The video heading should have read "Behind F-35 B Monstrously Powerful Vertical Fan Operations On Marine Carriers". NAVY Carriers sport the F-35 C. Freakishly protective we are. 🤿
헤리어 전투기 때는 .. 터보 펜 엔진 있어 .. 압축공기 추력 편향 노즐을 이용해서 .. 수직 이착륙을 했다 하던데 .. 터보 제트 엔진을 사용하는 F35 경우 수직 팬을 추가 해야만 .. 가능한 비행인가 보군요.. F35B 너무 무거워 .. 이륙 중량 제한에 .연료 하고 무기 포함되어 .. 기관총 포드 마저 외장형이라고 알려져 있더군요.. 연료 및 무장을 모두 버려야 착륙 하중을 맞출수 있다죠..
그런데 F-35B 작전능력 생각하면 수직 이착륙이 안되는게 당연한게 아닐까 하긴 합니다......ㅋㅋㅋ 편도 비행 기준으로는 항속거리 1800km (작전반경 833km)찍는놈이 수직 이착륙까지 자유로우면 그건 진짜 외계인 고문이니깐요..... 연료탱크 크기가 F-15보다 조금 더 큰 수준이라고 하죠.... (외부 연료 탱크 장착이 안되다 보니 최대 작전반경은 F-15K 절반 조금 안되기는 한데... F-15도 실질적으로는 패리 비행으로 공중급유받아가면서 원정 배치할 때 제외하고 전투행동 반경이 1200km 이상은 갈일이 거의 없으니 이부분은 논외로...)
Big, heavy, clunky and expensive as f--k. Waste of money when your country is so buried in debt, you can legally shoplift up to the value of $900 to cover the essentials of life.
I have yet to see a F35B lift off vertically, with a full armanents payload! Using the ski jump is all very well if it is not damaged by an incoming attack, under combat conditions! Pure VTOL is absolutely necessary when you have no runway left! Thus if the F35B cannot take off vertically on a ship, or from the ground with a full mission complement, it is highly compromised! And just when it is needed the most, it would be grounded, if the runway is full of bomb craters!
#1: just because you're not privy to the Pentagon's intel on the various projects and abilities the various high end aircraft have, it doesn't mean they don't exist. You and I are NOT that important, in the greater scheme of things (where national defense is concerned); #2: you're playing too much children's games... on pot holes everywhere on American airfields (which render the F-35B useless). #3: the Pentagon doesn't allow a company to build the F-35B or any aircraft, if they haven't shown the ability it wants. That is to say, if the F-35B couldn't take off vertically --- or land vertically, EXACTLY THE SAME THING IN THE PHYSICS OF MOVING A HEAVY OBJECT from A to B, vertically (in the case of the F-35B) --- the Pentagon wouldn't have bought it. The REASON they don't do it is that it uses up to almost half of the fuel by doing vertical take-off/vertical landing. The reason they do vertical landing more than vertical take off is EASY enough to understand: you've already returned safely to base, so wasting a few thousand dollars doing a fuel-guzzling act is wasteful & unnecessary but not stupid AND dangerous, like it is the case, when you do take off vertically and waste up to half of the fuel in the F-35's smaller fuel tank... when you have merely just started on some critical mission (be it testing, surveillance, intercepting, what-not). THAT is what could compromise the F-35's mission, NOT when they choose NOT to do vertical take off every day... The F-35's foremost mission is stealth activities --- penetration, surveillance/intel gather --- so the normal weapons it carries are minimal. If you want mother loads of weapon carrying --- for limited but high valued combing jobs --- you use the non-stealthy F-15 and F-16 work horses... like they have been using the last few weeks in the Mid East, to drop big bombs or accurate missiles on very small but important warehouses in Syria.
@@kiabtoomlauj6249 Ive read that the STOVL system is deactivated if there's too much weight in either fuel, cargo, armaments! 40k lbs is the max. I fly the B version in MSFS all the time. it's nice to land anywhere or I lock it in hover above the clouds to grab a mtn dew from the fridge
The Yak design worked quite a bit differently internally, they didn't use the lift fan attached to the main engine like the F-35B, they basically had a separate jet engine used only for vertical flight.
The F35 one day in the not to distant future will be feared by the Commies and Middle Eastern Terrorist. They are just getting the bugs out of the F35 just like every other fighter and probably every plane that’s been ever built.
If you looked up the amount of mishaps your favorite fighter jets throughout history had when they were first produced, you’d realize that the F35 is actually on the safer side.
Maybe the harrier is not as fast or as stealthy as the F35, but in my humble opinion, the vectored nozzle system was much simpler and more elegant The only time I've seen an F35 hover then try to fly backwards, it fell out of the sky. This is the biased view of a humble Brit..
The video references VTOL, but the F-35 can't perform vertical take-off to flight (STOVL- only short-takeoff-vertical-landing). Correct me if I'm wrong.
@@bcanuckit can. You mean like Hover and transition to forward flight right? Yes it can, they just dont do it often because Short take off is much more efficient. Look at Airboyd video in youtube where an F35 flys around, stops and hovers, then returns to forward flight
The Brits had a lot of financial and technical help which they are loath to acknowledge. “Without American support, it’s entirely possible there’d never even have been a Harrier; at least not one that existed beyond the confines of Ralph Hooper’s sketchbook. As early as 1959, NASA saw enough potential in the embryonic British jump jet design to provide encouraging technical reports. And while the Hawker board might have sanctioned building two P.1127 prototypes without any official backing, it was American money from an organization called the Mutual Weapons Development Program based in Paris - a sort of military start-up incubator - that largely financed the construction of the expensive BE.53 Pegasus engines on which flying prototypes were dependent. Indeed it was the same agency that had introduced Sir Stanley Hooker to Michel Wibault’s Gyroptere in the first place. Such was the lack of British government interest or support that one senior USAF General was sure that without intervention ‘an all British P.1127 would die a natural death - it would just wither away.’ And so the Pentagon proposed the creation of a multinational squadron to conduct a series of trials using a development of the P.1127 known as the Kestrel.” Harrier 809, Rowland White, pg. 75
@ahmet8368 30 enemy aircraft kills to 10 losses. None of the losses were from aircraft hits. It's a set of significant compromises but it had its place and was revolutionary in concept.
Rotary wing is a dumb and fundamentally flawed approach to domestic transport. It's incredibly inefficient in all regards. Hopefully it never takes off in either sense 🙏
The pile of junk can only land in very clean areas. The vertical lift fan will suck in birds, dirt , small rocks and a large number of other items. There are no pristine areas in forward combat areas ... so the thing is junk.
I disagree, it can land vertically, it can take off STOVL , fly faster than the speed of sound, but it is a flawed compromise, and not a true successor to the Harrier, which has true VTOL performance!
The video heading should have read "Behind F-35 B Monstrously Powerful Vertical Fan Operations On Marine Carriers". NAVY Carriers sport the F-35 C. Freakishly protective we are. 🤿
改めて見るとハリアーはカッコいいなあー。
名戦闘機だな。
It's an Awesome Jet
Do they pressure wash the salt spray off the planes after every flight?
If not, how do they combat corrosion, particularly galvanic corrosion?
@@xdtr-hz3lh8yf1w😂
Super
bird strike through the intake of the fan landed safe but grounded the jet. nothing brings the jet down well one ☝️ little bird 🐦 did.
I can see where this can be very useful. 😊😊
At 4:22. That is not a lift truck but a tug. It PULLS the A/C where it needs to go, not lift it.
Fly Navy
看看中国方案，使用改变气道的方式垂直升降，这样可以减少一套垂直风扇，减轻重量同时减少系统复杂程度
헤리어 전투기 때는 .. 터보 펜 엔진 있어 .. 압축공기 추력 편향 노즐을 이용해서 .. 수직 이착륙을 했다 하던데 .. 터보 제트 엔진을 사용하는 F35 경우 수직 팬을 추가 해야만 .. 가능한 비행인가 보군요.. F35B 너무 무거워 .. 이륙 중량 제한에 .연료 하고 무기 포함되어 .. 기관총 포드 마저 외장형이라고 알려져 있더군요.. 연료 및 무장을 모두 버려야 착륙 하중을 맞출수 있다죠..
그런데 F-35B 작전능력 생각하면 수직 이착륙이 안되는게 당연한게 아닐까 하긴 합니다......ㅋㅋㅋ
편도 비행 기준으로는 항속거리 1800km (작전반경 833km)찍는놈이 수직 이착륙까지 자유로우면 그건 진짜 외계인 고문이니깐요.....
연료탱크 크기가 F-15보다 조금 더 큰 수준이라고 하죠....
(외부 연료 탱크 장착이 안되다 보니 최대 작전반경은 F-15K 절반 조금 안되기는 한데... F-15도 실질적으로는 패리 비행으로 공중급유받아가면서 원정 배치할 때 제외하고 전투행동 반경이 1200km 이상은 갈일이 거의 없으니 이부분은 논외로...)
이거 정말 유용한 전투기 이지만 가장 비 효율적인 전투기다. 유지비가 엄청나서 미국만 사용할 수 있는 전투기다.
Some big drons.
I hope war doesn't happen
足回りが、すぐダメになりそう…
still Prototyp
this replaced the harriers
The F-35 has state of the art sci-fi technology.
But nothing to locate it when it gets lost. 🫤
Nothing to locate it? Please explain. No beacon?
Big, heavy, clunky and expensive as f--k. Waste of money when your country is so buried in debt, you can legally shoplift up to the value of $900 to cover the essentials of life.
Russian Yakovlev Yak-141 was before the F35.
I have yet to see a F35B lift off vertically, with a full armanents payload! Using the ski jump is all very well if it is not damaged by an incoming attack, under combat conditions! Pure VTOL is absolutely necessary when you have no runway left! Thus if the F35B cannot take off vertically on a ship, or from the ground with a full mission complement, it is highly compromised! And just when it is needed the most, it would be grounded, if the runway is full of bomb craters!
#1: just because you're not privy to the Pentagon's intel on the various projects and abilities the various high end aircraft have, it doesn't mean they don't exist. You and I are NOT that important, in the greater scheme of things (where national defense is concerned);
#2: you're playing too much children's games... on pot holes everywhere on American airfields (which render the F-35B useless).
#3: the Pentagon doesn't allow a company to build the F-35B or any aircraft, if they haven't shown the ability it wants.
That is to say, if the F-35B couldn't take off vertically --- or land vertically, EXACTLY THE SAME THING IN THE PHYSICS OF MOVING A HEAVY OBJECT from A to B, vertically (in the case of the F-35B) --- the Pentagon wouldn't have bought it.
The REASON they don't do it is that it uses up to almost half of the fuel by doing vertical take-off/vertical landing.
The reason they do vertical landing more than vertical take off is EASY enough to understand: you've already returned safely to base, so wasting a few thousand dollars doing a fuel-guzzling act is wasteful & unnecessary but not stupid AND dangerous, like it is the case, when you do take off vertically and waste up to half of the fuel in the F-35's smaller fuel tank... when you have merely just started on some critical mission (be it testing, surveillance, intercepting, what-not).
THAT is what could compromise the F-35's mission, NOT when they choose NOT to do vertical take off every day...
The F-35's foremost mission is stealth activities --- penetration, surveillance/intel gather --- so the normal weapons it carries are minimal.
If you want mother loads of weapon carrying --- for limited but high valued combing jobs --- you use the non-stealthy F-15 and F-16 work horses... like they have been using the last few weeks in the Mid East, to drop big bombs or accurate missiles on very small but important warehouses in Syria.
@@kiabtoomlauj6249 Ive read that the STOVL system is deactivated if there's too much weight in either fuel, cargo, armaments! 40k lbs is the max. I fly the B version in MSFS all the time. it's nice to land anywhere or I lock it in hover above the clouds to grab a mtn dew from the fridge
Harrier jump jet more impressive
How)
It could take off vertically with weapons and fuel, but it could not fly as fast as the F 35B, however, it was more versatile in flight !
垂直起降牺牲续航能力，飞不远等挨揍
@@drgeoffangel5422vtol on a harrier is only possible with limited weapons.
Old
first
Barely able to take off vertical, certainly not with fuel and loaded with ammo . So nearly only a vertical landing plane
Agree a compromise too far! it is only a STOVL craft!
Jets require lot of maintenance and practice for VTOL
这是F-35A机场保卫者的另一个版本航母战斗群保卫者的弟弟：甲板保卫者：）
这个东西满载燃料弹药起飞8分钟就必须返回甲板了，否则落海。
Free electric energy antigravity motors are better
Could park a starwars imperial spaceship on that deck, its antigravity so no weight on the deck
Was not the vertical fan technology licensed decades ago from the Russians/Communist? From who for the USA?
The Yak design worked quite a bit differently internally, they didn't use the lift fan attached to the main engine like the F-35B, they basically had a separate jet engine used only for vertical flight.
Imagine that, they are still trying to sell this lemon.
Imagine that, know nothing's on the Internet are still spouting their own ignorant opinions.....
The F35 one day in the not to distant future will be feared by the Commies and Middle Eastern Terrorist. They are just getting the bugs out of the F35 just like every other fighter and probably every plane that’s been ever built.
If you looked up the amount of mishaps your favorite fighter jets throughout history had when they were first produced, you’d realize that the F35 is actually on the safer side.
There are now 1000 of these so called lemons operating.
This simulator is not as good as DCS
Maybe the harrier is not as fast or as stealthy as the F35, but in my humble opinion, the vectored nozzle system was much simpler and more elegant
The only time I've seen an F35 hover then try to fly backwards, it fell out of the sky.
This is the biased view of a humble Brit..
"The only time I've seen an F35 hover then try to fly backwards, it fell out of the sky. "(sic)
You don't get out much do you?
The video references VTOL, but the F-35 can't perform vertical take-off to flight (STOVL- only short-takeoff-vertical-landing). Correct me if I'm wrong.
@@bcanuckit can. You mean like Hover and transition to forward flight right? Yes it can, they just dont do it often because Short take off is much more efficient. Look at Airboyd video in youtube where an F35 flys around, stops and hovers, then returns to forward flight
6:05 That is Chinese character "Tiger" on the AV-8B
Love the Harrier content.
An incredible piece of English Engineering 🎉
The Brits had a lot of financial and technical help which they are loath to acknowledge.
“Without American support, it’s entirely possible there’d never even have been a Harrier; at least not one that existed beyond the confines of Ralph Hooper’s sketchbook. As early as 1959, NASA saw enough potential in the embryonic British jump jet design to provide encouraging technical reports. And while the Hawker board might have sanctioned building two P.1127 prototypes without any official backing, it was American money from an organization called the Mutual Weapons Development Program based in Paris - a sort of military start-up incubator - that largely financed the construction of the expensive BE.53 Pegasus engines on which flying prototypes were dependent. Indeed it was the same agency that had introduced Sir Stanley Hooker to Michel Wibault’s Gyroptere in the first place. Such was the lack of British government interest or support that one senior USAF General was sure that without intervention ‘an all British P.1127 would die a natural death - it would just wither away.’ And so the Pentagon proposed the creation of a multinational squadron to conduct a series of trials using a development of the P.1127 known as the Kestrel.” Harrier 809, Rowland White, pg. 75
@ahmet8368 30 enemy aircraft kills to 10 losses. None of the losses were from aircraft hits.
It's a set of significant compromises but it had its place and was revolutionary in concept.
🗿
Russian F 114 👑👑🤔🤔🤔
Good❤❤
Hi
Can someone please explain what an "airplane" is?
a vehicle designed for air travel that has wings and one or more engine
Rotary wing is a dumb and fundamentally flawed approach to domestic transport.
It's incredibly inefficient in all regards.
Hopefully it never takes off in either sense 🙏
使えない戦闘機。大きなファンがあるため燃料があまり積めないから航続距離が少ない。戦闘も限られる❗
The pile of junk can only land in very clean areas. The vertical lift fan will suck in birds, dirt , small rocks and a large number of other items.
There are no pristine areas in forward combat areas ... so the thing is junk.
I disagree, it can land vertically, it can take off STOVL , fly faster than the speed of sound, but it is a flawed compromise, and not a true successor to the Harrier, which has true VTOL performance!