F-35 - Runaway Fighter - the fifth estate 

I seriously hope you're joking.

MrSuperkaji Nope

Alexander Smith A superbly well done piece of journalism!

Ronny Plett Glad you agree too. The host did a great job asking the types of questions relevant to the situation. For years, I wondered why the F-35 had so much bad baggage, now I know why.

Alexander Smith When mass media goes after a politician this hard, it is political.

you mean politicians lie too? them "honourable" people ruling over us, what i heard was they never lie they just never say the truth, am confused about politics

what's it like to be a jerk off hey/ Hahah

@Squirrel - NNoooooooooooooooooooo!!!!! It can't BEEEEEE!!!

Imagine if large private companies lied to you.

I know eh? LOL

LordHealey Absolutely stealth v. stealth is a valid concern for the foreseeable future. Infrared imaging is going to be very important (DAS or similar) for missiles and aircraft or off board sensors.

www.popularmechanics.com/military/a16248/test-pilot-f35-cant-dogfight/

LordHealey No dogfights, then why have pilots? Just use drones everywhere. Miniature drones too to fly into the enemies brains.

LordHealey You can't compare what's going to happen in the future to what has happened in the past. The modern human world doesn't work like that. In the past 50 years technology has changed so much that any predictions of the future based on the past don't work, they just don't work.

LordHealey if you are in a dogfight something has gone very wrong...

***** Will spend but 25 billion TOTAL still sounds cheap in comparison. And a lot of that US$1.0165 trillion has technically already been spent. Because the strap the RnD cost to each fighter so the money has to some extend already been spent but given dronex tbh I think the US will cut back its plans from the 1700 it was going to order. Given advancement in drone technology to come. If more advanced drones are not already in service as black projects. It wouldn't surprise me if we have a fair few stealth drone bombers flying about.

***** Yeah but a predator drone costs less than the price of 4 missiles. If they really continue full throttle with the F35 project it will be further proof the the US government is beholden to military contractors. I'm not saying that they should scrap the F35 project but cut back at least somewhat.

***** Also the F35 Project is 163 billion dollars over budget so pleas don't tell me that the US has only spent 50 billion if its that much over budget then the running total is probably a lot more. Yes I know and I specificity said that they should NOT scrap the F35 project but at least cut back a LITTLE. because part of its propose as a bomber is much more efficiently done by drones. Supporting drones with fighters and in case of failure scuttling them with the fighters. Because the great thing about drones is first there lighter so in later iterations they can actually carry more bombs in place of the support systems for the pilot. Or if satellite uplink problems can be solved you could actually make them faster and more manoeuvrable than manned fighters. Or you could have a few controller drones out of the combat area relay the uplink via encrypted radio signals and inferred as a secondary backup encase of jamming for example also AI as a fall-back after that which will simply try to move to a position where it can regain uplink. Also with further development even evade missile fire while the uplink in lost which is actually something that drones should be good at because there ability to react quickly is much higher than humans who have around 200ms lag. So it is not impossible and actually likely that you will see drones taking the roles of the F35 before its production phase is over. Well maybe you wont see it because it will be classed as a black project but yeh.

Jakob Moller Why do you think congress pulled Lockheed Martin into a secession about going WAY over budget. Yes it is the nature of the game when making something very complicated that you will end up going over budget fixing unforeseen problems. But the F35 project went WAY beyond that Congress hardly ever pulls up military government contractors up for overspending or poor budget management. And they were talking about the several bail outs that they had to do for the F35 Project and they were significant that's the 163 billion I was talking about. Which is not included in the per plain numbers.

Etheoma On 21 August 2013 C-Span reported that Congressional Quarterly and the Government Accountability Office were indicating the "total estimated program cost now is $400b-nearly twice the initial cost". The current investment was documented as approximately $50 billion. The projected $316 billion cost in development and procurement spending was estimated through 2037 at an average of $12.6 billion per year. As of August 2013, USA has invested $50 billion into the F-35 program, which is still far from $400 billion estimate. Rafale's program cost to date is around €45.9 billion (Y2013) with 130 units (as of June 2014).

***** This liberal is with you all the way!!!

***** well, the difference is that the Americans are building the F 35 and are committed to it whereas the Canadians are going shopping. The whole thing is a bit awkward because Canadians know that if they ever had to use the full features of the f35 fighter by definition they would be fighting along the full force of the Americans meaning it wouldn't be really necessary in terms of the extra cost for stealth. At the same time I don't want to be seen as a token force and want to contribute their fair share. Much was made about the integration between Canadian and American forces with the f-35 systems. However right now honestly the offer from for advanced FA 18's and a couple of growler ECM aircraft look like a far better option given the massive cost of the F 35.

Being a legend is more about past sentiment, and less about objectivity. Problems with F-16? - stubby wings, and a fuselage that doesn't contribute very much to lift. Short range. Not effective at ground support - too fast. single engine. Newer models weighed down by hefty additional equipment; no longer within design specifications. Problems with F-14? - unreliable engines, high maintenance hours, considered a turkey in dog fighting. Single purpose only; fleet defence. Problems with F-15? - high angle of attack not competitive with Sukhoi Flanker. Otherwise, an excellent design at the time. Some opinions are not biased by nationalism; by their very arguments, are more objective.

Jason Smith It just proves that the hype was wrong F-16 was not designed to for air to ground initially but has been a dependable workhorse after successive upgrades The Block 60 can loiter longer and SDB make much more lethal for air to ground support The F-14 was carrier plane and had to operate within the constraints of a carrier. Its abilities in dogfighting was limited but it could still hold its own. the concept behind was fleet defense. Now if the SDB program hadn't been delayed, then the USN may have considered keeping the F-14 as SDB are lighter than the Mk80 series and more can be carried and the F-14 has slightly longer range than the F-18 The principle problem with the F-14 was not any of the problems listed. The problem was weight. If the Sec of Defense at the time Dick Cheney hadn't blocked the F-14 but instead ordered them to fix the weight problem. Just like the F-16 E/F Block 60 is quantum leap over F-16 A/B Block 10 The F-14 could have been much better Sorry but with 100 plus kills in the C model and the E still the best strike platform , there is nothing wrong the Eagle Flankers claims advantages over the F-15 but in reality most of those were technological. unlike the USN the USAF has actually put the cash in to keep the F-15 competitive

Only thing is, the F-35 is trying something totally new, none of the aircraft listed where intended to be a one shoe fits all deal, like the F-35 is going to be, history shows us that in any field if you try and make one thing do a lot of things it fails. As of right now the F-35 is lacking in a lot of area's, and I personally don't think the issues will EVER be resolved.

There are two phenomenal investigative news shows on the CBC. The Fifth Estate is one and Marketplace is the other. I've never seen their equals anywhere else in the world. They are all about facts, unbiased sources of those facts and when people are acting strangely like Lockheed-Martin and the Harper administration were, they have doubts and are never afraid to say so.

That's what I was going to say. Specially love this lady. Love the way she makes a question and puts her face in a listening pause 🙋

Opposite is true. These “journalists” literally now nothing about aviation, defense contracts, the basic structure of the NORAD partnership, how many thousands of jobs in Canada are already supporting JSF component manufacture, or how modern air combat systems have developed. When you see Pierre Sprey used as an expert resource, you know the story will be total rubbish.

100% To justify a budget in the trillions.

@@TAXCOLLECTOR-mx3mg who has a budget in the trillions? The U.S or Canada?

@@SpenserRoger The US does and they want us to as well.

Not just "spend money". The point is to waste treasure that otherwise would go improving the lives of the masses, lest they become comfortable and realise that they don't need an elite ruling over them.

Tell that to Russia when they fly cruise missile-equipped bombers with Su-57 fighter escorts all over Canadian air space for sport.

EqualizerPG good to have experience persons like yourself around. However, hats off to Fifth Estate nonetheless. They role is to hold the government feet to the fire. It is the governments duty to prove them wrong not right.

All military planes have there critics before production. The Harrier had the same problem.

PMeursault Funny but neither the F-35 designers nor the DoD have ever made such a "Do it all" claim. Nor has there been any claims by the DoD that the F-35 was designed to replace any fighter/bomber other than the F-16, F-18 or the AV8B. Three successful multi-role fighters that are already very very very similar in performance and mission roles. I've never read anything from the pentagon that the F-35 was made to replace the F-22 or the B1b. The only people who make "Jack of all trades" claims are the same ignorant critics who have never built an aircraft or flew in a war (that includes Peirre Sprey who did not design the F-16 or A-10). Perhaps you be skeptical of the critics making that claim instead. After all, they get paid to sell junk drama.

DigitalMedia JamesT Well yes they are as those aircraft reach their useful life they won't be replaced by another version of the F/A 18, Harrier, the A-10. It's all going F-35, They intended this to be the last multirole fighter for several decades. That's why the US is buying so many of them

DigitalMedia JamesT They didn't but at the inception, the requirement was for a common air frame that can be used for Airforce Navy and Marine which should cause red flags. Besides, suppose the F35 perform as expected, Canada has vast artic landscape to patrol, so chances are a high speed interceptor would better suit their needs

Vinnie Chan Why would a high speed interceptor be better? Are the Soviets coming over the north pole or something? If that is such a big concern, then why invest in CF-18?

DigitalMedia JamesT They might indeed be concerned with bombers coming over North Pole. I have no idea why CF-18 will be better, probably because of cost and that they are familiar with it. Canadians seems pretty paranoid about engine failing given th vast landscape they have to cover

BULLSHIT

It certainly gobble-gobbles up money.

Pierre Sprey is a moron and you are as well to praise to his words.

Especially when the reason for deposing Gaddafi was his intent to drop the US dollar as Libya's petro currency and to replace it with a gold backed alternative currency,the sooner the US is neutralised the better.

LordHealey You do know that BVR engagements are like only 17 to 20% successful. Not very good

BennyCFD That's exactly my point. BVR is far less successful than many people understand. They see the AMRAAM has a sticker range of 100 miles and they think you would be able to engage at that range. In fact, the sticker range is really only in the most advantageous conditions; the fighter is at around mach 1.2 and 35,000 feet, and fires in a head-on engagement at a closing target that is large and non-manoeuvring. And at 100 miles you need solid midcourse so you need to keep painting the target with your radar. A friend of mine with knowlege of this stuff said that 25 to 30 miles is a much more plausible range for an AMRAAM engagement

Guy Smith Did you know the AMRAAM has a Pk of only 59% in BVR engagements? Imagine applying that Pk then to a target that has modern ESM/RWR and is manoeuvring hard

Missiles arent stealth. you can see them coming.

+Monster LMA i believed its the MBDA METEOR. its in my favorite video game

Yep, and look what you ended up with. Carrier fighters with defects. I often wonder if the used F-18C fighters you sold us aren't better than the new F-18E models you received. Australia has a bit of a reason to bend to US pressure though. You're all alone in the Pacific Ocean with China on your doorstep and you're not a member of NATO. If China wanted to conquer you, only the USA could stop them so it makes more sense for you. Canada IS a NATO country and the USA would never allow another country to invade us regardless of the plane we chose.

Australia isn't an island

@@AvroBellow The Aussies had F/A-18As, not Cs. But also, just because Canada has the protection of the States, doesn't mean the RCAF should settle for a cheaped-out option.

@@leogibney You are mistaken for associating the burning of money with receiving quality. The F-35 is garbage and Canada made a terrible mistake in purchasing it.

Peter Southern Boy well to be fair at that point in time the f-35 program was a disaster, and the procurement process for selecting f-35 for Canada was non existent in 2010 truly corrupt and no better for Norway in 2008 at that point they should have selected the gripen, because the f-35 was a disaster at that point. So there where people in political positions accepting being harassed by US officials and selecting the f-35 based on that. In 2008 Norway with a fair competition would have selected the gripen at that point, if they where to have done the procurement in 2017 or later then the competition would have been different because f35 has proven now after removing most of its fuckups and failures to be a very potent jet fighter and it would have marginally won over the gripen i think. its good to get information out there about the shadow practice of US officials helping us military industry secure contracts instead of them having to prove they are the best option for a particular country. The only way Canada can get the best fighter for its needs, it need to do a thorough competition with airplanes going head to head in simulated fights. Test all there capitalists and then the side on the one that best functions for there need. Finnland is doing this right now and US/lockheed martin has to compete with everyone else on the market, thats fair to the tax payers and to the military because the best jet fighter is selected for that countries need, is not coming from one interest whatever, it comes from many and the only way to not be lured into buying crap 💩 is to have robust transparency and accountability to politicians, pluss unbiased procurement officials that are out to get the best there money can buy, whatever jet that may be or from whatever country that company come from and stand there ground and not buckle under pressure of relations dithering. If they cant deal with it find new relations with other partners, its that easy.

Richard Mattingly So true. Miltary spending has become the welfare of America.

+Richard Mattingly - Oh, I don't know that. The Navy is getting in on the pie with cost overruns to! Since the Air Force and the Navy is getting away with it for their contractors, i would assume that sooner or later the army with want a super weapon to, probably from the same people as the AF and Navy, and the contractors will be in each state and will be a jobs program. Oh wait, the Army has the Abrams tank, a great tank, but they are making so many that the Army doesn't want any more so they are stacking them out in fields that will never be used. isn't the US GREAT! Oh yea, lots of money to be made!

Are you kidding me? F22 is by far the best fighter in the airspace right now.

Richard Mattingly So what's the alternatives? Continue using F-16s till eternity?

@H Neilson ironic, given that the F16 is manufactured by Lockheed Martin anyways....and they'll just use the profits to continue developing the new technology they know will replace it. Given that an F16 rolls off the lot, and serves for 8 years at most before retiring, at a hefty pricetag that makes it not much of a better option than the F35 anyways...that would be an even bigger waste of money. But these armchair experts who don't have a clue how the application of these technologies plays out in the military wouldn't understand that.

***** To out dated.

***** Its my understanding that the super hornet is considered fully up to date. It is also fully tested and operational. The F 35 at least according to it's critics is not living up to what it was said to capable of and also costing twice as much as originally stated. All I am saying is there is a choice here of an allready tested, bugs worked out fighter, to replace our older version CF 18 which are still capable fighters but reaching the end of their expected operational life.

The threat isn't air to air, it's ground to air. The Patriot missile system was able to down a F-18 (accident) in a real war. Now the Russians have even better surface to air systems. Even the AWAC and refueling aircraft are within range of the latest missiles. The missiles are just going to get better and more prolific.

Don't worry for covid south Africa purchased a bunch of motorbikes and strapped beds on the sides as ambulances and the tax payers have to pay millions and it does not work as intended.

Why not...everyone else does. A boot time y’all do it too.

They work unlike the 4 decade used junk we usually buy. Don't get me started on our destroyers, helicopters, submarines, or tanks. They all date to the 60s to 70s and work half the time. Total waste.

Or F18 even, the USAF doesn't have it but other countries normal AF's do.

@@nighthawk2174 yeah the Royal Australian Air Force uses them and the Growler Variant as a fighter.

forget it pal.....F35?F22?......gone......Sorry.The only supersonic planes in real battle fields today are the MIG29,SU35,RAFALE,EURO.F.andF18.That's what i see in Greece,KLIP.EURO Airfield taking off every day,the two birds aren't flying....Maybe at US airshows,but not at war.

STEALTH is a gov invention to steal the tax payers money........!!!(the famous 600 Dollars Pentagon hammer)......

Key word, if you saw. They didn't say a bird was the size of a bird in real life, a plane itself is only a little dot, a bird is a little speck.

And when your Plane is a little speck because of its radar signature, you cant differentiate it from all the other little specks because of the ping delay. Not to mention, Radars that CAN detect stealth have to be MASSIVE, cannot lock onto a moving target, and are easily jam-able, detecting stealth is not possible for a Fighter jet due to the SIZE requirement of the relay.

true, that is why Russia developped the S300 and S400 AA systems though, they can shoot these babies down from 400km and detect them from 600 km ... the S400 is the Russian answer for the B2 F117 and F22 for sure, simply cause they can't go for a 5th gen Jet that is of this calibur for financial reasons

Best fighter ever

***** Russia propaganda !!

I know right. The F35 is Shit

The whole point was to create a "dumbed-down" F-22. The US will not sell that plane internationally either. The whole point of the F-35 was to make a high tech replacement for the vast array of aircraft that have been in service for decades. Honestly, the F-35 sounds like a good idea on paper, until you objectively examine it's role. If it did work, it would have revolutionized military aviation, creating a single plane that every branch and country used. That would mean cheaper parts, universal flight and maintenance training, and unified service equipment all over the world.

Alexander Smith I think you mean the F15 Eagle that's the supreme of the supreme I'm sorry I do not know what country you're from but unless you're American or Israeli then you can get the F15 Eagle . the f-35 we Americans told you it's better we lied to get you to stop annoying us because ever since the F15 was built many governments have wanted it for their forces, but every time it's no, unless you're Israel then I myself as an American I am happy with that. You think the F-35 is the next generation fighter, the best okay Image a combat situation F-15 Vs F-35 The F-15 can climb to 30,000ft within 60 seconds that's the height of Everest, now you are asking why is that important well do the maths Stall if you have enemy jet on your six, with The F-15 the pilots able to climb faster than the enemy plane, and dissappear and if the enemy jet tries the same thing he will cause his engines to Stall and thus bang-bang you're dead that is just one example of why we sell you the rubbish stuff like F-35 but not the advanced fighters the F15 eagle, F16 falcoln and the F-22 but hey don't worry don't feel bad We are Americans there is none smarter than the Eagle so don't feel bad okay and if you say well the Brits are smarter than us the brits are the Lions right Go and watch Nation Geographic wildlife channel and observe how Eagles hunt for their prey and how Lions do it, 100% of the time Eagles catch their Salmon 50% of the time lions do, now the only one that might be only same league as us Germany the Leopard

Evangelist Netasyahu Miller I'm a prior service American, by the way. I have no idea what your point is to be completely honest. My statement has nothing to do with the F-15 at all. The F-15, although impressive by world standards, is nowhere near as advanced as the F-22. I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from. The F-22's computing power and abilities are nearly exponential in comparison to any other fighter in it's class. Actually it's so far advanced, that it essentially has opened a new class of fighters. Think of the F-22 as a flying command center. I think you're logic is a bit out of line, and you're misunderstanding what these fighters are capable of. I don't know why you're talking about lions and salmon....but I'm sure you're trying to be sincere...

Alexander Smith Ya, he rambled hard there. An eagle in his terms are no match for a lion. A lion doesn't go after salmon. He goes after the bigger boys, not prey half his size. I can show him pictures of an eagle that actually dropped a Northern Pike on the lake while Ice fishing this year lol

+sandeep tomar Lol dude, then you are lucky it is not 1941. What logic is that?!

+Milos Mitrovic The next generation is already in development. Should be ready while the F-16 is still in service 2030/2040.

+Milos Mitrovic The next generation is already in development. Should be ready while the F-16 is still in service 2030/2040.

tinyurl.com/qesezrv

Got a source? Need to find out more. Not liking anything I'm hearing. To me they for Candian Arctic defense they should asking which plane has the best range and speed? Ok we will take that one.

Its strike first now. Even betwwen Aircraft and Air defense system. (e. g S-500) Those who strikes first wins because both have accurate and hypersonic missiles (can't be intercepted). But I believe F35 has edge because it has decoys.

There are no trenches or WW1 dragonteeth and trenches? Yea.. sure I think F-35 has it's uses, but as the only main fighter do it-all? Idk

Kevin James Lol even pilots admitted F-35 is dog dodo.

zack zac why whats wrong with it

Cpt Solo *Can't turn *Can't fight *Can only carry 2 bombs *Plagued with electronic errors *slow and vulnerable These aren't my opinions, but the opinions of former and present fighter jet pilots, and fighter jet designers. Billions spent on some bullshit out of science fiction that looks like a flying brick.

zack zac Really, you personally know F-35 pilots?

Nick3111997 The technology is buggy shit, that's why the F-35 is delayed untill 2021. Lmao Canada is full of Washington Ass lickers.

lol no, we're buying the f18's. but Ikinda want the 15's more

If you're talking about Pierre Sprey it's F-16, not F-14.

@@AvroBellow sheit you’re right mb

He never designed it.

Spend time learning about it and you’d accept the fact that it does.

The YF-23 had too many design risks, many of which needed to be corrected for the proposed F-23A to work. Each actuator in the wings for control surfaces was 4 smaller hydraulic actuators so that the wings could remain super-thin for supercrusie performance. There was a complex dual-reservoir hydraulic actuator system for each of the tailplane stabilators. It never demonstrated weapons bay storage or separation because there wasn’t a functional design to deal with the narrow fuselage and the required weapons count for AAMs. At least 2 of the wind screens cracked during supersonic tests, so that needed to be re-designed. The intakes did not manage the boundary layer air well enough to allow it to go past Mach 1.81, so the F-23A was going to need totally new intakes and flight testing on the basic airframe and propulsion combination. For these reasons, the USAF saw a lot of risk in costs with the F-23A proposal, and awarded the ATF contract to the F-22A proposal by Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics. The YF-22 had none of those problems. It had simpler actuators, PAV1 YF-22 flew faster than any of the other 3 ATF PAVs and was the only one to exceed Mach 2. It demonstrated weapons release from both weapons bays, with the AIM-9 and AIM-120. None of the bowless canopies cracked at even higher speeds that the YF-23, and its intakes perfectly separated boundary later air while also not providing any Line-of-Sight RF wave propagation like the YF-23 did, which is the first signature a LO airframe needs to eliminate, let alone a VLO/Stealth design. The YF-23 looked and flew superbly because it was an aerodynamic masterpiece, but had a lot of internet problems with the design that needed major attention and billions more in RDT&E. That’s why it was not selected.

+james wasylyk Yes it is, F-35 don't even have super cruise capability which is considered as aspect of the fifth generation fighter.

Milos Mitrovic it has super cruise

What it means is that it's much harder to detect than 4. gen fighters, which will be greatly visible to such systems

+Hjembrent Kent it's not like that. Radar is sending a radio wave which will bounce back and then you calculate where it came back from. You can send these waves at different frequencies. Large ground stationed radars can use lower frequencies which travel further and seem to have less trouble detecting these planes. That includes very old 1942 radar systems in WW2 which were absolutely massive installations. Now Stealth may have a distinct advantage on Air plane based Radar. But then these systems will adapt and they will at a certain point be able to see a stealth plane. then you do not have to buy a new plane just fit that radar in a old plane and voila you can see them and shoot them. This is not a problem for a F22 which can still hold it's own in a dogfight. And it still has a very powerful radar and weapon system. But for the F35 it's a big issue. It's slow it can't outrun any other jet. It can't climb as fast and it can't compete in acrobatics. So if it's stealth fails your better off ejecting before getting thrashed.

Wavelength=resolution. Low frequency VHF 2-6 meter wavelength radars are fine for long range detection but not vectoring a Mach 4+ missile on a Mach 1+ maneuvering target. N

there are other options. Getting the missile in close proximity and then let optical sensors take over for example. Then if you can detect a F35 it's gone. It has to shoot down the Rafale or mig at range or it's toast. The slow top speed lack of decent range at high speed it can be easily outrunned and shotdown.

Pretty desperate to volley a multimillion dollar AA asset at a vague VHF signature and pray it gets a track when it gets there.

Australia should have done that with there f18a but we gave them to Canada.🇭🇲🇨🇦

Then ask the question, “Why does Russia not want Canada to have the JSF?”

+Larry Phischman No the Chinese are trying to copy the f-35 instead. I have no idea why people try to spin off unfounded remarks such as Lockheed Martin buys contracts instead of earning them.... How can you prove that and why hasn't anyone yet? It leads me to believe that you made it up or are trying to bait someone into giving you more info on the F-35. Or you like to argue for the sake of trying to make a weak point win? That is detrimental to anyone reading your comment if they believe it..... for the safety of the US how would it make more sense to make one defense contractor win? Right because this country is entirely corrupt? Seriously though... not allowing the best fighter jet to win is criminally reckless especially since warfare is largely determined by air superiority. Im certain that all of the reports you have heard cannot prepare you to come to a conclusion that someone would have who is keen on every aspect that is fighter jet. With that I take your statement about the Russians having better tech than the US with a grain of salt. Do the Russians create viable war machines at a lower cost than the US? Yes... is that one of the major reasons that they sell a ton of equipment... yes. Does a couple of countries buying Russian tech mean that it is better than US equipment? No. Are you anti American? Are you Russian?

+Larry Phischman The USMC went full combat capability during 2015, the USAF and USN in the next few years. So much for false accusations.

SequelFinalNight In the past 30 years there have been more accidents with the F-15 then there have been with the F-16 using the same jet engine. Two jet engines cost more to operate, and maintain. Not much different than having two engines for your automobile.

***** There is a difference between development costs, program costs, and production costs. Don't confuse them. Development costs over 20 years is R&D which will apply to other new aircraft in the future as well as including a new generation of missiles and sensors, plus software. Program costs involve not so precise operational costs 40 years into the future. Production costs is the fly away price for buying a aircraft. Read this glimmer about the Eurofighter Typhoon. www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/

+Larry Phischman Yeah, I have a feeling as well that someone is lining their pockets with money because of their connections. It's not about building the best fighter, it's about money.

They never flew the same missions, however "Fighter Mafia" and in particular Sprey himself always wanted the _F-X_ program to end up like how he wanted the LWF program to become. Sprey wanted both to be lightweight fighters that in the case of the latter lacked radar entirely.

@@peterson7082 BRUH YOU POSTED CRINGE

@@weegeeisskream9544 ?

Very late reply, but, when looking at a multi-role fighter, I’d take the F16. When you want the F15 Mudhen for Ground Attack, you need two guys. That’s expensive as hell to train. However, the F15 is successful for a reason, it’s a brilliant design. Sprey, as usual, doesn’t take into account fuel economy, nor cost to train pilots and wizzos, and then ignores the fact that the F15 has multiple versions for multiple roles, unlike the Viper which has multiple versions that perfect the issues in previous designs. When looking for a sing A/A platform, which a large budget, go for the F15 Eagle. If you want pure ground attack, Mudhen. If you want everything, with only the need for a one-man crew, it’s the Viper.

@@moistman6930 wow this is def the oldest reply I've ever gotten. I had to look at what the original post was about. Have to say I'm still doubtful about F35, did we really need it? If the Ukraine turns into a hot conflict, God please no, for what was spent the black sea fleet better be on the bottom in the first day.

Pluto. Lockheed spend more on bribes to sell their planes than they do on research. They certainly do not benefit anyone especially the poor pilots that have to fly second rate planes.

Pablo Jay No doubt

Pablo Jay I agree man. Humans are always hesitant when it comes to *change*. When I retire from the Air Force I have a feeling the world will have a completely new, welcoming perspective on the F35.

Jesse Allen I hope so dude, there is a saying, "If it looks right, it IS right", there is just something "right" about this aircraft. I think it will be awesome but maybe not for the maintainers!!!!

Ima SuperPerson Ok, so what holes are in its game? Are they the same holes that existed in every single aircraft that has ever flown in front line squadrons or special ones just for the F-35? The F-4 Phantom, no gun, was AWFUL aerodynamically and was hardly "agile" turned out to be a super war fighting aircraft and the beat goes on for virtually every other jet of the last 40 years. The F-18 was dubbed the "hangar Queen" for a long time, the Harrier`s best trait was "crashing" and killing its pilots in the early days and the F-22 had a bad habit of deciding to offer Oxygen deprivation to its pilots.

***** SO umm, lets see this "leaked" document. I dont get why you and others think the F-35 is some kind of air superiority fighter like the F-22 it isnt. Its primary role will be strike but with its low RCS from the frontal arc its going to be difficult for the F-16 to see with its legacy MSA radar. I can believe the F-16 can out perform the F-35 in BFM but I am not surprised, the F-16 is still a match for almost everything out there in that regard. Not bad for a 50 year old design and to call the F-35 a "disaster" for allegedly not being able to out perform the Viper in terms of manoeuvre is hardly a disgrace.

BatQuad 888 - Amazing how many people (including the Canadian press) consider Sprey a “current expert” in modern technology and fighter strategies and tactics.

Just as soon as Russia gives up any claims to the Arctic Ocean and lucrative oil-drilling right off Canada’s borders, sure. The contractors never went to DoD and asked for the opportunity to build the JSF series. The US and UK communities were already planning replacements for their multirole fighters, some of which date back to the late 1960s (Harrier). As the services looked at emerging threats, they updated the requirements for these replacement programs, and all started going to Congress and Parliament for RDT&E money. There were 6 programs in the US alone, and several in the UK, one of which was already working in research with the USMC, DARPA, and USAF. Congress said they aren’t going to fund 6 programs since so many of the requirements overlapped. By going with 3 different JSF variants that share critical subsystem components like radar, DAS, EOTS, the Pratt & Whitney motor, E&E, Martin Baker ejection seats, etc., they were able to bring the overall costs way down. 6 airframes would have been far more expensive, because each of them would have ended up with similar systems and requirements, with lack of volume-buying power for the AESA and motors especially, let alone all the other sensors, cockpits, emergency escape systems, weapons bays, etc. The JSF program specifications were and are set by real and emerging threats.

@@RandomRoulett3 The middle portion of your comment is absurd.

We tried but it got cancelled remember the arrow

eaglefighter33 B-but that was like, forever ago ;w;

i know if we did it again it would go south I think the f35 is a bad idea in the history of bad ideas

eaglefighter33 it's funny how much trash is talked about the F-35. Yet, if one researches and sees the comments made by pilots from England, Australia and the U.S. get a twinkle in the eye when they talk about the F-35. There are capabilities that no one knows about except those on top. Nothing touches it other than the F-22.

eaglefighter33 it's funny how much trash is talked about the F-35. Yet, if one researches and sees the comments made by pilots from England, Australia and the U.S. get a twinkle in the eye when they talk about the F-35. There are capabilities that no one knows about except those on top. Nothing touches it other than the F-22.

What tech exists to build one?

why funny? the public loves to learn who is or is not accountable.

The company no longer exists. The Arrow was a failed project even if the Government shut it down due to political pressure from the US. There are no Canadian Aircraft companies that make fighters. Best option is to purchase them from established companies.

LOL! Yeah, good old Russell Williams!

LOL

+sai bhagavan a large brown envelope mailed to the Prime Minister's residence.

+rabbitcancer bingo

+sai bhagavan That's because you haven't looked into it. There are massive advatages that the F-35 has over planes like the CF-18.

Wade French seriously........cf-18 at any point of time is better than f-35...am not the only one who said this even pentagon officials said this.......

sai bhagavan Other than range? What is the F-18's advantage? Don't be shy.

Hell yeah!

+John Cullen I'm referring to interviews in the video, I'm pretty sure. It's been some time since I posted this.

And when you learn that the enemy is better than you thought, or your plane isnt as good in realworld as you thought and youve replaced your diverse air capability with half as many planes that the enemy can exploit? Oh, but, but, but... that wont happen... right?

lairdriver Well we know for a fact that the F-15 can literally fly with one wing.....there is a youtube video of it. Oh and by the way the picture you use associated with your name really fits, Big mouth

Dassault Aimpoint (coighs loudly) griphen (coughs louder) rafale

Dassault Aimpoint Yup, both outperform the JFS in a number of ways. With Dassault transferring intellectual property upon purchase the lifecycle cost will be much lower too, plus you can pretty much do whatever you want for upgrades without running to the manufacturer.

lol

+tbyte It's got both, at least, depending on the version you chose. Although they're for the same reason you have a fire extinguisher in a fire truck, it's there when you need it, but odds are you won't.

@@tbyte007 A) The F35 can carry a gun pod. B) The F35 will be able to carry the IRIST, ASRAAM/AIM132 and AIM9X for when you make it to the merge, and the Meteor, AIM120C/D for BVR. Some kind of genius mate.