does anyone have a video of it actually taking off vertically and then flying forward...?
and also i wanna see the 'slow down' process where it goes from 'flying forward to hovering/landing'.. this one just seemed to show it already hovering..
also whats its max payload to where it can still takeoff verticaly, if any..?
This fighter looks very impressive. Besides its VSTOL capability, it apparently is also filled with software with wich it scans its surroundings for electronic activity. So its a flying computer.
But its also extremely expensive and development costs rise skyhigh. What do you think, should the Netherlands stay a partner in its development and a buyer of some 80 planes or should we buy something cheaper?
@Change6609 are you serious, do you think your country should have this plane, let me ask you a simple question do you want air superiority? I mean your not gonna have as much bad-ass software as us (as in USA) but at least you will have the plane
Well, actually, Dutch companies will participate in the production of the JSF. It was agreed they would participate in the second engine among other parts. And not only in the production for the Netherlands, but for other countries as well. Now in the US, the decision is taken that the JSF will have only one engine, to save money. Btw: the Dutch version would have exactly the same software as the US ones. Question remains if we can't buy a modern plane for less money nowadays...
3D or unmanned STV rejection fast-talk may cost some their program and job: E.g., the LAVI fighter. The 1st in aviation history flights of Stealth, Tailless 3D Vectoring [STV] with mini aero-control, stealth inlets/wing-body design took place in Israel in 1987 [May 18, 1987, Aviation Week]. Unclassified video in Facebook ["Benjamin Gal-Or"] explains sub/supersonic agility/safety gained by STV. EF, f35/f22 are not STV while unmanned NGB or ??? may be. Cf. X-44MANTA, X-47b, RQ-170, T-50, B-2.
@Taz1451 Saying the vertical take off was copied from the harrier is like saying supersonic flight was copied from the X-1. And the Harrier "copied" the concept of VTOL fromt the Short SC-1 (first operational jet VTOL). Or thats like saying all modern wings and airfoils were copied from the wright flyer. I don't mean to be a hater, but, come on.
@Taz1451 yea and isn't our two legs copied from the first homo-sapiens... ? Come on it's not a copy it's a capability.... If every first concept were not to be "copied" we would still be in our cave trying to figure out how to make fire another way than conventional...
@charlieechovictor Didn't realise it was such a personal subject! I just think it should stay exclusive to the harrier.. No other plane looks right going vertical..
i dont know, ithink it was used in the falk lands and in afganistan.
the problem aboult buiding these airplanes is that they are extreme expensive, and that money could also be used for something more productive rather than destructive.
They are building a carrier model and a regular model to replace the F-16. They wanted one plane to do all 3 jobs and had a fly off against another plane. The other companys plane lost because of STOL.
I just wonder if they had to do special things to get it to take of vertiacal that will hurt the other models.
well...heheh believe it or not but flying cars are out. Not yet in production but this dude made one that drives like a car, wings fold down with a prop mounted on the back and room for 4 people. check it out.
The f-53 can outmanouvre almost any plane except for an f-22 raptor. It is not as fast as some other planes, but has unprecedented sensor technology, allowing the pilot to make realtime decisions according to direct data. Its armament is better than that of the f-22 or f/A 18 hornets and super hornets. This allows it to perform extremely versatile missions. It can hover and take of like a harrier, but in every other aspect it is way ahead of the harrier.
damn right. Pitty australia is wasting money on both super hornets and jsf. If the yanks are going to be cunts and not sell the 22 to its closest ally's then we should at least look at the eurofighter, while it aint a 22 it has more than a snowballs chance in hell against those sukhois, unlike the 35. .
carrier crash landings are a regular occurence, the exact number annualy is classified. so I wonder if the vertical landing capability of the JSF meant precisely to address this? as a Seattle native I was disappointed Boeing didn't get awarded the JSF contract (though Boeing is a subcontractor). Still, the F-35 is pretty amazing. It's like a big Transformer.
When the horizontal velocity goes down to zero and the plane is slowly descending to the ground vertically. What would happen if the engine dies and then starts working again? will the plane be able to gain enough speed horizontally to avoid crashing in that short amount of time??
u can see STOVL written on the tail. That stands for Short Take Off & Vertical Landing. Short take off is preferred from vertical because it allows the plane to carry greater payload.Overall, STOVL is ideal for carrier missions. (see BAe Harrier , Sea Harrier & Falkland War)
Though I think it best that a policy of goodwill towards other nations is best, and to focus on more important things like poverty alleviation and environmental mitigation, it is utter stupidity to let go of military preparedness and technological advances that things like the JSFp represent. The US cld be the most benign country in the world tom but that wouldn't stop belligerence from hostile forces whether conventional (countries) or not (terror grps)
It will be a great thing to finally have the services unified with one attack craft. Funny thing is this attack craft will still be able to mow down nearly any other plane in anyone else's Air Force 'cept maybe the Israelis? I read where the Air Force version will nix the whole vertical take off thing and therefore have better performance. The Marines get the full package, so it can take of like the Harrier used too.
Hilarious reading all the comments in here by chickenhawks who talk like they've flown one of these bloated pieces of shit... Why not ask an actual pilot?
I've never flown one of these "bloated pieces of shit". However I do appreciate that amount of engineering that went into these devices. The research required to bring this plane into reality will also be put to good use in other research fields. e.g. virtual tooling, robotics, composite material fabrication, aviation, computing, power generation, computational analysis. just to name a few. I suspect in your infinite wisdom you just overlooked these minor unimportant trivial things.
Not at all. I love technology as much as the next man. You've basically just proven the point that if as much money and effort was expended on research in areas other than warfighting, the human race might have transcended this stupid old fashioned idea called War. Thanks to "the military industrial complex", we have to persist with something that hasn't really evolved much since people in grass skirts hit eachother over the head with big bones.
War will always be around, aslong as people disagree, have different beliefs, and there exists unbalances of power. The day war doesn't exist will be the day, murders, rapes, and thefts don't occur. There is no such thing as a utopian society. heh, I'm not expecting the return of God anytime soon.
feet77 is actually right. it's a good idea gone bad. do some unbias research. for it's cost and logistics, this plane really does not have any advantages to what we already have except for p.r. purposes. i doubt the U.S. military will order more than 200 of these planes in the end. hopefully we can pawn them off to allied nations. btw, i'm usually for military spending such as the f-22, but all in all, this is a waste of tax payer's money.
The best thing about palming them off to allied nations is that when those nations go "rogue" (see Iraq, Afghanistan, FYR, etc.,), the government can justify spending a few more tens of billions to counter the "threat" that they created ten years earlier. This is how the military industrial complex keeps itself going.
You are correct. Is this wrong? Of course we give them "lesser" models with sripped down avionics, radar systems, less powerful engines. This "military industrial complex" isn't the only entity in the world that does this.
You totally missed the point. What my comment implied is that the system is artificial. It creates demand by arming the very system that it claims to be trying to destroy. Meanwhile thousands of people (Americans, foreigners, and innocents) die needlessly in wars, and taxpayers get robbed of trillions of dollars.
The whole point of this plane is to follow up with a F22 first strike. The F22's roll in and take out any aircraft and certain SAM's clearing a path for the X-35's to take out the rest of the ground targets. Most normal taxpayers don't really think of shit like this though, that it would be cheaper to produce one plane that can do the job of three others. Try using your head Feet. Produce 3 different planes, or have 1 for all air to ground and 1 for all air to air?
For idiots such as Feet, this fighter jet is designed to replace every single air to ground jet currently in use by the US military (all branches) as well as to be used by the british navy. Hence this will be used for marines, navy, army, air force, which is why it can do both vertical and horizontal.
Not to mention this plane is cheaper I think 20 million comared to its 40 million big brother the F22 Raptor which takes air superiority first hand.
Iran's air force is pathetic and not a threat, and they are ten years away from a bomb at the earliest. China has already won - they presently own the US dollar. And for that you only have yourself to blame, and no JSF will save you now.
What a collossal waste of money. What military on the face of the planet can possibly build a plane that will match this? Exactly what aerial threat was this plane designed to counteract? The answer is none - it was just designed to waste more taxpayer's money.
The JSF is a multirole plane. It is designed to counteract both air AND ground targets. And as for planes that might be able to oppose it... Ever heard of the Su-27 series? Or the Mirage? Or even other JSF's? There's no such thing as a permanant ally, ya know.
No one ever said they are. If you're referring to my comment on the Mirage, two things. One, The Mirage won't necessarily always be a French exclusive vehicle. And two, who's to say 30 years down the road another Hitler won't take over France? A country's allegiance is as fluid as its government's, and no matter who you are, THAT can be pretty variable.
yes... "colossal" <- probably the word you meant, waste of money... *insert sarcastic bitter comment here* I'm sure you would of thought the internet was a "collossal" waste of taxpayers money, along with interstate highways, both of which were originally military projects.
no, i never implied this technology would help straving african nations... Besides, if they dont want to starve they shouldn't sit around fucking all day swapping differnt strands of AIDS. More to the point, It is this countries military spending the preserves your right to be an asshole.
You think you need guns and bombs to preserve free speech? Wow. You think a million Iraqis died to preserve my right to be an asshole? Incredible. It's got more to do with that truck parked in your drive with the American flag sticker on the back.
In this case, America is Germany. It's intellectually dishonest to try and draw a paralell between Iraq and WW2. In WW2, the USA was anti-fascist. Today it is unleashing the fascist genie out of the bottle all over again. I'm not inherently against a nation defending itself (such as building something like the JSF), but the present system is completely artificial. Saddam and Iran were both armed by the very system that planes like this supposedly oppose. It's ridiculous.
the JSF isn't a strictly US invention. And there will always be piloted fighter jets. On a side note, what a hell of a piece of machinery that thing is.
And so it was that the industrial-military complex ruled the US of A while a sizable chunk of its population continued to cheer them on, unwittingly at their own behest. And that was the end of the American Empire.
And so it was that the industrial-military complex ruled the US of A while a sizable chunk of its population continued to cheer them on, unwittingly at their own behest. And that was the end of the American Empire.
Probabley not. UAVs are suitable for light bombing and recon but are simply not big enough to hold the payload needed foe heavy bombing missions. No matter what people say fighters will need to stay manned people can make better split seond 'risk' decision that may save lives, while a UACs programming (when they arent remote controlled) would do the mission and bugger off back to base. But say if a pilot sees some smoke in the distance he or she would go and take a look automated UAVs would not.
while i agree, you really have no idea about what 50fathomsdown was saying. he didn't mean that they would be replaces with UAV's, he mean that fighter that are more superior (eg, turns faster ect.) will be piloted from the ground (proabably by the old pilots themselves) in the future? why? because at the current time, the limiting factor on todays aircraft is the physical strength of the pilot (his ability to withstand gforces)
ur.... a douche bag. cuz there will always b piloted fighters due to the fact that u loose a lot wen using a UAV. U lose the edge, the talent, and the survival instinct. UAV MAY b able to take over bombers, but not fighters
But a pilot in the seat cannot do a 60 deg. per second turn at 1500 kts. come to a hover and survive. The uav piloted from the ground will take out the fighter pilot in the seat every time. You've never seen or flown an RC aircraft Grow wings a fly away
Fot the price of an F22 raptor, you can get 2 eurefighter typhoons! What would win then? The JSF is a joint us-uk project, not wholly us design. Will be used by RAF and Royal Navy, on 2 brand new carriers, to replace current Harriers and Invincible class carriers.
Well I say that the JSF remains so much better than the Harrier..this one is as manoeuvreable as the F-16, takes off vertical, is stealth, supersonic,...so much things the Harrier doesn't can...
What a waste of good tax dollar! JSF and F-22 are useless in actual warfare, but a good way the screw the hard earned American's money. If war ever brakes out with a well equipped opponent such as Russia, China, Iran or N. Korea...these fighter can't do jack shit against them. Everything would eventually come to a ground war...and that's something that the Americans are the weakest since N. Korea. All that fancy expensive fighters are a good way to fuck the American public right up the ass!
The USA has the best military in the world, but it's really overkill. We have anti-submarine technology but no enemies with submarines. We have the anti-aircraft weaponry but no enemies who pose a threat to us in the air. These are not the right weapons for our enemies. I'd rather see these trillions of dollars put into intelligence and more effective political work, as opposed to trying to swat a fly with a hammer. Not to mention the underfunded healthcare and education systems we have.
Fuck man...you spoke my mind!!! All these weapons are just a good way to screw our tax dollars! Every war eventually becomes a ground war...maybe that's where we should study harder at! Or maybe we should just stop fighting other people's war!
If I were operating an air force I would go for the Typhoon. The USAF/RAF and other Nato airforces havn't any enemies that can challenge their aircraft. The Typhoon is with the raptor the best fighter in the world (better than the F-35 as they have different purposes), but the Typhoon is cheaper, will defeat anything (except F-22) and has an exellent multi purpose capability.
F-22 would most likely beat the Eurofighter in a dog fight. The Typhoon is more of a multi-purpose fighter with dog-fighting capabilities second only to the f-22. the f-22 is a air superiority fighter, the Typhoon is that plus an exellent multi-purpose fighter. The F-22 is plagued by high capital & operating costs, but you get exellent performance in return.
Reilly you suck, the f-22 would pwn the eurofighter. Where the hell are you getting your information? The f-22 has thrust vectoring and it's way more stealthy, so how would it take out an f-22?
Mind you the US Navy and US Marines are converting the majority of there F-18s into what the now F-8? Prowler is which is electonic jamming/Survalence.
AND
Since the AF is only buying 150 F-22's the Eagle isnt being fully replaced, it will still serve as a Air-to-Groug close support fighter as it has since 1970. oh the JSF is also replacing the A-10 which serves as close support.
JSF/X-35/F-35/thunderboltII is going to be replacing F-18a/b/c/d for the US Navy notice i didnt say f-14 Tomcat, which was being replaced before this jet ever hit the drawing board.
It's not replacing the F-15 Eagle the F-22 Raptor is replacing the F-15. For the USAF the F-35 is replacing the F-16 Falcon
As for the Marines, well this will be replacing there F-18's and there Harrier's
Named after both the US Lockheed P-38 Lightning of WWII vintage (another Skunk Works product), and the English Electric Lightning, arguably the best supersonic interceptor of its time, which saw excellent service with the RAF and other air forces for many years.
As for the Harriers I still believe that the Harrier is the coolest looking jet in the world plus the harriers put the fear of god into the argentina air force during the falklands war. They had over 250 jets and we only had 28 harriers in action and we never lost a single one, while the Argentina's had majors losses. The Harrier has proven it's worth a 1000 times over, it just shows how much you know. the JSF wouldn't have even been created if it wasnt for the harrier so just stfu.
We had them , actually got to worlk on them, Loud sons of a bitch but good, the worst part it vtol landing we lost a lot that way.....Carolina Lawn darts, or Carolina Widowmakers
think it was 3 harriers lost in the falklands ,none from air to air combat ,1 shot down by ground fire ,and 2 collided in fog ,but your right,the harrier did shoot own half the argentine airforce including supersonic mirages which had twice the speed
What is the Stealth RCS comparison between these two historic STOL aircraft? Your quite right about the origins of the JSF - No Harrier - NO JSF. The US military have transformed the two aircraft (F-22 - AV-8)into the most lethal and most adaptable aircraft in the world. The history of reduced RCS means that the F-35 makes the AV-8 obselete I am afraid. The chance of it being shot down by any known weapon system is now neglible and you cant say that about the AV-8....
rustygates have you ever heard of a jet called the Euro- fighter, you know it's the jet that was built to take out the likes of F22-Raptors. If you check the stats on the raptor+euro the euro-fighter puts the raptor to shame in every field i.e. wieght-thrust ratio/maneuverability..the euro-fighter is just a far Superior jet, sorry to burst your bubble m8. If an F22 was to dog fight a euro-fighter the euro would come out tops everytime.
when you make outlandish comments like you just did, you loose any or all credibility. the eurofighter is a whole gen behind the f-22 and joint strike fighter. the british even compared the 2 and the eurofighter was the clear looser. get a clue and trying listening to fact not your blatent nationalism. the eurofighter doesnt even have aesa radar lol.
Lockheed martin is the ultimate military contractor, i mean every single plane theve ever made is AWSOME! such as the Sr-71 blackbird, it OWNS anything the british or any other counrty has come close to. Same with the F-22 raptor, the most advance dogfight plane ever created. 40 yr old Harrier better than JSF??????? yea right.....
Your comment is as silly and juvenile as dole's was up above.
1)The Harrier is indeed ancient, but it's been good enough for many nations' militaries, including the USMC, for a long time.
2)BAE Systems is in partnership with Lockheed on the Lightning II, as is Rolls-Royce. Indeed, when the F-117 was being designed and built, there were British specialists working on the programme. That's not BS, that's from the autobiography of the guy that ran Lockheed's Skunk Works at the time.
rusty ,british dont know how to make planes hey,im not going to get into a us v uk slanging match, but 1,the british invented the jet engine to start with.2 had the best fighter in ww2 the spitfire,i say that over the mustang to, because without the rolls royce merlin engine would have been average,without the harrier thered be no joint strike aircraft,which the british work on to ,weve had lots of great aircraft over the years, civilian to ,the concorde for example .
harrier is better as you have 2 engines which means it can turn on the spot more easily
WillandTony 3 months ago
@WillandTony The Harrier actually only has one engine, and is equipped with 4 nozzles to direct flow downwards at a maximum angle of 80 degrees.
skaught911 2 months ago
@Suvigisawesome wtf why? It slower, gayer, and British
DiamondPilotDan 3 months ago 2
i like the harrier more
suvigisawesome 4 months ago
God bless America
734deuceMI 4 months ago
Walmart has specially designed their roof for an alternate landing pad at fort worth
brown9708 9 months ago
does anyone have a video of it actually taking off vertically and then flying forward...?
and also i wanna see the 'slow down' process where it goes from 'flying forward to hovering/landing'.. this one just seemed to show it already hovering..
also whats its max payload to where it can still takeoff verticaly, if any..?
GeorgeNada1 1 year ago
This fighter looks very impressive. Besides its VSTOL capability, it apparently is also filled with software with wich it scans its surroundings for electronic activity. So its a flying computer.
But its also extremely expensive and development costs rise skyhigh. What do you think, should the Netherlands stay a partner in its development and a buyer of some 80 planes or should we buy something cheaper?
Change6609 1 year ago
@Change6609 are you serious, do you think your country should have this plane, let me ask you a simple question do you want air superiority? I mean your not gonna have as much bad-ass software as us (as in USA) but at least you will have the plane
nsemione12 1 year ago
@nsemione12
Well, actually, Dutch companies will participate in the production of the JSF. It was agreed they would participate in the second engine among other parts. And not only in the production for the Netherlands, but for other countries as well. Now in the US, the decision is taken that the JSF will have only one engine, to save money. Btw: the Dutch version would have exactly the same software as the US ones. Question remains if we can't buy a modern plane for less money nowadays...
Change6609 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3D or unmanned STV rejection fast-talk may cost some their program and job: E.g., the LAVI fighter. The 1st in aviation history flights of Stealth, Tailless 3D Vectoring [STV] with mini aero-control, stealth inlets/wing-body design took place in Israel in 1987 [May 18, 1987, Aviation Week]. Unclassified video in Facebook ["Benjamin Gal-Or"] explains sub/supersonic agility/safety gained by STV. EF, f35/f22 are not STV while unmanned NGB or ??? may be. Cf. X-44MANTA, X-47b, RQ-170, T-50, B-2.
1Bengalor 1 year ago
In Holland there were plans to sell all the f-16's and buy new jsf's (not the vtol ones cuz we don't have big ship's with planes on it ;p)
but now they sold many f-16's and now they don't replace them with jsf anymore :'(
there goes my dream to fly in a jsf :S the gouvernment with their plans =.='
DutchMovieCreatorz 1 year ago
This is to replace the f16 and the harrier
Xiolablu3 1 year ago
Thats a 7 kill streak
silentchaos1 1 year ago
what's the point of that? it lands in the same air field anyways so wats the poing of vertical landing?
Michaelasds 1 year ago
@Michaelasds it was a test flight to see how the vertical landing is
dymproductions 1 year ago
This will probably replace the Harrier in the RAF as the RAF have them on order.
Reference: raf.mod.uk/equipment/futureaircraft.cfm
VAVirginAtlantic 1 year ago
@VAVirginAtlantic It will replace the Harrier, as I said again on the website.
"Finally, the Harriers will be replaced with the new Joint Strike Fighter currently undergoing development in America."
VAVirginAtlantic 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
moonlanding was a hoax, watch my video for proof.
trophygirl01x 2 years ago
nice one troller
Goobeeloo 2 years ago
the americans have payed for this - vertical take off. they should stick to Tiger Woods
pedromendez9 2 years ago
@pedromendez9 While Tiger sticks it to everyone else
9114southcentral 1 year ago
@9114southcentral Isn't the vertical take off copied from the Harrier?
Taz1451 1 year ago
@Taz1451 Is'nt the stealth generation copied from de 1-117A bomber?
TheAwesomeBart 1 year ago
@Taz1451 Saying the vertical take off was copied from the harrier is like saying supersonic flight was copied from the X-1. And the Harrier "copied" the concept of VTOL fromt the Short SC-1 (first operational jet VTOL). Or thats like saying all modern wings and airfoils were copied from the wright flyer. I don't mean to be a hater, but, come on.
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago 2
@Taz1451 kind of its little different
JJRooneyProdution 1 year ago
@Taz1451 yea and isn't our two legs copied from the first homo-sapiens... ? Come on it's not a copy it's a capability.... If every first concept were not to be "copied" we would still be in our cave trying to figure out how to make fire another way than conventional...
charlieechovictor 1 year ago
@charlieechovictor Didn't realise it was such a personal subject! I just think it should stay exclusive to the harrier.. No other plane looks right going vertical..
Taz1451 1 year ago
@Taz1451 F-35 has more style, the Harrier has more class ;-)
charlieechovictor 1 year ago
Nothing new. Only a Yakovlev Yak-141 modernized.
redleocabral 2 years ago 2
hacks
douggard 2 years ago
The question is, 'Is it a better fighter because it doen't need a runway?"
We have runways.
gregrutz 2 years ago
ye , in some battelfileds t could be realy important an airplane like that.
it could take of and land almost any wwhere
StewartBrasil 2 years ago
When is the last time we needed the Harrier?
gregrutz 2 years ago
i dont know, ithink it was used in the falk lands and in afganistan.
the problem aboult buiding these airplanes is that they are extreme expensive, and that money could also be used for something more productive rather than destructive.
StewartBrasil 2 years ago
My question and concern, What did they have to do to the main frame, in order to STOL, that will hurt the proformance of the rest of F-35s.
gregrutz 2 years ago
what do u mean by that? i could no understand.
StewartBrasil 2 years ago
They are building a carrier model and a regular model to replace the F-16. They wanted one plane to do all 3 jobs and had a fly off against another plane. The other companys plane lost because of STOL.
I just wonder if they had to do special things to get it to take of vertiacal that will hurt the other models.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz they r going to replace the A10'd with this ive heard, it sucks
ScorpionSrokk 1 year ago
@ScorpionSrokk It is going to replace the F-16 and F-18 and the Harrier.
I just think the VTOL will screw up the other versions, and we have runways.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Comment removed
hasignedon 2 years ago
@hasignedon actually yes it can
cheech658 1 year ago
the music is so lame.
cptnbennett 2 years ago
Just like thunderbird 2
ihateuggboots 2 years ago
has anyone seen a f-35b transition from vertical take-off to horizontal flight?
or
from horizontal flight to true vertical landing ?
farmerned6 2 years ago
buy me one for birthday pls
DaPony1736 2 years ago
Its beautifull
beeklaan00 2 years ago 2
thrust vectoring engines are pretty damn awesome
vanhalo 3 years ago
WHOA how does it float like that? Dude it's like some futuristic hover craft! We should make flying cars :D!
assaultman45 3 years ago
well...heheh believe it or not but flying cars are out. Not yet in production but this dude made one that drives like a car, wings fold down with a prop mounted on the back and room for 4 people. check it out.
Curicua 2 years ago
The f-53 can outmanouvre almost any plane except for an f-22 raptor. It is not as fast as some other planes, but has unprecedented sensor technology, allowing the pilot to make realtime decisions according to direct data. Its armament is better than that of the f-22 or f/A 18 hornets and super hornets. This allows it to perform extremely versatile missions. It can hover and take of like a harrier, but in every other aspect it is way ahead of the harrier.
Ricki145 3 years ago
can it out manouvre the typhoon?
Mizan215 3 years ago
it can out manouvre a bee, and a butter fly. huahauhuahua
StewartBrasil 2 years ago
jsf-35 is a dog.Can't fight, can't turn, can't run. The Rand corp. has it right. Its a Dog.
w4gsm 3 years ago
damn right. Pitty australia is wasting money on both super hornets and jsf. If the yanks are going to be cunts and not sell the 22 to its closest ally's then we should at least look at the eurofighter, while it aint a 22 it has more than a snowballs chance in hell against those sukhois, unlike the 35. .
grim0033 3 years ago
Tough times for poor-ass countries when they can only afford Mig-21's while decent countries fly these
rapulanaimo 3 years ago
those airplanes were having sex
AlexCell33 3 years ago
Did u know that this is the most expensive project in history of US Military?!
serbianyankee 3 years ago
what country of origin is this?
esrgegr 3 years ago
US and partners. UK is a level 1 partner, there are several level 2 of which Italy is the biggest
madbob73 3 years ago
But the harrier jump jet been do this for many years
saxonorm 3 years ago
Harrier didn't fly Supersonic.
alexwilsonNC 3 years ago
why the yanks have to buy them from us. and it dont need to
saxonorm 3 years ago
carrier crash landings are a regular occurence, the exact number annualy is classified. so I wonder if the vertical landing capability of the JSF meant precisely to address this? as a Seattle native I was disappointed Boeing didn't get awarded the JSF contract (though Boeing is a subcontractor). Still, the F-35 is pretty amazing. It's like a big Transformer.
eddyheart 3 years ago
When the horizontal velocity goes down to zero and the plane is slowly descending to the ground vertically. What would happen if the engine dies and then starts working again? will the plane be able to gain enough speed horizontally to avoid crashing in that short amount of time??
skyruler87 4 years ago
no, it would end in a crash. But ejection would be possible.
Winky395 3 years ago
coooooooooool
oms109 4 years ago
it hopped when it landed
360flpsk8 4 years ago
I hope Canada follows through with buying these when I'm, uhh... 27
alex9033 4 years ago
Wow. Incredible technology.
bitshift1024 4 years ago
u can see STOVL written on the tail. That stands for Short Take Off & Vertical Landing. Short take off is preferred from vertical because it allows the plane to carry greater payload.Overall, STOVL is ideal for carrier missions. (see BAe Harrier , Sea Harrier & Falkland War)
arisanag 4 years ago
1 amazing aircraft
dominic970 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
<b>
Enter XXXodour.com_ to Play Full Length XXX Videos 4 FREE
</b>
broguesCOOL 4 years ago
Though I think it best that a policy of goodwill towards other nations is best, and to focus on more important things like poverty alleviation and environmental mitigation, it is utter stupidity to let go of military preparedness and technological advances that things like the JSFp represent. The US cld be the most benign country in the world tom but that wouldn't stop belligerence from hostile forces whether conventional (countries) or not (terror grps)
samanticx 4 years ago
i hope they can make it like in the animes...robotech or macross..
killerpineapple 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. Copy and paste this everywhere to help bunny gain world domination.
cyborggrievous 4 years ago
fast take off dude!!
phml123 4 years ago
Yeah!!!
amos2500 4 years ago
It will be a great thing to finally have the services unified with one attack craft. Funny thing is this attack craft will still be able to mow down nearly any other plane in anyone else's Air Force 'cept maybe the Israelis? I read where the Air Force version will nix the whole vertical take off thing and therefore have better performance. The Marines get the full package, so it can take of like the Harrier used too.
Winky395 4 years ago
yea, and the navy version will be built like the air-force version, but with a tail hook for carrier-arresting landings
cowboysfan28 4 years ago
Hilarious reading all the comments in here by chickenhawks who talk like they've flown one of these bloated pieces of shit... Why not ask an actual pilot?
feet77 4 years ago
Ok so 'actual pilot' how'd you like it?
Winky395 4 years ago
Hey dipshit, can you please quote the part where I said I'm an 'actual pilot'? Learn to read, fuckwad.
feet77 4 years ago
so commander feet77...
it doesn't take much to be a pilot.
judging from you previous posts.
you:
1) possibly own microsoft flight simulator 10
2) possess time and money <- of which most responsible hardworking americans have.
3) you were in the military, and for the wrong reasons. enjoying that "free" college money?
tool8171 4 years ago
I've never flown one of these "bloated pieces of shit". However I do appreciate that amount of engineering that went into these devices. The research required to bring this plane into reality will also be put to good use in other research fields. e.g. virtual tooling, robotics, composite material fabrication, aviation, computing, power generation, computational analysis. just to name a few. I suspect in your infinite wisdom you just overlooked these minor unimportant trivial things.
tool8171 4 years ago
Not at all. I love technology as much as the next man. You've basically just proven the point that if as much money and effort was expended on research in areas other than warfighting, the human race might have transcended this stupid old fashioned idea called War. Thanks to "the military industrial complex", we have to persist with something that hasn't really evolved much since people in grass skirts hit eachother over the head with big bones.
feet77 4 years ago
War will always be around, aslong as people disagree, have different beliefs, and there exists unbalances of power. The day war doesn't exist will be the day, murders, rapes, and thefts don't occur. There is no such thing as a utopian society. heh, I'm not expecting the return of God anytime soon.
tool8171 4 years ago
Hey when you've gotta house worth 11 trillion dollars
why not put a security system on it that costs 500 billion?
Winky395 4 years ago
nice landig:D
thraxes14 4 years ago
I guess they just hype it up for sale to developing countries then. Still a good marketing plan.
DeathByCactus 4 years ago
feet77 is actually right. it's a good idea gone bad. do some unbias research. for it's cost and logistics, this plane really does not have any advantages to what we already have except for p.r. purposes. i doubt the U.S. military will order more than 200 of these planes in the end. hopefully we can pawn them off to allied nations. btw, i'm usually for military spending such as the f-22, but all in all, this is a waste of tax payer's money.
kyakko 4 years ago
The best thing about palming them off to allied nations is that when those nations go "rogue" (see Iraq, Afghanistan, FYR, etc.,), the government can justify spending a few more tens of billions to counter the "threat" that they created ten years earlier. This is how the military industrial complex keeps itself going.
feet77 4 years ago
You are correct. Is this wrong? Of course we give them "lesser" models with sripped down avionics, radar systems, less powerful engines. This "military industrial complex" isn't the only entity in the world that does this.
tool8171 4 years ago
You totally missed the point. What my comment implied is that the system is artificial. It creates demand by arming the very system that it claims to be trying to destroy. Meanwhile thousands of people (Americans, foreigners, and innocents) die needlessly in wars, and taxpayers get robbed of trillions of dollars.
feet77 4 years ago
The whole point of this plane is to follow up with a F22 first strike. The F22's roll in and take out any aircraft and certain SAM's clearing a path for the X-35's to take out the rest of the ground targets. Most normal taxpayers don't really think of shit like this though, that it would be cheaper to produce one plane that can do the job of three others. Try using your head Feet. Produce 3 different planes, or have 1 for all air to ground and 1 for all air to air?
DeathByCactus 4 years ago
btw, this plane can't fly forward after a vertical takeoff. Multi-role planes are for poor countries except we're spending ALOT of money to do it.
kyakko 4 years ago
For idiots such as Feet, this fighter jet is designed to replace every single air to ground jet currently in use by the US military (all branches) as well as to be used by the british navy. Hence this will be used for marines, navy, army, air force, which is why it can do both vertical and horizontal.
Not to mention this plane is cheaper I think 20 million comared to its 40 million big brother the F22 Raptor which takes air superiority first hand.
DeathByCactus 4 years ago
Thats true, finally someone who isn't full of shit.
noobreloaded 4 years ago
I say again, who the hell will be able to fight this plane? "The Terrorists" ? LOL...
feet77 4 years ago
No, not now anyway, but there are emerging nations that if given the chance would rub us out. China? Iran?
tool8171 4 years ago
Iran's air force is pathetic and not a threat, and they are ten years away from a bomb at the earliest. China has already won - they presently own the US dollar. And for that you only have yourself to blame, and no JSF will save you now.
feet77 4 years ago
What a collossal waste of money. What military on the face of the planet can possibly build a plane that will match this? Exactly what aerial threat was this plane designed to counteract? The answer is none - it was just designed to waste more taxpayer's money.
feet77 5 years ago
The JSF is a multirole plane. It is designed to counteract both air AND ground targets. And as for planes that might be able to oppose it... Ever heard of the Su-27 series? Or the Mirage? Or even other JSF's? There's no such thing as a permanant ally, ya know.
wraith444 5 years ago
Oh right, "The French are the enemy".. Tinfoil hat rubbish..
feet77 5 years ago
No one ever said they are. If you're referring to my comment on the Mirage, two things. One, The Mirage won't necessarily always be a French exclusive vehicle. And two, who's to say 30 years down the road another Hitler won't take over France? A country's allegiance is as fluid as its government's, and no matter who you are, THAT can be pretty variable.
wraith444 5 years ago
yes... "colossal" <- probably the word you meant, waste of money... *insert sarcastic bitter comment here* I'm sure you would of thought the internet was a "collossal" waste of taxpayers money, along with interstate highways, both of which were originally military projects.
tool8171 4 years ago
So you think the government will use this technology to drop food on starving African nations? Fuckwit.
feet77 4 years ago
no, i never implied this technology would help straving african nations... Besides, if they dont want to starve they shouldn't sit around fucking all day swapping differnt strands of AIDS. More to the point, It is this countries military spending the preserves your right to be an asshole.
tool8171 4 years ago
You think you need guns and bombs to preserve free speech? Wow. You think a million Iraqis died to preserve my right to be an asshole? Incredible. It's got more to do with that truck parked in your drive with the American flag sticker on the back.
feet77 4 years ago
I never said Iraq was a good war. We dont belong there in my humble opinion.
But would you have said the same thing if you were around durring WWII? "You think you need guns and bombs to preserve free speech??"
tool8171 4 years ago
In this case, America is Germany. It's intellectually dishonest to try and draw a paralell between Iraq and WW2. In WW2, the USA was anti-fascist. Today it is unleashing the fascist genie out of the bottle all over again. I'm not inherently against a nation defending itself (such as building something like the JSF), but the present system is completely artificial. Saddam and Iran were both armed by the very system that planes like this supposedly oppose. It's ridiculous.
feet77 4 years ago
actually, i thought most of irans weapons were russian in origin, as well as iraq.
tool8171 4 years ago
very functional plane.
it's just not sexy.
nmbr19onice 5 years ago
better than the Harrier if you ask me
con54321 5 years ago
Well, it should be better than the harrier considering the navy is replacing them with this!
madbob73 5 years ago
the JSF isn't a strictly US invention. And there will always be piloted fighter jets. On a side note, what a hell of a piece of machinery that thing is.
boxingoutsider 5 years ago
And so it was that the industrial-military complex ruled the US of A while a sizable chunk of its population continued to cheer them on, unwittingly at their own behest. And that was the end of the American Empire.
shirazd 5 years ago
Shut up crackhead
nubbie1944 5 years ago
case in point.
shirazd 5 years ago
And so it was that the industrial-military complex ruled the US of A while a sizable chunk of its population continued to cheer them on, unwittingly at their own behest. And that was the end of the American Empire.
shirazd 5 years ago
Probabley not. UAVs are suitable for light bombing and recon but are simply not big enough to hold the payload needed foe heavy bombing missions. No matter what people say fighters will need to stay manned people can make better split seond 'risk' decision that may save lives, while a UACs programming (when they arent remote controlled) would do the mission and bugger off back to base. But say if a pilot sees some smoke in the distance he or she would go and take a look automated UAVs would not.
condork 5 years ago
while i agree, you really have no idea about what 50fathomsdown was saying. he didn't mean that they would be replaces with UAV's, he mean that fighter that are more superior (eg, turns faster ect.) will be piloted from the ground (proabably by the old pilots themselves) in the future? why? because at the current time, the limiting factor on todays aircraft is the physical strength of the pilot (his ability to withstand gforces)
sneakeypete 5 years ago
This is,, The last piloted fighter.
50fathomsdown 5 years ago
ur.... a douche bag. cuz there will always b piloted fighters due to the fact that u loose a lot wen using a UAV. U lose the edge, the talent, and the survival instinct. UAV MAY b able to take over bombers, but not fighters
Fornof 5 years ago
But a pilot in the seat cannot do a 60 deg. per second turn at 1500 kts. come to a hover and survive. The uav piloted from the ground will take out the fighter pilot in the seat every time. You've never seen or flown an RC aircraft Grow wings a fly away
50fathomsdown 5 years ago
Fot the price of an F22 raptor, you can get 2 eurefighter typhoons! What would win then? The JSF is a joint us-uk project, not wholly us design. Will be used by RAF and Royal Navy, on 2 brand new carriers, to replace current Harriers and Invincible class carriers.
steevieweevie 5 years ago
oops wrong website, I though I was in youtube but I must be in some political chat room.
davesnothereman1 5 years ago
Well I say that the JSF remains so much better than the Harrier..this one is as manoeuvreable as the F-16, takes off vertical, is stealth, supersonic,...so much things the Harrier doesn't can...
JorisVandenBerghe 5 years ago
That's not a normal takeoff, it's a SHORT takeoff, VERTICAL landing. Hence, STOVL.
smitty1276 5 years ago
What a waste of good tax dollar! JSF and F-22 are useless in actual warfare, but a good way the screw the hard earned American's money. If war ever brakes out with a well equipped opponent such as Russia, China, Iran or N. Korea...these fighter can't do jack shit against them. Everything would eventually come to a ground war...and that's something that the Americans are the weakest since N. Korea. All that fancy expensive fighters are a good way to fuck the American public right up the ass!
SpeakingMyMind7 5 years ago
The USA has the best military in the world, but it's really overkill. We have anti-submarine technology but no enemies with submarines. We have the anti-aircraft weaponry but no enemies who pose a threat to us in the air. These are not the right weapons for our enemies. I'd rather see these trillions of dollars put into intelligence and more effective political work, as opposed to trying to swat a fly with a hammer. Not to mention the underfunded healthcare and education systems we have.
fake123 5 years ago
Fuck man...you spoke my mind!!! All these weapons are just a good way to screw our tax dollars! Every war eventually becomes a ground war...maybe that's where we should study harder at! Or maybe we should just stop fighting other people's war!
SpeakingMyMind7 5 years ago
And for some of the Americans here, remember a lot of the tech you developed was foreign. Examples below:
Jet Engine
Jet Fighter
Rocket Technology (that got you to the moon - it was German)
Aircraft Carrier designs (Angled flight deck, steam catapult, landing guidance system)
The armour on you latest tanks
(running out of space, but many more examples)
sillybilly1945 5 years ago
If I were operating an air force I would go for the Typhoon. The USAF/RAF and other Nato airforces havn't any enemies that can challenge their aircraft. The Typhoon is with the raptor the best fighter in the world (better than the F-35 as they have different purposes), but the Typhoon is cheaper, will defeat anything (except F-22) and has an exellent multi purpose capability.
sillybilly1945 5 years ago
F-22 would most likely beat the Eurofighter in a dog fight. The Typhoon is more of a multi-purpose fighter with dog-fighting capabilities second only to the f-22. the f-22 is a air superiority fighter, the Typhoon is that plus an exellent multi-purpose fighter. The F-22 is plagued by high capital & operating costs, but you get exellent performance in return.
sillybilly1945 5 years ago
Reilly you suck, the f-22 would pwn the eurofighter. Where the hell are you getting your information? The f-22 has thrust vectoring and it's way more stealthy, so how would it take out an f-22?
Dascoo 5 years ago
If it was better then why would it be replaced? I Am sure the British will be replacing there fleet as well
dallasphotog79 5 years ago
f-22 will replace f-15
f-35 will replace f-16
bigballs78 5 years ago
Mind you the US Navy and US Marines are converting the majority of there F-18s into what the now F-8? Prowler is which is electonic jamming/Survalence.
AND
Since the AF is only buying 150 F-22's the Eagle isnt being fully replaced, it will still serve as a Air-to-Groug close support fighter as it has since 1970. oh the JSF is also replacing the A-10 which serves as close support.
peeonu25 5 years ago
OK! lets get this straightend out.
JSF/X-35/F-35/thunderboltII is going to be replacing F-18a/b/c/d for the US Navy notice i didnt say f-14 Tomcat, which was being replaced before this jet ever hit the drawing board.
It's not replacing the F-15 Eagle the F-22 Raptor is replacing the F-15. For the USAF the F-35 is replacing the F-16 Falcon
As for the Marines, well this will be replacing there F-18's and there Harrier's
peeonu25 5 years ago
It's called the F-35 Lightning II;)
Named after both the US Lockheed P-38 Lightning of WWII vintage (another Skunk Works product), and the English Electric Lightning, arguably the best supersonic interceptor of its time, which saw excellent service with the RAF and other air forces for many years.
Toolpusher 5 years ago
it looks pretty G-UNIT aye
jdawwwg 5 years ago
this thing can spank the sky but the f22 looks better than this
xxxProPlayrxxx 5 years ago
As for the Harriers I still believe that the Harrier is the coolest looking jet in the world plus the harriers put the fear of god into the argentina air force during the falklands war. They had over 250 jets and we only had 28 harriers in action and we never lost a single one, while the Argentina's had majors losses. The Harrier has proven it's worth a 1000 times over, it just shows how much you know. the JSF wouldn't have even been created if it wasnt for the harrier so just stfu.
Reilly87 5 years ago
We had them , actually got to worlk on them, Loud sons of a bitch but good, the worst part it vtol landing we lost a lot that way.....Carolina Lawn darts, or Carolina Widowmakers
crazysix0231 5 years ago
think it was 3 harriers lost in the falklands ,none from air to air combat ,1 shot down by ground fire ,and 2 collided in fog ,but your right,the harrier did shoot own half the argentine airforce including supersonic mirages which had twice the speed
merseyside 5 years ago
What is the Stealth RCS comparison between these two historic STOL aircraft? Your quite right about the origins of the JSF - No Harrier - NO JSF. The US military have transformed the two aircraft (F-22 - AV-8)into the most lethal and most adaptable aircraft in the world. The history of reduced RCS means that the F-35 makes the AV-8 obselete I am afraid. The chance of it being shot down by any known weapon system is now neglible and you cant say that about the AV-8....
blueknight2004 5 years ago
rustygates have you ever heard of a jet called the Euro- fighter, you know it's the jet that was built to take out the likes of F22-Raptors. If you check the stats on the raptor+euro the euro-fighter puts the raptor to shame in every field i.e. wieght-thrust ratio/maneuverability..the euro-fighter is just a far Superior jet, sorry to burst your bubble m8. If an F22 was to dog fight a euro-fighter the euro would come out tops everytime.
Reilly87 5 years ago
when you make outlandish comments like you just did, you loose any or all credibility. the eurofighter is a whole gen behind the f-22 and joint strike fighter. the british even compared the 2 and the eurofighter was the clear looser. get a clue and trying listening to fact not your blatent nationalism. the eurofighter doesnt even have aesa radar lol.
realbiggun500 5 years ago
get a fucking clue and try researching before posting your fucking chav rubbish talk
realbiggun500 5 years ago
uummmm.....Briish dont KNOW how to make planes
Lockheed martin is the ultimate military contractor, i mean every single plane theve ever made is AWSOME! such as the Sr-71 blackbird, it OWNS anything the british or any other counrty has come close to. Same with the F-22 raptor, the most advance dogfight plane ever created. 40 yr old Harrier better than JSF??????? yea right.....
rustygates 5 years ago
Your comment is as silly and juvenile as dole's was up above.
1)The Harrier is indeed ancient, but it's been good enough for many nations' militaries, including the USMC, for a long time.
2)BAE Systems is in partnership with Lockheed on the Lightning II, as is Rolls-Royce. Indeed, when the F-117 was being designed and built, there were British specialists working on the programme. That's not BS, that's from the autobiography of the guy that ran Lockheed's Skunk Works at the time.
Toolpusher 5 years ago
rusty ,british dont know how to make planes hey,im not going to get into a us v uk slanging match, but 1,the british invented the jet engine to start with.2 had the best fighter in ww2 the spitfire,i say that over the mustang to, because without the rolls royce merlin engine would have been average,without the harrier thered be no joint strike aircraft,which the british work on to ,weve had lots of great aircraft over the years, civilian to ,the concorde for example .
merseyside 5 years ago
It´s very good guy............
http://s16.bitefight.es/c.php?uid=16085
KusN51 5 years ago
pff braveheart the harrier is 40 years old, this baby here is supose to be her replacement, as well as for the super hornet and the tomcat
turydragon 6 years ago
and f-15
Flyinguy 5 years ago
oh you mean the plane that killed so many pilots because it was unstable or too hard to fly?
dallasphotog79 5 years ago
thats the risk of being a test pilot
turydragon 5 years ago
The Harrier GR.7 can't fly supersonic/supercruise, and is not stealthly. The agility of the JSF is better as well.
Braveheart1984 6 years ago
where did you get this video?
zaftpilot 6 years ago
I remembered I had them on my comp from a while back when I did a presentation about it..can't remember where I got them from specifically though
beanz2u 6 years ago