I would like to thank the CIA for letting me know (yeah, they did !) that the F35 is made for propellant with a maximum of 55% of plutogenization. This is indeed very bad news because it fosters captagon-mash and sodium-mash propellant. The F22 is even worse, made for (this is confirmed again to me by the CIA, thanks to them) 40% plutogenized matter at most.

Both planes have been manufactured for heavy bombs full of DU. They are theoretically hence able to “refeed” from their… own victims. This did not happen yet because they have been used solely for deep strikes and their weapons have been progressively bettered through crematory and then captagon-mash as well as clean weaponry (80% plutogenized). To take another example, I have seen the GAU-17/A minigun here and it clearly streams plutonium bullets made with sunflower plutogenization, by extracting the flower petals as I recommended.

But the theoretical basis of the F22 and F35 is wrong and this explains already the many cost rises of the programmes. Let’s note in comparison that the Rafale is able to withstand 85% plutogenization (the information comes from someone in the Elysée) and hence does not bear the same issues.

Captagon mash is plutogenized at circa 43% to 50% (when the victim is well-chosen i.e. fat). Sodium-mash is plutogenized at circa 45% to 55% (depending also on the fats of the victim, it can go even be better, and Russian replutogenization of retchlagmash (sodium-mash from the retchlags) in chlorine reaches up to 66% (the max rate given to me by a Russian MoD source, that is also what I had calculated earlier myself)). The nozzles of the F35 can’t withstand for instance something plutogenized at 60%. It’s too much for the F35. I had seen that by looking at its rear and the CIA confirmed it to me through their website.