Yeshua Hamashiach is God in the flesh, the Son of God, the Word of God, and he died so that you may be presented blameless in the sight of the Father. And so you may inherit his kingdom. The LORD Yeshua Hamashiach is the only way to the Father and his kingdom. Repent of your sins accept him into your life as your LORD and Savior before it's too late, every day is not guaranteed. John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me. May God bless you all.
This is old news, like 2016 old. They tested it and found that whatever happened to the one jet that had stealth coating damage was a freak accident. No F-35 before or since has had this issue.
Actually the restriction was based on an airframe stress test back in 2012, and it only applied to the B and C variant. It also involved certain heavy aggressive maneuvers at supersonic speeds that wouldn’t normally take place, and other combat loaded 4th gen aircraft can’t do without damaging pylon mounts and weapon mounts on the wings and fuselage (you got fanboys out there that think modern planes duke it out pulling 9Gs at constant Mach 1 or 2). No one goes supersonic for more than a minute, in combat anyway, because No one has the capacity To carry enough fuel to stay in the fight). Since 2012, There have been thousands of flight hours put on these airframes since then, with no damage or blistering has taken place.
@@ericstyles3724 they are required by the government to say certain things. If not they wouldn’t have disclosed the fact that it’s skin was melting at all.
Once you go supersonic the shockwave that forms from the front of the plane passing through the air presses the air down so hard the friction heats up the air. This forms plasma at higher speeds and it’s a leading reason we can’t pull a top gun and go Mach 10
"Vertical-Takeoff" is actually incorrect. The clips you have linked are of the F35-B variant which is equipped with a STOVL lift fan (Short Take Off, Vertical Landing).
Title correction: All variants can supercruise for more than a minute, and sustain supersonic with reheats indefinitely. The “B” variant has a lower SUPERCRUISING time than other variants due to its extra weight, but it can still do it for far more than 60 seconds.
@@hunterhat That does not make it a supersonic aircraft. An embraer private jet can break the sound barrier in a dive. What is useful is level supersonic flight.
@@hunterhat I did the same in a B-17 in MicroSoft Combat Flight Simulator and was accused of cheating. Not really sure how that is gemain to the conversation.
but this doesnt change the fact that the F35 is unable to reach supersonic speeds in a safe manner, thus the USAF and US Navy disallowinf the F35 to hit supersonic even for a second
@@YeeterMcBeater470 it is a design issue. this is officially stated by Lockheed Martin, F35 JPO, and Pentagon themselves. there is a reason why the USAF and US Navy doesnt permit the F35 to fly supersonic even for one second... because the F35 doesnt need to fly mach 1.6 for 15 minutes to sustain damage. even a short burst of time at mach 1.3 already damages the F35. this issue was first seen in 2011
Dude a feature of this jet is the ability to super cruise, meaning it can go supersonic without going into afterburner. It can absolutely do it for more than a minute.
Misinformation. The structural damage and damage to the stealth coating only happened one time, and it was after an extended period of time (15+ minutes) of flying at speeds in excess of Mach 1.6 Since then, the issue has been unable to be replicated even though the Airforce has tried. In all other tests, they found the coating and structure to be just fine after sustaining those speeds. It's been written off as a one-off issue.
incorrect. cross check it yourself on what F-35's official Joint Program Office (JPO) has claimed. they cant sustain supersonic for even one minute even at mach 1. there is a reason why USAF and US Navy disallowed the F35 to fly supersonic for any longer than "a short burst of time". do your research please
It can totally fly supersonic for however long is needed in combat. It does damage or at least wear the coating. But modern combat aircraft rarely fly supersonic in general because it's loud , heats them up which is bad for heat seeking missiles and burns insane amounts of fuel. Supersonic is not tactically relevant anymore, hypersonic is though.
@@BrandoDrum burns insane amount of fuel is only applicable when using afterburners. some fighters can supercruise, which means flying supersonic without the use of after burners. and most supersonic speeds are reached for long range intercepts. heat seeking missiles are not long ranged, probably 7-10km max... so yes, supersonic speed is still important in modern day combat
@@BrandoDrum Supersonic isn't relevant and hypersonic is - Yes..... Only if you also consider that few vehicles, let alone manned vehicles, are hypersonic capable. Supersonic isn't relevant only because going supersonic generally means the use of afterburners, which also means greatly reduced combat radius. Supercruise does still allow a jet to arrive more quickly at a target area but even in aerial combat, while travelling faster toward the enemy means your missiles having greater reach, travelling too fast toward the enemy also means the enemy's missiles have greater reach too. Also bear in mind that current technology still requires (with rare exceptions) the mother ship's radar to support the lock until pitbull, which means turning right after firing only works within visual range. Also, at this moment, there are no air-launched hypersonic missiles, and anything that's hypersonic will, by definition and laws of physics, also have to follow a relatively straight path, making it relatively predictable.
It is a vertical landing, the take off is not it's only short. It is a stovl. Meaning the only supersonic vtol is a French prototypes. Edit : the mirage III V
Very old information. Current models can go supersonic for "more than 10 minutes" and the GE AETP engine which was developed for the NGADF will remove those limitations entirely & introduce supercruise to all models. While the Pratt & Whitney F135 will continue to be offered as standard for cost & supply chain reasons, the XA100 will be offered as a refit & upgrade engine starting in 2027 2028.
Same reason we built a roof to protect the F-22s. They used to park them there, while the F-15s, F-16s and F-4 variants sit out in the rain next to them.
The block 4 upgrade with variable flow engines will solve this issue. Edit: I see this kinda has gotten attention. Here is a video explaining this much better than I can from trusted sources czcams.com/video/7SNALUoybt0/video.html
I agree. Regardless of what these infamous keyboard warrior F35 egineers say, the F35 has blown away all expectations. What's funnier, the similar negative things were said about the A10 projects and the F16s.
@@troyezell5841 agreed. 1000 airframes and ordered by 11 countries is no small feat for a relatively new platform. And in todays combat speed isn’t king anymore cause outrunning missiles is no longer viable and also you can’t be hit if you can’t be seen aka stealth and electronic warfare
Actually yes ! While I was heating up my ramen noodles last night I was just stuck on the fact that the f35 can't go super sonic for more then a minute and I just couldn't help but wonder Why??? thank you for answering my question
The real reason is it's a software licence that you have to pay extra to have installed. They put an app store and a credit card reader in the cockpit to allow the pilot to purchase the upgrade when it is needed.
I'd consider myself a pro at Microsoft flight simulator and I've never had issues with a straight nose dive from 30,000 feet with full throttle and reaching mach 2.
Man, just read this outright rubbish we see here? I'm English, and this just has to be said, as honestly, I don't believe we've ever seen or read so many people, all talking about subjects their own words always prove they know absolutely nothing about, let alone understand?. The truth is, the USA is still unable to produce and build a VTOL capable fighter aircraft. Yet, they are trying to lie about this. The F-35B was claimed by the USA, to be able to do what the Harrier could do, while also being supersonic, stealthy, with modern avionics systems, etc, this is what we were told, and it's why we designed our new carrier without ramps.
Only one of the biggest technical headaches the British always had when building the Harrier, was the VTOL, - transferring from ''lift'' (downward nozzles) to forward flight (rear-facing nozzles) and flying away. Apparently to achieve it took the British a hell of a lot of technical work, (three - four months at a time, over 3 years). Look up all the variants they made?, but they never gave up, and they finally figured it out. I said long before we ever saw the F-35B, it wouldn't be VTOL capable, even with the Rolls-Royce lift engines, (because the USA has tried many times before, and failed each time), only ever managing to produce the British Sea Harrier, able to do so. Every US airframe (and there have been many), have all failed. I'll show you what I mean, as otherwise so many of you get confused, LOL. At 7 mins 50 seconds, you'll watch a Harrier perform a proper VTOL. Copy and paste “2013 MCAS Yuma Air Show - AV8B Harrier Demo” into CZcams search. Watch it from lift off, (to more importantly), flying away from the lift-off, and you'll see the transfer of nozzles take place. You'll not find any footage of the F-35B doing this. Yet we do see Lockheed Martin trying to suggest it is VTOL capable?, when it, so clearly, is not. Copy and Paste “First F-35B Vertical Takeoff Test” into CZcams search. You'll only see it lift off, hover, then return straight back down. You'll never see it fly away from the lift-off. Believe me, if it could, we'd see it doing so in every piece of footage we have on the F-35B - like we still see on all the footage of the Harrier doing so. But you'll never find any footage anywhere of the F-35B doing that. Oh, and please, anyone that wants to try and show me the F-35 fly into a hover, and fly away from that hover (as a way of proof it can VTOL)? Please don't, because that has nothing at all to do with a VTOL. To hover, and fly from a hover doesn't require the transfer of the nozzles, as hover, is achieved while remaining with forward flight (rear facing nozzles) with pitch and yaw, to find your centre of gravity to control the hover (CPU controlled today). No transfer of nozzles is required to fly from a hover. And if, as we read, you all claim it can VTOL, then show it? No need to show me it flying away from a hover, Just show it performing a VTOL?
You'll then start to read these Americans all, claim it's not necessary? (while forgetting, they're to be carrier-based aircraft), meaning any slight damage to the deck or ramp, and they can't get any jets airborne?. Defeating the entire purpose of having the aircraft in the first place! You can't ever lose an entire carrier in battle, for only minor damage?, whatever next?. So, why do we see the USA doing this? It's obviously because the US is still a country that's never managed to produce & build a VTOL fighter aircraft. Britain did so in the late 50s, Russia did so in the late 60s, the USA has tried and failed numerous times, so it seems this time, they're going to try to lie about it LOL. That country is a travesty, man! It shows us that Lockheed are not unknown to produce propaganda aircraft, as the F-22 is the same... Failed, so today, only being used for propaganda purposes! Typical US propaganda, usually consists of silly falsehoods, and fake misinformation claims, or just twisted truths, like the F-15, is said to be unbeaten in A2A combat. It's true, only when we look at every aircraft shot down by an F-15, we find that none had any offensive capabilities, and most had little if anything defensive, many without even a basic radar, meaning, you'd be absolutely stunned if the F-15 didn't shoot every one of them down. So it really is a very silly, and meaningless propaganda claim. Yet we do have another aircraft that is also unbeaten in A2A combat and has faced off against aircraft just as capable as itself. The British Sea Harrier is the only aircraft unbeaten in A2A combat, that has faced off against worthy, viable opposition. And that really is a huge factor, that's worth knowing, unlike the F-15 propaganda claim, that you'd be shocked if it hadn't managed. If the American people could just think for themselves?, they should all be questioning why the US made it illegal to sell the F-22?. The US government seemingly wants it believed, it's because it's so good, they don't want anyone else to have it?. Yet, that actually makes no sense at all, none, not even a little sense, as the facts are, they've no idea what's around the corner in modern military technologies, and with the speed we're seeing new military tactical hardware being designed, developed, and created today, it could well have made great sense to sell the F-22 at some stage? (If it actually works). If it worked, they'd have been able to recoup many of the resources spent on the aircraft, if not the resources in their entirety. There's another, and much more likely, reason the USA would make it illegal to sell the F-22? And that's, if it is, just as I suspect it is, a "lemon", that was intended to be their front line leading strike aircraft (that's failed), and because of the cost, they can't just write it off, so the USA have then only used the F-22 for propaganda purposes?, then what better way of preventing anyone else from finding out that it actually doesn't work, and really is a lemon, than making it illegal to sell? When you actually think about it, that's the only possible way to explain the USA making it illegal to sell the F-22?. It can only be because it's a failed aircraft that was intended to be their 5th generation front line strike aircraft. Well, 18 years the US have had the F-22, (and they've been in wars the entire time), yet they've never used it, not once! And even more interestingly, just after Russia arrived in Syria in 2015, they removed all of their F-22's from right across the Middle East. Absolutely no doubt about it, I guarantee we'll never see the F-22 involved in any sort of real war scenario, or even involved in any major sortie, because it's basically junk. They've even trashed all the infrastructure they had in place to build more of them.
I like it's mobility to hover in position and just annihilate whatever it's target is but it also takes a greater chance of being shot down easily with heat seeking tracking missiles though.
The F-35 can only tolerate supersonic speeds at high altitudes for short bursts before it sustains lasting structural damage and the loss of stealth capabilities. During high speeds, the jet’s stealth coating, which makes it invisible to radar, is known to bubble. There are currently no plans to correct the problem. The F-35 JPO told Defense News the issue was closed under the category of ‘no plans to correct’ due to cost overruns and the time it would take to correct. Instead, the Pentagon set a time limit for supersonic flight to less than a cumulative minute for all models.
The hilarious thing is that know-it-all people like you who feel the need to share your knowledge on social media just makes intel gathering for adversaries so much easier. How about you be more mindful of your setting and audience.
How can going supersonic incur structural damage over high G maneuvering? Oh and Johny, lighten up, he read this somewhere and regurgitated it, I'm sure our adversaries have all ready read the same thing....
@@JohnnyWalker-rl9pm that doesn’t work like that if you are not warthunder user If that was the case we would get to know loads about Russia/China and vice versa from Social Media
The F-35B Marines is heavier and lower fuel capacity than the rest of the F-35A USAF and F-35C Navy. 6 Apr 2023 Update!: F-35B is my favorite variant, but the size for all the F-35s has really cut its legs shorter. The need strap on stealthy weapon pods or something. F-15 EX plus F-35 is good but that makes the F-15 EX a big vulnerable target without Stealth itself. Sadly, our military service men and women have to compensate for these sorry a$$ politicians decisions of shorting the full future needs of our war fighters.
bro, check it out yourself on F-35's JPO statement. this is true, they cant fly supersonic speeds, not even mach 1, without sustaining damage. on paper, the F35 can reach speeds up to mach 1.6. reality is that mach 1 is already dangerous
@@AugmentedGravity it is. you can cross check it yourself on F35's JPO, Lockheed Martin, and Pentagon's statement that what i said is 100% true. if your ego cant accept it, thats on you
“Have you ever wondered why the F35 cannot fly supersonic for over a minute?” Oh my god yes, it keeps me up at night. It haunts my dreams, it terrorizes me while I’m awake. My search for the answer cost me my marriage, my children, little F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II, have disowned me.
@@22steve5150 agreed. The f-22 also can go supersonic, in fact I’m pretty sure it can supercruise so unless the stealth coat on the F-35 isn’t as strong there shouldn’t be a problem.
Shouldn't be... Raptors can supercruise and there hasn't been much noise about them losing any coatings. Pretty sure it's either a specific type of coating or some design features of FatAmy that contribute to this unortunate situation.
Supercruise was never an intended feature on throughout the JSF program, but it turns out that the F-135 is such a hoss that the plan CAN ride at 1.2mach for about 150 miles without afterburner. That said, that capability has never played a big role in any of the variants SOP or tactics.
The funny thing is the USAF 6th Gen plane called NGAD has a design requirement to have 100 times more stealth than F35 and super cruise at Mach 2.5 at 80,000 feet. Everyone wants to know wtf stealth coating can do that
Probably poorly maintained no U.S owned like 1 of their own has their engine melt don't forget American equipment takes hours to maintain and its not just the U.S with them either
It's the RE Shotgun... It's the one I like the least, but it's your bike, doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. Regardless of what it is though, I hope it runs well, and arrives with no issues.
Like I've Saud b 5. Wings are the problem of flight. If anything they restrict natural bearing as a bird because they are fixed. No part of a bird is fixed other than the beak really and the head. Everything else changes. And really man has put wings to test but not radial implicit mechanizing because man only simulates flight but can not transpire the effort of transformation so he executes on drives and stability processes. . A bird can drop after a stall or invert and any other able change because of multiplexes. Man only knows force mass but not inhibited form. Of course keeping the hardline driven forces secret is the most essential so we have adaptive and empowerment first as a secondary backbone. Sounds ridiculous but overloading the 35 is a composite dynamic overdrive like mechanical automatic transmissions . Overdrive is a glided result in this case needing transpiratical deviation needing greater amassed flow. I'm not saddened at all by the fact not keeping sonic flight travel because it's opposed.
@@cartmanrlsusall you could never get enough if it wasn't your's. In fact your clueless with your response , so I guess you'll never invent anything and obviously don't know the many histories in manned flight acknowledgements. But maybe your like thr ones that say they figured out tunneling today what they did a century ago with fluid dynamics so you yah you should smoke dope cause it flows out sideways with you. Keep your ridicule to yourself being lame brained.
seeing the comparison of the f22 and f35 is amazing. both jets are phenominal aircraft capable of extreme manuvers. neither is truelly better than the other with each having it's excel areas. i personally love the f22 for it's stupidly good stealth and supercruising ability.
Modern fighter jets move sooo unusually fast that it almost looks like CGI fictional video fighter jet simulation video game. Unreal this is absurd that it can land vertically which I did not know it was possible for one turbo jet engine!!!
I can honestly say I have never wondered this question.
😂u beat me to this question
Me too😄🤣🤣🤣🤣
😆😆
Yeshua Hamashiach is God in the flesh, the Son of God, the Word of God, and he died so that you may be presented blameless in the sight of the Father. And so you may inherit his kingdom. The LORD Yeshua Hamashiach is the only way to the Father and his kingdom. Repent of your sins accept him into your life as your LORD and Savior before it's too late, every day is not guaranteed.
John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.
May God bless you all.
@@blessed2338 Amen Brother
This is old news, like 2016 old. They tested it and found that whatever happened to the one jet that had stealth coating damage was a freak accident. No F-35 before or since has had this issue.
Guess they need more engineers working on the paint. 😂
Actually the restriction was based on an airframe stress test back in 2012, and it only applied to the B and C variant. It also involved certain heavy aggressive maneuvers at supersonic speeds that wouldn’t normally take place, and other combat loaded 4th gen aircraft can’t do without damaging pylon mounts and weapon mounts on the wings and fuselage (you got fanboys out there that think modern planes duke it out pulling 9Gs at constant Mach 1 or 2). No one goes supersonic for more than a minute, in combat anyway, because
No one has the capacity
To carry enough fuel to stay in the fight). Since 2012, There have been thousands of flight hours put on these airframes since then, with no damage or blistering has taken place.
Grumman prob. tested it & said that.
But they day alot of things to keep the outsized profits on the budget swallowing project a rolling in.
@@ericstyles3724 they are required by the government to say certain things. If not they wouldn’t have disclosed the fact that it’s skin was melting at all.
Not true. The problem still exists amongst others like short range, excessive parts breakage, supply chain issues etc. The f35 is a lemon.
“What’s your source?”
*”it was revealed to me in a dream”*
Source: I'm russian propaganda bot, trust me
@@colRobinOldsRussian are living in your heads rend free. They are the scapegoat to all your insecurities.
Doesn't this sound like Christian or Islamic prophecies..
Oh, it is not allowed to know? Nice, nice..
Once you go supersonic the shockwave that forms from the front of the plane passing through the air presses the air down so hard the friction heats up the air. This forms plasma at higher speeds and it’s a leading reason we can’t pull a top gun and go Mach 10
"Vertical-Takeoff" is actually incorrect. The clips you have linked are of the F35-B variant which is equipped with a STOVL lift fan (Short Take Off, Vertical Landing).
THEY ARE SLATED FOR THE MARINE CORP I SAY THIS IS SO MUCH B.S.
Exaxtly
They are capable of vertical takeoff. Saw that on CZcams.
@@binxbolling thats not an F35-B then
@@DarthPraennox No other F-35 could do that. It wasn't a Yak 141 or Harrier either.
Title correction: All variants can supercruise for more than a minute, and sustain supersonic with reheats indefinitely. The “B” variant has a lower SUPERCRUISING time than other variants due to its extra weight, but it can still do it for far more than 60 seconds.
Thank you. The "B" is designed to replace the Harrier, which couldn't even achieve Mach.
@@hunterhat That does not make it a supersonic aircraft. An embraer private jet can break the sound barrier in a dive. What is useful is level supersonic flight.
@@hunterhat Okay, I must have misinterpreted your comment.
@@hunterhat I did the same in a B-17 in MicroSoft Combat Flight Simulator and was accused of cheating. Not really sure how that is gemain to the conversation.
but this doesnt change the fact that the F35 is unable to reach supersonic speeds in a safe manner, thus the USAF and US Navy disallowinf the F35 to hit supersonic even for a second
Source: trust me bro
westoid be like:
cope
no, the source is literally the F35s Official Joint Programme Office (JPO) and you can cross check this yourself. cope harder bot
Mf just be saying that any chance they get lmao
@@YeeterMcBeater470 it is a design issue. this is officially stated by Lockheed Martin, F35 JPO, and Pentagon themselves. there is a reason why the USAF and US Navy doesnt permit the F35 to fly supersonic even for one second... because the F35 doesnt need to fly mach 1.6 for 15 minutes to sustain damage. even a short burst of time at mach 1.3 already damages the F35. this issue was first seen in 2011
Dude a feature of this jet is the ability to super cruise, meaning it can go supersonic without going into afterburner. It can absolutely do it for more than a minute.
They scrapped that requirement, and it cannot supercruise.
Lmao you’re so incorrect it’s hilarious
That would be the f22 kid. This is the most junk plane usa has ever produced.
@@antoniohagopian213 yep weapon are all malfunctioning.
@@WXSTANG there never scrapped it, they just do it less often with stealth planes because once you go super sonic stealth coating starts to peel off
This question has been keeping me awake at night.
Now you can soundly sleep🥱😴
Most f35 pilots live in residential neighborhoods, the speed limit is usually around 500 knots
Or just unde Mach 1
There is speed limits in the sky 🌌? 🤨
@@DiaperSNiFFER yes, over land they cannot go supersonic because of noise restrictions
@@reedtassell4847 but like whose gonna stop them??? They can’t get pulled over and give tickets 🎫?
500 knots is close to trans sonic right? Is there that much of a bump in fuel usage when supersonic?
Misinformation.
The structural damage and damage to the stealth coating only happened one time, and it was after an extended period of time (15+ minutes) of flying at speeds in excess of Mach 1.6
Since then, the issue has been unable to be replicated even though the Airforce has tried. In all other tests, they found the coating and structure to be just fine after sustaining those speeds.
It's been written off as a one-off issue.
incorrect. cross check it yourself on what F-35's official Joint Program Office (JPO) has claimed. they cant sustain supersonic for even one minute even at mach 1. there is a reason why USAF and US Navy disallowed the F35 to fly supersonic for any longer than "a short burst of time". do your research please
It can totally fly supersonic for however long is needed in combat. It does damage or at least wear the coating. But modern combat aircraft rarely fly supersonic in general because it's loud , heats them up which is bad for heat seeking missiles and burns insane amounts of fuel. Supersonic is not tactically relevant anymore, hypersonic is though.
@@BrandoDrum burns insane amount of fuel is only applicable when using afterburners. some fighters can supercruise, which means flying supersonic without the use of after burners. and most supersonic speeds are reached for long range intercepts. heat seeking missiles are not long ranged, probably 7-10km max... so yes, supersonic speed is still important in modern day combat
@@BrandoDrum Supersonic isn't relevant and hypersonic is - Yes..... Only if you also consider that few vehicles, let alone manned vehicles, are hypersonic capable.
Supersonic isn't relevant only because going supersonic generally means the use of afterburners, which also means greatly reduced combat radius. Supercruise does still allow a jet to arrive more quickly at a target area but even in aerial combat, while travelling faster toward the enemy means your missiles having greater reach, travelling too fast toward the enemy also means the enemy's missiles have greater reach too.
Also bear in mind that current technology still requires (with rare exceptions) the mother ship's radar to support the lock until pitbull, which means turning right after firing only works within visual range.
Also, at this moment, there are no air-launched hypersonic missiles, and anything that's hypersonic will, by definition and laws of physics, also have to follow a relatively straight path, making it relatively predictable.
@@renj123 The Russian R-37 air to air missile is "supposedly" Hypersonic. But. It's Russia...so.
That vertical take off is out of this world 💯💥💥
Harriers had a vertical take off in the 60's
It is a vertical landing, the take off is not it's only short. It is a stovl.
Meaning the only supersonic vtol is a French prototypes.
Edit : the mirage III V
@@lephaytheo3098 av-8b
@@rico7257 max speed mach0.88 so not supersonic.
@@rico7257 top speed of 700mph. Sound barrier is about 768mph at sea level. The Harrier won’t break the Barrier
No one has ever wondered this. Chocolate Starfish and hot dog flavored water have more complex thoughts than I do
Limp bizkit reference?
The f-35A: “ahem, am I a joke to you?”
Same problems, they still have same nozzle profile and fat belly despite not having the lateral fans.
All because of design standardisation.
True I guess
Very old information. Current models can go supersonic for "more than 10 minutes" and the GE AETP engine which was developed for the NGADF will remove those limitations entirely & introduce supercruise to all models. While the Pratt & Whitney F135 will continue to be offered as standard for cost & supply chain reasons, the XA100 will be offered as a refit & upgrade engine starting in 2027 2028.
Yea I don’t really keep up with jet news (btw where did you get your info?)
Source: He put the wrong engine while making the F-35 in KSP 2
Found the ksp fan, based individual
gotta play the orginal ksp with the ion engine and kal 1000 hack for infinite fuel and crazy speed
No, I havent wondered that, but thank you for explaining it anyway
Atleast I’m not the only one who lasts a minute.
Same reason we built a roof to protect the F-22s. They used to park them there, while the F-15s, F-16s and F-4 variants sit out in the rain next to them.
WHY THE FUCK would we even store F-22 outside in the open weather when its our MOST “prized” weapon???
Do they fly under an umbrella
@@BV4551Pl you would be genuinely surprised almost every other major country would
@@r.j.m4245the e-3a sentry does
All jets at my base sit under an overhang
The block 4 upgrade with variable flow engines will solve this issue.
Edit: I see this kinda has gotten attention. Here is a video explaining this much better than I can from trusted sources czcams.com/video/7SNALUoybt0/video.html
Course it will😅
I agree. Regardless of what these infamous keyboard warrior F35 egineers say, the F35 has blown away all expectations. What's funnier, the similar negative things were said about the A10 projects and the F16s.
@@troyezell5841 agreed. 1000 airframes and ordered by 11 countries is no small feat for a relatively new platform. And in todays combat speed isn’t king anymore cause outrunning missiles is no longer viable and also you can’t be hit if you can’t be seen aka stealth and electronic warfare
Until it runs out of gas 30s later lol😂
@@troyezell5841 well it was designed to ensure improvements as time goes
Another question I didn't know I needed answered. Love seeing these amazing jets though!! Thanks
Actually yes ! While I was heating up my ramen noodles last night I was just stuck on the fact that the f35 can't go super sonic for more then a minute and I just couldn't help but wonder Why??? thank you for answering my question
😂 Lol.. top answer!
The noodles be knowing man!
The real reason is it's a software licence that you have to pay extra to have installed. They put an app store and a credit card reader in the cockpit to allow the pilot to purchase the upgrade when it is needed.
When did BMW start making planes?
When did EA Games start making fighters?
It’s new business model. Subscription for everything. Even the government. Btw enemy of the United States allies thank you for the information.
The ghost of Pierre Sprey haunts the YT shorts yet.
Harrier: HEY YOU STOLE MY IDEA
Yes, the F-35B. The F-35A does not do vertical takeoffs and landings, so it doesn’t have a rotating engine.
This Nigga didn’t watch the whole video
Bro, shh, I think that is top secret info
So could’ve said that in 2 seconds but waffled for 20 seconds
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Did you know that there is no unicorn piss in mountain dew? Now you do.
I never thought about it until I saw this post. Thanks for sharing it. Very interesting!
I can sleep at night now 😌, it's been bothering me for months
I am just pissed wanted to buy one for christmas
@@terryvarta9306 am so pissed I bought 2 last week 😂
I'd consider myself a pro at Microsoft flight simulator and I've never had issues with a straight nose dive from 30,000 feet with full throttle and reaching mach 2.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
And bounce off the ground a few times and slide into the hangar
@@steveh5307 nah I just vtol land on a carrier with a vertical speed of minus 10,000 feet per second.
Man, just read this outright rubbish we see here? I'm English, and this just has to be said, as honestly, I don't believe we've ever seen or read so many people, all talking about subjects their own words always prove they know absolutely nothing about, let alone understand?.
The truth is, the USA is still unable to produce and build a VTOL capable fighter aircraft. Yet, they are trying to lie about this. The F-35B was claimed by the USA, to be able to do what the Harrier could do, while also being supersonic, stealthy, with modern avionics systems, etc, this is what we were told, and it's why we designed our new carrier without ramps.
Only one of the biggest technical headaches the British always had when building the Harrier, was the VTOL, - transferring from ''lift'' (downward nozzles) to forward flight (rear-facing nozzles) and flying away. Apparently to achieve it took the British a hell of a lot of technical work, (three - four months at a time, over 3 years). Look up all the variants they made?, but they never gave up, and they finally figured it out.
I said long before we ever saw the F-35B, it wouldn't be VTOL capable, even with the Rolls-Royce lift engines, (because the USA has tried many times before, and failed each time), only ever managing to produce the British Sea Harrier, able to do so. Every US airframe (and there have been many), have all failed.
I'll show you what I mean, as otherwise so many of you get confused, LOL. At 7 mins 50 seconds, you'll watch a Harrier perform a proper VTOL. Copy and paste “2013 MCAS Yuma Air Show - AV8B Harrier Demo” into CZcams search. Watch it from lift off, (to more importantly), flying away from the lift-off, and you'll see the transfer of nozzles take place.
You'll not find any footage of the F-35B doing this. Yet we do see Lockheed Martin trying to suggest it is VTOL capable?, when it, so clearly, is not. Copy and Paste “First F-35B Vertical Takeoff Test” into CZcams search.
You'll only see it lift off, hover, then return straight back down. You'll never see it fly away from the lift-off. Believe me, if it could, we'd see it doing so in every piece of footage we have on the F-35B - like we still see on all the footage of the Harrier doing so. But you'll never find any footage anywhere of the F-35B doing that.
Oh, and please, anyone that wants to try and show me the F-35 fly into a hover, and fly away from that hover (as a way of proof it can VTOL)?
Please don't, because that has nothing at all to do with a VTOL. To hover, and fly from a hover doesn't require the transfer of the nozzles, as hover, is achieved while remaining with forward flight (rear facing nozzles) with pitch and yaw, to find your centre of gravity to control the hover (CPU controlled today). No transfer of nozzles is required to fly from a hover.
And if, as we read, you all claim it can VTOL, then show it? No need to show me it flying away from a hover, Just show it performing a VTOL?
You'll then start to read these Americans all, claim it's not necessary? (while forgetting, they're to be carrier-based aircraft), meaning any slight damage to the deck or ramp, and they can't get any jets airborne?. Defeating the entire purpose of having the aircraft in the first place! You can't ever lose an entire carrier in battle, for only minor damage?, whatever next?.
So, why do we see the USA doing this? It's obviously because the US is still a country that's never managed to produce & build a VTOL fighter aircraft. Britain did so in the late 50s, Russia did so in the late 60s, the USA has tried and failed numerous times, so it seems this time, they're going to try to lie about it LOL.
That country is a travesty, man! It shows us that Lockheed are not unknown to produce propaganda aircraft, as the F-22 is the same... Failed, so today, only being used for propaganda purposes!
Typical US propaganda, usually consists of silly falsehoods, and fake misinformation claims, or just twisted truths, like the F-15, is said to be unbeaten in A2A combat. It's true, only when we look at every aircraft shot down by an F-15, we find that none had any offensive capabilities, and most had little if anything defensive, many without even a basic radar, meaning, you'd be absolutely stunned if the F-15 didn't shoot every one of them down. So it really is a very silly, and meaningless propaganda claim.
Yet we do have another aircraft that is also unbeaten in A2A combat and has faced off against aircraft just as capable as itself. The British Sea Harrier is the only aircraft unbeaten in A2A combat, that has faced off against worthy, viable opposition. And that really is a huge factor, that's worth knowing, unlike the F-15 propaganda claim, that you'd be shocked if it hadn't managed.
If the American people could just think for themselves?, they should all be questioning why the US made it illegal to sell the F-22?. The US government seemingly wants it believed, it's because it's so good, they don't want anyone else to have it?.
Yet, that actually makes no sense at all, none, not even a little sense, as the facts are, they've no idea what's around the corner in modern military technologies, and with the speed we're seeing new military tactical hardware being designed, developed, and created today, it could well have made great sense to sell the F-22 at some stage? (If it actually works).
If it worked, they'd have been able to recoup many of the resources spent on the aircraft, if not the resources in their entirety.
There's another, and much more likely, reason the USA would make it illegal to sell the F-22? And that's, if it is, just as I suspect it is, a "lemon", that was intended to be their front line leading strike aircraft (that's failed), and because of the cost, they can't just write it off, so the USA have then only used the F-22 for propaganda purposes?, then what better way of preventing anyone else from finding out that it actually doesn't work, and really is a lemon, than making it illegal to sell?
When you actually think about it, that's the only possible way to explain the USA making it illegal to sell the F-22?. It can only be because it's a failed aircraft that was intended to be their 5th generation front line strike aircraft.
Well, 18 years the US have had the F-22, (and they've been in wars the entire time), yet they've never used it, not once! And even more interestingly, just after Russia arrived in Syria in 2015, they removed all of their F-22's from right across the Middle East.
Absolutely no doubt about it, I guarantee we'll never see the F-22 involved in any sort of real war scenario, or even involved in any major sortie, because it's basically junk.
They've even trashed all the infrastructure they had in place to build more of them.
I like it's mobility to hover in position and just annihilate whatever it's target is but it also takes a greater chance of being shot down easily with heat seeking tracking missiles though.
AI voices are getting really good.
Next time i'm in a dog fight i'll keep that in mind.
The 35's designed to engauge targets before their in detection, targeting or missle range. You'll never get close enough to use you guns or missles.
Simple just fly an F 22 next time and you won’t have this problem
Also has integrated radar systems to extend its radar/ weapon/engagement ranges.. FAR over the horizon..
Thanks for clearing that up GPT
I just realized. The power of todays jets are on par with irons man’s foot.
Not quite, nowhere near as efficient or compact
The F-35 can only tolerate supersonic speeds at high altitudes for short bursts before it sustains lasting structural damage and the loss of stealth capabilities. During high speeds, the jet’s stealth coating, which makes it invisible to radar, is known to bubble. There are currently no plans to correct the problem. The F-35 JPO told Defense News the issue was closed under the category of ‘no plans to correct’ due to cost overruns and the time it would take to correct. Instead, the Pentagon set a time limit for supersonic flight to less than a cumulative minute for all models.
The hilarious thing is that know-it-all people like you who feel the need to share your knowledge on social media just makes intel gathering for adversaries so much easier. How about you be more mindful of your setting and audience.
How can going supersonic incur structural damage over high G maneuvering? Oh and Johny, lighten up, he read this somewhere and regurgitated it, I'm sure our adversaries have all ready read the same thing....
The main reason all versions are slower than even F4's is because most air to air battles happen at subsonic speeds.
@@JohnnyWalker-rl9pm that doesn’t work like that if you are not warthunder user
If that was the case we would get to know loads about Russia/China and vice versa from Social Media
@@JohnnyWalker-rl9pm I think this is public info
The F-35B Marines is heavier and lower fuel capacity than the rest of the F-35A USAF and F-35C Navy.
6 Apr 2023 Update!: F-35B is my favorite variant, but the size for all the F-35s has really cut its legs shorter. The need strap on stealthy weapon pods or something. F-15 EX plus F-35 is good but that makes the F-15 EX a big vulnerable target without Stealth itself. Sadly, our military service men and women have to compensate for these sorry a$$ politicians decisions of shorting the full future needs of our war fighters.
Only F-35B Variant has vertical flight, the A And C don't
This has changed my life. Thank you so much
Thanks for using some Aussie central coast airshow footage!
Only the F-35B, the rest of the F-35’s don’t have this problem. The Marines wanted VTOL.
Make a video on LCA tejas
Video coming soon bro
There is nothing much. It's a 90s jet although it's been built recently. It can be used to trained pilots
@@bhagwancapitalism1057 Cope
That’s not true, what it can’t do is to be on max afterburner for more than 50 seconds without exceeding Mach limit of 1.44.
bro, check it out yourself on F-35's JPO statement. this is true, they cant fly supersonic speeds, not even mach 1, without sustaining damage. on paper, the F35 can reach speeds up to mach 1.6. reality is that mach 1 is already dangerous
@@f-16viper99 Absolutely not.
@@AugmentedGravity it is. you can cross check it yourself on F35's JPO, Lockheed Martin, and Pentagon's statement that what i said is 100% true. if your ego cant accept it, thats on you
“Have you ever wondered why the F35 cannot fly supersonic for over a minute?”
Oh my god yes, it keeps me up at night. It haunts my dreams, it terrorizes me while I’m awake. My search for the answer cost me my marriage, my children, little F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II, have disowned me.
As a former boat captain…Ive spent many nights at sea thinking about this question 😂😂😂😂😂
Does this apply to all F35s or just the F-35B which is the variant you exclusively portrayed in this video?
He said it damages the stealth coating which is on all f35s
The video is bullshit.
Just the F-35B and C variants
@@vincentphan5097 even then the video is bullshit. I'ts speeds over mach 1.30 and only at lower altitudes that there is an issue.
@@22steve5150 agreed. The f-22 also can go supersonic, in fact I’m pretty sure it can supercruise so unless the stealth coat on the F-35 isn’t as strong there shouldn’t be a problem.
So is its supercruise ability pretty much incompatible with its stealth?
Shouldn't be... Raptors can supercruise and there hasn't been much noise about them losing any coatings. Pretty sure it's either a specific type of coating or some design features of FatAmy that contribute to this unortunate situation.
The F35 can't supercruise
@@BlyGuy
Might wanna read a bit more on that..
Supercruise was never an intended feature on throughout the JSF program, but it turns out that the F-135 is such a hoss that the plan CAN ride at 1.2mach for about 150 miles without afterburner.
That said, that capability has never played a big role in any of the variants SOP or tactics.
The funny thing is the USAF 6th Gen plane called NGAD has a design requirement to have 100 times more stealth than F35 and super cruise at Mach 2.5 at 80,000 feet. Everyone wants to know wtf stealth coating can do that
It's the fighter jet version of the phrase "drop a gear and disappear"
That’s Great thanks, now I know the next time that question pops up in a table quiz
The enemy is taking notes. They must thank you🤑😂
You thought this was clever, didn't you?
You might as well claim that this video is disclosing the top-secret concept of heavier-than-air flight.
Others f35a and c melted it's engine, here in Norway engine Literally melted
really woow 🤯🤯
@@Sokerinenpumpulimies still crying mf ?🤣🤣🤣🤣
Probably poorly maintained no U.S owned like 1 of their own has their engine melt don't forget American equipment takes hours to maintain and its not just the U.S with them either
Great info
Thanks
Because it was designed in America?
Only joking we love the Americans the world needs people like them i.e. the dreamers
The F-35’s stealth coating blisters at supersonic speeds from the heat.
so does my sister
Only happened once and has been unable to be replicated. Basically the video is a lie
Everything but the coating applies only to the F35B, one of three variants
It's the RE Shotgun... It's the one I like the least, but it's your bike, doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.
Regardless of what it is though, I hope it runs well, and arrives with no issues.
The F 35 is the dream that never came true.
Have the F35 pilots attempted the (jump sideways) maneuver that the Harrier can perform.
Sure, why not
Stop it.. 😂😂😂
It's called Wiffing and it can only in vtol position which is in intake off and landing
F35 can do anything i=p
The infamous VIFF ?
Would still trust the F-4 Phantom II more if ya want fast boi at longer periods of flight.
Mankind has wanted to know the answer to this question for thousands of years.
Jack of all trades. Master of none.
Is that all models? Or just the marine version? Thanks!
Marine version
When you got 3 fast movers on your tail and they got the radar lock that one minute rule doesn't apply.
The goal of the F-35 is to never have anything "on your tail"... Its goal is to never have anyone even know you're there...
@@meamzcs yeah i understand that but expectation and reality are 2 different things. Never underestimate you advisories.
Danka comrade, we will keep this information in mind…
Thanks for telling the enemy it’s weakness
Yes the coating "hits up". Very trustworthy videau
Revealing yet more interesting secrets that china did not know 😮
Don’t worry. This videos is probably not accurate at all.
@@jbp122it’s not probably. It simply isn’t true full stop.
The explosion at Oshkosh was just ❤.
The Air Force variant has no restrictions
Im not buying it anyway
Buy it in Norway it melted and it was not this b version
Seeing that jet rip across the sky just to few hundred feet above the ground is a sight/feel you’ll never forget
USA
'Ninjas dont move fast they stay low and slow to accomplish thier mission"-Hattori Hanzo
Like I've Saud b 5. Wings are the problem of flight. If anything they restrict natural bearing as a bird because they are fixed. No part of a bird is fixed other than the beak really and the head. Everything else changes. And really man has put wings to test but not radial implicit mechanizing because man only simulates flight but can not transpire the effort of transformation so he executes on drives and stability processes. . A bird can drop after a stall or invert and any other able change because of multiplexes. Man only knows force mass but not inhibited form. Of course keeping the hardline driven forces secret is the most essential so we have adaptive and empowerment first as a secondary backbone. Sounds ridiculous but overloading the 35 is a composite dynamic overdrive like mechanical automatic transmissions . Overdrive is a glided result in this case needing transpiratical deviation needing greater amassed flow. I'm not saddened at all by the fact not keeping sonic flight travel because it's opposed.
I want to smoke some of what you have
@@cartmanrlsusall you could never get enough if it wasn't your's. In fact your clueless with your response , so I guess you'll never invent anything and obviously don't know the many histories in manned flight acknowledgements. But maybe your like thr ones that say they figured out tunneling today what they did a century ago with fluid dynamics so you yah you should smoke dope cause it flows out sideways with you. Keep your ridicule to yourself being lame brained.
Obviously that would be an excellent use for that ridiculous dancing black goo crap that is a nice toy for children.
That 360 deg spin was clean af
Aileron roll
why F35 can't fly supersonic more than a minute
pilot : bro don't know about G
I dont know much about military gear, but as a man, i can vouch that having good thrust is very important, whether it is vertical or horizontal
It is disinformation, the F-35 can supercruise for more than 60s
Thank God this video wasn’t longer than a minute
I think that's the F35s biggest downfall is lack of speed. All fighter jets need to break Mach 2
Why?
Thanks for giving the enemy its weakness
So no one is gona talk about the plane exploding in the background 🌚
I can’t believe I watched this for more than a minute
Thats me in gta online finally stolling a jet😂😂
Türkiye KAAN TFX 1 and USA F-22 😍😍🇺🇲🇹🇷🇺🇲🇹🇷🇺🇲🇹🇷🇺🇲💪💪💪
I Love USA Support from Germany and türkiye.
Nice! I hope they get a better radar absorbing coating/alternative and antennae made lol 🔥🔥🔥🔥
The fudge just happened there 😂
We ain't even gonna talk about the explosion in the background
F-35 has the most powerful engine in all fighter jets, western & others
One engibe is red glowed and that make the jet slow 😊 so need the blue glowed or white one 😊
The UK doesn't need a super sonic jet in its navy. We learned this in the Falklands. This is why USA and UK made this thing.
Basicly, like hydra in gta 5
Things that I think of that keep me up at night.
replace "cannot" with "should not" and the video makes a lot more sense
just because it shouldn't doesn't mean it cant!!!
F-22 raptor... Fly circles around this thing no doubt.
seeing the comparison of the f22 and f35 is amazing. both jets are phenominal aircraft capable of extreme manuvers. neither is truelly better than the other with each having it's excel areas. i personally love the f22 for it's stupidly good stealth and supercruising ability.
Modern fighter jets move sooo unusually fast that it almost looks like CGI fictional video fighter jet simulation video game. Unreal this is absurd that it can land vertically which I did not know it was possible for one turbo jet engine!!!
I don't fully understand the commitment for this plane, when you see F15, OR F22 which seems WAY better than the F35
Thank you for letting the world know this
i have never "wondered" nor thought about it going super sonic
I never had a problem opening that bad boy up. 😅
Заводы по производству самолётов в России без остановки работали, работают и будут работать. Скоро выйдет СУ 60. Всём мира и добра😊
Black Bird in the corner : 👀💥
Jeezzz.... so many fighter jet scientist with 5 PhDs in the comments.