AllTop Viral!

The most viral news stories that you need to know about.

The new F-35B fighter plane is something out of sci-fi [video]

Posted by / May 31, 2015

This plane is going to knock your socks off. Watch as it takes off on a tiny runway (without catapult) and then lands by hovering. Warning: turn your speakers down, it gets loud.

Full story at Aviacion.

More aviation.

Photo credit: Canva

Comments are off for this post.

  • Did you see the guide wire?!

  • Recently a Russian fighter disabled the electronics of the USS Ross on duty in the Black Sea. I wonder can the same be done to this aircraft?

  • BelieveIt

    what a fabulous landing!!

  • pretty bad ass

  • Apparently this writer is a teenager who hasn’t read up on history and learned that there have been other jet fighter planes that take off horizontal like the Harrier jet or perhaps hasn’t watched the movie “True Lies” with Arnold Schwarzenegger!. Come on Josh Urich read up on history before posting dumb articles “The new F-35B fighter plane is something out of sci-fi”, LMAFO!.

  • rick monday

    That has got to be rough on the non-skid (didya see what I did there?).

  • metimoteo

    There’s no question the F-35 sports some neat tech, but it’s been acquired at too great a cost and it will require billions in maintenance to keep all the aircraft operational for years to come–all at a time when we’re becoming less dependent on piloted-aircraft, that is aircraft the requires a person in the cockpit.

    Lots of wheels have been greased to get this aircraft into production and I think money could have been better spent elsewhere. Do I want our military to be at the cutting edge of design and development? Absolutely. The F-35 is not the solution the United States military should have sought, however.

  • Forgive me but I’m not impressed. It looks great in ideal conditions, what is it capable of in foul weather, stormy seas etc.?
    I’m sure the price tag for this aircraft is beyond normal comprehension.

  • MOTT PALMER

    Dam I wish I was 25 years younger…!!

  • Danny

    This is no science fiction. Sci-fi is what you see in Captain America. We are a long long way off.

  • Sandra

    Really cool….Now our enemies have seen this.

  • Paul T

    As impressive as this looks here, it isn’t exactly a ‘knock your socks off’ revelation now is it? The Harrier Jump Jet has been doing this since 1969!

  • wow

  • Observer

    It seems to be the copied version of decades ago Harrier Jump Jets of British/India Vikrant Aircraft Carrier and the good old Helicopter technology fooling and robbing American tax payers by the Pvt US aircraft manufacturers.

  • Norm

    I want one !!

  • Steve

    To bad it’s pure junk. It cant even fly by itself.

  • GERALD DIODENE

    ALL I CAN SAY IS “WOW”.

  • Paul T

    Hardly ‘knock your socks off’ technology, is it? The Harrier Jump Jet has been doing these manoeuvres since 1969!

  • MCassidy

    This “news” is 4 years old…

  • The Wright B Flyer was pretty exciting in its day, too. Not overly useful, but exciting.

  • Figures they would update the old Marine Harrier with stealth design. P.S. The nonsense about the missile destroyer USS Ross “being disabled” is Trollski droppings. The Ross has been operating in international waters in the Black Sea since last year without any problem, coordinating with Ukrainian forces and apparently scaring the Russians into panicky “anonymous” squeals of indignation.

  • Okay, while this jet has overrun its budget by BILLIONS, if this is what they had planned all along, I am hugely impressed!

  • larry

    Big deal, Still can’t compete with the Russians

  • jim

    In the late 70’s I watched an F-15 take off, fly in a circle and land on the same runway it had just taken off from. What made this accomplishment so neat was the fact that this aircraft had never left the “confinement” of Luke AFB. The other neat trick that this aircraft could do is a true 90 degree from a rolling takeoff. The fighter aircraft of the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s were true fighter aircraft actually designed for aerial combat against another aircraft can’t really say the same for the F-35(I don’t think anybody knows exactly what it is designed to do)

  • EDogg

    I still believe This aircraft is a waste of tax dollars. This is a worse idea than the F-4 Phantom. This airframe is being asked to do way too much. It was said this aircraft can replaced the A-10. Never. It is too damn fragile. I don’t feel it will be a good investment at all.

  • Yes, but how does it perform in a dog fight?

  • Chris

    Not that amazing, the U.k’s Harrier was able to do take off and land hovverings like that years ago!

  • I would order a 1000 plus of these F 35 B . and go to the south china seas…..asap…..and our other toys as well …and I thought I was bad!!! With my OH-6 ( Loch ) chopper as a door gunner during the Viet Nam war…

  • Wonderful, we figured out how to build a plane that works like a helicopter. Takes longer to land and cost of ton more! Great, guys.

  • patrick

    kinda cool

  • Amos Carmel

    Shyte, I’ve changed my mind about these planes. Now i want Australia to have them. How cool are they!!!

  • Brian

    Its not called Sci-Fi it is called British Harrier technology just in case you Americans forget, the Brits did it many years ago.

  • Robin

    Dumb question from someone who knows nothing about planes. What was that hatch that opened up when the plane if taking off and flying, but closes after it lands? What does it do?

  • warmadeasy

    Another toy for Hollywood pictures) Obviously, this project was inspired by closed russian inefficient project Yak-141 in.rbth.com/blogs/2013/06/07/f-35b_born_in_the_ussr_25935.html

  • warmadeasy

    Another toy for Hollywood pictures.Obviously this project was inspired by closed inefficient project of Russia Yak-141 in.rbth.com/blogs/2013/06/07/f-35b_born_in_the_ussr_25935.html

  • warmadeasy

    Another toy for Hollywood pictures.Obviously this project was inspired by closed inefficient project of Russia Yak-141

  • Franklin

    What’s the point? A missile can sink a flattop with 5,000 body on board. A missile will not miss any airplane targeted. It is not expensive to mass produce. And the missile technology is ever improving.

    Wake up!

  • David

    This is so much b.s. The F35B is supposed to replace the F10 Warthog. The fact that the USAF is so willing to throw away 300 of the finest close air support platforms ever invented just to save the cost equivalent of 30 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters is total bullslhit and both the American taxpayer and those who bravely fight our wars on the ground should be furious.

  • mike

    I thought it was going to take off from the side of the ship.

  • I’m sorry I’m not impressed. I seen the first harrier jet land on the flight deck of the F.D.R. CV42 in 1976. I was installing an ac. unit in an office just below the flight deck. I herd a jet go over the ship nothing uncommon I didn’t think any thing of it. Ten minuets later still working I hear another jet approach But this time it doesn’t pass I hear it but it’s not passing.
    I think That’s not right so I go up to the flight deck and just peek my head up so I can see OH MY GOD the jet is just hovering in mid air about 30ft over the flight deck. I went back down below deck and started telling everyone what just happen. asking what was that? It was the first jet to ever land on a U.S. ship as it was tied to the pear.

  • Stimpy "Proud American"

    USA propaganda…..this plane is defective (at the moment)……In the news to rally support, confidence and more money to try and fix this computer driven contraption. It fails in comparison to the Russian counterpart T-50. Now that plane is a bad-ass muthr-f’er. The ruskies got us on this one boys….the CIA should “borrow”(steal) one or ten of them….just saying..

  • Mark R

    Hilarious we can never fly these things against a real airfoce they cost between 172 million and 300 million per plane In a fighting war a single loss ratio like we had in Vietnam, a country without a real airforce , we would be bankrupt in a montha nd would take years to replace then

  • ARE THIS PLANE ARE FOR SHOW OR FOR DO A JOB. ISIS STILL KILLING PEOPLES FOR NOTHING. IRAQ SOLDIER RUN LIKE RATS AOUR OF THE HOLE. THE PRESIDENT ONLY DO CUA CUA ALL THEY LONG. LOOK LIKE USA IS UNDER STRESS FROM EVERY ANGLE. ==KOREA=CHINA=RUSSIA …. TO MUCH SHOW. BUT NO WANT ONE IS DOING THE JOB WELL DONE…THAT IS WHAT HAPPEN WENT YOU HAD A MUSLIN PRESIDENT. THEM FULL.

  • The Harrier does not have stealth nor go supersonic nor a 100 other features.

  • Jay

    Some of you people need to chill out. THIS, is only what they let us SEE. It’s not NEW technology, but it’s a precursor to other things down the road, and some of it probably not that far off, if indeed it isn’t already here. What they show us, probably pales in comparison, to what they’re NOT showing us.

  • Paul

    Yeh, harrier jump jet and I hear it cannot carry a full payload of weapons when operating off a carrier.

  • Fabulous aircraft, I suppose we will sell this technology all over the world also. Have we got that laser weapon completely developed yet ? We need to sell that too so someday our enemies can use it on us also. Why do we develop such impressive tools of war and then sell them where they may be captured and copied ?

  • History. The last time the Pentagon tried to force the Air Force, Navy and Marines to accept a universal fighter was the TFX (Tactical Fighter Experimental) under Robert McNamara. It became the F-111. It never satisfied the Navy and Marine Corps and was only used by the Air Force. So many requirements have been placed upon the F-35 by the three services, it will never meet all of the specifications. It is too expensive.

  • Impressive….it should be at a cost of over 140 MILLION dollars each and rising…should take off and fly itself. This has been a problem child from the start:

    Program cost
    $59.2B for development, $261B for procurement, $590B for operations & sustainment in 2012[8]

    Unit cost

    F-35A: US$98M (low rate initial production, full production in 2018 to be $85M)[9][10]
    F-35B: US$104M (low rate initial production)[9][10]
    F-35C: US$116M (low rate initial production)[9][10]

    Developed from
    Lockheed Martin X-35

    Note: numbers copied from the Lockheed Martin Web Page…..

  • The Navy needs F22s modified for carrier life not this Harrier knock-off. Navy needs TWO engine planes so we were told for 40 years and now we are back to ONE with a window fan. The brass lied before or now about the
    Naval air needs. The Navy Marine team is first into battle so why can’t we get F22s for them?

  • Does anyone realize the fuel this thing needs and the pay load it has to give up to do this trick? What a waste! Better to have two different aircraft that fly in tandem that can do each job well. Not one plane that is half ass as this one. So it can do neat tricks!

  • Rsj

    Lame, old German technology started in the 40’s. Von Braun is
    Laughing his a$$ off

  • zzzz

    nothing special there. If they just wanted to show us vertical landing don’t forget harrier.

  • Siaosi

    I was only T.A.D. to carriers when I was in ……..way, way back when. It will ultimately change the aircraft carrier sometime a couple/three decades from now. And to the scoffers…..a Harrier couldn’t take off unassisted from a carrier expeditiously…. The baffle behind the cockpit made me wonder why we hadn’t come up with that a long time ago. So fall down obvious; to raise the front end of aircraft….not use velocity to get the nose up. I am wondering how many you could get launched in the same time we can with a catapult? Configuration and a whole new design of A.C. will undoubtedly follow. As it stands, from inventory aspect, we might be able to stop building ultra, super, super duper, ginormous carriers?

    The ultimate reality can be summed up in two words when it comes to a surface Navy. Exocet Missile! I’m guessing the B in F35B is the an acronym for “billions”?

    (Elimination, eventually, of catapults and wire/cable gear would be the biggest advantage to aircraft carriers in the future. Guessing a third of the ship is dedicated to that machinery as it stands today? Lower profile of the “new” carriers a good possibility?

  • Hannibal

    RAZZLE DAZZLE- EVERYONE THINKS the U.S. is a super power– yet cavemen can can do more damage with commercial aircraft- and the vietcong– vs U.S. politicians– politicians lost every war since WWII–now we have the black plague in the white house

  • jay

    This is the next generation. Imagine combining a harrier, F-16 and F-22 all in one plane. It’s supposed to be less touchy than the Harrier which was nicknamed “The Widowmaker” for its tendency to kill its pilots, at least in the variations

  • superb

  • @Robin the door is a air intake for VTOL fan/turbine.

  • charlie

    Have you forgotten the Hawker Siddeley Harrier?

  • Winston

    To those commenters saying the Harrier could do the same thing – that is true, but it was not also stealth and capable of supersonic speeds.

  • A fascinated concept that will prove effective in combat. The jet can perform FARP operations on land and out at sea. The advantage this plane has over a harrier is the enormous thrust capability the engine can produce thus achieving speeds near mach 2. Stealth is also paramount in the forward flight configuration. The distance to target give an avantage to engage the ememy with greater distance without them even knowing they had been engaged. Here’s a quick history lesson, before U.S. entered world war II, our planes were no match to the enemies. During the war, Amerca had to scamble to develop a game changer. It was the P-51 Mustang. This time and now, the F-35 is the game changer of the present. Yes expensive… but will survive in combat versus older planes giving less losses and putting a strong offensive strike time after time to the enemy. The F-35 is worth every penny for this aircraft to be the next air superiority fighter.

  • So you impress your enemies by the way your plane is landing? Wow Russia and China are trembling lololol.
    B. S. gives us our money back

  • Yes it impressive, and yes the conditions were ideal. But combined with all of its other published capabilities, and working out any possible bugs in those new advanced systems, this is a heck of an airplane !!!

  • Harry

    I think this is not something new, the RAF Harrier jet does this decades ago.

  • George Stevens

    I’m glad I’m on the wining side. Keep up the good work you guys!
    I miss working in the aircraft business.

  • Wait’ll they break out the really ‘Goof Stuff!”

  • Lawrence M

    The planes you see are the last to be built. The planes have exceeded man, as someone stated the F-35 exceeds everything the harrier can do. This plane can carry and assortment of bombs. Stealth, and if you will remember the Harrier sometimes flamed out and crashed on landing. lets say the ship is pitching and waving up and down on a rough sea. you can tell the F-35 to land by its self, in rough water. and if the catapult system is broken, it can take off standing still. The reason it comes in from the side is to allow for the hot gasses. Can the electronics be knocked out? yes, but they have a backup system. what they did not show you is how the engine in the center blast down and the back exhaust blast straight down. it is like two engines, that is the intake for the front top section when you see the hatch on top open. The USA already stated that if they have to go into Russia they would send a fleet of old remote controlled F-16’s the enemy turns on their batteries to shoot the F-16’s down. F-35 powered by man, takes out the missile batteries and then follows throw to the mission. Someone once said “Think smarter, not harder” You do not see anymore planes on the drawing board.

  • This is the fighter that will be sporting laser cannons by 2030. Not missile guidance lasers, actual laser cannon to attack other aircraft as well as ground targets.

  • Devout Patriot

    Not even approaching being impressed!!! Ever hear of the British Harrier??? The U.S. Marines have a “couple” of them…. vertical takeoff and landing…. The idea is over 30 years old!

  • nice, but how is it in a stormy night? with waves of 10-15 meters? how are they doing when its fully armoured, the weight ratio is something else and is it fully fueled in this case? its nice clean weather and a very calm sea in this video. looks propaganda to me.

  • solomon

    There is no comparison to the Harrier here. The days of the dog fight went the way of the 8 track tape. Todays dog fight is done at ranges of up to 100+ miles away. Add the stealth, improved range, twice the lift capabilities, super sonic speeds, and advanced tracking and weapon systems , I think it is well needed. Oh, not to mention a few hundred F-22 Raptors to accompany them. If we are going to keep up with China and Russia super sonic and Hyper sonic best be in the near future on everything that flies in our military.

  • Your Mother is Calling

    Meh,,, Send in the drones!

  • lapocompris
  • Michael

    Perhaps the USA should consider buying some Harrier Jets from the UK, which have been using this technology at an advanced level, for years. How many billion dollars did it cost the USA to develop a jet that lands like a helicopter / or like a Harrier. Rest Assured, the USA has the largest, most expensive, most powerful, most widespread military in the World, Impressed?

  • Nick

    such an Easy target while landing

  • Fco

    Does it come in black? I want one!

  • Orlando

    The USA will never let their enemies know the capabilities of the F35 that’s just so they know something!

  • Anthony

    WOW 🙂 I am proud of being an American

  • Showing off a too expensive Turkey that the Germans did not long after WWII with a Subsonic Vertical lift Jet.This isn’t much of a improvement.Can you imagine this up against a PAK FA with Electonic Magnetic Beam weapons and Lasers.This ain’t fast enough nor manueverable enough.once seen by any means and both the Russians and Chinese have as good or better according to a lot of Aviation Experts like the designers of the A-10 Warthog.The should name it the US Turkey.

  • John Nemitz

    Having observed countless launching and recoveries of naval aircraft during my two tours of duty onboard aircraft carriers, and also having observed AV-8B Harriers operate, I do not see anything at all “SCI-FI” about the video. The pilots still look a bit tenuous during the landing process. You can also view how concerned the flight deck crew are about the integrity of the scorched landing area of the flight deck.

    The F-35B obviously has a lot of thrust, and my guess is that there could very well be be a significant issue of damage to the ships’ decks during the recovery process from all that downward heat and thrust. That also could very easily present a huge problem with FOD, as well as ships achieving and keeping deck certification to operated the F-35B Lightning II throughout deployments.

    But the video did bring back some good memories for me.

  • Boston!

    Funny how some of the people compare this to the Harrier. Would you mind answer me these questions? Does the Harrier have the stealth design (shape)? Does the Harrier have the internal weapon bays? In many ways the F-35B is very similar to the Harrier, where it can take off and land vertically, but it is much more advanced and the only downside is the price tag. However, it is working right now and let’s hope it is not a disappointment.

  • Tim

    Looks like an Izumo-class helicopter destroyer of the type that Japan built would be enough to meet the needs of F35 instead of those US Super Carrier thousand feet long.

  • David Nachazel

    IT ONLY TOOK THEM 44 YEARS TO CATCH UP TO THE FRENCH They have been hovering since 1969

  • Oldsmithy

    such short memories I saw the same in 1968 with the P1127 in the UK. Nothing new in the F35 in this respect. The ski jump was a British invention nearly 40 years ago. The P1154 would have been supersonic. You want impressive watch the Harriers in the Falklands landing on container ships not huge aircraft carriers, or the one that had to land on a container on a ship in the Atlantic when it had problems, pure seat of the pants and a fraction of the price.

  • Very sophisticated for a stealth vertical take-off and landing with state of the art gadgets… Of course many will not like what they’re seeing. You can’t please everyone. But the Marines are already itching to get their hands on their new stealth VTOL attack jet.

  • Pastor

    Well, Mr Putin; here’s some more technology you can use, since we don’t have any secrets anymore. Wow ; is that what everyone is saying? Nothing new about this feat. We’re so far behind in technology that the Chinese and Japanese have started building islands so that they can get a little closer to killing us. The Russians have spied on us so much that they don’t have to, because we have idiots here in this country that share info with them. Of course people like Rand Paul doesn’t see the need to curtail these activities. Pretty soon the Russians will, if not already started using Laser equipment to kill their enemies. We already shown them we have that access. No wonder Putin loves the Washington and New York Post.

  • dewayne simmons

    Look, it’s only worth it if you use it, and unfortunately, China will in all likelihood, be our trial by fire. I like the VTOL/VSTOL ability, our planes can deploy from a Wal-Mart parking lot if needed. But lets not kid ourselves, Russia, with their new Yaks and Suhkois, and China, with the J-20, offer first rate competition. In the event of war with either one, many good American pilots will still die, no matter how good the plane.

  • Who cares?

  • MoreBS

    Taking off and landing this way uses a lot of fuel so where do the tankers come from?

  • Chris

    I guess the writer had never been to an airshow and seen a Harrier display, the Marines have been flying them for a very long time. The F-35 VTO version is replacing them!

  • Chris

    Funny how insecure Brits (Russians I can understand) always have to try and upstage American advancements with hyperbole about their supposed accomplishments. Problem is, as usual Americans were there well in advance. Americans had a superior V/STOL to the Harrier by 1955 that could do Mach 2.3, called the Bell D-188A. Life would be a whole lot easier for all those inferiority laden Brits if America hadn’t invented ARPANET (the interent) to dispel their delusions of grandeur.

  • Funny how insecure Brits (Russians I can understand) always have to try and upstage American advancements with hyperbole about their supposed accomplishments. Problem is, as usual Americans were there well in advance. Americans had a superior V/STOL to the Harrier by 1955 that could do Mach 2.3, called the Bell D-188A. Life would be a whole lot easier for all those inferiority laden Brits if America hadn’t invented ARPANET (the interent) to dispel their delusions of grandeur.

  • Lockheed Martin got the vertical takeoff technology from Russian Yakovlev design center (see old Yak 38, Yak 41, Yak 141, Yak 43 concept planes). It’s really old and troublesome in practical implementation technology. F-35B is very different from Harrier and suffers from the same problems as Yak 41 / 141.

  • Jerrystr

    Comparing the F-35 to the Harrier is like comparing an F-22 to a P-51 Mustang. The older planes were good in their day but many generations behind in technology and they were not stealthy. The Harrier required highly skilled pilots where as the F-35 is under computer control and uses a mere joy stick for a control. If you do not touch the joy stick in an F-35, you stay where you are, hovering in place. Try letting go of the controls on a Harrier and you will surely crash and die!

  • For the massive waste of money the program is…that was pretty cool. Thumbs up.

  • Mike

    Might I remind people that the Royal Navy using Harriers successfully protected their fleet during the Falklands War against the Argentinan Air Force who were flying high performance Mirage111 , Daggers, and Skyhawks A-4.

  • looks like lot of Putin’s paid trolls hard at work in the comments

  • Erevirin

    Sam Hamilton, The correct nomenclature for this aircraft is VSTOL which stands for Vertical / Short Take Off and Landing. Those pilots on that video are PRACTICING / QUALIFYING for carrier operations. The F-35 and the Harrier can take of Vertically, however they need a short strip of runnway to take off when they are fully loaded with ammo and weapons. Landing is another ballgame and they don’t need, but can use, a runnway rather than a landing spot. The Harrier A/V-8B can do exactly that, However:
    1.) Harriers Top Speed is no more than 600 knots and it does not go supersonic.
    2.) Harriers cannot fly upside down
    3.) Harriers are designed for ground support operations, hence the A on its nomenclature.
    4.) Harriers are not designed for Dog Fighting
    5.) F-35 is supersonic and the Harrier is not
    6.) F-35 has state of the art avionics (Aviation Electronics) Meaning Radars, Radar Jammers, Multi-Target Acquisition tracking and countermeasures.Oh, and it can relay all this information to a battle group in real time…
    7.) The F-35 nomenclature F stands for Fighter (It is capable of dog fighting).
    8.) The F-35 has a bigger payload capability than the Harrier, meaning more bombs, missiles, rockets, ammo, oh and don’t forget the new weapons systems that this birds is designed to carry.
    9.) To all you fools who compare old birds to the newer ones, Get back to 1890 and stay driving your Model-T’s. I keep my Tesla car.
    10.) Yes I agree that the costs over-runs where mind bugling, but if it was not for things such as this, we would still be in the stone age.

    Imagine having the F-35 hidden inside a forest, taking off from within anywhere in the forest. There is no need for a long runway, or airfield. Everything is mobile. Find us if you can, but we will find them.

  • jeff

    One plane – Strike Eagle.

  • Rodger Burkley

    That hatch that opens up right behind cockpit/canopy is actually part of the vertical thrust vectoring system covering secondary air intake ducting for engine (so that the engine doesn’t ingest foreign objects (FOD) during VTOL phases.
    Harrier had similar ducting/protection for main intake when the aircraft was doing same VTOL thing. Advantage in Air-to-air combat? Thrust vectoring would allow greater maneuverability and wider ‘kinetic envelope’….in a dog fight. But I don’t think this plane will EVER see much close-in dog-fighting. Folks, this is what you get with an ‘inter-service/joint service fight development project. Doesn’t do anything great…too many trade-offs…and DEFINITELY too costly. No…
    give me MORE F16s, F15s, F18s and F22s…and greater number of AA missile rails. “Quantity is a quality” of in itself for sure…

  • The Harrier is sub-sonic (660 MPH). The F-25B’s top speed is 1,200 MPH. Big difference.

  • Daniel

    Beauuutiful. O how I wish…….

  • Scott

    Notice how the jet comes in over the water, stops and stabilizes itself over the water and then side steps onto the deck and shuts down immediately. I was reading the engine exhaust gases are so hot they will burn up the deck of the carrier. They are working at putting special and very expensive heat resistant tiles on the carrier decks to accommodate these planes.

  • I HOPE IT DOESN’T POLLUTE THE AIR,NO NOISE AND HAVE A PERFECT CAPSULE EJECTOR, THAT RELEASES ITSELF IN EMERGENCY, TO SET FREE IT OCCUPANTS BY FLOATING THEM AWAY FROM DANGER AND A CABIN THAT PROTECT PEOPLE AND KEEP THEM AFLOAT FOR MONTHS WHEN DROP IN THE OCEAN, TILL THE RESCUE TEAM ARRIVE .THE PLAIN BODY MUST BE CAPABLE OF DECAYING AT OLD AGE INSTEAD OF RUSTING.I HOPE IT IS UNMAN MADE.

  • Terry

    Great Airplane!
    The only thing the same about this aircraft and a Harrier is they both can land vertical.
    Its like comparing the VW Bus from1969 to a 2016 Corvette. They are both cars and if you look at them from the side of the road they are both just driving down the road (point A to B). From that perspective why would the corvette cost so much LOL

    I do agree that the STOVL version of the F35 is a bit of a money sucker and I cant figure out the mission but the F35 itself (CTOL and CV) are amazing aircraft.

  • Hector

    The British have a similar fighter aircraft that does this. Seen it before, this was even in a James Bond movie ‘The living daylights’

  • Johanian guzman

    This piece of crap has been in development for more that that 20 years and it can out perform an F16. Yes, it can land vertically but thats about it. It can carry all the payload it wants but it can hang around because it burns too much fuel.It is too fat and too delicate for ground troops support. It is billions and billions over budget and it cannot even fly near a thunderstorm because it would fry its avionics. No airplane is going to hide behind the forest to take off and fight anymore, and to do that it would have to be lighter on weapons it can carry thats is why the carrier had a jump ramp.

    Again, this is my opinion.

  • there is alot of differance between the Harrier and the F-35,the Harrier use’s alot more fuel to do the same thing as the F-35,and it can’t do moc-2

  • Jake Ryan

    Who writes this stuff? The British designed the first “jump jet” known as the Harrier a half century ago! Our Marine Corps. aviation division has been flying a variant known as the AV-8B for decades. Science Fiction left this concept a LONG time ago!

  • David Williams

    All of these fools commenting about Harrier Technology and we have old “stuff’ Gag me!

  • DON’T GIVE THEM PICTURES TO LOOKH AT,THIS IS SO STUPID AND PATHETIC.KEEP THEM IN THEE DARK!!!

  • keep the enemy in the dark!!!!

  • Bob Rupert

    n’t wait to see news footage of ISIS staring these birds in the eye !!

  • gum show

    Have you driven a FORD lately ?

  • UNREALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Bob Boise II

    And? It looks like it takes longer to lift off than a conventional catapulted naval fighter…landing looks cool, but is it any quicker or safer than using a tail hook? not a lot cheaper…..also having all that heat on the tarmac, is going to require more frequent resurfacing of the flight decks….still too much money for a toy…use a regular strike aircraft which will control much cheaper unmanned attack drones.

  • Víctor

    Are they weapon loaded at take off?

  • Folks this aircraft is a joke. The British not only have had a vertical takeoff aircraft fr over 40 years hollywood has use them in films. The only science fiction about it is that they say it will work or that our pilots will be safe in this death trap.

  • Less Opinion

    Why do people with the IQ that matches there shoe size bother to post there comments ?

  • fred druden

    the hatch that opens up is so the engine can suck in air for landing

  • out of sci-fi video? try out of Russia, circa the early 90s. Lockheed purchased the Yak-141 VTOL from them. it actually flew better 25 years ago.

  • (>_

    The carrier is not underway. No wake. I suppose that’s next in the training.

  • It’s a shame that it has had so many problems. Nice looking plane and some great ideas but it’s been plagued with problems since the start.

  • ArcherKN

    I keep hearing comments about the Harriers. True that they had the hovering thing down decades previously, but Harriers were hovering buckets of bolts that could not even come close to the speed of sound before they start to tear them selves apart. What is the F35’s top speed? What is it’s range? To compare two aircraft you need to compare stats! I would guess that the only stat that the Harriers would come out on top with, would be the amount of ordinance they could carry.

    Also there are many comments about the cost. I for one would like to see a cost comparison between the two. Once inflation was factored in, it would not surprise me in the least if Harriers proved the more costly! And anyone talking about cost needs to consider that a fare amount of any carrier based aircraft’s wear and tear will come from take offs and landings. What exactly can a rocket powered slingshot, or a cable yanking a fast moving object like a plane to a stop, do to maintenance anyway?

    Don’t get me wrong. Birds of this nature are always expensive affairs. That is why friendly nations with much smaller means buy from our used stock rather than attempting to manufacture their own (at least they should be friendly, but that is a whole different topic).

  • abba dabba

    This plane is equipped with a stand off missile system which makes it very lethal. It means it can fire a missile and then that missile seeks its prey and kills it at over 500 miles away. So you do not know where this fighter is but it knows where you are.