@@weirdguy564 still more internal fuel than an f-16 with 2 wing bags or an f-18 with a centerline bag. as for the gun it's still stealthy and doesn't reduce the top speed because it's limited 1.6. What we should be worried about is lockheed ensuring that fox-2's can be carried internally because what they're doing now is a disservice to the pilots and the tax payer.
The F-35B makes me think the USN doesn't have 10 super carriers. It has 10 super carriers, and 9 light carriers. I know they're called Assault Ships, but with a half squadron of F-35B's on board you have to take them seriously.
Interesting factoid : USS America (LHA-6) is actually a light carrier posing as an amphibious assault ship. It's the first of the class, and the only one to NOT have a well deck. The omission of the well deck means that the America cannot serve as an amphibious assault ship, but instead has more room for aircraft. She is still designated as LHA, but unofficially she is a carrier. All of the America class ships that followed were given a well deck and are true amphibious assault ships, with both aircraft and amphibious vehicles.
I go back and forth with that myself. But you have to think I think the max they fit on an amphibious assault ship was 16 and I think that was the one with no well deck and I think we only have two like that compared to a normal carrier that can carry what like 50-55 maybe more. Obviously you can’t compare sortie rates at that level
@@ponz- Yeah, I know they're assault ships. They bring the US Marines to enemy shores, along with some of their helicopters and some F-35's. In reality an assault ship will probably only have 6 planes on board, a tiny amount. But, if those 6 planes are not 0 planes. If you need more fighters, bring more. F-35's can even operate from a converted container ship if needed, like an Escort Carrier from WW-2 for the modern day.
While the F-35 is a very capable platform, its cost was FAR more than what we received on delivery. 1.7 Trillion dollars for a plane that cannot outperform the F22 whose program total of 74 billion was less than half the cost. All that expense and over 26 years to enter full production on a 5th generation fighter that, in all honesty, would actually have to work to take on some of our 4th generation platforms.
@@lizadonrex Check my statement again, I was referring to the platform as a whole. It cost over 1.7 trillion to develop the F35 program. Reading comprehension is required when dealing with large numbers and complex subjects.
@@lizadonrex Jesus christ, you have got to be a product of the American public school system. The plane is the end result of the platform development as stated in my comment. It cost 1.7 trillion dollars to get to the first F35.
@@EBZ-bx7zc it’s another learning ship because unless it’s nuclear those electronics are not going to have enough juice to run the ship. It’s not really a fighting ship. It has to be nuclear otherwise they don’t have the power for prolonged military operations. The 004 will be nuclear but they still don’t have the planes they want and need. It’s not easy to operate super carriers.
Nope nope nope. Try again. 003 is conventional steam propulsion, it has electromagnetic catapults(stolen intellectual property just like the ships design). 72,000 tons compared to 100-105,000 tons for Nimitz/Ford. Probably the cheap Chinese steel they used because it’s size is pretty similar, just not there with the displacement, about 30% smaller. Conventional propulsion, 72,000 tons, carries half the fighters(pretty important for a carrier). 1/12 the fleet size.
I’m surprised they didn’t put 40,000 tons of lead in the hull to say it was a larger displacement than Nimitz and Ford class super carriers, they might have tried but it didn’t float anymore.
Amazing skills of the pilots and support crew members. Beautiful, functional technology. Full support of the grunts that will be living and working in the mud with MRE's. Glad that all these high tech guys, and gals go through regular OCS and boot camp. Makes for a very special bond. When the stuff hits the fan were all just basic Grunts. Hoorah!
The landing is done by an onboard computer. not by the pilot. The onboard computer controls even the alignment of where to land. has nothing to do with the pilot's skills.
Too right. We never passed on the chance to advise jet pilots to think of themselves as jock straps, whose only reason for existence is to support that young infantryman with a rifle on the ground.
It does a vertical landing much more gracefully than the Harrier! Advances in computers, I guess. Seems to scorch the flight deck, though. Or perhaps those are soot marks?
the harrier was all human controlled, the F-35 is totally computer controlled, making it much easier to fly VTOL. The human pilot only has to focus on landing, and not about air currents, wind, etc. Supposedly a child could fly the F-35 due to how advanced the fly by wire system is
@@moonasha yeah, I remember seeing Harriers land on ship. They wobbled and jigged about before dropping onto the deck. They did have computers to help, but it was very basic by today’s standards.
@@vivek27789 i only thought they continued on with ships names with Air Craft Carrier's! But ha I have been out of the corps from 84...But went back in and served at 45 in 2005 as a Army Scout and 4 combat tours and medically retired at 54 in 2014..My brain does not work right after brain injuries!! Kinda foggy. Lol thanks you for corrcting me..
Very cool... I just always wonder if ... when they are transitioning to forward flight after that STO... what happens if the plane cant close that big washing machine lid? at what point does it close before forward wind pressure would impede it?
I agree with the "washing machine lid" label. It being open during hovering or using it as a speed break makes sense. What's wrong with that lift fan cover being designed like the cover immediately behind the cover in question?
@@jayeallen6668 The second opening is for the main engine’s intake, the lid likely helps the two inlets from fighting each other and one being robbed of air Fuselage is narrower at the lift fan section so likely easier to put the opening components behind it instead of on each side also
"Great thing about the B version. Marines get to have jets on a helicopter carrier now"(sic) The Marine Corps has been operating fixed wing jets from amphibious assault ships for five decades.
@@AA-xo9uw I'm talking about a legit fighter jet for the marines. The harrier is so outdated and can barley hit 600 mph. I don't consider it a real fighter jet. Can't even hit supersonic speeds
@@1.21Gigawatts_ It's telling that you fail to acknowledge your earlier gaffe. Fortunately the ACE of an embarked MEU isn't dependent on your imprimatur and lack of acumen. During the right conditions the Harrier II can in fact exceed Mach 1 but it was never intended to be a supersonic platform just like a lot of other subsonic aircraft that have also had lengthy, successful and productive operational lives.
@@AA-xo9uw what gaffe? You act like I'm writing a thesis for my PHD. It's a fuckin youtube comment you moron. And what right conditions??? No missles, bombs, drop tanks and only a quarter of fuel?
@@Sandhill1988 I did. Both jets have Stealth plus passive systems to data link with command and control for targeting, missile guidance, and radar identification, which is supposed to be the F-35's trump card. The J-20 carries a bigger load of munitions, is faster, and better supported in it's theatre of operations by China's superior navy, and by air assets like the KJ-500, the PLAF version of the US's AWACS.
@@SebasL10 For Taiwan, they really need to look at what worked for Ukraine, and put that on Steroids. The US Navy will not be able to assert air superiority in a conflict, so things like SAM sites will matter more than Aircraft that will be useless after the first strike.
Still more internal fuel than an f-16 with 2 wing bags or an f-18 with a centerline bag. as for the gun it's still stealthy and doesn't reduce the top speed because it's limited 1.6. What we should be worried about is lockheed ensuring that fox-2's can be carried internally because what they're doing now is a disservice to the pilots and the tax payer.
Yeah but Russia and China don’t really need aircraft carriers to fight the war we’re about to engage in. We do, and even with the LHA’s deploying planes with perhaps the highest jump in marginal return since the 50s, you can’t deploy and support the kind of power and supply that you can from your home turf. Just not possible-it’s too complex and expensive. This is a decent deterrence, but in any real conflict, there’s just no chance. We’re competing with similar or even larger economies, with a high degree of industrialization, on their turf. At this point, we’re just hoping that the thought of losing hundreds of thousands to a million of your population, and an economic crash, and potentially settling for a Pyrrhic victory is defeat enough to not try. But flat-out winning, yeah we’re not there. But that didn’t work in WWII (invading countries yolo’d it), Ukraine, Vietnam or even the WOT. Countries went in even projecting to get a hollow victory at best.
Very cool planes, but too expensive, unsustainable. For the coming war with china, we will need huge volumes of planes. Less expensive planes that can be produced in large volume. We could buy 7-10 F-15's for the price of one of these F-35's. Also, how much ordinance can an F-35 carry? It doesn't seem to be very robust in the lift department.
@@knight_flyer1199 Ohh, good info thanks. Sorry, I just assumed an older platform would have been cheaper to mass produce. My point is just that I think we need simpler planes, in higher volume.
@@frankleespeaking9519 Yes, of course the F-15 isn't a carrier aircraft. So go back and make more f-18's, or mass produce whatever airframe we can at this point. For every plane we produce, china is building five, or ten!
@@rzel107 My points are 1) an F35b cost about $115 million. An F15eX which is worthless to the marine corps is about $110 million. Ergo you can’t get 7-10 of them for one F35b. 2) an F18 which is worthless to the marines on these ships is about $70 million . Again, not cheap enough for 7-10 of them. 3) Which aircraft would you put YOUR son or daughter in. An F18 designed almost 50 years ago or a new 5th gen fighter? 4) Most experts agree that in a full scale war with a China or Russia, once the conventional weapons (and pilots) are all gone a pause will happen then the nukes come out. A country will use its entire arsenal before surrendering. The F35 is the future aviation backbone of the west, get used to it.
@@AA-xo9uw no, they've launched one with a catapult, but have yet to land one on a carrier (traditionally obviously, not the b variant) From what I understand its the glide slope being too steep because its too fast, or rather its too fast to maintain a healthy glide slope during approach.
@@imadrifter "no, they've launched one with a catapult, but have yet to land one on a carrier (traditionally obviously, not the b variant)"(sic) Incorrect. F-35Cs have trapped aboard numerous CVNs, thousands of times - as evidenced by several youtube videos documenting same, not to mention VFA-147 and VMFA-314 operating their F-35Cs aboard Vinson and Lincoln as part of CVW 2 and CVW 9 respectively. "From what I understand its the glide slope being too steep because its too fast, or rather its too fast to maintain a healthy glide slope during approach."(sic) Get yourself some better sources and become edified. F-35C arrested landing ua-cam.com/users/results?search_query=F-35C+arrested+landing
Shit Hot Aircraft. Shit Hot Aviators. Shit Hot Crews. Shit Hot Marine Corps. Shit Hot Navy! Did I mention the except for the Woke General Milley, the U.S. Military is Shit Hot! (shit hot, an old military pilots slang for 'excellent'.
@@AA-xo9uw Well, actually from British testing, the ramp gives an astounding 300 feet, and as much as 500 feet extra payload. In other words, if you were to extend the deck by 300+ feet, you get the same effect as the ramp. The only issue with the ramp (compared to no ramp), is the run up to the ramp MUST be very carefully calculated. You can't have the fighter getting airborne BEFORE the ramp. So, with less payload, you move closer and closer to the ramp for a takeoff. As you increase fuel and payloads, you move farther and farther back. but, combined with a larger ship (like the HMS Q), the result is higher payloads, and in fact payloads that were typically reserved for catapult assisted launches. The only real down side of the ramp is that you do in effect trade deck space, and the LHA class ships tend to not have that extra deck space they would give up by having a ramp. But, the ramps are still used today - and for good reason - they give significant increases in fuel and payloads at takeoff time - as noted, the equivalent of about an extra 300 feet of deck runup to takeoff point. And of course STOVL fighters do launch at a rate of about 8 times that of a catapult. About 15 seconds per launch as compared to a whopping 120 seconds it takes to launch with a catapult. 4 Harriers take on in 40 seconds: ua-cam.com/video/fb7ZlZBDpEQ/v-deo.html 1 F18 take off in 120 seconds: ua-cam.com/video/cWOpDItw1iI/v-deo.html
I'm still trying to figure out the ski-jump thing. I figure it keeps airplanes above the really high waves that can come during bad weather, but it also blocks airflow across the deck, which is bad for helicopters. Shrug...
Best F-35B Landing and Takeoff 🇺🇸🇺🇸👍🏼
Yup. But no gun without the external gun pod, and only 2/3 fuel range.
@@weirdguy564 still more internal fuel than an f-16 with 2 wing bags or an f-18 with a centerline bag. as for the gun it's still stealthy and doesn't reduce the top speed because it's limited 1.6. What we should be worried about is lockheed ensuring that fox-2's can be carried internally because what they're doing now is a disservice to the pilots and the tax payer.
The F-35B makes me think the USN doesn't have 10 super carriers. It has 10 super carriers, and 9 light carriers. I know they're called Assault Ships, but with a half squadron of F-35B's on board you have to take them seriously.
That’s because we do
11 supercarriers
Interesting factoid :
USS America (LHA-6) is actually a light carrier posing as an amphibious assault ship.
It's the first of the class, and the only one to NOT have a well deck.
The omission of the well deck means that the America cannot serve as an amphibious assault ship, but instead has more room for aircraft.
She is still designated as LHA, but unofficially she is a carrier.
All of the America class ships that followed were given a well deck and are true amphibious assault ships, with both aircraft and amphibious vehicles.
I go back and forth with that myself. But you have to think I think the max they fit on an amphibious assault ship was 16 and I think that was the one with no well deck and I think we only have two like that compared to a normal carrier that can carry what like 50-55 maybe more. Obviously you can’t compare sortie rates at that level
@@ponz- Yeah, I know they're assault ships. They bring the US Marines to enemy shores, along with some of their helicopters and some F-35's. In reality an assault ship will probably only have 6 planes on board, a tiny amount. But, if those 6 planes are not 0 planes. If you need more fighters, bring more. F-35's can even operate from a converted container ship if needed, like an Escort Carrier from WW-2 for the modern day.
Im grateful i got to experience this on the USS Wasp in 18'
F-35 B is amazing feat of engineering. While the program cost was outrageous, the B variant definitely creating some huge value.
While the F-35 is a very capable platform, its cost was FAR more than what we received on delivery.
1.7 Trillion dollars for a plane that cannot outperform the F22 whose program total of 74 billion was less than half the cost.
All that expense and over 26 years to enter full production on a 5th generation fighter that, in all honesty, would actually have to work to take on some of our 4th generation platforms.
@@UnknownUzer it only cost 80 million for one F-35A, get the fact straight!
@@lizadonrex Check my statement again, I was referring to the platform as a whole. It cost over 1.7 trillion to develop the F35 program. Reading comprehension is required when dealing with large numbers and complex subjects.
@@UnknownUzer you said “ for a plane”
@@lizadonrex Jesus christ, you have got to be a product of the American public school system. The plane is the end result of the platform development as stated in my comment. It cost 1.7 trillion dollars to get to the first F35.
Amazing aircraft and technology but, space sure is tight on those ships. Thank you to the men and women for your service. 👍🇺🇸
That looks like a really tight deck to work on
My granddaughter is an air traffic controller on this carrier. Home base San Diego and presently outside Japan.
Cool and You must be so proud of her.👍
LHA’s carry the same amount of fighters as Russian and Chinese primary Aircraft Carriers
Not 003 bro. That's 100,000 tons with electromagnetic propulsion.
@@EBZ-bx7zc it’s another learning ship because unless it’s nuclear those electronics are not going to have enough juice to run the ship. It’s not really a fighting ship. It has to be nuclear otherwise they don’t have the power for prolonged military operations. The 004 will be nuclear but they still don’t have the planes they want and need. It’s not easy to operate super carriers.
Nope nope nope. Try again. 003 is conventional steam propulsion, it has electromagnetic catapults(stolen intellectual property just like the ships design). 72,000 tons compared to 100-105,000 tons for Nimitz/Ford. Probably the cheap Chinese steel they used because it’s size is pretty similar, just not there with the displacement, about 30% smaller. Conventional propulsion, 72,000 tons, carries half the fighters(pretty important for a carrier). 1/12 the fleet size.
I’m surprised they didn’t put 40,000 tons of lead in the hull to say it was a larger displacement than Nimitz and Ford class super carriers, they might have tried but it didn’t float anymore.
Pretty ocean. Pretty ship. Pretty plane. Pretty cool video
Controlling the sky since the Wright bros! Best military on earth and great vid thanks!!
Thank you for beautiful video.Awesome!
USS Belleau Wood LHA-3 92-95. 🇺🇸
Beautiful birds!
Amazing skills of the pilots and support crew members. Beautiful, functional technology. Full support of the grunts that will be living and working in the mud with MRE's. Glad that all these high tech guys, and gals go through regular OCS and boot camp. Makes for a very special bond. When the stuff hits the fan were all just basic Grunts. Hoorah!
The landing is done by an onboard computer. not by the pilot. The onboard computer controls even the alignment of where to land. has nothing to do with the pilot's skills.
Amen brother! Gobless!
Too right. We never passed on the chance to advise jet pilots to think of themselves as jock straps, whose only reason for existence is to support that young infantryman with a rifle on the ground.
Incredible!
Man that's the real deal on that flight deck!
Awesome!
An expensive Beast- but it's definitely a force multiplier.
Proud of these guys………
Another thing is that the ship doesn't have to burn fuel coming into the wind like the old carriers used to have to do.
She's a beauty!
It does a vertical landing much more gracefully than the Harrier! Advances in computers, I guess. Seems to scorch the flight deck, though. Or perhaps those are soot marks?
the harrier was all human controlled, the F-35 is totally computer controlled, making it much easier to fly VTOL. The human pilot only has to focus on landing, and not about air currents, wind, etc. Supposedly a child could fly the F-35 due to how advanced the fly by wire system is
@@moonasha yeah, I remember seeing Harriers land on ship. They wobbled and jigged about before dropping onto the deck. They did have computers to help, but it was very basic by today’s standards.
Green Knights of VMFA-121.
Magnificent
Are vertical landings aboard ships graded by LSO’s much like arrested landings aboard an aircraft carrier?
UN REAL!!!🤘
ＵＳ.ＮＡＶＹ No.one‼️
Man that ship is old i was on it as a marine in 82!! Drove my Amtrak off that thing off California and Hawaii!!
Different boat
@@HuntsmanBG nope LHA the navy never renames a boat the same name after they rebuild one last i knew!!
different boat. LHA-7 was laid down in 2012. The third ship named Tripoli. You were likely on the Tripoli LPH-10 1966 to 1995
@@slayer6936 Nope this is the new one which was commissioned in July 2020.
@@vivek27789 i only thought they continued on with ships names with Air Craft Carrier's! But ha I have been out of the corps from 84...But went back in and served at 45 in 2005 as a Army Scout and 4 combat tours and medically retired at 54 in 2014..My brain does not work right after brain injuries!! Kinda foggy. Lol thanks you for corrcting me..
Very interesting video 💪💪
This video just does not do justice to how friggin' loud these things are.
They're worst in person
what speed are they taking off at?
That is why they always test your ear's before you go in and after you get out!
The F 34B is awesome to watch take off and landing!
dang bro, the f34b hits harder than the f35b
"The F 34B"(sic)
pogue
Keep improving the jet don't stop make it faster quicker
Nice!
wouldn't wanna be the bad guy with that thing parked off my coast
F35 B,POWER !!!!!!!!!!!!
Lightning carrier!
Beautiful sight..🔝💪
And sound !!
너무 멋지네
Fly Navy!!
are these guys using afterburners for takeoff?
Wish they were able to have some in top gun but I understand the reasoning
I saw f35c's in the new top gun
🇺🇲Us.a.f the king's 👑🔥😎💪
USMC in this case.
So we basically have 20 aircraft carriers...
What is the small intake over the starboard main intake?
Are they always taking off to the left to get out of the ship’s way?
Very cool... I just always wonder if ... when they are transitioning to forward flight after that STO... what happens if the plane cant close that big washing machine lid? at what point does it close before forward wind pressure would impede it?
Lift fan cover remains open in the STOVL flight envelope up to 250 KCAS. If the lift fan cover won't close then the aircraft will return and land.
I agree with the "washing machine lid" label. It being open during hovering or using it as a speed break makes sense. What's wrong with that lift fan cover being designed like the cover immediately behind the cover in question?
@@jayeallen6668 The second opening is for the main engine’s intake, the lid likely helps the two inlets from fighting each other and one being robbed of air
Fuselage is narrower at the lift fan section so likely easier to put the opening components behind it instead of on each side also
🇺🇸🔥
I wonder if he took his flight test with crayons.
🇺🇸💪🇺🇸💪😎
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻😍😍
👍🏿
Great thing about the B version. Marines get to have jets on a helicopter carrier now
"Great thing about the B version. Marines get to have jets on a helicopter carrier now"(sic)
The Marine Corps has been operating fixed wing jets from amphibious assault ships for five decades.
@@AA-xo9uw I'm talking about a legit fighter jet for the marines. The harrier is so outdated and can barley hit 600 mph. I don't consider it a real fighter jet. Can't even hit supersonic speeds
@@1.21Gigawatts_ It's telling that you fail to acknowledge your earlier gaffe. Fortunately the ACE of an embarked MEU isn't dependent on your imprimatur and lack of acumen.
During the right conditions the Harrier II can in fact exceed Mach 1 but it was never intended to be a supersonic platform just like a lot of other subsonic aircraft that have also had lengthy, successful and productive operational lives.
@@AA-xo9uw what gaffe? You act like I'm writing a thesis for my PHD. It's a fuckin youtube comment you moron. And what right conditions??? No missles, bombs, drop tanks and only a quarter of fuel?
We had Harriers on the USS OKINAWA in the 70's.
what are the little racks on the wings for? i have yet to see these on a jsf.
Missile pylon.
can you guys let me borrow 1 of these ?
Hell NO!
👍👍👍👍👍
Amazing technology! Hope Taiwan could have F35B to defend China!
China has the better J-20, so the presence of the F-35 would be of marginal benefit. Only the F-22 or Su-57 would be a game changer.
@@twotone3471 did you say the better j-20 🤣.
@@Sandhill1988 I did. Both jets have Stealth plus passive systems to data link with command and control for targeting, missile guidance, and radar identification, which is supposed to be the F-35's trump card. The J-20 carries a bigger load of munitions, is faster, and better supported in it's theatre of operations by China's superior navy, and by air assets like the KJ-500, the PLAF version of the US's AWACS.
The cost is the problem, very expensive and probably not reliable for attacking in a dog fight
@@SebasL10 For Taiwan, they really need to look at what worked for Ukraine, and put that on Steroids. The US Navy will not be able to assert air superiority in a conflict, so things like SAM sites will matter more than Aircraft that will be useless after the first strike.
Still more internal fuel than an f-16 with 2 wing bags or an f-18 with a centerline bag. as for the gun it's still stealthy and doesn't reduce the top speed because it's limited 1.6. What we should be worried about is lockheed ensuring that fox-2's can be carried internally because what they're doing now is a disservice to the pilots and the tax payer.
Come get some China
Yeah but Russia and China don’t really need aircraft carriers to fight the war we’re about to engage in.
We do, and even with the LHA’s deploying planes with perhaps the highest jump in marginal return since the 50s, you can’t deploy and support the kind of power and supply that you can from your home turf. Just not possible-it’s too complex and expensive. This is a decent deterrence, but in any real conflict, there’s just no chance. We’re competing with similar or even larger economies, with a high degree of industrialization, on their turf.
At this point, we’re just hoping that the thought of losing hundreds of thousands to a million of your population, and an economic crash, and potentially settling for a Pyrrhic victory is defeat enough to not try. But flat-out winning, yeah we’re not there.
But that didn’t work in WWII (invading countries yolo’d it), Ukraine, Vietnam or even the WOT. Countries went in even projecting to get a hollow victory at best.
I'd like to see Russia or China do this...Oh wait, they can't!
Russia has had vtol aircraft before in the coldwar
@@jeshkam nope 20th Century Yak 38
@@jeshkam it's retired just like the Uk Harrier
@@jeshkam correct
@@Paganiproductions84 "it's retired just like the Uk Harrier"
The Harrier II will continue flying until CY2029.
รันเวสั้นจังเตียเสียเปลียบเรื่องความเร็วและพิสัยการบินและพิสัยการรบน้อยจัง
This flap behind the canopy makes the plane look so damn ugly during take off and landing :(
"This flap behind the canopy"(sic)
Lift fan cover.
Что там русские???и Локоток не кусается????
Vertical takeoff jet burns 1200 lbs of fuel in less than a minute!
that´s one reasone why F35 does stovl in a rl scenario. vtol only applies for logistic purposes.
Check your facts!!
Good thing they don't launch vertical takeoff!
@@KPTKleist it was a joke. Pulled the number right out of the sky.
@@brucedoxey5815 "Pulled the number right out of the sky."(sic)
Pulled from a body orifice very close to terra firma.
Very cool planes, but too expensive, unsustainable. For the coming war with china, we will need huge volumes of planes. Less expensive planes that can be produced in large volume. We could buy 7-10 F-15's for the price of one of these F-35's. Also, how much ordinance can an F-35 carry? It doesn't seem to be very robust in the lift department.
Actually not true. One F-15EX cost more than an F-35. That said, they already made the decision to acquire less F-35s to buy more F-15EX planes.
I worked on F15e’s 90-96. This may surprise you but they can’t land on Marine or Navy ships and Alaska is a long round trip to China.
@@knight_flyer1199 Ohh, good info thanks. Sorry, I just assumed an older platform would have been cheaper to mass produce. My point is just that I think we need simpler planes, in higher volume.
@@frankleespeaking9519 Yes, of course the F-15 isn't a carrier aircraft. So go back and make more f-18's, or mass produce whatever airframe we can at this point. For every plane we produce, china is building five, or ten!
@@rzel107 My points are 1) an F35b cost about $115 million. An F15eX which is worthless to the marine corps is about $110 million. Ergo you can’t get 7-10 of them for one F35b.
2) an F18 which is worthless to the marines on these ships is about $70 million . Again, not cheap enough for 7-10 of them.
3) Which aircraft would you put YOUR son or daughter in. An F18 designed almost 50 years ago or a new 5th gen fighter?
4) Most experts agree that in a full scale war with a China or Russia, once the conventional weapons (and pilots) are all gone a pause will happen then the nukes come out. A country will use its entire arsenal before surrendering. The F35 is the future aviation backbone of the west, get used to it.
Why can't the Navy figure out how to land an F-35 with a tailhook?
They already have.
@@AA-xo9uw no, they've launched one with a catapult, but have yet to land one on a carrier (traditionally obviously, not the b variant)
From what I understand its the glide slope being too steep because its too fast, or rather its too fast to maintain a healthy glide slope during approach.
@@imadrifter "no, they've launched one with a catapult, but have yet to land one on a carrier (traditionally obviously, not the b variant)"(sic)
Incorrect. F-35Cs have trapped aboard numerous CVNs, thousands of times - as evidenced by several youtube videos documenting same, not to mention VFA-147 and VMFA-314 operating their F-35Cs aboard Vinson and Lincoln as part of CVW 2 and CVW 9 respectively.
"From what I understand its the glide slope being too steep because its too fast, or rather its too fast to maintain a healthy glide slope during approach."(sic)
Get yourself some better sources and become edified.
F-35C arrested landing
ua-cam.com/users/results?search_query=F-35C+arrested+landing
Shit Hot Aircraft. Shit Hot Aviators. Shit Hot Crews. Shit Hot Marine Corps. Shit Hot Navy! Did I mention the except for the Woke General Milley, the U.S. Military is Shit Hot! (shit hot, an old military pilots slang for 'excellent'.
Fuck yes!
It would be much more efficient with a ski-jump.
"It would be much more efficient with a ski-jump."(sic)
Incorrect.
@@AA-xo9uw
Well, actually from British testing, the ramp gives an astounding 300 feet, and as much as 500 feet extra payload. In other words, if you were to extend the deck by 300+ feet, you get the same effect as the ramp.
The only issue with the ramp (compared to no ramp), is the run up to the ramp MUST be very carefully calculated. You can't have the fighter getting airborne BEFORE the ramp. So, with less payload, you move closer and closer to the ramp for a takeoff. As you increase fuel and payloads, you move farther and farther back. but, combined with a larger ship (like the HMS Q), the result is higher payloads, and in fact payloads that were typically reserved for catapult assisted launches.
The only real down side of the ramp is that you do in effect trade deck space, and the LHA class ships tend to not have that extra deck space they would give up by having a ramp.
But, the ramps are still used today - and for good reason - they give significant increases in fuel and payloads at takeoff time - as noted, the equivalent of about an extra 300 feet of deck runup to takeoff point.
And of course STOVL fighters do launch at a rate of about 8 times that of a catapult. About 15 seconds per launch as compared to a whopping 120 seconds it takes to launch with a catapult.
4 Harriers take on in 40 seconds:
ua-cam.com/video/fb7ZlZBDpEQ/v-deo.html
1 F18 take off in 120 seconds:
ua-cam.com/video/cWOpDItw1iI/v-deo.html
I'm still trying to figure out the ski-jump thing. I figure it keeps airplanes above the really high waves that can come during bad weather, but it also blocks airflow across the deck, which is bad for helicopters. Shrug...