The deck does need to be specially built to withstand the heat and pressure. That's why Japan's "aircraft carrying destroyers" need to be modified before they can handle F-35s. They also try to not linger over the same spot for an extended time. They come to a hover over the water and then fairly quickly translate to over the deck and land.
Some of the technical things I don't understand but then I never studied it either. It doesn't take away from the F-35 being an awesome aircraft! Thanks 👍. Quite interesting. 😊😊😊❤❤
Everytime i see an F35 video, there's a ton of Russian people talking about a jet called Yak 141. So did a research & found out that there's nor relation between these 2 planes. This nozzle system was developed & patented by Pratt & Whitney for Convair Model 200 in 1960s. That's decades before the Lockheed & Yakolov collaboration. 😊
i believe that an old jet fighter plane can be upgraded with new technology just Like the F15 that's an old jet plant it's a beast with all the new technology they put into it
It's really surprising they only tested temperature to 120°F since that's a regular summer temperature in desert areas of America, Australia and the Middle East....
Actually, the B variant with its STOVL capabilities was the leading design to replace the Harrier. If you look at the Joint Strike Fighter program, the two contenders were built to address the STOVL airframe requirements. It has been said that the design compromises for the B and the drive to force a common airframe between the Marine Corps B variant and the Air Force A and Navy C variants actually handicapped the force overall. Had the Air Force been able to have a clean sheet design, it would have likely been a superior aircraft. Same for the Navy. If you look at all three variants, the fuselage is designed to accomodate the B variant's lift fan behind the cockpit. If that hadn't have been a factor, the design could have been more stealthy and have a larger internal weapons capacity.
Actually, the B variant with its STOVL capabilities was the leading design to replace the Harrier. If you look at the Joint Strike Fighter program, the two contenders were built to address the STOVL airframe requirements. It has been said that the design compromises for the B and the drive to force a common airframe between the Marine Corps B variant and the Air Force A and Navy C variants actually handicapped the force overall. Had the Air Force been able to have a clean sheet design, it would have likely been a superior aircraft. Same for the Navy. If you look at all three variants, the fuselage is designed to accomodate the B variant's lift fan behind the cockpit. If that hadn't have been a factor, the design could have been more stealthy and have a larger internal weapons capacity.
Actually, the B variant with its STOVL capabilities was the leading design to replace the Harrier. If you look at the Joint Strike Fighter program, the two contenders were built to address the STOVL airframe requirements. It has been said that the design compromises for the B and the drive to force a common airframe between the Marine Corps B variant and the Air Force A and Navy C variants actually handicapped the force overall. Had the Air Force been able to have a clean sheet design, it would have likely been a superior aircraft. Same for the Navy. If you look at all three variants, the fuselage is designed to accomodate the B variant's lift fan behind the cockpit. If that hadn't have been a factor, the design could have been more stealthy and have a larger internal weapons capacity.
Actually, the B variant with its STOVL capabilities was the leading design to replace the Harrier. If you look at the Joint Strike Fighter program, the two contenders were built to address the STOVL airframe requirements. It has been said that the design compromises for the B and the drive to force a common airframe between the Marine Corps B variant and the Air Force A and Navy C variants actually handicapped the force overall. Had the Air Force been able to have a clean sheet design, it would have likely been a superior aircraft. Same for the Navy. If you look at all three variants, the fuselage is designed to accomodate the B variant's lift fan behind the cockpit. If that hadn't have been a factor, the design could have been more stealthy and have a larger internal weapons capacity.
While it's an impressive and beautiful piece of technology (it's really amazing, I mean it), it's less efficient for the Navy than a plane with catapult. Planes using catapult can bring more amunations/fuel.
Of course, they know that. Which is why 99% of all carrier take offs and landings are conventional, not VTO. But that is why they have refuel tankers in the air.....
Канал для отбора воздуха не могли сделать для поднятия вы сколько пространства унечтожили позади пилота. Канал снизу. Тоже не подумали. А верхнюю закрылку вообще убрать можно.
Can’t see what so insane engineering about F35. Harrier can hover without today’s technology. Russia has the Yak VTOL. F35 has so many problems even today and cost so much.
@@AA-xo9uw In practicality --- fuel & maintenance consideration, safety, stress to the frame, & longevity concerns (over time, not just in one or two landings/take-offs), etc., etc ---- yes, it is used largely as a STOVL/V/STOL aircraft. But in reality, the F-35B really is a VTOL. It's in the very PHYSICS the aircraft is made to do: to have the ability & power to take off & land VERTICALLY. The US Marines are the first ones to go into a situation that a dozen or two Special Operations Force no longer can surmount. That means the majority of the Marines aircraft ---- from the traditional rotary to the Harrier to the F-35B --- all need to be able to land and take off vertically, IF THE CONTINGENCIES call for such extraordinarily energy draining/dangerous acts... so that regardless whether the terrains are deep valleys, high mountain tops, inhospitable/isolate deserts, or in some tiny/improvised floating platform, the US Marines could reach, 24/7... Rotary aircraft are fine --- especially the Osprey and its replacement --- but those could only do shorter distances, with speeds of around 300 - 500 MPH. The F-35B could do north of Mach 1.5 & go over 1,000 miles on a gas of tank, if it must...
Why doesn t the Navy use F-35B? On the other hand, the F-35B has a lot of disadvantages compared to the carrier-capable F-35C: Smaller combat range. Smaller weapon payload. Smaller internal weapons bay, which means that the B is limited to smaller internal weapons compared to the C.
it can take off vertically but realistically it shouldn´t do it, vertical take off has weight limits which limits both fuel and weaponry a lot more than short take off. Landing without an arresting wire when there is less fuel and weaponry is the point of vtols
@@Damidas It can, with limited weight like every single vtol plane. What did you expect them to do? To also limit the short take off weight to match the vertical one? that doesn´t make sense. Efficienc of short take off over vertical is the reason why vtols have an advantage over helicopters
Harries are not Stealthy, has less Range, can’t Super Cruse or go Super Sonic. (The Harrier is the Blue Print) The F-35 is the next Evolution of these type of Aircraft. US Marines⚓️ still operate the (Super Harrier ⭐️) Eventually even the Super Harrier will retire.
@@lisaroberts8556True, but a lot of the improvements applied to the F-35 can also be used in the AV-8B. The AV-8B is the best available aircraft to work in unprepared field conditions. The F-35 can’t change nozzle direction in close-in dogfighting. If you did have a squadron of Harrie4 A/C, you would have to give up on the idea of stealth, and also have to make a Harrier 3.0.
Only a neophyte would think that the hot gas ingesting compressor stalls of the Pegasus powered Harrier/SHAR/Harrier II is "much simpler, more elegant"(sic).
Different variants. The B model mentioned here has less carrying capacity for both weapons and fuel than the C model which uses catapult launch from ship. There's a time and place for both.
As others mentioned, there are three variants of the F-35. F-35A Air Force variant, conventional take off and landing. F-35B Marine variant, VSTOL take off and landing capability, reduced payload and range capability in exchange for valuable VSTOL capability. F-35C Navy variant, hardened landing gear to handle catapult launch, added tail hook for arrested landings, ~20% larger wings, folding wingtips to reduce storage space.
there is no such plane as you named. For your information, the opposite-rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.
Amazing 😮😮Is Indonesia able to compete with American technology...hah?.. jangan hanya membenci !! Amrik , dikit dikit cela amrik ,makanya jangan denger ustad2 yang hanya cuma mencela , membenci , menghina ..coba berkaca dulu pantaskah begitu ? , buat ceramah yang membuat cerdas bangsa !,
you are lying. The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is Anglo-German technology from the 70s. It's a shame to lie, comrade. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.
Hitler ngononcorone manufer tenagnae di minuske grafitasine berat 90° lha aku po reti iso mahami kui sekeo ndi.........nih game podo dasare bedone aero dinamise kerjone podo kapal perjiraan .nek game kui terlalu kaku simialr robot seolah oesawate ngedarai angin...padahl kui bertilak belakang karo keadaan asline...istilahe game pesawat podo mobil oni traksine .......raono kata kekurangan tenaga penggerak.
The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.
Lockheed renamed the Yak-41 as the 141 in a failed attempt to save Yakovlev from bankruptcy. Did those thieves masquerading as engineers at Yakovlev ever pay royalties to Convair and P&W for ripping off the 200 and the first swivel bearing exhaust nozzle from the 1960s?
The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.
you are lying. The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is Anglo-German technology from the 70s. It's a shame to lie, comrade. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.
"F35 flies thanks to yak 141 because Lockheed bought the design"(sic) A myth perpetuated by the ignorant and the thieves masquerading as engineers at Yakovlev.
@@Mishn0 yes you should keep coping. Because everyone else in the real world knows what happened between Yakolev and Lockheed. I guess understanding history takes more braincells than you think
listen to the Russian liar. The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.
The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.
Six F-35Bs in less than two years? It must be a day that ends in "y" and Tyler Durden is spewing more BS on the world wide web exposing his ignorance for all to see. As many times as you've been caught posting nonsense you still haven't learned to simply be quiet, have you kid.
@alvaropulido5245 that it's not insane engineering if they crash all the time and have lost over a billion dollars worth in crashes...how could you not figure that out? Lmfao 😂
Seems like every new plane goes through the same process, I wouldn’t expect a new plane to fly without bugs that need to be fixed. 6 out of the 500 + made… why don’t you cut the hardworking people some slack who are actually putting it together; they’re doing their best.
@alvaropulido5245 it's been over a decade, how could you believe that an 80-110 million dollar fighter is okay to have "bugs" and cost over a billion in crashes for over a decade? Fix it then! (If possible)
The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.
The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.
This technology is American (USA). The Convair Model 200 VTOL design included the use of a three bearing swivel for its exhaust nozzle in 1972. The propulsion technology for the Yak-141 comes from the Convair Model 200. You're welcome.
When the Soviet Union was extinguished, Russia experienced a brutal economic crisis and with it all its technological projects, including the Yak-141. Lockheed Martin acquired the rights to the Yak-141 plans from manufacturer Yakovlev that laid the foundation for the F-35 program. YOU ARE WELCOME
I understand that if you are an American it is very difficult for you to accept that the Soviet Union had the best technology in terms of propulsion and airplanes. It was far superior to the United States. The only defect was its communist policy, which led to so much wasted potential. YOU ARE WELCOME
@@MahikolMarcano Boeing, GE and Pratt&Whitney all studied the three bearing swivel for jet exhaust in the '60s. It was well known by the time the Yak used it. Very little developed in the USSR was clearly superior to what was concurrently being developed in the USA. And, the USA got a lot more of it to actually work. Lock-Mart paid Yak for the data mostly to be nice and secure unassailable rights to it. Not because it was anything original. The Soviets made big jet engines because they HAD to. They needed a lot of power to haul their heavy electronics and metallurgy into the sky. Their engines also had a quite low mean time between failure rate as compared to western engines. But if your fantasy world helps you to feel important or something, good for you.
@@MahikolMarcanowe understand you like cherry picking however the Soviet Union and its diseased descendent are relentless and shameless copiers of others Tech…. From the Nene to the B29 through to computer tech and even to the point of copy and pasting Harry Potter
The "The Wright Brothers" would be "STOKED" if they could return to Life and see these amazing planes we have created!
Awesome ! Fair winds & following seas shipmates ! God bless you all. 🫡 🇺🇸
*flowing. Wow.
@@teeess9551 he is right, you just not educated enough to understand it sadly.
Masters degree You?@@IIISentorIII
What's your IQ? @@IIISentorIII
you just not? What are you, six?@@IIISentorIII
A good friend of mine spent ten years working on the nozzle project at P&W.
Hero.
The HJJ Was an awesome aircraft!. Like so many designs it should have been Kept & Developed!. Tony UK
I didn’t see the “insane engineering” in the pivoting nozzles. Thought it would show how they designed the nozzle to pivot.
Bravo......amazing how they can pack all the stuff in side......and that's only the stuff they tell us......radar signature of a golf ball......cheers
Tuyệt Đỉnh Lắm Xin Chúc Hoa Kỳ Rất Đẳng 🎉🎉❤❤ Đẳng Cấp 🎉
На любую заправку, кофе попил. 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
I’m amazed how they don’t melt the aircraft carrier decks when landing.
The deck does need to be specially built to withstand the heat and pressure. That's why Japan's "aircraft carrying destroyers" need to be modified before they can handle F-35s. They also try to not linger over the same spot for an extended time. They come to a hover over the water and then fairly quickly translate to over the deck and land.
2:52 IWAKUNI BASE in JAPAN ?
これは、眼が離せない影像だね😮
Some of the technical things I don't understand but then I never studied it either. It doesn't take away from the F-35 being an awesome aircraft! Thanks 👍. Quite interesting. 😊😊😊❤❤
Why would it? Didn't they make it for you? Duhmerican much?
Can I buy one if I win the super hyper turbo superbowl..?
F35.我覺得是目前世界，最有型，最高科技戰机，以色列已証實。🎉
Man I just missed Santa long wait until next Xmas...
Just behind the cockpit there s the hatch for the vertical fan. Ok.
Why is there a second hatch with 2 bay doors just behind the 1st hatch?
Everytime i see an F35 video, there's a ton of Russian people talking about a jet called Yak 141. So did a research & found out that there's nor relation between these 2 planes. This nozzle system was developed & patented by Pratt & Whitney for Convair Model 200 in 1960s. That's decades before the Lockheed & Yakolov collaboration. 😊
i believe that an old jet fighter plane can be upgraded with new technology just Like the F15 that's an old jet plant it's a beast with all the new technology they put into it
the video says little to nothing about 'the insane egineering behind the (...) engine nozzles'
Wow, how did they come up with that idea? ... (*coughs* ... Harrier Jump Jet, first flight 1967)
All that is so stealthy😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
It's really surprising they only tested temperature to 120°F since that's a regular summer temperature in desert areas of America, Australia and the Middle East....
What was the point of the B variant if it has limited fuel and ordinance when vertical take off?
Um, the point was vertical take off?
Actually, the B variant with its STOVL capabilities was the leading design to replace the Harrier. If you look at the Joint Strike Fighter program, the two contenders were built to address the STOVL airframe requirements. It has been said that the design compromises for the B and the drive to force a common airframe between the Marine Corps B variant and the Air Force A and Navy C variants actually handicapped the force overall. Had the Air Force been able to have a clean sheet design, it would have likely been a superior aircraft. Same for the Navy. If you look at all three variants, the fuselage is designed to accomodate the B variant's lift fan behind the cockpit. If that hadn't have been a factor, the design could have been more stealthy and have a larger internal weapons capacity.
Actually, the B variant with its STOVL capabilities was the leading design to replace the Harrier. If you look at the Joint Strike Fighter program, the two contenders were built to address the STOVL airframe requirements. It has been said that the design compromises for the B and the drive to force a common airframe between the Marine Corps B variant and the Air Force A and Navy C variants actually handicapped the force overall. Had the Air Force been able to have a clean sheet design, it would have likely been a superior aircraft. Same for the Navy. If you look at all three variants, the fuselage is designed to accomodate the B variant's lift fan behind the cockpit. If that hadn't have been a factor, the design could have been more stealthy and have a larger internal weapons capacity.
Actually, the B variant with its STOVL capabilities was the leading design to replace the Harrier. If you look at the Joint Strike Fighter program, the two contenders were built to address the STOVL airframe requirements. It has been said that the design compromises for the B and the drive to force a common airframe between the Marine Corps B variant and the Air Force A and Navy C variants actually handicapped the force overall. Had the Air Force been able to have a clean sheet design, it would have likely been a superior aircraft. Same for the Navy. If you look at all three variants, the fuselage is designed to accomodate the B variant's lift fan behind the cockpit. If that hadn't have been a factor, the design could have been more stealthy and have a larger internal weapons capacity.
Actually, the B variant with its STOVL capabilities was the leading design to replace the Harrier. If you look at the Joint Strike Fighter program, the two contenders were built to address the STOVL airframe requirements. It has been said that the design compromises for the B and the drive to force a common airframe between the Marine Corps B variant and the Air Force A and Navy C variants actually handicapped the force overall. Had the Air Force been able to have a clean sheet design, it would have likely been a superior aircraft. Same for the Navy. If you look at all three variants, the fuselage is designed to accomodate the B variant's lift fan behind the cockpit. If that hadn't have been a factor, the design could have been more stealthy and have a larger internal weapons capacity.
Would probably be a good candidate for a pod laser for armament.
Unreal
Стал за облако. 😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮
Insane money for a piece of junk.
Imagine if all this engineering would’ve been directed towards sustainability.
Purpose??? Marines need a warthog type with plenty of firepower..
Ehm😂
Short leg , single engine ……… nothing to be proud of of
so i am not wrong... the F35B is the replacement for the AV-8B Harrier II?
edit: sarcasm
Yes the F-35 B The Marine variant is 👍
?
While it's an impressive and beautiful piece of technology (it's really amazing, I mean it), it's less efficient for the Navy than a plane with catapult. Planes using catapult can bring more amunations/fuel.
Of course, they know that. Which is why 99% of all carrier take offs and landings are conventional, not VTO.
But that is why they have refuel tankers in the air.....
What is "insane" about it???????
Looks to be an incredible piece of engineering design.
If you think it's insane - perhaps you don't understand it??
I noticed the harrier style takeoff, landing… no payloads???
What’s the payload? Guns…
Payload is stored internally
It's not a harrier... it's *something else...*
Канал для отбора воздуха не могли сделать для поднятия вы сколько пространства унечтожили позади пилота. Канал снизу. Тоже не подумали. А верхнюю закрылку вообще убрать можно.
so it cant take off straight up only land?
Incorrect
It can take off vertically, but it can carry a larger load of fuel/weapons if it uses a bit of forward motion while taking off.
Já essa essa novidade veio da Rússia e não dos EUA.E tem tempo.
У нас тоже есть, но не с карбона. 😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮
Can’t see what so insane engineering about F35. Harrier can hover without today’s technology. Russia has the Yak VTOL. F35 has so many problems even today and cost so much.
With VTOL aircraft such the F35B and Harrier I always wonder; "where did they find the space for fuel?"
STOVL and V/STOL respectively.
@@AA-xo9uw In practicality --- fuel & maintenance consideration, safety, stress to the frame, & longevity concerns (over time, not just in one or two landings/take-offs), etc., etc ---- yes, it is used largely as a STOVL/V/STOL aircraft.
But in reality, the F-35B really is a VTOL. It's in the very PHYSICS the aircraft is made to do: to have the ability & power to take off & land VERTICALLY.
The US Marines are the first ones to go into a situation that a dozen or two Special Operations Force no longer can surmount.
That means the majority of the Marines aircraft ---- from the traditional rotary to the Harrier to the F-35B --- all need to be able to land and take off vertically, IF THE CONTINGENCIES call for such extraordinarily energy draining/dangerous acts... so that regardless whether the terrains are deep valleys, high mountain tops, inhospitable/isolate deserts, or in some tiny/improvised floating platform, the US Marines could reach, 24/7...
Rotary aircraft are fine --- especially the Osprey and its replacement --- but those could only do shorter distances, with speeds of around 300 - 500 MPH. The F-35B could do north of Mach 1.5 & go over 1,000 miles on a gas of tank, if it must...
One just crashed yesterday tho
Hâlâ bu uçakta bir tamamlanmamış eksikleri var sanki kontrol sistemi problem tehlikeli bir durum aceleye gelmiş
هذه تكنولوجيا روسيا و اليوم أصبحت أمريكيا يا للعجب كيف يمكنهم خداعنا بكل سهوله
To much moving stuff going on. I bet it's a nightmare to troubleshoot that swiveling power-plant.
It's encouraging to see governments investing in lifting the great unwashed.
Why doesn t the Navy use F-35B?
On the other hand, the F-35B has a lot of disadvantages compared to the carrier-capable F-35C: Smaller combat range. Smaller weapon payload. Smaller internal weapons bay, which means that the B is limited to smaller internal weapons compared to the C.
The C can't launch from the deck of a LHA/LHD.
ehm
It's weird that it can only land vertically and not take off vertically if it needed to
it can take off vertically but realistically it shouldn´t do it, vertical take off has weight limits which limits both fuel and weaponry a lot more than short take off. Landing without an arresting wire when there is less fuel and weaponry is the point of vtols
@@aquilesca5tr0 Sounds like it can’t take off vertically then
@@Damidas It can, with limited weight like every single vtol plane. What did you expect them to do? To also limit the short take off weight to match the vertical one? that doesn´t make sense. Efficienc of short take off over vertical is the reason why vtols have an advantage over helicopters
The Harrier solution was so much simpler, more elegant in many ways.
Harries are not Stealthy, has less Range, can’t Super Cruse or go Super Sonic. (The Harrier is the Blue Print) The F-35 is the next Evolution of these type of Aircraft. US Marines⚓️ still operate the (Super Harrier ⭐️) Eventually even the Super Harrier will retire.
@@lisaroberts8556True, but a lot of the improvements applied to the F-35 can also be used in the AV-8B. The AV-8B is the best available aircraft to work in unprepared field conditions. The F-35 can’t change nozzle direction in close-in dogfighting. If you did have a squadron of Harrie4 A/C, you would have to give up on the idea of stealth, and also have to make a Harrier 3.0.
Only a neophyte would think that the hot gas ingesting compressor stalls of the Pegasus powered Harrier/SHAR/Harrier II is "much simpler, more elegant"(sic).
@@lisaroberts8556 "still operate the (Super Harrier ⭐)"(sic)
The Harrier II isn't known as the "Super Harrier"(sic) madame.
Ehm no.
Why do they have to use the catapult for the f-35 when it can just take off by itself.
Different variants. The B model mentioned here has less carrying capacity for both weapons and fuel than the C model which uses catapult launch from ship. There's a time and place for both.
VTOL planes usually on land vertically because taking off vertically limits the amount of fuel and armament besides being less efficient
bruh
As others mentioned, there are three variants of the F-35.
F-35A Air Force variant, conventional take off and landing.
F-35B Marine variant, VSTOL take off and landing capability, reduced payload and range capability in exchange for valuable VSTOL capability.
F-35C Navy variant, hardened landing gear to handle catapult launch, added tail hook for arrested landings, ~20% larger wings, folding wingtips to reduce storage space.
China furiously taking notes...
Yak-141 in stealth version 🧐😉👍
there is no such plane as you named. For your information, the opposite-rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.
Dust on the sensor is so annoying
If you can fly this, then you can fly the appolo lunar module
Even the harrier have same technology
Yak-141
Forward bias or Forward thrust additional engines also works in same way.
😊
?
VSTOL F-35 almost as assinine as the Osprey
Hi
You want to impress me, do it without burning chemical fuel..
extraterrestrial technology..
The Harrier`s baby has surpassed daddy, as it shud. Now it must show itself. Daddy beat 7 to 1. Can baby do better ???
millions of dollars go into a jet fighter there is always new technology created being created
F _35 🎉🎉🎉
The F 35 helmet looks look a cobra's head!
7' of the same fucking images
the Brits were doing this in the 60s.........into the late 80s
18mins of repeating phrases and no detail of how an jet engine can break into 90 degrees angle.
Amazing 😮😮Is Indonesia able to compete with American technology...hah?.. jangan hanya membenci !! Amrik , dikit dikit cela amrik ,makanya jangan denger ustad2 yang hanya cuma mencela , membenci , menghina ..coba berkaca dulu pantaskah begitu ? , buat ceramah yang membuat cerdas bangsa !,
We all know that vertical landing tech was developed in the Soviet Union...the US bought it from there...we know ryt
I don't think engineering can be "insane" - wrong word!
So far it’s been used only on countries with much inferior military power.
TOP...EU.PERGUNTO.PORKE.NAÕ.BRINDADO.SI.JÁ.É.UMA.COPÍA.😂NÉ
Clearly made to be used on aircraft carriers, but not to deal with unprepared field conditions.
18 years later and it's still junk.
Talking about yourself?
@@AugmentedGravity The F35 project.
LMMFAO
The only drawback is it sucks in Seagulls.
Stolen from England of a harrier jump jet🇬🇧👍
They should junk that piece of junk and put the money into the F 22.
Again cut and paste of past content retitled and released as if new.. Boring..
ยากเห็นF35Bมาประจำการเ่รือหลวงจักรีนฤเบศนะคับ
same of the propulsion technology was buy from Yakovlev!
which copied it from bell
you are lying. The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is Anglo-German technology from the 70s. It's a shame to lie, comrade. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.
Đáp xuống thì nhiều. Cất lên để bay thì không có. Dở quá....
Hitler ngononcorone manufer tenagnae di minuske grafitasine berat 90° lha aku po reti iso mahami kui sekeo ndi.........nih game podo dasare bedone aero dinamise kerjone podo kapal perjiraan .nek game kui terlalu kaku simialr robot seolah oesawate ngedarai angin...padahl kui bertilak belakang karo keadaan asline...istilahe game pesawat podo mobil oni traksine .......raono kata kekurangan tenaga penggerak.
Designed by Jakovlev.
jakovlex copied the bell x14
@@aquilesca5tr0 Which is why americans bought the Jakovlev licence and plans in 90´ .
The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.
no room for gross weight take off
Слава США!!!
Why don't they just buy better fighter jets from Russia or China?
because russia and china dont have good jets
The Yak-141 walked so the F-35 could fly
Lockheed renamed the Yak-41 as the 141 in a failed attempt to save Yakovlev from bankruptcy. Did those thieves masquerading as engineers at Yakovlev ever pay royalties to Convair and P&W for ripping off the 200 and the first swivel bearing exhaust nozzle from the 1960s?
Pfft. There is nothing from the Yak in the F-35. And, Convair used the three bearing swivel years before Yak ever did. Look up the Convair model 200.
The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.
Bu tasarımı ruslardan aldı amerikalılar ilk olarak Ruslar yaptı bu teknolojiyi uçağın ismi Yak-141 İnternete yazın bakın
you are lying. The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is Anglo-German technology from the 70s. It's a shame to lie, comrade. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.
Copied from Russians 😅😅😅
Boros bahan bakar
F35 flies thanks to yak 141 because Lockheed bought the design
"F35 flies thanks to yak 141 because Lockheed bought the design"(sic)
A myth perpetuated by the ignorant and the thieves masquerading as engineers at Yakovlev.
Nonsense. But keep coping. Look up the Convair model 200. It was ahead of the Yak-141.
@@Mishn0 yes you should keep coping. Because everyone else in the real world knows what happened between Yakolev and Lockheed. I guess understanding history takes more braincells than you think
listen to the Russian liar. The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.
F-35 = copy of YAK-144 from 80😅
proof?
which is a copy of the bell x14 from 50s
The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.
You do know 6 of these have crashed in less than 2 years right? No? Okay 👍
Six F-35Bs in less than two years? It must be a day that ends in "y" and Tyler Durden is spewing more BS on the world wide web exposing his ignorance for all to see. As many times as you've been caught posting nonsense you still haven't learned to simply be quiet, have you kid.
What’s your point?
@alvaropulido5245 that it's not insane engineering if they crash all the time and have lost over a billion dollars worth in crashes...how could you not figure that out? Lmfao 😂
Seems like every new plane goes through the same process, I wouldn’t expect a new plane to fly without bugs that need to be fixed. 6 out of the 500 + made… why don’t you cut the hardworking people some slack who are actually putting it together; they’re doing their best.
@alvaropulido5245 it's been over a decade, how could you believe that an 80-110 million dollar fighter is okay to have "bugs" and cost over a billion in crashes for over a decade? Fix it then! (If possible)
useless thing
Soviet tech!
The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.
You stole that from a Russian Yak-141.
The oppositely rotating rotary nozzle is not a Russian or even a Soviet development. This is an Anglo-German development from the 70s. Specifically, the nozzle for the F-35 was developed by Rolls Royce.
You are a fool, that plane was the forerunner of the Harrier. Look at the pictures and don't talk stupid.@@archer9877
Waste of taxpayer money.
This technology is Soviet (Russian). The f-35's vertical propulsion technology comes from the Yakovlev Yak-141. you are welcome
This technology is American (USA). The Convair Model 200 VTOL design included the use of a three bearing swivel for its exhaust nozzle in 1972. The propulsion technology for the Yak-141 comes from the Convair Model 200. You're welcome.
When the Soviet Union was extinguished, Russia experienced a brutal economic crisis and with it all its technological projects, including the Yak-141. Lockheed Martin acquired the rights to the Yak-141 plans from manufacturer Yakovlev that laid the foundation for the F-35 program. YOU ARE WELCOME
I understand that if you are an American it is very difficult for you to accept that the Soviet Union had the best technology in terms of propulsion and airplanes. It was far superior to the United States. The only defect was its communist policy, which led to so much wasted potential. YOU ARE WELCOME
@@MahikolMarcano Boeing, GE and Pratt&Whitney all studied the three bearing swivel for jet exhaust in the '60s. It was well known by the time the Yak used it. Very little developed in the USSR was clearly superior to what was concurrently being developed in the USA. And, the USA got a lot more of it to actually work. Lock-Mart paid Yak for the data mostly to be nice and secure unassailable rights to it. Not because it was anything original. The Soviets made big jet engines because they HAD to. They needed a lot of power to haul their heavy electronics and metallurgy into the sky. Their engines also had a quite low mean time between failure rate as compared to western engines. But if your fantasy world helps you to feel important or something, good for you.
@@MahikolMarcanowe understand you like cherry picking however the Soviet Union and its diseased descendent are relentless and shameless copiers of others Tech…. From the Nene to the B29 through to computer tech and even to the point of copy and pasting Harry Potter
KKKKKKKKKKKKKK. BOSTA. KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK