Thank you for all the support on this video guys! Really nice after taking a break. Just to clear things up - the $1.6 Trillion stat is for the entire service life of the program, from inception to retirement in around 2070…
Afaik, Israel is not a partner nation, as they did not pitch in with the development of the aircraft. They just to happen to be very influential in US politics.
It is also the cost of every single support, logistical, and training asset and personnel associated with the program. So that includes salaries benefits etc
With a boatload of operational issues. New, mid & old airframes thru piecemeal acquisitions over years. Crippling Block generation software issues limiting operational capabilities. Considered unsuitable for a peer vs peer (China) hostile environment atm.
The 30 percent parts commonality between the legacy Hornet and the Super Hornets is all bolt-on, modular parts. The airframes themselves are different, and rightfully it's best considered to be an entirely new aircraft that just is SIMILAR to the legacy Hornet. Somehow Boeing managed to con Congress into accepting it as an upgrade and not an all new aircraft, thus avoiding the competitive bidding process that really should have happened.
I might be misremembering something about it, but it also meant that the Navy handled approvals for foreign sales - rather than it needing to be specifically approved by congress to be eligible for the Foreign Military Sales program, or something like that
It's easy to fool a bunch of aging lawyers who don't know anything about airplanes by making them look the same on the outside. Likely the exact reason that the Super Hornet looks so very similar externally, despite having no parts commonality with its smaller predecessor on the base airframe.
0:19 Wrong. It's not 1.7trillion for the US taxpayer. That includes the full life of the aircraft and all the other countries paying for theirs. I am amazed people literally refuse to understand this. The UK makes and maintains 20% of all of them too.
indeed, and the idea the UK can't customize it if they wanted to is also wrong, in fact UK plans are to have them launching meteor missiles in the next few years. Being primary partner it is just why would we do it alone rather than use the same perfectly functional software and such? I would also point out that the F-35C was also designed for the British Queen Elizabeth class carrier in CATOBAR configuration, however this is not how we built the 2 carriers of the class at this point.
The gymnastics you guys do to justify an 80% budget overrun is a real testament to how well Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon conspired to design this program to be completely, internationally, unkillible and impossible to predict the lifetime cost of. See you next year when that number is $1.9 Trillion.
Afaik the 20% commonality figure covers all 3 variants, which adds a nuance that there's considerable more commonality between A & B or A & C. The 20% wouldn't cover the engine for example, despite A & C models carrying the exact same one, while B had a modified version the still retains some internal parts nevertheless.
And while it's 20% parts commonality across all 3, what is the parts commonality for the wearing components? As long as the engines are similar, that reduces your logistical tail mightily. And maybe they put computers in different parts of the plane, and need different leads and harnesses, as long as they're all compatible with the same software, again your costs drop dramatically. And having the same Radars etc.? To get real cost savings you'd need to see quartermasters and acquisition Officers. Having 8 different Planes from 4 different suppliers, in all their own variants is probably a nightmare compared to this admittedly complicated setup.
It's actually far lower. The Dod only claimed 17% PC across all three models in 2021. Several analysts have stated that this could actually get closer to 10% by the end of Block IV deployment.
@@tsubadaikhan6332 but the whole point was to have distributed manufacturing of common parts for a networked airframe, so why would there be commonality issues?
@@jyy9624 That wasn't the point. The distributed manufacturing has always been a purely political requirement. Every single US congressional district has some business contributing to the F-35 program. Or to put it another way, the F-35 program is spending taxpayer money in every single US congressional district. A few crumbs go to partner nations, depending on how many of their taxpayer pounds/euros/krones/loonies/dollarydoos went into the program's development.
Former Mil Engineer here, with no current ties to the Military Industrial Complex. $1.7t is the lifetime cost of the program... to include manufacturing, maintenance, training, gas, etc.... and that's cheap, and worth every penny! I'll tell you why that is, and the factors that people aren't considering. Let's use the classic comparison of the F-35 vs the A-10 for CAS as an example: $6k was the original cost PFH of new A-10s at 1970's inflation (the value the media uses most often). You can't fly a 10 passenger business jet for $6k PFH today. The A-10 is now way beyond it's service life so it requires much more maintenance than when it was new. This is not to mention the SLE mandatory wing replacement program and out of production parts that have to be special ordered. The A-10 now costs $30k PFH and the F-35 is $35k PFH. However, let's say the A-10 was still $6k. The F-35 would still be cheaper to field. The A-10 requires about a dozen support aircraft to operate in any AO, hostile environment or not. They require an AWACS with their fighter escort, 2 flights of fighters for CAP overwatch, and SEAD aircraft to take care of ground anti-air threats. Let's say those aircraft average $20k PFH each. That's $240k PFH to support A-10 operations. The F-35 on the other hand, was designed to operate with minimal support. It has better sensors than the AWACS, it's capable of a 70-1 air-to-air kill ratio so it can clearly fight it's own air battles, and the onboard AI can identify/target/prepareWeapons for a ground threat in less than a second while still outside of its WEZ .. which is better than any SEAD dedicated aircraft in the inventory (not that the F-35 really cares about ground threats..). The A-10 has to wait for the AO to be cleared by it's support aircraft before it can go in. That can take hours. This is why the A-10 has a long loiter time, because it's not built to fly in a contested AO. Once the AO is cleared, the A-10 can stay there for a long time and wait for CAS requests. However, what if your son is pinned down by an ambush and his unit is requesting CAS, but the threat to our aircraft is uncertain? An A-10 isn't going there to help him, but an F-35 will have no problem. But let's pretend that it's a 100% uncontested AO and the A-10 can safely fly in to provide Close Air Support. That bird is only capable of 300knots, that's 20min for 100nm (typical size of grid). Once the A-10 arrives he gets 9-line talkon by the JTAC to start identifying his target, which takes 5min. He has to put his targeting pod on coordinates and slew around and visually identify the good guys and the bad guys; that takes 10 min avg. The A-10 is doing a gun run (yay, brrrrt.. :p ). He's carrying 1200 rounds of 30mm (which was meant to kill primitive tanks.. it's as long as your forearm). They do an average of 3 runs with 3sec bursts firing 70 rounds per second (at $140 a round that's $88,200 in bullets). It takes 10 more minutes to spend half his load blanketing an area the size of a football field to make sure the threats are all dead (can't see them after the first run due to the smoke and dust). Total time was 20min to get there and 25min to lay down the brrrrt. A dozen aircraft were tied up the entire time to support him. An F-35 is called in, contested or uncontested it doesn't matter. 5min to fly to the AO, alone and invisible to radar. *Before* he arrives the JTAC on the ground provides grid coords via toughbook straight to the aircraft AI computer (which is even more powerful than Submarine computers). The AI (which is like a "digital RIO", think Goose from Top Gun trapped in a black box) has already zoomed the EOTS lenses many miles away and visually identified friendlies and enemies via transceiver and optical recognition, cross referenced with ground based intelligence systems... within milliseconds. The pilot *looks through the cockpit floor* with augmented reality in his visor, at 5 red circles superimposed on the ground many miles away. The computer provides recognition profiles which the pilot validates by marking the contacts as fair targets, indicating their agreement. The pilot can also see several green circles on the ground for visualization of friendly positions. The computer has prepared a Small Diameter Bomb dialed in to create a cone of blast 100ft off the ground and in the proper direction to ensure only those 5 enemies will be eliminated with the lowest probability of collateral damage. From CAS request to this moment, only 3 seconds have elapsed. The pilot decides that he's going to use guns (despite the superior performance of the SDBs and the AI's recommendation). He gets 10 miles from the target, nose level, and pulls the gun trigger on the stick. This trigger doesn't fire the 25mm GAU-22 cannon but rather says "OK computer, you can kill those targets" as long as he's holding it down (man-in-middle autonomy). The AI autopilot takes control of the flight surfaces and steers the nose onto the 5 soft targets. At 4nm the bird puts out 5 bursts of 5 rounds very rapidly, correcting between each burst and firing only at the exact millisecond when the highest probability of hit exists based upon thousands of sensors updating millions of times per second. This takes another 3min.. and 25 rounds total. Subsequent gun runs are not necessary. Total time was approx. 5min transit then 6min to perform like an electronically invisible aerial sniper. Zero additional assets required, except maybe a refuel tanker sometimes. Total cost of CAS mission for F-35: $7,000 for 11min and ammo. Total cost of CAS mission for A-10: $268,200 for 45min and ammo. Total value to Father with son on active duty: Take my tax money and support my boy with the F-35 please!
The f14,15,16, and 18 all disagree. They are or were used heavily for CAS. The best argument I've seen for the A10 is that its pilots are so good at CAS, due to the focus of their training. This isn't to take away from the A10, it's my favorite. But it's not what it once was.
@@jailbird1133"close air support" doesnt mean you have to fly close. B-1s have been doing CAS for almost 2 decades with precision bombs. Ask yourself why no one else needs an A-10.
@@jailbird1133The F-35 has only a slightly worse loiter time, and is actually able to loiter closer to a battlefield because it is stealthy. The F-35s radar and IRST, both the best on the planet for a multi role fighter, give it unparalleled situational awareness, being able to create detailed maps of the terrain and any trucks, tanks, or people on them in 3D space out to more than 10 miles. That means that not only will accuracy and precision on targets be improved, as well as finding those targets in the first place, it will slash friendly fire incidents, which is something the A-10 is known heavily for
No, people never see the fine print that $1.7 Trillion is an 80% increase over the original projected life of the program. And that's not even based on recent numbers, it's going to keep going higher as more and more problems arise.
I think the F-35 might actually be the first prominent example of an airframe managing to fulfil all the initial requests of all of the different branches. *edit #2* Damn a lot of people need to stop quoting RT and Pierre Sprey in the replies to this, I get it you are all butt hurt and hate everything the US military procures but how about you stop making that everyone else's problem/stop lying through your teeth and twisting statistics. *edit* because people keep bringing it up yes I am aware that all 3 branches accepted the F-4 phantom but back in the 60s and early 70s the 3 branches didn't have such divergent requirements for aircraft and the F-4 was the first of its kind for a very ahead of its time Multi-role combat aircraft so it was pretty simple for it to get adopted by all the branches because it was either adopt that or wait a decade or more to be using something that was even remotely close in capabilities. things like the F-14, the F-15, the F-111 are all examples of multirole fighters that failed to meet the requirements of the different branches yet they all tried to do so. (these are all multirole strike fighters too)
@@DanielDracohunAnd, that's despite all of the changing requirements that occurred/occurs during pre-production/current production from the 3 branches that use it. Much of which is classified. The only thing that ever gets reported is rising costs/cost overruns and behind schedule. Rarely reported is why. That being said it is an amazing technological achievement. Israel has already demonstrated just how potent it is.
When you think about it. Yeah. Is it the best at any particular tasj? No. Yet it is good enough to destroy everything the enemy has, and gives even our allies a fighting chance? Yes. It can bomb. Can fight for air shperiority, and win. Can gather intelligence like no other fighter. Works well with more specialized aircraft. The B 21 is a sleeper. I gaurentee you that thing can destroy aircraft just as easily as others. Some think it will be a missile truck for others, and will only be able to destroy fighters in conjunction with other aircraft like the F 35... Yet something tells me it can also find, target, and send out a bunch of A2A missiles on its own. We've had fighters that can bomb. B21 is a bomber that can fight.
@@bryanhoppe1481 comes down to Western media always looking to frame the MIC and their respective nations' defense procurements as ineffective, costly to the taxpayer, and money better spent elsewhere, as well as Russian and other unfriendly nations' propaganda machines wanting to downplay the West as incompetent and corrupt. None of which are anywhere near true
1.7 trilllion dollars cost is the total cost of the procurment, design, testing, production and maintainig aircraft, crew and facilities for the nex 40 ish years. Someone didnt read the entire report ;)
if the F35 was on budget, it is not. many of the parts fitted was faulty and had to be replaced out of safety concern, and who foot the bill to replace the part before their end of life? to assemble the aircraft before fullying testing them was a mistake. if caught before production, these issue can be address without duiplicating cost.
@@lagrangeweiCompared to gen4 development woes and safety records, the F-35 is right in line and mostly significantly better. A lot of pilots died during the 'teens fighters, and the F-14 costs were about what's expected for the NGAD. Taken in context, there is no scenario where F-35 costs and time to production are any worse than any other program. What do you think the 50 year lifecycle costs for the F-15, B-52, B-2, B-1, or F-18 are?? Free??
I note that the UK left one of the two intake covers to the engine in place while trying to take off, this time. Perhaps not so hard not to duplicate this error.
Hard to be sure what happened there - might've been an attempted landing but failed to catch arresting wire and failed to go-around. Also, if if was an attempted STOL - short takeoff - then the aircraft is in a particular configuration for that, i.e. the main engine's exhaust is tilted down halfway at 45 degrees, perhaps the lift fan is also in some intermediate state...
@suzukirider9030 pretty sure the outcome of the official report was an air intake cover being left inside and missed during pre-fligjt checks due to both human error and design issues with the size of the covers and the fact they can quite easily end up inside the intake in a spot that cannot be seen externally.
@@suzukirider9030as OP has said, it was unfortunately an accidental failure to remove an engine intake cover which caused the fatal cut in power as the aircraft reached the apex of the ski ramp, the pilot realised this as he was going up the ramp, and punched out at the top, the complete lack of power was also noticed by the duty FDO who tried to abort the take off but it was too late. The recovery of the aircraft and subsequent investigation did indeed show it was an intake cover left in place to be the cause, not an improperly aligned rear engine, or failed go around attempt. If you can, watch the Warship life at sea episode on BBC IPlayer, S1 Ep6, it covers the whole event as the TV show was being filmed onboard when it happened. Also the QE class does not have arrestor wires as such the current design only allows for STOVL aircraft, there was a point in its design stage where CATOBAR and arrested landing was put forwards with designs drawn up but they were put to one side with STOVL taking priority and overall design
The port cover was left lying inside the intake during overnight maintenance being conducted on the flightdeck. Two different mechanics involved which occurred as a result of a shift change and a poor brief/debrief between the two.
You're not the only one who considers the F-35 "variants" to be completely different aircraft - the Government Accountability Office has been known to complain about it as well.
@@braindeadjet8086 It's probably because carrier landing zones are so short that thrust reversing wouldn't even help. They typically land using the arrestor-wire and tailhook system. If that fails, then the procedure is to abort the landing and do a touch and go (which is why Navy pilots actually increase throttle to full as soon as they get a good connection with one of the wires). Given that the wire-traps work, thrust reversing is just unneeded cost, mass and complexity which would actually make operations more dangerous rather than less dangerous. On another note, just looking at fighter engines, it appears to me that thrust reversers would be even more complicated than for civilian aircraft. Cold-stream is out of the question, since they use low-bypass engines which don't produce enough by-pass air. That leaves the redirected thrust option, but that would somehow need to be made to work with the complex nozzles they already have, which seems to be a significant challenge to me. Anyways, that's just my educated guess.
@@braindeadjet8086 lookup "Pier 11 Norfolk" and then compare the "super carrier" lengths to that of any international airport runway. The breaking done by planes is nowhere near enough compared to what must be done by arrestor cables. A regular runway is 10 times longer.
@@braindeadjet8086 It's because they have to catch an arrester cable. Sometimes it happens that they skipped over them, and have to go around for a second attempt. Because of this, they go to full throttle when they land. Thrust reversers would make it more dangerous.
@@braindeadjet8086 The reasons other people just gave (it doesnt do anything for the plane in the space you have). But also cause they are heavy. You dont want to chuck another thousand pounds on your plane that is effectively useless, when that 1000 pounds could be more fuel or bombs.
That difference is noted in the end comparison screen highlighting the key components and qualities of each variant. He just never mentions it verbally.
@@Clemdauphin yup, Japan cleverly built a bunch of ships that are totally definitely not aircraft carriers, but if the need arises, they could mysteriously disappear into drydock for a month and come out functioning suspiciously like an aircraft carrier.
Japan literally pulled "I will make it legal" when building those totally-not-aircraft-carrier helicopter destroyers, as of 2020 the cabinet voted to allow the conversion of then helicopter carrier into de-facto aircraft carrier.
@@whyno713 no both the air force and navy ordered 15 F-35Bs each. Both the air force and navy have conducted exercises flying off and on Cavour already. Navy is planning to announce IOC soon.
@@ahhmm5381The USA pays for capability, a western nation can’t afford massive casualties like Russia or Ukraine. So they get around this problem by having extremely good combat survivability.
@@ahhmm5381 You are conflating "mission capable" rates and "fully mission capable" rates. "FMC" means it can perform literally every task the system was designed for, without encountering issues. "MC" means that at least one task may cause some issues. For an instance, if there are suspected quality issues for a part of the gun-mount, on an aircraft that will, almost definitely, only use its gun a once or twice at most, in its entire lifetime, outside of excercises, That aircraft is, still, no longer FMC. In a more hypothetical example, a ladder hatch of the aircraft getting jammed and needing to be opened manually, would make the aircraft no longer FMC. F-35s have a 95+% MC rate, on par with other western multirole fighters. It also helps that the mission set of a MC F-35C is still broader than that of a FMC F/A-18 Super Hornet, and the same goes for F-35B and AV-8B or F-35 and F-16.
@@My_initials_are_O.G.cuz_I_am According to GAO: 'The F-35 fleet mission capable rate-the percentage of time the aircraft can perform one of its tasked missions-was about 55 percent in March 2023, far below program goals.' Not sure where you are getting your info, but there are ALOT of articles that back me up on the MC rate.
@@jyy9624 yk and recon, electronic warfare, and being able to operate sufficiently in GPS jammed locations. It’s about as good in a CAS role as an f16 or f18 while only bro marginally worse than the f15. All this while being the most affordable and capable modern stealth aircraft.
I think more important than how many parts do they have in common is how much additional tooling and change over is needed on the manufacturing line to produce the different versions
Fascinating aircraft and engineering. Also interesting how an US built plane managed to become a true "Eurofighter" being adopted by so many European nations.
Simple - USA is the empire and provides it's colonies in western europe with means to defend themselves, and also to pay for the protection they receive by virtue of being colonies.
"From the Martin-Baker ejection seat, to the Cobham refueling probe, to the BAE Systems-built horizontal tails, every F-35 has British parts incorporated from nose to tail." Yep, 100% US built aircraft right there. No part of it is from a European nation.
@@Ilamarea Did not. Over complicated VTOL system, unready engine, nightmare engine configuration, smaller room for nose cone upgrades in the case they need bigger radar, heavier, etc., etc. They also separated it with supersonic and subsonic variants with commonality issues worse than the F-35 could ever achieve. Also, by the time it was almost time to choose, a CATOBAR variant for the X-32 wasn't built yet.
I like the X-32, if only because it looks a bit silly. What can I say, I like silly aircraft! Also, by the end of the JSF program, and during the final bidding process, Boeing had modified the general design of the "F-32" from a delta to a more conventional planform, like the F-35. This probably didn't help them either; not only was the X-32 a bit of a dud, they no longer had a proven prototype to base themselves off of, unlike Lockheed-Martin and their X-35...
The average uneducated person loves to assume the F-35 can't dogfight, and yet... an F-35A has at least as much AOA control & manoeuvrability as an F/A-18F, while having significantly more thrust - which is not to mention an F-35 is SPECIFICALLY designed for BVR engagement anyway.
@@vali69 like the harrier, yeahh but no... The only reason an F-35b would use it's thrust vectoring in a fight would be to force an overshoot, because all it *𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺* does is bleed energy -- It's not like an F-22 or SU-35 where the thrust-vectoring is designed for extra agility in dogfights. Let's face it though: if an F-35 pilot finds themself in a dogfight (let alone an overshoot situation), they have already done many things wrong...
There was a brilliant documentary about 25 years ago called “The Battle of the X Planes” that was about the fly off between the Boeing X-32 and the Lockheed Martin X-35. The documentary very clearly explained the financial difficulties that US military planners faced. The airforce had just completed the B-2 which was the most expensive aircraft ever built as well as the F-22 which was also eye watering lay expensive. Then they looked at their inventory and realized the F-16 is old, and no longer survivable in a modern battle space and needed a replacement, the marine Corp harriers were old, no longer survivable in a modern battle space and needed a replacement and while the Navy’s F-18s were newer , they’re navy aircraft which wear out faster, are less survivable and need replacing. So they have three very different aircraft that need to be replaced and they simply cannot afford to go through the design and development process 3 more times. The JSF was the solution. A common airframe so that the R&D costs could be shared and then they wouldn’t have to build 3 new aircraft for their three branches. 1.7 trillion is a big number, but it would have been bigger if they hadn’t built the F-35A, B and C.
You are mistaken. The cheapest was in 2020 - 94 million. It's 115 million now. 122 million on average so far, since 2007. Your figures are without engines or something like that.
@@Conserpov that number im assuming you split with the number of airframes, but that cost includes auxiliaries, maintenance facilities, etc. For example Canada's procurement was at like 200 some million per plane, but thats because the two airbases getting F35As are basically getring completely rebuilt from the ground up. In reality the flyaway lone plane costs 82 mil per. For canada this also includes attachments like pylons and support equipement.
Exactly lmao, people speak alot but when you start making comparison its where it shows. The f35 safety record is a order of magnituted better than every single other combat aircraft the us operates.
You could also could consider previous aircraft as part of development. Like the F-111 with the F-14 or the F-5 to the F-18. The F-35 on the other hand is an almost completely new aircraft. Maybe a bit of F-22 influence but that’s about it.
Valid question, but it should also be noted that the F-35 has been 'helicopter parented' through each and every stage of acquisition to reduce reported safety incidents (and many more would-be concerns have likely been swept under the rug). There's an unseen cost associated to that as it relates to diverted resources and delayed on-boarding; it's not as cut-and-dry as, "paper sez lezz, so bedder." The entire F-35 program has had its shortcomings obfuscated throughout for political ends. The next valid question would be, "how long did it take from Phase x to Phase y, Phase y to Phase z, [etcetera]?" and cross-compare that with legacy airframes. "What was gained/lost in those timeframes?"
Right? Every project's budget needs to be immediately doubled as soon as it gets approved. There's always the incentive to understate budgets prior to approval.
I don't think anyone in the DoD is surprised. But they assume that if i.e. Raytheon promises something for $5b and Lockheed for $6b - the assumption is probably that they are bullshitting by roughty the same amount, so chances are Raytheon will actually deliver it for $20b, while Lockheed would for $24b, so they go with Raytheon. So if Raytheon suddenly decided to become more truthful, lie less, and claim that they'd accomplish something for i.e. $10b (while still actually planning for $20b) - they wouldn't get the contract at all.
@@COLT6940B-21 has not been delivered yet and is based off of already proven designs. The R&D team at northrupp didn't need to go through the same headaches lockheed martin did with the F35 because the technology and infrastructure was already in place when they finished full scale production of the F35. Just because a plane design is ahead of another project doesnt mean that the procurement process is equal or that someone was incompetent or it's "just the MIC trying to make more money". Rather the basis for designing the next generation of planes wasn't in place. The F-15 took decades to get off the ground, needed a ton of new testing technology to fix it's issues and is now known as the best fighter ever. The F-16 got to take advantage of all of that testing done for the F-15 and thus was able to make it to the production line faster. Contrary to what the boomers will tell you, it's a lot more complicated than just "lol just make a good plane in a year and underbudget lol"
While capable of VTOL, the F-35B usually operates in STOVL (short-takeoffs and vertical landings) so it can takeoff with more weight than it could from a fully vertical takeoff. Once the plane returns, its fuel and weapons payload would be largely depleted by then so it’s light enough to perform a safe vertical landing.
@@constantinethecataphract5949 war on weight is what killed it. There is an LO conformal gunpod designed to be mounted on the ventral side of the airframe and the USMC has procured & integrated it. It carries 40 more 25mm rounds than the internal version too.
I've always thought a 'D'- model, the A with larger C-sized wings (no fold, obviously) for greater fuel and payload, as well as improved low-speed handling, would be a good next step.
It would kind of defeat the purpose of the specialization between the Navy and Air Force designs. The larger wings might improve low speed handling but its definitely going to impact its G-Force tolerance and the fuel load issue can always be improved with strategic tankers. Other nation's F-X programs might see a design choice like that though. ROKAF's KF-21 Boromae will be less stealthy than its F-35 counterpart (I heard they would even have the weapons in weapon racks instead of inside a weapons bay) but it is much larger and would use domestic components to circumvent US' strict technology transfer protocols (and would probably be cheaper overall because it is not as sophisticated as the USAF's). JASDF's Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin goes on the other direction with emphasis on stealth which they are now actually developing a sixth-gen aircraft from what they have learned from it, co-developing it with a bunch of Western European Aerospace companies. Turkey's TF-X Kaan would probably be like a beefed up version of the KF-21 since it is going to be a twin-engine design but its still far from a finalized design (I think they might have to settle for less firepower though since they want it to be as lightweight as possible like the Gripen). China's designs however is something exciting as it's Chengdu J-20 is essentially a 'what if we continue to develop the F-22' design. It is by far the largest of the 5th gen aircraft and already is confirmed to be able to carry the humongous PL-21 VLRAAM missile. The defeated design Shenyang FC-31 is still as capable though and is often touted as China's answer to the F-35 and while the PLAAF will not be operating them (I think), Pakistan and other of China's allies will. A very different story to the SU-57 Checkmate which does not even look like is going to be adopted by the Russian Airforce.
Eh I think more likely than any newF-35 models aside from upgrade packages to the existing three the next steps are going to be totally new aircraft. Everybody with a weapons industry rn is developing what they claim are 6th gen air superiority airframes (us with F-X, France and Germany with FCAS and the UK Italy and Japan collaborating on Tempest) and for all its qualities the F-35s relatively high cost per flight hour opens a gap in the market for a stealth equivalent to the F16. In much the same way as the high cost per flight hour of the F-15 and the fact that smaller nations could never have afforded it led to the development of the F-16.
@@mosesracal6758G Force does not equal turn performance. The missing features here are lift and drag. One need only look at the F14 and F16 EM charts to prove this. In spite of having an operational limit imposed on it of just 7.5G (before the 90s), the F14A has a tighter turn radius and can match the 9G F16C in turn rate to nearly the exact degree. It did so with large control surfaces, low drag, and high lift.
@petesheppard1709 - there was a plan for a D variant. It was a F35c model with but with a electronic warfare suite, it was meant to Replace the E/A-18G growlers. Think of it as an F35c combined with the Israeli F35i electronic warfare suite.
It's more fair to compare F-35A and F-35C parts commonality. The B is a small quantity, specialized design. Also that 20% figure is for parts which are common across all 3 models A B C. Also it should be noted that "parts" can be a wing or a bolt that both count as one part each. One VERY EXPENSIVE "part" is the software. Having the same software run is a huge savings over multiple softwares.
3:50 hey, i recognise that pic That was the first time an F 35 made a landing on a highway during a joint exercise in Finland. The plane itself is from the Norwegian Air Force
Great overview on the F-35 but what myth is this video trying to bust? Aside from the fact that F-35I is somewhat of a 4th variant of the fighter to better suite the Israeli Air Force.
I believe it is the myth that the F-35 has all of its commonly known features in one airframe. Some people (including myself) were unaware of the existence of different models of F-35 and how they differed.
The JSF program was way costlier than anticipated, but almost all modern military programs were. At least this one almost achieved all its initial goals. The saving grace for the program is the number of countries buying into it, so the cost burden is spread out like the F-16 was.
modern electronic warfare relies on software as well, so perhaps there is also some software commonality between the different models to compensate for the lack of hardware commonality. other thing I've heard is that the X-35, which became the F-35, was in some sense a smaller and cheaper F-22 with a single engine instead of two or at least both were made by Lockheed Martin and the development of the F-22 heavily influenced the X-35. for example one of the X-35s had the same engine as the F-22 and the F-35 engine is based on that engine, although there was also another engine in the running, which was not chosen. as a sidenote while the X-32 looked extremely goofy, I think the YF-23 (the F-22 competitor) looked very cool, although the F-22 and the F-35 aren't ugly either.
The X32 prioritized stealth over outright maneuverability, but with how modern fighters don't even need thrust vectoring to hit 9G and still move well enough, maybe it would've been an even better sniper?
Excellent video, as always! I think putting the quotation marks around "The" rather than "F-35" in the title would make your meaning more clear in the title.
The F-35B is capable of STOVL (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing), which is a little different from VTOL in the fact that the latter can take off and land like a helicopter or Harrier. STOVL implies that the aircraft can get airborne at significantly shorter takeoff roll distances and can land vertically thanks to the vectoring exhaust nozzle and lift fan powered by the powerful Pratt & Whitney F135 turbofan engine (technically could also be considered turboshaft)
@@naksachaisaejane1982 typically you only see vertical takeoffs performed at demonstrations (the video shows a flight test aircraft). The F-35B cannot carry any appreciable fuel or weapons load to support vertical takeoff. It could lift off with 2 AMRAAMs and immediately perform inflight refuelling but if the unit is already able to coordinate a tanker on station for such a mission, then most likely there is an available runway nearby anyway (see also FARPs).
@@cowbertnet and it's still possible in a pinch of reduce response time. And no, that's not demonstrator X-35. X-35 has notably different fan hatch from production model, namely the number of moving parts. The fan door in this video is single giant lid of production aircraft.
@@naksachaisaejane1982 I never said it was X-35. The tail art clearly shows it was BF-01 and the clip was taken during flight test 286 at Pax River in 2013. And when I said demonstration I was talking about air shows & other media events, because such a maneuver is cool-looking but doesn't have much operational purpose (like Pugachev's Cobra) except for repositioning the AV to hopefully something with enough runway distance to STOVL.
F-35B = No cannon? WTF? We've gone back to the Vietnam war era when the Air Force decided cannons weren't required - only to change the mind mid-way through the war.
It’s a stealth fighter, if it had to dog fight someone in the chain of command messed up. Dog fights are a thing of the past, not one plane has been shot down in a dog fight since the 1980s.
The USAF weren't the ones that designed a fighter with no gun. That was the Navy, and the Navy never implemented a gun at any point in the F-4's operational lifespan, yet they performed better than USAF F-4s that had guns.
It wasn't the gun addition to the f-4 that made it better, the enemy upgraded planes that moved faster. This made the f-4 more of an appropriate fighter for what it was asked to do. I think there were only 4-5 gun kills in an f-4 after the addition of a gun.
As many people correctly stated in the comments, the cost of the program does not necessarily mean taxpayers are funding all of it. The US is also one of the biggest weapons exporters, translating to funds covering some of this cost. Take recent news, for example. The State Department notified Congress of its approval of the $23 billion F-16 sale to Turkey, along with a companion $8.6 billion sale of advanced F-35 fighter jets to Greece, late Friday. The United States accounts for more than 40 percent of the world's weapons exports. Sales of U.S. military equipment to foreign governments rose 49% to $205.6 billion in the latest fiscal year. The US is the leading R&D and manufacturer of advanced military hardware for NATO and many other countries. So, don't only consider the price tag.
The proceeds of weapons sales for other countries doesn't go to the US taxpayer, it goes to General Dynamics and Lockeed Martin's shareholders and C-suite bonuses. "The US" doesn't make anything except conditions for corporations to sell more weapons.
@@criticalevent Right. The now projected $2 Trillion dollars is specifically what the US will have spent for the design, development, procurement, operation, maintenance, and upgrades, and is not offset by foreign dollars in any way.
@@criticalevent These companies employ thousands of people who pay taxes and contribute to the U.S. economy don’t they? You can’t spend money if you don’t make money. The U.S. is the world superpower militarily and economically for a reason.
I was under the impression that B in CATOBAR stood for barrier, as in that large net-like thing they use on carriers when an aircraft is coming in too hot or the tail hook isn't working. Also I'm pretty sure the F-35B is more commonly refered as a STOVL (Short Take Off/ Vertical Landing) as it doesn't have the thrust-to-weight (~0.89) to take off vertically when its fuel tanks are full. Now you can easily offset this by just dropping about 5,000 lbs (~40%) of fuel, but you're gonna see a similar reduction in range as a consequence.
Is the 0.89 at full fuel - with some weapons attached or no? But yeah, even from a marine carrier it makes more sense to do a short takeoff, rather than a truly vertical one. The deck offers SOME runway in any case, even without any ramp! And the carrier itself can also be going ~30 kts to help aircraft takeoff from it.
@@suzukirider9030 yes, I believe that is with 4 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders. Crunching some quick numbers that saves about 1,800 lbs which would push the thrust-to-weight up to around 0.93
Great OVERVIEW of the different versions! 👍🏼✈ As a former Army Broadcaster, I like how we see almost exactly what your dialogue is talking about. Again...nice job. 🎯
At Last! A clear and comprehensive explanation of the similarities and differences between the 3 F-35 versions. Splendidly illustrated, too. Bravo and thank you.
Despite the demonstration used in the video, the F-35B cannot take off vertical in practical operations (meaning with a fuel load of fuel and weapons). As it says right on that aircraft, it is a STOVL design: Short Take Off and Vertical Landing
The F-35I is simply an F-35A. I'm not sure why the video distinguishes it. Each operator has their own set of mission equipment on the aircraft. The only difference with Israel is they put some of the stuff on themselves. That type version is still an F-35A though.
I believe the F-35i was designed to be more like a strike fighter variant of the a and it uses Israeli electronic warfare gizmos so they’re more familiar with it.
Cracking short look at another large 'fits-all-sizes' program that has mixed results. I thought your wording on the total cost of the contract was fairly clear, certainly better than MSM, I'm a little surprised to find people so upset at it.
that 1.7 trillion in total cost is combined procurement, training, R&D and maintenance estimated until 2070 so its actually pretty cheap for a year on year analysis.
Pretty sure it's all due to the peace dividend of the 2000s... All sort of modularity minded programs was all the rage then... do more with less and able to upgrade for better
My country is getting the f35b as well. Because we don't have large aircraft carriers, the ones we use are mainly for helicopters. Plus there's the threat that all our runways get taken out in the first few days of a war starting.
With only 20% parts commonality it seems that the F-35 failed in its original program goal. It probably would have been cheaper to design 3 separate aircraft but penalize each contractor for lack of commonality with the other two designs.
The biggest weakness of the F35 program is stealth. If within 10 years radar technology keeps upgrading, F35 and the like may not still be stealth fighters anymore which will leave them with only the integrated technology in the middle of their service life because so much capabilities have been gutted including manoeuvrability and payload and top speed to make of it a stealthy aircraft.
Not really. Stealth is not a binary quality - it is just an effort to reduce your radar cross section (RCS). Even if radars improve, the F-35 will still be stealthier than the F-15/16/18. Relative to other aircraft it will still be significantly harder to track, spot and target.
@@DrWhom "which is not good enough" Not good enough against... what? What other country's aircraft outshines the F-35 in non-stealth combat capability?
I despise the leway we give Israel, especially after they attempted to sell the Phalcon system to China. Not to mention the actual sale of the Python 3 to China.
Israel is super sketchy. They place the race card the second you criticize them on anything and they view themselves as superior to their neighbors and force them to live in essentially an outdoor prison state.
Minor additional point, being the only level 1 partner in the program the UK has also fought for and been granted the ability to upgrade their F35's, including full access to the aircraft's source code. That said, I don't believe the UK has any plans to actually do this (other than integration of Meteor), but they do atleast have the capability to upgrade their F35's independent of US permission.
The reason they have access to the source code is because they've been involved since the design phase back in 1990. Lockheed subcontract to BAe for a lot of software related development and some parts, while P&W subcontract to Rolls Royce for the lift system.
Well enjoy it, because it will be a very long time before the military tries something like this again. For one thing, the F-35 isn't one aircraft, it's three separate aircraft that happen to look kinda similar. When the program started thirty years ago they thought that they could build one air frame that would fill the needs of three different services, but that's just not possible so they designed three different aircraft and let them keep the same name. Thankfully it seems as if the pentagon has learned from this and they're not going to try to force the Air Force and Navy to use the same design for the next generation of fighter aircraft.
@@theodoreolson8529 The problem with the F-111 was not the technology, it was the changing requirements of the Navy. They originally asked for a fleet defense fighter (or radar missileer), but combat experience in Vietnam indicated that they needed an air superiority fighter that could also perform the fleet defense mission, and the F-111 airframe was not suited for both roles.
@@cugamer8862 F-35 being actually different frames on the inside but similar on the outside would actually be helpful on the initiative and confuses opposing recon accuracy. As that would be a form of counterintelligence.
“Mr Wrench,” I have come to rely on you for solid introductory material on the topics you cover, and I thank you for that. This is the first piece I have seen on the F-35 that limits itself to the mechanical aspects of the airframe (landing gear, wing area, etc.) without going into the stealthy and electronic properties of the thing. And that, in itself, is amazing. I was completely unaware of the mechanics at play, in particular the differences between carrier- and land-based versions; again, I thank you for THAT. Really, this is a striking primer on a modern combat plane, which I appreciate for its own sake-both the airframe and the RU-vid presentation. Well done, friend.
You managed to bring absolutely nothing new to the table...? Perpetuating the tabloid press 1.7 trillion sticker value is just absurd. Compared to what? It´s lifetime cost of operation, including but not limited to, clean underwear for the pilots! - A detailed overview of parts commonality would perhaps have made the video watchable. You also overstate unit cost. (The F-35A's unit cost for LRIP Lot 13 was $79.2 million), and most importantly, since it´s the subject matter of your video, the parts commonality; which the Pentagon reports a 25%. You can do better, I hope! - Well at least you got an extra comment...
A bit of a rude way to go about discussing it. The $1.6 trillion is the total cost of the program (1995-2070). The unit cost for the F-35A is cheaper than that of its brothers, both of which average more than $100 million. The source from the pentagon stated 20-25% commonality.
@@RedWrenchFilmsRude? No name calling, no personal insults, constructive criticism on how things could be improved... bro, you won't find a nicer, more helpful, critical comment on the Internet. Fact is that you come across as a not subject matter expert who has included a number of errors and omissions in your video. My own personal recommendation is that you get a Discord group of viewers or reach out to actual subject matter experts to preview and advise prior to video release, ideally during the script writing process.
@@msytdc1577 Still rude. Throughout this comment section there are much better examples of constructive criticism. Not to mention that, in this case at least, the criticism is unfounded.
@@RedWrenchFilms Perhaps there were nicer critical comments, I didn't view them all. But IMO just because 10s exist I don't think that justifies calling 9s ugly, nor to judge this comment as rising to the level of "rude", instead of perhaps 'direct', 'blunt', or 'unpolished', or another similar descriptor. And I disagree with your assessment that the criticism is unfounded, the majority of the other comments pertained to the treatment of the lifetime cost (OP point one), many others to the omission that the flyaway cost of the F-35 is actually less than competing generation 4 and 4.5 alternatives (OP's second point), and if OP states that the high number published was 25%, and you yourself provide that the Pentagon assessment was 20-25%, that's agreeing that OP's provided information is valid. Now, OP is wrong for not pointing out that the source of their stated information was a range instead of quoting only the high number, and if your video did the same thing, quoting only the low number then you'd be equally wrong, and both of you would be presenting a biased viewpoint by means of omission of critical data that is counter to the point you both wish to make, not good. In short, OP is batting 100 with regards to the points brought up, and those points are not unique compared to other comments, and while OP perhaps could have shown a bit more respect, tact, and kindness in how they phrased things, I don't think that should cloud one's opinion as to the validity of the points raised in their comment. Wishing you well, and encouraging you to continue with your videos, and like all content creators, hoping you will see continual improvement in your creative endeavors, and find fulfillment in doing so. And to take negative comments in stride and not have that be what sticks in mind-though often human nature for many makes that a darn near impossible task. Cheers mate 🍻
@@msytdc1577 Like most people you're completely missing the point: - Even if the $1.7T is the lifetime cost, that's still a gigantic figure, AND way more than initially planned. To put things in perspective the same cost for the Rafale (albeit for less airframes) is $65B. Even if you correct the figure to match the number of airframes, and multiply it by 2 because stealth is expensive, you're still nowhere near target; - That unit cost that gets bandied about is complete BS. That's the cost per airframe for production only. That does not count R&D efforts. The GAO report states that the acquisition of under 2500 units will cost the DOD $400B. That's $160M per unit, and that probably does not even include the TR3 upgrade. Germany was quoted $240M per unit (of course with training and parts, but not necessarily with weapons);
@@brianb-p6586 I didn’t invent the terms Brian I just know what they stand for! Barrier also makes little sense as the “barrier” is very very rarely used…if we are going to bash those who came up with these acronyms.
@@RedWrenchFilms try reading it as "Catapult Assisted Take Off; however, Assisted Recovery": it should mean the same thing as with "But", but it even more clearly makes no sense. The arresting cable is a barrier. I've only see "But" used in this term in countries where English is not the first language... On the other hand, some US military acronyms are twisted to make a pronounceable word as an acronym, so they don't necessarily make much sense. 🙂
I would've guessed that an aircraft designed to be used by multiple branches to be like 70% parts interchangeable, and the historical aircraft from the same manufacturer to be 20%. Thanks for teaching me that my intuition is 180° backwards!
"Jets for aircraft carriers are vary rarely operated from land" No, not really. I'm pretty sure Finland, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Spain, Malaysia, Kuwait, and Iran, just to name a few would disagree with that assessment. Also, every single jet that the USN has operated from a carrier has operated from land for at least some part of its operational life.
At 5:23 he begins to say Israel is the only country authorized to modify the F35, why only it and why not others like UK, Japan, Italy, Korea which have done plenty of work on developing these global jets?? I'm genuinely curious, pls let me know. Thanks a lot.
Most of that claim is really just fodder and some bragging rights. There not really any real changes. In fact, they were allowed to build and use a weapons gateway. That system is kind of like a dongle that allows you to say use a USA appliance while travelling in Europe. This would allow Israel to attach some weapon systems that they make at home to the F35. However, that system means Israel does not have to actually modify the software, but only that weapons "adaptor" interface system. The simple matter is that UK is integrating their Meteor missiles into the F35, so other nations ALSO get to integrate their weapons into the F35. Same goes for Norway, they purchased F35's,and now are integrating their Naval Strike Missile (NSM) (long range air to ship missile) into the F35. And there are several other nations developing weapon systems for the F35. So, the supposed big deal that the IAF is oh so special, and that they are the only ones doing special things to the F35? Nah, not really, and that narrative is more smoke and mirrors then much of anything else. it is just pure boasting and PR, and not really anything much more. Israel can't make changes to the F35 software, since it is a massive system. and if they do, then what happens when Lockheed issues a software update with new features and bug fixes? It will now overwrite anyone's else's changes, or that Lockheed would have to take those software changes, and integrate them into their latest software build. This is like if you jail break your phone, or modify your computers OS. Ok, now what happens when you upgrade the software? Well, then your changes are lost and overwritten or you STOP any updates, and thus your version of software over time becomes out of date. So, is there "some" extra leeway that Israel has in regards to adding weapons to the F35? Yes, a wee bit, but nothing really to write home about, and it not really much different then the other nations such as UK, Norway etc. that are also having their weapon systems integrated into the F35. But, hey, it makes great PR, and does keep their foe's on their toe's a bit having to think the IAF F35s are somehow super special. The changes we are talking about here are of rather minor, and no real changes to the F35 are occurring here, but that of adding some additional weapons packages, and doing so does NOT mean the F35 is being changed in some significant way ONLY by Israel here. How good does such bragging rights PR work? Well, good enough for you having to ask your question!!!
@@AlbertkallalI mean you’re not wrong but it’s a lot more simple than that. For the past 50 years Israel has acted as the premier combat tester for American fighter jets, with the first kills of the F15, F16, and F35 all with Israeli pilots at the helm. So because they knew the Israelis were the most likely to actually use the jets in combat (mainly because they were the only one with genuine need for them) the Americans gave them the rights to make mods and most importantly produce parts and maintain the jets in Israel.
@@tomerschubert2095 That may well be the case, but the simple matter is prior to such war games and schools like "top gun", "red flag", "tail drag" etc. then it was quite hard to know how well the fighter would perform. However, since the advent of such war games then how such fighters performed in those war gams did translate into real world results, and thus I expect the F35 to do as well in "real world" deployments as it has done in those war games (which is not only very well, but the F35 is racking up unpreceded kill rates in those games). So, while the deployment of such fighters to nations that will no doubt use such aircraft in a real air battle theaters? Those war games have in the past produced results that translate into those real air battle theaters anyway. So, might be great or nice or good to deploy to such nations, those war games also for told how well such fighters can and will perform. As noted, Japan also wanted to receive a F22 version, but one with upgraded electronics and avionics similar to the F35. The issue was not the F22 export restrictions but simply that the F22 was no longer being produced, and cost of re-start of production was too high. Had F22 production not been canceled, then little doubt that nations like Japan and Israel would have received the F22.
That was absolutely fascinating. Now i understand why I have seen such contradictory information about the F-35. different sources were talking about different versions, probably not knowing other ones existed. Thank you,
When the F35 came to the IAF it was met with much scepticism, it lacked the payload of the F15 and F16 which made people ask why so much money was paid to procure them. It didn't take long to realise why the F35 is a key why the IAF can control the skies in a highly contested region. The F35 is a flying battle hub that can jam enemy detection systems, track and jam detection systems and engage them before they become a threat. The IAF will have around 80 when the contract is fully delivered on and ti will give massive air supremacy.
It really shows the level of military operational ignorance here to suggest that an F35 can do the mission of an A10. Total mismatch of asset to mission.
@@GenghisX999 You just do not understand that the battlefield has evolved... a F-35 is going to do CAS better than an A-10... faster, cheaper, and in a safer way for troops on the ground... either in permissive or in contested air spaces.
Technically, the F-35B (or at least the model the RAF flies) is not a VTOL jet, it's STOVL, or "Short Take Off and Vertical landing". The Harrier is a VTOL jet
It took literally one Google search to show that the British F-35Bs land vertically. Are you perhaps misunderstanding how they operate from the carrier?
@@treyaldridge1757STOVL aircraft land vertically. In any case, the Harrier and F-35B are both technically VTOL, but for all practical purposes they operate STOVL so they can actually carry payload and be useful
I was a little surprised that the teaser is there's really 4 variants, but you make a good case that the Israeli version is significantly different enough to qualify.
The fact that there is any parts compatibility between what are essentially 3 entirely different aircraft fulfilling entirely different roles is an achievements all by itself. They may look largely the same but the engineering challenges the have to overcome are so different. More parts compatibility would have compromised its ability to perform those roles. That said the project was majorly mis managed and the decision to start production while the aircraft was still in development has made the issue of parts compatibility even harder
With VTOL you can theorically land on any ship with helicopter capacity, which is nearly every surface combatant in the U.S. fleet. Thus increasing offensive and defensive air capability immensely. 16 F35B can give you 24/7 two aircraft combat air patrol. Normally that would require a LHD minimum. Now you can put a single F35B on an Burke and a significant capacity is added. Even a single F35B on a single destroyer can make sending strike air craft a damage idea. This gives flexibility and gives you opponents a dilemma. Is the long range air defense in the capacity of a F35B on the ship and if not what is your window to be certain it is not added. With a conventional navy the window is often measured in months if not years. An F35B gives that capacity within days if not hours. Full support for continuous operations are a different matter but enough for several flights can be done easily.
realistically though, no F35 are gonna operate normally from heli pads. In order to be able to take off vertically, it needs a minimal payload of fuel and ammo, which isn't really useful in a combat scenario. It can land vertically on a heli pads in case of an emergency but the navy is always gonna prefer using them on aircraft carriers or amphibious assault ships with short take offs.
@metalogic1580 true but just the ability to surge a single F35 to a helicopter capable ship would give Iranian or other nations with a third or fourth generation fighter force pause in deployment of those assets as anti ship missile launchers. Your force the opponent to consider it in mission planning. Don't consider it and a F35 or two ruin a significant part of your air capability or plan much further out and degrade the system by increasing detection and intercept time of anti missile systems. Dilemmas, multiple responses all with bad outcomes if you gamble wrong.
But our navy is pretty much built entirely around giant aircraft carriers that you can basically stuff as many F-35Cs as you want onto. I’m not sure slapping an additional B on any ship that *might* be able to make use of one would be a worthwhile endeavor with that in mind.
So only a small amount of shared components, but what about manufacturing? If the same facility can use the same tooling to make any of those parts without being changed out then isn’t that where the cost saving would be? So the question in terms of if they are the same plane or not, is can the same factory make all 3 or only 1 version?
All variants are produced in the same plant in the U.S. There are also assembly plants in Italy and Japan which, if I'm not mistaken, produce the A and B models only.
Could you make the same video about the French Rafale, which is supposed to be multirole*? It's a milder success than the F-35 but they still made 200 of them. There are the C, B, M and N (Nuclear, which is a fucking cool denomination). *They even call it "omnirole": the distinction is that it can switch from air superiority to attacking a ship during the same mission.
us taxpayers shouldn't forget that also a lot of other nations orderd or use the f35 so this will creat/keep a lot of jobs in the US. Even if they are all eventually built one day. The other nations will keep ordering spearparts ammo etc.
But while the majority of those jobs are in the U.S., the program also generates thousands of jobs in other nations, particularly in Italy which also does final assembly and has a large depot facility that services several nations' aircraft.
Canada ordered the airforce model thankfully. Last time we ordered the F-18 which like you mentioned in the video has tradeoffs for carrier operation. Buying those was a silly move.
The F-18 was chosen in Canada for its twin engines. Both the RCAF and the US Navy have given up on their twin engine requirements, leading to the single-engine F-35 design being acceptable to both for the next generation. Of course we selected the F-35A, not the F-35C, since we have no carriers.
@-p6586 With the advent of the C variant Canada could now invest in light carriers if it wanted too and equip it with the C variant. I feel that having at least two CVLs would help protect our waters in the northern ocean.
@@Demosthenas If they wanted "light" carriers, the B model would probably be their selection.
7 месяцев назад
The latest F-35A ($89M) is significantly cheaper than the latest Eurofighter Typhoon ($100M) and is better than the competition, Gripen ($70M) and ($80M) and Rafale ($80M). F-35 has stealth and has more features and more room for development than the current competition.
Rafale is between 100-120 million and the typhoon is more expensive than that for anyone who wasn't apart of the development. Also the newer more modern Gripen is also more expensive.
Except no one outside of the US pays the airframe $78M or 89M. You never know what the contracts include (training, simulators, parts, weapons, etc.) but other countries have paid anywhere between $120M and $240M. We're quoted $1.7T over the lifespan of the plane, but it's difficult to find the exact value of what the airframe actually costs. I'm not convinced the airframe values published include the whole R&D expense, so the US taxpayer is basically subsidising the planes. Hence the low figures. I'm not even sure those values include the TR3/Block4 upgrades...
I've found a figure for the actual cost. The GAO's report states: "DOD plans to acquire nearly 2,500 F-35 aircraft for about $400 billion". That $160M per unit. And that probably does not include the TR3 upgrade that would come under maintenance... That might not even include the whole R&D!
I worked on the jsf program with GE aviation and we were making the part that redirects the thrust to the floor on the F35B which is called the augmentor. That part of the plane works in 3 different sections each costing $250k and the hydraulic machine that makes it was made in the 50s.
i think it's very reductive to say 1.7trillion is the total cost to the taxpayers lol and most articles you've shown use this figure to tell whatever they want and it's usually to say how bad the f35 is
If a difference in radars and electronic warfare equipment creates a half different aircraft according to you, then your numbers are really off. The Block 30 F-35 how's the new radar and electronic warfare equipment. And the Block 40 will have a different engine
"The Block 30 F-35 how's the new radar and electronic warfare equipment."(sic) Block 3 "And the Block 40 will have a different engine"(sic) No new engine on tap for Block 4, yet.
The navy ordered over 300. And the f-15 ex has a completely different role from the f-35. It is designed for when you don't need a billion dollar super plane. And when you do need a billion dollar super weapon, it acts as a missile truck, hanging out in the rear.
Except the US Airforce is buying more F-15EX instead because the F-35 can't be made fast enough, and is too expensive per flight hour to run. F-15EX is more affordable and economical to use. Lockeeds production factories can't keep up with demand, and the current F-15 airframe have reached their limit and need to be retired. Something needs to replace them now.
The F15-EX isn't cheaper at all, the reason they wanted it was for the significantly higher arms payload with IIRC something akin to 22 air-to-air missiles able to be carried by the thing. The F-35 is definitely still being bought by the US airforce which already has 310 F-35 A and another 59 on order. meanwhile the F-15EX the airforce has 8 of them and plans on using them to replace the old F-15 fleets of E/D variants. the F-35 is meant to replace the F-16 which we still have 775 in service.
Bullcrap f15ex is more expensive than f35 block 4. It's quite the opposite Airforce will cut down f15ex orders while increase more f35s instead. F15ex is mainly for air national guard.
@@TheBigExclusive that is the only metric where it is cheaper, the F-15EX comes out to 31.5 million dollars more expensive in its fly away cost. even after flying both for 1000 hours you would still have spent less money on an F-35. I don't feel like spending a while doing a formula to figure out at what point you break even but if after 1000 flight hours the F-35 was still cheaper than the F-15EX was not adopted due to price but instead due to capabilities.
@@TheBigExclusivethat's a stupid argument, f35 cost of operation will be 30k by 2027 and 28k by 2030. J20 will easily shoot down f15ex while f35 can counter j20 with sensors and stealth.
