Mcdonnell Douglas JSF proposal and x-36
vertical take-off and landing for the b-version had to use 2 engines, making the Marines, the one who will operate the b-version, to have serious concerns over it. However, its almost tailess feature is a revolutionary concept that will only move the already existing fly-by-wire control tech to a new height. It intergrates thrust vectoring as a solution for fly-by-wire control, truly a genius concept. … JSF f-35 lighting x-32 lockheed martin boeing aviation combat jet aircrafts fighters …
Holy crap! When i saw that first X-36 spin my face was like O_________O
Now, if McDonnell can only market the X-36 as an RC plane….
The X-35 beat the X-32. The X-35 was then used for the JSF program to produce the F-35. There are 3 different variants. F-35A is a conventional take off and landing variant. F-35B is a short vertical take of and landing variant. The F-35C is the carrier capable version. The X-32 lost because it was not manueverable enough and the X-35 constantly performed better.
X36 was actually the RDT&E study that preluded McD’s JSF proposal. It’s too bad that the McD proposal was selected out.
the x-35 didn’t beat the x-36. the x-36 is a different program. You probably meant why did the x-35 beat the jsf proposal of mcdonnell douglas. Well, the reason was never gone publically, but critics believed that the x-35 and x-32 are two polar opposite designs, and the military used to choose opposite designs to compete with one another. The mcdonnell one is a middle ground between the two, thus discarded
umm. see idk that… so y did the x-35 bet the x-36
but there’s no f-35 in this vid. There’s only the x-36 and JSF proposal of mcdonnell douglas, which lost to lockheed x-35 and boeing x-32, x-35 then won and became the now developing f-35.
i mean the f-35. google it and u’ll see
there is no such version
the atual mass produced version
the x-36 is only a technology demonstrator, not a fighter.
its a cool fighter though but me personaly i think the f-22 is better
no problem, mate:) It’s hard to find anyone up here on youtube that accepts he/she’s wrong, which is pretty rediculous. I think more people should be like you. It’s internet for love’s sake. If one’s wrong, just admits so with a “lol;” done deal; everyone happy:) sorry for the rant, ’cause I just had to deal with a guy like that a short while ago.
ok… idc lol
no. the x-36 was a mcdonnell douglas’ project, which was a US company.
it was a joint operation between multi goverments…
i’ll hack that bitch with my iphone.
i’ll hack that bitch with my iphone.
This isn’t british
As usual the British come up with the best ideas
Some Anti-Jam (AJ) technologies are very difficult to jam, and besides as djrevolution99 mentioned, the software is so advanced now that the aircraft can fly and complete the entire mission autonomously if the remote link was ever disrupted.
HA , yah? maybe if ur ufo’s , look at our UAV drones in iraq, they fly by them selfs no need for a pilot, only thing pilots do back here in USA is watch
Can’t the signals from a virtual cockpit be jammed or interfered with?
It would be neat to have an unmanned remote control vehicle, but I figured that those signals if cut, would render the airplane lost, unless generic autonomous software was in place to try to get the airplane back to base or something.
lol i dint know that it was that small (x-36)
the JSF entry uses a pelikan tail, unlike a normal v-tail like yf-23. As for x-36, it’s a demonstrator. So stealth was not as emphasized as having an extremely unstable airframe.