The F-35 is Now a Nuclear Bomber

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 พ.ค. 2024
  • Advanced, stealthy, single-engine: There is nothing the F-35 Lightning II can’t do. In 2021, two F-35A aircraft successfully released B61-12 Joint Test Assemblies, comprising functional non-nuclear components and simulated nuclear components, from an altitude of 10,500 feet. It took approximately 42 seconds for the bomb to reach and hit the designated target on the range.
    Check out these top picks for you:
    • This is GAU-8 Avenger:...
    • Meet the JDAM: America...
    • MQ-4C Triton: The Larg...
    🔔 Subscribe !
    / usmilitarynewsmn
    CHAPTERS
    00:00 The F-35 Lightning II is now a Nuclear Bomber
    01:15 B61-12 Joint Test Assemblies
    02:20 Netherlands' F-35A jets NATO certified for nuclear deterrence
    03:00 A Tactical Nuke
    04:14 Stealth and Precision
    05:51 F-35 as Bomb Truck
    07:58 A Legacy of Innovation
    🔖 OUR SOCIAL MEDIA!
    ---------------------------------------------
    📲 Facebook ► / usnmil
    🐦 Twitter ► / usmil_news
    Thanks
  • วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี

ความคิดเห็น • 375

  • @B2Stratofortress
    @B2Stratofortress 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +616

    US: so the F-35 is the most advanced aircraft in the world what else do we need
    Oppenheimer: I think you forgot something

    • @B2Stratofortress
      @B2Stratofortress 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +10

      Also I love these videos 👍

    • @Davethreshold
      @Davethreshold 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      LMAO! How about Oppenheimer: "Hold my beer!" 🤡

    • @user-ii4zf5iq3t
      @user-ii4zf5iq3t 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      🎉

    • @andriyka17
      @andriyka17 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      US: make a movie?

    • @donohirst
      @donohirst 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Wait, we'd have to steal our script from Britain and France and then refuse to pay our bills until one left our big club and the other glowers, makes their own, and then we sheepishly say sorry for being gits....😉😜 History, not actually in films...

  • @BraboLawEnforcer
    @BraboLawEnforcer 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +113

    Hello from the Netherlands, I just recently learned that apparently our air force F-35A pilots are now also trained for nuclear operations (using American bombs) 2:20. We are a small country and thus limited in our military capabilities. Nevertheless, we play a key role in the global economy! The possession of such weapons is a sensitive issue here. As a NATO partner from the very beginning, we are also expected to contribute our fair share. Without modern alliances and unity, many countries would be in a precarious situation. Security and prosperity come at a cost.

    • @-108-
      @-108- 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +15

      Indeed - F R E E D O M I S N O T F R E E .

    • @jeffhall2411
      @jeffhall2411 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +12

      I was in the Netherlands while at a concert last Sept.. You guys are so nice.. Everyone i met was super nice. Love the country and the people.

    • @wyldhowl2821
      @wyldhowl2821 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

      Always was the case. Every NATO airforce which does not officially have tactical nukes has aircraft capable of using them as a backup measure.
      Same goes for navies and their missiles and torpedoes, by the way. NATO interoperability includes alliance-wide contingencies for this sort of thing.

    • @ashenmichael5420
      @ashenmichael5420 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      At the cost of the security and prosperity of the suckers not in the club :p

    • @TheWorldsOkayestUSMarine
      @TheWorldsOkayestUSMarine 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

      🇳🇱🤜🤛🇺🇸

  • @dennisw64
    @dennisw64 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +39

    I hope we never actually have to resort to nuclear weapons... The F-35 is bad ass enough.

    • @mm72213
      @mm72213 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      If things get out of control
      The F 35 is our last deterrence
      Of defense it is small invisible to radar

    • @EGK20
      @EGK20 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@mm72213 how they know if stealth jet really invisible to radar. as of know they test using their own radar not other country radar.

    • @waynereloaded87
      @waynereloaded87 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      how is it badass. It can carry a maximum of 4 missiles. And cant even fly mach 2

    • @laviedealain5855
      @laviedealain5855 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Nuclear war will never happen because every big corporation will loose everything.

    • @Papershields001
      @Papershields001 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@waynereloaded87before the gulf war people said that the Bradley fighting vehicle hardly had any armor. That it was a sitting duck and a useless vehicle. Well what did we find out about armor in the gulf war?? Was it that the Bradley was a weak waste of money? No. We found out that anything on the battlefield that gets hit by a main battle tank round is destroyed, no matter how thick it’s armor. The Bradley turned out to be one of the best fighting vehicles ever put into the field because it’s fast and light and technologically advanced. The armor didn’t matter at all.
      You say that F35 only holds 4 missiles and can’t go Mach 2. When missiles fly at Mach 4 and can pull a sustained 30gs what’s the difference between Mach 1.6 and Mach 2? A plane with a pilot onboard is never going to out run nor out turn an s400. The game has changed.
      Keep up.

  • @elijahhodges4405
    @elijahhodges4405 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +114

    With the size of nuclear bombs since the 1990's I'm sure the F-35 has always been a platform for delivery success. But there are hyper speed rockets that could deliver without putting the pilot or if they have a RIO in danger.

    • @sqwk2559
      @sqwk2559 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      Look up ‘first strike’ and what that could mean. You’re welcome.

    • @elijahhodges4405
      @elijahhodges4405 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

      @@sqwk2559 I'm sorry you don't know my background. I'm fully aware of first strike and all of it.

    • @kiabtoomlauj6249
      @kiabtoomlauj6249 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +17

      You only need roughly TWO kinds of nukes:
      (#1) "strategic" ICBMs that travel up to Mach 26 --- or up to 9 times as fast as the F-22 flying with afterburners --- carrying up to around 14 MIRVs (each MIRV, released from the ICBMs at terminal velocity or half way, having up to 500 KILOTONS.
      ICBMs are land based; and then there's the Trident 2/Trident D5 that both the US Navy and British Royal Navy carry.... each Trident 2/D5 or SLBMs may also carry up to 14 MIRVs (90KT each) or 8 MIRVs (up to 500KT each)...
      Or.
      (#2) "tactical" B61-12/13, gravity bombs --- with "variable yields," depending on the particular "tactical" needs/targets, with each having up to 340 KILOTON blast yield. Or minimally, around 1 KT blast yield.
      As a reference point: the smaller fission-based nuke bomb, first one, dropped on Hiroshima, had a 15 KILOTON blast yield. The larger, 10,000lb "Fat Man" FUSION bomb dropped on Nagasaki had a 21 KILOTON blast yield.
      That means if an ICBM can carry up to around 14 MIRVs and each MIRV can have up to 500KT blast yield, each MIRV has over 23 times the blast yield of FAT MAN.
      That means the US doesn't need more than a few hundred ICBMs and the 500+ tactical B21-12/13 carried in the F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35, B-1, B-2, B-21, B-52, etc.
      As the video noted, the "nuclear bomb sharing program" also allow Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy to carry those B61 bombs, too....
      So, then, Russia can keep 5,000 to 6,000 nukes & they would simply make her ECONOMY WEAKER, because nukes are very expensive to produce and to maintain and Russia, despite being 90% as big as the US and China combined, in land size, has only 50% of the economy of the state of California... and it WILL GO BANKRUPT ---- like what happened to the USSR (when it had up to 30,000 nukes) ---- if it channels too much of such a small economy into a non-consumable/non-usable military weapon like NUKES.

    • @willonom
      @willonom 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      @@sqwk2559he plays war thunder

    • @domw7869
      @domw7869 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      Why would a 35, a single seater, have a RIO lmao

  • @johndoe8785
    @johndoe8785 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    God I love America! People really have no idea how powerful our military truly is.

  • @arijitdakshi820
    @arijitdakshi820 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +18

    F-35 gives up on hyper war (to neutralize adversary's First ☢️ Strike) in favor of First ☢️ Strike.

    • @augustusomega4708
      @augustusomega4708 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Eurasia can take all the kooky air platforms uncle buck can dream up, but without runways that birds walking.

    • @AlexanderJew
      @AlexanderJew 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@augustusomega4708Isnt the f35 capable of vtol so it doesn’t need a runway?

    • @autizmo3730
      @autizmo3730 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@augustusomega4708 bro its VTOL it doesn't need a runway lmfao. 🤣🤣💀💀🤡

    • @augustusomega4708
      @augustusomega4708 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@autizmo3730 I guess the B1 bomber you just lost in CO was VTOL too, straight down. Clowns laughing is sad 🤣

  • @CheekyMenace
    @CheekyMenace 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +14

    I don't know what it is but something about the canopy closing on that F-35 at 2:25 looked so badass! 🫡 🇺🇲

    • @augustusomega4708
      @augustusomega4708 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      badass dont win battles little chipmunk, cheerfulness is your only defense.

    • @anthonyostrovsky
      @anthonyostrovsky 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@augustusomega4708haha you’re such a goofball

  • @truthvfiction
    @truthvfiction 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

    And now with faster more powerful engine upgrades…plus nukes 😮😮😮

    • @xwarmangle
      @xwarmangle 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Sure it's still an expensive shit box

    • @bennittotheburrito9606
      @bennittotheburrito9606 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@xwarmangle20/1 red flag

    • @pandibbarman
      @pandibbarman 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      It's as expensive as the f15 ​@@xwarmangle

  • @charleskhenry
    @charleskhenry 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

    I'm not often a fan of military tech.... but damn is the F-35 amazing.

    • @xwarmangle
      @xwarmangle 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Nah, it's not.

    • @rileydeutsch9418
      @rileydeutsch9418 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      ​@@xwarmangle? Play war thunder? Lol

  • @shawtyKeira_1234
    @shawtyKeira_1234 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +10

    The us probably has the best technology ever

    • @acupoflego
      @acupoflego 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      They buy military equipment from canada

    • @1HeatWalk
      @1HeatWalk 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Cost a fortune to maintain them.

    • @2010kb1
      @2010kb1 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@acupoflegowe also buy new stealth destroyers from Italy.Contrary to limited thinking we understand the rest of the world is a wealth of knowledge and skill!

    • @j.a.3138
      @j.a.3138 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@acupoflego The Americans build their own military equipment's. Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics are the 3 top 4 weapon and equipment systems supplier

    • @J.ROD_CLASSIFIED
      @J.ROD_CLASSIFIED 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@j.a.3138 Northrop Grumman and MBDA

  • @Lokkiism
    @Lokkiism 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    Ok tell me you didn’t get excited when you heard the F35 can go “beast mode” 😈🤘

  • @spencerbrown6915
    @spencerbrown6915 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    The russians better watch their empty threats ,or theyll see the F-35 upclose hahahahaha

  • @tothedome566
    @tothedome566 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    It's horrible that we must maintain a large military, but seeing as we must I'm glad it is the best

  • @henrysantos121
    @henrysantos121 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    *Excellent videos*

  • @christiekung7779
    @christiekung7779 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    At last timing is right. Excellent job

  • @RaptorLongjam00751
    @RaptorLongjam00751 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Appreciate it

  • @RavoFeeds
    @RavoFeeds 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    “Did that bird just drop a nuk-“

  • @unclewerner
    @unclewerner 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    So if the origin of the bomb will be unknown on delivery because the delivery method is stealthy, what could go wrong?

  • @keyss78
    @keyss78 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Food for thought considering one mysteriously went “missing”…

  • @freerbt4839
    @freerbt4839 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Lets see it in combat, versus other fighters!

  • @jurassictyrantkingYT
    @jurassictyrantkingYT 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +21

    I didn't realize that the F-35 along with other US aircraft could actually carry their own nuclear payload in hostile territory nice.👍
    No wonder why China is a scared of the US, any American aircraft could be carrying nuclear payload that could destroy a city within 24 hours. It would be hard for your enemy to know which aircraft carries the nuclear payload if every single US aircraft in the the United States Air Force was capable of carrying nuclear missiles.

    • @ToDeoS
      @ToDeoS 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Amazing how humanity evolved. We got so fed up with eating down the food chain that we fell in love with developings tools to help us eating horizontal towards other sides of the chain. lolz.... I hope we all have the most powerful weapons to deter and when needed, try to defend the species, rather than to invade countries like when US did so in recent years except those when DT is in the house.

    • @MJSGamingSanctuary
      @MJSGamingSanctuary 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      The real fear is the nuclear subs XD. In some cases not even American radars can ping them without our own subs coming to the surface. We have a small but lethal 14 known in operation. That could be just about anywhere and each balistic stealth sub could have 4 nuclear long range cruise balistic missiles with a radius of nearing 1500 miles. (China on most fronts is a little less than 100 miles from the ocean. )
      Where things get nutty though is if the US called in the full strike package. AGM-129A's aka Advanced cruise missiles can loaded 12 a piece onto the B52H we have in the current service is 76. So if you do the math.
      A true full force of the US military in action with annihilation and not reconnaissance like in Iran and Afghanistan. The true ballistic force of the US would be a total strike package of about 968 nuclear cruise missiles. This would be enough to probably level the great wall, turn Bejing into glass and wipe North Korea if they were involved geographically from the face of the earth. And South Korea would probably turn into an island if the US resorted to that kind of fire power. XD.

    • @Seeeaaan
      @Seeeaaan 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      The us is also afraid of china lol

  • @bacon81
    @bacon81 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    Nothing the F-35 can’t do you say? 🤔 How about out perform an F-22 in dogfighting? 🧐

    • @yulfine1688
      @yulfine1688 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      probably the only thing it cannot do since most tests have shown the 35 is unable even though it can detect the 22 to compete with the 22 in dog fighting but it out performs the f15s and f16s ironically enough

    • @xwarmangle
      @xwarmangle 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      It can't beat an f16 at dogfighting

  • @pete8707
    @pete8707 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    "Advanced, stealthy, single engine". I think "single engine" is not an advantage.

  • @frederickthesquirrel
    @frederickthesquirrel 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    "Beast mode" seems like a nearly useless option. Maybe it's technically possible for the F-35 to carry extra weapons externally, but I think it would always be preferable to keep the F-35 in stealth mode, and let it designate targets for an F-15 or a B-52. Keep the weapon carrier in the skies of the neighboring country and never even give the SAMs a chance to get lucky.

  • @planeandsky
    @planeandsky 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Nice video 🎉🎉

  • @Ryanowning
    @Ryanowning 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Now we just need to figure out how to give the F35 extended range and it suddenly becomes scarier than hypersonic missiles.

  • @RubyMarkLindMilly
    @RubyMarkLindMilly หลายเดือนก่อน

    Terrifying that such a small bomb is so powerful

  • @jamesgossel9483
    @jamesgossel9483 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Been like this for a long time. How fast do you think the f15 is?

  • @jjthejetplane11
    @jjthejetplane11 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Two things I would like to point out: 1 just because the weapon is nuclear, don't be thinking Hiroshima sized nukes or anything like that. Nuclear weapons are used all the time as they produce a large yield for a small payload, but its important to keep in mind that those yields are still relatively small in this usage. Conventional explosives level of small most of the time.
    2 There is an age old saying that if you make something that can do everything then it won't be able to do anything very well. This is the problem with the F35 that so many diehard fans of the craft don't even think twice about. If the plane is marketed as a jack-of-all-trades then its a master of none. It is good at stealth, but people don't realize how much it sacrifices for that for that aspect.

    • @stanislausbraun8286
      @stanislausbraun8286 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      1 I see your argument and profoundly disagree. The nuclear aspect of these planes is not to be taken lightly due to the risk of sudden and catastrophic escalation, even with low yield payloads comparable to the largest conventional bombs. Since the actual nuclear threshold has never been crossed since 1945, we have no idea how the escalation dynamic and strategic calculus would play out, particularly when many of today's world leaders or would-be leaders present with psychological issues and do not appear to be entirely rational actors (Putin the psychopath, Trump the narcissist, Biden and Sunak also seem to lack strategic empathy and have been doubling down on some very questionable decisions lately). Furthermore, "Hiroshima sized nukes" were physically very large due to being fission only and hence much less efficient use of fissile material compared to a thermonuclear (fusion powered) Cold War or contemporary nuclear weapon. Even a "tactical" nuclear weapon available today is a thermonuclear weapon at least on par with Fat Man or Little Boy, in fact these B61 gravity bombs have a dialable yield up to 400 kilotons. Due to the precise targeting of modern weapons, anything over 100 kilotons is overkill, easily enough to completely level a global megacity. The delivery method is basically irrelevant once the nukes start flying, the extent of the escalation remains uncertain. The blasts could easily kill 100's of millions, but the effects of nuclear winter have been simulated with up-to-date computer models and shown to be much worse than the Cold War predictions of the '80s. It would take fewer than 100 such nuclear strikes on combustible targets to inject enough soot into the atmosphere to block out the sun for at least a year, resulting in nuclear winter and global famine, let alone the total devastation of the belligerent nations and worldwide radioactive contamination. The US and Russia each have around 6,000 nukes in storage today with around 75% available at short notice, a fraction of the height of the Cold War but still enough in the event of total Armageddon to destroy every major city in the world 3 times and block out the sun for 10 years. This would cause almost every nation on Earth to run out of food and undoubtedly the end of modern civilisation. A single F35 could quite easily be the beginning of the end of it all.

    • @YampaYak-vd1xo
      @YampaYak-vd1xo หลายเดือนก่อน

      Nuclear weapons are used all the time? Hahaahaha. Also, they said the tactical nuke droppd by an f35 could be twice as powerful as hiroshima so try listening

  • @oldicedome54
    @oldicedome54 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    when i first saw this thing in a naval game i called it the “boat buster” simply because of all the bombs and weapons

  • @gates00
    @gates00 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Wait til you hear about nuclear hand grenades

  • @jthablaidd
    @jthablaidd 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    The f35 and f22 have been out for years and they’re making it out to be new. Imagine all that actually new stuff they keep hidden. Hell they probably have a fully sentient fallout 4 style AI

  • @RSAgility
    @RSAgility 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Rockstar Games watches this and will add this to GTA Online, like the orbital cannon, but in a jet...

  • @Tomahawk8989
    @Tomahawk8989 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    The pilot flying that one😮

  • @_baller
    @_baller 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Ever notice how bouncy jets are when being propelled off the carrier? The F14 actually braced down a little before propulsion

    • @onlycheeseislife
      @onlycheeseislife 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      It's a known defect on the early Carrier variant. The front strut is too loose under compression. There are shots where the bounce is so violent it dislodged the pilots 500k dollar helmet that is linked to all the guidance systems. Its been, or is being, rectified.

  • @et683
    @et683 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    There is nothing that the F-35 can't do? Well, it can't supercruise.

  • @afterglow5285
    @afterglow5285 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    What is the point of nuclear weapons if nobody can actually use them, unless it's to fend off an alien invasion or Godzilla?

    • @Art-is-craft
      @Art-is-craft 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      They are a deterrent.

    • @jackclark1994
      @jackclark1994 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      it's a nuclear deterrent. unless someone is dumb enough to launch a nuke, the f-35 will never have to use them. but god help them if they do.

    • @NorwegianCollector_
      @NorwegianCollector_ 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      To have more wide spread options if there ever was a possibility of a nuclear war :) more aircraft carrying such weapons gives them more flexibility and advantages.

  • @hes1shot671
    @hes1shot671 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    “We have now entered the find-out phase”

  • @MironBleek
    @MironBleek 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    > F-35: exists and sucks dozens of billion dollars from budget
    > Pentagon: "How can we justify the costs for taxpayers?"
    > Lockheed Martin: "Hey bro, now u can mount nukes on it, like with every previous fighter"
    > Pentagon: "THAT'S REVOLUTION!!!!!"

  • @thatarse
    @thatarse 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    It has been. The B61-Mod-12 and the lengthening of the F-22 and F-35 IWBs was part of the mating and approved to deploy process. Even the media was surprised when the “tail-kit” appeared in vids. No one (almost no one) expected the rockets creating spin to flank the sides of the delivery vehicle. Lomfl

  • @cobra-judy-anspq11
    @cobra-judy-anspq11 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    We'd all better hope and pray a "tactical" nuke is never employed in anger. It would be the beginning of the end of us all.

  • @rvs55
    @rvs55 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    3:00 is the point. Tactical nukes.
    Using a dialed down strategic nuke as a tac nuke is prob gonna end up in all out war because you can't tell what the hell it is until it hits.

    • @wyldhowl2821
      @wyldhowl2821 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Well, every time any other nation has raised the point of NATO's doctrine of "first use" of nukes, the conversation in western media and politics always gets shut down.

    • @rvs55
      @rvs55 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@wyldhowl2821
      One thing for sure, the level of political correctness and virtue signaling in the political sphere is what is going to be the undoing of the US and NATO.
      If they want to be an effective counter to Russia and China, then they are gonna have to let the military guys do their damned job, and not be hamstrung by public opinions which are far disconnected from reality.

    • @YampaYak-vd1xo
      @YampaYak-vd1xo หลายเดือนก่อน

      That makes no sense. If it could be anything, why would thr enemy assume the worst

    • @rvs55
      @rvs55 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@YampaYak-vd1xo
      I mean, if you launch a ballistic missile with a reduced yield, the enemy is still going to see a strategic nuke heading their way.
      They will respond accordingly.

  • @MrGottaQuestion
    @MrGottaQuestion 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    why is the b61-12 limiting the maximum yield to 50 kt, instead of the 340-400 kt range currently available?

    • @ThatMuricanGuy
      @ThatMuricanGuy 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      It's a tactical nuke, they're more or less designed for smaller targets. So instead of a whole ass city, think a military base.

    • @Dontulikecheese123
      @Dontulikecheese123 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@ThatMuricanGuyyeah bruh Little Boy and Fat Man were smaller than 30 KT. Those b61 are leveling cities no problem

  • @josephpacchetti5997
    @josephpacchetti5997 13 วันที่ผ่านมา

    This one I missed, not anymore. Thanks U.S.Military News. 👍🇺🇸

  • @letsplaywar
    @letsplaywar 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    i love the B2 because it can carry B83

  • @anthonyxiong859
    @anthonyxiong859 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    The more I look at this the more I begin to realize the F35 was meant to replace the aging F16 and the new 6 generation stealth fighter that the air force is working on is meant to replace the F22 along with another one being developed to replace the F15 as well.

  • @Akimbosliced-__-
    @Akimbosliced-__- 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    oORAH, DAMN RIGHT💪

  • @tobiaspramono378
    @tobiaspramono378 22 วันที่ผ่านมา

    Im genuinely terrified we are starting to get closer to ace combat timeline

  • @HowardWebb_ceo_of_fraud_VAR115
    @HowardWebb_ceo_of_fraud_VAR115 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Such an awesome aircraft

  • @discombubulate2256
    @discombubulate2256 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    the cool thing about modern made nukes is there's no fallout.
    the problem is we have a shitload of old ones so if someone decides to use a new one..

  • @scooterkat8095
    @scooterkat8095 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    why are we talking about nukes again? we have some thick ass heads

  • @waltersvg
    @waltersvg 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Didn't one of those planes just mysteriously disappear recently?

    • @gibster9624
      @gibster9624 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Not recently. It was found in South Carolina awhile ago.

  • @brandonkoh8361
    @brandonkoh8361 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Thats, honestly terrifying for a few reasons.
    1. The US wont develop something that has no potential use case. In other words, they do envision a scenario that would necesitate the use of tactical nuclear weapons
    2. Tactical nukes arent like the conventional nukes. Conventional nukes can strike anywhere, anytime and nuke anything. So the only way to defend against such a threat is to completely nuke the enemy (im sure everyone is familiar with MAD. However, tactical nuclear weapons are a lower tier. You cannot completely destroy your enemies instantaneously everywhere with it. Thus MAD doesnt exactly apply to it. This would mean that countries would be much much more likely to utilize them.
    Good thing is that its unlikely that america would use tactical nukes first since america's conventional military is already incredibly sound. And anyone else who could use tactical nukes would now think twice now that a very capable platform has the ability to strike with a tactical nuke.

  • @ioanbota9397
    @ioanbota9397 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Wow its so powerful

  • @__godwithus
    @__godwithus 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Cool jets. I just pray and hope a nuclear war doesn't occur in my lifetime

  • @gofoats
    @gofoats 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Around 7:30 in this video, it looks like a 35 could jettison the hardpoints. This is what I hope the designed those hardpoint mounts to do.

    • @jackclark1994
      @jackclark1994 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      wouldn't be surprised. "Bombs away, carriers away, see ya!" *disappears from radar*

  • @trevorphilipsindustries1046
    @trevorphilipsindustries1046 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Shoigu, where are the antidepressants ?!

  • @MyScotty7
    @MyScotty7 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Thought it was the joint built striker??

  • @christiansnaturestudio6599
    @christiansnaturestudio6599 27 วันที่ผ่านมา

    That's terrifying as an American born Latino

  • @markhuckercelticcrossbows7887
    @markhuckercelticcrossbows7887 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    in the mean time, britain is still using the lancaster :) lol

    • @nickywass
      @nickywass 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Don't be fooled about our equipment people forgetting our top pilot's are training usa and all nato without our skilled military us be nothing. All the goods and no idea so we get brits too help lol

  • @user-bd8je6cb9z
    @user-bd8je6cb9z 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    One did my homework for me ...

  • @omicron0mega
    @omicron0mega 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    The F-16 has been able to do this since day 1. The F in its name can also be a B, its an omnivore.

    • @Daves_Not_Here_Man_76
      @Daves_Not_Here_Man_76 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Best thing is the F-16 is so agile it can fly up it's own asshole while also drinking Jeremiah Weed.

  • @user-po3ev7is5w
    @user-po3ev7is5w 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    It was B-61 certified in 2021. A couple years late with this news

  • @Guygotphonecall-ec2el
    @Guygotphonecall-ec2el 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    All NATO allies be like: gimme

  • @valerymonneron9357
    @valerymonneron9357 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    The f35 is obsolete as F15Ex is replacing that program… new research in updating the F15-Ex with stealth plasma .
    The 15-Ex carry 3 times more payload capacity than beast mode f35 lightning .

    • @jasonhurdlow6607
      @jasonhurdlow6607 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      😆"Stealth Plasma"... good one!

  • @DeepFinger-UA
    @DeepFinger-UA 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Awesome 😎 God Bless America 🇺🇸 ❤

  • @robertdonnell8114
    @robertdonnell8114 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I kinda thought it always could.

  • @mobileplayers5008
    @mobileplayers5008 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Holy cow nuclear bombs detected.

  • @batmanbahaghari5555
    @batmanbahaghari5555 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Scary part is this plane is truly stealth is it proven already

  • @PolakenLP
    @PolakenLP 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Whats wierd is that the US did not test this on innocent countrys already.

  • @jamesmoriarty7796
    @jamesmoriarty7796 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    "How did that bee on the radar just launch a nuke?"

    • @augustusomega4708
      @augustusomega4708 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      There would be nobody in America to ask that question if it did.

    • @yulfine1688
      @yulfine1688 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      thing is it doens't show on radar until within the range or by the time bomb bay doors open and close if you do pick it up well thats already the end, unless something goes wrong with its stealth such as drop tanks not dropping etc

  • @gezalesko3813
    @gezalesko3813 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    F 35 can drop gravity bombs for 100+ millions? What an achivement!

    • @CalvinHsuChen
      @CalvinHsuChen 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Keep coping, America ruled this world.

    • @distorteduzi
      @distorteduzi 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      ​@@CalvinHsuChenwhat world are you talking about

  • @CalvinHsuChen
    @CalvinHsuChen 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Chinese J35 is now also considered a Nuclear bomber.

  • @guille7231
    @guille7231 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Anytime soon the robots will be the battalions like star wars

  • @Drippydogetter
    @Drippydogetter 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Come mess with us bro 😎 we chillin in the usa 🇺🇸

  • @RepJock88
    @RepJock88 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Thank you for not saying “newkyaler.” 🙏

  • @tombambauer5220
    @tombambauer5220 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Might sound dumb. Isn't a gravity bomb just a regular same size bomb? Why do planes have to be cleared to carry them when they already drop the same size bombs.

  • @ZacharySound
    @ZacharySound 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Pretty sure it was always capable of holding a nuke lol.

  • @Ocean20020
    @Ocean20020 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

    Great job US

  • @MrJasonGlass
    @MrJasonGlass 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    And the F-22 is even better

  • @user-nu2sv9ss6o
    @user-nu2sv9ss6o 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Delaware, San Fran, DC, Portland, LA, Michigan, Boston…?

  • @redwolfexr
    @redwolfexr 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Really need to be specific -- only the 2 seaters are nuclear capable due to the requirements the USAF has for nuclear activation. (Permissive Action)

  • @196cupcake
    @196cupcake 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Why does the A have a gun but the C doesn't? Like, is the Air Force compared to Navy mission that different for one to need a gun and the other not? Or, is it more USAF just felt like they needed it even though it's kind of dead weight these days?

    • @ImBigFloppa
      @ImBigFloppa 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      F-35C and all other carrier aircraft don't have the luxury of dedicated aerial refueling aircraft. The most they can get is from an F/A-18E/F that can be configured to provide a small amount of fuel as a mini aerial tanker. A cannon is largely dead weight, and that space could be better used for more fuel

  • @timmyboy04
    @timmyboy04 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    2070? DAMN

  • @KidCorporate
    @KidCorporate 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    ...and China's nuclear missiles are full of... water. Your move, Pooh Bear.

  • @johnnyboy7534
    @johnnyboy7534 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Thank god! 🇺🇸🇺🇸

  • @fenderfetish
    @fenderfetish 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Say what you want about the US….im glad they’re on our side 👍🏻👍🏻🇦🇺🇦🇺

  • @user-oo3gu6ct5h
    @user-oo3gu6ct5h 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    It's sad that life came to this to secure survival when working togheter was feasable .

  • @r25012501
    @r25012501 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    All those addtional pylons are gonna make it none too stealthy a waste of its intended design

    • @jqmachgunner2577
      @jqmachgunner2577 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      The B61 nuclear glide bomb fits into the internal weapons bay on the F-22.

    • @r25012501
      @r25012501 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@jqmachgunner2577 yes but the beast mode is tacking more on an deafts the same reason for the internal bay you miss the point

  • @bobmcgee1202
    @bobmcgee1202 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    That's what I'm talkin about. I thought it was already certified, but whatever.

  • @twixxtro
    @twixxtro 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    "legalize nuclear bombs"
    -F35

  • @mingkwong9277
    @mingkwong9277 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Don't think the plane could escape after the blast

  • @andyclement40
    @andyclement40 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Well that not mutually ensured destruction anymore. That's just destruction

  • @samuelgarrod8327
    @samuelgarrod8327 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I was watching two F35s dogfighting over my home town today. F**k they are loud😮

  • @CausticLemons7
    @CausticLemons7 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Will the B and C variants also get nuclear capability?

    • @j.a.3138
      @j.a.3138 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      all 3

  • @rinceradio
    @rinceradio 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    There you go tell the world our secrets. Great.

  • @basementbanter366
    @basementbanter366 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    if you think its just now being outfitted with such capability shows how out of touch you are.

  • @robertobarros5715
    @robertobarros5715 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Oppenheimer would tell: You need to have politicians with "head and balls" to understand and act conform the geopolitical environment is telling.

  • @BiG420ToMaTo420BuDs
    @BiG420ToMaTo420BuDs 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    0:24 actually there’s one thing that the F-35 CAN’T do which is older brother can do is SUPERCRUISE. The F-22 Raptor is the only fighter jet on earth that can super cruise at least the only 5th GEN fighter that can supercruise. It’s faster than the F-35 because it has two engines that are almost as powerful as the one engine in the F-35 Lightning II combined the F-22 Raptor‘s engines produced 75,000 pounds of thrust and the F-35’s single engine produces 40,000 pounds of thrust But either way, both would be the best planes ever to deliver a nuclear payload there, fast enough to out, run the effects of a nuclear detonation

  • @digitalstyx_est.2018
    @digitalstyx_est.2018 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    The B-1b is no longer Nuclear capable. The Air Force elected to remove the role from the B-1B.