Why the Navy never put F 22s on carriers 

The Tornado looks far better than the F14.

@@arx3516 It never flew off a carrier. The Tornado is not an ugly plane. But it is rather chunky compared to the Tomcat.

I guess the corsair slipped your mind

When i watch the original top gun movie i fall in love with that jet not to tom cruise

@@mk-ey2kp dude that thing ugly af

Im still waiting on my VF-1 Valkyrie to exist in real life

*it will soon!*

@@iloveglobalwarminggodbless5059 all of that may be true but looking cool is what wins wars.

It wasn't done because the F-22 is universally seen as a huge failure. That's why the Air Force finally managed to convince congress to stop forcing more aircraft onto them. As it is, the USAF's budget has 187 shit planes hanging around their necks.

@@Menaceblue3 ROBOTECH FOR THE WIN

Many people that are upper-middle-class (income of $110K to $400K) lease Lamborghinis or Ferraris only to quickly get rid of them because the budget (insurance and fuel costs) and maintenance (tires, brakes, and oil changes) are far higher than they expected. As an example, I can afford the payments of a BMW M4 ($1300 a month), but I cannot afford the insurance or fuel costs and the inevitable oil changes and tire costs. So I'll stick to my 2018 VW GTI.

That's no joke the avg person given a Lamborghini for free could not cope with the maintenance and insurance

Buy a lotus. The toyota V6 would run forever

iirc Modern Ferrari and Lamborghini's warranty covers pretty good area, but yeah insurance, tires and fuel will the biggest issue... i'll stick to my bicycle

@@kiko865 I'll stick to public transportation..

I understood that reference.

Ace Combat.

Nothing beats launching an a10 off a carrier

"It's our final launch, pick any plane and we'll get you into the air." -Kestrel Flight Boss Also "We're getting you guys into the air no matter what." As she starts listing to starboard

#that'swhatV2isfor

+1000

Swear to god those carriers could get a damn scooter 🛴 to take off

Obama killed the Military. We should have built a purpose built Naval Interceptor already and aquired twice as many F22 Raptors. Instead Obama killed artillery and aircraft and fleet modernization. Has to be done some time it might as well be now.

@@smithnwesson990 instead we got Obama care for illegals

@@smithnwesson990 To be fair, the Ford and Columbia programs survived Obama. The sole focus on the F-35 was undoubtedly a mistake, though.

Well cause every other nation deals with the same bullshit, so if the detriment is standard among every one at the table it's not relavent unless someone can rid themselves of it, which aint going to happen

Yep politicians have to stuff their pockets

While that's true, the timing of the F22 was its downfall. The fall of the Soviet Union occurred in the middle of it's development, followed by 9/11 before it's deployment. This rightly had a huge change in the focus of military technology. We were now faced without a superpower foe, and dealing with the challenge of asymmetric warfare, requiring very different weapon systems. It really didn't make much sense to spend billions on an air superiority fighter. Considering the R&D costs were supposed to be spread out over a 1000 fighters, as orders were slashed, cost per unit increased dramatically, further motivating decreases in units and increasing costs. It's unfortunate for the sake of this great airplane, but really had to happen.

@@lightning1605 I beg to differ Sir. Bet Russia and China do not go through the same bureaucratic BS and red tape.

@@robertbaker3174 you should watch some stuff on how business works in those countries. The corruption in the OPEN would make oil companies blush.

Couldn't they do they do folding wings like on the F-18? I doubt that would affect the stealthiness as much as swept wings.

@@UltraMagaFan Yes, folding wings shouldn't impact stealthiness... assuming the pilot remembers to unfold them. The F-35C has folding wings.

You're absolutely correct. And I don't know what the other replier is thinking of relative to "folding" wings. (My old SpAD had folding wings. The seams were =flush=. As were the seams on the F-8s and F-4s elsewhere on the flight deck.)

@@UltraMagaFan in the end that would not work. The landing speed of the F-22 is to high to safely land on a carrier. That whole reason for a swing wing design is to have both a slow take off/land speed, and a high speed in the air. so it would not matter if they could fold the wings.

yes but stealth isn't important in a dogfight nor catapult take-off so edge alignment could be based upon a preferred cruising speed. Also swept wing definitely increases complexity but it also increase performance and potentially increases payload and reduced weight.

That's the primary reason the Navy didn't take it. It wasn't built by Grumman.

Thats a badass name ngl

Yes

@@bobclifton8021 So instead they have the F-18 - built by Boeing (who also built parts of the F-22).

That sounds like a contracting and RnD nightmare just for name-sake

You got it wrong. The YF-23 is more faster, has better stealth and has a more range, something the US navy prefers. The F-22 is more manoeuvrable and carried more advanced avionics. There was no cost reduction

Navalizing any exsisting land based aircraft would not necessarily keep the same performance speca. Weight and other factors would skew performance

doesn't YF-23 is bigger than F-22?

The F-18 proved that a swing wing would not have been required anyway. A carrier capable F-22 dependent on EMALS and AAG would have been fine.

However the F-35 is a joint collaboration with Japan, S. Korea, and Canada. So the the u.s. taxpayers aren’t the only ones footing the bill.

@@clxwncrxwn shoutout from Norway and other secondary partners. We're still paying for this shit, and have yet to be delivered a single plane.

@AntiangelRaphael Which is why they destroyed the capability to make more as soon as the F35 was starting up - they wanted to make SURE that the F35 was developed and future sales moved to the new platform. If we had gone with the F23 instead then Northrop would still be trying to sell those to the USAF and getting permission to sell them to other countries. But Lockheed didn't have ANY interest in competing with itself.

You don't export anything of value. Export is resources you do not need.

@AntiangelRaphael The US will never EVER sell a single F-22 Raptor. They would rather blow every single one of them up so nobody has them before another country gets their hands on one.

Nearly all aircraft aren’t designed with carriers in mind but some can be modified for it. That’s how we got the f-18 hornet, originally made for the Air Force but they passed and so they then modified it to appeal for Navy/Marine use

@Adam C It’s an F/A-18 and it was designed specifically navy use. The wings fold which is normally a feature of a navy aircraft.

@@adamc6371 The YF-17 wasn't designed for carriers, but the F/A-18 absolutely was. That's why the F/A-18 ended up being a good deal bigger than the YF-17.

@@captaron The F/A-18 was derived from the Yf-17, which was designed for the Air Force’s Lightweight Fighter Program.

@@justsomemainer1384 derived yes, but nevertheless, the f18 was designed from the outset for carrier ops.

🤔🤔🤔

Lol just watched it today weird..

@Bill Kong which fight? Did he do an F-14 against an F-22?

Can someone explain this to me? I'm out of the loop and the comment is two months old. We need to work on our missile and drone technology, and I know 6th gen is coming up. I wonder if we have stealth missiles yet. The F 35 for sure is underrated, because the senors are the main part. I'm sure we will see in 40 years since the line keeps moving.

@@castlevina8425 Hey I don't understand what you are saying... Can you repeat that, mate? Hope you watched the animated show of Castlevania. Legendary.

@@dub47usmc the GS he is referring to is “Gulf of Sidra”. F-14s took on some Libyan fighters back in the mid 80s when Quadafi was having some behavioral issues. Semper Fi!

The F35 is what they wanted. The original F35 concept was awesome, but it got Bradley'd. A cheap, stealthy light attack plane to be supported by actual fighters, would've been fully operational a decade ago. As it is, every fix and upgrade for the F35 is obsolete by time of implementation and its *still* waiting to get its superpowers.

@@springbloom5940 The final nail to F35's coffin is the introduction of Advanced Super Hornet.

Does the super Hornet really have much stealth capability tho? Those lines say no

The F/A-18 Super Hornet was not what the Navy wanted, it was the only option they had after the F-14D and the after the NATF programs were killed.

@@tolson57 Yup

🤔😏

You can thank Donald Rumsfeld for the death of the Tomcat. If not for him it could easily still be going strong the same way the F-15 is.

While its a great aircraft, and everyone loves the way they 'look'. Mechanics around the navy would hate that :) (They still respect the F-14, they still love it, but its a Maintenance nightmare)

@@ShadowRhapsody81 The F-14's maintenance is a product of the design era it was in and the absolute SHIT engines it had. The F-14D had significantly less maintenance issues, so much less that when the F-14 was in retirement, the last F-14 squadrons (flying B's and D's) enjoyed lower cost per flight hours than the Legacy Hornets did at the end of their life or than the Super Hornets have NOW. The GE-F110 was a better engine than the TF30 of the F-14A, and required less maintenance. The F-14B's and F-14D's were also newer airframes, many rebuilt from -A's or new builds. They also enjoyed the ENTIRE remaining supply of F-14 parts, whereas air groups operating in the 90's and early 2000's before the last cruises were fighting every other air wing for the fixed supply of remaining parts because Congress, at the behest of Dick Cheney, stopped funding for F-14 parts and ordered the destruction of the production lines to prevent parts from getting into the hands of Iran. So a comedy of errors lead to the maintenance problems... but since a "return" of the F-14 would mean rebooting an entire assembly line from scratch, you have the opportunity to redesign the least reliable aspects of the airframe and fix some of the quirks of it too. I'd highly encourage, for the sake of parts commonality, the heavy use of F-35 parts and sensors where possible... specifically flight avionics, radar base controls (not the antenna itself, but the computer controlling it), flight controllers, instrument panels, RWR gear, MWS gear, and of course, those lovely P&W F135 engines... Those engines, are insane, by the way... two of those engines in an F-14 airframe, when fully loaded (75k pounds) produce enough thrust to give a fully loaded F-14 a greater than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio, and effectively the same power in military power as the F-14B and F-14D's GE F110's in afterburner... that'd mean an F-14E would supercruise, fully loaded to the nines with munitions... assuming they don't reduce the weight of the aircraft through removing the countless analog systems for digital ones and the improved composites we have now. A lightly loaded one, or a NOT loaded one, would be a friggen monster... when I last did the numbers, the TWR would be around 1.52:1, which is greater than the Space Shuttle at lift off.... Grumman, please give us this aircraft, now :D

Yep. The US highly overestimated its competitors and made an F1 car. When everyone else was still driving Honda Civics. This likely wouldn't have been an issue if the USSR never fell. There would likely be a Soviet fighter that is better than the F-22 by now and the US would already be designing something better.

Pre robotech times

Nah baby in this house we stan the rhino

It’s cool for a while, then it’s just very loud.

TR3B, look up operation paperclip…..

For years the A.F. has been most capable at shooting itself in the foot. The F-22 program was no exception.

The F22 program was too expensive to maintain. Let’s look at the competition, foreign and domestic: China hasn’t successfully built a stealth fighter to our knowledge. India claims to see Chinese “stealth” fighters on radar like Gen 4 fighters. Also, China can’t build a decent fighter engine; they have to get the best ones from Russia. Russia has two stealth aircraft, neither of which is as stealthy as either the F22 or the F35: the Su35 and the Su57. They’re good fighters but they don’t have very many of them and they aren’t being built quickly. It will take them until about 2028 before they have as many of both combined as we have F22’s. The problem is that that doesn’t take F35 inventory into account, which we already have many more than F22’s. Now let’s get to the F35: The F35 is not as capable as the F22 in a few aspects of flight including speed and maneuverability, though it is underestimated on that parameter. However, the F35 is way past the F22 electronically to the point where they’re retrofitting some F22’s with F35 technology, though it can’t be as comprehensive because the aircraft can’t integrate all of the F35’s technology. The F35’s sensor systems and their ability to share data is unmatched, though France’s Rafale comes close in that regard. However, the Rafale is not stealth. An F35 pilot can see the entire battlefield due to data sharing. An F35 can in a pinch function as a sort of mini AWACS. There are knocks of the F35 when it comes to dogfighting. There are two answers to this: 1. However sees the other aircraft first and fires first generally wins. The F35 will see any currently available fighter outside the F22 faster than they will see the F35. 2. The F35 helmet lets the pilot see through the aircraft in any spherical direction. That system also allow the pilot to fire in any direction. Even a fighter behind an F35 isn’t necessarily safe. Some of this technology, such as the ability to fire behind but not everywhere spherically, is being retrofitted onto F22’s.

@@koshersalaami the field of war has changed thats why, the f35 is designed to basically be a super computer in the air to merge all American logistics into one and share them with the entire military so in theory as long as the f35 sees am enemy any member of the military would be able to simple shoot into the air and use the f35 coordinates, there is a guy here on RU-vid who is an actual f35 pilot and he really breaks everything down over the course of a few videos but yes thats why its the f22 is a joint strike fighter its meant to work with a team of all different application similar to why the us is still making f35s but also 6th gen fighters they are all designed to work together and are superior in their own ways

@@koshersalaami Every airplane in the Air Force can see the whole battlefield and contribute to overall s.a.

Not quite true, f35 has the ability to use external hard points. True it kills its stealth profile, but it doesn't mean it isn't a true 5th gen.

Not sure about Koreans but I heard the Japanese was doing the same.

Yep, when Japan decides build it own stealth fighter when the US gave a big fat no, it makes you want wonder how capable is the J20 and their future stealth plans. They even don't want a lot of F35... As usual, the Japanese were not shown the full capabilities of the US NAVYs F35c....We be in trouble if a European country buys fighters from China instead of the US or Russia or even South America... the trend is already happening... They dynamics would be interesting....especially since we are coming out of a Global Pandemic... People have to do what they have do to survive "economically" in this world.

... I'm not sure there was a market for the F-22. Too fuel and maintenance-hungry, too expensive, not flexible enough. It's the ultimate Cold-War plane in a world where regional conflicts are the norm.

@@TheStephaneAdam You forgot the production line was shut down in 2009... Are we not in a Pandemic where a majority of Americans work non essential jobs for medium to large corporation...That is because flipping burgers for minimal wage at small businesses do not pay the bills. In fact, the F22 economy only helps the status quo in which many will retire soon...It not even going to help US CITIZEN NOW...

@@TheStephaneAdam True, but if it had been widely adopted then development work could have continued to refine the design and hopefully reduce maintenance cost and downtime. That is one of the advances of the F-35 *[*"I won't rant about the development cost, I won't rant about …"],* the stealth coating is a lot less maintenance intensive… _but that's just due to it being a later generation._ And maintenance cost have come down for later generations (but still high). Imagine if even a part of the development cost of the F-35 had been spent on improving/fixing/upgrading the F-22.? And that's why the possible Japanese F-23 remake _could_ be brilliant, as it'll hopefully include a lot of the developments that came from the F-35 (coatings, stealth research, and just the electronics - the F-22 has old avionics). … And yes logistics is important, that's why _I have a irrational love of the SAAB Gripen._ Logistically it's a superb plane from a running cost/flight time perspective - for protracted operations it's IMHO the best modern jet fighter. The _War on Terror_ has just worn out so many high end aircraft and used up flight hours … and pissed through money. 💸 IMHO (again - I'm an armchair Pentagon procurement officer) From a bang for your buck perspective the West would have been better served by continued development of the F-22, with one of the European fighters adopted as the second tier standard. And of course a good turboprop as insurgent suppression. _excuse me, I've just be tagged by a missile with _*_Realpolitik_*_ scrawled on the side_ It was launched by the Military Industrial Complex.

@@casbot71 I think you're pretty spot on on the whole. But yeah, Military Industrial Complex. What kind of idiot thinks using a F-35 for close air support is a good idea?

Blows me away every time

Bullshit. You've never seen an F-22 "hypersonic".

@@DavidPT40 Oh, haha, oops. I meant supersonic. I didn't mean hypersonic. I was referencing above the speed of sound. Haha forgot hyper is Mach 5. Because I totally remember the sonic boom and feeling it in my chest and them going vertical instantly. Was at Kennedy Space Center so I know there's no code about sonic booms. Rockets literally vibrate the entire island every other week haha.

@Ari GSD That's a bummer. See how faulty memories can be. I most certainly did see it go damn near vertical in a couple seconds though. Just like in this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RUFuojEFtc8.html I must be combining the memories of the slow then to near vertical flight with aerobatics and the super fast fly bys. They were damn near speed of sound though. I can remember how far the sound was behind it so always assumed it was supersonic because looked like they had afterburners on. Yall are a buzzkill. Sonic booms are crazy though, heard them at Space Center during tests few years ago. Or maybe I'm just thinking of something like this and overestimating how fast they're going: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sAeme7IN9uA.html

The best thing to come out of the TFX program which gave us the F-111 was the FAILURE of the F-111B for the US Navy and the CREATION of the F-14 program. Should have never retired the F-14's.... :( Imagine today, an F-14E using a bunch of stuff from the F-35.... The P&W F135 engines would make a fully loaded F-14 at 75k lbs have a TWR of over 1:1 and effectively the same power output in military power as the GE-F110 in the F-14B and F-14D in Afterburner... combine that with F-35 avionics, conformal fuel tanks, AIM-120 integration, HARM integration, SDB integration (an F-14 could probably carry 20 SDB's), AIM-9X integration, an AESA radar, ATFLIR integration... I shudder to think of what that aircraft could have been!

That's exactly what I thought .

The F22 structure wasn’t built for short takeoffs and landings. The other planes were tougher more ruggedly built.

The FA-18 doesn't have high wing sweep (only 20 degrees) and fairly low wing loading compared to similar aircraft. The F4 was ill suited for carrier operations, and suffered from a high accident rate. The swing-wing version of the F-22 would have been an overkill solution, but at the very least, a naval version would need to have a larger folding wing, larger horizontal tail, and reinforced landing gear. Compare the F-35A with the Navy's F-35C, and that should give you a good idea.

I remember reading that the F-117 used the same landing gear at the A-7 so it would have been strong enough.

The problem with thrust vectoring and carrier approaches is the landing attitude as it relates to hook to gear heights... more specifically, an F-22 landing with thrust vectoring is going to have a significant nose up attitude. Even if you get the hook to height ratio correct for the main gear, the nose gear is going to slam down HARD at that higher Angle of Attack... and if you don't address the hook to gear height ratio, you'll never get it aboard the carrier in the first place. I also doubt HIGHLY the F-22 can take off from a carrier without a catapult... unless you use the entire length of the carrier... an F-22 weighs as much as an F-14 does... and even with significantly higher TWR than the F-14, we aren't talking about a significant reduction in take off distance because the F-14 had significantly more lift relative to its weight than the F-22 does. Never mind the intended FAD role requires long loiter times which are facilitated better with slow speeds and lower throttle settings conserving fuel. It's why the F-14 was such a good FAD and CAS aircraft... it could hang around FOREVER. A Loaded F-14A is burning around 4500lbs of fuel in total per hour, with 21000lbs of fuel... a Hornet with a high load (because it can't quite carry as much ordnance into combat) is going to be around 6,000lbs an hour for both engines to stay in the air at the same altitudes. Lastly, the ability to go into a true delta wing means a more efficient top end as well due to lower drag. There are A LOT of advantages to it, and if the aircraft is going to match the weight of an F-14 anyway, you might as well take the advantages of the swing wing concept and run with it.

To reduce carrier approach speeds, improve low speed handling, and increase fuel efficiency at high altitude by lowering the speed at which the aircraft can loiter... the F-14 was amazing at high altitude and low engine throttle positions for its time on station capabilities... and a huge chunk of the reason for that was the ability to punch the wings out to 25 degrees and just hang in the air like a giant, very deadly, glider.

At least it won’t rust

@@christopherbrooke2142 it would corrode and fall apart faster at sea.

Macross 7 and Macross Frontier.

Fyi veritechs is robotech , macross is valkyries if you meant macross saga you could confuse it with the sdf macross series in japan

Unfortunately, politics will overrule cost savings, effectiveness, life span, etc. Which politicians home state would gain the contract?

Just like the military choose the M1 Abrahams in place of the Brasilian Osorio. The Osorio was superior, a piece of art, cheap, reliable, and very modular... Saddly, it wasn't american".

Fuel costs are negligible to the operating costs of a fighter.

@@kokaomf The amount of people that will take an ounce of information from a War Thunder youtuber. Is the only thing that actually made it better price? Every MBT by that point was pretty reliable for their countries. I don’t get what modularity makes it any better than the Abrams. As far as I know the armor is not much to speak of either

The YF-23 had capabilities that would seem better *on paper.* In practice, the aircraft was unreliable from the start. It wasn’t completing the tasks the Air Force needed. It never exceeded the Mach 1.8 speed it was tested, at which it’s max speed was stated to be Mach 2.6. There was also issues with it’s GE engines, which powerful but wasn’t as manageable or reliable as contemporary engines. It should be mentioned, the F-22 had more carrying load and more maneuverability, and for the speed requirements it exceeded.

?

A-10 Warthog

@MichaelArcAngel1028 well I agree mostly, largely depends to on vulnerability and effectiveness. A lot of the German weaponry in ww2 I think was actually cheaper to produce than some of the allies mass produced stuff like the stg44 vs the m1 granand. STG 44 was actually cheaper.

@@jmcfintona999 that is true of German small arms , but as soon as you go to vehicles it's a different story . Germany wasted a lot of time an resources on wonder weapons like the King tiger , me-262 , me-163 , ardo AR 234 . Even the later versions of the Bf-109 and Fw190 became a lot more expensive to produce but with compromised performance . The Panzer IVH was as capable against the Sherman and Churchill tank . Though the king tiger had good armour it would not have been as mobile as even the original Tiger . The 88mm was still a good enough weapon . So quantity has a quality of its own . German small arms though were very cheap . Mostly down to the stamp manufacturing on the Mp40 , mg34 , mg42 and stg-44 with minimal wood .

@@edmundscycles1 A panther tank cost 117,100 RM, a mark 4 cost 103,462 RM while a Tiger cost 250,800 RM there was only 8000 mk4s ever built and 6000 panthers. There were 49,234 shermans built and 84,070 T34s. German industry could just not produce enough tanks, it was inefficient and making a well armed tank that could kill enemy tanks at 3-1 or even 10-1 is a good use of resources even if didn't work out that way. The Germans were never going to able to take losses on the scale of the allies. A lack of strategic resources and area bombing was crippling German production. The luftwaffe development and deployment of jets was too late, German jet engines had a short life due to a lack of alloys. Later bf109s and 190s were up gunned to shot down b17s comprising performance, they had good designs but their engines had reached the limits of their development. Most of the other powers were stamping their latest small arms like the sten or grease gun.

@@jmcfintona999 as soon as you look at the real world effectiveness of a tiger II compared to a sherman fire fly or even a Panzer IV . You see a sub par vehicle that's quality doesn't make up for its deficiency. The Stg 44 and German small arms were fantastic . But there is no point in having the best tech if it can't travel reliably or takes much more fuel than you can supply . The luftwaffe was offered the C205 . An Italian plane that was better performing than the 109 K series but German logistics and high command blocked the sale and production . Quantity has its own quality . Germany could produce neither during the war , plus bad logistics .

@@edmundscycles1 true but again even without the Tiger the Germans were never going to be able to build enough Panzer 4s, certainly couldn't fuel them. Far as I know the Tiger cost twice that of a mk4, so the kill ratio was justified. What they needed really was the panther in large numbers 1941 with all the kinks worked out to against the T34s, 1943/44 was too late. The bf 109 &fw 190 were great aircraft, if they could have put the super charged engines the Western allies had in the later stages of ww2 they would have been a match for later Allied planes. The 262 with the rolls Royce jet engines of the meteor would have made it the world beating wonder weapon the nazis dreamed of. The Germans had quanity of arms in the early stages of the war but failed to invest in latest weapons technologies so by the time they did it was to late to produce in the quantities needed.

You're absolutely correct. About every 12 years, the idea for a "universal" aircraft is presented, and has been tried since the '50's. The theory is an exponential benefit in cost, training, and logistics. It doesn't take into account, operating climates, repeatedly slamming onto a deck, and being slung off the same. Naval use is more complex than just adding catapult and arresting gear, and the Pentagon hasn't learned that yet.

Every time its ever happened in fact. The best multirole multiservice aircraft were developed with one role and one service in mind, and then modified and adapted to other roles and services. Its a lesson we keep needing to relearn.

@@imjashingyou3461 Facts.

@@imjashingyou3461 sometimes ego, stubbornness, or plain being cheap fucks it up. I served in USMC and USAF, working on/flying C-130 aircraft. I left the Corps as they were transitioning from the old KC-130 F and R models to the new KC-130J. I saw the first KC-130J while I was in school actually, still in its testing phase. When I went over to the USAF, my unit was also transitioning over to the C-130J model as well. The biggest difference, the rollers were built into the floor. Depending on whether you needed the rollers or just the normal floor, you could just pull out the rollers from the floor and flip them over. So convenient and made it possible to reconfigure the plane so quickly and gave you more height clearance. The Corps decided to keep the old roller system that just sits on top of the floor and has to get stacked on the sides when not in use.

@@charminbaer2323 The Corps never met a manual solution they didn't like. I once had a corporal and 6 privates try and pick up with their bare hands a crate weighing 2000lbs... with a forklift sitting right behind them. I told the corporal to relax, got my forklift key and lifted the crate onto their truck, then got the corporal a form to get his own forklift license. Work smarter... not harder.

@@SVSky Semper Gumby

-Meanwhile, Belkans with their PSM witchcraft....

Lol i noticed that too..its a fixed wing aircraft not a ball turrent

I think he is confused with airplane that have thrust vectoring and canard

@@dimasakbar7668 Ah, the NATF23. Also, I think the statement noise pointed at you as it flies by is doing post-stall maneuvers. aka, PSM witchcraft.

Basic physics shouldn’t allow the Raptor to do other things it does, yet it still does them regardless 😏

You're right in it only works on one axis, not to do with faster takeoffs. Thrust vectoring.

But the F-35 has been a dog comparatively.

It's the most expensive military program ever.

we shouldve just used the money to extend F-22 production

@@davidste60 the total program is expensive, but it's because of the high numbers. The cost per aircraft is lower than for a F-15 EX (around 80 million for a A version) and one flying hour is around 36k $. Eurofighters for example are more costly to buy and cost twice as much per flying hour

@@simonm1447 - That's true, and the video, OP and me, all said "program". And of course, the low cost per aircraft is because of the high numbers too.

F22 is beautiful, but more of a “piece of crap” than the F35