It has problem with vertical landing similar to x-32, that is why the congress has issued LM to find a quick solution. Otherwise this aircraft should end up in the junk category.
Unmanned STV rejection 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 minimal aero-control, stealth inlets/wing-body design took place in Israel in 1987 [May 18, 1987, Aviation Week]. Unclassified video in a Facebook cite ["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.
@baked pork. the f-22 came pick of a target not even in visual range. and the dog fight is a thing of the past. there has only dogfights with jets in 2 wars in the 20th century. but i can get why you called it a dogfighter. its thrust vectoring gives it unreal maneuverability. and its two HUGE turbo fan engines.
Can someone who works with this aircraft be specific on this jets manuverabilty? I know there is a problem with raptor being talked about on this page, but i do want to point out that two engins that vector thrust would seemingly beat the single engin seen on the x-35. Maybe not on speed, but definately manuvering.
@jerethdalion thats for explaining that, but i would like to know what the f100 series is. Do you have a link to a good site or vid on it? but idk, I still think it is the vector thrusters that give it the edge, because that can help counter the drag on quick changes of AOA.
No the ping will be the problem why send a RC plane on the other side of the world and have huge ping when you can have 0 by sending a pilot it's to much of a headache.
THE F-22 the F-35 may very well be the last piloted combat aircraft. The Navy has sunk so much money into drone craft, i bet from now on, drone fighters will be the wave of the future. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just cost efficient.
@HellTuner Actually, the predator drone is a UAV and not an RC vehicle. The difference is that a UAV can fly autonomously, while an RPV (remotely piloted vehicle) requires a pilot.
We should have just updated the radar systems in the F-22 instead of betting the future on this piece of trash just because it's cheaper and has better avionics..
@ablahblah54 The F35 doesn't need that designation because it was designed with that role in mind already. The F-35A variant is for the Marines and does that.
hey just wondering, can that thing use its gun when hovering? if it could, lookit the possiblities.
Imagine a F-35 going in hovering like a Apache under tree cover, gunning some guards down, then switching to fighter mode and proceeding with bombing targets.
It'd be cool to have a fighter zoom in after finishing up a sortie, find some infantry needing help, switching to a hover and giving some helicopter style gunning support.
raptor is better but its used to 2 completly different roles .. f-35 is a ground attack and close air support fighter and f-22 is a dog fighter kinda aircraft
The F-22 is more of a long distance fighter type A/C with stealth capabilities. Its meant more for long distance A/C to multiple A/C techniques where the F-35 (JSF) is a multi-platform, close in, infantry and ground force support roles. Its not meant to take on other superfighters, just low level bombers and support A/C that the F-22 is unable to get to on the ground. Every Aircraft has its good and bad points. Neither the F-35 or the F-22 are meant to be the cure alls.
@bakedpork you have no idea what your talking about the raptor is a piece of shit. . .I work on F15 in USAF and i know alot of people that came from Langley AFB VA and have worked on 22's there a corrosion nightmare! in a few years we woulnt be able to even use them. . .They didnt think through the 22 like the did the 35 im excited to see what it can do and it costs as much as a 16!!! and they are both air to air, air to ground, why would be build a single role fighter in 2010
@veilsidegtr1 I was getting to get ready to disagree with you but I have to be honest, I know very little about the F 22. I know it looks bad. I work the F/L at Lockheed on the F 35 programme and I have to say, I'm so impressed with this je and I've been in this field for 34 years thanks to my start in the Navy.. Cost are rising but not like you see in the news. Cost estimates are based on previous contracts such as the F 22. Fact is we are below reality estimates.
@veilsidegtr1 We are now starting to have successful flight test on a weekly basis coming back as code 1 which I'm sure you know what that means. Glad to see you're on board with us....
@bakedpork . the f-22 came pick of a target not even in visual range. and the dog fight is a thing of the past. there has only dogfights with jets in 2 wars in the 20th century. but i can get why you called it a dogfighter. its thrust vectoring gives it unreal maneuverability. and its two HUGE turbo fan engines.
@iceee187 What the hell are you talking about? The F-22 has far superior maneuverability. It's got thrust vectoring which the F-35 hasn't, and the F-35 is supposed to have similar flight characteristics to the F-16. In a F-22 vs. F-16 maneuverability and turn radius battle, I'd go all in on the F-22.
@shibbywalkk What? Both planes are very capable in their own right, don't get me wrong, but the F22 will fly circles around the F35 in an air to air situation.
But the UCAV is the best! and it can run up to hypersonic whatever speed they can want. Just like an F-22 Raptor but it has a single engine and a vertical take-off.....
jets use both engines, just they use less of each combined to produce the same amount of thrust as a single engine, although the dual engines will have to create slightly more thrust due to increased weight from the additional engine.
a single jet was used to decrease cost and weight. also, this jet was to be used in all the divisions of the military, navy, airforce, and marines/army. the navy wanted two engines for safety issues because they would be over water, but finally decided on a single and reliable engine.
Check out the DAS system that is installed into the f-35. Watch it, and you know why everyone wants to buy it even for air to air superiority. It basically renders even the most maneuverable aircraft out there useless.
In order to understand, you first need to know how Air Force chose its airplanes. They gave money to 2 defense contractors, Lockheed and Boeing, each make 2 technology demonstrators of their design (the x-35 and x-32) to compete with one another for the JSF program. The x-35 won against Boeing x-32, and entered further development phrase and production phrase as f-35, while the 2 x-32 enter museum. x refers to technology demonstrator, and f refers to fighters
I'd love to find out what they are designing/testing at the moment, as all of the aircraft in service now were designed 10+ years ago. Imagine what we will have in 10-20 years from now....
From history point of view, all races comes from one race.....until they rebelled against the God of gods, the God of gods said,"Lets divide and scatter them to the four corners of the world" since then we been fighting amonst ourselves because of difference in languages,colors, and cultures. Amazing is it? 2,000 years ago, the God of gods said "Repent or perish", the God of gods is coming back again, those amonst the races that repented for being rebellous, shall be forgiven and become one.
Not to mention a world with "no weapons or fighting" is not necessarily a good world. Problems and conflicts and overcoming these problems are what make life interesting and worth living. Conflicts that involve the death of human beings are no only natural but in fact almost necessary. I assure you that noone, if they REALLY thought about it, would want to live in such a pacifist dream world that people like antonio love to rant about.
In fact, the lack of all conflict between intelligent organisms that interact or come in contact with one another is simply up against all logic. If I were asked when I think our race would be able to "reform" itself towards a world of "no weapons or fighting", I would not dare claim this to happen within a few decades, centuries or even millenia.I would, with almost dead certainty, outright say "Never, as long as we exist."
A world with no weapons and fighting is a really good dream, but its not reality. Its basic human instinct to fight, and I'm afraid we're not that evolved yet, passifist ideals such as yours antonio are irrelevant to say the least.
TeeKup, even your statement is somewhat flawed. Why do you assume that the more "evolved" we are, the more "passifist" we can become? Overriding natural instinct of predator and prey in no way reduces aggression. There is simply no evidence for the hypothetical case that a civilization many times greater than our own would, with any backed up certainty, be more "peaceful". In fact, I am ready to claim there is evidence on the contrary.
Well we only have ourselves to go on, but you are most probably correct.
I'm pretty confident on probabilities that others are out there somewhere, but there really is no example or expectation that some of these "others" are any more advanced than ourselves except in technology.
For instance, the difference between yourself and someone from ancient Egypt is merely culture and technology. We haven't really changed deep down. Just given a bit of time to think about how things could ideally be.
You're right though, no theory is perfect. Taking my argument into account, I myself do hope we one day reach total passifism, no one deserves to die, that is what I believe.
Hi Jonas, basically the Yanks have taken another of our great ideas (Harrier VTOL) and made it even better. The reason they wanted this one so much is they can make smaller aircraft carriers, and these do go faster than the speed of sound, the 1 fault of Harriers is they are very slow.
wrong, the harrier ability is for you. the uk has few and very small carriers. it needs vtol much more than the us. the us has 11 super carriers with 2 more under construction. the uk has 2 dinky carriers last i checked. sure you are building a bigger one, but not many. your lack of carriers cost lives in the falklands when air cover was insufficient. and it was only lucky timing that you had a carrier at all, they were planned to be decommissioned very soon or something stupid.
So why is the US building VTOLs then, as they use much more fuel taking off/landing vertically. So they can land on huge carriers vertically, or on runways? I think Not.Your huge carriers didn't do you much good in Vietnam did they???? Couldn't even beat peasants with ak47s and pedal bikes.
The U.S. will be the primary operator of the STOVL varient of the Lightning II. A smaller number will go to Britain and some oversea's partners, but of the 3,100 built, more than 2,600 will be operated by the U.S.
Actually, the vast majority of F-35b's will go to the U.S. Marine Corps to replace the Harrier II. Britain is a level one partner and will receive some of the stovl jets for their navy.
Just because the design is old, doesn't mean they're bad or old. You can still buy a brand new Harrier Jumpjet (7th gen?, or is it 6, forget) state of the art VTOL. It has more power and more flexibility than the X35, and is the only jet where you can slap it into reverse and get behind a trailing foe. The Harrier is very hard to beat in a dogfight.
X35 is primarily designed to be a cheap jet for forces with small budgets. Which don't really apply to the US (highest budget since WW2).
Rodgerthat
tonirae916 3 weeks ago
@ImHDZx You can't always take words into an account.
NationChosenByGod 2 months ago
Prior to the whole configuration of the X-35, the design was drawn deliberately. Overall, it lies in the 4th generation category.
NationChosenByGod 3 months ago
The X-35 design
NationChosenByGod 3 months ago
What's the difference between X-35 and F-35?
ThePlanespotter1 3 months ago
F22 sucks it got owned badly in transformer 3.
purelego 6 months ago
prophetsofwar
lihzan 10 months ago
if this is going to replace a-10 i really doubt in someones common sence
pticurina 1 year ago
fuck russia
cbfreakbears 1 year ago
It has problem with vertical landing similar to x-32, that is why the congress has issued LM to find a quick solution. Otherwise this aircraft should end up in the junk category.
NationChosenByGod 1 year ago
This aircraft is the most pathethic and suck ass aircraft compared to the others 5th gen.
NationChosenByGod 1 year ago
Is the fuel tube attracked by strong magnetism? (I guess it would take more than skills to make tube hit the opening perfectly)
ChrisG140907 1 year ago
бля тут такие профи фсе, пойдук я отседава)
Sonik20062008 1 year ago
Unmanned STV rejection 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 minimal aero-control, stealth inlets/wing-body design took place in Israel in 1987 [May 18, 1987, Aviation Week]. Unclassified video in a Facebook cite ["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
@baked pork. the f-22 came pick of a target not even in visual range. and the dog fight is a thing of the past. there has only dogfights with jets in 2 wars in the 20th century. but i can get why you called it a dogfighter. its thrust vectoring gives it unreal maneuverability. and its two HUGE turbo fan engines.
743729sci 1 year ago
Can someone who works with this aircraft be specific on this jets manuverabilty? I know there is a problem with raptor being talked about on this page, but i do want to point out that two engins that vector thrust would seemingly beat the single engin seen on the x-35. Maybe not on speed, but definately manuvering.
T15Medic 1 year ago
@T15Medic very very similar
both are prat whitney f1 00~+ series the raptors was designed first and the f35 is a vairient of that
but its nto the engine tha tgive manouverability its the airframe
jerethdalion 1 year ago
@jerethdalion thats for explaining that, but i would like to know what the f100 series is. Do you have a link to a good site or vid on it? but idk, I still think it is the vector thrusters that give it the edge, because that can help counter the drag on quick changes of AOA.
T15Medic 1 year ago
No the ping will be the problem why send a RC plane on the other side of the world and have huge ping when you can have 0 by sending a pilot it's to much of a headache.
1991ovi 2 years ago
@1991ovi you dumbass its not like they are controlling it with a 56kb dialup modem.
fatezor 1 year ago
THE F-22 the F-35 may very well be the last piloted combat aircraft. The Navy has sunk so much money into drone craft, i bet from now on, drone fighters will be the wave of the future. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just cost efficient.
rounder421 2 years ago
yeah, seems like they're into RC planes.
I guess the predator is the biggest and baddest RC toy plane in the world, haha
HellTuner 2 years ago
@HellTuner Actually, the predator drone is a UAV and not an RC vehicle. The difference is that a UAV can fly autonomously, while an RPV (remotely piloted vehicle) requires a pilot.
eyeAMtwinkEE 4 months ago
noua
filip2081 2 years ago
We should have just updated the radar systems in the F-22 instead of betting the future on this piece of trash just because it's cheaper and has better avionics..
thebuzzcjc 2 years ago
@thebuzzcjc The F35 displays many capabilities that the F22 is unable to perform. Each plane plays a specific role on the battlefield.
eyeAMtwinkEE 4 months ago
Nothing new. Only a Yakovlev Yak-141 modernized.
redleocabral 2 years ago
Oh look it can roll. roll again. roll again. again. another roll. is there anything else this plane can do.
G777GUN 2 years ago
I'm sure the plane could fire a missle up your asshole
doughyi8u 2 years ago 9
@doughyi8u
I am sure the Eurofighter can do the same to you. Your arse is probably bigger. lol
G777GUN 2 years ago
LOL! xDD^^
EminemPoulbe 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
oh yeah I mean even the Raptor did the same on its test flights if you check out the videos you will see waht I am talking about!
BulgarianInCanada 2 years ago
well, like i said. of course the current F-35 models cannot do it, but you could always redesign another variant.
ablahblah54 2 years ago
it looks like the raptor.
the raptor is lockheed to right?
reviathon360 2 years ago
the lightening.. is inspirated in the raptor... it´s like a variant..and yhes the raptor is .lokeed martin / boeing
raptor22Tiquet 2 years ago
thanks!
reviathon360 2 years ago
@raptor22Tiquet The Raptor and F35 are Lockheed Martin/BAE.
eyeAMtwinkEE 4 months ago
yup, thats definitely true. just saying it MIGHT be a good idea for another variant of the F-35....
F-35D CGS (Close Ground Support) Variant!!! :D
then again, i'v never really SEEN an aircraft with a "D" variant designation...
ablahblah54 2 years ago
@ablahblah54 The F35 doesn't need that designation because it was designed with that role in mind already. The F-35A variant is for the Marines and does that.
eyeAMtwinkEE 4 months ago
hey just wondering, can that thing use its gun when hovering? if it could, lookit the possiblities.
Imagine a F-35 going in hovering like a Apache under tree cover, gunning some guards down, then switching to fighter mode and proceeding with bombing targets.
It'd be cool to have a fighter zoom in after finishing up a sortie, find some infantry needing help, switching to a hover and giving some helicopter style gunning support.
ablahblah54 2 years ago
ablahblah54,
cool Idea, but hovering for long in a jet would burn way to much fuel
a helicopter is designed to hover around and be a gun platfourm. A X-35 is a combat aircraft, not a helicopter
FordManMT 2 years ago
wow what i wouldn't give to be up in that plane......... hell id even settle for an a-10.
sucks having dreams huh.
ok thats the end of my boo who comment. ;)
m5bbass 2 years ago
this is just a plane that has more qualifications than the raptor. It was more heavyweight than the f35/x35 JSF Joint strike fighter
tomcat41ub 2 years ago
i like the f22 raptor better
JRLOC488 2 years ago 3
raptor is better but its used to 2 completly different roles .. f-35 is a ground attack and close air support fighter and f-22 is a dog fighter kinda aircraft
bakedpork 2 years ago 8
The F-22 is more of a long distance fighter type A/C with stealth capabilities. Its meant more for long distance A/C to multiple A/C techniques where the F-35 (JSF) is a multi-platform, close in, infantry and ground force support roles. Its not meant to take on other superfighters, just low level bombers and support A/C that the F-22 is unable to get to on the ground. Every Aircraft has its good and bad points. Neither the F-35 or the F-22 are meant to be the cure alls.
oicurageologist 2 years ago
@bakedpork you have no idea what your talking about the raptor is a piece of shit. . .I work on F15 in USAF and i know alot of people that came from Langley AFB VA and have worked on 22's there a corrosion nightmare! in a few years we woulnt be able to even use them. . .They didnt think through the 22 like the did the 35 im excited to see what it can do and it costs as much as a 16!!! and they are both air to air, air to ground, why would be build a single role fighter in 2010
veilsidegtr1 1 year ago
@veilsidegtr1 I was getting to get ready to disagree with you but I have to be honest, I know very little about the F 22. I know it looks bad. I work the F/L at Lockheed on the F 35 programme and I have to say, I'm so impressed with this je and I've been in this field for 34 years thanks to my start in the Navy.. Cost are rising but not like you see in the news. Cost estimates are based on previous contracts such as the F 22. Fact is we are below reality estimates.
brofranomo 1 year ago
@veilsidegtr1 We are now starting to have successful flight test on a weekly basis coming back as code 1 which I'm sure you know what that means. Glad to see you're on board with us....
brofranomo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bakedpork . the f-22 came pick of a target not even in visual range. and the dog fight is a thing of the past. there has only dogfights with jets in 2 wars in the 20th century. but i can get why you called it a dogfighter. its thrust vectoring gives it unreal maneuverability. and its two HUGE turbo fan engines.
743729sci 1 year ago
@bakedpork f-35 "joint strike fighter" that thing will rip a 22's turn in half.
iceee187 1 year ago
@iceee187 What the hell are you talking about? The F-22 has far superior maneuverability. It's got thrust vectoring which the F-35 hasn't, and the F-35 is supposed to have similar flight characteristics to the F-16. In a F-22 vs. F-16 maneuverability and turn radius battle, I'd go all in on the F-22.
wellerocks 1 year ago
@iceee187 The F22's estimated turn rate is ~30 deg/sec. The F35 comes in at around 20 deg/sec.
eyeAMtwinkEE 4 months ago
@bakedpork f35 > f22 in a 1v1 anyday
shibbywalkk 1 year ago
@shibbywalkk What? Both planes are very capable in their own right, don't get me wrong, but the F22 will fly circles around the F35 in an air to air situation.
eyeAMtwinkEE 4 months ago
@bakedpork and both fall apart like lego under machine gun fire :D
Dreadnought942 4 months ago
me two but this a made to be cheaper
Schwarz2448 2 years ago
absolutely beautiful watching this plane fly
thewilkieb 2 years ago 3
comments below were supposed to be replies below, sorry.
Fuyugai 2 years ago
3:32 the are 51
Nord1991armu 2 years ago
Was this not named the Lightning 2, after the P38 Lightening?
123JDB789 3 years ago
yeah it is
SNOWMANINURFACE 2 years ago
But the UCAV is the best! and it can run up to hypersonic whatever speed they can want. Just like an F-22 Raptor but it has a single engine and a vertical take-off.....
hammergodz 3 years ago
the F-22 is faster though still but this is an awesome plane very versatile.
kozadongre 3 years ago
looks kinda like the f-22...
slacker3442 3 years ago
its supposed to resemble the f-22. lockheed martin made both the f-22 raptor and the x-35 now called the f-35.
ccoto2005 2 years ago
for those who dont know.
x-35 and f-35 are the same.
x just means experimental aka prototype.
f means fighter.
tkxg 3 years ago 2
dont u know that when the jet has 2 jet engines it really only uses 1. the other one is a safety net.
tkxg 3 years ago
jets use both engines, just they use less of each combined to produce the same amount of thrust as a single engine, although the dual engines will have to create slightly more thrust due to increased weight from the additional engine.
Fuyugai 2 years ago
this F-35 / X-35 need 2 jets..
2 jets are better balance and more faster than one jet
bestamerica 3 years ago
a single jet was used to decrease cost and weight. also, this jet was to be used in all the divisions of the military, navy, airforce, and marines/army. the navy wanted two engines for safety issues because they would be over water, but finally decided on a single and reliable engine.
Fuyugai 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well done Bro nice video only i wonder how did you got the Millitary Data and information do you know any site whara i can collect data like this
Ahmedk13 3 years ago
my parents work on the program and its freakin awsom
steedicle 3 years ago
Check out the DAS system that is installed into the f-35. Watch it, and you know why everyone wants to buy it even for air to air superiority. It basically renders even the most maneuverable aircraft out there useless.
twinoceans 3 years ago
what is difference between f 35 and x 35?
bloodytv86 3 years ago
In order to understand, you first need to know how Air Force chose its airplanes. They gave money to 2 defense contractors, Lockheed and Boeing, each make 2 technology demonstrators of their design (the x-35 and x-32) to compete with one another for the JSF program. The x-35 won against Boeing x-32, and entered further development phrase and production phrase as f-35, while the 2 x-32 enter museum. x refers to technology demonstrator, and f refers to fighters
stealthyf23 3 years ago 2
ok i understand. thank u very much....
bloodytv86 3 years ago
I'd love to find out what they are designing/testing at the moment, as all of the aircraft in service now were designed 10+ years ago. Imagine what we will have in 10-20 years from now....
piacono 3 years ago
i still like the british sea harrier bst
fsx93 3 years ago
No Plane can bang with this...
DJDYBER 3 years ago
From history point of view, all races comes from one race.....until they rebelled against the God of gods, the God of gods said,"Lets divide and scatter them to the four corners of the world" since then we been fighting amonst ourselves because of difference in languages,colors, and cultures. Amazing is it? 2,000 years ago, the God of gods said "Repent or perish", the God of gods is coming back again, those amonst the races that repented for being rebellous, shall be forgiven and become one.
pcmiler2000 4 years ago
thats a good looking fighter, its about time they replace the ageing f16
sktebrder24 4 years ago
Not to mention a world with "no weapons or fighting" is not necessarily a good world. Problems and conflicts and overcoming these problems are what make life interesting and worth living. Conflicts that involve the death of human beings are no only natural but in fact almost necessary. I assure you that noone, if they REALLY thought about it, would want to live in such a pacifist dream world that people like antonio love to rant about.
KnighTC0rE 4 years ago
In fact, the lack of all conflict between intelligent organisms that interact or come in contact with one another is simply up against all logic. If I were asked when I think our race would be able to "reform" itself towards a world of "no weapons or fighting", I would not dare claim this to happen within a few decades, centuries or even millenia.I would, with almost dead certainty, outright say "Never, as long as we exist."
KnighTC0rE 4 years ago
A world with no weapons and fighting is a really good dream, but its not reality. Its basic human instinct to fight, and I'm afraid we're not that evolved yet, passifist ideals such as yours antonio are irrelevant to say the least.
TeeKup 4 years ago 2
TeeKup, even your statement is somewhat flawed. Why do you assume that the more "evolved" we are, the more "passifist" we can become? Overriding natural instinct of predator and prey in no way reduces aggression. There is simply no evidence for the hypothetical case that a civilization many times greater than our own would, with any backed up certainty, be more "peaceful". In fact, I am ready to claim there is evidence on the contrary.
KnighTC0rE 4 years ago
Well we only have ourselves to go on, but you are most probably correct.
I'm pretty confident on probabilities that others are out there somewhere, but there really is no example or expectation that some of these "others" are any more advanced than ourselves except in technology.
For instance, the difference between yourself and someone from ancient Egypt is merely culture and technology. We haven't really changed deep down. Just given a bit of time to think about how things could ideally be.
dyerasyd 4 years ago
Very well put.
You're right though, no theory is perfect. Taking my argument into account, I myself do hope we one day reach total passifism, no one deserves to die, that is what I believe.
TeeKup 4 years ago
So does the X-35 have similar characters to the harrier or what? What's the big deal with it?
JonasBridgous 4 years ago
Hi Jonas, basically the Yanks have taken another of our great ideas (Harrier VTOL) and made it even better. The reason they wanted this one so much is they can make smaller aircraft carriers, and these do go faster than the speed of sound, the 1 fault of Harriers is they are very slow.
piacono 4 years ago
wrong, the harrier ability is for you. the uk has few and very small carriers. it needs vtol much more than the us. the us has 11 super carriers with 2 more under construction. the uk has 2 dinky carriers last i checked. sure you are building a bigger one, but not many. your lack of carriers cost lives in the falklands when air cover was insufficient. and it was only lucky timing that you had a carrier at all, they were planned to be decommissioned very soon or something stupid.
omgwtfbbqstfu 3 years ago
So why is the US building VTOLs then, as they use much more fuel taking off/landing vertically. So they can land on huge carriers vertically, or on runways? I think Not.Your huge carriers didn't do you much good in Vietnam did they???? Couldn't even beat peasants with ak47s and pedal bikes.
piacono 3 years ago
The US Marines use a small number of VTOL. Primalrily the VTOL version is for UK.
F22Ownage 3 years ago
The U.S. will be the primary operator of the STOVL varient of the Lightning II. A smaller number will go to Britain and some oversea's partners, but of the 3,100 built, more than 2,600 will be operated by the U.S.
odessaboy 3 years ago
THe last official "OK'ed" for US F-35A procurments were 1,763.
F-35B (STOVL) were only 250.
This was for the US only, the number was reduced from 2600 to 1763 in 1997. Since then I couldn;t find any other official quanity amounts
F22Ownage 3 years ago
You may be right, but it reads different on wikipedia. I know everyone makes fun of that sight, but they're usually spot on.
odessaboy 3 years ago
wiwki isnt that bad, if you know how to read between the lines so to speak. I use it alot for quick referance sometimes.
A very good site thats rarely has any inaccuracies is
w w w . globalsecurity . org
F22Ownage 3 years ago
Actually, the vast majority of F-35b's will go to the U.S. Marine Corps to replace the Harrier II. Britain is a level one partner and will receive some of the stovl jets for their navy.
odessaboy 3 years ago
There's a navy version that can hover and take off and land vertically just like the harrier. The harrier and f16 are old, time for a new design
Seano71 4 years ago
Just because the design is old, doesn't mean they're bad or old. You can still buy a brand new Harrier Jumpjet (7th gen?, or is it 6, forget) state of the art VTOL. It has more power and more flexibility than the X35, and is the only jet where you can slap it into reverse and get behind a trailing foe. The Harrier is very hard to beat in a dogfight.
X35 is primarily designed to be a cheap jet for forces with small budgets. Which don't really apply to the US (highest budget since WW2).
metalkanin 3 years ago
5000 views and no comment..i"ll say it...does the world realy need another airboure killing machine..x~35 waste of money.
antonioVillasboas 4 years ago