Okay guys i need help with this one, i am trying to nail vetical takeoffs with the JSF. It seems that once i am in the air in hover mode it doesnt want to come out of hover mode. What do i have to do to return to normal flight mode?
@RSprtn117 What controls do you have. Try lowering the nose to gain forward movemant then disable hover, keep power below 95% (My grandson has Energy Airforce aim strike, and the the 35 VSTOL is in it)
@joylynn66 what idiot told you they cancelled the F35? it's still in full speed development. as for the latter, well, if you're not impressed by the harrier then you're just too cool for school i guess. by the by, F35 will be far FAR superior to the Harrier.
@F35man2 you're wrong, that's a B. f35C is the naval version with larger wing, stronger gears and other small variations. it won't be capable of VTOL.
@F35man2 Nope. Like what oldfriend said, the B is the VTOL variant. F-35A: CTOL and some stealth. F-35B: VTOL in place of tailhook. F-35C: carrier variant with larger wings, foldable wingtips, larger control surfaces, stronger landing gear, and tailhook. F-35I: Israeli modifications including external jamming pods, air-to-air missiles, and guided bombs. CF-35: Canadian F-35 with a chute and refueling probe.
@Kristiants1 Sure, at 50% fuel and no armaments. But to receive the VTOL designation, it must be able to perform the maneuver while combat effective. Therefore it's a STOVL aircraft.
@technoswitch 208,000 people who made a mistake, who have a real life, and will regret that they wasted almost four minutes of their life on this POS video.
@cortezpilot why are you insulting his videos, atleast he has some! He took the time, you didn't. The whole point of youtube was to share videos, and this is what he did.
@VAVirginAtlantic thx mister, yes it was more of a video to show how one can practice take off and landings in F-35B, some ppl just dont get it, its not an ez task to land V-TAL plane on a moving Carrier at 5 knts speed with ocean winds, hehe
@cortezpilot smoke a joint and reflect on how stupid you sound by complaining about it! If hes a loser, making a loser video, what are you doing spending your time watching it, and further more complaining you don't like it.
@technoswitch Neat vid, what game is this? can you fly sr71 or f22's or b2bombers? is their easy mode to make it fun? never played a sim thanks for bringing my attention to this game.
so they give it internal weapon bays to maintain its stelth abilatys, then they only give it space for 2 amraam's and 2 jadam's and no cannon so to make it usfall for close air support they have to put external weapons on and compromise its stealth... so what was the point of making it stealth in the first place
@marineooo5 apart from the VTOL jsf.. it has no internal cannon, as the jump fan in the front takes up the space that the cannon and ammo drumb would normaly sit on the other 2 variations
Farecars - you're probable not too far from the thruth. Britain more than likely gave America decades worth of research and test information. Lets face it, they ain't really come up with anything you could say was 100% American. They have the money but not the brains. The irony of it is they think they are the smartest people on the Earth. Yeah right.
Question-will it turn on the spot, fly backwards, do a nose dip. Not nessesarily operational requirements but the design of the Harrier is such that it can do these. If the F-35 can't seems to me we have another Concorde situation - aviation is going in reverse. Apart from going supersonic, what is the BIG advance? I suggest it is NOT the aircraft design but the computer programs that allow the pilots to fly the thing. By that I mean, less talented pilots will fly it than presently fly Harriers.
@shearersshorts Again, FYI.....these maneuvers were attained based on the number of engines, and their placement along the fuselage. The GR.3 was designed as a small ground attack aircraft, not as a VTOL-capable supersonic fighter. I respect your patriotism a great deal, but you are comparing apples to oranges. The F-35/ X-35B VTOL capabilities were, in part, designed by request of the Royal Navy and the US Navy. This is not a step back, but a merging of techs.
God even the name "Lightning" is an old classic intercepter/fighter (English Electric Lightning) from 1960's Britain's Royal Air Force. Now THAT was a plane. Even this would never catch it.
@pdx2dam To be more accurate it was named after BOTH the P-38 Lightning (Which was also Lockheed built) and the BAC built English Electric Lightning. However the II (2) probably comes more from the P-38.
@shearersshorts Just as an FYI...the first military fighter plane to carry the moniker "lightning" was the US-built Lockheed P-38J "Lightning", which first saw service in 1942. She was not well suited for combat in the ETO, but served very well in the PTO during WWII.
America takes 50 years to catch up and suddenly it wonderful, can do this, do that..... Wake up! The Harrier and Russian plnes are VTOL this extremely expensive copy of a 60 year old design is still only STOVL . A bit like building a lift (elevator) that only goes up and telling everyone how brilliant it is when everyone in the rest of the world has been going up AND down for decades.
The Harrier was started with the P.1127. Designed in 1957 by Sir Sydney Camm, Ralph Hooper of Hawker Aviation and Stanley Hooker of the Bristol Engine Company. Rather than using an innovative vectored thrust turbofan engine and the first vertical take-off was on October 21, 1960. McDonnell Douglas built it under licence for US Marines. 1st flight 1978, introduced into service in 1985 (35 yrs later).
Where did you get the idea it was a joint project? Suppose it wasbetween 2 BRITISH Companies.
wrong, it was British and then the americans couldnt make there own so the asked if they could make it in the USA under licence, they then developed the wanted a biger version so they joint developed the AV8 wich is was the same as the GR7 . the americans had no hand in the origanal development and infact they tried to get the project canceled at first like they messed up the TSR2 and the SR177
F-35 is the stolen Soviet and Russian technologies. VTOL Jak-141 (1989) and VTOL Jak-201 (russian stealth, 1997) is prototype of F-35 (2001). Its simple copying of russian technologies ...
Technically, it wasn't stolen, Yakolev decided to develop the Yak-141 with Lockheed Martin, when Russia didn't want to fund the project, creating the X-35.
Its lie Yakovlev Design Bureau DID NOT SELL DOCUMENTS. Lockheed Martin has bribed (500.000 $!!!) one employee of Yakovlev Design Bureau for drawings on Jak-141 and engine R-79V-300. It was absolutely illegal bargain. It is a payoff of the personnel. This is INDUSTRIAL LARCENY of TECHNOLOGIES!
Only 1 version of th F 35 is VTOl, out of 3. And, yes LM licensed the tech and improved it, not stole it. There's a big difference. Licensing is legal, stealing is not. If you want an example of stealing, just look at the Chinese. Other than that the Yak and JSF are completely different.
Learn simple FACT: Lockheed Martin has bribed (500.000 $!!!) one employee of Yakovlev Design Bureau for drawings on Jak-141 and engine R-79V-300. It was absolutely illegal bargain. It is a payoff of the personnel. This is INDUSTRIAL LARCENY of TECHNOLOGIES!
i just love how the F-35 can hover... seriously these planes might be one that can hover through tight spaces without having to crash in any sky scrapers...
i like the f 35, but i dont want it to replace the f-18's in the future... but its good that thier replacing the aging harriers
the navy should just make a pocket size version of the f-22 that would be better than the f-35... mainly cause u have more more power with twin engines and the fact that the f-35 should be used more as an attack aircraft than fighter
F-22 is an Air Superiority fighter, F-35 is a multi-role fighter (as Im sure you allready know) the reason why the Navy/Marines would take the F-35 is not because of its size but because of the fact that its a multi-role fighter, when youre on an Aircraft Carrier and you have a limit to the amount of Aircraft you can carry, its best to have alot of all-in-one type of aircrafts, instead of a small amount of single mission aircraft.
F-35 is a JSF (Joint strike fighter) able to fit the role of an F-18, but its biggest issue through my mind is that it only has 1 engine. I would say it is safer to fly a Tomcat through a high risk mission than an F-35 for that reason, because if anything goes wrong with that 1 engine, you can't do anything but pull your shoot. Too many things can go wrong with a 1 engine aircraft. The F-22 is an American try hard copy of a mig.
@Wabitfan the navy is using the super hornet, the F-18 E and F versions, which are bigger and stronger versions of the F-18. the Navy rejected the naval F-22 since it would be too costly and decided to use the F-18 superhornet and F-35 C lightning
Because if they could achieve all the requirements of each service (USAF,US Marines, US navy, UK Navy etc etc) in one aircraft model it would be cheaper all round , development would be cheaper, actual aircraft cheaper (one set of parts , build line etc)
Why three variants well there was just one but it did not work out on paper I think - cause it was to much of a compromise so it got tailored lots of commonality but :
B Variant needs to keep the weight down for the Vertical Landing etc
C Variant needs a bigger wing to the A for I assume lift taking off and landing on a carrier.
A Variant is CTOL - Conventional Takeoff and Landing - Air Force
B Variant is STOVL - Short Take Off Vertical Landing - Harrier replacement, Marines, small carriers , could veritcal takeoff but costs alot of fuel so heavy hence not much use to take off vertically cause U can't carry any bombs etc cause of the weight
C Variant - CV - Carrier , Navy large carriers with catapults
It's not about lockheed Martin -it's about giving our air force the best and most economical aircraft. The only difference between the A B and C models is takeoff and landing procedures.
Ok- someone tell me if this design isn't practical, but listen first:
So right now, we've got 3 F-35 variants: F-35A, B, and C. A is for CTOL land bases, B for VTOL on Carriers and Bases, and C for carrier landings and catapults.
Why not make an F-35B/C? One that can do it all: CTOL, VTOL, and Carrier Takeoffs and landings. I have a feeling that it has to do with money, but this would eliminate having to modify F-35s when being transferred between jobs.
Conventional airport takeoffs allow for an aircraft to be heavier, more bombs etc, thus the A. The Marines require as little space to maneuver as possible because they only have a fraction of the budget and their carriers hardly have a runway, plus they operate in more underdeveloped area, thus the B. Vertical takeoff destroys fuel economy and so if a carrier launch is available it will save money and again, allow the aircraft to take off heavier than a B, thus the C
I agree that CTOL and VTOL both have their advantages, and we need both. My point: make a hybird F-35. The F-35A/B/C/.
An F-35 that can take off of air bases and carry a heavier load, or a carrier with less of a load. This F-35 would also have VTOL capabilities. Adjusting the payload is more practical than having to modify the entire aircraft when transferring roles.
On the other hand, having the VTOL characteristics add weight. So you could always get rid of the VTOL part.
The F35B and F35C are aimed at different US services. It's all about inter-service rivalry - the USN want's to keep their enormous carriers and the USMC wants to keep the ability to work from unprepared surfaces inland as well as their smaller carriers.
That would be STOVL. Which is the F-35C. The B and C can already do what the A can. The carrier version I thinkn can also do vetical takeoff, as the military calender hanging on my wall says.
i think the Navy Air Force and Marines need a common fighter. the whole point of the f-35 is that it's the JSF. Make a universal f-35 with a VTOL fan, catapult connector and arrestor hook- then you can operate from a VTOL facility, carrier, and air base. Use the air base for USAF heavy payload missions, carrier to save VTOL fuel, and VTOL takeoffs for the tiny USMC carriers. Ok, so maybe this adds some weight- but what's a little weight compared to versatility
STOVL is what the Navy WILL use. The C is a VTOL aircraft also designed for carrier operation. STOVL stands for Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing. The Marines will use a non-carrier version because they use US Navy Amphibious Assault ships such as the USNS Bohemme Richard. What you said is describing what is already been planned.
bobby. the issue is with the VTOL, the lift fan and other VTOL components take lots of space and the plane needs to be light in order to take off vertically/short distances. the F35B doesn't have the capacity of carrying as much fuel and ammo as the C and A and the US Marines use their planes for close air support. air force and navy need the longer range and more ammo for more missions like air patrol, deep interdiction, etc. carrier planes have to be strong to land and launch than air force
I really don't know why the Marines have a hard on for having the vertical takeoff capability. That thing has way too many moving parts. I foresee a lot of mishaps in the future for the B model.
that is a good point ryank, it could be too many moving parts and can be vulnerable, especially when deployed on a rough airstrip/space where foreign objects could foul up the engines/fan. in a tactical sense, the vtol has the strength of being able to take off in a small amount of space and can operate near the troops, so it can quickly provide CAS which they mostly use air for. marines should have a few C's for air patrol or deep interdiction, etc
this one is F-35B - VTOL (vertical take off and landing),.. the F-35C is a carrier with take off using catapult,.. and there is F-35A for land based ops
Why make a catapult version when you have a VTOL? Wasn't the Navy's dream to have like 50 VTOLs taking off at once?
Same with having a land based version- I'd always take the VTOL instead. What they SHOULD do is make ONE F-35 that is as versatile as possible: Basically, an F-35A/C. It can have the carrier options, as well as VTOL. So basically, an F-35 with a strong undercarriage, cable hook, catapult, and VTOL fan. Please tell me what the point of having CTOL when you can have all VTOL!
To answer your question...the US NAVY has a requirement that the aircraft has to be able survive a controlled crash and a Moonshot launch. If you are going to carry heavy weapons like the USAF, you need to have a catapult to launch which requires the aircraft to have reinforced landing gears that don't rip off on launch. You need an arrestor system to recover the aircraft because your landing space is less than 330 ft.
I am aware of carrier procedures FYI- no need to tell me about the catapults and arrestors. That doesn't explain why we can't have an F-35 with VTOL stuff and catapult attachment and arrestor wire hook - use different takeoffs depending on mission
Once again you need reinforced landing gears that don't break when you drop the aircraft out of the air onto the deck at 160knots. That is why the navy needs a different varient.
Part of it is that the F-35 is a multinational consortium. Everyone has a hand on specifics. The brits have a higher stake in this, because they want to replace their Harrier sea force. Also lessons learned from the past... the F-4 phantom. They added an internal gun for the USAF in the E model. Plus if they are able to make the changes without makinfg the plane from scratch thanks to modular building. The list can go on. You do have a good point.
do not be confused i made this VIDEO usina VIDEO GAME called: OVER-G FIGHTERS (xbox360 console) just look it up on youtube or internet OVER-G FIGHTERS, thx for comment
I gotta agree. Worse match of music to video I've seen. The video is very cool, tho. Except for the F-14s sharing the deck with an F-35B. Never happen/-ed.
1-st of all, I am as straight as i can get, ask your sister she liked the way i i do things, and 2-nd of all you are a little fag-boy, let me find you and teach you a lesson
ok, challenge accepted. To all of the men and women serving this nation, I want you to know that this video that was made by a couch and desk pilot that wishes they were you, is gay and has gayties women's music for a soundtrack. Simulators are for training real pilots like myself, not for posting imitation videos on youtube.
i don't have beef with you, i made this video,.. but the dush-bag BARTJI above is dissing me like a bitch,.. calling me gay with a laptop, i made a good video and its all me Flying simulated F-35B, but some ppl are jelous,.. COMRADE1
ok, challenge accepted. To all of the men and women serving this nation, I want you to know that this video that was made by a couch and desk pilot that wishes they were you, is gay and has gayties women's music for a soundtrack. Simulators are for training real pilots like myself, not for posting imitation videos on youtube.
If our great friend England has the Eurofighter and the F-35 and the U.S. has the F-22 and the F-35 and France has the Rafael these are the finest fighters in the world, the Ruskies and the Chicoms are screwed! LOL
my guess is F-16 will be replaced by F-35A (A army) , AV8 by F-35B (the hovering version) and F-18 by F-35C (C carrier version) but its just a guess; anything can happen or not
WHAT'S THE SONG'S NAME AGAIN??
orfan9ma 2 months ago in playlist Liked
how do you switch from normal flying to theVTOL option on xbox?? what button to use?
thomaswever1 4 months ago
Okay guys i need help with this one, i am trying to nail vetical takeoffs with the JSF. It seems that once i am in the air in hover mode it doesnt want to come out of hover mode. What do i have to do to return to normal flight mode?
RSprtn117 10 months ago
@RSprtn117 What controls do you have. Try lowering the nose to gain forward movemant then disable hover, keep power below 95% (My grandson has Energy Airforce aim strike, and the the 35 VSTOL is in it)
SuperAncientmariner 10 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner Thanks, I went with foward motion and once it had enough speed the mode was disengaged. Really appreciated.
RSprtn117 9 months ago
@RSprtn117 My pleasure old chap.
SuperAncientmariner 9 months ago
Thank God they had the sense to stop funding this totally useless fancy lil plane....besides, already been done and wasnt impressed then...(Harrier?)
joylynn66 11 months ago
@joylynn66 what idiot told you they cancelled the F35? it's still in full speed development. as for the latter, well, if you're not impressed by the harrier then you're just too cool for school i guess. by the by, F35 will be far FAR superior to the Harrier.
oldfrend 11 months ago
I know this video is fake, but, the F-35 can actually do that. I love this fighter plane...
skeezysquirrel 1 year ago
Oh it's fake lol i thought it was real
abcabcabdfg 1 year ago
this aircraft is awesome check the real footage. and great music, love aerosmith,
KevinFirm 1 year ago
Is this 'Over-G Fighters'? I have it on Xbox, but no way did I imagine they had an F35 on it!
AdamAlim95 1 year ago
Why is this an F-35B when the Navy will be getting the F-35C, which is extremely different than both the F-35A and F-35B
Zethioth 1 year ago
@Zethioth That is a C. He just got it wrong
F35man2 1 year ago
@F35man2 you're wrong, that's a B. f35C is the naval version with larger wing, stronger gears and other small variations. it won't be capable of VTOL.
oldfrend 11 months ago
@oldfrend Thanks! I kinda get 'em mixed up
F35man2 11 months ago
@F35man2 Nope. Like what oldfriend said, the B is the VTOL variant. F-35A: CTOL and some stealth. F-35B: VTOL in place of tailhook. F-35C: carrier variant with larger wings, foldable wingtips, larger control surfaces, stronger landing gear, and tailhook. F-35I: Israeli modifications including external jamming pods, air-to-air missiles, and guided bombs. CF-35: Canadian F-35 with a chute and refueling probe.
Kristiants1 9 months ago
@Kristiants1 Just an FYI; It's STOVL, not VTOL.
nexus1g 4 months ago
@nexus1g But can't it be VTOL if they don't load it up as much?
Kristiants1 4 months ago
@Kristiants1 Sure, at 50% fuel and no armaments. But to receive the VTOL designation, it must be able to perform the maneuver while combat effective. Therefore it's a STOVL aircraft.
nexus1g 4 months ago
@nexus1g Oh ok, thanks for letting me know! :) For everyone else, The B is actually the STOVL variant.
Kristiants1 3 months ago
@nexus1g what's STOVL pls?
polygamous1 3 months ago
@polygamous1 STOVL is short for Short Take-off and Vertical Landing. VTOL is short for Vertical Take-off and Landing.
nexus1g 3 months ago
Great job, the music fit the video just perfectly. Added emotion
deadLEE15 1 year ago
the easiest take off ever
Noname2903 1 year ago
Great video, shit music!
politirel 1 year ago
@politirel +1
chuanist 1 year ago
@politirel +1 music is unfortunate. Just because the editing software lets us add it does not mean that we should!
chuanist 1 year ago
Really cool video man..
RowMysterTwitch 1 year ago
The F-35's electronics is so high tech that it is superior than any jet exsisting; youtube.com/watch?v=cPKw3RksCcI
hesap11th 1 year ago
haha cool. I think you should have comp'd a pilot into the cockpit and made him sing the song. music video style :)
azmanntoz 1 year ago
Pretty video, nice premise, reasonable dynamics although I don't think the servos are that smooth under real time conditions, but still.
doceigen 1 year ago
@doceigen yeahh,... i have yet to see that plane in real life,.. even experementals they fly with like 20% of fuel load
technoswitch 1 year ago
@technoswitch watch these vids. they should asnwer your question.
F-35 JSF Lightning II
F-35 JSF VERTICAL TAKEOFF
7ggomez 1 year ago
@technoswitch i believe either this year or next year, the marines in Yuma, AZ are going to fly this in their air shows
MHDuPont 1 year ago
only a looser chode would take the time to make this video and post it on youtube.
cortezpilot 1 year ago
@cortezpilot ,.. i am a looser , at least ppl like my shitttt i got 208,000 views
technoswitch 1 year ago
@technoswitch 208,000 people who made a mistake, who have a real life, and will regret that they wasted almost four minutes of their life on this POS video.
cortezpilot 1 year ago
@technoswitch The majority of the people don't like the video. Sorry to burst your little bubble.
cortezpilot 1 year ago
@cortezpilot why are you insulting his videos, atleast he has some! He took the time, you didn't. The whole point of youtube was to share videos, and this is what he did.
VAVirginAtlantic 1 year ago
@VAVirginAtlantic thx mister, yes it was more of a video to show how one can practice take off and landings in F-35B, some ppl just dont get it, its not an ez task to land V-TAL plane on a moving Carrier at 5 knts speed with ocean winds, hehe
technoswitch 1 year ago
@cortezpilot smoke a joint and reflect on how stupid you sound by complaining about it! If hes a loser, making a loser video, what are you doing spending your time watching it, and further more complaining you don't like it.
@technoswitch Neat vid, what game is this? can you fly sr71 or f22's or b2bombers? is their easy mode to make it fun? never played a sim thanks for bringing my attention to this game.
architect333 1 year ago
@architect333 yes there is an F-22 in this game just type OVER-G on you tube
technoswitch 1 year ago
what is the background song?
toootooot 1 year ago
@toootooot Fly Away from Here by Aerosmith.
Kristiants1 9 months ago
what a nice toy to have
kataphuket 1 year ago
Sold to USA? Lockheed is American I think. I'm not a hater, just saying.
shadowblade145 1 year ago
geee, thanks for the fake video passed of as real.
b1cc2 1 year ago
i never claimed this video is real,.. whats wrong with you, read credits at the end i list simulator used,..;o)
technoswitch 1 year ago
@technoswitch Yeah, but you put it in the CREDITS at THE END! so we have to watch the whole thing
SimonMarrNo1 1 year ago
@b1cc2 ur a dumbass for thinking hes passing it off as real
vickfan24707 1 year ago
so they give it internal weapon bays to maintain its stelth abilatys, then they only give it space for 2 amraam's and 2 jadam's and no cannon so to make it usfall for close air support they have to put external weapons on and compromise its stealth... so what was the point of making it stealth in the first place
zebadee277 1 year ago
@zebadee277 Everysingle US fighter has atleast a 20 mm cannon for dogfighting. We remeber Vietnam
marineooo5 1 year ago
@marineooo5 apart from the VTOL jsf.. it has no internal cannon, as the jump fan in the front takes up the space that the cannon and ammo drumb would normaly sit on the other 2 variations
zebadee277 1 year ago
Farecars - you're probable not too far from the thruth. Britain more than likely gave America decades worth of research and test information. Lets face it, they ain't really come up with anything you could say was 100% American. They have the money but not the brains. The irony of it is they think they are the smartest people on the Earth. Yeah right.
shearersshorts 1 year ago
maybe it's time convert all apache to F-35.. i think it is more powerful with the speed and it can quickly response the ground forces..
korokongkongtokoy 1 year ago
@korokongkongtokoy
That doesn't even make sense.
An F-35 can't hover on scene and provide the same kind of air cover.
Helicopters aren't going to be replaced by planes anytime in the conceivable future.
actionhank1786 1 year ago
Question-will it turn on the spot, fly backwards, do a nose dip. Not nessesarily operational requirements but the design of the Harrier is such that it can do these. If the F-35 can't seems to me we have another Concorde situation - aviation is going in reverse. Apart from going supersonic, what is the BIG advance? I suggest it is NOT the aircraft design but the computer programs that allow the pilots to fly the thing. By that I mean, less talented pilots will fly it than presently fly Harriers.
shearersshorts 2 years ago
@shearersshorts Again, FYI.....these maneuvers were attained based on the number of engines, and their placement along the fuselage. The GR.3 was designed as a small ground attack aircraft, not as a VTOL-capable supersonic fighter. I respect your patriotism a great deal, but you are comparing apples to oranges. The F-35/ X-35B VTOL capabilities were, in part, designed by request of the Royal Navy and the US Navy. This is not a step back, but a merging of techs.
dlmaston 1 year ago
Sky car + Conventional jet fighter = F-35, VTOL, safe, easy handling. Brilliant!
Wesly065 2 years ago
God even the name "Lightning" is an old classic intercepter/fighter (English Electric Lightning) from 1960's Britain's Royal Air Force. Now THAT was a plane. Even this would never catch it.
shearersshorts 2 years ago
its not named after that lightning, rather its named after the p38 lightning
pdx2dam 2 years ago 2
@pdx2dam To be more accurate it was named after BOTH the P-38 Lightning (Which was also Lockheed built) and the BAC built English Electric Lightning. However the II (2) probably comes more from the P-38.
Petersworld518 1 year ago
@shearersshorts Just as an FYI...the first military fighter plane to carry the moniker "lightning" was the US-built Lockheed P-38J "Lightning", which first saw service in 1942. She was not well suited for combat in the ETO, but served very well in the PTO during WWII.
dlmaston 1 year ago
America takes 50 years to catch up and suddenly it wonderful, can do this, do that..... Wake up! The Harrier and Russian plnes are VTOL this extremely expensive copy of a 60 year old design is still only STOVL . A bit like building a lift (elevator) that only goes up and telling everyone how brilliant it is when everyone in the rest of the world has been going up AND down for decades.
shearersshorts 2 years ago
You DO know the Harrier was a joint project right? The British are not the sole owners.
kickZtailout 2 years ago
The Harrier was started with the P.1127. Designed in 1957 by Sir Sydney Camm, Ralph Hooper of Hawker Aviation and Stanley Hooker of the Bristol Engine Company. Rather than using an innovative vectored thrust turbofan engine and the first vertical take-off was on October 21, 1960. McDonnell Douglas built it under licence for US Marines. 1st flight 1978, introduced into service in 1985 (35 yrs later).
Where did you get the idea it was a joint project? Suppose it wasbetween 2 BRITISH Companies.
shearersshorts 2 years ago
No it was British and we sold it to the USA.
farecars 1 year ago 2
wrong, it was British and then the americans couldnt make there own so the asked if they could make it in the USA under licence, they then developed the wanted a biger version so they joint developed the AV8 wich is was the same as the GR7 . the americans had no hand in the origanal development and infact they tried to get the project canceled at first like they messed up the TSR2 and the SR177
zebadee277 1 year ago
look this: h ttp : // blogs . r uvr . ru / users/krivich_sagem/post91700392/
asktay 2 years ago
Learn this:
Soyuz original engine (absolutely surpass engine vs Harrier): Р-79В-300 (1987)
Look this:
htt p: // w ww . amntksoyuz . r u / engines / airengines / history/#r79v-300/
asktay 2 years ago
Hahaha!!!
Thiefs!!!
F-35 is the stolen Soviet and Russian technologies. VTOL Jak-141 (1989) and VTOL Jak-201 (russian stealth, 1997) is prototype of F-35 (2001). Its simple copying of russian technologies ...
asktay 2 years ago
Technically, it wasn't stolen, Yakolev decided to develop the Yak-141 with Lockheed Martin, when Russia didn't want to fund the project, creating the X-35.
starrodkirby 2 years ago
Its lie Yakovlev Design Bureau DID NOT SELL DOCUMENTS. Lockheed Martin has bribed (500.000 $!!!) one employee of Yakovlev Design Bureau for drawings on Jak-141 and engine R-79V-300. It was absolutely illegal bargain. It is a payoff of the personnel. This is INDUSTRIAL LARCENY of TECHNOLOGIES!
asktay 2 years ago
You are just a jelious dirt russian who have shit planes that are only bought by you guys and a few nieghbouring countries
AccountNotFound 2 years ago
Only 1 version of th F 35 is VTOl, out of 3. And, yes LM licensed the tech and improved it, not stole it. There's a big difference. Licensing is legal, stealing is not. If you want an example of stealing, just look at the Chinese. Other than that the Yak and JSF are completely different.
asusucks 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Learn simple FACT: Lockheed Martin has bribed (500.000 $!!!) one employee of Yakovlev Design Bureau for drawings on Jak-141 and engine R-79V-300. It was absolutely illegal bargain. It is a payoff of the personnel. This is INDUSTRIAL LARCENY of TECHNOLOGIES!
asktay 2 years ago
i just love how the F-35 can hover... seriously these planes might be one that can hover through tight spaces without having to crash in any sky scrapers...
bguguen 2 years ago
lol at first i didnt know that this was a simulation
dellart32 2 years ago
great vid.. what simulator is this?.. FSX ?
segr3do 2 years ago 2
nahh,.. its xbox360 console game/sim "OVER-G FIGHTERTS"
technoswitch 2 years ago
The F-35 Lightning II is my favorite plan ever. It would be my dream job to fly an F-35.
ChineseDemocracyGNR 2 years ago
I bet that the Tomcats are for it's escort
Clavier35 2 years ago
Nothing new. Only a Yakovlev Yak-141 modernized.
redleocabral 2 years ago
spammer fagit
Jordan22473 2 years ago
gay music
trainman95 2 years ago
i like the f 35, but i dont want it to replace the f-18's in the future... but its good that thier replacing the aging harriers
the navy should just make a pocket size version of the f-22 that would be better than the f-35... mainly cause u have more more power with twin engines and the fact that the f-35 should be used more as an attack aircraft than fighter
Wabitfan 2 years ago
F-22 is an Air Superiority fighter, F-35 is a multi-role fighter (as Im sure you allready know) the reason why the Navy/Marines would take the F-35 is not because of its size but because of the fact that its a multi-role fighter, when youre on an Aircraft Carrier and you have a limit to the amount of Aircraft you can carry, its best to have alot of all-in-one type of aircrafts, instead of a small amount of single mission aircraft.
Devilsfurry 2 years ago
F-35 is a JSF (Joint strike fighter) able to fit the role of an F-18, but its biggest issue through my mind is that it only has 1 engine. I would say it is safer to fly a Tomcat through a high risk mission than an F-35 for that reason, because if anything goes wrong with that 1 engine, you can't do anything but pull your shoot. Too many things can go wrong with a 1 engine aircraft. The F-22 is an American try hard copy of a mig.
bobofetaa 2 years ago
@Wabitfan the navy is using the super hornet, the F-18 E and F versions, which are bigger and stronger versions of the F-18. the Navy rejected the naval F-22 since it would be too costly and decided to use the F-18 superhornet and F-35 C lightning
knight6 1 year ago
the f35 is not allon u.s.a. is rom 8 country.
cedikatur 2 years ago
the F-35B is not as good as the A and C versions once it the air and cost twice as much.
masterlukes6000 2 years ago
this is true, however there is less of a need for the b than the a and c models, so it balances itself out
chestateegold 2 years ago
That isn't completely true, but that also isn't the point of the aircraft.
Vergil017 2 years ago
Because if they could achieve all the requirements of each service (USAF,US Marines, US navy, UK Navy etc etc) in one aircraft model it would be cheaper all round , development would be cheaper, actual aircraft cheaper (one set of parts , build line etc)
muppet2180 2 years ago
Why three variants well there was just one but it did not work out on paper I think - cause it was to much of a compromise so it got tailored lots of commonality but :
B Variant needs to keep the weight down for the Vertical Landing etc
C Variant needs a bigger wing to the A for I assume lift taking off and landing on a carrier.
A and B do not have a hook for a catapult
muppet2180 2 years ago
why would they need one.
sniper77shot 2 years ago
A Variant is CTOL - Conventional Takeoff and Landing - Air Force
B Variant is STOVL - Short Take Off Vertical Landing - Harrier replacement, Marines, small carriers , could veritcal takeoff but costs alot of fuel so heavy hence not much use to take off vertically cause U can't carry any bombs etc cause of the weight
C Variant - CV - Carrier , Navy large carriers with catapults
muppet2180 2 years ago
It's not about lockheed Martin -it's about giving our air force the best and most economical aircraft. The only difference between the A B and C models is takeoff and landing procedures.
BobbyB654321 2 years ago
Ok- someone tell me if this design isn't practical, but listen first:
So right now, we've got 3 F-35 variants: F-35A, B, and C. A is for CTOL land bases, B for VTOL on Carriers and Bases, and C for carrier landings and catapults.
Why not make an F-35B/C? One that can do it all: CTOL, VTOL, and Carrier Takeoffs and landings. I have a feeling that it has to do with money, but this would eliminate having to modify F-35s when being transferred between jobs.
Please comment!
BobbyB654321 2 years ago
Conventional airport takeoffs allow for an aircraft to be heavier, more bombs etc, thus the A. The Marines require as little space to maneuver as possible because they only have a fraction of the budget and their carriers hardly have a runway, plus they operate in more underdeveloped area, thus the B. Vertical takeoff destroys fuel economy and so if a carrier launch is available it will save money and again, allow the aircraft to take off heavier than a B, thus the C
clash1485 2 years ago
I agree that CTOL and VTOL both have their advantages, and we need both. My point: make a hybird F-35. The F-35A/B/C/.
An F-35 that can take off of air bases and carry a heavier load, or a carrier with less of a load. This F-35 would also have VTOL capabilities. Adjusting the payload is more practical than having to modify the entire aircraft when transferring roles.
On the other hand, having the VTOL characteristics add weight. So you could always get rid of the VTOL part.
BobbyB654321 2 years ago
that would not be good for defense contractors - they need as many diff models to make money
technoswitch 2 years ago
The F35B and F35C are aimed at different US services. It's all about inter-service rivalry - the USN want's to keep their enormous carriers and the USMC wants to keep the ability to work from unprepared surfaces inland as well as their smaller carriers.
So a combined version simply won't happen!
DerekClarke 2 years ago
That would be STOVL. Which is the F-35C. The B and C can already do what the A can. The carrier version I thinkn can also do vetical takeoff, as the military calender hanging on my wall says.
wyomingrailfan 2 years ago
Look- everyones missing the point
i think the Navy Air Force and Marines need a common fighter. the whole point of the f-35 is that it's the JSF. Make a universal f-35 with a VTOL fan, catapult connector and arrestor hook- then you can operate from a VTOL facility, carrier, and air base. Use the air base for USAF heavy payload missions, carrier to save VTOL fuel, and VTOL takeoffs for the tiny USMC carriers. Ok, so maybe this adds some weight- but what's a little weight compared to versatility
BobbyB654321 2 years ago
STOVL is what the Navy WILL use. The C is a VTOL aircraft also designed for carrier operation. STOVL stands for Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing. The Marines will use a non-carrier version because they use US Navy Amphibious Assault ships such as the USNS Bohemme Richard. What you said is describing what is already been planned.
wyomingrailfan 2 years ago
bobby. the issue is with the VTOL, the lift fan and other VTOL components take lots of space and the plane needs to be light in order to take off vertically/short distances. the F35B doesn't have the capacity of carrying as much fuel and ammo as the C and A and the US Marines use their planes for close air support. air force and navy need the longer range and more ammo for more missions like air patrol, deep interdiction, etc. carrier planes have to be strong to land and launch than air force
knight6 2 years ago
I really don't know why the Marines have a hard on for having the vertical takeoff capability. That thing has way too many moving parts. I foresee a lot of mishaps in the future for the B model.
ryank289 2 years ago
that is a good point ryank, it could be too many moving parts and can be vulnerable, especially when deployed on a rough airstrip/space where foreign objects could foul up the engines/fan. in a tactical sense, the vtol has the strength of being able to take off in a small amount of space and can operate near the troops, so it can quickly provide CAS which they mostly use air for. marines should have a few C's for air patrol or deep interdiction, etc
knight6 2 years ago
F-35C or F-35B? F-35C is in carrier
grhaf100 2 years ago
this one is F-35B - VTOL (vertical take off and landing),.. the F-35C is a carrier with take off using catapult,.. and there is F-35A for land based ops
technoswitch 2 years ago
I know... thanks.
grhaf100 2 years ago
Why make a catapult version when you have a VTOL? Wasn't the Navy's dream to have like 50 VTOLs taking off at once?
Same with having a land based version- I'd always take the VTOL instead. What they SHOULD do is make ONE F-35 that is as versatile as possible: Basically, an F-35A/C. It can have the carrier options, as well as VTOL. So basically, an F-35 with a strong undercarriage, cable hook, catapult, and VTOL fan. Please tell me what the point of having CTOL when you can have all VTOL!
BobbyB654321 2 years ago
To answer your question...the US NAVY has a requirement that the aircraft has to be able survive a controlled crash and a Moonshot launch. If you are going to carry heavy weapons like the USAF, you need to have a catapult to launch which requires the aircraft to have reinforced landing gears that don't rip off on launch. You need an arrestor system to recover the aircraft because your landing space is less than 330 ft.
sensualhand 2 years ago
I am aware of carrier procedures FYI- no need to tell me about the catapults and arrestors. That doesn't explain why we can't have an F-35 with VTOL stuff and catapult attachment and arrestor wire hook - use different takeoffs depending on mission
BobbyB654321 2 years ago
Once again you need reinforced landing gears that don't break when you drop the aircraft out of the air onto the deck at 160knots. That is why the navy needs a different varient.
sensualhand 2 years ago
Part of it is that the F-35 is a multinational consortium. Everyone has a hand on specifics. The brits have a higher stake in this, because they want to replace their Harrier sea force. Also lessons learned from the past... the F-4 phantom. They added an internal gun for the USAF in the E model. Plus if they are able to make the changes without makinfg the plane from scratch thanks to modular building. The list can go on. You do have a good point.
sensualhand 2 years ago
wtz the game
stylish3400 2 years ago
ahh; man! what's with the mushy music?
amartinjoe 2 years ago 2
why not, its AEROSMITH ,.. good stuff
technoswitch 2 years ago
nice computer simulation.....
but the music just doesnt go with the vid!
-Ali from Pakistan
aa2398a 2 years ago 2
ppl im really confused ,is this reall or a vid gameor an rc,lol,and if this was a vid game better tell me what is its name,and dude nice vid
AXISDEUTSCHE 2 years ago 2
do not be confused i made this VIDEO usina VIDEO GAME called: OVER-G FIGHTERS (xbox360 console) just look it up on youtube or internet OVER-G FIGHTERS, thx for comment
technoswitch 2 years ago
I gotta agree. Worse match of music to video I've seen. The video is very cool, tho. Except for the F-14s sharing the deck with an F-35B. Never happen/-ed.
iamfritz 2 years ago
well, as a creator, i like the song, so i kind of created this little simulation in combo.. it is what it is
technoswitch 2 years ago
Beautiful job man .Fucking plane is awsome great video
venustess 2 years ago
thank you,.. your comment is appreciated greatly
technoswitch 2 years ago
TRANSFORM BREAKAWAY!!! lol nice
haloisgayandqueer 2 years ago 2
thx, comment appreciated, ;o)
technoswitch 2 years ago
Good work on this video, the only problem is that the F-14s won't be there.
phidelt08 2 years ago
indeed, ... i tried my best for this video,.. F-14 is built in to the Aircraft Carrier set for the sim... agree F-14 will be gone
technoswitch 2 years ago
their already gone
Halfand8 2 years ago
Lol, holy fuck . . . that whining music!!!!! Without a doubt the most violent mismatch of all time.
wbceditor 2 years ago 2
to secretsquirrell and 8literbeater....
yes... this aircraft can absolutely do this... you shouldn't argue things you know nothing about.
hatchellm 2 years ago
yeah this is the first plane to take-off/land vertically and also go supersonic, secretsquirrel's just a retard
cmoney73 2 years ago
too bad this aircraft cant do this.
secretsquirrell13 2 years ago
...yes it can
Sentenashi 2 years ago
your an idiot thats the whole trump card about the plane that it can do those things and more.
randompplallaround77 2 years ago
yepp, randomppl, this guy is a tard,.. ignore him
technoswitch 2 years ago
hey technoswitch i don't want you to teach me a lesson
because well if you do
i might turn out like you
GAY
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
MrLawgasm 2 years ago
what?.. statement was directed to BARTJI, dude, you are not involved, i made this video myself, me flying the plane, but BARTJI is jelous little fag
technoswitch 2 years ago
ow course its some gay boy who sits on his laptop all day and make videos like this, get a jub you cheap shit!!
bartij 2 years ago
1-st of all, I am as straight as i can get, ask your sister she liked the way i i do things, and 2-nd of all you are a little fag-boy, let me find you and teach you a lesson
technoswitch 2 years ago
gay
8literbeater 2 years ago
you are a little fag-boy
technoswitch 2 years ago
ok, challenge accepted. To all of the men and women serving this nation, I want you to know that this video that was made by a couch and desk pilot that wishes they were you, is gay and has gayties women's music for a soundtrack. Simulators are for training real pilots like myself, not for posting imitation videos on youtube.
8literbeater 2 years ago
Why don't you tell that to those who serve this nation. I'm sure they'll appreciate it. Ungrateful fag.
TovarishOne 2 years ago
i don't have beef with you, i made this video,.. but the dush-bag BARTJI above is dissing me like a bitch,.. calling me gay with a laptop, i made a good video and its all me Flying simulated F-35B, but some ppl are jelous,.. COMRADE1
technoswitch 2 years ago
I was replying to BARTJI. I can tell it's simulated because the edges of the map are black.
TovarishOne 2 years ago
ok, challenge accepted. To all of the men and women serving this nation, I want you to know that this video that was made by a couch and desk pilot that wishes they were you, is gay and has gayties women's music for a soundtrack. Simulators are for training real pilots like myself, not for posting imitation videos on youtube.
8literbeater 2 years ago
Over G Fighters seems to have amazing graphics..
esmelcio 2 years ago
Microsoft flight simulator Acceleration PACK
daendiscoming 2 years ago
it is: OVER-G FIGHTERS (xbox360)
technoswitch 2 years ago
which is better over g or ace combat 6
gerrocks 2 years ago
HAWX is better
MeNaCe2s0cleTy 2 years ago
over-g
technoswitch 2 years ago
really how come
gerrocks 2 years ago
Comment removed
gerrocks 2 years ago
name of game ?????
alberto89ita 2 years ago
OVER-G FIGHTERS (xbox360)
technoswitch 2 years ago
name of game plz!
masterofinsanity1993 2 years ago
OVER-G FIGHTERS (xbox360)
technoswitch 2 years ago
I love the game!
trainzandbridgez101 2 years ago
ghey music
jonisawesome0 2 years ago
over g is way more of a sim then hawx hawx is more arcade, i have both games and like them both....however over g is very hard
davo1188 2 years ago
If our great friend England has the Eurofighter and the F-35 and the U.S. has the F-22 and the F-35 and France has the Rafael these are the finest fighters in the world, the Ruskies and the Chicoms are screwed! LOL
commieobama 2 years ago
my guess is F-16 will be replaced by F-35A (A army) , AV8 by F-35B (the hovering version) and F-18 by F-35C (C carrier version) but its just a guess; anything can happen or not
technoswitch 2 years ago
why does the royal navy get these before lockheed martin's native country america.
paintballguy113 2 years ago
because we have something better already and dont want it. but we love our friends and give them the best
Lifeisincredible911 2 years ago 4
because British Air Force bid 1/3 of the money of the whole project thats why, with out brits this project would have been a scrap.. only a prototype
technoswitch 2 years ago
because British Air Force bid 1/3 of the money of the whole project thats why, with out brits this project would have been a scrap.. only a prototype
technoswitch 2 years ago
People buy what they need. Brits always liked the harrier concept etc. America has the Raptor now ... so the J is ... stupid
Lifeisincredible911 2 years ago
so is Over-G actually a good sim AND a fun game to play? or is it more arcade game than sim like HAWX or Ace Combat.
wraithman07 2 years ago
more of a SIM than ARCADE
technoswitch 2 years ago
dam what game.
vary nice cam moves and good song pick.
Bonehead321123 2 years ago
OVER-G FIGHTERS (xbox360)
technoswitch 2 years ago
WITCH VIDEO GAME IS THAT
silcek75 2 years ago
OVER-G FIGHTERS (xbox360)
technoswitch 2 years ago