How F-35 'Beast Mode' makes the advanced jets even more lethal

[@UKVeteran2024]

....Argentina has left the chat....

[@MyScotty7]

Both US and UK need each other more now then ever,we also need to bring in AUS,NZ and CAN

[@beretboi]

Definitely , cooperation is key

[@750triton]

Already have

[@Subtleknife12367]

Nah, I would rather we distanced ourselves from the US and forged a closer relationship with NZ, Australia and Canada.

[@beretboi]

@@Subtleknife12367 ?

[@binxbolling]

​@@Subtleknife12367That would be potential suicide in a war.

[@Jabberstax]

Say what you like, but there's no denying that it's a beautiful jet fighter.

[@adamwoodford7629]

Fat Amy..

[@markdavidson1049]

I actually don't think it looks that good. It looks a little frumpy and basic.

[@frank-ko6de]

Of which, you have none. Yeah, Broke Britain.

[@cluckingbells]

@@adamwoodford7629 Internal weapons bays. Lifting body technology. Its a new generational thing.

[@frank-ko6de]

@RNS681 Im from the city named after your duke of york, the eventual king james the second. A city with the same gdp of your entire UK with just 8 million people. Yeah, Broke Britain.

[@DigitalNomadOnFIRE]

He just learned the word niche and he's damn well gonna use it...

[@Aeronaut1975]

Thank goodness he wasn't an American otherwise we'd all be cringing from hearing "nitch" every few seconds...

[@Aeronaut1975]

@@JimCarner Yes, I know that, I was sarcastically making the point that most Americans pronounce it as "nitch".

[@Aeronaut1975]

@@JimCarner Mostly, yes.

[@AftonAdams]

A niche is what the Royal Navy is to the US Navy…

[@Aeronaut1975]

@@JimCarner Then you clearly don't get around much. 4 out of 5 Americans I've worked with say "nitch".

[@ronaldmarcks1842]

For Day 2 fighting, beast mode on the F35 plus regular mode on the F15EX seems to be a winning combination.

[@NoName-ds5uq]

Imagine Australia’s two LHDs being upgraded to operate B models as well. They have the ski jump designed just for that, and the Spanish vessels of the same class can. It’s been argued that the cost would not be high, and the advantage way higher.A single squadron of B models operated by the RAAF would add flexibility to both the RAAF and the RANs LHDs, and time on station at longer ranges to Australia’s existing F-35A fleet which would need tankers and time to perform the same tasks. Interoperability with the RAN, RN and USN already happens, so I don’t see why this couldn’t include all three doing cross-deck operations either.

[@davidhouseman4328]

@@JimCarner a few essentially as spotters for long range ship based missiles. You could potentially make a drone with the sensors, stealth and STOVL but there's nothing at the moment.

[@davidhouseman4328]

@@JimCarner You named incomplete drones without STOVL.

[@waheex]

Jargontastic!

[@stevew6141]

Beast mode on a Honda type R sounds like more fun 😂

[@adamnordinrogers]

10 take off in 10 minutes and 10 landing in 10 minutes is key to modern fast paced wars

[@williebauld1007]

Has Forces News been taking cinematic inspiration from the Royal Marines social media team?

[@SaxonSuccess]

Keep pushing it...

[@eizol568]

Want to see”Maverick” in one of these 😏

[@drewwilliams6888]

No mention of increased defence spending, in last weeks autumn statement, a new populist leader in Argentina, whose aim is to regain the Falklands, looking good for future deployment for our two carriers and our under resourced armed forces.

[@andy9841]

There was. He upped it to 2.5% GDP. Maybe that happened before the statement?

[@drewwilliams6888]

@@andy9841 Thanks for that, my fault for not reading or watching that announcement.

[@lonpfrb]

The operational efficiency of Argentine forces is way below the 1980s and military spending too. So while the Falkland Islands may still be a political dog whistle the threat is in fact negligible. Economic development is a much bigger prize for Argentina. I hope they succeed.

[@drewwilliams6888]

@@lonpfrb Many thanks for the reply. Appreciated.

[@ryanbrewis6990]

Argentina couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag now or in the foreseeable future.

[@Bob10009]

No aircraft here were in beast mode 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@joseliano325]

So true. Not a single shot in true “beast” mode. 👎🏼

[@LorenzoA.Quesada]

Own all

[@tanderson596]

A performance heavily laden with military jargon. The Commodore really exploited esoteric cant to cause maximum confusion. Oh and don't expect to learn what Beast Mode means from the 3-minute video!

[@mozzy5286]

Deleted ediat

[@andrewhayes7055]

If they had fitted cats and traps we could have had the cheaper and more capable F35C in the first place

[@frank-ko6de]

Cats and traps are energy intensive, and your government could never afford that. Only the us can afford that with its nuclear carriers that provide excess energy. Your ships would be sitting ducks, as they're conventionally powered carriers. You also lack the nuclear technology know how to even try to attain that.

[@1chish]

...and STILL not had two operable carriers. Plus losing many billions of pounds. Have you not followed the $18 Bn debacle that is the USS Gerald R Ford? Launched the same time as the Queen Elizabeth it was only allowed out of US waters in late 2022 by which time QE had sailed the Atlantic 6 times and been round the world with a full CSG operating the biggest 5th Gen Carrier force. Idiots like you spout this 'we must copy the Yanks' and are ignorant of WHY we did not change to CATOBAR and the 'C' variant. EMALS didn't work (still doesn't) and had no price, delivery or performance guarantees. And you think we should have just dived in? 🤦‍♂ As for the 'more capable F35C'? Well no it isn't. For a start it cannot operate everywhere, only loads out 18,000 Ibs of weapons (LM website) vs the 'B' variant's 22,000Ib of weapons. Neither is it 'cheaper' as it costs $10 Mn more to buy than a 'B' (LM prices out of LRIP 15-17 contract). Once airborne it offers no more stealth or sensor advantages. Its only advantage is range. So maybe read a little more and write a lot less Andrew.

[@barrybark8610]

'More capable'? The f35b can take off and land on something the size of a tennis court, I get that the f35c can go further and carry more, but to underplay just how useful the f35b would actually be in a conflict is baffling to me. It's a stealth aircraft that can be easily hidden and launched from anywhere. Good luck to our potential enemies trying to plan for that.

[@wickedjuice]

Those would have had to have been EMALS, and at the time of the ships construction were quoted to cost close to the total cost for the carrier. And at that time still very much unproven and unreliable tech.

[@VanderlyndenJengold]

@@barrybark8610 Adversaries can, however, determine where the carrier carrying the stealth aircraft, is situated and act accordingly. If the plane can only fly so far that narrows down where the carrier can be.

[@johnhopkins6260]

Technical classification: evil, wicked, mean and nasty.

[@oSJmee]

0:30 ayoo Force News, what kind of transition is this? :D

[@trs4u]

0:22 Surprised thrust isn't fully horizontal for at least the start of STO. Is that a safety precaution in case transition fails? It has to be wasting energy while wheels are in contact?

[@furiousscotsman2916]

This is the normal position for SVTOL operation, it provides the most thrust/lift capacity for the air-frame.

[@trs4u]

@@furiousscotsman2916 Since I commented, I Iooked at some other videos and it does appear to be 'normal' operation for F35. It still has to be not-optimal from a purely thrust perspective - unless I'm missing something. The normal-to-deck thrust component is doing nothing while wheels are in contact, which means the aircraft is slower leaving the ramp than it would be if all thrust prior to wheels-off was parallel to deck? I'm sure it's working 'as designed', I'm just observing the wasted energy.

[@AA-xo9uw]

@@furiousscotsman2916 "SVTOL operation"(sic) STOVL

[@frank-ko6de]

It's literally a vertical lift aircraft, a vtol.

[@furiousscotsman2916]

@@trs4u Im sure they know a LOT more than we do but if i was to assume i would assume it provides more lift and is more beneficial than the extra speed gained from pure horizontal otherwise they would not do it.

[@oudloek]

A 5th gen carrier? There’s no such thing.

[@Orbital_Inclination]

Probably just short-hand for 5th gen-equipped carrier

[@jus-me]

I don't know if I can take them seriously using vocabulary like that.

[@jej3451]

Who does the captions for these videos? It's "royal navy pilots", not "raw navy pilots". Haha.

[@al28854]

it's called AI, and already laughing at you for asking

[@jej3451]

@@al28854These aren't auto-generated, though. If it had said "auto-generated", I wouldn't have asked.

[@TommyBahama84]

Still using US aircraft?

[@Benjd0]

ITF aircraft for flight testing landing and take off techniques

[@TheMVCoho]

As the man said, they off the East Coast of the USA to take advantage of some F-35s that are set up for training with some special sensors etc. While I do believe there is a lack of UK owned F-35s and i don't know the details, they training and establishing of routines and policies is going forward. So nothing wrong with that.

[@NihonKaikan]

Alright...so clickbait then? You didn't even discuss what beast mode means, the weapon loads etc. If we don't start getting some decent videos then do you think people will actually pay attention to this? We are PAYING for this content through taxes...give us our moneys' worth.

[@joerg8282]

To me a 4,5th generation fighter aircraft like the Typhoon or the Rafale are more beautiful.

[@AftonAdams]

Because you are European… you europeans prefer old emasculated useless things…

[@Jack-lk7wk]

100% agree

[@midnightq69]

No way. The only one as or better looking is the raptor.

[@jb76489]

Air combat is a beauty contest, right? I guess if you can’t make them good, you have more time to focus on aesthetics

[@niallrussell7184]

nice to see USMC getting use out of our carriers.. was there even one British F-35B in this video?

[@Benjd0]

No, because they're using test aircraft from the integrated test force which include additional sensors for flight trials, no need for any standard F-35s as this isn't a combat deployment.

[@TheIceman567]

Are you British? Do you like the USA and Americans?

[@simonpeart7981]

So all “beast mode” is is putting a few more weapons and topping up the fuel tanks?

[@AA-xo9uw]

Only to the obtuse.

[@fToo]

the Commodore seems to think he needs to use the word "lethality" as often as possible. he doesn't.

[@Live18912]

Or “envelope”

[@heycidskyja4668]

"Beast mode" - what daft gamer terminology is this?

[@Jack-lk7wk]

Americans for you

[@Rambam1776]

Does anybody know why the British use ski jump carriers?

[@phucknuts.7065]

It works and is less maintenance.

[@meme4one]

Saved money not adding cats. However, we need them for drones so paying twice now to add them retrospectively.

[@ashleygoggs5679]

@@meme4one we dont need them for drones, we are already using drones with the ski ramps and anything small uses its own catapult. the only reason cats will be needed is if we go for the C varient and or want to use hawkeyes aswell.

[@thetruthhurts7675]

Beacause the ski jump on the QE class means that in beast mode the F35c can launch with 22,000lbs of weapons, whilst the F35C (with a much heavier airframe) on the Ford or Nimitz class can only with CATOBAR launch with 18,000lbs. Plus the angle of the top of the ski ramp is such that in an emergency the pilot can return to deck without touching the controls because of the angle of the aircraft on launch, it will slowly turn to port, and return to the rear of the ship, which you also cannot do with CATOBAR. Plus CATOBAR has to be maintained and inspected every single day at least twice taking the deck out of action for a minimum of 2 hours a day if nothing is found wrong. Finally with CATOBAR ypou either launch, or land, on the QE/POW you can do both at the time! OK?

[@AA-xo9uw]

@@thetruthhurts7675 "Beacause the ski jump on the QE class means that in beast mode the F35c can launch with 22,000lbs of weapons,"(sic) Incorrect. The F-35C cannot operate from the British boats. "whilst the F35C (with a much heavier airframe) on the Ford or Nimitz class can only with CATOBAR launch with 18,000lbs."(sic) Incorrect again.

[@davidk6264]

still no Royal Navy jets operating yet?

[@Orbital_Inclination]

All UK F-35Bs are under 1 Group RAF control, whether Fleet Air Arm or RAF jets. They are operating, but were not required on this deployment

[@kevinjenkins6986]

Duh, that's what the B stands for

[@Dingdangdoo]

That man looks as weak and feeble as the current Royal Navy.

[@hog8035]

Who left the intake blank in the Jet? 😂

[@AA-xo9uw]

A mechanic.

[@1chish]

Oh blimey are we still trying to crack funnies 2 years later?

[@hog8035]

@@1chish I got a bite 😃👍🏼

[@midnightq69]

@@JimCarnerI’m curious, is that just your opinion or have you heard things to that effect? I’m Aussie so I knew the crash happened, but didn’t follow the story.

[@midnightq69]

@@JimCarner cool thanks

[@wouterkellerman4458]

Beast Mode......... Bwahahahaaaaa!!

[@1chish]

Whats the joke dude? Do share your childishness.... 22,000 Ib of weapons isn't funny when they are aimed at you.

[@Orbital_Inclination]

​@@1chishWhilst the payload is impressive, the name 'Beast Mode' is somewhat juvenile

[@1chish]

@@Orbital_Inclination well its a defence industry term. You calling the Royal Navy, and others 'juvenile'?

[@andylees2940]

Just a big fat target hyped up. Can’t even get the crew to crew it, forget about aircraft and pilots lol, British defence joke

[@davidrobertsemail]

Sad but very true.

[@1chish]

And another plank joins us ..... 🤦‍♂ * Same size as a Nimitz but they are OK with you? * Both carriers are fully crewed and are both at sea in full operation flying aircraft. * We have 31 F-35s so enough to put 2 squadrons out, with some spares and still keep the three test aircraft in California (that you knew nothing about). Yes we should have 48 by now but that is down to slow delivery by the Yanks. Go shout at them. * The RAF has all the pilots it needs and a full training programme operated by 207 OCU Squadron at RAF Marham. * The only joke is when narky little idiots like you feel the need to write ignorant cow manure. UK is the 2nd largest defence budget in NATO. Some joke that ....

[@CasinoWoyale]

This civil servant - who is evidently not accustomed to giving interviews - did nothing more than use a lot of buzz words. He said nothing. The F35B is fundamentally flawed; it is over weight and, with only one engine, under powered.

[@davidhouseman4328]

Fundamentally it's a stealth sensor hub (and STOVL for the B), that's the fundamentals that have seen it being bought across the world. It has plenty of flaws, they just aren't fundamental.

[@Pemmont107]

​@@JimCarnerYou're forgetting something called surface to air missiles. 1 Patriot system from the 80's took out Russia's most advanced hypersonic missile in Ukraine. Imagine what the modern air defences in US bases and on their ships can do?

[@davidhouseman4328]

@@JimCarner Simple, they are being bought. The 800 flaws are a total red herring. The few major flaws are important, but nothing back breaking from the details I've read.

[@UFO-Ark]

Beast mode - translates to carrying some small weapons payload.

[@AA-xo9uw]

You must have learned the definition of "small" in a government run indoctrination camp - aka public school.

[@swunt10]

Well that answers the question of how many meaningless buzzwords you can cramp into a typical middle management goons PowerPoint talk...

[@paolodechipiece1027]

I think this would seem the better if: 1. The uk could afford enough of them. 2. The UK make their own planes, like they used to. Hawker harrier etc UK a joke really, can't even stop a few rubber boat

[@Jack-lk7wk]

Well rubber boats are a political issue not a military issue and I imagine once tempest is completed a naval variant will be made

[@paolodechipiece1027]

@@Jack-lk7wk would rubber boat be problem if queen Victoria was still in charge though, I think not. Brittania no longer rule the wave.

[@Orbital_Inclination]

The UK contributed significant design and manufacturing expertise to the F-35 programme, but the US provided 80% of the funding. Without this joint multinational programme, the UK would have produced something far inferior and more expensive per unit than the F-35, due to lack of funding and resources.

[@paolodechipiece1027]

@@Orbital_Inclination so does the UK make the Lockheed f35 or the USA? I think it the USA. UK can no longer make the plane. UK are a joke

[@Orbital_Inclination]

​@@paolodechipiece1027the UK manufactures approx 15% (by value) of the F-35. Rolls Royce is responsible for the entire Lift System on the B variant, and BAE Systems designed much of the aft fuselage.

[@RB-kr1ww]

Oohhhh! I am so impressed. Isn’t this the latest overpriced piece of American hardware that costs twice as much and performs half as good as promised by the Pentagon.

[@Orbital_Inclination]

It was never promised at $40mil per aircraft

[@jb76489]

Citation needed

[@crankystinkleton4284]

Yep. Overpriced, underperforming, overweight, computer systems vulnerable to hacking, they basically tried to cram everything in and make a multirole aircraft that excels at nothing. The JSF prototype is now 24 years old. Problems with the coating, with engine vibrations, you name it, this aircraft fails at it. A lot of customers are looking for supplements and replacements already, but are locked into contracts. The project has cost a mint and taken ages. But don't tell the fanboys in the comments that. They'd rather worship this piece of junk.

[@jb76489]

@@crankystinkleton4284 “overpriced” citation needed. “Overweight” citation needed “vulnerable to hacking” citation needed “excels at nothing” citation needed. “Problems with coatings” citation needed “engine vibrations” citation needed “customers looking for supplements and replacements already” citation needed. “Prototype is 24 years old” and? So? Therefore? “Piece of junk” lol. Lmao even. Cope harder

[@jeevestherobot]

F-35 israel chipset mode makes the jet fall into the sea LMAOOOOOOOOO 🤠

[@tube2211ification]

What a waste of time the video told me nothing other then they are working with the USMC but we all know that it told us nothing what “BEAST MODE”is. I’m sure it’s just hype for public relations.😡

[@notmenotme614]

Beast mode… until everyone, literally everyone, leaves an intake blank still fitted to the jet. Then with a flop, off the end of the ramp, the jet transforms into submarine mode.

[@Orbital_Inclination]

​@@JimCarnerit wasn't, it was an engine blank. If it had been an engine failure, you'd have seen flames, sparks, debris ect out the exhaust when it headed up the ramp.

[@Orbital_Inclination]

@@JimCarner catastrophic engine failure doesn't mean a random loss of power for no reason, it means some part of the engine gives way and wrecks it. That leads to a loud bang, flames, debris, massive vibration etc, none of which were visible in the footage. I've seen the report, and it highlights the many errors that led to the event. Like most air accidents, it follows the 'Swiss cheese' model of a sequence of missed opportunities and errors that aligned on the day. Let's not get into pointless, baseless conspiracy theories that don't hold up to basic scrutiny.

[@Orbital_Inclination]

@@JimCarner honestly, there's no helping some people 😂

[@Orbital_Inclination]

@@JimCarner or maybe I've seen the accident report and deemed it factually accurate based on my experience as aircrew. Could be that 🤔 Based on your dreadful takes in other comments, it's clear there's some serious Dunning-Kruger going on 😂

[@Orbital_Inclination]

@@JimCarner your previous reply indicates you don't know what a 'catastrophic' engine failure is. I'll put it into simple terms. The engine goes bang, something comes loose and then collides with the rest of the blades and the casing. Flames erupt from one or both ends, and debris flies out in a big mess. None of that happened. As for your inability to accept the findings of the MAA report, and instead generate a paranoid cover-up theory despite no evidence to support it, that screams conspiracy theorist, or tin foil enthusiast.

[@grahamcook9289]

5th gen plane, but a carrier crew who even all working together couldn’t pass the 11+. 😂

[@catabaticanabatic3800]

"Niche". An out of everyone's way place where useless pieces of tat are displayed to gather dust.

[@mortie638]

Abandon ship! Kinzhal incoming!

[@quasar_33b]

Ah, the super weapon that won Russia the Ukraine war in 3 days... oh wait

[@mortie638]

@@quasar_33b No one ever said its job was to win wars. Its job is to destroy those floating taxpayer money sinkholes you call aircraft carriers… 😉

[@jb76489]

Oh look, an Sm-3 got one of the khinzal and then the other crashed into the ocean cause someone sold its parts to buy vodka Also, khinzal is a ground attack missile, zircon is the anti ship missile, try to keep up next time

[@frankrenda2519]

better vodka than heroin that the west consumes@@jb76489

[@kevintaylor4590]

Afraid not, 2 expensive for a single engined aircraft. WE should have upgraded the Harrier and AV8B.

[@ashleygoggs5679]

no we shouldnt, harrier is a subsonic aircraft and non stealth. That bird would be shot out the sky by any peer to peer advisary. Harrier was good at the time but F35 does everything 100 times better. Harrier is a great bird but nostalgia dosnt win wars or battles. Stop living in the past.

[@Akm72]

Even at the time Sea Harrier was a 'better than nothing' solution and was objectively inferior to the Phantom/Buccaneer air group the RN had been operating over the previous decade.@@ashleygoggs5679

[@summerodds5281]

that's a horrible take. Not only would it be more expensive to continue those programs, they would also be incredibly less capable. That's a lose lose. Finland and Switzerland are both retiring their F/A18's for F35's bc the overall cost of will be cheaper with the F35 than the F18, with the bonus of getting a better platform. That would be like the USA wanting to continue using F14 Tomcats again. The Tomcat is a good plane but doesn't make sense to use.

[@davidtaylor7978]

You HAVE to be joking ,they would'nt last two minutes today ,unless of course your joking.

[@Bob10009]

Ok Gerald, the 1960s wants you back home before dark, there a good chap.

[@VanderlyndenJengold]

Whenever they say that US planes can operate off UK carriers I become concerned that the UK may not be allowed to operate it's carriers where it likes. It's been pretty obvious since Suez that the UK is stopped operating where it wishes, without USA say so. Yet in relying so heavily on US kit instead of developing it's own, and now having the USA deploy on it's carriers is a whole new level. Where will it end?

[@furiousscotsman2916]

What tf are you talking about lol, the US marine core are training with the QE as they have actual carrier operation experience in the F35 and are training a few of our pilots then they teach the rest how its done and develop our own SOP like we have just done with the SRVL of F35B on the QE. In a proper operation we will not have US planes rolling off our decks nor will our pilots be rolling off theirs unless it's the odd exchange pilot etc. Interoperability has been part of NATO for 30 years mate your a bit late to the party, the idea of the F35B and doing these sort of cross overs is in an emergency like WW3 a British F35B could land on a French Carrier for e.g or a US Pilot could land on a Japanese carrier it has nothing to do with the US say so lol, the US does NOT decide where the UK can and cannot send its carriers the UK has a allocation of ships to NATO the the Royal Navy provides and that is under operational command of NATO but this whole US say so thing is purely out your backside.

[@dc-4ever201]

You can thank Labour governments of the 60's for the UK pulling back from overseas deployments and closure of a lot of our bases east of Suez, so much in fact that the Americans thought the PM back then was a Communist working with the USSR. Subsequent governments failed to reestablish those bases until this last 10 years when they finally realised we needed to protect trade lanes again from Pirates and rogue states.

[@Bob10009]

@@icu17siberiayes it does 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@bigarmydave]

There is nothing in your body of text that is actual and factual. What a stupid, uneducated opinion.

[@DemPilafian]

This is a team effort. Obviously the U.S. is the lead on the F-35, but significant sections are made by UK, Italy, Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Denmark, and Norway. It would be counter-productive for any one country to go it alone.

[@LoyalUK]

f22 > f35

[@Orbital_Inclination]

Apples and oranges. They're designed to meet completely different specifications. F-22 is pure air superiority, with extremely limited ground attack (GPS only) and no carrier capability. It's also far more expensive and no longer in production. F-35 is multi-role, carrier capable (B/C), with more electronic warfare and ISTAR capability than any other non-dedicated fighter.

[@Jack-lk7wk]

I mean yeah this isn't debated by anybody

[@midnightq69]

Big if true

[@UFO-Ark]

F35 is old tech. Any real news on the UFO tech thats 100s of year ahead of this ??

[@nightjarflying]

lol at your delusions

[@seketendehconfidence9276]

It was the UK that came up with a vertical takeoff jet known as the HARRIER JUMB JET. How come the US outsmart them in incorporating the system in F35B and the UK has nothing to show??

[@mikemines2931]

I hate to pee on your chips but it was a joint venture. You'll need to sow discord elsewhere.

[@EnglishScripter]

Because they stole the technology from the harrier, anyway BAE system worked on the engine.

[@yungcaco1443]

Childish way of seeing the world lol. “This country this that country that” when in reality these jets are created by multinational defence corporations like Boeing and they employ people from all over the world.

[@spankflaps1365]

After the Cold War, the UK MOD downsized heavily. British aerospace development was decimated in the 2000s, the main departments were shut down, throwing away decades of experience, preferring to outsource instead.

[@TheLastCrumb.]

@@dl1973oh dear you’re one of them 😂

[@TFC_now]

We are an American vassal state and being overrun internally by Muslim 5th column. Beast mode? The B is lacking in range, takeoff payload etc. Farce

[@MultiVeeta]

When it uses the ski ramp the B can carry more payload than the C. It has greater range than a Harrier, F16, F18. So what nonsense are you waffling.

[@TFC_now]

@MultiVeeta of the variants it has less range due to significantly less fuel capacity due to VTOL setup, same reason for less weight / payload. I referred to "B" indicating comparison between variants not other aircraft.

[@MultiVeeta]

@@TFC_now you said it is 'lacking' and called it a farce. You haven't got a clue, it is not lacking, it just has less fuel than the other 2 variants which those 2 don't have vstol, can't take off from short forward air base runways or ski ramp carriers. It is not 'significantly' less, more waffle from you. You can't have everything. The F35B is a premier strike fighter/Fleet defender. The B has greater performance than the other carrier variant the C and it can also carry more off the ski ramp than the C can off a cat. But by all means keep on sucking on that media scare stories you gullible tool.

[@TFC_now]

@MultiVeeta pulled that info of the official stats, tool. No need to get your knickers in a twist, fully aware it is an awesome machine. Just an opinion that we should have gone with a different variant.

[@ipdavid1043]

useless jet

[@Orbital_Inclination]

If you genuinely believe that, you either don't understand what those words mean, or what this jet can do

[@stuartjobling9360]

Troll 🧌

[@ipdavid1043]

@@stuartjobling9360 u are…study more spec and you know u are dxxb

[@stuartjobling9360]

@@ipdavid1043 rubbish

[@ipdavid1043]

@@stuartjobling9360 u are a real rubbish...original comment was not to u, so u were quite rude to troll on me...what more of a rude rubbish u are.. u asked for it..u want to know u are a rubbish...I just landed u a mirror

[@andrewabel3927]

I wish the UK Government were honest about their Carrier capabilities. They cannot afford to purchase sufficient F35B's to operate completely independently from the US Marine Corps. All we hear is interchangeability nonsense, Has a British F35B operated from a US Marine Carrier? Please Mr Secretary for Defence respect us with an honest answer. Oh sorry you won't be there for much longer .

[@chrisward7582]

Pretty sure others will provide crews and planes like the US. 🇯🇵 🇪🇸 🇮🇹 🇸🇬

[@oldgreggscreamybaileys6618]

They definitely can afford plenty of them but will the government do it is the question.

[@ashleygoggs5679]

they can afford them, the problem is getting enough aircraft out the doors. LHM is at capacity with the amount of aircraft they can produce per year and the F35 program is being used by almost every western american ally just look at their website there are about 20 countries using them. That mean LHM needs to produce all those aircraft for all those countries with one factory... Planes dont just appear mysteriously you know. Too many people assume its the government not having money but people dont look into the nuances of the supply chain.

[@thetruthhurts7675]

We have guaranteed a minimum number of airframes, Labour cannot cut the number we have ordered either. The contract stipulates the number as a minimum.

[@AA-xo9uw]

@@ashleygoggs5679 "they can afford them, the problem is getting enough aircraft out the doors."(sic) A false narrative which was exposed as such last December by the CEO of Lockheed Martin UK - Paul Livingston - who announced that the UK was refusing to exercise its options and accept delivery of current production lot F-35Bs due to lack of money. The UK is also delaying procurement of the E-7 and A400 and has had to enlist the help of the Japanese and Italians to continue work on the Tempest which is now known as GCAP. The UK is broke plain and simple.

[@wouterkellerman4458]

Beast Mode......... Bwahahahaaaaa!!