Yep. So much of it is still classified normal plebs like us have no clue and won't until decades later. Even "known" basic stats such as range and max speed are only approximations, good enough for public consumption but not accurate enough for enemy nations such as Russia and China to rely on for actual combat situations. Western nations are known to publish under-performance figures while Russia and China generally post over-approximations.

@@Sajuuktrue

Most definitely true. Even a lot of maintainers don’t know that much until they start to gain a higher skill level obviously, but there is a lot more public knowledge on the F35 as opposed to the F22

You're so hopeful. The F-22 entered IOC nearly 20 years ago, and we still have only seen glimpses of the cockpit.

Not in the current climate

Yep, can't wait to buy one for myself!

@@nick_0i wish

When?

How many Pepsi points gets you one?

@@jayrod9979 at least 8 million

Honestly man I used to think that the MIC was all bloated and corrupt. But seeing how niche and wild some of their products are, the costs genuinely make sense. I just wish it has less bureaucracy. But what can you expect from the government lol.

@@honkhonk8009 Why less bureaucracy? We're spending money on our own domestic industries, as long as there's no national emergency, it makes perfect sense to spread the labor out.

@@honkhonk8009 i mean they charge like 3x what the product should go. Def in the last few years

@@honkhonk8009 defense contractors are definitely fucking us over on what they charge for their products, we should be paying a lot less for the same tech. I do love the kind of R&D this buys tho

According to stuff I found elsewhere, it can apparently do so but o my for a short time. My guess would be the engine can handle it, but the extra strain it puts on the engine would make its maintenance more expensive

@@d.thieud.1056from what i heard it can supercruise but only after the afterburner helped it past Mach.

@@tobilikebacon that makes sense too, drag increases massively neat Mach, but drops quite a bit as soon as you're past. This can be minimised by area ruling but stealth took priority over area rule in the 35

@@d.thieud.1056 It wouldn't really make sense anyway. It's only permitted to exceed mach 1 for relatively little time during a flight to minimize wear on its RAM. Of course, in a desperate situation they'd exceed these limits if necessary, but at that point they'll turn on the afterburners anyway. Supercruise might be useful for something doing an intercept on a high speed object but also needs to also conserve fuel, but the F-35 isn't an interceptor.

@@slightlyirradiatedmuffin3257 going supersonic has more uses than just going some place fast. Pushing past the sound barrier, and the immense drag-spike this causes, allows missiles to go much further. A missile fired from Mach 0.98 will have a surprisingly significant reduction in range and top speed from one fired from Mach 1.01. Another reason besides fuel consultation this is extremely valuable is IR signature. Being detectable by radar only from 15km away is theat valuable if you're easy to spot from, say, 40km by IRST. The F-35s bleed air shrouded exhaust addresses that problem and probably fixes it when it's not afterburning, but if does it might get itself detected while trying to make its own missile more lethal

also the easy upgradebility for future systems

The networking is prolly the biggest part. Just because data is really important in todays battlefield, especially with AI. Theres a reason why Palantir used weather data in their algorithms, to predict terrorists. Same algorithm that killed bin laden. The truth is, America ever since WW2, has blurred the lines between military and civillian industry. The microsoft holo-lens you saw used for minecraft, is now used in the marine corps. Everything from the corporate culture to the management paradigms is heavily related to teh civillian industry, since we dont have a military history to begin with.

Yeah they even skipped the supercruise part 😂😂😂

He said below average - he probably needs more simulator hours 😅

that's what I said lol. When they answered the "parts" question they told nothing about the parts or the materials but told us where they were made lmao

Funnily enough I could search up more info on the f35 than what these pilots provided. Weird considering in Lockheeds other videos we got more "detailed" info on the f35

They can.

Same here! Amazing video, with simplified information that makes things way more understandable but no less fascinating.

Yeah , but there's a lot things and secret of F-35 that they tried to hide , because this jet is 1 of main weapon of U.S. maybe a lot..

What?

Don't underestimate Skunkworks 🤣🤣

No, secret

The B-21 uses 2x F135 engines, which makes me think that might be an excessive configuration for a 4th/5th gen style fighter. 6th gen seems to be big enough to make use of the extra thrust, but they're aiming for adaptive cycle engines for that.

Why

@@ikkinwithattitudeThe B-21’s engines are also non afterburning. Adaptive Cycle Engines are planned for integration in the F-35’s as well.

NGAD will utilize dual adaptive cycle engine , each one is powerful than F135

@@tluangasailo3663 As, more, less? You can't just say is powerful than F135

I think they use a sidestick. it makes sense to use a sidestick anyways since your gonna want to be manning all the other systems onboard aswell. Its also less alienating to pilots since most guys training for this are gonna be used to using a mouse for video games

As honk says, it is a side stick. It looks very much like a joystick you might use to fly a combat flight sim on your PC at home. It is mounted on the right side of the cockpit where it would be comfortable to hold onto it in a relaxed sitting position, with your arm like it is sitting on the armrest of a chair. Fun fact, the F-16 also has a side stick arrangement. However, the button / switch layout is different between the two.

Correct 👍🏻

So he didn't go into too much nuance but, the F-35 can take off with a weapons load but a very reduced weapons load, maybe just 2 aim-120s and that's it, no ammo for the gun and very little fuel. However the VTOL aspect does help the aircraft take off much quicker (STOL) so it can operate at sea on helicopter carriers and assault ships and very short runways. The biggest advantage however is that regardless of loadout it will always be able to land vertically which means it can land on some helicopter pads. So it can't magically take off vertically with a full load of weapons and fuel but it can take off very quickly with VTOL mode assisting and it can come back and land vertically on very small spaces. If it gets a engine and lift fan upgrade in the future it may be able to take off with a full fuel and weapons load.

@@captaincumrag42069 excellent explanation, sir. Thank you!

Not all F35 variants have Vtol, only the F-35B Vtol only makes sense for the Marine Corps.

The F-35B isn't a VTOL aircraft (nor is any other aircraft for that matter). It's a STOVL aircraft (Short take off/Vertical landing.) In order to take off vertically, the plane needs to have at least a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio. The empty weight of an F-35B is 32,410lbs. The amount of combined thrust between the engine and lift fan is ~40,000lbs. As soon as you add a pilot, that's another 150-250lbs. You're left with ~7,400lbs, to split between fuel and weapons. If you're carrying 2 JDAM and 2 AIM-120, that means at most you've got 4,700lbs of fuel. By the time you taxi and take off, you'll only have ~3,700lbs of fuel. Of that 3,700 you'll have to factor in contingency, diversion, and final reserves, along with trip fuel. Which basically means that you're taking off and landing at the same base, with no combat radius/persistence. It's an emergency feature only, and not operationally useable.

There's no upgrade that will allow VTOL with full fuel and weapons. Even full fuel and full internal weapons would require 50,000+lbs of thrust (or a ~10,000lb improvement over the current thrust.) To take off with full fuel and full weapons (including external ordnance) would require 60,000+ lbs of thrust.

That didn’t want to say I guess

Pretty sure since EVER u guys built things with parts from all around the world. Brazilian rubber was used for US aircraft in ww2 (an example)

Right! That must mean it can indeed supercruise

@@elijahtucker7938 That's one possibility

Sure Just give use your address and prepare a landing zone

man, where do I get what you're smokin?!?!

@@digitalsiler I wastzmoking anything but. I was looking at gorilla glue temple hash full melt because of my back problems - isn't part of space program skunk#$%^&*((#$%^&*( well antifreeze and opoids don't mix turn into poison and been around cars all life /everlasting life nonatechnologies to boost up your space program

Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL). Not Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL).

It can do mach 1.6, im going to leave it at that

It's most likely more as the top speed for many US weapons is underreported. For example the supercarriers can go over 40 knots but their listed top speed is 30+.

Yes. All 3 variants can reach M1.6+ in combat. The restrictions on the B/C are for training only, to reduce sustainment costs over the life of the airframe, much like they're G restricted as well.

Supercruise is a loose term. Can it get to supersonic speeds without AB? Definitely yes. Can it maintain it? No. It will have to use AB. Though how long can it maintain supersonic flight without AB is what I don't know.

I Agree 100% which is a good thing Putin watches KZfaq also ..

China has those sensitive information now

@@ghostyt2950 Well I'm not exactly sure what info China has but 1 thing for sure is that they do have some info on the plane. Lockheed Martin's been hacked by China before.

The enemies not only are listening they literally already stole some f35 info lol

What

@@AugmentedGravity Wonder Woman used to have an invisible jet for some reason. Upgrading it to an invisible F-35 seems appropriate.

The lack of continuity and skipped questions bugged me !

What?

@@AugmentedGravity There was a question revealed that asked if the F35 could SC. They skipped it.

It depends on which definition is used. It can't fly at M1.5 without afterburner, but it can exceed M1 without afterburner.

@@rogerbiggerstaff3293 I read somewhere that it could maintain > Mach 1 for a fixed period of time before it dips to subsonic.