The Lightning wasn't BAD, it was exactly what had been requested and was extremely good at its intended mission. Not the fault of the plane that politics and doctrine changed. And NO, the Yak-38 was NOT in any way shape or form the "answer to the Harrier". USSR wanted something for vaugely the same reasons as the UK, but with lesser mission requirements, and it was roughly developed from the Yak-36 which in turn was based on the non-VTOL Yak-30 prototype for a trainer. It's a matter of convergent design, because at the time, VTOL was being tested and even flown in lots of variations. Most notably however is that Yakovlev WANTED to build something much more similar to the Harrier, single engine with movable nozzles specifically, but because there was no suitable engine available, they had to go a very different path. And no, the Yak-38 was specifically limited to mach 0.95 to avoid the issues with supersonics. And it didn't have TWO engines, it had THREE. 1 for propulsion and 2 for lift. How could you get so much wrong with this plane?
also the yak38 was supposed to be a temporary solution to wait for the yak41 (yak141) but ussr ceased to exist and it never got to the production phase and stayed as a prototype also fun fact the yakovlev bureau was financed by lockheed martin to try and finish their yak41 in exchanges of the funding the yakovlev bureau handed over all the plans and if you do some reseach you can see that lockheed martin f35 use the same type of vtol engine at the rear with almost the same type of mechanism
The F-35 Lightning 2 is not a bad fighter, actually it is a very good fighter. An extremely ambitious program had problems that have been fixed. Now fixed (as of Feb. 2024) and, over 1,000 have been delivered and the fighter has exceeded expectations!!
@@sebastien3351 That's the manufacturer's sales presentation version of reality. If you squint hard you may be able to find some truth in it. "The F-35 Lightning 2 is not a bad fighter" Yes it is. It relies heavily on stealth. And ALL peer nations today outside of Nato has decent or better antistealth capability. Russian fighters and airdefence can shoot at them with good hitchances at 150km. The stealth was supposed to make them practically impervious down to something closer to spitting range. China's ability is more uncertain, but most likely they can do the same at 80-100km. IRAN can likely do it at beyond 80km. It lacks performance, it lacks agility, it lacks in sensors(comparatively), it lacks in ECM(comparatively)... An F-15 is a clearly better air superiority fighter. "that have been fixed" The CRITICAL flaws have MOSTLY been fixed by now. Overall, about half the flaws have been fixed or mitigated. But in the process of doing that, system performance have repeatedly been negatively affected. "and the fighter has exceeded expectations!!" YES! It is even MORE EXPENSIVE to fly than expected! *lol*
@@DIREWOLFx75youre saying this in 2024. When low observable, subsonic land attack missiles have litterally flown over Russian S-400 systems near Ukraine.
Impressive performance. I remember seeing one landing years ago in a high-nose position, almost on its tail. Do you know if it was ever called upon to do battle service?
My understanding was that the Lightning was great for the air defense of its immediate area. It would have made a great bomber had it been assigned to bomb the end of it's runway.
Considering the F 35 is a recent addition to the US armed forces and that it has not been through any major conflicts to really prove all that it can do, it seems a bit premature to put it on this list, particularly at number one. Just my opinion.
Yeah, they've basically just picked up on the development issues for the programme for a hugely complex, 5th generation, multiple partner, multi-role, multi-configuration aircraft and not on the capabilities or performance of the aircraft. At least with the others they have looked at the performance, safety and reliability of the aircraft. To put it at no.1 on the basis of the development programme alone is utterly ridiculous.
Because everyone believes the myth that the f35 sucks that was spread by one guy in the fighter pilot mafia who never flew a fucking thing in his life and lied about every single accomplishment he ever had. There's never been any sources that it sucks, because it's fucking classified. No one's even going to get to know how good it is until we know what's even in the fuckin thing in the first place. It's all speculation currently, and the evidence we do have suggests the f-35 program is doing just fine. It's just idiots who think jets still dogfight and need to go mach 10 and do 50 cobra maneuvers in a row to win that perpetuate the myth because they don't understand stealth capability doesn't mean the jet literally goes invisible. It's perpetuated by one guy who's convinced we need all jets to be like the a-10 which is the biggest piece of fucking shit useless CAS that has ever been produced. Again, another myth that guy likes to spread is how great the A-10 is. It's not. Actually Lazerpig has some really REALLY good videos on this subject if you're interested. Go watch the "please shut up about the f-35" video and the "a-10 sucks and I can prove it mathematically part 1 and 2". It's got all the history behind where those myths come from and why they're just myths and not anything to be taken seriously.
The EE Lightning was designed for one job. To shoot down Soviet bombers over the North sea if the cold war got hot. It would have been astounding at this. The Sea Vixen on the otherhand.......
The F-104, used as originally intended and by a good pilot, is superb aircraft. Sadly, Germany completely messed up the plane and then tried to use it in ways that were essentially the opposite of what it was good at. And yeah, while the MiG-23 was a great weapons platform, as a fighterplane overall, it had ISSUES. Really serious ones. It was a fairly good concept, but when it ended up being massproduced as a more standardised fighter, bad bad bad idea.
@@DIREWOLFx75 the F104 was only bad because pilots were not trained properly to fly it. It had short stubby wings that required very hi take off and landing speeds. If you were transitioning from a slow fighter if that period, it could be a bear to fly. Even the F86 sabre had to be flown a certain way or it would kill you. ( see sabre dance). It had a 10 to 1 kill ratio against the MIG 15. People, get you heads out of your passes.
The most lethal jet to it's pilots was the F-100 Super Sabre. It killed hundreds and hundreds of US pilots. The F-104 was a fine plane, but the Germans used them wrongly. Read about it before coming up with statements that don't hold water.
@@chuckbowen4334 No, the Sabre had a close to 1:1 kill ratio against Russian pilots in Korea. Against Chinese or Korean pilots it had 7:1 ratio or therabout. But in total, regardless of who flew them, the Sabre had a 5,8:1 ratio. Bear in mind that the Sabre's job was to shoot down the MIG 15, whreas the MIG15's job was to shoot down bombers, and avoid fighters if possible. If you are want to know more about the "Sabre Dance" - read about the F-100 Super Sabre, one of the most lethal (to it's own pilot) jets that ever flew. Get your ypur head out of your pass...
Bro, the lighting I, THE LIGHTNING 1 IS IN THIS GODAMN LIST! THIS FIGHTER CAN FLY MACH 1 VERTICALLY AND IT'S ONE OF THE BEST AIRCRAFT MADE AT THE TIMES! This list was probably made by someone that don't know about aircraft...
The F-35 had its problems, but in no way should it be on this list. The F-35 would kill just about anything in the sky without the other aircraft even knowing it was there.
@@tonygourdine512 yeah but the F35 would delete the other aircraft before it came within 5KM of the F35. You would know this if you had any knowledge of Military Aviation.
so far it's grounded and not combat ready so it actually belongs to the list. F-35 also has been intercepted by Russian Su-35 in the baltics so i really have doubt about it's stealth technology. you can google if you don't trust me
got to call you out on your terminology: a fighter is an air-superiority platform, designed to deny the enemy the use of the airspace over the theater by shooting down its own fighters and close-air-support aircraft; an interceptor is intended for short-range point defense, that is, to stop enemy bombers from penetrating the home airspace (a role that has largely been subsumed by missiles) - the two types have different missions and different requirements, and calling an interceptor a "bad fighter" is like calling a volkswagen a "bad moving van".
The lightning didn't need long range it needed climb speed which it had ,it was designed as a point defense interceptor, something it did very well.the me 163 isn't a jet
Speed isn't always good in a fighter, slower speeds make it more manoeuvrable. The A10 Warthog is slow compared to some prop aircraft, but it will turn up it's own exhaust port.
Totally accurate assessment. I worked at Edwards AFB for over 20 years as an Archaeologist/Historian, so I had to learn the history and development of the plane. In reality, the plane was a test bed and trainer for pilots in jet planes. That is why it was quickly replaced by the P/F-80 in 1945
Putting F-35 on the first place makes no sense. F7U Cutlas, Komet, Delta Dagger, and Heinkel 162 are easily more lethal towards their own pilot or displayed a notably more disappointing performance than the F-35.
I get why the F-35 is on the list but it most definitely is not the worst. The B model is easily an engineering marvel (even tho it’s existence has held back the other two variants) and all of them are very easy to fly.
The B model is amusingly the one that the designers had to pay a bundle to Yakovlev to be able to finish it... "I get why the F-35 is on the list but it most definitely is not the worst." Try to go back and find the original claims about the F-35. Not the modified ones, the FIRST ONES, the ones that were supposed to define "5th generation", which was later changed repeatedly every time the F-35 failed to achieve the definitions. They specifically created the utterly fake idea of the "fighter generations" just to hype the F-35, and then they had to modify it, was it 11 times or something, because they failed to make it happen. Then there's the maintenance horrors of it... It's not the worst plane ever, but compared to how EXTREMELY it failed to reach the goals that were specifically created just to hype the plane? Yeah, that truly IS epic fail.
@@DIREWOLFx75 actually Lockheed helped develope the yak. So it's the other way around. Also the f35 is the best selling aircraft in the world today. By all premier military forces.
The only TRUE requirement for 5th gens is stealth lol. The only so called "requirement" that the -35 doesnt meet is supercruise but the thing is from the start it was never designed to do that. Mark my words, if the requirement for the -35 was to go Mach 2.5, it would go that fast.
@@shtorm2616 Except ORIGINALLY, the F-35 was SUPPOSED to be a supercruise aircraft. It's why the airframe is designed optimised for it. "if the requirement for the -35 was to go Mach 2.5, it would go that fast." *LOL!!!* No, it most certainly would NOT. Because the marvellous new and improved RAM coating the F-35 uses has problems dealing even with any supersonic speed. Anything approaching mach 2 and the coating would literally start to flake off from the friction and heat!
F-35 Lightning II. Barely more maneuverable than the F-16. Definitely more steathy. But I have to laugh when I see photos with pylons and ordinance hung on the wings. What stealth? Would like to know just how much internal stores it can carry and how far.
Interesting to see that the aircraft chosen are in many cases prototypes or little more than that. Some of the others are first generation jets which, unsurprisingly have been improved upon since. Its rather like saying that designs were bad when engineers were still trying to decide what would work at all.
The Lightnings 'overburgers' were for ferry purposes only. Air to air refueling extended the usefulness. It was capable of intercepting the U2 and Concorde. Both unique amongst it's contemporaries.
There is/was nothing particularly unique about intercepting either the U2 or the Concorde. U2's were being intercepted off the Florida coast at 70,000 ft by USAF F-104A Starfighters in the mid-1960's. Intercepting the Concorde in a stern chase is a stunt, nothing more.
English Electric Lightning and F-35 have no business being on this list. EE Lightning was built as a Soviet bomber intercepter and the F-35 problems have been ironed out.
The Lightning is often ill-judged on the basis of a fighter... it wasn't a fighter, it was designed as an interceptor. Its job was to scramble fast, get incredibly high fast, intercept and shoot down incoming Soviet nuclear bombers over the North Sea. It was capable of doing that design mission like no other plane at the time. Agreed, a multi role fighter it wasn't.
Pfffft!! A pilot in a Sopwith Camel could down the entirely useless Mig-23. It's only around in very poor countries that can't afford a toilet to pee in.
The P-59 was never intended to be a high volume fighter , and none ever flew a combat mission . It was a learning exercise using a imported British Whittle engine to understand what a jet aircraft could do . It lead to the Lockheed P-80 a successful early jet . This is akin to saying the Wright Flyer is one of the worst aircraft ever made due to low speed , about 40 MPH , small payload 1 pilot , short range around 60 miles , and poor handling due to wing warping as opposed to aireolons , and difficult operation due to its need for a rail and counterweight for takeoff . However its closest competitor in 1903 was a balloon which in comparison had many deficiencies .
Hmm. BAe Lightning. Not heard of that one. BAe was founded in 1999. Thankfully she never mentioned the English Electric Lightning. Which was a flawed but incredible machine.
The EE Lightning had one job, it did it with MASSIVE Success!!!! As for the Lightning 2, it's not in full operation yet, how can you have this on the list??
So, you painted the F-35 as one of the “worst fighter jets” due to its operational costs? I mean, are we just going to forget the amount of lives that flying brick of a supercomputer saved? The F-35 only had a notable crash number of 10, in 10 years. Compare that to the F-14, F-15, and F-16s which saw HUNDREDS of crashes not in its 10 years of existence, but in 5 years. Even then, the US Navy only had little amount of kills with its F-14 yet, people call it “successful”. The hypocrisy is astounding. Also, the MiG-23? Come on… I expected better.
"So, you painted the F-35 as one of the “worst fighter jets” due to its operational costs?" I'll skip the long looong full explanation, but suffice to say, i've made this comparison a few times. In short, you can buy and fly the same number of SAAB 39 Gripen over a period of 20 years for less than a quarter of the cost. And because the F-35 is so maintenance heavy, you will have something like 12 times more flighthours with the Gripen during that time. And that does not include the cost of training up the ground crews. 6 conscripts with 6 months of basic trianing plus 1-2 techies compared to 17 techies and a dozen assistants, with most of the techies needing to be highly trained specialists. Basically, YES, the operational costs of the F-35 are ridiculous. While the above comparison is made because the Gripen is the opposite end of that, you can do it with most modern fighters and come up with the same result, the F-35 is absolutely not worth the cost.
@@DIREWOLFx75 What kind of Stalinist logic is this? So because you can buy and maintain four Gripens for the price of an F-35 that automatically makes it the better choice? Why haven't autonomous drones been prioritized over piloted aircraft then? They've been in development since the 50s, so why not just fly hundreds of those in a straight line and not care how many get shot down? Oh that's right, because everything you send into the sky needs to come down and I think we can agree that the idea of one F-35 crashing into some poor fucks village is a lot better than having the whole damn place taken out by the wreckage of four flaming Swedes..
alot of the aircraft on this list should not be included, the EE lightning one was never made by BAE systems did not exist at this point, and it will be at least another 30 years before BAE systems were even a thought in someone's mind, more importantly, the EE lighting was a POINT INTERCEPTOR which means that its primary role was to take off, intercept a plane, shoot it down if needed and go back to base, it was never meant to be a fighter that job wen to the hawker hunter so they are comparing the EE lightning to an expectation which it was never meant to meat, that Yak 38 was a good aircraft, it was not as good as the harrier but it did what it was designed to do which was fleet defence a job which it accomplished, the Bell p59 also should be on this list as it was a 1st generation jet and as they go the p59 was a good jet aircraft, the foxbat is a great aircraft it's still in service because its a great multirole jet, its supersonic, good in a dogfight and is good in a close air support role if required. finally, the F35 should not be on this as even though it came late and is over budget saying doesn't live out to the promises is false, in fact in some areas it exceeds them especially in a ground attack, STVL and in an air to air role.
This is the most random pick of fighters. First off, the Lightning was superlative for its time. It was NOT heavy on fuel but light. The F-102 was supersonic while the prototypes were not. They introduced the coke bottle body, and the Dagger was supersonic. Vixen..VERY well liked by its crews. To say more were lost in training than combat is weak, almost all jet fighters had more accidents in use/training than actual losses in combat. There are exceptions. (F-105 for example) The offset cockpit is not an issue, look at airliners, offset but no issues. You compensate for it. And, your information on the Flogger id also weak. The first versions had issues (as any "first version" may have) but after that was/is a VERY well built and reliable fighter. The ML series are exceptional. The 4477th had problems but look where those planes came from and how long they had been sitting in the desert cooking. Everybody else loved the plane for its abilities, reliability and flying qualities. The 163 was a rocket and of course there were issues with the 162 with extreme lack of materials and skilled labour.
NATO tested ten fighter jets in a stern-chase of a Concorde flying at 1,320mph - the only jet that could catch one was the Lightning (better than the F-15). They also tested whether any jet could intercept a U-2 at 80,000ft - again only the Lightning could do it.
If you repute the Sea Vixen a failure (rightly), how about the CF-101B? Canada lost about the 50% of them, without a SINGLE lose for combat! Naturally also the CF-104 had similar losses, some aircrafts shouldn't have never build.
The Canadians bought 66 F-101's from the U.S. in 1961; in the early 1970's they traded the 56 survivors for another batch of 66, which they flew until 1984. They never lost 50% of either batch. The Canadians lost around 40% of their Starfighters, but they also flew the shit out them, more than any other user.
Saying this is the “most advanced aircraft the soviets had” is like saying “the original p75 due to double engine was the most advanced” the “Soviet harrier” as it was known was famous for taking off, using most of its fuel before it could go into horizontal flight. It was a failure beyond failures.
F-35 while over budget is very effective and has a low accident rate. The EE Lightning was intended as an interceptor so the speed in exchange for range made lots of sense. It wasn't competing for a contract against other fighters but against missiles. The P-59 was never used as a combat aircraft so shouldn't count. They worked out the F-102's problems before it reached production. Planes that should have been on the list: Yak-23, based on the Yak-17 which a piston engine airframe with a jet engine stuck in the nose, and technically a fighter but mostly built in a trainer configuration. The Yak-23 was only used for few a couple of years before being dumped on other Warsaw Pact nations as the USSR got the MiG-15 in to service. MiG-9, reached operational use but its massive cannons would stall the engine making it almost impossible to use in combat since the pilot had to maintain specific speeds and angles of attack when firing. McDonnell F3H Demon, under powered with a ejection seat that didn't work it was one of the first aircraft to carry the AIM-7 Sparrow but didn't have a second crewman to man the radar for interception duties like the F3D Skyknight or F-4 Phantom did. Supermarine Swift, rushed in to production and thus had a long list of problems. Quickly relegated to secondary duties. Sukhoi Su-11, obsolete within a year the USSR only made about 100 of them. HAL HF-24 Marut, envisioned as a supersonic interceptor it got relegated to a subsonic fighter-bomber obsolete due to lack of modern engines when it entered service, it was barely better than the Hawker Hunters it was to replace.
@@animaltvi9515 The F-35 has had 5 class A mishaps since it reached operational service 8 years ago. Know how many the F-16 had 8 years after it reached operational service? 50.
Miss the F-104 here and omg...There is a big difference between not fulfilling all the original requirements and being a bad plane, even with all the problems and cost, the qualities of the F-35 stand out much more than its defects, he is one of the best fighters and proof of that is the number of countries that buy it until today, including some countries wanting to buy more, because they liked it. And if you think the F-35 is bad, imagine the planes that were copied from it...
F-35 is selling well because it's literally the only stealth fighter on the market and because it's being heavily subsidized. Several countries came up with tests specifically to suit the F-35, or fabricated numbers.
"and proof of that is the number of countries that buy it until today" *LOL* No, that's because USA is coercing other nations to buy it. It became EXTREMELY blatant when Norway was testing F-35 vs Gripen. And claimed that they chose the F-35 based on COST advantage. Because sure, counting only purchase price for one plane and purchase cost PLUS full service costs for 25 years AND pilot conversion training costs, is such a valid method of determining costs. And even with that fake comparison, the F-35 was only barely less expensive, lol... "And if you think the F-35 is bad, imagine the planes that were copied from it..." Well that's very easy. NONE. Noone has been braindead stupid enough to try to copy it. "even with all the problems and cost, the qualities of the F-35 stand out much more than its defects" No, they really, REALLY do not. It's not complete junk, but compared to its costs, the REAL costs, not the subsidised pretend pricetag being touted, it is outrageously bad. It has absolutely NOTHING to justify its cost beyond stealth. And how many nations have spent the last 20-50 years developing counters to stealth? Oh yeah, most of the industrialised nations, that's how many. The F-35 is absolutely superb at striking against 3rd rate militaries. Against near peers? Uh, no. The only thing that will help it there is numerical advantage and lo and behold, its extremely high cost of use makes that unlikely to happen.
The F-35 isn't a dogfighter ffs it's a sniper, it's a wonderful Airframe, and all because one Norway pilot talked crap on an early model that had maneuvering restrictions everyone says it's bad, while everyone else except that one guy praises it.
@@taibhse955 *lol* No, that has little to nothing to do with why people talk badly about it. It's an airframe designed for supercruise speed, but is unable to actually fly supercruise during any real kind of mission. It's a "sniper" with an underpowered sensorsuite and an unreliable datalink. So no, it's NOT a sniper. It is literally a bombtruck. Excellent against 3rd rate armies that still doesn't have any kind of anti-stealth ability. But mediocre to ok-ish against most other opposition. It was supposed to be the budget stealth plane and instead, USA can barely afford to have it and the F-22 in service at the same time. Instead of replacing all the teen-fighters, USA is now searching for a budget fighter to take over as the lowend to the F-35s "highend". It's not absolutely terrible in any single way, in many ways it's even quite decent, but alltogether it is a ridiculous level of failure combined into a single aircraft.
The Lightning was an interceptor, it actually intercepted a U-2, thought to be impossible. Likewise it’s main mission was to get to Russian nuclear bombers. I couldn’t disagree more, from USA, it was better jet than Starfighter, I call shenanigans.
The F-35 has been a developmental nightmare but as of late they finally got it working well. It is still a pain in the neck in maintenance but is way more reliable than it used to be.
Yet here is the F35 going 1 vs 10 against the F18, F15, F16, Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale and having a 100% kill rate for its designed purpose of identify first and shoot first and 50% kill rate for close in dog fights.
It is now very clear that this channel does zero investigation and just reads the first article they see on Google. Terrible way to run a channel like this.
The F-102 was indeed supersonic. It was an effective all-weather interceptor. They built 1,000 of them. It flew in various air forces for 30 years. Not a bad airplane at all.
i dont know where to start with this idiotic list but , let me first say this The English Electric Lightning is a legend, to even suggest it sits in a top ten list of the worst fighter jets is ridiculous to a point of infuriating It was designed during the cold war to shoot down Soviet fighter jets and bombers, and nothing could match it. All jets at that time were heavy on fuel, but it had enough range to fulfill its role Its Speed , rate of climb, ceiling height, were, and still are legendary, a heavy fuel usage is irrelevant, its like saying Pele was one of the worlds worst footballers, because he wasn't very good in goal
The top worst WWII plane is the Buckeneer, AKA the fuckeneer my Navy Pilot father called it. My father said the Buckeneer's propeller would come off in flight, engine would come apart then catch fire, and it was impossible for the pilot and navagator to bail out before it went nose first unexpectedly into the ground. Remember that name, the fuckeneer.
The English Electric Lightning, not BAE that company didn't even come into existence until long after Lightning production ceased, did exactly what it was designed to do, and what it was designed to do was to reach high level Soviet bombers as quickly as possible, the lack of range wasn't considered a hinderance to its task, the over-wing fuel tanks were only fitted for ferry missions and never carried on operational intercepts so they in no way detracted from the Lightnings capability. I am surprised that they showed a photo of a Lightning carrying out a task it was never actually designed to do, low level ground attack, and which was the only role in which the Lightning actually did see combat in.
The XP-59 project was so secret that Bell engineers were denied the use of the wind tunnels they needed to refine the design. This is one of the causes of its underwhelming performance.
Funny how this list has the F-35 No 1 as the "the worst fighter jet ever" but at the same time every country on earth that 1. can afford it and 2. the US is willing to sell it to them, is falling over themselves trying to buy it. Even India, who has always bought Soviet kit, is strongly considering them.
The BAE Lighting suffered from being developed when nuclear armed bombers were the primary threat. Primarily designed to protect the V bomber fields, it soon became a plane without a mission when ICBMs became reliable. The F-102 suffered from transonic drag, at that time a ill understood phenomena. The design was redeemed with the F-106, which employed the area rule concept, the familiar "Coke bottle" pinch near the center of the fuselage.
The F-35 is now considered very good, so this info about the high ranking officers talking bad about it is at least 10 to 15 years old. Through a steady stream of improvements in most of it's avionic systems and weapons delivery systems it's now considered to be quite a success. And a vast improvement in overall reliability has been accomplished. So this video is serious misinformation. Seemingly Chinese propaganda. Their own J-20 is considered a bad joke after our military found out more about.
The lightning was designed for rapid interception of Soviet aircraft. Its high rate of climb and speed enabled it to perform its function admirably. It should not be on this list.
I'm pretty sure they are talking about the F35B which was intended for vertical lift off. Often the fan gets stuck while changing positions and they crash. They do seem to crash often enough to deserve a bad rating.
@@LifeForceGeneratorwe’re literally seeing air forces around the world develop multi-role fighters compared to specialized fighters. India’s AMCA is expected to be multirole. China’s J-20 and J-31 are multirole. Majority of rumors surrounding 6th Gen Fighters expects them to be multirole. Face it, the age of specialized fighter jets are coming to its very end since the cost of developing and maintaining just 1 model… is TOO expensive.
Yak38 has 3 engines, not 2. But only one is used for horizontal flight. The other two are small lift engines only used during the take off and landing. So the statement that if one engine failed, the plane will be lost is incorrect. Usually, vertical takeoff aircrafts don’t use two side by side engines because if one failed during vertical takeoff or landing, the aircraft will be sway to a aside and crash. That is why Harrier has only one engine. But the Yak didn’t have an engine powerful enough to to take off vertically, so the designers added two smaller vertically mounted engines . But all 3 are inline so even if one engine failed, the aircraft will not sway to a side and crash on to some other aircraft or other equipment on an aircraft carrier. It will just slam down on the same spot. This may destroy the aircraft but there would not be any collateral damage to other aircrafts parked nearby. With Yak 38, the problem was not the number of engines, but simply the design was not good enough.
Still Yak-38 was built earlier and in higher numbers than Harrier. Besides, most of his bad reputation was from Afghanistan, from the dust, but no one thinks Mi-24 or Abrams was bad.
I am afraid your opinion gives away you know little about Military Aviation, there are aircraft on this list that belong near the top of a greatest fighter of all time list.
The English Electric Lightning being in this list is pure bullsh**, it was built as a high altitude interceptor for nuclear bombers and as such it performed well. Range didn't need to be large for it's intended role. Only when the kind of operations changed after ICBMs became a thing it was that range became a concern, as now the Lightning had to do longer patrol missions, and in that role it was replaced with the Phantom 2. The F-35 Lightning 2 still has to prove its merits, but the project being hugely over budget and late it doesn't mean that the plane in itself is bad. If these two criteria were used for determining if a plane is good or bad we can put a whole lot more on this list, like the F-22 Raptor or F-111
Keep the F35 on this list…. It will surprise nearly every other fighter in the sky. The F35’s adversaries will know it’s there when the they are punching out due to large holes rapidly appearing in their vehicle…
Two major blunders here The English Electric Lightning was short ranged but it was designed as a fast intercept plane. It was it's excellent time to climb ability that made it a monster when it came to intercepting planes trying to get into the home islands which is what it was built for so it didn't need a long range. And you have absolutely bumped your head bu including the F-35 on here. Yes when it first came out it was way over budget and full of flaws no doubt about it. But now they have the major problems solved and are working on the little ones. And with the number of planes that are being purchased by the US and other countries the cost per plane is actually very low all things considered.
Ok... Me163 and He162 no argument and same goes for Sea Vixen. +1 other arguments in favour of the Lightning. Something I did not immediately appreciate is that from a maintenance point of view the Lightning is a nightmare. To service the lower engine you have to extract the upper. However, with that configuration a Lightning can reverse a turn far quicker than a plane with side-by-side engines. F7u Cutlass. An aberration. The Lockheed Starfighter, (not included on your list?) was nick named the Widow maker. The Cutlass was called the Ensign Eliminator. However it was the US Navy’s first two-seat, twin engine fighter with all weather radar, cannon and equipped with early infra-red and radar homing missiles. F102. Eventually the transonic drag problem was solved with a change in the shape. This led to the F106 which had to live in the shadow of the mighty F-4 Phantom but was still a very capable aircraft.
F-117 is worst, since it does not even have guns or missiles. Both it and F-35 should have "A" designators - A-117, A-35. Since they are really designed for attack.
The Lightning, the F-102, and the F-35 don't belong on this list. No, the Starfighter doesn't belong on it, either. The Supermarine Swift and the HAL Marut probably do. The F-84, also.
The mig23 was a pile of junk, and the f35 is 20 years behind and a step backwards from the f22. By far the worst fighter is the me163, it was lethal in many ways.
You know a video is going to be shite when it lists the Me163 as a bad jet when it isn't a jet. It is rocket powered. Jets are powered by........a jet.
How can you include the Me-163 in a list of jet fighters? It is rocket powered, not jet powered and you even state that in your description. It is a big difference since the designs operate quite differently.
The Lightning wasn't BAD, it was exactly what had been requested and was extremely good at its intended mission. Not the fault of the plane that politics and doctrine changed.
And NO, the Yak-38 was NOT in any way shape or form the "answer to the Harrier". USSR wanted something for vaugely the same reasons as the UK, but with lesser mission requirements, and it was roughly developed from the Yak-36 which in turn was based on the non-VTOL Yak-30 prototype for a trainer.
It's a matter of convergent design, because at the time, VTOL was being tested and even flown in lots of variations.
Most notably however is that Yakovlev WANTED to build something much more similar to the Harrier, single engine with movable nozzles specifically, but because there was no suitable engine available, they had to go a very different path.
And no, the Yak-38 was specifically limited to mach 0.95 to avoid the issues with supersonics.
And it didn't have TWO engines, it had THREE. 1 for propulsion and 2 for lift.
How could you get so much wrong with this plane?
The flogger dominated in Angola. All the losses are bombers, the fighter mig23s have low losses.
The f35 is worthless of course.
also the yak38 was supposed to be a temporary solution to wait for the yak41 (yak141) but ussr ceased to exist and it never got to the production phase and stayed as a prototype also fun fact the yakovlev bureau was financed by lockheed martin to try and finish their yak41 in exchanges of the funding the yakovlev bureau handed over all the plans and if you do some reseach you can see that lockheed martin f35 use the same type of vtol engine at the rear with almost the same type of mechanism
The F-35 Lightning 2 is not a bad fighter, actually it is a very good fighter. An extremely ambitious program had problems that have been fixed. Now fixed (as of Feb. 2024) and, over 1,000 have been delivered and the fighter has exceeded expectations!!
@@sebastien3351 That's the manufacturer's sales presentation version of reality.
If you squint hard you may be able to find some truth in it.
"The F-35 Lightning 2 is not a bad fighter"
Yes it is. It relies heavily on stealth. And ALL peer nations today outside of Nato has decent or better antistealth capability.
Russian fighters and airdefence can shoot at them with good hitchances at 150km.
The stealth was supposed to make them practically impervious down to something closer to spitting range.
China's ability is more uncertain, but most likely they can do the same at 80-100km.
IRAN can likely do it at beyond 80km.
It lacks performance, it lacks agility, it lacks in sensors(comparatively), it lacks in ECM(comparatively)...
An F-15 is a clearly better air superiority fighter.
"that have been fixed"
The CRITICAL flaws have MOSTLY been fixed by now. Overall, about half the flaws have been fixed or mitigated.
But in the process of doing that, system performance have repeatedly been negatively affected.
"and the fighter has exceeded expectations!!"
YES! It is even MORE EXPENSIVE to fly than expected!
*lol*
@@DIREWOLFx75youre saying this in 2024. When low observable, subsonic land attack missiles have litterally flown over Russian S-400 systems near Ukraine.
This is ridiculous the Messerschmitt 163 Komet is not a jet aircraft but is rocket powered and only had a flight endurance of 9 minutes
English Electric Lightning, one of the best British fighter aeroplanes ever produced, break the sound barrier going vertical.
Impressive performance. I remember seeing one landing years ago in a high-nose position, almost on its tail. Do you know if it was ever called upon to do battle service?
Awesome Aircraft
Less than 1 hand of aircraft could intercept the Blackbird
I also remember it as one of the first fighter jets to super cruise.
@@beornthebear.8220 I heard that, and somebody told me very flatly it couldn't. Since I don't remember my source, I couldn't argue.
My understanding was that the Lightning was great for the air defense of its immediate area. It would have made a great bomber had it been assigned to bomb the end of it's runway.
English electric lighting was fantastic at doing what it was designed for.
Lightening was designed as an interceptor and it was the best in the world at the time.
Considering the F 35 is a recent addition to the US armed forces and that it has not been through any major conflicts to really prove all that it can do, it seems a bit premature to put it on this list, particularly at number one. Just my opinion.
Yeah, they've basically just picked up on the development issues for the programme for a hugely complex, 5th generation, multiple partner, multi-role, multi-configuration aircraft and not on the capabilities or performance of the aircraft.
At least with the others they have looked at the performance, safety and reliability of the aircraft. To put it at no.1 on the basis of the development programme alone is utterly ridiculous.
Because everyone believes the myth that the f35 sucks that was spread by one guy in the fighter pilot mafia who never flew a fucking thing in his life and lied about every single accomplishment he ever had. There's never been any sources that it sucks, because it's fucking classified. No one's even going to get to know how good it is until we know what's even in the fuckin thing in the first place. It's all speculation currently, and the evidence we do have suggests the f-35 program is doing just fine. It's just idiots who think jets still dogfight and need to go mach 10 and do 50 cobra maneuvers in a row to win that perpetuate the myth because they don't understand stealth capability doesn't mean the jet literally goes invisible. It's perpetuated by one guy who's convinced we need all jets to be like the a-10 which is the biggest piece of fucking shit useless CAS that has ever been produced. Again, another myth that guy likes to spread is how great the A-10 is. It's not. Actually Lazerpig has some really REALLY good videos on this subject if you're interested. Go watch the "please shut up about the f-35" video and the "a-10 sucks and I can prove it mathematically part 1 and 2". It's got all the history behind where those myths come from and why they're just myths and not anything to be taken seriously.
@@JoeMochan And you can guarantee that it will fall short on both capability and performance.
@@mothmagic1 So far it's exceeding expectations after many improvements. You show how much you don't know.
The EE Lightning was designed for one job. To shoot down Soviet bombers over the North sea if the cold war got hot.
It would have been astounding at this.
The Sea Vixen on the otherhand.......
The Mig-9 belongs on this list. Any time the main cannon was fired, the gases from it would cause the engine to flame-out.
Not EVERY time, but yeah, the MiG-9 definitely suits the list better than the Lightning.
I see your MiG-9 and raise you a Thunderscreech
@@lucasokeefe7935 The people responsible for the Thunderscreech should have been referred to a psychiatric exam.
WTF? Bae Lightning, MiG-23 and F-35? the worst by far in deaths pilots was the F-104 G in Germany and i dont see it in the video
The Mig 23 too
The F-104, used as originally intended and by a good pilot, is superb aircraft. Sadly, Germany completely messed up the plane and then tried to use it in ways that were essentially the opposite of what it was good at.
And yeah, while the MiG-23 was a great weapons platform, as a fighterplane overall, it had ISSUES. Really serious ones. It was a fairly good concept, but when it ended up being massproduced as a more standardised fighter, bad bad bad idea.
@@DIREWOLFx75 the F104 was only bad because pilots were not trained properly to fly it. It had short stubby wings that required very hi take off and landing speeds. If you were transitioning from a slow fighter if that period, it could be a bear to fly. Even the F86 sabre had to be flown a certain way or it would kill you. ( see sabre dance). It had a 10 to 1 kill ratio against the MIG 15.
People, get you heads out of your passes.
The most lethal jet to it's pilots was the F-100 Super Sabre. It killed hundreds and hundreds of US pilots. The F-104 was a fine plane, but the Germans used them wrongly. Read about it before coming up with statements that don't hold water.
@@chuckbowen4334 No, the Sabre had a close to 1:1 kill ratio against Russian pilots in Korea. Against Chinese or Korean pilots it had 7:1 ratio or therabout. But in total, regardless of who flew them, the Sabre had a 5,8:1 ratio. Bear in mind that the Sabre's job was to shoot down the MIG 15, whreas the MIG15's job was to shoot down bombers, and avoid fighters if possible.
If you are want to know more about the "Sabre Dance" - read about the F-100 Super Sabre, one of the most lethal (to it's own pilot) jets that ever flew.
Get your ypur head out of your pass...
The lightning managed to get so many kills on US aircraft of the same era. Very effective, so no clue why it has been included
how many years ago?
@@ANDREALEONE95 whenever it was in operational service. they did many mock training sessions with the US and the lightning outperformed their fighters
@@ollie7373 Spot on mate. An awesome beast of an interceptor.
Yep!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually , zero...kills.
Very odd list, can't say I agree with much if any of it.
Bro, the lighting I, THE LIGHTNING 1 IS IN THIS GODAMN LIST!
THIS FIGHTER CAN FLY MACH 1 VERTICALLY AND IT'S ONE OF THE BEST AIRCRAFT MADE AT THE TIMES!
This list was probably made by someone that don't know about aircraft...
@@Oqualquer sounds like a lesson in propaganda.
@@paullakowski2509 it actually is
@@Oqualquer agreed
@@paullakowski2509sounds like a guy that doesn’t know Jack shit
The SU-57 & SU-75 should be on this list before any F-35.
The F-35 had its problems, but in no way should it be on this list. The F-35 would kill just about anything in the sky without the other aircraft even knowing it was there.
They always say that until the F 35 finds itself in a merge. F 35 will not do well in visual range. They call the F 35 " Fat Amy " for a reason !
As a multi-role fighter, it excels. I like to think of it as an F-15 replacement!
@@tonygourdine512 99% of engagements happen beyond visual range, the age of the dogfight is over. stop living in WW2/Vietnam.
@@tonygourdine512 yeah but the F35 would delete the other aircraft before it came within 5KM of the F35. You would know this if you had any knowledge of Military Aviation.
so far it's grounded and not combat ready so it actually belongs to the list. F-35 also has been intercepted by Russian Su-35 in the baltics so i really have doubt about it's stealth technology. you can google if you don't trust me
This list is just weird and a sign of incompetence...
Lightning? An early 1950s design that remained in service until, I think, 1988, and one of the fastest and highest-flying fighters ever?
Yes you arecoeerct.it began to be replaced by the Tornado F3 in 1987 with the last of the Lightnings being retired in 1988
@@damien5748 Still flying at Binbrooke until then, the day's when the crabs (RAF) really did have a force of fighter jets , ex RN myself.
got to call you out on your terminology: a fighter is an air-superiority platform, designed to deny the enemy the use of the airspace over the theater by shooting down its own fighters and close-air-support aircraft; an interceptor is intended for short-range point defense, that is, to stop enemy bombers from penetrating the home airspace (a role that has largely been subsumed by missiles) - the two types have different missions and different requirements, and calling an interceptor a "bad fighter" is like calling a volkswagen a "bad moving van".
The lightning didn't need long range it needed climb speed which it had ,it was designed as a point defense interceptor, something it did very well.the me 163 isn't a jet
Great point, "worst rocket fighters" doesn't have the same ring does it?
This dude must have picked the top 50 worst planes and then hit shuffle and put the top 10 after the shuffle on the list
The P-59 was America’s first jet. Nobody really knew how the thing would fly. It’s a learning moment. Not a bad plane to learn on.
Speed isn't always good in a fighter, slower speeds make it more manoeuvrable. The A10 Warthog is slow compared to some prop aircraft, but it will turn up it's own exhaust port.
Totally accurate assessment. I worked at Edwards AFB for over 20 years as an Archaeologist/Historian, so I had to learn the history and development of the plane. In reality, the plane was a test bed and trainer for pilots in jet planes. That is why it was quickly replaced by the P/F-80 in 1945
Putting F-35 on the first place makes no sense. F7U Cutlas, Komet, Delta Dagger, and Heinkel 162 are easily more lethal towards their own pilot or displayed a notably more disappointing performance than the F-35.
I get why the F-35 is on the list but it most definitely is not the worst. The B model is easily an engineering marvel (even tho it’s existence has held back the other two variants) and all of them are very easy to fly.
The B model is amusingly the one that the designers had to pay a bundle to Yakovlev to be able to finish it...
"I get why the F-35 is on the list but it most definitely is not the worst."
Try to go back and find the original claims about the F-35. Not the modified ones, the FIRST ONES, the ones that were supposed to define "5th generation", which was later changed repeatedly every time the F-35 failed to achieve the definitions.
They specifically created the utterly fake idea of the "fighter generations" just to hype the F-35, and then they had to modify it, was it 11 times or something, because they failed to make it happen.
Then there's the maintenance horrors of it...
It's not the worst plane ever, but compared to how EXTREMELY it failed to reach the goals that were specifically created just to hype the plane?
Yeah, that truly IS epic fail.
@@DIREWOLFx75 actually Lockheed helped develope the yak. So it's the other way around.
@@DIREWOLFx75 actually Lockheed helped develope the yak. So it's the other way around. Also the f35 is the best selling aircraft in the world today. By all premier military forces.
The only TRUE requirement for 5th gens is stealth lol. The only so called "requirement" that the -35 doesnt meet is supercruise but the thing is from the start it was never designed to do that. Mark my words, if the requirement for the -35 was to go Mach 2.5, it would go that fast.
@@shtorm2616 Except ORIGINALLY, the F-35 was SUPPOSED to be a supercruise aircraft.
It's why the airframe is designed optimised for it.
"if the requirement for the -35 was to go Mach 2.5, it would go that fast."
*LOL!!!*
No, it most certainly would NOT.
Because the marvellous new and improved RAM coating the F-35 uses has problems dealing even with any supersonic speed.
Anything approaching mach 2 and the coating would literally start to flake off from the friction and heat!
Whoever judged these aircraft was obviously not qualified to do so.
This list validates the principle that you shouldn't believe everything you see on the internet.
The Scimitar or even the Swift deserves to be in here rather than the EE Lightening.
F-35?? Really?? This is based on an Aircraft that went over budget and not on it performance?? 🙄
F-35 Lightning II. Barely more maneuverable than the F-16. Definitely more steathy. But I have to laugh when I see photos with pylons and ordinance hung on the wings. What stealth? Would like to know just how much internal stores it can carry and how far.
The JSF is fine. The expectations were unrealistic.
Interesting to see that the aircraft chosen are in many cases prototypes or little more than that. Some of the others are first generation jets which, unsurprisingly have been improved upon since. Its rather like saying that designs were bad when engineers were still trying to decide what would work at all.
when research is out of the question...
The Lightnings 'overburgers' were for ferry purposes only. Air to air refueling extended the usefulness. It was capable of intercepting the U2 and Concorde. Both unique amongst it's contemporaries.
There is/was nothing particularly unique about intercepting either the U2 or the Concorde. U2's were being intercepted off the Florida coast at 70,000 ft by USAF F-104A Starfighters in the mid-1960's. Intercepting the Concorde in a stern chase is a stunt, nothing more.
English Electric Lightning and F-35 have no business being on this list. EE Lightning was built as a Soviet bomber intercepter and the F-35 problems have been ironed out.
The Lightning is often ill-judged on the basis of a fighter... it wasn't a fighter, it was designed as an interceptor. Its job was to scramble fast, get incredibly high fast, intercept and shoot down incoming Soviet nuclear bombers over the North Sea. It was capable of doing that design mission like no other plane at the time. Agreed, a multi role fighter it wasn't.
The only problem with F-35 is the maintenance cost and operating cost. Mig 23 is still in service because it's too good to be retired.
And it’s’ total dependence on stealth to survive
@@douginorlando6260 it’s not dependent on its stealth coatings, it is entirely dependent on its sensor fusion or its data link, the MADL.
The MIG 23 is trash
@@kevinstraus1478 because?
Pfffft!! A pilot in a Sopwith Camel could down the entirely useless Mig-23. It's only around in very poor countries that can't afford a toilet to pee in.
The P-59 was never intended to be a high volume fighter , and none ever flew a combat mission . It was a learning exercise using a imported British Whittle engine to understand what a jet aircraft could do . It lead to the Lockheed P-80 a successful early jet . This is akin to saying the Wright Flyer is one of the worst aircraft ever made due to low speed , about 40 MPH , small payload 1 pilot , short range around 60 miles , and poor handling due to wing warping as opposed to aireolons , and difficult operation due to its need for a rail and counterweight for takeoff . However its closest competitor in 1903 was a balloon which in comparison had many deficiencies .
The Wright Bros. at Kittyhawk…, Outstanding analogy!
Hmm. BAe Lightning. Not heard of that one. BAe was founded in 1999. Thankfully she never mentioned the English Electric Lightning. Which was a flawed but incredible machine.
The EE Lightning had one job, it did it with MASSIVE Success!!!! As for the Lightning 2, it's not in full operation yet, how can you have this on the list??
So, you painted the F-35 as one of the “worst fighter jets” due to its operational costs? I mean, are we just going to forget the amount of lives that flying brick of a supercomputer saved?
The F-35 only had a notable crash number of 10, in 10 years. Compare that to the F-14, F-15, and F-16s which saw HUNDREDS of crashes not in its 10 years of existence, but in 5 years. Even then, the US Navy only had little amount of kills with its F-14 yet, people call it “successful”. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Also, the MiG-23? Come on… I expected better.
"So, you painted the F-35 as one of the “worst fighter jets” due to its operational costs?"
I'll skip the long looong full explanation, but suffice to say, i've made this comparison a few times.
In short, you can buy and fly the same number of SAAB 39 Gripen over a period of 20 years for less than a quarter of the cost.
And because the F-35 is so maintenance heavy, you will have something like 12 times more flighthours with the Gripen during that time.
And that does not include the cost of training up the ground crews. 6 conscripts with 6 months of basic trianing plus 1-2 techies compared to 17 techies and a dozen assistants, with most of the techies needing to be highly trained specialists.
Basically, YES, the operational costs of the F-35 are ridiculous. While the above comparison is made because the Gripen is the opposite end of that, you can do it with most modern fighters and come up with the same result, the F-35 is absolutely not worth the cost.
@@DIREWOLFx75 But F-35 can do what Gripen can't.
@@DIREWOLFx75 actually f35 is now cheaper to operate than the f18 super hornet. Which is cheaper than gripen. Oh yeah what did gripen kill. Nada
Then explain why country after country, even those who are geopolitically neutral, choose the -35 over the Gripen?
@@DIREWOLFx75 What kind of Stalinist logic is this? So because you can buy and maintain four Gripens for the price of an F-35 that automatically makes it the better choice? Why haven't autonomous drones been prioritized over piloted aircraft then? They've been in development since the 50s, so why not just fly hundreds of those in a straight line and not care how many get shot down?
Oh that's right, because everything you send into the sky needs to come down and I think we can agree that the idea of one F-35 crashing into some poor fucks village is a lot better than having the whole damn place taken out by the wreckage of four flaming Swedes..
Where is F104 ???
I haven't watched yet or read any comments but I know it's going to be a cesspit when I eventually scroll down
A 10 year old would make a better list than this
I am really surprised that the F-104 isnt even on the top 3 with their 292 crashes and 116 dead pilots only in germany
alot of the aircraft on this list should not be included, the EE lightning one was never made by BAE systems did not exist at this point, and it will be at least another 30 years before BAE systems were even a thought in someone's mind, more importantly, the EE lighting was a POINT INTERCEPTOR which means that its primary role was to take off, intercept a plane, shoot it down if needed and go back to base, it was never meant to be a fighter that job wen to the hawker hunter so they are comparing the EE lightning to an expectation which it was never meant to meat, that Yak 38 was a good aircraft, it was not as good as the harrier but it did what it was designed to do which was fleet defence a job which it accomplished, the Bell p59 also should be on this list as it was a 1st generation jet and as they go the p59 was a good jet aircraft, the foxbat is a great aircraft it's still in service because its a great multirole jet, its supersonic, good in a dogfight and is good in a close air support role if required. finally, the F35 should not be on this as even though it came late and is over budget saying doesn't live out to the promises is false, in fact in some areas it exceeds them especially in a ground attack, STVL and in an air to air role.
Surely first place should have gone to the Widowmaker? They were lethal to their own crews.
Alot of that reputation came from people trying to use the aircraft for undesigned roles..like ground attack.
@@f4ephantom Poor training, poor maintenance, lousy weather. It wasn't the plane, or it's application.
This is the most random pick of fighters. First off, the Lightning was superlative for its time. It was NOT heavy on fuel but light. The F-102 was supersonic while the prototypes were not. They introduced the coke bottle body, and the Dagger was supersonic. Vixen..VERY well liked by its crews. To say more were lost in training than combat is weak, almost all jet fighters had more accidents in use/training than actual losses in combat. There are exceptions. (F-105 for example) The offset cockpit is not an issue, look at airliners, offset but no issues. You compensate for it. And, your information on the Flogger id also weak. The first versions had issues (as any "first version" may have) but after that was/is a VERY well built and reliable fighter. The ML series are exceptional. The 4477th had problems but look where those planes came from and how long they had been sitting in the desert cooking. Everybody else loved the plane for its abilities, reliability and flying qualities. The 163 was a rocket and of course there were issues with the 162 with extreme lack of materials and skilled labour.
NATO tested ten fighter jets in a stern-chase of a Concorde flying at 1,320mph - the only jet that could catch one was the Lightning (better than the F-15). They also tested whether any jet could intercept a U-2 at 80,000ft - again only the Lightning could do it.
If you repute the Sea Vixen a failure (rightly), how about the CF-101B? Canada lost about the 50% of them, without a SINGLE lose for combat!
Naturally also the CF-104 had similar losses, some aircrafts shouldn't have never build.
The Canadians bought 66 F-101's from the U.S. in 1961; in the early 1970's they traded the 56 survivors for another batch of 66, which they flew until 1984. They never lost 50% of either batch. The Canadians lost around 40% of their Starfighters, but they also flew the shit out them, more than any other user.
Saying this is the “most advanced aircraft the soviets had” is like saying “the original p75 due to double engine was the most advanced” the “Soviet harrier” as it was known was famous for taking off, using most of its fuel before it could go into horizontal flight. It was a failure beyond failures.
In no way, shape or form the F-35 should not be on there.
F-35 while over budget is very effective and has a low accident rate.
The EE Lightning was intended as an interceptor so the speed in exchange for range made lots of sense. It wasn't competing for a contract against other fighters but against missiles.
The P-59 was never used as a combat aircraft so shouldn't count.
They worked out the F-102's problems before it reached production.
Planes that should have been on the list:
Yak-23, based on the Yak-17 which a piston engine airframe with a jet engine stuck in the nose, and technically a fighter but mostly built in a trainer configuration. The Yak-23 was only used for few a couple of years before being dumped on other Warsaw Pact nations as the USSR got the MiG-15 in to service.
MiG-9, reached operational use but its massive cannons would stall the engine making it almost impossible to use in combat since the pilot had to maintain specific speeds and angles of attack when firing.
McDonnell F3H Demon, under powered with a ejection seat that didn't work it was one of the first aircraft to carry the AIM-7 Sparrow but didn't have a second crewman to man the radar for interception duties like the F3D Skyknight or F-4 Phantom did.
Supermarine Swift, rushed in to production and thus had a long list of problems. Quickly relegated to secondary duties.
Sukhoi Su-11, obsolete within a year the USSR only made about 100 of them.
HAL HF-24 Marut, envisioned as a supersonic interceptor it got relegated to a subsonic fighter-bomber obsolete due to lack of modern engines when it entered service, it was barely better than the Hawker Hunters it was to replace.
5 F35 crashes. 3 of which are this year . . Just saying
@@animaltvi9515 The F-35 has had 5 class A mishaps since it reached operational service 8 years ago. Know how many the F-16 had 8 years after it reached operational service? 50.
The F-35 contract was awarded in 1997 and the aircrafstill is not fully operational. It belongs on this list.
Miss the F-104 here and omg...There is a big difference between not fulfilling all the original requirements and being a bad plane, even with all the problems and cost, the qualities of the F-35 stand out much more than its defects, he is one of the best fighters and proof of that is the number of countries that buy it until today, including some countries wanting to buy more, because they liked it. And if you think the F-35 is bad, imagine the planes that were copied from it...
F-35 is selling well because it's literally the only stealth fighter on the market and because it's being heavily subsidized. Several countries came up with tests specifically to suit the F-35, or fabricated numbers.
Countries are being strong armed to buy F35. Wikileaks proved that with Norway’s F35 selection
"and proof of that is the number of countries that buy it until today"
*LOL*
No, that's because USA is coercing other nations to buy it. It became EXTREMELY blatant when Norway was testing F-35 vs Gripen.
And claimed that they chose the F-35 based on COST advantage.
Because sure, counting only purchase price for one plane and purchase cost PLUS full service costs for 25 years AND pilot conversion training costs, is such a valid method of determining costs. And even with that fake comparison, the F-35 was only barely less expensive, lol...
"And if you think the F-35 is bad, imagine the planes that were copied from it..."
Well that's very easy. NONE. Noone has been braindead stupid enough to try to copy it.
"even with all the problems and cost, the qualities of the F-35 stand out much more than its defects"
No, they really, REALLY do not.
It's not complete junk, but compared to its costs, the REAL costs, not the subsidised pretend pricetag being touted, it is outrageously bad.
It has absolutely NOTHING to justify its cost beyond stealth. And how many nations have spent the last 20-50 years developing counters to stealth? Oh yeah, most of the industrialised nations, that's how many.
The F-35 is absolutely superb at striking against 3rd rate militaries.
Against near peers? Uh, no. The only thing that will help it there is numerical advantage and lo and behold, its extremely high cost of use makes that unlikely to happen.
The F-35 isn't a dogfighter ffs it's a sniper, it's a wonderful Airframe, and all because one Norway pilot talked crap on an early model that had maneuvering restrictions everyone says it's bad, while everyone else except that one guy praises it.
@@taibhse955 *lol*
No, that has little to nothing to do with why people talk badly about it.
It's an airframe designed for supercruise speed, but is unable to actually fly supercruise during any real kind of mission.
It's a "sniper" with an underpowered sensorsuite and an unreliable datalink.
So no, it's NOT a sniper. It is literally a bombtruck. Excellent against 3rd rate armies that still doesn't have any kind of anti-stealth ability.
But mediocre to ok-ish against most other opposition.
It was supposed to be the budget stealth plane and instead, USA can barely afford to have it and the F-22 in service at the same time.
Instead of replacing all the teen-fighters, USA is now searching for a budget fighter to take over as the lowend to the F-35s "highend".
It's not absolutely terrible in any single way, in many ways it's even quite decent, but alltogether it is a ridiculous level of failure combined into a single aircraft.
The Lightning was an interceptor, it actually intercepted a U-2, thought to be impossible. Likewise it’s main mission was to get to Russian nuclear bombers. I couldn’t disagree more, from USA, it was better jet than Starfighter, I call shenanigans.
The F-35 has been a developmental nightmare but as of late they finally got it working well. It is still a pain in the neck in maintenance but is way more reliable than it used to be.
Yet here is the F35 going 1 vs 10 against the F18, F15, F16, Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale and having a 100% kill rate for its designed purpose of identify first and shoot first and 50% kill rate for close in dog fights.
It is now very clear that this channel does zero investigation and just reads the first article they see on Google. Terrible way to run a channel like this.
The F-102 was indeed supersonic. It was an effective all-weather interceptor. They built 1,000 of them. It flew in various air forces for 30 years. Not a bad airplane at all.
i dont know where to start with this idiotic list but , let me first say this
The English Electric Lightning is a legend, to even suggest it sits in a top ten list of the worst fighter jets is ridiculous to a point of infuriating
It was designed during the cold war to shoot down Soviet fighter jets and bombers, and nothing could match it. All jets at that time were heavy on fuel, but it had enough range to fulfill its role
Its Speed , rate of climb, ceiling height, were, and still are legendary, a heavy fuel usage is irrelevant, its like saying Pele was one of the worlds worst footballers, because he wasn't very good in goal
The planes they made can be worse...
But then know millions ways 'What not to do'
Glad to see a view of the EE Lightning that, for once, considers a bigger picture.
If the F-35 is so bad, why is it selling like a hot cake?
Because its not bad, its good
The top worst WWII plane is the Buckeneer, AKA the fuckeneer my Navy Pilot father called it. My father said the Buckeneer's propeller would come off in flight, engine would come apart then catch fire, and it was impossible for the pilot and navagator to bail out before it went nose first unexpectedly into the ground. Remember that name, the fuckeneer.
Don't you mean the Barrcuda? The Buccener was a twin jet developed during the cold war!
Not to be confused with the British jet of the same name....
The buccaneer didn't even exist during ww2, what are you on about
The English Electric Lightning, not BAE that company didn't even come into existence until long after Lightning production ceased, did exactly what it was designed to do, and what it was designed to do was to reach high level Soviet bombers as quickly as possible, the lack of range wasn't considered a hinderance to its task, the over-wing fuel tanks were only fitted for ferry missions and never carried on operational intercepts so they in no way detracted from the Lightnings capability. I am surprised that they showed a photo of a Lightning carrying out a task it was never actually designed to do, low level ground attack, and which was the only role in which the Lightning actually did see combat in.
This video is so off base it’s wild. 40iq truly
The XP-59 project was so secret that Bell engineers were denied the use of the wind tunnels they needed to refine the design. This is one of the causes of its underwhelming performance.
Funny how this list has the F-35 No 1 as the "the worst fighter jet ever" but at the same time every country on earth that 1. can afford it and 2. the US is willing to sell it to them, is falling over themselves trying to buy it. Even India, who has always bought Soviet kit, is strongly considering them.
The BAE Lighting suffered from being developed when nuclear armed bombers were the primary threat. Primarily designed to protect the V bomber fields, it soon became a plane without a mission when ICBMs became reliable.
The F-102 suffered from transonic drag, at that time a ill understood phenomena. The design was redeemed with the F-106, which employed the area rule concept, the familiar "Coke bottle" pinch near the center of the fuselage.
A rare post, you actually know what you're talking about.
The F-35 is now considered very good, so this info about the high ranking officers talking bad about it is at least 10 to 15 years old. Through a steady stream of improvements in most of it's avionic systems and weapons delivery systems it's now considered to be quite a success. And a vast improvement in overall reliability has been accomplished. So this video is serious misinformation. Seemingly Chinese propaganda. Their own J-20 is considered a bad joke after our military found out more about.
The lightning was designed for rapid interception of Soviet aircraft. Its high rate of climb and speed enabled it to perform its function admirably. It should not be on this list.
I'm pretty sure they are talking about the F35B which was intended for vertical lift off. Often the fan gets stuck while changing positions and they crash. They do seem to crash often enough to deserve a bad rating.
The M.E. 163 should NOT be on this list as it was NOT a jet powered aircraft...it had a ROCKET engine,not a jet engine
TLDR: Interceptors do not make good fighters.
F-35 may be bad at dogfight, but it’s best at BVR, every F-35 pilot knows it’s one of the best aircraft
@Christy Li nah, go ask F-35 pilots
🤡
had some issues back in early development, now it’s one of the most capable planes ever
@@LifeForceGenerator uhh.. sure.. sixth gen aircraft overcoming 5th gen.. that’s the whole point of a higher generation..
@@LifeForceGeneratorwe’re literally seeing air forces around the world develop multi-role fighters compared to specialized fighters. India’s AMCA is expected to be multirole. China’s J-20 and J-31 are multirole.
Majority of rumors surrounding 6th Gen Fighters expects them to be multirole.
Face it, the age of specialized fighter jets are coming to its very end since the cost of developing and maintaining just 1 model… is TOO expensive.
Yak38 has 3 engines, not 2. But only one is used for horizontal flight. The other two are small lift engines only used during the take off and landing. So the statement that if one engine failed, the plane will be lost is incorrect. Usually, vertical takeoff aircrafts don’t use two side by side engines because if one failed during vertical takeoff or landing, the aircraft will be sway to a aside and crash. That is why Harrier has only one engine. But the Yak didn’t have an engine powerful enough to to take off vertically, so the designers added two smaller vertically mounted engines . But all 3 are inline so even if one engine failed, the aircraft will not sway to a side and crash on to some other aircraft or other equipment on an aircraft carrier. It will just slam down on the same spot. This may destroy the aircraft but there would not be any collateral damage to other aircrafts parked nearby. With Yak 38, the problem was not the number of engines, but simply the design was not good enough.
Ok but the English Electric Lightning was not bad at all. It met all the requirements it was meant for and even exceeded some.
40s-mid50s should be excluded from bad aircraft lists just on the basis that anything that wasn't the mig-15, F-86 and vampire were kinda shit
Still Yak-38 was built earlier and in higher numbers than Harrier. Besides, most of his bad reputation was from Afghanistan, from the dust, but no one thinks Mi-24 or Abrams was bad.
It was the Bac (and originally English Electric)....it was NEVER the Bae lightning
The lightning was best jet fighter ever..
It's have Stealth mode, kamikaze mode, submarine mode, etc..
The Me-163 is not a jet nor is it a fighter. Where did you get the information stating that it is?
Edit you don’t even post sources wonderful.
I am afraid your opinion gives away you know little about Military Aviation, there are aircraft on this list that belong near the top of a greatest fighter of all time list.
The English Electric Lightning being in this list is pure bullsh**, it was built as a high altitude interceptor for nuclear bombers and as such it performed well. Range didn't need to be large for it's intended role.
Only when the kind of operations changed after ICBMs became a thing it was that range became a concern, as now the Lightning had to do longer patrol missions, and in that role it was replaced with the Phantom 2.
The F-35 Lightning 2 still has to prove its merits, but the project being hugely over budget and late it doesn't mean that the plane in itself is bad.
If these two criteria were used for determining if a plane is good or bad we can put a whole lot more on this list, like the F-22 Raptor or F-111
I would never have F-35 Lightning II in my Air Force. I’d rather have F/A-18 Hornets or F/A-18 Super Hornets
no way the f-35 should be on this list and to be ranked as number one is ridiculous.
Oh look another Chanel that doesn’t know or doesn’t appreciate how dynamic and lethal the f-35 is
Worst list ever made.
WTH did just watch
Keep the F35 on this list…. It will surprise nearly every other fighter in the sky. The F35’s adversaries will know it’s there when the they are punching out due to large holes rapidly appearing in their vehicle…
Two major blunders here
The English Electric Lightning was short ranged but it was designed as a fast intercept plane. It was it's excellent time to climb ability that made it a monster when it came to intercepting planes trying to get into the home islands which is what it was built for so it didn't need a long range. And you have absolutely bumped your head bu including the F-35 on here. Yes when it first came out it was way over budget and full of flaws no doubt about it. But now they have the major problems solved and are working on the little ones. And with the number of planes that are being purchased by the US and other countries the cost per plane is actually very low all things considered.
English Electric Lightning design brief: get high, get there fast, shoot down Russian bombers and get home. Perfect design.
F-104???
The Germans lost, what?, a quarter of theirs to accidents.
Even Chuck Yeager lost one.
Ok...
Me163 and He162 no argument and same goes for Sea Vixen.
+1 other arguments in favour of the Lightning. Something I did not immediately appreciate is that from a maintenance point of view the Lightning is a nightmare. To service the lower engine you have to extract the upper. However, with that configuration a Lightning can reverse a turn far quicker than a plane with side-by-side engines.
F7u Cutlass. An aberration. The Lockheed Starfighter, (not included on your list?) was nick named the Widow maker. The Cutlass was called the Ensign Eliminator. However it was the US Navy’s first two-seat, twin engine fighter with all weather radar, cannon and equipped with early infra-red and radar homing missiles.
F102. Eventually the transonic drag problem was solved with a change in the shape. This led to the F106 which had to live in the shadow of the mighty F-4 Phantom but was still a very capable aircraft.
F-117 is worst, since it does not even have guns or missiles. Both it and F-35 should have "A" designators - A-117, A-35. Since they are really designed for attack.
The Lightning, the F-102, and the F-35 don't belong on this list. No, the Starfighter doesn't belong on it, either. The Supermarine Swift and the HAL Marut probably do. The F-84, also.
Wtf? Both MiG-23 and F-35 are excellent aircraft.
The mig23 was a pile of junk, and the f35 is 20 years behind and a step backwards from the f22. By far the worst fighter is the me163, it was lethal in many ways.
You know a video is going to be shite when it lists the Me163 as a bad jet when it isn't a jet. It is rocket powered. Jets are powered by........a jet.
How can you include the Me-163 in a list of jet fighters? It is rocket powered, not jet powered and you even state that in your description. It is a big difference since the designs operate quite differently.
There is no bad or worst for indian airforce...
Where even is the F-105 (the worst Century Series fighter), XFV-12, HAL HF-24 Marut, and Supermarine Swift?
Almost 12,000 helicopters were shot down or lost due to accidents in Vietnam.
How does the F104 not make this list?
Because it's deficiencies are largely overstated, that's why.
The F-35 for all its initial problems is by all accounts ( from the actual pilots) a dominant platform.