F-35B Lightning II Vertical Landing and Takeoff Aboard the USS Wasp 

It’s not very advanced, Hawker Harrier prototype could do it in the 60’s!

Harold Broadsword this technology dates back to the 40’s with the German

@@ultralaggerREV1 40’s? HA! do you have more jokes?

It is a phenomenal aircraft but it's only drawback is that it needs more fuel capability, but what day drone refuelers we can keep them anywhere they want

@@haroldbroadsword9895 it's not the safe, the herrier required very skilled pilots to manually stabilize the aircraft in that configuration, if often did not go over so well and ultimately there harrier was not used for vtol all that much. The advancements here is the computer system that contols this think, supposedly the pilot just pressed a button and it transitions to hover flight. It remains stable without pilot input, my guess is that it's some cutting edge model predictive controller in there

The Quality is horrible tho

Yeah that was pretty nice..

Your name gives me aids

Haha

😂

Saab viggen can already do that

Especially when you never felt that before from a Jet

​@@simonx760 Saab is producing some incredible

I think you get used to it

James Ziemba how is it useful?

@@morgangmilligan Having a highly superior aircraft that is able to take off from much smaller ships. You don't always want to have to send one of your precious nimitz class multi billion dollar carriers, but you still want to be able to launch the latest gen fighters.

These can land and take off from the littoral combat ships. So they can take off from a boat in very shallow waters. Seems more useful than a helicopter especially when they can’t see it on their radars

Ahaha, indeed xD

They usually don’t do that because it is a risky maneuver that burns a lot of fuel. But I believe there is a test footage of a F35 at the Lockheed plant lofting from the ground up but I don’t know if it transitions into flight.

@@portcybertryx222 I managed to find one or two clips of it transitioning from flight to hover and then back to flight, which was good enough for me.

Bahhahaahahahhahahaaha!

HA

mantap bang

Dum dum dum dum dum datadatdatdatatadatta

While technically Naval Aviators these are U.S. Marines.

They'd rebase to an airfield or use the roadways, depending on where they are in the world.

Would be the most efficient and effective way wouldn’t it?

Look at how many doors are opening on the top and bottom of that plane, that air intake door for the lift fan is like an F-15 air brakes only backwards, add to that the drag of that tailpipe as it rotates down.

It's sad to see it go, but at least it's getting replaced by something bigger and better!

I believe what we see here is the F35B. There are the F35A, F35B. and F35C. I think it's the F35C that has tailhook and catapult ability. Because it is not VTOL.

@@LAMB53087 Yes, the C has a tailhook.& catapult gear. I've thought it would be good for a B to get the catapult gear so they could launch with a higher takeoff weight if they land on a regular carrier.(they don't need the tailhook) . I've come to the opinion that small carriers like the 6 & 7 (that are more a carrier than a assault vessel like the 8 & 9) should have a ramp (to increase the B's takeoff weight and perhaps a single catapult and a couple tailhook wires that can be used in an emergency. (In theory, they could also be used to launch an E-2, C-2, EA-18G &/or a navel tanker vehicle.

@@aCycloneSteve Good points you make sir. My son is out to sea on the USS Tripoli as we speak. I believe that's 7. He is a U.S. Marine.

@@LAMB53087 It might be an interesting idea, but I was looking today the the French "Charles de Gaul" aircraft carrier is actually smaller than the LHA-6 America! I understand the Marines need VTOL fighters, but their carriers can be multitaskers.

@SCP 682 AV-8B U.S.M.C. Harrier

I saw somewhere the air under the big fan in the front isn't hot. But the actual engine exhaust... Yikes.

They aren’t that hot they’re meant to be undetected

@@kyletaylor4489 I know that, but it's still a jet exhaust vent. No matter how much military industrial complex money they throw at it, I doubt it's totally room temperature.

That depends on if you're under the engine or the fan, the engine you're not going to enjoy to say the least. The fan will probably just be a bit uncomfortable mostly due to the high volume of air it's throwing at you rather than temperature though.

@@kyletaylor4489 remaining stealthy at IRST range (50-60km) and being more difficult for IR seekers to target you isn't the same as being cool enough to not roast someone like a Thanksgiving turkey if they stand underneath the engine exhaust

Are the pilots still having problems getting oxygen in the cockpit??? Generally that's important to be able to breath when flying a jet. Last time I checked anyway.

@@Rubin4749 did you know about the paint also pealing off after so many flights

@@mrmanning3807 Honestly, I didn't. *That* I could even live with if it doesn't effect combat functionality or the safety of the pilots. The oxygen thing when I read it from multiple respected sources pretty much knocked me over.

@@Rubin4749 no but if it's ment to be invisible to radar well it's not doing a very good job if the paint keeps coming off

@@mrmanning3807 Maybe the Pentagon officials' new motto should be "If it's not OUR butt on the line, it's all good"

Technology just to kill people, no amount of money is needed for this.

Actually at $110 million for the FlyAway cost of the f-35A it's not that much more expensive than what most of NATO flies and this is the most expensive variant of the f-35, the f-35A costs around $80 million fly away.

You can't carry as much weight

Because it restricts your max payload more.

It can vertically take off it just restricts the weight more so it's more cost effective to do a short take off.

It can lift straight up, but with a rolling takeoff they save a bit of fuel, and can carry a heavier load of fuel and weapons.

@@kdrapertrucker i know theirs 3 different models of F-35, and I think that not all 3 are able too, but I’m not an expert simply an amateur who find those amazing, …..also a speed freak addict witch help a bit. 😂😂👍👍👍👍

Can the F-35B be thrown off a "regular" carrier or can they only use the self takeoff? I was wondering because I thought if they could use a cat they could probably have a higher launch weight. Also, can they launch off the bow while recovering at the stern at the same time or only do one at a time?

It can vertically take off, but it can’t do it when fully loaded. With no weapons load and less fuel it can both take off and land vertically

It can

Can, but Much fuel is Lost

It CANNOT do a Vertical Take-Off. So many people believe this is the case. It can do a very short take off and vertical land. Same with the Harrier, people always said the same thing.

Tom Patschorke The F-35B can do a vertical take off. But it’s easier on fuel when you have a payload to do a short take-off

In a dogfight Mig-35 definitely has a chance, that is probably the most agile plane currently

@@laracroft938 too bad the radar can't see him but he can

100 million

They got it down to 90 mil

About same cost as Euro fighter or a Rafael. The B models (vertical landing) is somewhat more. They are quoting 85 mil for next production run and next will be 80 million. (F18 super Hornet is about 79). So f35 is less cost than most new jets. It's also cheaper to run with only one engine. And the engine has about 50% less maintenance then previous single engine fighters. So up to 4x less maintenance then a duel engine fighter engine wise. Being able to land and take off from parking lots, or roll out from a barn and take off on grass fields etc is a game changer technology in terms of deployment options.

@@Albertkallal They were doing it in Harriers in the 70's.

@@bossdog1480 I really am waiting for a video of the F35 taking off or landing on grass - it REALLY would dispel a zillion myths about the F35 and where and what kind of surfaces it can land on. The one thing they never really could adopt with the Harrier was rolling landings. They did do some experiments (on the French Charles Gaulle). The issue is that the Harrier has what we call brakes as an afterthought. Back then, (50 years ago - astounding the Harrier still flying today), to keep weight down, and prevent spins on ship decks, then the Harrier only has braking on the one “tiny” front nose wheel (and calling that brakes is being kind to the Harrier!!). If the pilot locks up the brakes, then the Harrier will not spin on the deck (only a front nose wheel lockup occurs - no spin of the jet). In fact, when they announced that rolling landings would become part of F35 operations on HMS Q, a Harrier pilot wrote parliament stating how bad of an idea this is, and how risky and dangerous this would be (to other jets on deck etc.). So, sliding jets into other jets, helicopters, the tower etc. was thought to be far too high of a risk. However, several things allow this: The f35 has brakes on all 3 wheels. The Harrier simply used STOVL landings, or long runways to get around this shortcoming. The brakes on F35 are computer controlled, anti-skid, and anti-spin. And all three wheels provide braking force. F35 is far more stable, and controllable then the Harrier in hover to flight modes. (The fact that the nozzle position and throttle had to be controlled with the left hand while other is on the stick in the Harrier was a real hand full. As you move the nozzles forward, the plane wants to drop - so you have to feed in more throttle (and you have to do this dance with your left hand). With the f35? Well, the same button on the C model that deploys the tail hook for carriers is simply pressed by the pilot. The transition of throttle, forward speed, and down thrust is all under computer control. You push the flight stick forward, and the jet goes forward. You pull back during forward hover mode, the jet goes up. And as you go faster, then the lift system transfers from fan/tail lift to forward motion - but all done by computer. The pilot is NOT even involved in how this all works. You don’t even use another set of controls, or change anything - just a simple button press. In addition to the above, the HMS Q has larger decks. It will be interesting as to how bad weather gets to force pilots back to a 100% vertical landing. Everyone was bracing for “impact” as to how these dangerous rolling landings would be. So, got out our bags of popcorn, and sat on the edge of our seats to see this first rolling landing on the HMS Q. Take your bets, take your risk. So, here is a video of the first F35 landing this way on the HMS Q ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jP0rUkDz_Fg.html We wonder what all the fuss was about!!! However, let’s get some weapons loads, some good wind and rain, and see how this all looks. So, why the rolling landings? Well, for starters you get better sortie time. (Less time to land). You also reduce wear and tear on the lift fan system. Keep in mind that to hook up a jet and launch from a catapult takes a whopping 3 minutes! With VSTOL - you just point down the runway and off you go. The jet behind is already spooling up its engines and can start its run before the jet in front has left the ski ramp. But, the MOST important reason is what we call return stores. (How much fuel and weapons can you land when returning to the ship). Well, we all know and thank the Harrier for littering the ocean floor with UN-spend bombs and weapons. You see, on a return ship landing, the return payload is VERY restricted. Now with bombs costing so much, then that’s not going to be part of operations. An f18 return store rating on a USA carrier (cable trap) is rated for 4,000lbs. If you have more return store weight, you dump fuel, and (gasp) if not below the 4,000lbs, then you start dumping weapons and ordnance into the ocean. Amazing, but the F35 B on a 100% vertical landing is rated for 5,000lbs return stores (already better than and f18 on a carrier with cable traps). But, with rolling landings, they will gain an additional 2,000lbs above the already VERY good rating of 5,000lbs. So the return store rating of the F35B will be about 7,000lbs. That is VERY good. That means they can load up the F35 with lots of extra fuel (or weapons), do air support, and return to the HMS q without having to “dump” fuel or weapons. This just gives a LOT more flexibility in the takeoff loads, and you don’t have to be “super” careful to match the payloads and expected flight time with those “daily” air patrol operations. So, they will save a LOT of dumped fuel, and of course rare have to dump weapons into the ocean to land back on their ships. So, with newer technology, then rolling landings will be used. I am interested however as to how bad weather has to become in which they then use 100% vertical landings. With the HMS Q long decks, they will not only improve general operations from a “return store” point of view, but they should be able to achieve full weapon loads and full fuel loads - including drop tanks if needed. This will give rise to “very long” interdiction setups. The F35 is wet plumbed on 2 of the 3 wing pylons per side for drop tanks. And you can also go with a centerline tank. So, 5 tanks of external gas. (I’m guess about 13,000 lbs of extra fuel. And then there is 13,500lbs of internal fuel. And with all of the above? Your weapons bays are still available (2 AIMS per side + 2 x 1000 lb bombs internal on each side). So the abilities of the F35 in terms of a bomb truck, or long distance fuel truck are options that previous gen VSTOL jets could only dream about. But, stormy pitching ocean waves, heavy rain soaked decks, windy, and larger return store loads? Well, we have to wait and see how safe such rolling landings are. They look rather good so far.

Probably not, I doubt they’ll redesign the Wasp when the new F-35B’s can just do a short take off. The wasp also holds helicopters too.

No need.

That's just it. China is watching and stealing to try and build their own.

Aliens use a fan and a jet fuel??? Shouldn't we have anti-gravity if we learned from aliens? It's supposedly been many many decades since we have 'learned' from them... and we still got jets 2020. Unless those learnings are beyond top secret and they don't show the public anything but these jets

@@sumerbc7409 All in due time.

@Honey b. shut up loser

👊😛