I just LOVE seeing the F-35 hovering in the middle of the air!!! Such advanced technology. May the next jet have VTOL/STOVL capabilities and that from now and on people will only land and take off their F-35 vertically
It is a phenomenal aircraft but it's only drawback is that it needs more fuel capability, but what day drone refuelers we can keep them anywhere they want
@@haroldbroadsword9895 it's not the safe, the herrier required very skilled pilots to manually stabilize the aircraft in that configuration, if often did not go over so well and ultimately there harrier was not used for vtol all that much. The advancements here is the computer system that contols this think, supposedly the pilot just pressed a button and it transitions to hover flight. It remains stable without pilot input, my guess is that it's some cutting edge model predictive controller in there
@@morgangmilligan Having a highly superior aircraft that is able to take off from much smaller ships. You don't always want to have to send one of your precious nimitz class multi billion dollar carriers, but you still want to be able to launch the latest gen fighters.
These can land and take off from the littoral combat ships. So they can take off from a boat in very shallow waters. Seems more useful than a helicopter especially when they can’t see it on their radars
That’s a heck of a lot of freedom right there baby @0:50. You’re like wait wait... That’s too slow to take off.......oh..ok..ok...cool....I see now All of that reverse UFO technology really comes in handy
Hmm, while amazing, I do wonder: if the carrier is sunk in battle, and they have to land somewhere, great - they can land in the jungle based on this. But without being able to take off vertically, that "short" runway needed to take off is not always going to be available, right?
Are the pilots still having problems getting oxygen in the cockpit??? Generally that's important to be able to breath when flying a jet. Last time I checked anyway.
@@mrmanning3807 Honestly, I didn't. *That* I could even live with if it doesn't effect combat functionality or the safety of the pilots. The oxygen thing when I read it from multiple respected sources pretty much knocked me over.
Can someone explain me what's the point of having the B variant on a carrier when there's there's the C that's made for it?? I can only imagine a VTOL landing with bad weather
yep marines love to be able to move around in tight spaces. ship to shore ,ship to ship . boots on the ground are always supported by the boys in the air.
Look at how many doors are opening on the top and bottom of that plane, that air intake door for the lift fan is like an F-15 air brakes only backwards, add to that the drag of that tailpipe as it rotates down.
They usually don’t do that because it is a risky maneuver that burns a lot of fuel. But I believe there is a test footage of a F35 at the Lockheed plant lofting from the ground up but I don’t know if it transitions into flight.
Can the F-35b be thrown off a "regular" carrier or can they only use the self takeoff? I was wondering because I thought if they could use a cat they could probably have a higher launch weight. Also, can they launch off the bow while recovering at the stern at the same time or only do one at a time?
I believe what we see here is the F35B. There are the F35A, F35B. and F35C. I think it's the F35C that has tailhook and catapult ability. Because it is not VTOL.
@@LAMB53087 Yes, the C has a tailhook.& catapult gear. I've thought it would be good for a B to get the catapult gear so they could launch with a higher takeoff weight if they land on a regular carrier.(they don't need the tailhook) . I've come to the opinion that small carriers like the 6 & 7 (that are more a carrier than a assault vessel like the 8 & 9) should have a ramp (to increase the B's takeoff weight and perhaps a single catapult and a couple tailhook wires that can be used in an emergency. (In theory, they could also be used to launch an E-2, C-2, EA-18G &/or a navel tanker vehicle.
@@LAMB53087 It might be an interesting idea, but I was looking today the the French "Charles de Gaul" aircraft carrier is actually smaller than the LHA-6 America! I understand the Marines need VTOL fighters, but their carriers can be multitaskers.
f-ing wow. You realize how fast they are going to get large groups of these in and out the air in horrible places under horrible conditions. Sure i know it costs a lot, but we're paying for a large number of countries entire defense budgets as it is. i don't mind military spending as long as the stuff is good
Actually at $110 million for the FlyAway cost of the f-35A it's not that much more expensive than what most of NATO flies and this is the most expensive variant of the f-35, the f-35A costs around $80 million fly away.
@@kyletaylor4489 I know that, but it's still a jet exhaust vent. No matter how much military industrial complex money they throw at it, I doubt it's totally room temperature.
That depends on if you're under the engine or the fan, the engine you're not going to enjoy to say the least. The fan will probably just be a bit uncomfortable mostly due to the high volume of air it's throwing at you rather than temperature though.
@@kyletaylor4489 remaining stealthy at IRST range (50-60km) and being more difficult for IR seekers to target you isn't the same as being cool enough to not roast someone like a Thanksgiving turkey if they stand underneath the engine exhaust
In the Falklands War the Harrier had a 15 to one kill ratio, engaging with the Argentinian Skyhawks, the Skyhawks will capable of higher altitude the Harrier had to entice the argentinians to come down to their altitude because they only had five hundred things 300 to 500 altitude operational area using Sidewinders they drew them in and were able to take them out
And I'm hoping that DARPA develops the invisibility cloak around the aircraft and closes down the thermal signature given off by the engine they did a great job with the B-1 bomber, however I believe it was hit with a infrared missile over Bosnia
But I never would have set the ship in the Harbour where it was a direct Target of Argentinian air attacks you drop the troops off and you put the ship out to see where it's less vulnerable
It CANNOT do a Vertical Take-Off. So many people believe this is the case. It can do a very short take off and vertical land. Same with the Harrier, people always said the same thing.
Big deal. I can fly a Cessna 150. OK, all joking aside this is a big deal. An amazing aircraft. The Russians say their latest MIG can take on the F35, I say bring it on!
Although it is already a exceptional plane, the landing is perfect but the fact that it need to go forward to lift up, even if it’s a short distances, is the only kinda flaw of this plane, if it could go up as it land, this thing would be the perfect weapons.
@@kdrapertrucker i know theirs 3 different models of F-35, and I think that not all 3 are able too, but I’m not an expert simply an amateur who find those amazing, …..also a speed freak addict witch help a bit. 😂😂👍👍👍👍
Can the F-35B be thrown off a "regular" carrier or can they only use the self takeoff? I was wondering because I thought if they could use a cat they could probably have a higher launch weight. Also, can they launch off the bow while recovering at the stern at the same time or only do one at a time?
About same cost as Euro fighter or a Rafael. The B models (vertical landing) is somewhat more. They are quoting 85 mil for next production run and next will be 80 million. (F18 super Hornet is about 79). So f35 is less cost than most new jets. It's also cheaper to run with only one engine. And the engine has about 50% less maintenance then previous single engine fighters. So up to 4x less maintenance then a duel engine fighter engine wise. Being able to land and take off from parking lots, or roll out from a barn and take off on grass fields etc is a game changer technology in terms of deployment options.
@@bossdog1480 I really am waiting for a video of the F35 taking off or landing on grass - it REALLY would dispel a zillion myths about the F35 and where and what kind of surfaces it can land on. The one thing they never really could adopt with the Harrier was rolling landings. They did do some experiments (on the French Charles Gaulle). The issue is that the Harrier has what we call brakes as an afterthought. Back then, (50 years ago - astounding the Harrier still flying today), to keep weight down, and prevent spins on ship decks, then the Harrier only has braking on the one “tiny” front nose wheel (and calling that brakes is being kind to the Harrier!!). If the pilot locks up the brakes, then the Harrier will not spin on the deck (only a front nose wheel lockup occurs - no spin of the jet). In fact, when they announced that rolling landings would become part of F35 operations on HMS Q, a Harrier pilot wrote parliament stating how bad of an idea this is, and how risky and dangerous this would be (to other jets on deck etc.). So, sliding jets into other jets, helicopters, the tower etc. was thought to be far too high of a risk. However, several things allow this: The f35 has brakes on all 3 wheels. The Harrier simply used STOVL landings, or long runways to get around this shortcoming. The brakes on F35 are computer controlled, anti-skid, and anti-spin. And all three wheels provide braking force. F35 is far more stable, and controllable then the Harrier in hover to flight modes. (The fact that the nozzle position and throttle had to be controlled with the left hand while other is on the stick in the Harrier was a real hand full. As you move the nozzles forward, the plane wants to drop - so you have to feed in more throttle (and you have to do this dance with your left hand). With the f35? Well, the same button on the C model that deploys the tail hook for carriers is simply pressed by the pilot. The transition of throttle, forward speed, and down thrust is all under computer control. You push the flight stick forward, and the jet goes forward. You pull back during forward hover mode, the jet goes up. And as you go faster, then the lift system transfers from fan/tail lift to forward motion - but all done by computer. The pilot is NOT even involved in how this all works. You don’t even use another set of controls, or change anything - just a simple button press. In addition to the above, the HMS Q has larger decks. It will be interesting as to how bad weather gets to force pilots back to a 100% vertical landing. Everyone was bracing for “impact” as to how these dangerous rolling landings would be. So, got out our bags of popcorn, and sat on the edge of our seats to see this first rolling landing on the HMS Q. Take your bets, take your risk. So, here is a video of the first F35 landing this way on the HMS Q ruclips.net/video/jP0rUkDz_Fg/видео.html We wonder what all the fuss was about!!! However, let’s get some weapons loads, some good wind and rain, and see how this all looks. So, why the rolling landings? Well, for starters you get better sortie time. (Less time to land). You also reduce wear and tear on the lift fan system. Keep in mind that to hook up a jet and launch from a catapult takes a whopping 3 minutes! With VSTOL - you just point down the runway and off you go. The jet behind is already spooling up its engines and can start its run before the jet in front has left the ski ramp. But, the MOST important reason is what we call return stores. (How much fuel and weapons can you land when returning to the ship). Well, we all know and thank the Harrier for littering the ocean floor with UN-spend bombs and weapons. You see, on a return ship landing, the return payload is VERY restricted. Now with bombs costing so much, then that’s not going to be part of operations. An f18 return store rating on a USA carrier (cable trap) is rated for 4,000lbs. If you have more return store weight, you dump fuel, and (gasp) if not below the 4,000lbs, then you start dumping weapons and ordnance into the ocean. Amazing, but the F35 B on a 100% vertical landing is rated for 5,000lbs return stores (already better than and f18 on a carrier with cable traps). But, with rolling landings, they will gain an additional 2,000lbs above the already VERY good rating of 5,000lbs. So the return store rating of the F35B will be about 7,000lbs. That is VERY good. That means they can load up the F35 with lots of extra fuel (or weapons), do air support, and return to the HMS q without having to “dump” fuel or weapons. This just gives a LOT more flexibility in the takeoff loads, and you don’t have to be “super” careful to match the payloads and expected flight time with those “daily” air patrol operations. So, they will save a LOT of dumped fuel, and of course rare have to dump weapons into the ocean to land back on their ships. So, with newer technology, then rolling landings will be used. I am interested however as to how bad weather has to become in which they then use 100% vertical landings. With the HMS Q long decks, they will not only improve general operations from a “return store” point of view, but they should be able to achieve full weapon loads and full fuel loads - including drop tanks if needed. This will give rise to “very long” interdiction setups. The F35 is wet plumbed on 2 of the 3 wing pylons per side for drop tanks. And you can also go with a centerline tank. So, 5 tanks of external gas. (I’m guess about 13,000 lbs of extra fuel. And then there is 13,500lbs of internal fuel. And with all of the above? Your weapons bays are still available (2 AIMS per side + 2 x 1000 lb bombs internal on each side). So the abilities of the F35 in terms of a bomb truck, or long distance fuel truck are options that previous gen VSTOL jets could only dream about. But, stormy pitching ocean waves, heavy rain soaked decks, windy, and larger return store loads? Well, we have to wait and see how safe such rolling landings are. They look rather good so far.
Aliens use a fan and a jet fuel??? Shouldn't we have anti-gravity if we learned from aliens? It's supposedly been many many decades since we have 'learned' from them... and we still got jets 2020. Unless those learnings are beyond top secret and they don't show the public anything but these jets
5:30 oh my GOD that machine is incredible.
I just LOVE seeing the F-35 hovering in the middle of the air!!! Such advanced technology. May the next jet have VTOL/STOVL capabilities and that from now and on people will only land and take off their F-35 vertically
It’s not very advanced, Hawker Harrier prototype could do it in the 60’s!
Harold Broadsword this technology dates back to the 40’s with the German
@@ultralaggerREV1 40’s? HA! do you have more jokes?
It is a phenomenal aircraft but it's only drawback is that it needs more fuel capability, but what day drone refuelers we can keep them anywhere they want
@@haroldbroadsword9895 it's not the safe, the herrier required very skilled pilots to manually stabilize the aircraft in that configuration, if often did not go over so well and ultimately there harrier was not used for vtol all that much. The advancements here is the computer system that contols this think, supposedly the pilot just pressed a button and it transitions to hover flight. It remains stable without pilot input, my guess is that it's some cutting edge model predictive controller in there
God these things look incredible too. They really feel like future-tech. Truly a marvel of engineering
I got to see the f35 at aviation nation in Las Vegas last weekend. And put it this way. I’m still watching online. It was awesome! I’m a new fan
thrust vectoring in action. used to sound like a crazy idea but look at this machine, powerful display.
Most Highly Advanced 🔥🔥🔥
Totally AWESOME Aircraft. Amazing engineering went into this jet fighter.
What a magic shot,where they’re moving the jet, and the other one hovering.👍
Yeah that was pretty nice..
So many good wallpapers here. Camerawork is INCREDIBLE!!
The Quality is horrible tho
that dude going under the tail at 6:55 is a nut case!
Amazing platform, surpassed only by the skill of our Navy/Marine Corps pilots!
Haha
Of the whole F-35 program this model seems to be the most useful.
James Ziemba how is it useful?
@@morgangmilligan Having a highly superior aircraft that is able to take off from much smaller ships. You don't always want to have to send one of your precious nimitz class multi billion dollar carriers, but you still want to be able to launch the latest gen fighters.
These can land and take off from the littoral combat ships. So they can take off from a boat in very shallow waters. Seems more useful than a helicopter especially when they can’t see it on their radars
That slow take off is unworldly 😮
That’s a heck of a lot of freedom right there baby
@0:50. You’re like wait wait...
That’s too slow to take off.......oh..ok..ok...cool....I see now
All of that reverse UFO technology really comes in handy
Ahaha, indeed xD
wow how soft is the landing and smooth is the take-off
I choose this as my desktoo wallpaper.
How cool is this!!!....🤙😎🤘
Your name gives me aids
Future is looking fantastic for Aerospace and research development
An amazing film of an amazing aircraft.
Old film camera? Looks epic
Hmm, while amazing, I do wonder: if the carrier is sunk in battle, and they have to land somewhere, great - they can land in the jungle based on this. But without being able to take off vertically, that "short" runway needed to take off is not always going to be available, right?
They'd rebase to an airfield or use the roadways, depending on where they are in the world.
WOW!!! JUST WOW!!!
F35: Jack of all trades, master of none.
Are the pilots still having problems getting oxygen in the cockpit??? Generally that's important to be able to breath when flying a jet. Last time I checked anyway.
@@Rubin4749 did you know about the paint also pealing off after so many flights
@@mrmanning3807 Honestly, I didn't. *That* I could even live with if it doesn't effect combat functionality or the safety of the pilots. The oxygen thing when I read it from multiple respected sources pretty much knocked me over.
@@Rubin4749 no but if it's ment to be invisible to radar well it's not doing a very good job if the paint keeps coming off
@@mrmanning3807 Maybe the Pentagon officials' new motto should be "If it's not OUR butt on the line, it's all good"
I was stationed on USS Wasp from 2000-03
How cool are these jets? To think it started with a Harrier.
Doesn't the vertical landing take significantly longer than a conventional landing?
This is the closest to a real Transformer that humanity has yet built
Can someone explain me what's the point of having the B variant on a carrier when there's there's the C that's made for it?? I can only imagine a VTOL landing with bad weather
yep marines love to be able to move around in tight spaces. ship to shore ,ship to ship . boots on the ground are always supported by the boys in the air.
nice headphones
At what point do they go wheels up and close the fan door?
F35 "i can perform vertical landing?
Ryanair "hold my gear"
One question, why don't pilots use vertical take off?
You can't carry as much weight
Because it restricts your max payload more.
How does it slow down so fast when switching between horizontal and vertical flight for a landing? Is air braking really that efficient?
Would be the most efficient and effective way wouldn’t it?
Look at how many doors are opening on the top and bottom of that plane, that air intake door for the lift fan is like an F-15 air brakes only backwards, add to that the drag of that tailpipe as it rotates down.
Wow! Just Wow....
Wonderful
Perfect airplane!
Bahhahaahahahhahahaaha!
How would it go in rough seas and heavy rain?
Geewiz, why didn't they design the duct port with split side doors or louvers?
Incroyable 😮
Cue 'Top Gun' theme.
Dum dum dum dum dum datadatdatdatatadatta
While technically Naval Aviators these are U.S. Marines.
I am struggling to find a video of it actually taking off, like, transitioning mid air so that it can actually fly like an airplane does.
They usually don’t do that because it is a risky maneuver that burns a lot of fuel. But I believe there is a test footage of a F35 at the Lockheed plant lofting from the ground up but I don’t know if it transitions into flight.
@@portcybertryx222 I managed to find one or two clips of it transitioning from flight to hover and then back to flight, which was good enough for me.
everyone gangsta until the plane starts flying backwards
😂
Saab viggen can already do that
Especially when you never felt that before from a Jet
@@simonx760 Saab is producing some incredible
I think you get used to it
Can the F-35b be thrown off a "regular" carrier or can they only use the self takeoff?
I was wondering because I thought if they could use a cat they could probably have a higher launch weight.
Also, can they launch off the bow while recovering at the stern at the same time or only do one at a time?
I believe what we see here is the F35B. There are the F35A, F35B. and F35C.
I think it's the F35C that has tailhook and catapult ability. Because it is not VTOL.
@@LAMB53087 Yes, the C has a tailhook.& catapult gear. I've thought it would be good for a B to get the catapult gear so they could launch with a higher takeoff weight if they land on a regular carrier.(they don't need the tailhook) .
I've come to the opinion that small carriers like the 6 & 7 (that are more a carrier than a assault vessel like the 8 & 9) should have a ramp (to increase the B's takeoff weight and perhaps a single catapult and a couple tailhook wires that can be used in an emergency. (In theory, they could also be used to launch an E-2, C-2, EA-18G &/or a navel tanker vehicle.
@@aCycloneSteve Good points you make sir. My son is out to sea on the USS Tripoli as we speak. I believe that's 7.
He is a U.S. Marine.
@@LAMB53087 It might be an interesting idea, but I was looking today the the French "Charles de Gaul" aircraft carrier is actually smaller than the LHA-6 America!
I understand the Marines need VTOL fighters, but their carriers can be multitaskers.
Man I miss the Harrier jump jet 😔
It's sad to see it go, but at least it's getting replaced by something bigger and better!
f-ing wow. You realize how fast they are going to get large groups of these in and out the air in horrible places under horrible conditions. Sure i know it costs a lot, but we're paying for a large number of countries entire defense budgets as it is. i don't mind military spending as long as the stuff is good
Technology just to kill people, no amount of money is needed for this.
Actually at $110 million for the FlyAway cost of the f-35A it's not that much more expensive than what most of NATO flies and this is the most expensive variant of the f-35, the f-35A costs around $80 million fly away.
هناك خلل بسيط في الهندسة . الغطاء الذي فوق مقصورة القيادة لا يساعد الطائرة للإقلاع بسرعة للأمان . يجب طيه على الجانبين او جعله ينزلق الى الخلف
cool!
This is the first step to ships like the ones in star wars.
Y'know I always wondered, how hot must it be if you accidentally got caught under the landing jets
I saw somewhere the air under the big fan in the front isn't hot. But the actual engine exhaust...
Yikes.
They aren’t that hot they’re meant to be undetected
@@kyletaylor4489 I know that, but it's still a jet exhaust vent. No matter how much military industrial complex money they throw at it, I doubt it's totally room temperature.
That depends on if you're under the engine or the fan, the engine you're not going to enjoy to say the least. The fan will probably just be a bit uncomfortable mostly due to the high volume of air it's throwing at you rather than temperature though.
@@kyletaylor4489 remaining stealthy at IRST range (50-60km) and being more difficult for IR seekers to target you isn't the same as being cool enough to not roast someone like a Thanksgiving turkey if they stand underneath the engine exhaust
American / British engineering at its best.
Think about it soon will be able to put compact Fusion reactors on our aircraft and giving it power, unlimited aerial capability
In the Falklands War the Harrier had a 15 to one kill ratio, engaging with the Argentinian Skyhawks, the Skyhawks will capable of higher altitude the Harrier had to entice the argentinians to come down to their altitude because they only had five hundred things 300 to 500 altitude operational area using Sidewinders they drew them in and were able to take them out
And I'm hoping that DARPA develops the invisibility cloak around the aircraft and closes down the thermal signature given off by the engine they did a great job with the B-1 bomber, however I believe it was hit with a infrared missile over Bosnia
very cool
But I never would have set the ship in the Harbour where it was a direct Target of Argentinian air attacks you drop the troops off and you put the ship out to see where it's less vulnerable
Super!
we, human, slowly made the alien technology
Nice !
I'm surprised this Video doesn't have a million+ views.USUSUS
Mantap Cahneee
mantap bang
Why cant it take off the same way it lands?
It can
Can, but Much fuel is Lost
It CANNOT do a Vertical Take-Off. So many people believe this is the case. It can do a very short take off and vertical land. Same with the Harrier, people always said the same thing.
Tom Patschorke The F-35B can do a vertical take off. But it’s easier on fuel when you have a payload to do a short take-off
This program was originally developed by the British with the Harrier
The engine is huge and heavy as consequence
Can I get this model in Ali express
Cool, but I miss the Harrier.
@SCP 682 AV-8B U.S.M.C. Harrier
Wow is awsome..
Big deal. I can fly a Cessna 150. OK, all joking aside this is a big deal. An amazing aircraft. The Russians say their latest MIG can take on the F35, I say bring it on!
In a dogfight Mig-35 definitely has a chance, that is probably the most agile plane currently
@@laracroft938 too bad the radar can't see him but he can
F 35 က ချစ်စရာလေး
No catapult needed nor a long landing strip
Im just imagining one day, R* will add this jet to gta online and call it the Hydra MKII
Although it is already a exceptional plane, the landing is perfect but the fact that it need to go forward to lift up, even if it’s a short distances, is the only kinda flaw of this plane, if it could go up as it land, this thing would be the perfect weapons.
It can vertically take off it just restricts the weight more so it's more cost effective to do a short take off.
It can lift straight up, but with a rolling takeoff they save a bit of fuel, and can carry a heavier load of fuel and weapons.
@@kdrapertrucker i know theirs 3 different models of F-35, and I think that not all 3 are able too, but I’m not an expert simply an amateur who find those amazing, …..also a speed freak addict witch help a bit. 😂😂👍👍👍👍
Can the F-35B be thrown off a "regular" carrier or can they only use the self takeoff?
I was wondering because I thought if they could use a cat they could probably have a higher launch weight.
Also, can they launch off the bow while recovering at the stern at the same time or only do one at a time?
It can vertically take off, but it can’t do it when fully loaded. With no weapons load and less fuel it can both take off and land vertically
Imagine flying it
Show de bola 🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷
sounds like a paint bucket sealing machine at home depot
How much do 1 f35 costs?
100 million
They got it down to 90 mil
About same cost as Euro fighter or a Rafael.
The B models (vertical landing) is somewhat more. They are quoting 85 mil for next production run and next will be 80 million. (F18 super Hornet is about 79).
So f35 is less cost than most new jets. It's also cheaper to run with only one engine. And the engine has about 50% less maintenance then previous single engine fighters. So up to 4x less maintenance then a duel engine fighter engine wise.
Being able to land and take off from parking lots, or roll out from a barn and take off on grass fields etc is a game changer technology in terms of deployment options.
@@Albertkallal They were doing it in Harriers in the 70's.
@@bossdog1480
I really am waiting for a video of the F35 taking off or landing on grass - it REALLY would dispel a zillion myths about the F35 and where and what kind of surfaces it can land on.
The one thing they never really could adopt with the Harrier was rolling landings.
They did do some experiments (on the French Charles Gaulle).
The issue is that the Harrier has what we call brakes as an afterthought.
Back then, (50 years ago - astounding the Harrier still flying today), to keep weight down, and prevent spins on ship decks, then the Harrier only has braking on the one “tiny” front nose wheel (and calling that brakes is being kind to the Harrier!!).
If the pilot locks up the brakes, then the Harrier will not spin on the deck (only a front nose wheel lockup occurs - no spin of the jet).
In fact, when they announced that rolling landings would become part of F35 operations on HMS Q, a Harrier pilot wrote parliament stating how bad of an idea this is, and how risky and dangerous this would be (to other jets on deck etc.). So, sliding jets into other jets, helicopters, the tower etc. was thought to be far too high of a risk.
However, several things allow this:
The f35 has brakes on all 3 wheels. The Harrier simply used STOVL landings, or long runways to get around this shortcoming.
The brakes on F35 are computer controlled, anti-skid, and anti-spin. And all three wheels provide braking force.
F35 is far more stable, and controllable then the Harrier in hover to flight modes. (The fact that the nozzle position and throttle had to be controlled with the left hand while other is on the stick in the Harrier was a real hand full. As you move the nozzles forward, the plane wants to drop - so you have to feed in more throttle (and you have to do this dance with your left hand).
With the f35? Well, the same button on the C model that deploys the tail hook for carriers is simply pressed by the pilot. The transition of throttle, forward speed, and down thrust is all under computer control. You push the flight stick forward, and the jet goes forward. You pull back during forward hover mode, the jet goes up. And as you go faster, then the lift system transfers from fan/tail lift to forward motion - but all done by computer. The pilot is NOT even involved in how this all works.
You don’t even use another set of controls, or change anything - just a simple button press.
In addition to the above, the HMS Q has larger decks. It will be interesting as to how bad weather gets to force pilots back to a 100% vertical landing.
Everyone was bracing for “impact” as to how these dangerous rolling landings would be. So, got out our bags of popcorn, and sat on the edge of our seats to see this first rolling landing on the HMS Q.
Take your bets, take your risk.
So, here is a video of the first F35 landing this way on the HMS Q
ruclips.net/video/jP0rUkDz_Fg/видео.html
We wonder what all the fuss was about!!! However, let’s get some weapons loads, some good wind and rain, and see how this all looks.
So, why the rolling landings?
Well, for starters you get better sortie time. (Less time to land).
You also reduce wear and tear on the lift fan system.
Keep in mind that to hook up a jet and launch from a catapult takes a whopping 3 minutes!
With VSTOL - you just point down the runway and off you go. The jet behind is already spooling up its engines and can start its run before the jet in front has left the ski ramp.
But, the MOST important reason is what we call return stores.
(How much fuel and weapons can you land when returning to the ship).
Well, we all know and thank the Harrier for littering the ocean floor with UN-spend bombs and weapons. You see, on a return ship landing, the return payload is VERY restricted. Now with bombs costing so much, then that’s not going to be part of operations.
An f18 return store rating on a USA carrier (cable trap) is rated for 4,000lbs. If you have more return store weight, you dump fuel, and (gasp) if not below the 4,000lbs, then you start dumping weapons and ordnance into the ocean.
Amazing, but the F35 B on a 100% vertical landing is rated for 5,000lbs return stores (already better than and f18 on a carrier with cable traps).
But, with rolling landings, they will gain an additional 2,000lbs above the already VERY good rating of 5,000lbs.
So the return store rating of the F35B will be about 7,000lbs. That is VERY good. That means they can load up the F35 with lots of extra fuel (or weapons), do air support, and return to the HMS q without having to “dump” fuel or weapons. This just gives a LOT more flexibility in the takeoff loads, and you don’t have to be “super” careful to match the payloads and expected flight time with those “daily” air patrol operations. So, they will save a LOT of dumped fuel, and of course rare have to dump weapons into the ocean to land back on their ships.
So, with newer technology, then rolling landings will be used. I am interested however as to how bad weather has to become in which they then use 100% vertical landings.
With the HMS Q long decks, they will not only improve general operations from a “return store” point of view, but they should be able to achieve full weapon loads and full fuel loads - including drop tanks if needed.
This will give rise to “very long” interdiction setups. The F35 is wet plumbed on 2 of the 3 wing pylons per side for drop tanks.
And you can also go with a centerline tank. So, 5 tanks of external gas. (I’m guess about 13,000 lbs of extra fuel. And then there is 13,500lbs of internal fuel.
And with all of the above? Your weapons bays are still available (2 AIMS per side + 2 x 1000 lb bombs internal on each side).
So the abilities of the F35 in terms of a bomb truck, or long distance fuel truck are options that previous gen VSTOL jets could only dream about.
But, stormy pitching ocean waves, heavy rain soaked decks, windy, and larger return store loads?
Well, we have to wait and see how safe such rolling landings are. They look rather good so far.
Stealth is only going to increase as 6th generation aircraft enter service
I know it’s real, but It looks so damn fake lol
Cradle of invention
The USA has learned a lot from the aliens.
Aliens use a fan and a jet fuel??? Shouldn't we have anti-gravity if we learned from aliens? It's supposedly been many many decades since we have 'learned' from them...
and we still got jets 2020. Unless those learnings are beyond top secret and they don't show the public anything but these jets
@@sumerbc7409 All in due time.
@Honey b. shut up loser
🔥🔥🔥
Cool ✌️😉
The weaknesses of this plane was material
Um not to sound stupid but why the frick is the top open
Its for the engine air intake
Oh ok thanks
@@gamingwar351 no problem
Will the wasp ever get a QE style ramp?
Probably not, I doubt they’ll redesign the Wasp when the new F-35B’s can just do a short take off. The wasp also holds helicopters too.
No need.
The rest is fun
the sound and shot @5:00
U. S. Is the strongest army in the world 🇺🇸💪🌎🇺🇸💪🌍🇺🇸💪🌏💪🌎🇺🇸💪🌍🇺🇸💪🌏🇺🇸💪🌎🇺🇸💪🌍🇺🇸💪🌏🇺🇸💪🇺🇸💪🇺🇸💪🇺🇸💪🇺🇸💪🇺🇸💪🇺🇸💪👌👌👌👌👌👌👍
Usa,good
Com um caça desse vc pousa em qualquer lugar
i need to salvage the F35 from a junkyard to make spaceships
👍
The weaknesses is hurry
We're the aliens
Their was no take off all it was a normal launch as any plane would have done and it only hovers up and down
F 35 👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽🥰😍😍🥰😘
Second best VTOL plane in the World.
Thanks for not giving us those aircrafts.
'Cause we made TF-X!💥💥💥
☪☪☪
Here come the mad euros to complain about the Gripen
True, but i'm french and I really like this fighter jet :)
That's litteraly a revolution
Can I have one please