Hero.

*flowing. Wow.

@@teeess9551 he is right, you just not educated enough to understand it sadly.

Masters degree You?@@IIISentorIII

What's your IQ? @@IIISentorIII

you just not? What are you, six?@@IIISentorIII

Why would it? Didn't they make it for you? Duhmerican much?

The deck does need to be specially built to withstand the heat and pressure. That's why Japan's "aircraft carrying destroyers" need to be modified before they can handle F-35s. They also try to not linger over the same spot for an extended time. They come to a hover over the water and then fairly quickly translate to over the deck and land.

Ehm😂

STOVL and V/STOL respectively.

@@AA-xo9uw In practicality --- fuel & maintenance consideration, safety, stress to the frame, & longevity concerns (over time, not just in one or two landings/take-offs), etc., etc ---- yes, it is used largely as a STOVL/V/STOL aircraft. But in reality, the F-35B really is a VTOL. It's in the very PHYSICS the aircraft is made to do: to have the ability & power to take off & land VERTICALLY. The US Marines are the first ones to go into a situation that a dozen or two Special Operations Force no longer can surmount. That means the majority of the Marines aircraft ---- from the traditional rotary to the Harrier to the F-35B --- all need to be able to land and take off vertically, IF THE CONTINGENCIES call for such extraordinarily energy draining/dangerous acts... so that regardless whether the terrains are deep valleys, high mountain tops, inhospitable/isolate deserts, or in some tiny/improvised floating platform, the US Marines could reach, 24/7... Rotary aircraft are fine --- especially the Osprey and its replacement --- but those could only do shorter distances, with speeds of around 300 - 500 MPH. The F-35B could do north of Mach 1.5 & go over 1,000 miles on a gas of tank, if it must...

Of course, they know that. Which is why 99% of all carrier take offs and landings are conventional, not VTO. But that is why they have refuel tankers in the air.....

Um, the point was vertical take off?

Actually, the B variant with its STOVL capabilities was the leading design to replace the Harrier. If you look at the Joint Strike Fighter program, the two contenders were built to address the STOVL airframe requirements. It has been said that the design compromises for the B and the drive to force a common airframe between the Marine Corps B variant and the Air Force A and Navy C variants actually handicapped the force overall. Had the Air Force been able to have a clean sheet design, it would have likely been a superior aircraft. Same for the Navy. If you look at all three variants, the fuselage is designed to accomodate the B variant's lift fan behind the cockpit. If that hadn't have been a factor, the design could have been more stealthy and have a larger internal weapons capacity.

Actually, the B variant with its STOVL capabilities was the leading design to replace the Harrier. If you look at the Joint Strike Fighter program, the two contenders were built to address the STOVL airframe requirements. It has been said that the design compromises for the B and the drive to force a common airframe between the Marine Corps B variant and the Air Force A and Navy C variants actually handicapped the force overall. Had the Air Force been able to have a clean sheet design, it would have likely been a superior aircraft. Same for the Navy. If you look at all three variants, the fuselage is designed to accomodate the B variant's lift fan behind the cockpit. If that hadn't have been a factor, the design could have been more stealthy and have a larger internal weapons capacity.

Actually, the B variant with its STOVL capabilities was the leading design to replace the Harrier. If you look at the Joint Strike Fighter program, the two contenders were built to address the STOVL airframe requirements. It has been said that the design compromises for the B and the drive to force a common airframe between the Marine Corps B variant and the Air Force A and Navy C variants actually handicapped the force overall. Had the Air Force been able to have a clean sheet design, it would have likely been a superior aircraft. Same for the Navy. If you look at all three variants, the fuselage is designed to accomodate the B variant's lift fan behind the cockpit. If that hadn't have been a factor, the design could have been more stealthy and have a larger internal weapons capacity.

Actually, the B variant with its STOVL capabilities was the leading design to replace the Harrier. If you look at the Joint Strike Fighter program, the two contenders were built to address the STOVL airframe requirements. It has been said that the design compromises for the B and the drive to force a common airframe between the Marine Corps B variant and the Air Force A and Navy C variants actually handicapped the force overall. Had the Air Force been able to have a clean sheet design, it would have likely been a superior aircraft. Same for the Navy. If you look at all three variants, the fuselage is designed to accomodate the B variant's lift fan behind the cockpit. If that hadn't have been a factor, the design could have been more stealthy and have a larger internal weapons capacity.

Yes the F-35 B The Marine variant is 👍

?

Payload is stored internally

it can take off vertically but realistically it shouldn´t do it, vertical take off has weight limits which limits both fuel and weaponry a lot more than short take off. Landing without an arresting wire when there is less fuel and weaponry is the point of vtols

@@aquilescastro1335 Sounds like it can’t take off vertically then

@@Damidas It can, with limited weight like every single vtol plane. What did you expect them to do? To also limit the short take off weight to match the vertical one? that doesn´t make sense. Efficienc of short take off over vertical is the reason why vtols have an advantage over helicopters

The C can't launch from the deck of a LHA/LHD.

ehm

Money pit.

there is no such plane as you named. For your information, the opposite-rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.

Harries are not Stealthy, has less Range, can’t Super Cruse or go Super Sonic. (The Harrier is the Blue Print) The F-35 is the next Evolution of these type of Aircraft. US Marines⚓️ still operate the (Super Harrier ⭐️) Eventually even the Super Harrier will retire.

@@lisaroberts8556True, but a lot of the improvements applied to the F-35 can also be used in the AV-8B. The AV-8B is the best available aircraft to work in unprepared field conditions. The F-35 can’t change nozzle direction in close-in dogfighting. If you did have a squadron of Harrie4 A/C, you would have to give up on the idea of stealth, and also have to make a Harrier 3.0.

Only a neophyte would think that the hot gas ingesting compressor stalls of the Pegasus powered Harrier/SHAR/Harrier II is "much simpler, more elegant"(sic).

@@lisaroberts8556 "still operate the (Super Harrier ⭐)"(sic) The Harrier II isn't known as the "Super Harrier"(sic) madame.

Ehm no.

Incorrect

It can take off vertically, but it can carry a larger load of fuel/weapons if it uses a bit of forward motion while taking off.

?

Different variants. The B model mentioned here has less carrying capacity for both weapons and fuel than the C model which uses catapult launch from ship. There's a time and place for both.

VTOL planes usually on land vertically because taking off vertically limits the amount of fuel and armament besides being less efficient

bruh

As others mentioned, there are three variants of the F-35. F-35A Air Force variant, conventional take off and landing. F-35B Marine variant, VSTOL take off and landing capability, reduced payload and range capability in exchange for valuable VSTOL capability. F-35C Navy variant, hardened landing gear to handle catapult launch, added tail hook for arrested landings, ~20% larger wings, folding wingtips to reduce storage space.

Talking about yourself?

@@AugmentedGravity The F35 project.

LMMFAO

which copied it from bell

you are lying. The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is Anglo-German technology from the 70s. It's a shame to lie, comrade. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.

proof?

which is a copy of the bell x14 from 50s

The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.

jakovlex copied the bell x14

@@aquilescastro1335 Which is why americans bought the Jakovlev licence and plans in 90´ .

The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.

because russia and china dont have good jets

you are lying. The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is Anglo-German technology from the 70s. It's a shame to lie, comrade. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.

Lockheed renamed the Yak-41 as the 141 in a failed attempt to save Yakovlev from bankruptcy. Did those thieves masquerading as engineers at Yakovlev ever pay royalties to Convair and P&W for ripping off the 200 and the first swivel bearing exhaust nozzle from the 1960s?

Pfft. There is nothing from the Yak in the F-35. And, Convair used the three bearing swivel years before Yak ever did. Look up the Convair model 200.

The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.

Six F-35Bs in less than two years? It must be a day that ends in "y" and Tyler Durden is spewing more BS on the world wide web exposing his ignorance for all to see. As many times as you've been caught posting nonsense you still haven't learned to simply be quiet, have you kid.

What’s your point?

@alvaropulido5245 that it's not insane engineering if they crash all the time and have lost over a billion dollars worth in crashes...how could you not figure that out? Lmfao 😂

Seems like every new plane goes through the same process, I wouldn’t expect a new plane to fly without bugs that need to be fixed. 6 out of the 500 + made… why don’t you cut the hardworking people some slack who are actually putting it together; they’re doing their best.

@alvaropulido5245 it's been over a decade, how could you believe that an 80-110 million dollar fighter is okay to have "bugs" and cost over a billion in crashes for over a decade? Fix it then! (If possible)

"F35 flies thanks to yak 141 because Lockheed bought the design"(sic) A myth perpetuated by the ignorant and the thieves masquerading as engineers at Yakovlev.

Nonsense. But keep coping. Look up the Convair model 200. It was ahead of the Yak-141.

@@Mishn0 yes you should keep coping. Because everyone else in the real world knows what happened between Yakolev and Lockheed. I guess understanding history takes more braincells than you think

listen to the Russian liar. The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.

The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.

You are a fool, that plane was the forerunner of the Harrier. Look at the pictures and don't talk stupid.@@archer9877

The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.

This technology is American (USA). The Convair Model 200 VTOL design included the use of a three bearing swivel for its exhaust nozzle in 1972. The propulsion technology for the Yak-141 comes from the Convair Model 200. You're welcome.

When the Soviet Union was extinguished, Russia experienced a brutal economic crisis and with it all its technological projects, including the Yak-141. Lockheed Martin acquired the rights to the Yak-141 plans from manufacturer Yakovlev that laid the foundation for the F-35 program. YOU ARE WELCOME

I understand that if you are an American it is very difficult for you to accept that the Soviet Union had the best technology in terms of propulsion and airplanes. It was far superior to the United States. The only defect was its communist policy, which led to so much wasted potential. YOU ARE WELCOME

@@MahikolMarcano Boeing, GE and Pratt&Whitney all studied the three bearing swivel for jet exhaust in the '60s. It was well known by the time the Yak used it. Very little developed in the USSR was clearly superior to what was concurrently being developed in the USA. And, the USA got a lot more of it to actually work. Lock-Mart paid Yak for the data mostly to be nice and secure unassailable rights to it. Not because it was anything original. The Soviets made big jet engines because they HAD to. They needed a lot of power to haul their heavy electronics and metallurgy into the sky. Their engines also had a quite low mean time between failure rate as compared to western engines. But if your fantasy world helps you to feel important or something, good for you.

⁠@@MahikolMarcanowe understand you like cherry picking however the Soviet Union and its diseased descendent are relentless and shameless copiers of others Tech…. From the Nene to the B29 through to computer tech and even to the point of copy and pasting Harry Potter