Isn't there any video on You Tube showcasing the 'technologies' of this beautiful aircraft... apparently, THIS is it. WHAT A SHAME! Also I will take a moment here to abuse all of you by proclaiming that HAVING TO ADD MUSIC to every video on You Tube, is lame! TV TV TV under all your skins! pfft.
@aarrmmeenndd100 because they're very expensive. But they do offer some advantages of just unmanned fighters. So this is probably what we'll see in the future. The only problem with these fighters is that they are very expensive.
@aarrmmeenndd100 Well, in 2020, there will be manned fighters flying, of course. but who knows what will happen up until 2040? The unmanned fighters technology might evolve to a such an extent that there will be no reason to build manned fighters. And the truth is that if technology evolves, there's really no need to to build manned fighters, which are more expensive and they also provide weaker performances.
As for why not to build fighters that are both manned and unmanned, well, that's
@aarrmmeenndd100 A lot of things will happen and change before 2040. The UAV technology will evolve to such an extent until then that manned fighters will have become obsolete fro quite a while... The truth is UAVs are the future, one of the reasons is that they can be produce in much larger numbers because they're cheaper. And they also offer superior performances from every point of view. Only people who can't think outside the box still want manned fighters...
@aarrmmeenndd100 I think they will build both manned and unmanned fighters. Although, if technology progresses, I don't see any reason to continue building manned fighters. Unmanned fighters offer a lot of advantages over manned fighters and no disadvantage. I believe that fighters like X-47B are the future of military aviation. I don't know what you see in manned fighters, but unmanned fighters are much more efficient.
@aarrmmeenndd100 Oh, I'm sure the government knows what they do in the Area 51. Or at least some of the government's members. The military is under political control in the US.
@aarrmmeenndd100 Well, I don't know what to say about that "black budget". I don't see any proof of it. And I certainly don't believe in those alien stories. But there may be true that they have very advanced designs that they test in secrecy. But if this is the case, then I don't know where are these designs.
@aarrmmeenndd100 I would really like to see what other designs they have. Because some people say they're broke and they can't build anything else. I would really like to see what other designs they have.
@aarrmmeenndd100 They didn't have funds for that. That's why they never built a full scale X-36 aircraft. Too bad. Who knows? It might have stolen the contract from LM.
I wonder what would've happened with the JSF if the contract was awarded to the McDonell Douglas or Northrop. Something tells me that the program wouldn't have had the delays the Lockheed Martin fighter has which led to its astronomical costs.
As for the X-36, the program was much more successful than the F-22. It was this fighter that should've been developed instead of the F-22. I bet it would've been cheaper and more capable than the F-22.
I'm just glad Boeing's X-32 didn't win man that thing is stupid looking. I was going to say ugly but people say the A-10 is ugly for some reason. Can't have those 2 put in the same bucket of comparison. Yes I know they have 2 completely different roles just saying.
Mc Donnell Douglas again had the better design aircraft (F-23) and the politics played into the pos problem plague f-22, preventing MDC from winning the JFS. The Air Force and politics would cancel or prevent anything that would be better than the f-22even though the f-22 has always been the lesser of the F-23
This is the reason why Mc Donnell Douglas was removed from the JSF. Air Force did. not want a JSF that would be better that the POS(world most expensive fighter) F-22.
Again Mc Donnell Douglas had the BETTER DESIGN! F-23 and the JSF
@TheMitchy93 There are different levels and types of unstability. Even airplanes decades ago like f-16, f-18 were designed with a level of unstability to improve their maneuverability, though no where close to the eurofighter, just as the eurofighter typhoon nowhere close to the MCDD proposal. The mcdonnell's design would have been vastly more maneuverable than the eurofighter typhoon. No verticle tails would also mean stealthier.
@stealthyf23 No comparison! I have no doubt that this proposal went into the Black Aircraft Program. This Would be a great 5th or 6th gen Frontline fighter.
Well there were budgeting and time constraints which made it unlikely this would have been pursued not to mentioned how radical it is. Also technically McDonnell Douglas did build an aircraft in the JSF program. When they got bought out by Boeing and they took the same ppl and built the X-32, which lost to the X35.
@biped19 That is kind of a stupid statement since Mcdonnell Douglas failed in making the contract and Boeing and Lockheed were awarded the contracts to compete. Boeing soon after bought Mconnell Douglas to lead in the development of the X-plane competition for the F-35 contract. The Boeing plane sucked. So no Mcdonnell Douglas plane wasn't superior. Education is your friend.
The X-32 out performed the X-35 in competition. It flew cross county during the competition a suprise to Lockheed because theirs was not werthy of that flight yet. Only down side of X32 was that it used similar virtical takeoff approach as the harrier which was considered old tech. Although it performed great. It had the potential to win the competition but I guess Lockheed invest more $ in lobbying in DC for defense programs than Boeing. Too Bad it lost because it would have been in Iraq today!
it looks actually intimidating, a silent and unseen killer
the tail on a conventional fighter gives it away as a plane but the X-36 just looks like a UFO or the stealth bomber aka B2 or even like the YF-23. incredible
The X-35 beat the X-32. The X-35 was then used for the JSF program to produce the F-35. There are 3 different variants. F-35A is a conventional take off and landing variant. F-35B is a short vertical take of and landing variant. The F-35C is the carrier capable version. The X-32 lost because it was not manueverable enough and the X-35 constantly performed better.
no problem, mate:) It's hard to find anyone up here on youtube that accepts he/she's wrong, which is pretty rediculous. I think more people should be like you. It's internet for love's sake. If one's wrong, just admits so with a "lol;" done deal; everyone happy:) sorry for the rant, 'cause I just had to deal with a guy like that a short while ago.
but there's no f-35 in this vid. There's only the x-36 and JSF proposal of mcdonnell douglas, which lost to lockheed x-35 and boeing x-32, x-35 then won and became the now developing f-35.
the x-35 didn't beat the x-36. the x-36 is a different program. You probably meant why did the x-35 beat the jsf proposal of mcdonnell douglas. Well, the reason was never gone publically, but critics believed that the x-35 and x-32 are two polar opposite designs, and the military used to choose opposite designs to compete with one another. The mcdonnell one is a middle ground between the two, thus discarded
Yes, the military has a habit of choosing a high-risk design (Boeing) and a low-risk design (Lockheed), based on F-22 data.
However the McD/BAe/Northrop design required two engines 100% operational, and it was a re-design of their original canard-based concept, with less than a year to go, which meant it was a rather hasty re-design that they did.
Great ideas, but I can understand some of the concerns.
Read more about it on Alex Stoll's page! Google: "Alex Stoll JSF"
Can't the signals from a virtual cockpit be jammed or interfered with?
It would be neat to have an unmanned remote control vehicle, but I figured that those signals if cut, would render the airplane lost, unless generic autonomous software was in place to try to get the airplane back to base or something.
HA , yah? maybe if ur ufo's , look at our UAV drones in iraq, they fly by them selfs no need for a pilot, only thing pilots do back here in USA is watch
Some Anti-Jam (AJ) technologies are very difficult to jam, and besides as djrevolution99 mentioned, the software is so advanced now that the aircraft can fly and complete the entire mission autonomously if the remote link was ever disrupted.
The JSF entry from McDonnell Douglas actually looks more like the YF-23 with its shallow V-tails.
Its really too bad that this design was not adopted. It looks so very cool and sleek.
The X-36 is also an amazing machine. One thing that is not clear to me though. The X-36 is supposed to be stealthy, but how can it be stealthy with canards in the front? I thought canards compromise stealth.
the JSF entry uses a pelikan tail, unlike a normal v-tail like yf-23. As for x-36, it's a demonstrator. So stealth was not as emphasized as having an extremely unstable airframe.
The point is not about "no tail." The B-2 has no tail, and it was made in the 80's. However, using no tail as an advantage for maneuverability by using thrust vectoring as a mean of fly-by-wire system, however, is technologically break through.
So the XFA-36A is based off this design... Props NAMCO!
JPUP1697 1 month ago
Isn't there any video on You Tube showcasing the 'technologies' of this beautiful aircraft... apparently, THIS is it. WHAT A SHAME! Also I will take a moment here to abuse all of you by proclaiming that HAVING TO ADD MUSIC to every video on You Tube, is lame! TV TV TV under all your skins! pfft.
doceigen 5 months ago
@aarrmmeenndd100 because they're very expensive. But they do offer some advantages of just unmanned fighters. So this is probably what we'll see in the future. The only problem with these fighters is that they are very expensive.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@aarrmmeenndd100 Well, in 2020, there will be manned fighters flying, of course. but who knows what will happen up until 2040? The unmanned fighters technology might evolve to a such an extent that there will be no reason to build manned fighters. And the truth is that if technology evolves, there's really no need to to build manned fighters, which are more expensive and they also provide weaker performances.
As for why not to build fighters that are both manned and unmanned, well, that's
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@aarrmmeenndd100 A lot of things will happen and change before 2040. The UAV technology will evolve to such an extent until then that manned fighters will have become obsolete fro quite a while... The truth is UAVs are the future, one of the reasons is that they can be produce in much larger numbers because they're cheaper. And they also offer superior performances from every point of view. Only people who can't think outside the box still want manned fighters...
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@aarrmmeenndd100 I think they will build both manned and unmanned fighters. Although, if technology progresses, I don't see any reason to continue building manned fighters. Unmanned fighters offer a lot of advantages over manned fighters and no disadvantage. I believe that fighters like X-47B are the future of military aviation. I don't know what you see in manned fighters, but unmanned fighters are much more efficient.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@aarrmmeenndd100 Yeah, they're more than sure working on projects that will see service only decades later.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@aarrmmeenndd100 Oh, I'm sure the government knows what they do in the Area 51. Or at least some of the government's members. The military is under political control in the US.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@aarrmmeenndd100 Well, I don't know what to say about that "black budget". I don't see any proof of it. And I certainly don't believe in those alien stories. But there may be true that they have very advanced designs that they test in secrecy. But if this is the case, then I don't know where are these designs.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@aarrmmeenndd100 I would really like to see what other designs they have. Because some people say they're broke and they can't build anything else. I would really like to see what other designs they have.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@aarrmmeenndd100 They didn't have funds for that. That's why they never built a full scale X-36 aircraft. Too bad. Who knows? It might have stolen the contract from LM.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@aarrmmeenndd100 You mean, for the JSF program? Well, they did. It was called the X-32. It lost against the Lockheed Martin's X-35.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@aarrmmeenndd100 I don't understand the question.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
Is there a Yak-52 at 5:35 ? O_o
XaHyMaH 7 months ago
@aarrmmeenndd100 No, the aliens didn't built the X-36... Those who did it were all humans. The American engineers built it.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
I wonder what would've happened with the JSF if the contract was awarded to the McDonell Douglas or Northrop. Something tells me that the program wouldn't have had the delays the Lockheed Martin fighter has which led to its astronomical costs.
As for the X-36, the program was much more successful than the F-22. It was this fighter that should've been developed instead of the F-22. I bet it would've been cheaper and more capable than the F-22.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
What show is this?
leangle1988 8 months ago
I'm just glad Boeing's X-32 didn't win man that thing is stupid looking. I was going to say ugly but people say the A-10 is ugly for some reason. Can't have those 2 put in the same bucket of comparison. Yes I know they have 2 completely different roles just saying.
ASpatha 9 months ago
Mc Donnell Douglas again had the better design aircraft (F-23) and the politics played into the pos problem plague f-22, preventing MDC from winning the JFS. The Air Force and politics would cancel or prevent anything that would be better than the f-22even though the f-22 has always been the lesser of the F-23
ximenoworks 1 year ago
Yup this is the future, Chinese J-20x is shit design
watsupzzful 1 year ago
This is the reason why Mc Donnell Douglas was removed from the JSF. Air Force did. not want a JSF that would be better that the POS(world most expensive fighter) F-22.
Again Mc Donnell Douglas had the BETTER DESIGN! F-23 and the JSF
ximenoworks 1 year ago
@aarrmmeenndd100
read up on the history of the air force and when it split from the army
robspartan117 1 year ago
F-22,F-35 bucket of bolts
den19902 1 year ago
ACE COMBAT!!
aimannorzahariwod 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Narrow Naughty girls and ladies here benaughtyman.info
ranjanikumari 1 year ago
See YF-23
NWguy83 1 year ago
The X-29 and then the X-36 are my current favorite.
doceigen 1 year ago
while the US are busy making new jet fighters and perfect every single one of them, the Russians has already moved on to UFO.
everybody knows that no one can fly better than a Russian.
-well known fact, point blank!
stingray614 1 year ago
@stingray614 Are you a comedian?
NWguy83 1 year ago
The Eurofighter Typhoon is designed to be unstable.
They should of kept the horizontal tales.
TheMitchy93 1 year ago
@TheMitchy93 There are different levels and types of unstability. Even airplanes decades ago like f-16, f-18 were designed with a level of unstability to improve their maneuverability, though no where close to the eurofighter, just as the eurofighter typhoon nowhere close to the MCDD proposal. The mcdonnell's design would have been vastly more maneuverable than the eurofighter typhoon. No verticle tails would also mean stealthier.
stealthyf23 1 year ago
@stealthyf23 No comparison! I have no doubt that this proposal went into the Black Aircraft Program. This Would be a great 5th or 6th gen Frontline fighter.
newmanfrigan 10 months ago
I'm willing to bet that the Mcdonnell Douglas JSF would have been superior to the F-35.
biped19 2 years ago 21
@biped19
Well there were budgeting and time constraints which made it unlikely this would have been pursued not to mentioned how radical it is. Also technically McDonnell Douglas did build an aircraft in the JSF program. When they got bought out by Boeing and they took the same ppl and built the X-32, which lost to the X35.
in4ser 1 year ago
@biped19 That is kind of a stupid statement since Mcdonnell Douglas failed in making the contract and Boeing and Lockheed were awarded the contracts to compete. Boeing soon after bought Mconnell Douglas to lead in the development of the X-plane competition for the F-35 contract. The Boeing plane sucked. So no Mcdonnell Douglas plane wasn't superior. Education is your friend.
Warpath2198 1 year ago
The X-32 out performed the X-35 in competition. It flew cross county during the competition a suprise to Lockheed because theirs was not werthy of that flight yet. Only down side of X32 was that it used similar virtical takeoff approach as the harrier which was considered old tech. Although it performed great. It had the potential to win the competition but I guess Lockheed invest more $ in lobbying in DC for defense programs than Boeing. Too Bad it lost because it would have been in Iraq today!
uspatriot08 2 years ago 4
X-32 was having reheat issues along with many other flaws.
cr9527 2 years ago
it looks actually intimidating, a silent and unseen killer
the tail on a conventional fighter gives it away as a plane but the X-36 just looks like a UFO or the stealth bomber aka B2 or even like the YF-23. incredible
pilotbro77 2 years ago 2
the idea of unmanned fighters one disbenefit that i know about it from being a hardcore pc gamer.
LAG LATENCY
if your thousands of miles away you might notice significant stutters or unresponsiveness i dont want that
monimstarfox 2 years ago
BWAHAHAHAHAH!
ipbalkenende 2 years ago
Holy crap! When i saw that first X-36 spin my face was like O_________O
ExgamerLegends 2 years ago
that roll is terrifying holy crap pilots are going to have some sore necks
monimstarfox 2 years ago
Now, if McDonnell can only market the X-36 as an RC plane....
3A7C 2 years ago 2
The X-35 beat the X-32. The X-35 was then used for the JSF program to produce the F-35. There are 3 different variants. F-35A is a conventional take off and landing variant. F-35B is a short vertical take of and landing variant. The F-35C is the carrier capable version. The X-32 lost because it was not manueverable enough and the X-35 constantly performed better.
undertake782 2 years ago
X36 was actually the RDT&E study that preluded McD's JSF proposal. It's too bad that the McD proposal was selected out.
BOGOWA22 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i'll hack that bitch with my iphone.
iamxeddiex 3 years ago
i'll hack that bitch with my iphone.
iamxeddiex 3 years ago
As usual the British come up with the best ideas
04scottt 3 years ago
This isn't british
stealthyf23 3 years ago
it was a joint operation between multi goverments...
Dj671993 2 years ago
no. the x-36 was a mcdonnell douglas' project, which was a US company.
stealthyf23 2 years ago
ok... idc lol
Dj671993 2 years ago
no problem, mate:) It's hard to find anyone up here on youtube that accepts he/she's wrong, which is pretty rediculous. I think more people should be like you. It's internet for love's sake. If one's wrong, just admits so with a "lol;" done deal; everyone happy:) sorry for the rant, 'cause I just had to deal with a guy like that a short while ago.
stealthyf23 2 years ago
its a cool fighter though but me personaly i think the f-22 is better
Dj671993 2 years ago
the x-36 is only a technology demonstrator, not a fighter.
stealthyf23 2 years ago
the atual mass produced version
Dj671993 2 years ago
there is no such version
stealthyf23 2 years ago
i mean the f-35. google it and u'll see
Dj671993 2 years ago
but there's no f-35 in this vid. There's only the x-36 and JSF proposal of mcdonnell douglas, which lost to lockheed x-35 and boeing x-32, x-35 then won and became the now developing f-35.
stealthyf23 2 years ago
umm. see idk that... so y did the x-35 bet the x-36
Dj671993 2 years ago
the x-35 didn't beat the x-36. the x-36 is a different program. You probably meant why did the x-35 beat the jsf proposal of mcdonnell douglas. Well, the reason was never gone publically, but critics believed that the x-35 and x-32 are two polar opposite designs, and the military used to choose opposite designs to compete with one another. The mcdonnell one is a middle ground between the two, thus discarded
stealthyf23 2 years ago
@stealthyf23
Yes, the military has a habit of choosing a high-risk design (Boeing) and a low-risk design (Lockheed), based on F-22 data.
However the McD/BAe/Northrop design required two engines 100% operational, and it was a re-design of their original canard-based concept, with less than a year to go, which meant it was a rather hasty re-design that they did.
Great ideas, but I can understand some of the concerns.
Read more about it on Alex Stoll's page! Google: "Alex Stoll JSF"
nightowl8936 2 years ago
very true, McD didn't have a definite design until late into the process
stealthyf23 2 years ago
Can't the signals from a virtual cockpit be jammed or interfered with?
It would be neat to have an unmanned remote control vehicle, but I figured that those signals if cut, would render the airplane lost, unless generic autonomous software was in place to try to get the airplane back to base or something.
nightowl8936 3 years ago
HA , yah? maybe if ur ufo's , look at our UAV drones in iraq, they fly by them selfs no need for a pilot, only thing pilots do back here in USA is watch
djrevolution99 3 years ago
Some Anti-Jam (AJ) technologies are very difficult to jam, and besides as djrevolution99 mentioned, the software is so advanced now that the aircraft can fly and complete the entire mission autonomously if the remote link was ever disrupted.
dLimboStick 3 years ago
lol i dint know that it was that small (x-36)
blingyruss 3 years ago
looks like a remade f-22.
RTiger18 3 years ago
"looks like a remade f-22."
The JSF entry from McDonnell Douglas actually looks more like the YF-23 with its shallow V-tails.
Its really too bad that this design was not adopted. It looks so very cool and sleek.
The X-36 is also an amazing machine. One thing that is not clear to me though. The X-36 is supposed to be stealthy, but how can it be stealthy with canards in the front? I thought canards compromise stealth.
nightowl8936 3 years ago
the JSF entry uses a pelikan tail, unlike a normal v-tail like yf-23. As for x-36, it's a demonstrator. So stealth was not as emphasized as having an extremely unstable airframe.
stealthyf23 3 years ago
I made paper tailless airoplanes back in 1980. ;)
szlamx 3 years ago
Thanks for posting this, it helped me alot!
RCSuperPowers 3 years ago 2
dave!! congrats on the x36 you made a history on rc planes hehe more power!!! your my idol now
ryemeg900 3 years ago 2
Thanks! Its like they say in this video here. It was so much to get a RC X-36 to work but once it does, it really does!
RCSuperPowers 3 years ago
dave you've really done this NASA project on a smaller scale and just amazing.
grame141 3 years ago 2
Check the x-45 on wikipedia. Stealth, no tail, no pilot.
jlarpi 3 years ago
The point is not about "no tail." The B-2 has no tail, and it was made in the 80's. However, using no tail as an advantage for maneuverability by using thrust vectoring as a mean of fly-by-wire system, however, is technologically break through.
twinoceans 3 years ago 2