Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "F-35 The Air to EVERYTHING Fighter | Best of Aviation Series" video.

  1.  @Verminator4  the fuselage shape is driven by the internal weapons bay, not the lift fan. Supermaneuverability is a meme. Looks great at the air show, it's suicidal in combat. Purposefully stalling your plane is a desperate maneuver.
    5
  2. Of course a STOVL aircraft is of much use, it allows the Marines to operate off short deck carriers like they did with the Harriers and create makeshift airbases in islands. The tactical advantage of not being dependent on Navy carrier catapults cannot be overstated.
    4
  3.  @Aspen51  "you also forgot Gen. Mark A. Welsh III (2016 - 2018 Chief of Staff USAF) assertion that it was also an A-10 replacement (Google him & the Congressional hearing's on this platform)" - What's this supposed to mean?
    4
  4. F-16 is jack of all trades, master of all. The F-35 is a F-16 on steroids, how come it can't master its trades? 18k lbs is not a poor weapons load. Planes that have to take off from short carriers always suffer in terms of raw performance. Compared to the Harrier, it's a significant upgrade. The A-10 has already been replaced. Most CAS missions are attributed to F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s and B-1s. The flying tank model is outdated, as proven in 1991 - the A-10 was grounded and pulled out from missions against the Iraqi Republican Guard due to 7 shot down and 13 heavily damaged. The F-35 will never have to get close to AAA. And if it does, it has even better redundancy than older aircraft. Cheaper? The F-35 is already a very affordable plane, even costing less than modern production F-16s. You should look into the F-16 deals done recently, they're north of 100 million per plane.
    4
  5. @Drew Peacock How is being too fast a problem? Speed is life. The A-10 is thin-skinned too, bub. Look into any photos of ground fire damage to A-10s and you'll see. Making skin thicker only slows you down, and provides more material to get fragmented and sent flying into the sensitive components. It's preferable to let the round go through without meeting resistance or at least blowing out a panel rather than send metal into hydraulic lines.
    3
  6.  @Mungobohne1  You can't just drop a bombshell like claiming the RAM coating increases drag and not explain it further...
    3
  7.  @DevTheBigManUno  There would be no advantage to that, and the vertical lift is better suited for when the aircraft has dropped payload and consumed fuel, because there's not enough thrust to hover while fully loaded.
    3
  8. The A-10 cannot loiter in contested space. In uncontested space, there's tankers. Delicate? The F-16 has already lost half a wing and landed. A F-15 lost a wing two feet away from the root and landed. This is thanks to body lift. The F-35's body is designed to provide even more lift so it's extremely likely that the plane can survive losing a wing. The independent hydraulic systems also give the F-35 an advantage. Although the A-10 has two hydraulic systems for redundancy, they can get bled if hit. Independent hydraulic systems will not bleed if one gets hit. The F-16 only has one engine and it's one of the most successful aircraft ever fielded.
    3
  9. Airplanes can't fly forever, and it often costs more to refurbish ageing aircraft than buy new ones.
    3
  10.  @quicknova8762  Gripen's difference between max takeoff weight and empty weight is 7,200kgs while in the F-35 you get 18,000kg which means more payload, 1.6x the combat range, double the fuel capacity in internal tanks alone, more weapons integrated.
    3
  11.  @Chuck59ish  That's the A variant.
    3
  12.  @Chuck59ish  I don't understand what's so hard to get. You said they need the C variant because of the internal fuel capacity. You were told that the C variant lacks the internal gun. You claimed it had one, then you were corrected. So your response was that the C variant could still carry a gun pod. To which I replied, if your concern was fuel you wouldn't bring a gun pod, which creates drag. For an intercept the missiles should be enough, the C variant would get the most out of its fuel tank by not carrying external stores. That's the conversation. Now I don't know what exactly you mean by bringing up the fact that air forces do air to air refueling. How does that matter? Your point was internal fuel, so take the C variant. Now you're talking about something else entirely. If you have to make intercepts over Canadian air space you don't want to be dependent on tankers to get to the bogey. I don't know if you just reply to comments from the tab so you don't even understand what the conversation is, but you should read it from the beginning.
    3
  13. @Drew Peacock the whole point of supermaneuverability is showing off how you remain in control of the aircraft even when you depart from normal aerodynamic flight. My point is that if you wanted a slimmer F-35, the weapon bays would have to be slimmed down. So in the end the lift fan does not hinder the A and C variants because the frontal area of the F-35 could not be reduced without affecting payload.
    3
  14. @Drew Peacock "If you're carrying out low-level CAS" - Well there's your first issue right there. "with a gun you need to fly relatively slow and have good loiter time" - Those are unrelated things but okay. If Strike Eagle drivers can do gun runs at night (and their gun is canted 2º "up") I don't see why a F-35 can't. "The F-35 flies too fast" - So does the F-16, F/A-18 and F-15E but those get plenty of CAS. How come the F-35 is the only aircraft that can't do the job everyone else is doing? "doesn't carry enough rounds" - It carries 18 thousand pounds of ordnance though. You've seen those small diameter bombs? That's a lot of boom boom. "It has an armoured cockpit, the F-35 doesn't." - Okay, but armor on critical areas doesn't change the fact that you were wrong about the "thin skinned" remark. "Are you seriously suggesting using an F-35 for low-level CAS?" - Are you seriously suggesting that CAS can only be performed at low level? "For starters an F-35 isn't suited to this role" - Why? "why risk losing such a complex aircraft performing this role? " - The pilot is worth more than the aircraft. If you send an A-10 into the modern battlefield, you're risking the pilot's life. Remember, nearly 30 years ago it got a bloody nose from the Iraqi Republican Guard and Chuck Horner decided to pull them out, relegating them to missions against the less proficient Iraqi army units. That was 30 years ago. You think it's safer now? It's worse! Who cares if the plane cost 30 million or 80 million? You can force the taxpayer to pay more next year, tell the Fed to print more money, but pilots don't grow on trees. So the question is, why risk a pilot's life by sending an ageing, outdated aircraft that got sucker-punched three decades ago by minimally competent forces?
    2
  15. @Drew Peacock jesus what a wall of text. "Firstly not all CAS is carried out from altitude otherwise the A-10 wouldn't exist" - Sorry to burst your bubble, but the reason the A-10 exists is a complete clusterfuck. The A-7 was a great CAS aircraft, but the human in the loop depended on observers and ground controllers because it was difficult to spot targets on the ground. The Army was also requesting that a CAS aircraft should be slow enough to escort helicopters. This created the "low and slow" requirement, which was a temporary solution for a temporary problem as modern sensors allow pilots to spot targets from altitude better than they can do from low altitude with their eyes. The reason the A-10 exists is due to airplanes outpacing the human, so we had to send pilots with underperforming aircraft so they could keep up. Now the human can keep up. "It doesn't carry enough rounds" - 18k pounds my dude. "it doesn't have enough loiter time" - In a modern battlefield the A-10 cannot loiter. "why risk losing an expensive, complex F-35" - Why risk a pilot? You send an A-10 out, it's a death sentence. "How are they unrelated?" - Because even with the A-10s capacity you have a limited number of trigger pulls. "it flies too fast" - So you're conveniently ignoring how fast jets perform gun runs, so you fixate on number of rounds, and then go back to the F-35 to complain about speed? "if an A-10 is lost, it's cheaper to replace than an F-35" - You've lost the pilot. That was worse than the aircraft. Factories can pump out aircraft. It takes years to make a pilot. "Too fast for low-level gun-based CAS" - Again, fast jets perform gun runs. Stop ignoring the facts. "The F-35 could carry out CAS from altitude. It would be terrible though at low-level CAS." - Fighters comparable to the F-35 do low level CAS. Why are you ignoring the facts? "What's that got to do with anything when you need to carry out gun-based CAS" - We've literally developed small diameter bombs that do the job of a gun run. "Yes it is. But no good if a gun is needed." - Why is a gun needed? Smaller danger close radius. What did we come up with? Bombs with self-limited blast range. "even if hit by a MANPADS the pilot may be able to safely eject, which may not necessarily be the case with an F-35 which is thin-skinned all over." - All planes are thin skinned. You've been called out on this, at least say what you mean rather than use misleading statements. The proof is in the pudding - the A-10 suffered enough losses in 1991 to be grounded and pulled out of the hardest missions. "The A-10 also has the huge advantage that it was intended to fly from forward air bases and semi-prepared runways" - Turboprops are even better suited for that job, are even cheaper to operate and are just a a tad bit slower. "Why you want to use an F-35 in this role" - The problem is you thinking that a very niche role is still relevant. "I've already listed all the reasons why an F-35 isn't suited to low-level CAS. I'm not going to repeat them again if you can't be bothered to properly read my comments." - And I've already addressed why every single of your concerns isn't valid. Fast jets do CAS. The A-10 has been replaced already. The F-35 is also survivable thanks to redundancy and making itself hard to hit in the first place. Newer weapons have been designed to do the job of the gun from a distance with precision. If the F-35 does need to perform gun runs, the fact that other fast jets do it already means that it will be able to do it too. All things considered, you claim the F-35 is not suited for the role and then ignore how similar jets have been doing it for the past two decades. "There are times when CAS can be carried out from altitude and other times when you need to carry out low-level gun-based CAS." - And why? To spare yourself the frustration, I'll answer - smaller danger close radius with the gun. That's it. We came up with bombs with self-limiting blast range. Hell, at this point I hope they stick rocket pods under the wings and add the IR guidance kit to 2.75 inch rockets with flechettes. There you go, precision guided rockets that shred meat targets with lower collateral than a bomb. A smart gun run. Problem solved. "More deflection, answer the question." - It's not a deflection. If your idea of fighting a war is losing planes, you already lost. I'll take the expensive plane because cheap can get pilots killed. "Of course, that applies to any aircraft. Pilots know what they're getting into when they sign up." - Now that is deflection. No, it doesn't apply to any aircraft. The A-10 suffered twice the losses of the F-16 in 1991 despite the F-16 performing more CAS missions. "What point are you making? It makes no sense to send pilots to a certain death or into situations where they're almost certain to get shot down" - Yes, it doesn't make sense to send A-10s against minimally trained forces. "Again, what point are you making? " - That sending the 30 million dollar plane is going to cost you dearly. "What does any of this have to do with the fact that an F-35 would be atrocious at low-level CAS? If A-10s can't survive certain low-level CAS scenarios, F-35s would be even less survivable." - Again, fast jets perform low level CAS, which is a role that has become obsolete and is only relevant to fight a counter insurgency against people wearing flip flops. You claim the F-35 is atrocious, but comparable aircraft have already replaced the A-10. And like I mentioned before, the F-16 was more survivable in 1991 as it suffered 3 losses and the A-10 7 losses despite the F-16 carrying out more missions. "But you want to use F-35s instead, which are even less well protected than A-10s" - The F-16 is also less protected, and had lower losses. Hmmm. "A-10s are the best aircraft for the job" - They've been replaced. All they do is done by others. "As for F-35s though, they aren't suited to the low-level CAS role at all." - again, WHY? - Fast jets do CAS - Fast jets do gun runs - Fast jets have done more CAS than the A-10 and suffered less losses - The A-10 mission profile and capabilities make it more vulnerable - the A-10 isn't more survivable because it's armored, it's armored because it's likely to get hit - Flying low level was a requirement for CAS when it was difficult to see the battle from above, making low level CAS an obsolete mission profile - Low level CAS/gun runs are literally only required because of the lower danger close radius of cannon shells versus bombs, and we have devised bombs with self-limited blast range All your points of contention don't match reality because what you claim isn't possible is very possible and has been done for almost two decades. The "best" CAS aircraft barely gets any missions compared to the fast jets and it's only arguments are less stringent runway requirements/costs/loiter time, all of which are better with a turboprop aircraft making the A-10 a relic of the past.
    2
  16.  @sadwingsraging3044  Whoa there's countries with a defense budget of 80 million? I think they have bigger worries than what the US sends to perform a mission. If you think you're saving money by sending pilots in flying coffins you've already lost the logistical side of the war. The F-4 did not need a gun. The Navy didn't add it and they had what, a 6 to 1 kill ratio versus MiGs? The USAF got 90 percent of their kills by missile. The biggest usefulness of the gun was ironically ground attack, like the Marines did by sticking multiple gun pods under the wings. Before calling anyone a tard, maybe realize that the F-4 was built as the defender of the fleet, an interceptor, you need to destroy the enemy at range before it gets close enough to attack the carrier. If you need to get close enough to a guns kill, you've already failed the mission. So obviously the F-4 did not need it. Nobody was a tard for recognizing the priorities in the naval interceptor mission, that's just being smart. Then the F-4 was forced into roles that it shouldn't have taken on, and succeeded despite all odds. The F-4 is still known as the world's largest distributor of MiG parts. In interviews actual F-4 pilots stated that the addition of the gun was a reassurance, but in reality it shifted weight to the front of the airplane and forced the use of a smaller radar. All that for a measly 5 kills with the F-4E internal gun. "These ultra expensive missiles are the future man" - The F-4 in USAF service scored 86 kills with missiles. 5 with the internal gun on the F-4E. The Navy scored 40 kills with no guns. You may laugh now.
    2
  17. lol no. The F-35 gets massive kill rates at Red Flag exercises. You got your information from a David Axe piece he wrote because he doesn't know how to read reports.
    2
  18. The F-22 was not made for easy upgrades.
    2
  19. Because it's outdated. There's was an ongoing debate on whether or not the F-22 should be upgraded to modern standards but the issue is that so few were made, that the per unit cost of such a program would be too high so it would be preferable to leave it as it is and retire it once the NGAD is ready to replace it.
    2
  20. The air force didn't say the program failed. Stop getting your news from clickbait.
    2
  21.  @Mungobohne1  yeah I thought you claimed it was aerodynamically limited rather than software limited, my bad.
    2
  22. You don't want to hover while in a mission, it's simply for landing in short deck carriers.
    2
  23.  @DevTheBigManUno  Unless you were being sarcastic I don't get how.
    2
  24. The F-35 is not a F-15 replacement.
    2
  25. Too expensive, but cheaper than a modern contract F-16 or Typhoon. Too bulky, but the frontal area is barely different from a super hornet. Jack of all trades, but F-16s are master of all and nobody complains. F-18s already shot down enemy aircraft while carrying bombs and completed the ground attack mission but people still think that multiroles can't do it all.
    2
  26. The A-10 is weird looking because it was based on design principles that don't apply anymore. There's always been more ground attack aircraft in inventory other than the A-10 and they're not designed like it, and the A-10s most famed role, close air support, has mostly been attributed to F-16s, Strike Eagles, F/A-18s, B-1s, etc. The F-35 is amazing at many different things. Just like the F-16, F/A-18, etc are.
    2
  27.  @jeff-gl1yx  Yes, don't address the facts at hand and dismiss anyone who contradicts you. The A-10 is derived from the A-X program which was initially meant to be a turboprop aircraft because at the time they didn't think jet engines could be efficient at the speeds they were asking for. The requirements to fly low and slow are completely outdated thanks to targeting pods, and were also pressed forward by the Army's insistence on a CAS aircraft slow enough to escort helicopters even though it compromises the safety of the fixed wing aircraft. The two engines mounted apart to mitigate heat seeking missiles destroying one engine, one of the much lauded features of the A-10 design, is meaningless in the age of integrated defense systems and continuous rod warheads which can slice an aircraft in half. The losses it suffered in 1991 made it clear that it was outdated. The A-10 has been replaced. I appreciate your refusal to explain to me how I'm wrong because quite frankly that would be a waste of your time as the A-10 only got 20% of CAS missions since the mid 2000s and 11% since the 2010s.
    2
  28.  @quicknova8762  Why need a military?
    2
  29. @Drew Peacock "Any fighter can carry a variety of missiles and bombs" - But if you look at the list of bombs available for the Gripen you have less of a selection. "which doesn't apply to the B variant anyway" - Are the Belgians getting the B? "Who's complaining?" - You seem to be telling me something that you should be telling Belgian officials.
    2
  30.  @pizzaman5169  Loitering over danger means death. If you have to loiter over the area to get a job done you already lost. It's 2021, not 1971 anymore. Ground pounders killed? The A-10 has killed them, lots of blue on blue with those.
    2
  31.  @Milivoy84  At Red Flag they simulate a whole ass war. Not T-38s, the F-35 defeated F-16s and F-15s. "That's why some rather nasty surprises happened in some exercises like F22 losing multiple times from Typhoon or having some rather unfavourable win ratio vs Indian Su30 MKI" - So first you discount kill ratios from simulations, then come up with simulated kills against the F-22. Okay. "There are now confirmed reports that Russian S400 radars can detect and track stealth planes and that even Russian fighters can do it too" - I trust those as much as I trust their vaccine. "Su57" - there's... 11 of them. "first ever stealth plane was shot down. With 50 years old tech" - In a feat that was never replicated. Pure luck, skill and complacency of flight planners. Zoltan Dani said it himself, they lost the lock twice. "Several days later another one fell down in woodland around Tuzla in Bosnia" - And trying to find evidence for these claims is a rabbit hole that leads to the Earth's core. I've seen everything from claims that it was a B-2, and claims of 4 F-117 plus 2 B-2s shot down. Only 82-0806 was lost. Every other Nighthawk was seen operational. Mind that the wreckage of a MiG-29 was reported as a F-117 in some newspapers, which helped the confusion. "the F117 fleet stopped flying above Serbia" - The strikes went from March 24th to June. There's footage of F-117 strikes until May 1st. "And Su57 will be step above them" - There's 550 F-35s worldwide. Only 11 Su57s. "the world and environment in which F35 is required to "kick door" is becoming way to hostile for it" - If it's hostile to the F-35 it's deadly to any non-stealth aircraft. No more airplanes can take off with such a threat.
    2
  32.  @Chuck59ish  So first you claim that they should use the C because of the extra fuel, now you say you can just refuel? Okay.
    2
  33. What compromises?
    2
  34. More capable fighters? You mean ones that would have to get all those sensors crammed inside a pod and carry it in a pylon anyway? In the air you lose sight you lose the fight, so whoever can see the other first is the most capable fighter. All fighters carry a ton on instruments in board, sensor or EW pods carried externally, plus fuel tanks.
    2
  35. The A-10 has already been replaced. Most CAS is performed by multirole fighters and the B-1 Lancer.
    1
  36. @Drew Peacock So the facts are nonsense? Still in denial, I see.
    1
  37.  @sadwingsraging3044  You are a child.
    1
  38. @Drew Peacock I've already linked you evidence of F-16s and F-18s performing low level CAS. You're denying reality.
    1
  39.  @sadwingsraging3044  You can't even insult someone without repeating yourself. My condolences for your missing brain hemisphere.
    1
  40.  @sadwingsraging3044  the F-4 G, J, N, S, K and M did not have guns.
    1
  41. @Drew Peacock They've been "adequately" performing most of CAS missions since the early 2000s while the A-10 gets less and less.
    1
  42.  @twilightzone7824  If you change course that changes the direction of the velocity vector. That means you're not using the full velocity to close in on the target. Also, if you're flying at high supersonic speeds the heat generated will make the intrusion easier to detect. The US uses F-15s and F-22s for national air defense. The range on the F-35 is actually great because it carries so much internal fuel.
    1
  43. Same thing Boyd said to Navy TOPGUN fighters about their F-4. He really embarrassed himself.
    1
  44.  @Dubanx  The F-22 dropped bombs in Syria. At this stage it makes no sense to not give multirole abilities to fighters.
    1
  45. Not really. The F-35 is a fighter just like the F-16 is a fighter. The F-22 has great kinematic capabilities but it's not insane at all. It's heavily limited in capabilities and there's no hope of getting upgrades.
    1
  46.  @TheBigChad  Yes, it is a fighter. Most air to air kills in recent history were not a result of dogfights so you're purposefully restricting the scope of the argument to present a false argument. You'll never see a pilot WILLINGLY get into a real deal dogfight because of how dangerous they are. Not only are you risking millions of dollars of aircraft, the pilot himself is also a major asset and getting shot down denies a nation all the training they gave him. Escorted by an actual fighter? Where is the proof of this claim? Also, F-16s are fighters and historically they have also received fighter escort from F-15Cs during missions.
    1
  47. If you fly at Mach 2.1 you'll have a huge heat signature. High speed with stealth aircraft is not that important.
    1
  48. @Drew Peacock dude I'm not in charge of the Belgian defense, don't complain to me.
    1
  49. @Drew Peacock I'm not talking about hardpoints but the number of different weapons systems that integrate with the F-35 ecossystem.
    1
  50. @Drew Peacock We're talking about 5 bomb variants and 3 ground/ship missiles for the Gripen while the F-35 is meant for 8 bomb variants and 5 ground/ship missiles not including planned ones. Variety is the spice of life. "Plus Belgium already has F-16s" - And one day they'll need to be retired. Do you live under the impression that Belgium or whichever country is making a purchase can only look for replacements after the aircraft are too old to take off? By that logic why is Russia pursuing the Su57 when it already has Su27s? Why were the Eurofighter Typhoon and Rafale developed when there's still old aircraft capable of doing their jobs? "why would I possibly want to contact Belgian officials to tell them what aircraft they should buy?" - Then don't come telling me Belgium made a bad choice if you're not willing to tell them, because I have no vote in the matter. Why are you telling me you disagree? "you're advertising the F-35 as if it's the only option" - No, I didn't. I simply laid out the facts as to why a country may have decided to take the F-35 over everything else. I never said it was the only option.
    1
  51. @Drew Peacock You've come here, made up statements in your head that I never uttered myself, and then accuse me of being a shill? You're either delusional, or a hater. I don't know what's worse. I'm all over YT dunking on people too "simple" to understand aviation, and who have been fed catchphrases they can parrot (such as "fast jets can't perform cas" even though they do). Example, you claim fast jets can't do low level cas. I've sent you links. You deny the reality. So how can you accuse me of being unreasonable when it's you who can't be reasoned with?
    1
  52.  @Milivoy84  the F-35 dominated adversaries at Red Flag. It's important to consider that the evolution of all aspect heat seeker missiles changed the priorities of close range fighting, there was a huge emphasis on rate fighting but now the ability to point your nose is more important. And pilots say the F-35 almost fights like a F/A-18 with it's ability to pull high AoA. For the stealth aspect, the F-35 will need it the most when it's "kicking the doors in" and it's perfectly possible for the F-35s with bomb loadouts to be escorted by A2A F-35s. In 1991 the F-117s had to go in by themselves and it worked. It's extremely likely that the F-35 will knock out radar and even destroy fighters on the ground in a first strike using stealth before it needs to be sent in with wing pylons.
    1
  53.  @Milivoy84  Every side was playing the misinformation game, Zoltan Dani initially claimed that they had made field modifications to radars to defeat stealth but later recanted that they were simply using the radar on the lowest frequency available and this was common during the war. "Second one fell on US friendly soil so there were no wreckage to be shown and ofc no reason to acknowledge it officially." - This would require a conspiracy where the USAF hid the loss from the records by having an aircraft fly home twice so that it could be observed and only one loss counted, plus somehow keep the GAO from discovering an aircraft was missing from inventory. Additionally, there's a F-117 in a museum that suffered missile damage but was patched up and kept flying until retirement. "even today it can be fond that something fell and left a mark in that area" - Strange that erosion didn't wipe the marks after 20 years but still, could have been any aircraft. "even if only one was shot down, idea that a stealthy plane that is made for suppressing AA defense WAS detected and shot is just showing that stealth isn't a clocking device or invisibility armor." - It was never meant to be such a thing. Reducing a radar cross section is extremely helpful because radar power decreases by the inverse square. At one point when you are close enough to a stealth aircraft the radar return has enough energy to be picked up on radar. "Serb AA was operational until the end of conflict so the plane that is made for ONLY one role - failed in it" - The Nighthawk continued flying and dropping bombs. It didn't fail. "And idea that Su57 will not enter production or that it will be bad is totally wrong" - Why? Even if it enters production, it's going to take years to catch up.
    1
  54.  @Milivoy84  "It can't replace A10" - Why? "That's why it has stand off munitions loadout." - Anything is a stand off munition in the age of GPS and buddy laser guidance. "Also B21 wouldn't be developed if current US planes were still undetectable for the enemy radars" - That's ridiculous. The B-21 is the expected replacement for the B-1, B-2 and B-52. That's a good reason to develop a plane, it needs to replace an ageing fleet.
    1
  55. It can run, it can turn and it can hide. Exercises have shown it murders everything in the air.
    1
  56.  @Chuck59ish  If you're worried about fuel you don't want a pod causing extra drag.
    1
  57.  @Buran01  The F-22 performed strike missions in Syria, where there's Russian defenses operating.
    1
  58.  @huntman1412  You're obsessing over cheap, there's no such thing as cheap. Go look at what a modern F-16 costs. Recent contracts go up to 100 million per aircraft. You're not getting a dozen F-16s for the price of a couple F-35s.
    1