35's have a top speed of Mach 1.6. The military has always been ambiguous about the performance data they publish, so it is hard to be certain what the exact top speeds actually are. For example, the F-16C/D has a published top speed of 1500MPH or Mach 2 at 40k feet. The problem is that 1500MPH at 40K feet is in fact Mach 2.25. In the Case of the F-35, Lockheed published a Mach number of 1.6, followed by (~1200 mph). The major confusion has to do with the way the speed of sound is calculated. The Mach number for a given MPH will change depending on the altitude. I am at the limits of my high school science knowledge here, but I believe it has to do with air viscosity and the way sound waves transfer through a more dense gaseous medium...Like how banging rocks together can be heard for greater distances underwater. I'm no expert on the science though. Regardless of the underlying scientific principles, or the games of the military aviation industry, the statement that the F-35 is faster than the F-16 is patently false.

@metal52militia

Жыл бұрын

Correct!

@MattKearneyFan1

Жыл бұрын

It’s costly and flawed.

@corkingcoggo8375

Жыл бұрын

@@MattKearneyFan1 yet still the best in the world

@duhamelvelez-cotto7741

Жыл бұрын

Yea true.XD

@MattKearneyFan1

Жыл бұрын

@@corkingcoggo8375 🤣🤣🤣🤣 best in the world according to who again? Come back with facts before you look like an idiot. The 22, 15, 16, and 18 own this plane by a mile

The F-22 actually has a smaller RCS than F-35 and is still the stealthiest fighter on earth. That said, the F-35 can use a helmet mounted display that vastly improves upon the HUD that is still in the F-22. It has cost a fortune, like most state of the art aviation projects have always done, and the issues it has had in development are no worse than most past aircraft, but being in the digital age, every step the program takes is relentlessly scrutinized. To say nothing of the extreme complexity involved in any innovation on the cutting edge of aircraft design in the modern age dwarfs what came in the past. The plane is here to stay and will likely serve its owners well. Once people truly see the F-35C in full action, they likely won't be quite so critical of its agility too..

@Calzaghe83

Жыл бұрын

It costs less per unit than an updated 1970's F-15. Don't see what people are bitching about... And it will fuck up any aircraft outside an F-22, people just don't know what they're talking about.

@Lardum

Жыл бұрын

@@Calzaghe83 i mean in this hypothetical fight between an F-22 and an F-35, sure the F-22 wins in a one on one dogfight (cus the F-22 was specifically designed as an air superiority fighter) but you can practically buy two F-35 for the price of one F-22 lmao and that's infinitely better despite the F-22 being SLIGHTLY better at shooting down other planes

@the_dude182

Жыл бұрын

@@Lardum why would the F22 win? Agility is meant for old fighters. The F35 doesnt need to be that agile as its the first fighter that doesnt need to point its nose to get a lock. A F35 pilot can lock and shoot anything 360 degrees. (Unless using board cannon). And yes, for evading incoming missiles a bit of agility is important and thats why it is pretty agile.

@Lardum

Жыл бұрын

@@the_dude182 the F-22 is stealthier than the F-35. It was afterall specifically designed to be an air superiority fighter. It's really good at it, it just is also really expensive

@the_dude182

Жыл бұрын

@@Lardum And the F35's better radar wouldnt help to level the odds? Not that i dislike the F22 haha just wondering.

The F-35, though very costly, is definitely a capable aircraft in multiple roles, but you have to admit that it’s nickname “Fat Amy” is pretty funny.

@denniswhite166

Жыл бұрын

Is that really it's nickname? I can't wait to tell my sister-in-law that. Guess what her name is. LOL

@kennypowerz1267

Жыл бұрын

There's 3 variants I heard. 1 that doesn't need a runway. F-35A F-35B AND F-35C .

@kwkfortythree39

Жыл бұрын

Fat Amy aka Battle Penguin

@KBMaximus

Жыл бұрын

Fat chicks need love too, craig.

@Kirovets7011

Жыл бұрын

I call it "The flying Dustbin".

2:45 I love the F22 Raptor with it's dual thrust vectoring engines.

@linuswulff03

Жыл бұрын

Dual engine jet aircrafts will always be superior in sex appeal. That's just a fact

So just the same issues that all aircraft developments have

@mr.fighterbomber3345

Жыл бұрын

If people are going to hate on the F-35 then they might as well hate on the P-51 as well.

She had teething problems. But she is all fangs now. Truly an amazing piece of tech. Setting the bar is never easy and failures are expected along the way.

@mr.fighterbomber3345

Жыл бұрын

Agreed

@kathrynck

Жыл бұрын

She has set the bar really, _really_ high.

@kevinblackburn3198

Жыл бұрын

no

Remember, no matter how fast or slow it is, if you cannot see it, you cannot kill it, but, it can kill you!

Such a state of the art aircraft is bound to have 'teething problems', that's only natural. Uncle Sam's decision to put all its eggs in one basket made the F-35 a project too big to fail, meaning that no matter the problems, a solution will always be found. So the future looks bright for this bird, as shown by the increasing number of countries joining the Lightning II community.

very impressed with how Dark Skies managed to get access to the development offices and manufacturering process of this plane.

@VikingTeddy

Жыл бұрын

I'm getting really tired by takes on the f35 by people who know absolutely nothing about it. You could ask any fighter pilot, and even they wouldn't know much more unless they have access to restricted documents. Budgetary issues aside, I'm willing to bet some people in the government are really pleased by all the talk about the failings of fat Amy. It's a big boon for the U.S if everyone thinks the plane isn't very good.

@LarsAgerbk

Жыл бұрын

@@VikingTeddy I don't agree. When Denmark had to choose a replacement for their F16s, Boeing advertised their F18 on Danish busstops. They had some guy argue against the F35 on national televison. He claimed that stealth was a fraud. So I don't think American government wants potential customers to disregard the F35.

@VikingTeddy

Жыл бұрын

@@LarsAgerbk The customers would be well informed. It's the regular dummies like us that they're fine with spreading misinformation. Even if say, the Chinese have a good understanding of the capabilities through espionage, there will still be enough brass among them who take the criticism at face value. Especially when it reinforces what they want to believe. we've seen how dumb some people can be, even in high positions. Granted, it might not be a significant advantage, but every little bit you know?

@kidShibuya

Жыл бұрын

@@josephthomas3712 Yeah, 20,000 Chinese drones. Planes are cool and all, but what is any plane no matter how advanced going to do when the skies are literally full of drones with missiles?

The F-35 was more of a research concept that made it into production. The F-35 was the best it could be at the time of production, but I feel this research will give us the upper hand on developing the sixth and seventh generation of stealth fighters. If they don’t already exist that is😉 Edit:Typo

@defenestrated23

Жыл бұрын

Exactly. In a lot of ways it is the dress rehearsal for the next revolutionary leap.

@MxSinner713

8 ай бұрын

And knowing the F-22 is ¡25 years old! ...

Hey @DarkDocsSkies could you eventually do a video on the EA-6B Prowler??

Love your content been watching for over 2 years 🤘🏻

When a trillion dollars is spent on developing a fighter ... "hold up, wait a minute, something ain't right."

@tonyunderwood9678

Жыл бұрын

Remember... that price figure is not development expense, it's what the F-35 is expected to cost over the airplane's life span in service, NOT all up front at once. Today, an F-35 costs about the same as a modern commercial airliner.

heres a couple things the f-35 has going for it: most advanced sensors, stealth (only other american stealth plane is f-22), multirole (something the f-22 doesn't have as stated in the video), and while it can't outrun or out manouver, i doubt you will be dogfighting with a jet thats past the horizon. another thing is that america doesn't need to *only* use one plane, they can send in multiple, allowing the f-35 to act like a more mobile awacs. another thing it has going for it is that its enemys aren't all that strong as people make them out to be. the su57 might as well be some little timmy's drawing since russia has less su-57s than canada does tanks

@00Athus1

Жыл бұрын

Last count on the 57s were 8 testers 7 serial...

@bongodrumzz

Жыл бұрын

@@00Athus1 the way the russians bend testers, you may wanna rethink that number

@marinusdedreu3833

Жыл бұрын

And Canadas military is a joke 🤣

@up4open763

Жыл бұрын

Just remember that often tech defeats tech. In fact, that's the point. It's not at all unreasonable to see someone find a way to defeat the F35's stealth, and missiles, and push into dog-fight. Maybe not next year, maybe not in 5 years. But I guarantee you there are people paid to think about this in other places.

@ommsterlitz1805

Жыл бұрын

It Still is way inferior to other design like the Rafale in almost all role except for stealth bombing while being is much cheaper

P-51 and F-111 (to name a few) where also a duds..... How did they end up?

@mr.fighterbomber3345

Жыл бұрын

EXACTLY!!!

@thecommentator3732

Жыл бұрын

People still say the F-35 cant dogfight💀💀💀💀💀

@mr.fighterbomber3345

Жыл бұрын

@@thecommentator3732 those are usually the people who say the Earth is flat

@tonyunderwood9678

Жыл бұрын

@@thecommentator3732 ...cuz it's not a dogfighter, it's a strike A/C. The F-22 is the dog in the bunch.

@thecommentator3732

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyunderwood9678 Excuse me? If its not a dogfighter then why bother adding a 360 bore off HMDS??

Once upon a time, a short story by Arthur C. Clarke titled, "Superiority" was required reading by MIT students as well as in the military colleges. It depicts an arms race during an interstellar war. It shows the side which is more technologically advanced being defeated, despite its apparent superiority, because of its willingness to discard old technology for the bells, whistles, and flashiness of the new. Meanwhile, the enemy steadily built up a far larger arsenal of weapons that while more primitive were also more reliable. In our current situation you then have to take into account the cost of each aircraft and there will inevitably be reluctance to utilize the weapon simply because of it's cost and the threat of it being destroyed. Basically it comes down to numbers.....300 older aircraft armed with 8 missiles each, engaging 100 newer aircraft armed with 10 missiles each, and the newer aircraft still lose. A lesson the Germans learned in the armored battle of Kursk, where the Soviets outnumbered them in tanks 2 to 1.

@simonm1447

Жыл бұрын

In this case around 3k F-35s are planned to be built - far more jets than the evil empire in the east has, and these are just F-35s, with thousands of other fighter aircraft parallel in service in several Nato air forces

@suflanker45

Жыл бұрын

@@simonm1447 well the problem with your point is planned production. What is planned doesn't always happen. The F-22 planned production run was 750 aircraft and that got cut to 187, The B-2 original planned production run was to be 132 aircraft then got cut to 21. The B-1 bomber production run was supposed to be 244 aircraft then got cancelled then restored but only 100 were built. The US Navy's F-14D and A-6F programs were supposed to produce several hundred aircraft each but only 55 F-14Ds were built and the A-6F got cancelled.

@allmivoyses

Жыл бұрын

@@simonm1447 All true. But part of the selling point for the F35 was the interchangeability of parts between the different models. What was supposed to be around 70-80% interchangeability in reality is only around 20-25%. Thus increasing costs for parts and serviceability.

@simonm1447

Жыл бұрын

@@suflanker45 in the case of the B-2 and the F-22 high production numbers were planned during cold war. After the downfall of the USSR the B-2 numbers were reduced to a minimum, more or less the same happened with the F-22. Both were not exported. At the moment we are sliding into a new cold war (with China and russia), so it's unlikely production numbers will be cut, another difference of the F-35 is it's an export aircraft too and other air forces are deploying them around the world. Most F-35s will be A models, so this variant will be common and not that expensive to maintain, and a successor of many F-16s in different air forces

@suflanker45

Жыл бұрын

@@simonm1447 you're forgetting about economics. The US and European economies are nosediving. Their governments have piled up massive debts that are so high they can only pay the interest on their debt and those interest payments are getting higher as they pile up more debt and eats into their overall budget. The European governments have also gutted their defense budgets to pay for all the migrants flooded across the continent right now. I highly doubt 3k plus F-35s will be built.

They’ve delivered almost a thousand of them. It’s winning every procurement bake off. What flaws?

so flawed that almost every country that has had the option to buy them has chosen them over the competition.

@alexfortin7209

Жыл бұрын

@@K1N3T1C4L_K4OS Not sure: South Korea, Israel, Finland, Canada and Switzerland are not known for buying garbage military hardware!

@britishrocklovingyank3491

Жыл бұрын

@@K1N3T1C4L_K4OS So everyone is stupid but you and Dark Skies.

@angellara7040

Жыл бұрын

@@K1N3T1C4L_K4OS Israel loves the f35

@eleventy-seven

8 ай бұрын

t of the cost of doing business with the US. Its junk.

IMO the biggest take-away from the JSF program was that it could never live up to expectations. The idea was a common platform would produce cost savings, but the reality is that each participant wanted a unique solution, and trying to satisfy a diverse sets of needs in one platform is expensive and ultimately unsatisfying. So, never forget and never again.

@sinisterknight9696

Жыл бұрын

Every weapons platform program is a moonshot, in budget, schedule, predicted quantity, and capabilities. And so, for each one of them there’s a ton of articles saying they fell short, cost too much, had teething issues, were a dud, etc. Cause and effect. Most of the journalists have absolutely no clue what they’re writing about, use irrelevant metrics, or just perceived the goals to be the realities. Could an F-18 shoot down an F35? Sure. Can a Swedish diesel sub sink a US carrier? It has torpedoes. Why not? Could you disable a modern high tech security system, blindfolded? If you’re sitting next to the computer that runs it, absolutely. Will any of those things every be in a position to do that stuff? Extremely unlikely. Nobody can predict the cost of building what has never been built. Or the challenges that will come along the way. There’s what we ask for, and what we get. The US got a dominating, multi role fighter that fills its position in the fleet brilliantly. Which is exactly what they paid for.

@Skank_and_Gutterboy

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, they tried that with the F-4 and there wound up being a bunch of different models for different uses.

@icollectstories5702

Жыл бұрын

@@sinisterknight9696 A specific example is VSTOL. Is this a useful feature? Yeah. Does every Air Force fighter need it? No. Do you compromise the airframe and range by having support for this feature? Yeah. Build some VSTOL platforms for the Marines. Build a long-distance fighter for the Air Force. Build a lighter STOL for the Navy. Just don't force them to be built in one air frame by one contractor on one schedule under one budget. Give each service the freedom and responsibility to order what they want on their own budget and schedule. Hopefully, this will result in having multiple consortia building planes instead of fostering a dependence on a sole too-big-to-fail supplier.

@voivode2591

Жыл бұрын

Just understand. It was an attempt to pull NATO together before this latest war started. Multi role jets will never do everything all the time. Too many compromises. Expense is so political it doesn’t reflect reality. How many years have they complained the F35 was over budget? Guess what you can now buy an F35 cheaper than most 4 generation fighters. It pays to keep the production lines going.!

@hoperadio4572

10 ай бұрын

Reminds me of the issues with the F-111. It was supposed to be a plane that met the needs of the Navy and Air Force, but in the end only worked for the Air Force.

“Concurrency”… You can’t really talk about the development of the F-35 without even mention it. It was one of the most controversial and most discussed part of the whole project and construction All the best to everyone

Well, for a flawed platform, the “B” are flying their butts off out here in Yuma 😂😂😂

Everyone talks about how it will loose in a dogfight. Imagine a feild 500 yards long. 1 man has a knife, 1 man has a rifle. The guy with the knife would win in a knife fight, but the guy with the rifle isn't in a knife fight. The man with the rifle will win. The f35 will kill its enemy long b4 it finds itself in a dog fight.

@Dark Skies... The F-35 isn't less maneuverable then the F-22 both planes by physically limited by Pilot G lock not by the airframe. Also instead of using thrust vectoring like on the F-22 the engineers maximized the pitching moment from the all moving horizontal stabilizers by putting them as far aft of the C of G as physically possible. It turns out using big horizontal stabilizers is much lighter then thrust vectoring engines.

@F4PhantomGaming

Жыл бұрын

big stabilizers increase drag when using them though

@_Addi_

Жыл бұрын

It is less maneuverable than the F-22. There is a reason F-35 pilots gave it the name "Fat Amy". It plays a different role than the F-22 and is a fantastic jet in its own respects.

@Birdsaregovspys6969

Жыл бұрын

I am an idiot. But I’d think the once you hit the G limit for the pilot in both planes that there are many more factors that determine it’s ability to maneuver. Like how quick it reacts or it’s ability to keep up airspeed ect.

@kathrynck

Жыл бұрын

@@_Addi_ I have to agree, F-22 takes it in a gun-sight fight. At least in daylight, with decent visibility. But if it has missiles, anything near the F-35 is completely xxxxed. Anything the pilot looks at, is in grave peril, and his helmet display system has everything marked and allows him to see through the plane. Even in a gun fight, at night the 360 degree EOTS + HMDS beats the hell out of the night vision goggles other planes use. And an F-35 is more likely to spot an F-22 first, despite the former's extra-low RCS. It would be an interesting game of cat & mouse, but the 35 has a strong advantage in sensor suite, situational awareness, and the IR stealth arena.

@_Addi_

Жыл бұрын

kathrynck Idk, I think it would be a fairly even fight between an F-22 and an F-35 with missiles. At night, the F-35 would probably have the upper hand though. Guns to guns at night, I would probably give it to the F-22 7 times out of 10.

The F-35 A, B and C should really be called the F-35, F-36 and F-37. Every time the Pentagon wants a 'Swiss Army Knife' aircraft, this is what happens. They never learn.

@angellara7040

Жыл бұрын

They make the most advanced plane on earth? They should do this more often

@osmanapaydin7212

Жыл бұрын

There are already Swiss army aircraft flying. 4th gen aircraft like the f-16 and f-18 are currently very competent multi role fighters. Want proof? Look at the gulf war

What we are NOT seeing is the smaller, faster, stealthier drones being built with these same technologies.

This is cool! Now do a segment of the new B-21!!!❤

Problems are common during development of new aerospace products. I remember reports for years that the Osprey was a dud. It turned out to be a fine aircraft.

@billymania11

Жыл бұрын

Many of us would disagree.

@hughsmith2657

Жыл бұрын

Same with the eurofighter typhoon, I was a kid when that first started, I'm 47 now and we have one hell of a aircraft

@Coffeeman-yq6xu

Жыл бұрын

Many families of deceased Marines would tell you otherwise.

@ostrich00

Жыл бұрын

Uh, no. It's a unique capability that is invaluable, but it's operating cost, reliability, and poor survivability is definitely not on par with calling it a "fine" aircraft

@ragemore7750

Жыл бұрын

The Osprey is such an excellent aircraft that is why it just had a full fleet grounding lifted.. and the reason for the crash that grounded them is still unknown. Its a flying disaster about to happen at any time.

That the program is more than twenty years old and they still haven't finished the research and development stage yet is a great example of trying to put too many eggs into a basket from the start. The ORIGINAL program was a study to develop a supersonic stealthy VSTOL aircraft to replace the Harriers used by the UK, USMC, Italy, Spain, and probably India. There was a seperate study going on for a lightweight land based fighter that then got merged into it with the ridiculous theory that removing the vertical lift equipment from the original plane would make room for more fuel and internal weapons and avionics for a land based version and would be a cheap and easy change to make. This btw is why the F-35A and B are the same dimensions externally. Then the Navy had a requirement for a stealthy CTOL carrier aircraft after the failure of the A-12 Avenger II program and hey let's just tack that onto the JSF also. We'll just put on a stronger tailhook, a towbar on the nose gear, and make the wings bigger.... no big deal....right ?

@jimmcneal5292

Жыл бұрын

100%, they should have had 2 programs -- one to replace harrier and another to replace F-16 and F-18. And if they wanted something to replace A-10 and take the role of A-12, they should have developed yet another plane

@BobSmith-jy6oh

Жыл бұрын

@@jimmcneal5292 I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I wonder what the combined cost would've been to develop 3 separate airframes from the ground up.

@jimmcneal5292

Жыл бұрын

@@BobSmith-jy6oh Certainly more than one program, but it would be possible to actually retire F-16s, F-18s and A-10s, and not spend money on their modernization. Altogether it wouldn't be much more expensive, but would drastically increase US capabilities.

Our adversaries hate it too..."Hey, my wingman just blew up, where the fuck did that come from?"

I wouldn't be surprised to see a G version, a G as in Growler version for electronic warfare IE jamming etc. I hear they might already have some capability but I could see a dedicated version for it.

@saltyfloridaman7163

Жыл бұрын

All F-35 variants have superior EW performance than Growlers

@CheapSushi

Жыл бұрын

@@saltyfloridaman7163 they're producing a next generation pod specifically for the Growlers that's even more advanced. The Growler can jam multiple directions and objects because it has multiple pods. The next generation jamming pods can also jam low frequency radars now too.

@mab0852

Жыл бұрын

Nope...no need, search Speed Racer.

@MrCarrizojim

Жыл бұрын

Don’t need them any longer, drones do that function now and can be controlled from an F-35

@ericwilson2923

Жыл бұрын

if you thought of it, the military certainly has and has likely already made one, within reason of course

Extreme speed isn’t needed anywhere anymore.

In the long run, the YF-32 in the USAF & NAVY versions may have been the better way to go. The F-35B for the USMC Missions would have dramatically lowered its price.

If I'm not mistaken a long time ago the same problems plagued the F111 program, a new generation of aircraft that went from a problem to a fantastic platform. And was cutting edge.

@floycewhite6991

6 ай бұрын

Yet another "multi-role" plane nobody asked for or wanted, that kept getting its specifications changed. The Navy asked for and got its swing-wing F-14, which fit its purposes, and was developed in less time. All planes have teething problems, that's why prototypes are tested, and early versions shouldn't be made in large number. Later versions fix the bugs and provide more functions. However, for the F-35, every airframe gets retrofitted with every revision and upgrade. That's the most-expensive way possible. And the F-35 is 3 distinct, different planes that just look a lot alike. The Navy doesn't even want theirs -- a huge waste of development costs. It would have been much much cheaper, quicker, and the end-products would have been much closer to each branch's needs, had several totally different planes been developed independently. It's almost as if the whole program was concocted to disguise manufacture and upkeep of a super-expensive speciality plane for Israel.

People forget that it's not a dogfighter. It's a strike aircraft. The F-22 is the dogfighter in the house, supplementing the F-15. That said, the F-35 is still able to move around if it has to.

@ericwilson2923

Жыл бұрын

f-22 is not a dogfighter, it stays hidden from enemy planes and launches missiles at them without them knowing until it's too late, dogfighting is a thing of the past really

@tonyunderwood9678

Жыл бұрын

@@ericwilson2923 Excuse me... if it's not a dogfighter, then why does the F-22 have a gun (M-61 20mm) and an A-A gunsight? It also carries AIM-9 missiles, which are relatively close contact weapons usually shot at an enemy that you are trying to chase down. The F-22 has an enhanced agility airframe and vectored thrust engines. All these are what's expected to be found on a... (wait for it) ...dogfighter. It does carry long range standoff weapons as well, sure... But that old "dogfighting is obsolete" strategy had already turned around and bit the USAF on its ass once before when they started fielding F-4 Phantoms in 'Nam without a gun, believing air to air missiles were the answer to aerial combat. FAIL. Then they had to backtrack and start hanging externally mounted gun pods under the airplanes so it could more effectively defend itself in the same dogfights that had been deemed obsolete by generals flying desks in the Pentagon. Later production Phantoms all had guns again. And that is why the F-22 has a gun and an air-to-air-gunsight. Because it is a dogfighter that has additional operational capabilities.

The logistics, the methods, the know how, and the people, that build and make this aircraft able to fly, blows my mind. It's incomprehensible to me. Just watching them testing the engine, watching all its little moving parts.

@MrCarrizojim

Жыл бұрын

There isn’t a lot of small moving parts in the engine, that’s why it’s good.

This aircraft is largely designed for one thing: kicking down a peer enemy's front door on day one of any conflict. It was bound to have issues getting towards full capability. Some of the finest, longest-serving combat aircraft in history have had flaws to start with. The British Hawker Hunter being a good example. The F-35 also has another great thing going for it, beyond its inherent capabilities: sheer weight of numbers. These aircraft are being bought by free nations right around the world, with the UK being a tier 1 partner alongside the US.

@shadowopsairman1583

Жыл бұрын

F-16, C-17, CV-22 all had issues but 2 of the 3 here are awesome

Summary Its a supercomputer, that has wings Get it now

Call me pedantic but when I'm hearing "F-22", I don't want to be looking at a single engine fighter. Same same, when the narrator says "F-35", I would like the video to show that plane. Dark Skies is far from the worst offender with this problem, raising my expectations. Thanks for what you do!

The F-35's biggest flaw is trying to fit 3 completely different aircraft into a single airframe. Something that should have been obvious to anyone familiar with the development of the F-111 Aardvark

@saltyfloridaman7163

Жыл бұрын

So basically the F-35 is a stealthy F-16 and Hornet performance combined that has better instantaneous aoa and sustained turn rate, faster acceleration, greater payload than both, Radar and IR stealth, EW performance greater than a Growler, yet you're saying it's flawed? The F-35B was designed to incorporate STOVL capabilities like the Harrier into the blended F-16 and Hornet multirole fighter performance, meanwhile the F-35C is a better super hornet that can dogfight better. So please tell me where the F-35 is flawed as an Air Dominance fighter? It's absolutely crushes any nato fighter at operation red flag dogfights with a 20-1 win loss against the F-16, F-15, F/A-18 Hornet, Eurofighter, and any other fighter that took part other than the F-22.

@chrisschmidt146

Жыл бұрын

The F-111 was a total failure for the Navy to be sure. Some of the later models of the USAF F-111 were a good solid plane. I worked on D models and the F models.

@MrCarrizojim

Жыл бұрын

Oh yeah, engineers live forever. You know real history isn’t taught any longer?

Another record: It´s one of the loudest planes ever built!

@dragthatsht

Жыл бұрын

I came here to say this. It is so crazy loud. I saw it at an air show and couldn't believe how loud it was. It may not show up on radar screens, but you will still know it's there.

@nicolas_ai

Жыл бұрын

✨️ thunderscreech ✨️

@masahirosakurai3733

Жыл бұрын

@@nicolas_ai NOOO

@tonyunderwood9678

Жыл бұрын

I dunno... ;-) Ever stand close to an F-14 taking off with full burner? I used to think they were designed specifically to make noise. Or have a Harrier in slow hover approach fly directly over you at 200 ft? Maybe I should backtrack... lemme change the loudest to that Harrier if it's close. F-15s are kinda loud too if you're standing a couple hundred feet diagonally behind one at full burner. You can feel it as well as hear it. Oh hell... they're all loud. lol!

@erichagen3617

Жыл бұрын

When I was in Cyprus in 2006 back when Lebanon was shooting rockets into Israel, I was there as part of a task force to fly Marines in and out of embassy in Lebanon. The USAF had U-2 spy planes there. That is still the loudest noise I have ever heard and I used to have F-16’s take off next to me with full afterburner in Balad, Iraq (LSA Anaconda)

Just think of it: War breaks out and no one can afford to fight.

I respond back here again. No doubt the F16 is a shit hot fighter even this long after it’s inception. Would you expect less from the fighter mafia. Most people don’t realize how groundbreaking it was. Well at least the people who didn’t have to face it. But in truth it’s a bit long in the tooth. It’s concept was so different from what the US Military complex wanted. Small, lightweight, power to weight ratio beyond belief. Fly by wire, ergonomically state of the art. Fact is no other world power had a clue how to do it. Boyd knew his shit. That is why it has performed so well for so long. We need another Boyd.

F-35--F-22 combo is unbeatable at Red Flag.

@denniswhite166

Жыл бұрын

What's Red Flag in this sense mean? IDK, really.

@TurtleOverdose

Жыл бұрын

@@denniswhite166 Red Flag is the biggest exercise in the world. Multiple countries are participating each year.

@00Athus1

Жыл бұрын

@@denniswhite166 its one of the USAFs largest air combat exercise, think 6 2 week near nonstop air wars where the US and allies across the world get together and have the closest thing to a shooting war we can. Pilots go through every air combat situation they can think of against the fucking crazy cricket people who fly the aggressor squadrons aka some of our best pilots.

@Will-dn9dq

Жыл бұрын

@@denniswhite166 Google! Smh kids don't even know how to look things up.

@Will-dn9dq

Жыл бұрын

F35 can't fly in rain smh

One minor thing, the naming. Yes, it was named after the Lockheed Lightning, but the English Electric Lightning as well. As the UK are a significant partner in the Project, it was agreed by both countries to name the F-35 Lightning II as a homage to both original Lightnings, not just the Lockheed one.

Before anyone gets mad at the spending of this aircraft and it’s program, you need to understand this. Not only is this jet one of the first of its kind for stealth capabilities, it is the first of its kind when it comes to its role. It is the first of its kind when it comes to it avionics, radar, payload, mission, and versatility all combined together. The F22 was built specifically for dogfighting and air to air battles. The F35 was built to handle everything else besides massive bombing runs. Something like this is going to take time and there will be failures and problems, but the fact that all these years later there are new iterations coming out still that are better then their predecessors in terms of physical structure and technology, it is no longer simply a jet. It is one of the deadliest weapons on the planet, and it keeps getting deadlier

Amazing run-down of the new Lightning - warts and all!

I usually enjoy your content, but this video is nothing but pathetic clickbait. There is nothing "secret" about the F-35 development or its costs. What you end up with is one of the arguably best multi-role fighters in the world.

@corkingcoggo8375

Жыл бұрын

yup, this video is such a shame.

@ommsterlitz1805

Жыл бұрын

Not true the F-35 is just a stealth bomber capable of landing on Aircraft carrier that's it it's not a very maneuverable nor very good plane for air superiority and interceptor role, It still is way inferior to other design like the Rafale in almost all role except for stealth bombing while being is much cheaper.

@osmanapaydin7212

Жыл бұрын

@@ommsterlitz1805 again not true.

@jthunders

Жыл бұрын

@@ommsterlitz1805 weird that all the countries involved in the f-35 program haven't dropped out bccause of all the problems and are instead buying more . Even Germany, burned badly by Lockheed in the 60s with the f-104 starfighter is buying them.

@fuckwitmcdipshit2963

Жыл бұрын

@@jthunders Every nato country that participated developement are ordering f35 as per original contract they signed decades ago. That does not mean f35 is good or bad.

Didn’t they ground the whole F-35 fleet due to issues with its canopy a few months back?

Don't send the Viper and Hornet to the boneyard yet.

It should be a big hit at airshows

The $1 Trillion price tag is always extremely misleading as that's the total cost of for the entire fleet of nearly 2000 aircraft, including training, maintenance, spare parts, etc for 50 years. The projected cost of simply maintaining the current fleet of F-16s and F-18s for the same time frame was nearly double that.

@ericmuschlitz7619

Жыл бұрын

That is the total cost for project before commissioned units delivered, not the maintenance and upgrades necessary for specific deployments. It does NOT cover operational costs as you suggest. You are being disingenuous.

@Gtrips07

Жыл бұрын

Yet a revised Tomcat would run rings around this and could kill it from 100 miles out

The next video is about how the SU57 is the best fighter and had no initial development issues.

@mr.fighterbomber3345

Жыл бұрын

Ikr

@jarsgroup

Жыл бұрын

😂

@voivode2591

Жыл бұрын

Your a smart guy. I have a deal for you. Beachfront property about 150 miles west of LA

@voivode2591

Жыл бұрын

Go get another hot pocket

@johnkochen7264

Жыл бұрын

Probably not but it might be about the Saab Gripen that is twice the fighter for half the price. Admittedly, it does not have stealth but how long before techniques are developed to negate that advantage?

I think the good idea fairy got ahold of this one pretty good. Trying to get a common platform for all 3 versions seems to be from where a huge number of delays and overruns.

Good timing.. as a $120 million F-35B crash landed in Texas a few days ago.. lol

The fighter isn't flawed. The acquisition and development are.

@mr.fighterbomber3345

Жыл бұрын

Exactly

@kathrynck

Жыл бұрын

Well, the development, yeah. Acquisition is fine. Unit cost is 78-105 m depending on model, which is frankly fantastic. Per hour flight costs are modestly high, but less than half that of the F-22.

@at_omic8578

Жыл бұрын

@@kathrynck yeah acquisition isnt terrible, but its certainly a bit complex. and as for unit cost, youre right, what's not to love? its just half the cost of a brand new F14 Tomcat, while being a powerful little package

Leading edge development programs end with some minor difficulties that are too expensive and/or time consuming to fully resolve. Because minor difficulties in meeting a few requirements is inevitable, the means to approve relaxation of contract requirements in such cases is well established. As they say, "Nobody can afford perfect."

The best way to deal with all of the incompetence of the Air Horse is to remove them from the process and make the Navy/Marine Corp the sole judges.

I wonder why they didn't make a carrier based version of the f-22. That would have been useful.

@BobSmith-jy6oh

Жыл бұрын

There is A LOT that goes into making an aircraft capable of taking off/landing on a carrier. The F-22 was made to replace the F-15, so there was little to no thought of making it carrier capable. There was an inquiry, I believe in the 90's, to make a carrier version of the F-22, but it would've had to drastically change the airframe even to a point of sacrificing some stealth and basically creating a new aircraft. It was more practical to start over, designing with carrier capability in mind.

@mattuw82

Жыл бұрын

@@BobSmith-jy6oh They've had a bunch of aircraft that were made for both navy and air force. They did it with the F111 and the F4. They had a carrier based F16 prototype called the Model 1600 didn't make it to production. You're right it takes a lot, but it's definitely possible.

@simonm1447

Жыл бұрын

Carrier aircraft are very different -they have a far stronger landing gear -they often have folding wingtips -they have a reinforced fuselage -they are made of more corrosion resistant metals, also their engines You end up with a more or less new aircraft, if you don't make it in this way from beginning on

@TheDalhuck

Жыл бұрын

@@mattuw82 the F-111 carrier variant was essentialy a different airplane, and the F-4 started as a Navy fighter. It's much easier to "de-navalize" an aircraft than it is to navalize one.

@suflanker45

Жыл бұрын

A naval version was planned but it was essentially a whole new airframe because it was going to be a swing wing design like the F-14. However cost over runs forced the DOD to cancel the naval version as well as a two seat Air Force version.

What a load of clickbait

To sum it up: it is a product improved F117. I got into one of those stupid internet arguments with an F35 devotee who, like most fan boys can only quote propaganda. A typical claim by the military/industry is an enormous payload capacity for this thing. I believe it was something like eighteen thousand pounds of ordnance. A quick arithmetic sum of the capacities of each each weapons station doesn't come anywhere close to that number unless you use MERs which it does not. Aeronautical types quickly point out that the wing loading and frontal area preclude it from being a successful dogfighter and that AIM 9s are only carried externally which negates stealth. BVR fights had better be won with four missiles because that is all it can carry. The C model is limited to 6 G when carrying wingtip missiles as well. Its stealth and secret squirrel abilities shouldn't be underestimated and that is probably why the Israelis are finding success with it. They sure aren't using it as a fighter.

People don't know that operational aircraft were designed 20+ years before release to the public. I remember the stealths back in the 70s. Long live SAC!!!

@johnmorykwas2343

Жыл бұрын

Long live Carswell AFB!!!

The war in Ukraine might actually be the F-35's saving grace. Before it, most allies stepped down over the years on the numbers they were planning to buy. But that trend will likely be reversed now, which is important for keeping the cost healthy.

@BullGator-kd6ge

Жыл бұрын

It honestly was. Half the countries that have ordered the F-35 in recent times are European counties that weren’t even part of the original JSF program: Germany, Belgium, Finland, Poland and others.

@osuk1

Жыл бұрын

It is prohibitively expensive n should be an expensive luxury hardware for any military. Many would be wise to go with cheaper alternatives like the French rafale or even the J20 or su 57.

@BullGator-kd6ge

Жыл бұрын

@@osuk1 Actually the Rafale is $37 million more per plane than the F-35. Because the F-35 is manufactured more for more customers, that drives down its price significantly

It just needs to be better than Russian and Chinese fighters and it is infinitely superior so mission accomplished 💪🇬🇧🇺🇦

@jussi8111

Жыл бұрын

x=doubt

@MrJC1

Жыл бұрын

@@jussi8111 LMFAO! give over.

@lonelystrategos

Жыл бұрын

If you believe the data from the CCP the J-20 is better in at least some respects, of course believing what the CCP says about their own stuff is foolish, but it does look better than the F-35 in my opinion.

@MrJC1

Жыл бұрын

@@lonelystrategos spoiler alert: i dont believe anything the ccp says.

@lonelystrategos

Жыл бұрын

@@MrJC1 Congratulations, you are not a fool. If there's any government I trust less than the Chinese it's probably the North Korean one, but they're basically a joke anyways.

I hear Japan has their version of an F22. Let's build them under license in the US.

Even the F16 had problems due to its then revolutionary fly-by-wire system. Was even the subject of a movie. Also, with the F35B, other nations can confidently invest in small aircraft carriers that can carry planes that can have more than a small chance to dominate the skies compared to the Harrier.

It can’t be a secret if you know.

I've been saying this for years, and have been following the JTF program since the 80s as a kid. that is where this plane came from.

@00Athus1

Жыл бұрын

And yet it's most lethal fighter we have, according to almost every pilot who flew it and against it in traning.

@SP-fc9bx

Жыл бұрын

@@00Athus1 Basically a stealth awacs... with missiles... that can fire it's buddies missiles...

@siaisjack

Жыл бұрын

so a multitude of countries are all idiots. making multi billion purchases of a flawed aircraft

@cugamer8862

Жыл бұрын

I first read about it in one of Tom Clancy's non fiction books back in 95. I remember the discussion about how it was supposed to be the "budget" fighter to go along with the F-22. How times have changed.

@Calzaghe83

Жыл бұрын

@@cugamer8862 It's cheaper than an updated F-15. It is the budget fighter. What on earth are you talking about?

F-35 = F-111 SO many of the same mistakes. Asking a single platform to do every mission with equal strength is a pipe dream.

This video should come out in 2015.

recycling 2017 'news', unsubbed

@videodistro

Жыл бұрын

Same here. These videos are so full if errors and junk it's pitiful. They think flashy video and a horribly stiff narration makes it great. Only dumb suckers think so.

Funny how they cancelled f22 production because of costs, yet due to cost overruns and accidents, the f35 more than likely will in the long run cost even more and be less capable. Politics and cronyism. Remember Dick Jones' line about ed209 in Robocop, "who cares if it works"

@robbieguh

Жыл бұрын

They can sell the F-35 abroad to recoup a lot of costs, the F-22s they have are more than enough for the current air-to-air situation they're in (they're not in one).

@billymania11

Жыл бұрын

Bingo!

Yes it had bad teething problems. Mostly due to the "B" version. But when you look at the capabilities of the fighter now with the blk 4 version being upgraded too, its impact on air warfare is over whelming. Theres a reason everybody wants the F-35 and why so many countries are lining up to buy it.

It's less about the viability and future viability of the 35 airframe, and definitely about the Corporation who ended up laughing all the way to the Billions in the Ballpool Party and Write-off Rave 👍

So now that the secret is out, what's next?

@denniswhite166

Жыл бұрын

F-36?

@skeeman7514

Жыл бұрын

I don’t know, Russia and China will probably gang up on us now that this video told them everything

Just remember the F16 had a dreadful beginning, and i reckon if the internet was around back when the F16 was being developed there probably would have been similar videos on it's issues. All new tech is going to have problems, they just cost more to rectify now days.

The HUD update is over $600 million over budget. F35 is limited to less than 1 minute over Mach 1 to avoid melting the stealth coating. Nose gear failed on landing.

Almost everything about the F-35 is amazing, the Radar, sensors, and the data link are out of this world. The only thing that sucks about it is the plane itself and as such deserves it's unofficial name of Fat Amy.

While you thank everyone for watching I wanna thank you for making your videos on every channel, as they are always excellent and cover so much without going into insane over 2 hours plus each video would be if you covered them in as much depth as I'm sure all the research done for each 10-15 video probably gives you enough information to make a 2 hour long video at the shortest So again while you thank us for watching, thank you for making so many videos with so much information in just the 10-15 each video is Never stop making videos! Each one is always amazing!

I can just imagine the issues Boeing would have had to work out with their fighter.

@shiphappens8491

Жыл бұрын

well we can start with the god awful looking intake, aka the real reason it wasnt chosen lol

@haroldjedrzejczyk9449

Жыл бұрын

​@@shiphappens8491 Most don't know the Late Bob Ross was involved in the Boeing X-32's design. He made a happy little combat aircraft...😉

@hansoverbeeke5442

3 ай бұрын

Aahhh the happy face jet they could probably make a toy/animatie like Disney/Pixar planes😊😊😅😅

I'm building the 6th generation fighting banana. They will never believe it's a war plane.

A $trillion here, a $trillion there, pretty soon you're talking real money.

A promising aircraft. One wonders what a twin engine version would be like.

@colonelradec5956

Жыл бұрын

yea it exists. its called the f22 and is way better lol.

@lancerevell5979

Жыл бұрын

They should have ommitted the VTOL capability. The weight savings alone would improve performance.

@mill2712

Жыл бұрын

@@colonelradec5956 As an air dominance fighter, not a multi-role.

@colonelradec5956

Жыл бұрын

@@mill2712 f22 definitely was used multirole. it dropped bombs in Afghanistan and probably Iraq.

@lovelyhippo7826

Жыл бұрын

@Lance Revell it's a variant. They have 2 versions without it.

Should have made a Naval twin engine, two seat stealth F/A first. If Air Force found value then they could adapt their variant to the platform. The B model should never have been in the program but an entirely different system, that's where most of the problems and compromises came.

@andywhite40

Жыл бұрын

I agree about the B model which I think was specifically for the USMC and RAF/Royal Navy. I recall there being a lot of debate in the UK parliament about building our new carriers with catapults and arrester gear in order to purchase the C model as the B model was proving to be troublesome to develop. I've watched the B model displayed and it's impressive - it certainly looks like the issues have been overcome but as for how many of these machines the UK ends up buying... well that's another matter.

@whyno713

Жыл бұрын

@@andywhite40 One of the problems about the B is that for CAS (which doesn't rely on stealth), they are slightly more mission capable than the Harrier. We sacrifice so much capability for V/STOL. UK's force projection would have been much better served going the CATOBAR route, and I'm afraid our allies are following UK's lead. B is a marvel of engineering, for sure.

@jimmcneal5292

Жыл бұрын

+

It's not smaller than the F22 on radar. The F35 is size of a golf ball, but the F22 is the size of a bumble bee on radar

Saying any aircraft is nuclear capable is completely redundant since the Davy Crockett was introduced in 1957. A backpack can be nuclear capable now.

You sure could have bought a whole lot of hypersonic missiles instead. And a armada of drones.

woozletime

@00Athus1

Жыл бұрын

A man of culture I see...

@at_omic8578

Жыл бұрын

"he was not hired for his expertise, he was hired because he's a walking flesh woozle production machine"

@thesmirkingwolf

Жыл бұрын

@@00Athus1 "I cannot atone for the sins of the man i replaced at [publication], but I can avoid repeating his mistakes."

FYI: The F-35 is not faster than the F16. Viper is good for 1,500 mph. F-35 is good for about 1,200 mph.

Could there be a follow-up video on export models of the F-35. Things on like if all tech in the US models are in the export models.

@Shoeg4zer

Жыл бұрын

There are no 'export models' of the F35. The only county that uses a slightly different version is Israel and their only mods are to allow Israeli mission planning software to be used.

@AtempMyth

Жыл бұрын

I thought there was a tech difference (specifically stealth tech) with the US fleet vs the exported version.

@gargk999

Жыл бұрын

The contracts for export models actually restrict their maintenance compared to previous aircraft. Third and fourth line maintenance was previously done in the country of service (at least in the case of the UK). That is no longer the case for engines and avionics. Engines need to be shipped to the European servicing centre (which was going to be Turkey, now [I think] the Netherlands), and some avionics 'black boxes' cannot even be opened by client countries, and must be shipped to the US for repair, all adding to the considerable cost per plane.

Ah yes, because just like any new revolutionart aircraft F15 didnt have any teething problems, cost overruns budget and maintenance problems

@kathrynck

Жыл бұрын

And the F-14's had no maintenance woes. And the F-16's didn't have any issues with falling out of the sky. hehe ;)

I have watched a lot of what this site has to offer. Take it with a grain of salt. Often times either the operational specifications are incorrect or displayed video doesn’t match historical fact. But if you ignore that there is some really good video.

@britishrocklovingyank3491

Жыл бұрын

So if you ignore the bad info it is good.

@voivode2591

Жыл бұрын

No what I am saying is that these guys try to do a video. Whoever their editors are have little to no love for the topic. I would never for example show you a video of a Hellcat and claim it shot down so many zeros at midway. I also wouldn’t make a claim that the F22 (a 30 year old aircraft) has better technology than an F35

@Prolificposter

Жыл бұрын

So many people make the same criticism about how “video doesn’t match historical fact,” I guess they think they’re the first to say it.” However in the About section of the channel it states that sometimes video that lines up exactly with the narration is hard to come by, so they substitute video that’s roughly similar.

@voivode2591

Жыл бұрын

I was using that as an example. I am an aerospace person. I will put it that way. 62 years old, took care of a lot of different aircraft over the years. Also a big history buff. Many of the the aircraft you have profiled I have actually put my hands on. I am just saying double check your research. You lose credibility when you don’t.

They should have designed the Marine's VTOL F-35 first and then used the same airframe for all 3, with the removal of the lift fan leaving additional fuel and internal weapons for the Naval and Airforce Jets and finally 3 different sets of landing gear/systems and 3 different Wing Designs (smaller for Airforce for top speeds, Larger for Marines for low speed stability and Folding for the Navy). This project didn't need to be as expensive and complicated as the money accepting people made it out to be.

@SSecret_Hugz

Жыл бұрын

Nah, if it makes sense it's wrong. They did it right! ^.^

@yibbo0

Жыл бұрын

Arm chair engineer

It's a sophisticated invisible flying gold plated turd.

I’ve never seen a so-called “flawed” plane sell so quickly to so many countries. But what do they know 🤷‍♂️

@PetrolHeadWolfComments

Жыл бұрын

I know right? It seems youtubers know about military planes that the military. LOL.