Is The F-35 Worth $115 Million?

Pubblicato il 12 ott 2019
Watch over 2,400 documentaries for free for 30 days AND get a free Nebula account by signing up at and using the code, "realengineering"
New streaming platform:
Vlog channel:
Get your Real Engineering shirts at:
Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Editor: Dylan Hennessy
Animator: Mike Ridolfi (
Sound: Graham Haerther (
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster


Thank you to AP Archive for access to their archival footage.
Music by Epidemic Sound:
Desert Dew - Alec Slayne
Fraudulent Business - Marten Moses
Midnight Waves - Dye O
Travellers - Ran the Man
A Trip To The Moon - Aiolos Rue
Night Vibes - Moon Craters
Innovations - From Now On
Waiting in Vain - Kikoru
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Thomas Barth, Johnny MacDonald, Stephen Foland, Alfred Holzheu, Abdulrahman Abdulaziz Binghaith, Brent Higgins, Dexter Appleberry, Alex Pavek, Marko Hirsch, Mikkel Johansen, Hibiyi Mori. Viktor Józsa, Ron Hochsprung


  • We just launched our new channel last week. Check it out!

    • Jet fighters are already dead there are Hyper-sonic Ballistic missiles you can kill anyone where ever without going any where

    • You can leave the /c out of the url

    • @wolum andreas...what mental illness are you suffering from? Or is it bottle flu maybe?

    • I would not assess the stealth capacities of any modern aircraft so optimistically. The USA have never fought an ennemy with equal technological capacities after 1945.Claiming that no F117 was shot down over Iraq is like claiming that there were no accidents during test flights.The F117s never met any resistance, neither aircraft nor a viable AAM system... Have you never wondered why Russia sold their new anti aircraft missile system to Turkey, NATO member who possesses F35 airplanes? NEver wondered why Trump hardly reacted with severe sanctions?

    • Please make a video on alcohol powered engine made by Israel

  • The great British Harrier should have been re-desighned and kept.

  • over priced,

  • ~12 it would be fair to compare it to an F16 but it doesn't make sense to compare it to a dual-engine fighter...

  • The Thunderbold II won't be replaced by the Lightning II. No Tank killing gatling gun. No built in ability to survive AAA fire from closer distances.

  • Sad... I signed onto curiosity stream months ago through a youtube link. Then I find I don't get access to Nebula with a pre-existing curiosity stream account!?!?! C'mon really?

  • So they designed a single fighter with it's *primary* selling point being the VTOL capabilities, to be used by three branches of the military for a wide range of different roles, but the only variant that actually ended up with the true VTOL capabilities went to the Marines? and the other two just basically said, "Yeah, you know what? we have long runways and big enough ships, that whole VTOL party trick; get rid of it we changed our mind."

  • In case WWII breaks out again tomorrow, I am confident that this will be quite an ace.

  • They break down constantly -- that according to the Pentagon 11-11-19

  • What people don’t understand about the F-35 is that it’s not designed to be in a dogfight. It’s designed to win any fight before the enemy even knows it’s there.

  • That ass nozzle looks like a Botfly laying an egg on someone's head.

  • That ad transition was so smooth.

  • They should made it faster to atleast mach 2. Mach 1.6 seems a little bit slow even for a multirole fighter

    • It's rated at 1.6M.+ This speed is with a combat load mind you.

  • Hang on. You did not explain, at all, how this thing is supposed to replace the A-10 Warthog. despite you claiming you did in the video. How does this thing do close air support better? or at least equal to a warthog?

    • The _A-10_ is simply not survivable in an environment with any level of air-to-air or ground-to-air threats compared to multi-role fighters. So since the mid nineties the _F-16C_ has been supplementing and to a degree replacing the _A-10,_ and the _F-35A_ is the one supplementing and eventually replacing the _F-16C._

  • I wouldn't pay a dime for this pile of composite crap! American test pilots say it is slow, hard to maneuver and inferior to existing American fighters... Why would I disagree?

    • @Nathan Peterson I watch several videos on IT-tvs and read many articles about the subject and many don't see that much credit of the F35, that is all, I do not take note of one by one. The crap never saw combat, it is a nice looking craft that is all. Till it is tested against the best American enemies have it is just a pile of flying composites waiting test.

    • @AcidBot66 You've avoided my question, what particular pilots are saying this? Because I've come across none that have unfavorable views on the aircraft specifically. Critical certainly. What are you to say these pilots *are* lying? The _F-35A_ and _F-35B_ have seen combat, but like all other new aircraft, not against other aircraft as of yet.

    • @AcidBot66 One USMC pilot, LT COL David "Chip" Berke was retired by the time he made his commentary on the aircraft's performance. So had nothing to lose save NDA covered details. Which pilots do you refer to? How would they lose their jobs by saying what they like or don't like about it? They're not the manufacturer.

    • @Nathan Peterson Who would dare to say American war hardware is crap? Who wants to loose their jobs?

    • @AcidBot66 How is that the case? Most of these pilots who claim the contrary (not just Americans, but British, Norwegian, and Dutch pilots to ) are still quite critical of the aircraft- they just favor it more over the _F-16_ and _F/A-18._

  • The investment for this aircraft is 406.5 billion dollars .... hahaha with such a sum of money the French would have made a plane flying faster than light, totally invisible and covered with fine gold with platinum instead of an airplane that is sensitive to rainwater! loool. The frenchies invested 12 billion euros only to create a plane (the Rafale, who flies for the first time more than 32 years ago, in 1986), which leaves no chance for the F35 and F22 (aircraft which were developed in 2008 hehe ! see how a Rafale shot down an F22 ! it's here :

  • Yeah yeah - but what’s the mpg on this puppy.

  • so worth it

  • Sorry not worth it , the Russian just need to develop good SAM missiles at a fraction of a cost , like 1/100 cost that could shoot down these birds like ducks . why do US allies need a plane with vertical landing ? most of them dont even have aircraft carriers....


  • Didn't Lockheed receive a $34 billion contract for 438 F-35's? $34 billion/438 = approx. $77.6 million each. No?

  • just can't imagine the pressure for pilots ... when you know the price of those birds.

  • There goes our tax dollar enriching a selective few - the military industrial complex is one hella rich men's legal corruptio scheme that our government is happy to support. IN ANY OTHER INDUSTRY - private or public - multiple failures would've shut down the project so fast you wouldn't have known it even existed! THE ONLY Exception is that if PRIVATE money was used! NOT GONNA HAPPEN? YEA? See Blue Origin from Bezo. YEP. He used his own money!

  • Bullshit, the F35B is not VTOL, it is STOVL only and has no advantages over the Harrier other than speed.

    • @flip inheck An _AV-8B+_ or the contemporary British variant couldn't takeoff vertical with anything more than two air-to-air missiles or 300gal./ 330gal. drop tanks. The notion the _F-35B_ has to be completely empty of munitions is based on what? > *_"... the F35B does not have the manouverability of the Harrier nor can it reverse thrust like the Harrier."_* Regarding the latter, you have a point, however for the former, the _F-35B_ has comparable flight characteristics to a _F-16C,_ save in the case of the _F-35B_ versus an _F-35A_ climb rate (I will need to double check the source here ) and of course energy preservation in a sustained turn.

    • @Nathan Peterson The F35B can only VTO with zero weapons or munitions, a half stripped loading bay and with near empty fuel tanks, the F35B does not have the manouverability of the Harrier nor can it reverse thrust like the Harrier.

    • The _F-35B_ is capable of vertical takeoff- but like the _AV-8B_ neither will carry a considerable payload doing such due to weight constraints. That being said the _F-35B_ has over twice the potential payload any _AV-8B+_ would carry, farther range, lower radar cross section, and maneuverability.

  • F-35 has evolved significantly since that report. That F-35 had G limits in addition to what you mentioned.

  • No.

  • More expensive than the B-2 and the F-22?? Interesting.

  • I can’t even make a paper airplane

  • Problem with trying to replace the A 10 is that it is a huge flying gun. Anyone interested in Lockheed's development of stealth, read the book Skunk works by Ben Rich, great book!

  • How did you even get the information of the fighter jet?

  • lot of people don't realize just like a car when it's assembled it's not just the part you're paying for it's all the design research and testing that way into producing those parts fitting them together and engineering them so that they can work together as one

  • Judging what some companies pay for software I think it’s cheap

  • Is any killing machine worth any price?

  • 1:25.....the f35 sought to be an air superiority machine to replace the F16 and A10, neither of which are air superiority machines. I stopped watching there, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

  • Yes!

  • I would just like to point out that the marines are actually part of the Navy.

  • Being an 'engineering' channel, assumed you would actually extrapolate the cost of building with known materials.

  • Prices for lot 11, today: F-35A 089.2 m F-35B 115.5 m F-35C 107.7 m Prices for lot 12, 2020: F-35A 082.4 m F-35B 108.0 m F-35C 103.0 m Convergence.

  • Thanks IT-tvs. Off to buy one.

  • Where can I get that paint for my car? Cut down on getting caught by radar traps for speeding!! Yeah it is expensive, but puts lots of money into the execs pockets. War is profitable to many people, and dead bodies are just the cost. All the rebuilding that needs to be done creates jobs, and the people killed, well the the ones who survive can have their jobs. The only war humans should be worried about is full scale Nuclear war.

  • 22:05 That was one hell of a segue

  • And the Su 57 cist 40 million . And again reports that say F35 lost all samulation to older planes like Mirage and and f-16 , reports from other planes said that this plan is to slow.

    • Su-57 prototypes cost between 50-60 million each and were only configured with specific systems for testing purposes. Considering an Su-35S is worth about $80 million the Su-57 is certainly not going to be cheaper than the F-35. I suggest doing some actual research into what pilots think. The F-35 is not slow at all and is quite literally superior to the F-16 in every aspect of performance.

  • Nothing can replace the A-10

    • In terms of the sounds made, you're absolutely correct. =D

  • It's a high price and one wonder if the dollars spent could have done better somewhere else?

  • Guess I'm Anglish. Best thing about this to me was the novelty of hearing science and economics with an Oirish accent. Not 'manny' of them te be shah.

  • Anything is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

  • Just a little tip: if you have white in your video (like here 11:20) never make it super white but at a little bit of color.

  • no. nothing designed to end lives is worth a spittle. and you could indeed go in to the politics, or better yet, it's role in international relations. you could at least drop the excitement and smiley-voice antics, you could at least make it perfectly clear that the f 35 is a weapons platform designed for the sole purpose of killing.. you could have some respect for the innocents the US government inadvertently slaughters in passing while bombing terrorists they themselves created. being an engineer doesn't need to mean you become a shallow amoral peasant, wee man.

  • Yakolev giggles in the background

  • I'd rather fly the aircraft in the "Gimbal Video" , but it's a cool airplane.

  • NO is the honest answer, Boeing has made the modern day equivalent of the Starfighter, it is unstable and ill suited for the purpose to which is was "designed". The only reason the NATO countries are buying them is because the Americans threaten everyone with economic cuts and higher trade costs if they buy from someone else. The US economy is so closely tied to Boeing and the F35 project that if it were to fail the US economy would collapse as a result, the fact is there are better planes being designed at a better cost with more secure developments and actual testing performed before production is started.

  • As funded by Lockheed Martin.

  • The short answer is no, its the greatest military resource sink of all time and a project that has gotten to big to fail without someone losing face. Did you mention that every flight deck in the navy has to be replaced to use the F-35 properly because its engine would melt the deck?

  • Imagine battlefield 4 with only the F35

  • 20:05 I noticed the Closed Captions said "[need reference]". This totally makes sense with the recalling of parts as every F-35 needs to be perfect, considering the entire rest of the plane being at stake if something fails. However, I'd also like to know if you found the reference that says that.

  • The windows are made of gemstones?? Really???!!!

  • The chief test pilot of Lookheed-Martin assure that the f-35 can out-manoeuver every american plane ? Seriously ? Is that an evidence that this bulky, heavy and underpowered plane is in reality a hummingbird ? Let me think... Oh yes, software updates. They fix everything ;)

  • The F-35 kicks ass!

  • russia and china will develop advanced radars less than a decade that can detect f-35, then, what happens?

    • Bullshit. It takes a lot of research to figure out how to SEE that plane. China has the money but lacks a lot of what it takes to do the job. Then in war its still very VERY hard to know what you seeing is a plane or a damn bird flying.. Either way we take every advantage we can .. If not you might be forced to be a chinaman...

    • The Taxpayers will be raped by the government again to support military with out victory or profit

  • Gee where have I heard all this before? Oh yeah the early 1960s when they made crap like the Thud. "Oh we don't need to dogfight we have missiles" then came Vietnam and they got their asses handed to them by Migs. Remember hearing the same shit about the stealth in the late 80s too, and then the Serbs found they could tweak the freqs and voila! Nighthawk becomes target practice. Lets be honest folks, the USA MIC has become a SCAM, plain and simple. They design something crap for a shitload of money then get paid ANOTHER shitload of money to try to fix the crap, and of course nobody is gonna say boo because they make sure the parts are being built in enough districts to spread that pork around so the piggies feed well. Nice work if you can get it but I have a feeling if the USA fights anybody other than jokes like Syria and NK with their 50 year old planes? The F35s will be sitting on the ground while the F15s and F18s do the work.

    • > *_"Oh yeah the early 1960s when they made crap like the Thud. "Oh we don't need to dogfight we have missiles" then came Vietnam and they got their asses handed to them by Migs"_* That's not what happened at all. The gun being fitted grew more out of use of ground support, not dogfighting. The U.S.N. simply improved missile reliability and training and their air victories to loss ratios sky rocketed. Gun kills even after introduction to both USAF and USN decreased over time. > *_" Remember hearing the same shit about the stealth in the late 80s too, and then the Serbs found they could tweak the freqs and voila! Nighthawk becomes target practice."_* The _F-117A_ was an antiquated aircraft that lacked any form of countermeasures save being low observable. It had no refits to speak of that improved survivability since introduction. The _S-125_ and its associated arrays were modernized systems from the mid eighties and the 250th Missile Air Defense Brigade were professionals. They noted through IR systems an aircraft was flying on the same route as other aircraft that day- and thus fired two missiles. The first failed to lock on, the second did. What nonsense are you rambling on about?