Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, Joint Strike Fighter-Documentary 2016.
Informacje:
Odsłon: 14763
Czas trwania: 0m 0s
Ocena tzw. rating: 46
Do tego może was zaciekawi, komentarz niżej.

http://www.azservice.com.pl/

sprzątanie


- Is it just my computer or am I hearing off-putting opera music in the background? I seriously had to pause the video and see if there was some annoying pop-up ad that came up.
- Go forward, America! Long live the Nato! Down with Putin! Best wishes from Germany!
- for sure lockheed paid someone under the table!!!!it s dirty business, boing made it for real and better.
- stupids!all they had to do was to pick the x 32 or even better tomodify the harrier av 8.
- 29:00 Wtf Am I actualy hearing the EU nat. Anthem in the background? (ode to joy) lol
- Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, Joint Strike Fighter-Documentary 2015. #thenewscompany #aerobdnews #enewsbdpress #rrajowan
- What the heck going on with the music.
- dang that thing is awesome
- remember when 200 billion dollars sounded like a lot?
- The gov spent a lot of time man hrs & money trying to game out the best pick. It was obviously to close to call, & deserved a rematch. Just look at how thing went, w/ the opposite n real world being what worked better, n hover & refueling. A larger 10 vs 10 + time would hve made for a clearer winner. N minor problem could hve been worked out & it would hve negated the strike.
- That is 1 very slick vertical landing, by Lockheed. That had to b what 1 the day. Stealth, cost, endurance, durability, & longevity would never come n2 play. Better design vs  which was really the total better plane. I think Lockheed not hving any other buss was also a factor. 1looks like a robin & the other a fat fighter. If they could take what they hve & strip 2k worth of weight out of it, some of the short coming might lessen. I am sure it would add to the cost but only slightly per unit since most of it is design, testing & software, none of which would b affected.
- The much heavier plane 35k vs 28k hovered better, because of a slicker design. Seemed like both passed enough though. But going forward it is going to b hard to work out that margin short fall.
- Damn, that is weird, the Navy mid air refueling basket seems the far easier way but turned out the opposite. Add n the  union strike & how it effected the jSf & it starts to shed light on why the completion went the way it did. The big thing$$$ was overlooked & yet stupid small things gave a lead Boeing could not make up. It is telling the Lockheed tanked up so well, since a large prt of the time it will b just so(Saudi approved). Still hold judgment till the end & NOW knowing they should hve had a competition prt 2( 10 vs 10).
- & forget about which 1 takes a hit better wing vs wing.
- The whole 4 post vs the Pelican tail is simple, fighter vs bomber. I like the 4post, right call but on a future bomber or drone it would b a stealthier option.    When they had looked at the results after real world testing of 10 vs 10 the heavier stronger carbon fiber plastic would hve surely shined thru. Long term 1$ for 1$ is real cost is n operations & flight hour longevity. 10k vs 6 or 7k is HUGE.
- Neither design was nailing the carrier version(odd). The marine vertical doesn't like to play w/heavier larger Navy version. If it had played out another 2 yrs, mayb the would hve come to the reality that the whole 3 n 1 was the problem causing all to b subpar. The airforce can make far cheaper better range & payload,  jet for far less. The F18 is good enough for the Navy, & the Marine version is the jem that makes this a special plane. Then it would hve just been 1 version competing for cost & production w/stealth +tech that was STOVL. If the #s worked & the tech was real &all the flight testing played out for 5+ yrs, then the Navy could decide if they wanted 2 just use it or order up a larger carrier version. The problems would hve all been know, not unlike an update not a total new design. I think the Boeing major edge w/simple design would hve made the 10 vs 10 planes cost a game set match n a fair fight. The airforce would never hve bought it(not sexy enough) & a 1/3 much larger Navy version would hve hit the mark(same plane just a lot bigger). As is the innovation they were bringing was lost until mayb a future drone or bomber (hopefully). Either way the competition went, the plane was going to b a niche seller not a 1 plane for all of NATO pipe dream. It is not smart tactics (for war)or good for innovation.
- If we could go back & play it out again, it is clear Boeing was more cutting edge & budget friendly. This more the anything should hve carried the day. At the very least, hving the competition extended from 2 to 4 yrs & from 2 planes to 10 planes would seem to hve been the perfect call. N the end I believe w/only a quick glance & tech grasp look n from the out side, The whole 3 n 1 concept would hve gone away. The end result would hve been a split decision & time would hve let the bucks decide the real winner, based on how many were ordered & of which version. The country & Nato would hve been far safe & secure, w/2 major suppliers, & the new manufacturing & skill sets learned + lets hope a finished "product" tech wise from Lockheed.