the fact that it’s april fools and this video is 100% true is astounding

@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344

Ай бұрын

Except that the ships named in the video belong to the US Navy not the US Marine Corps.

@honor9lite1337

Ай бұрын

😮

@RizaldoMullings

Ай бұрын

The title is incorrect. The F-35B isn’t a VTOL (Vertical Take-Off & Landing) capable aircraft. It’s a STOVL (Short Take-Off & Vertical Landing) aircraft.

@patdbean

Ай бұрын

I am sure I have seen them take off vertically. ​@@RizaldoMullings

@RizaldoMullings

Ай бұрын

@@patdbean you’re mistaken my friend.

The old Harrier Jump-jet holding his walking stick, saying "pshhh, I was doing this when I was a kid." 😂

@afriendofafriend5766

Ай бұрын

Not nearly as well

@Slowtreme

Ай бұрын

@@afriendofafriend5766 Harrier is better actually, as the av-8a/b also does VTO and vectored trust in flight. The F35 is faster, stealthier, and has amazing avionics, but it's not a better @ STOVL.

@darrenedwards5051

Ай бұрын

Even better but not as quick as the copy kat plane

@n3v3rforgott3n9

Ай бұрын

​@@Slowtreme F35B can do VTO as well...

@adeltoro2

Ай бұрын

yak - 141 has left the chat

VTOL was developed in the 50s and let’s not forget the iconic Harrier, which was developed in the 60s.

@mannyr8795

Ай бұрын

Nah, the vtol is an amazing cod kill streak 😂

@MrHurricaneFloyd

Ай бұрын

The Harrier can't do it on one engine, cruise at twice the speed of sound, and have a radar profile of a hummingbird.

@andrewgates8158

12 күн бұрын

Russian Shamu

For clarification, the F-35B has just 1 main engine, a P&W F135. There is no vertical turbofan engine hidden. That lift fan draws ~20,000 hp from the P&W F135, likely through a hybrid fluid/mechanical coupling. The reason for the coupling is so the P&W F135 output can be ramped up, and the massive lift fan load can gradually be added to the 1 P&W F135.

@drewski5730

Ай бұрын

For clarification a jet engine driving a fan is known as a “turbo fan.” This turbo fan is simply ducted vertically instead of horizontally, but the same principals apply.

@robertnewhart3547

Ай бұрын

That's what I was thinking.

@hyperjon3903

Ай бұрын

​@@drewski5730For clarification, the original reply is absolutely correct. The lift fan can be disconnected from the turbomachinery and is rotated 90°, unconventional enough for it not to be a turbofan. The manufacturer literally defines it as the separate lift fan. The powerplant itself however is a turbofan.

@drewski5730

Ай бұрын

@@hyperjon3903 it’s the same physics, this just has a clutch. 😂 Pedant from Wikipedia.

@jamesturner2126

Ай бұрын

@@drewski5730 the Pratt & Whitney F135 is a turbofan, attached to the front of that fan, there's an assembly to drive the lift fan. So there are 2 huge fans that flow essentially bypass air, 1 vertical, 1 horizontal.

I saw a Harrier and F35 flying side by side last year, it was beautiful

It's this vtol feature that made marines love the harrier jet and when it was well due for replacement, they wanted something similar.

Having worked on RAF Harriers for nearly 2 decades, I'm looking at all those doors and hoping they have a good supply of bushes, bearings, bolts and eye-ends.

@davidf2281

Ай бұрын

It certainly is a whoooole heap of moving parts.

@hooywamd00pe95

Ай бұрын

Americans have everything, way more than they need. They do crazy shit because they can.

@jonothandoeser

Ай бұрын

Bushes?

@davidf2281

Ай бұрын

@@jonothandoeser Yeah they're like trees but trees don't really fit so they use bushes

@jonothandoeser

Ай бұрын

@@davidf2281 Maybe if they just used dwarf trees??

My brother and I used to watch the Harrier Jets at Patrick Air Force Base practicing landings and take offs while we were fishing in the river many years ago, Same concept, was really a sight to see.

@Norton1531

Ай бұрын

Especially when they take off from a wet runway!

@douglasmesina6922

Ай бұрын

We had a 2 helo flight deck. It was like watching it land on a postage stamp on the ocean.

"This is the closest thing we have to a transformer" the V-22 Osprey: "am I a joke to you?"

@mumblbeebee6546

Ай бұрын

Also, did we not have VTOL on the Harrier? Pfffrt…

@jadsmvs8651

Ай бұрын

The V-22 was a joke indeed.

@smith7602

Ай бұрын

Valor is cooler. Redundant drive shafts and stationary engines are just the kind of things that Bell comes up with after 20 years of experience with the Osprey.

@zezoo2107

Ай бұрын

Yes

@AlexanderHagler

Ай бұрын

Harrier V-22 V-280 Yak-38 Yak-141 Mirage 2000-III V F-32(YF-32) That’s just a few of the other marvels in engineering that used VTOL technology.

I once saw one of these in an air show and seeing it just hover in place without moving an inch was surreal, it was like looking at CGI in real life, it was extremely loud though.

@evidencebased1

Ай бұрын

Same thing here. It also pushed a ton of water around below where it was hovering.

Like an advanced version of the Harrier.

@scoochysteve

Ай бұрын

Advanced? It can't even do a vertical take off! British definitely did it better...

@mothmagic1

Ай бұрын

Which will fall short of the Harrier's capability

@youtubeaccount9058

Ай бұрын

@@scoochysteve The F35B can take off vertically but not with a combat load of fuel and weapons. Still, being able to unload itself from a transport ship is useful.

@-MeatsOfEvil-

6 күн бұрын

Indeed, better range, larger load capacity, stealth capability, Super cruise, Superior VTOL design. The harrier was great for its time but its limitations show its age.

Harrier still legend, no matter it's not in service, but harrier is piece of art,

@jamesturner2126

Ай бұрын

The R-R Pegasus is a work of art, then they built another work of art around it. The Harrier. 👀

@edwardwritt3820

Ай бұрын

It still is in service. Very few but still in

@sarfarazahmed2022

Ай бұрын

@@edwardwritt3820 really I don't know this, airforces still using

@edwardwritt3820

Ай бұрын

@@sarfarazahmed2022 Italy and Spain have a few still in service . USMC has some . They're supposed to be phased out though from what I understand

@sarfarazahmed2022

Ай бұрын

@@edwardwritt3820 you are right,

The harrier: wait I’ve seen this

Meanwhile the British harrier: why is he getting the credit, I did it much longer ago.

@afriendofafriend5766

Ай бұрын

much worse. Look at the Falklands

@alexcameron9148

Ай бұрын

And better 😂

@BOEING--mh6xm

Ай бұрын

Yak-141 ☕️🗿

@thelizard556

Ай бұрын

​@@BOEING--mh6xmI raise you: Short SC1

@prods5029

Ай бұрын

@@BOEING--mh6xmyak 141 Doesn’t use the same vtol as the f35

Let's give props to the massively strong front landing gear

@davidcruz8667

Ай бұрын

That's normal to all Naval aircraft. If the F35B only did vertical takeoffs and landings, all it would need would just be spindly landing gear like the Air Force aircraft. But it can perform regular carrier landings as well, at speed and with minimal deck space, so the added strength of all the landing gear is a necessity and quite normal, together with a sturdy arresting hook. Nothing new there.

@TheAechBomb

Ай бұрын

​@@davidcruz8667wouldn't stronger gear still allow for harder vertical landings?

@davidcruz8667

Ай бұрын

@@TheAechBomb yes, of course. But it shouldn't be necessary for VTOL. You are simply hovering down until you touch the deck, then you cut power to keep it on the deck by the effect of gravity. Beefy landing gear on traditional Naval aircraft that make arrested landings on carriers are necessary because the bird is coming in just above idle generating lift through the wing surfaces, well over 100 knots nowadays, and it slams onto the deck at an angle while at the same time being slowed to a complete stop by the arresting cables on the deck within a couple of hundred feet... less than a football field. That's an incredible amount of kinetic energy that needs to be dissipated to zero in a very short time, therefore you need extra strength built into the landing gear. By contrast, the SH-60 Seahawk uses the same landing gear as it's Army land helo cousin, the Blackhawk... because the landing stresses are comparable. The Seahawk is the version used on Naval vessels, including carriers.

Totally forgetting the Harrier.

@anabukashka

Ай бұрын

Also Yak-141 and Yak-38

@-MeatsOfEvil-

6 күн бұрын

​@@anabukashkaYaks are delicious. 🍖

I saw a documentary about the engineering of this bad boy aircraft. It’s a gorgeous piece of high level engineering art 👍👍👍

@BennnWJK

Ай бұрын

And horribly inefficient to operate

@CHMichael

Ай бұрын

Watch the documentary of the contest to decide if it was going to be this or the Boeing product.

@nando03012009

Ай бұрын

The high cost to operate fat Amy kill this airplane. And the F22 is far superior

@richardwillson101

Ай бұрын

​@@nando03012009"superior"... and what length of runway does an F-22 require for take off and landing? Oh, it requires a runway. The F-35B doesn't. 👍

@nando03012009

Ай бұрын

@richardwillson101 by your way of thinking the AV-8b harrier must be superior to the F22 because it doesn't need a runway to take off and land. There's a reason why the F22 was not exported and fat Amy was.

"This is the closest thing to a transformer" Osprey and Harrier left the chat 😂

@corwintipper7317

Ай бұрын

I do not see a massive fan like object within the Harrier however the Osprey is a good point. Imo the Harrier looks as transformer-like as the Sukhoi 30 or the F-22 raptor

Harriers have been doing this for60 years

In the 80s We called this a Harrier

@andrewwilson6085

Ай бұрын

And ,a decade before that, we called it a Kestrel, and before that we called it a p1127, made in Britain , designed by Sidney Camm, Hawker chief designer

I worked on the engineering and manufacturing of the swivel duct for the rear, and well as the lift fan door actuators. It really pushed the boundaries of engineering at the time.

Marines don't have assault ships the Navy has gator freighters

@USMC6169

Ай бұрын

No the Marine Corps owns those ships as it comes out of the marine budget. The Navy just operates them.

@43coralsea

Ай бұрын

@@USMC6169 You my friend are sadly mistaken and should familiarize yourself with www.defense.gov/ at the department of defenses website t may help clear up your confusion fair winds shipmate

@coachcleats13

Ай бұрын

I'm and old squid and I was about to say the same thing!!

Everyone goes crazy about this aircraft (and they should, it's incredible) BUT the Harrier was doing this 50 years ago....

@graveperil2169

Ай бұрын

with out having to carry a secondary lift fan around with it

@antex0590

Ай бұрын

But was it supersonic?

@lukedogwalker

Ай бұрын

​@@antex0590it's successor was. It was going to be a Mach 2.2 Harrier! But politics and cost ended it before it was built. It was known as the P.1154. Lots of artwork for it if you google.

@theprotagonist8755

Ай бұрын

So no right? F o h​@@lukedogwalker

@T-Dawg123a

Ай бұрын

The harrier was a cool jet but the lift fan system is much more efficient and as such the F-35b can takeoff with nearly double the capacity. Additionally mach 2 flight is overated as even when jets have the capability it uses too much fuel and missiles typically travel mach 4 or higher these days while still tracking and maneuvering. Studies of combat over Vietnam and other more modern conflicts all demonstrated nearly zero time spent above mach 2 and very few minutes at mach 1.8 or higher. Additionally most planes mach 2+ speeds were originally intended to be used to intercept large mach 3+ nuclear bombers like the XB-70 Valkyrie which never entered service. Trading the fuel tanks needed for mach 2+ speed for better capacity or manueverability is the better choice and building such a new harrier would be nearly as expensive as designing a whole new aircraft and you still need a new Navy and Air Force aircraft as well. The Harrier showed what STOVL aircraft can do, the F-35b is just the next step up. The Harrier walked so the F-35b could run...

Truly astonishing. I was surprised at how much room the F-35B has for airflow. For such an advanced aircraft, it looks really light.

It's impressive, but the Harrier will forever be the king of VTOL take off.

Harrier enters chat

My friend was the head Engineer with 300 engineers working under him in the development of this aircraft. Most humble man you would ever meet.

This is the British RAF jet of choice

@graveperil2169

Ай бұрын

its the RN's Jet of choice and what the RAF got left with

@dizzygamer619

Ай бұрын

@@graveperil2169 they chose it because of the vertical takeoff and landing ability, the British utilised the Idea in war and stuck with it coz it's incredibly useful

@ninjaundermyskin

Ай бұрын

The Brits just can't let go of the Harrier

@dizzygamer619

Ай бұрын

@@ninjaundermyskin it's a good jet but they have used the f 35 platform to improve on the design

@GRAFRU68

Ай бұрын

Sorry but Nandos chicken is better than the f35

Just A Masterpiece and Beautiful

@chiphill4856

Ай бұрын

Not exactly. From an engineering point of view, it's technically bloated and overly complex. Not to mention, at $1.7 billion dollars, it's 10 years late and 80% over budget. It's an overly complex disaster.

@chiphill4856

Ай бұрын

Check out the details. That thing is technically bloated, with multiple expensive design band-aids. It's a miracle it flies at all. It cost $1.7 billion dollars making it 10 years late and 80% over budget for a marginally improved product. The US doesn't want to repeat this.

@funny_joke_goes_here4406

Ай бұрын

@@chiphill4856The A380, a civilian airliner with no stealth or electrical equipment anywhere NEAR what the F-35 has, cost $30 BILLION to design. Planes are just expensive, the F-35 is not bloated, nor a failure, and is in fact cheaper than an A-10 Warthog, the supposedly ‘cheap plane’.

@funny_joke_goes_here4406

Ай бұрын

Both the modernised and original, that is, though for different reasons. Modernised because the modernised A-10 is an absolute joke and is an actual bloated program that does not belong in the sky, and the original because the original A-10 is a flying death trap that expends ammo and fuel faster than the rain rolling in right as you get to the beach. Ammo, fuel and CREW almost always cost more than the aircraft, and the A-10 was not cost effective for that.

"closest thing to a transformer that we have ever created" Other than the transformers

@austinjgregg

Ай бұрын

Or the Harrier

@tjallingdalheuvel126

Ай бұрын

Kid has no clue. Besides we dat d kot vreatw anything. All he created is a crappy yt short. Lmao is he talking about we.

@tjallingdalheuvel126

Ай бұрын

Boy has no clue. Brits wanted this version. Not US marines. Problem was they all wanted something different. So I said, male versions worh as many parts similar. Navy had to be convinced about the single engine being reliable enough, as they wanted double. Ofc all costs targets was overschot, development, fabrication, maintanance and still it is a meh. Especially this one. Although it did male sense to suck up sir from above. The extra weight and maintanance... well it is overpriced US crap in many aspects. Great to spend half a million to shoot ten dollar ballons out of the air. Amazed they still wanted a piloted airplane. Must keep the weakest link in there.

@lerandomguy2109

Ай бұрын

Check the date the video was posted​@@tjallingdalheuvel126

@hypnix2

Ай бұрын

@@tjallingdalheuvel126I had the same reaction but when he said “we” he means the country/engineering company who made it. But off topic, you talking like you made it 😂

For those who don't know, horizontal short take-off is practical, saves fuel, and less stress to components when the aircraft is fully loaded with fuel, ammo, bombs, rockets, missiles, or whatever the mission load-out requires which adds lots of extra weight to the bird. Vertical landing usually has less than half fuel/load-out.

Considering the F-35 project is costing over 1.7 trillion dollars; That thing better be fucking amazing.

@bradenmchenry995

Ай бұрын

1.7 trillion over the entire life of the aircraft program 2060 or so

The Harrier jump jet did this in the 60s

@auroratherob0t

Ай бұрын

It had a very different way of taking off vertically

@peterwolf885

Ай бұрын

@@auroratherob0tyes, it used a simpler, more reliable, and more robust system when compared to the F-35B. The system only lacked the ability to fly supersonic.

@leonardusrakapradayan2253

Ай бұрын

​@@peterwolf885it was just as reliable as the F35 but it was not simpler, it was notoriously complex and heavy on maintenance since each nozzle had to be maintained well unless you want an accident to happen.

@peterwolf885

Ай бұрын

@@leonardusrakapradayan2253 is, not was. The Harrier hasn’t retired from active service with the USMC yet, and is flying missions today. And technically the F-35 doesn’t match the VTOL capability of the Harrier.

@funny_joke_goes_here4406

Ай бұрын

@@peterwolf885’More reliable’ my guy 💀 the Harrier was infamous for issues with the exhaust when in VTOL, it was not reliable.

wasn’t the F-35’s thrust vectoring system taken from the Yak-141?

@spaceageGecko

Ай бұрын

They look similar but it was more a case of convergent evolution

@rbrtck

Ай бұрын

No, the Yak-141 had two additional jet engines mounted vertically in its mid-fuselage to balance the thrust of its main engine, which vectored thrust up to 90 degrees downward, while the F-35B has a single engine, the same kind of vectoring nozzle, and a vertical lift fan that is coupled to the single engine while using vertical lift. There are some similarities, but it's hardly the same system.

@anabukashka

Ай бұрын

​@spaceageGecko Lockheed Martin worked with Yakovlev buro in the 90s to gain their experience.

@spaceageGecko

Ай бұрын

@@anabukashka Yeah but a lot of the F-35s VTOL design is differing from the Yak-141.

@anabukashka

Ай бұрын

@@spaceageGecko yeah, but it could be because Yakovlev buro engineers told them to not go through specific design routes to avoid some pitfalls.

The Harrier jump jet has been doing this for years. I first saw it at Farnborough Air show in the 60- 70's when I was at Senior school in the UK

This thing is a marvel of engineering!

Yeah amazing, the UK had this in the 1960's called the Harrier Jump Jet and it could also take off and land vertical, not just land 👍 🇬🇧

@ialsoagree1634

Ай бұрын

Where did people get the idea that an F35 can't perform a vertical take off? The F-35B completed vertical take off tests in 2013 - over a decade ago.

@maffin1012

Ай бұрын

but the Harrier was a slowass aircraft

@brucebaum1458

Ай бұрын

Was in late 70’s not 60’s

@MorzakEV

Ай бұрын

The harrier was also limited to hovering at around 60 seconds, as the engines overheated and had to be cooled by huge on board water tanks. Once these were empty it could no longer STOVL. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a beautiful aircraft, and was way ahead of its time, but F35-B is a beast.

@funny_joke_goes_here4406

Ай бұрын

@@MorzakEVFINALLY someone with actual knowledge who isn’t just mad that new stuff is better. Thank you for taking your time to educate these people.

Harrier Jump Jet 1967 says hi

@TooBiggoBritches

Ай бұрын

... As its own jet blast causes it to flip over catastrophically while it's only fifteen feet from touchdown. 😂

@Torashin1

Ай бұрын

@@TooBiggoBritchesyou mean the plane that shot down 23 aircraft in the falklands without receiving a single air to air loss? How many kills has the F35 managed? 😂

@TooBiggoBritches

Ай бұрын

@@Torashin1 LMAO goober, already more than that hunk o junk. Just none you've heard about yet. ;)

@Torashin1

Ай бұрын

@@TooBiggoBritches you’re talking out of your ass and everyone knows it 🙄

@richardwillson101

Ай бұрын

​@@Torashin1no air to air loss, but let's not pretend that it didn't kill a few of its own pilots during that very conflict... Facts are important

Harrier did this like 25 years ago but f-35 still looks very impressive. Very sleek.

Still luv the harrier,old but not forgotten.

Everyone forgetting about harriers

@Norton1531

Ай бұрын

Not everyone. 👍🏻

Good piece of British engineering by Rolls-Royce🇦🇺 🇬🇧

@yookalaylee2289

Ай бұрын

🇺🇸😘

@zlinedavid

Ай бұрын

A lot of it went through the RR facility in Indianapolis. The company I worked for at the time was subcontracted to do the design and manufacturing of one of the very large end seals for the STOVL engine and our contacts were all in Indianapolis.

I was on the USS Ogden LPD-5 in 1982. We had a harrier jet land once. Man was it loud. It burnt 3 holes in the non skid flight deck.

This is a better change because unlike the old F1 jet the way it's land is so so dangerous with a very high speed and if it doesn't have a landing gear that's a very big problem which causes death or high injuries but this F 35 doesn't require high speed before it's land and if landing gear is faulty it still safe to land vertically.... I love this development ❤❤❤

That's cool, the Harrier has been doing this for about 60 years.

@funny_joke_goes_here4406

Ай бұрын

Not in this sense though, the Harrier had vectoring nozzles, which worked but here highly inefficient and iirc impeded maximum speed greatly. The F-35 took what that Harrier tried and has basically perfected it. By your logic, new planes aren’t that impressive because the Wright Brother’s Flyer was flying over 100 years ago. Your argument (or insult?) literally makes 0 sense.

@ganymede3141

Ай бұрын

Except that the Harrier could not go supersonic, was and is a subsonic fighter only. The F35 can hit Mach 1.6 (1.6 times the speed of sound) so there's that.

It's been done before. The Harrier fighter jet was doing this in the 1970's. And they were very good planes, too. The Brits used them to defeat Argentina in 1982, and they were deployed several other times.

@multipl3

Ай бұрын

This one is supersonic

@funny_joke_goes_here4406

Ай бұрын

@@multipl3And stealth. And reliable. And can VTOL for longer than 60 seconds without overheating.

My daughter stationed on the USS America, One of the ships you were talking about, and it is about the size of a world War II carrier. It's only small in comparison to one of the big aircraft carriers the US Navy uses.

Closest thing to a transformer. Have you forgotten the Harrier ?

Those amfibs don’t belong to the Marines, they just hitch a ride on them

@karmirith

Ай бұрын

Thank you, I was about to go apeshit

@terenceflanagan1225

Ай бұрын

Wrong

@rbrtck

Ай бұрын

They're operated for the Marine Corps, which itself is part of the Department of the Navy, so what's your point? Who belongs to what? Everyone's on the same team here, and the only reason those amphibious assault ships even exist are the Marines. The Navy decide how much to spend on these ships and also how much to spend on the Marines. No one is "hitching" any rides here.

@blakebrady9002

Ай бұрын

@@rbrtck I’m just doing friendly banter across branches, I was in the Navy for 6 years. The marines don’t do GQ and they don’t maintain the ship, the Navy does.

@rbrtck

Ай бұрын

@@blakebrady9002 Oh, OK. I know these ships are, naturally, operated by the Navy. I just meant they exist expressly for the Marines to use for their combat operations, so they're not exactly bumming rides on random ships. And while the USMC is its own branch of the military, in many ways it is officially a part of the Navy, as well, and has been for a long time.

F35 is just a beast of fighter jet

Errrrr, I do think the Harrier jump jet was the 1st aircraft that can take off and land vertical and horizontally, that was back in the late 60's early 70's.

What a machine! Amazing the engineering that can go into something that'll kill thousands.

Fun fact. It’s actually pretty much the same mechanism as the Yak 141 that came years ahead of it

@woras724

Ай бұрын

But the yak wasnt put into mass production

@simonm1447

Ай бұрын

It uses a mechanically driven lift fan, while the Yak used 2 extra lift engines. While it may look similar the details are quite different. Compared to the Harrier it also has far more stuff controlled by computers instead of the pilot

@thunderboltcougar5626

Ай бұрын

Wrong, that's NOT fact. Not even close. Even their 3bsd work differently. This one would be fun fact, that Yak141 actually have pretty much same mechanism with Convair 200 ,that the concept came years ahead of it. This link may provide answer for your question in detail as when, where, how they (f35 and yak141) got their idea. They came from two completely different source that are not related one another at all. kzread.info/dash/bejne/dqN_xMWQj6qxY9o.htmlsi=2wB464udT--RlPEz Keyword : "Is F35 based off Yak141" Edit : added keyword since link probably blocked by YT, so you can find it yourself.

@simonm1447

Ай бұрын

@@thunderboltcougar5626 KZread typically does not like links in comments

Such a magnificent machinery but made to kill people. Sad for that point of view

@juanmanuelpenaloza9264

Ай бұрын

It's as they say. Fighter craft are cursed dreams.

@rusher2937

Ай бұрын

It also protects other people and serves as a deterrent against conflict.

@SaiTaX_the_Chile_boi

Ай бұрын

It’s better than other, it focuses on the killing and damage that stops a rival from fighting, a very brutal and lethal fight can end soon a long war that could be worse

@resurgam_jsc

Ай бұрын

Also for defending unfortunately

@XavierAway

Ай бұрын

Not exactly, it’s designed to destroy enemy planes and ground targets, not specifically personnel themselves, so if the operator jumps out and survives, it’s still achieved it’s primary aim. If you want an example of magnificent machinery that’s designed to kill people, look no further than the assault rifle.

This F-35, is GORGEOUS!😍

Fun fact: Armada Thrust and Rotf Breakaway both have this as their jet mode

The British Harrier Jump Jet made it's first flight in 1967,,,,, this is 50 year old technology

@gregjokonis1776

Ай бұрын

They use different technology to do the same thing.

@funny_joke_goes_here4406

Ай бұрын

Oh my looooooooord will people actually think about this for 10 seconds???? First off, NO. IT ISN’T. The F-35 uses TWO ENGINES of DIFFERENT THRUST TYPES and is much more efficient and stable than the Harrier, which used ONE engine. Second off, the F-35 takes what the Harrier did and IMPROVES on it. If we didn’t IMPROVE on things, we’d still be riding horses because they’re fine. Like with a car, what age is your car from? 2012? 2006? 2024? I bet it’s not a 1903 Ford, but people don’t complain about new cars being 121 year old technology, now, do they? You’re toting the line of Russian Propaganda, which is desperate to make anything American seem bad and anything not American seem clearly superior.

@gregjokonis1776

Ай бұрын

@@funny_joke_goes_here4406 The F35 only has one engine, the lift fan is connected to the engine via a drive shaft.

55% combat readiness rate. Minimum of 1.7 trillion cost projection for the future. $44,000 per hour to fly. The F16 and B52 aren't going anywhere soon as they are cheap to operate. Think of that intake opening behind the f35's cockpit as a giant money intake.

@krityaan

Ай бұрын

1.7 trillion for 2400+ airframes for you and your allies and their support and maintenance for 60 years. Do the math, and the F-35 is really a shining success of the American military industrial complex, providing cutting edge combat advantage at prices that it's competitors could only dream of.

@dominicbeltz9057

Ай бұрын

Vs f14 that is good the 1.8 trillion is for the lifetime of the product all three so if you stretch the aircraft’s in service currently the price for the lifetime these are designed for was going to be over 4 trillion for the aircraft the f35 is replacing

@AceIndiana

Ай бұрын

Pssssst. Youre forgetting the most important part. This aircraft isn’t just for the airforce. It’s also hugely for the navy and marines too

@tsumikiayato1560

Ай бұрын

Oh yes, 1.7 trillion estimated for what is essentially 3 different top-of-the-line aircraft designs in the entirety of its lifecycle, including build, operation, weaponry and maintenance cost for 40 years. I'd say that's pretty cheap for what it is.

@n3v3rforgott3n9

Ай бұрын

@@tsumikiayato1560 Hell the F15 program alone costed more if adjusted for inflation...

Mate never forget the harrier

Fascinating, I wonder how noisy it is. Harriers shocked people when they first saw it's maneuverability. These designs are truly beautiful as well as stunning.

Just a worse looking harrier then

@kwkfortythree39

Ай бұрын

Battle Penguin is far beyond Harrier in any metric, in the good way of course.

@graveperil2169

Ай бұрын

@@kwkfortythree39 accept in the backwards use of a lift fan

@kwkfortythree39

Ай бұрын

@@graveperil2169 you mean "except" with "accept"? Lift fan is a better option, as it does not consume air's oxygen and thus cause engine stalls and problems like in Harrier or X-32 cases.

@graveperil2169

Ай бұрын

@@kwkfortythree39 99% of the time it dead weight

@kwkfortythree39

Ай бұрын

@@graveperil2169 indeed, but with the Harrier you have the same problem issue with the lifting mechanisms, the needed water to cool it, etc. Nothing is free 😅

The F Turty Foive. Love the accent 😂

Got to give it up for this aircraft!

Yak - decades later... and my sh!t still rolls on the top of the hood 🔥🔥😎

Now now there have been other planes like the f35 long before its existed :EG: yak 141 and harrier jet

The Marines don't have "Amphibious Assault Ships" .They belong and are manned by the Navy.

The caption is incorrect, it’s a short takeoff and vertical landing, not VTOL.

@tylerclayton6081

Ай бұрын

It can Vertically take off with small payloads. Like 4 air to air missiles Still the greatest aircraft ever made until the NGAD and B21 go into service. It’s pretty funny that you’re so jealous of American engineering 😂. Practically every piece of tech you use is American or has American parts and software

@ConBroChillson

Ай бұрын

@@tylerclayton6081 I’m an American, you strange and annoying man. And true, didn’t know that. Just read it’s operationally classified as STOVL but is technically V/STOL.

@aquilescastro1335

Ай бұрын

Every vtol plane will be able to take off conventionally with more payload than vertically it's just physics

@n3v3rforgott3n9

Ай бұрын

@@ConBroChillson Look up "F-35B STOVL Transition, Hover, and Return To Forward Flight - Farnborough Airshow" on KZread. Just because it normally does STO to take off with more weight does not mean it can't take off vertically.

This video makes it look really simple, but you have to consider payload (or lack thereof) as well.

One of the most versatile advanced fighter jet ever designed by Lockheed Martins till not beatable by any other

I keep seeing shorts about F-35s posted from this channel. *ILL FINISH WATCHING THE VIDEO OKAY!* 😂

So like the Harriers that were developed in the 60's.

This and more was achieved by the company my father worked for (Hawker Siddeley) in 1967 with the Harrier Jump Jet 😊

Extreme technology that is applied here in this aircraft to enhance advantages of landing on short runways. This reminds me of one of the laws of motion which states that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, written by Isaac Newton.

And people thought the Harrier was impressive… it was. This is impressive too.

One correction. The ship is not by marines. It’s by the navy. Although the bravo version of f-35 is designed for marine use, they still go on navy ships.

Basically we can deploy stealth fighters from your neighbors garage

It's like the Turbokat in Swat Kats...

Awesome thanks

The Ol' hood scoop trick.

That change to the top air intake is genius

A very impressive machine and they are still developing it

Just a pimped up version of the Harrier jump jet , 1982 the task force sailed virtually the full length of the Atlantic and retook the Falklands. Wonder how the F-35 does in combat

First time I saw this I thought it was fake, crazy cool engineering.

The Air force has always had a history of things transitioning…😂

Woow that was so innovative 🌟

Was waiting for him to say "is... not what you think" at the beginning

I'd love to see what ground maneuvers a master pilot could do with one of these. I wouldn't be surprised if the aircraft could handle doing hovering donuts while in mid air.

I'd like to see this tech applied to the warthog. Imagine dozens sitting in a field ,like mobile artillery..

harrier : am i a joke to you?

The British Hawker Siddeley Harrier was doing the same stunt 65 years ago...

@simonm1447

Ай бұрын

Now add 90% more MTOW, supersonic speed and stealth and you get the F-35B

And thus begins the life of Starscream.

Daddy wants a Mecha for Christmas.

That's some big boy intake system.

I worked on the lift fan engine performance testing as an engineer :-)

I seem to remember an aircraft called a Harrier Jump Jet doing just that some donkey years ago. Maybe I just imagined that. 😂

Wow. An F-35 Lightning.

Harrier AV-8 and Yak-141 also have this technology.

I still don't get how the rear nozzle twisted. If you twist a cylindrical section, it turn into an oval. So does it flex?

@smith7602

Ай бұрын

I saw a documentary about the channel tunnel and how they could do curves while manufacturing a single kind of tunnel piece. Imagine the long tube is made up of wedges. Alternate the thick and thin sides and it goes straight. Stack the thick sides and it curves away.

@timrobinson513

Ай бұрын

@smith7602 yea I get that bit. But if you slice a diagonal line across a cylinder it has an elliptical cross section. if you twist that section then it should come out of line. The end result works but how do we get from one to the other?

That take off and landing got my shorts taking off.

"The way this aircraft transforms to perform vertical take off IS Not what you think" I almost hear it this way