If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC) NewsFlash Lockheed-Martin picked to build Joint Strike Fighter   (msnbc.com) divider line 75
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

2773 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Oct 2001 at 5:06 PM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

75 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2001-10-26 05:08:13 PM
That is one bad ass fighter!
 
2001-10-26 05:10:23 PM
Boo-yah!
 
2001-10-26 05:12:05 PM
Schwing!
 
2001-10-26 05:12:16 PM
I can't tell if this is a single or double engine aircraft. Anyone know? If it has two engines then I'm sure it'll make a better choice than Boeing's single engine entry especially for carrier duty.
 
2001-10-26 05:12:35 PM
From everything I've heard, A10 pilots don't ever want the A10 replaced. Can anyone confirm?
 
2001-10-26 05:13:12 PM
I'm sure I speak for most of us in the greater Puget Sound area when I say "Well, shiat."
 
2001-10-26 05:13:28 PM
I once piloted an unmanned aircraft.......
 
2001-10-26 05:14:12 PM
why don't they first work on making blackhawks that don't crash all the time?
 
2001-10-26 05:15:10 PM
that's a bummer for St. Louis......
.........owell :)
 
2001-10-26 05:15:30 PM
I wish they weren't going to replace the A-10. That is one bad ass plane, able to take anything that can be thrown at it and return home safely. But it's not new enough or sexy enough.
 
2001-10-26 05:15:40 PM
why is this a newsflash?
 
2001-10-26 05:16:17 PM
Here's the Federation of American Scientists' page on the JSF:

Joint Strike Fighter
 
2001-10-26 05:16:19 PM
Man, I can't wait till we get a new enemy to try these bad boys out on.

I'm joking.
 
2001-10-26 05:16:44 PM
Hell if I know but it was in the queue 5 times, I figured there must be some interest
 
2001-10-26 05:17:16 PM
Hardly newsflash worthy. Considering they were the favourite, plus the first planes aren't even gonna be ready till 2008, plus this announcement was PLANNED and it's not breaking, unexpected news.
 
2001-10-26 05:17:17 PM
Let's just hope some Boeing plane doesn't crash into their plane factory.
 
2001-10-26 05:17:51 PM
We are partying in Fort Worth Tonight.
I don't think St. Louis will leave completely empty handed.
I bet they end up building the marine version of this plane.
 
2001-10-26 05:19:43 PM
Being in the queue 5 times is an acceptable reason I suppose. But I still don't think it's a news flash.
 
2001-10-26 05:19:46 PM
Marine version?
 
2001-10-26 05:19:54 PM
must be a conspiracy, lockheed funded the sept 11 attacks to gain public approval for massive govt defense spending.

/end jackass conspiracy theorist mode
 
2001-10-26 05:19:56 PM
Cool.. new shiny miltary aircraft to rain death and destruction on our enemies.

-He who eats beans
 
2001-10-26 05:20:22 PM
Eeek...someone can delete that if they want...
 
2001-10-26 05:22:55 PM
so why are they buying 3000(!!) of these. We don't have that many total jets currently.
 
2001-10-26 05:25:33 PM
Malinois, what is that from? I remember that ship from my childhood but I can't remember the name of the show.
 
2001-10-26 05:26:10 PM
Is it just me, or does this new plane seem, well, kinda faggy?
 
2001-10-26 05:26:35 PM
Ouroborus, they're both single engine.

Finally, a link on Fark to something that I actually know a lot about!
 
2001-10-26 05:27:10 PM
Hmmmmm.....
Bush & Cheney are from Texas.....
Lockheed is in Texas.....
Must be one of them there coincidences!
 
2001-10-26 05:30:59 PM
Holy Crap-ola is that 200 Billion with a "B". Damm, thats a lot of cash.
 
2001-10-26 05:31:19 PM
I can't beleive the Pentagon didn't split the contract with Boeing. WTF? Looks like I'm going to need to be looking for a new job. Shiat!
 
2001-10-26 05:32:04 PM
"The General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm, twice warned the jet could end up costing more, take longer to build and have performance problems because the technologies need more development. The Pentagon has said its independent investigation found the technologies are adequate."

I wonder how long that 'independent' investigation took and how it was carried out.
 
2001-10-26 05:33:29 PM
Ouroborus: The show was Starblazers. I loved that show!
 
2001-10-26 05:35:06 PM
I heard on the news this morning that one reason Boeing wouldn't get the contract was becasue their version couldn't land on a carrier. Can anybody confirm that? If that's true, just how amazingly stupid are the people at Boeing?
 
2001-10-26 05:36:54 PM
Chilly: Exactly what I was getting ready to say. Since when has a major project like that, government or otherwise, never been delayed and over budget. Come on, you always have to factor in at least another 20% over what they say it's going to cost.
But still..NEW TOYS, NEW TOYS!! :)
 
2001-10-26 05:37:41 PM
"Both Boeing and Lockheed's planes for the Marines, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy can land vertically. Versions for the Air Force and Navy are designed to land conventionally. "

WHY? WHY? why does usaf and navy want lamer runway jets?
 
2001-10-26 05:39:19 PM
Us farkers in the crusty brown fighter factory in Fort Worth are shiatting are pants.
 
2001-10-26 05:40:04 PM
Is it just me or is anyone else wondering why we need new and improved *fighters*? When was the last time the US was challenged in the air? Not in my lifetime. How about spending the dough on better air to ground capabilities?
 
2001-10-26 05:41:10 PM
Doshin : The runway versions weigh less without all the S/VTOL paraphenalia. Less weight means it's faster and/or can carry more bombs & stuff.
 
2001-10-26 05:44:25 PM
i doubt that boeing couldn't get it to land on a carrier. when the f-111 was in the testing phase, it was supposed to be a joint fighter with the navy. they got that huge plane to land on a carrier. i saw really cool footage of it on the discovery channel a while ago.
hell, the marines have landed c-130s on carriers. my dad was on one and has pictures.
plus, the JSF is supposed to be able to land vertically for the marine corps.
now, take out the garbage!!!!!
 
2001-10-26 05:47:40 PM
thanks tinrobo. woohoo, more bombs!

i am easily swayed
 
2001-10-26 05:50:44 PM
this post sucks
 
2001-10-26 05:53:44 PM
wow, trolling shiat-heaps..... let's beat em down.
 
2001-10-26 05:55:53 PM
why are they building a fighter to strike joints? Beer joints? Honky tonk joints? spliff joints ....oh wait.....
 
2001-10-26 06:11:38 PM
Hey Clear: Remember vietnam? We thought we were gonna be fighting other planes with just long range missiles but when soviet migs were coming straight for them they were basically helpless.
 
jph
2001-10-26 06:14:04 PM
Argon405:

Yes, they DO have that many. Actually, they've had far more than 3,000 total of the types they're replacing. Look at the FAS pages on the F-16 and F/A-18--I'm sure it adds up to something like 3500, then add the other types that the JSF is replacing.
 
2001-10-26 06:14:43 PM
Exclusive image:

 
2001-10-26 06:14:46 PM
watch them pay $1million for the wheels on one of them babies alone. It won't be as pathetic as the $350 toilet seats, though....
 
2001-10-26 06:15:09 PM
aw hell, who am I kidding. it will. anyway, yay for killing stuff
 
2001-10-26 06:17:04 PM
Let's hope Lockheed designs a nice prototype for the government's energy weapons soon too. We are already working on anti-air lasers, and there has been talk about equipping them on jet fighters.... bah, im talking through my ass about something not on topic. too hard to concentrate with such a boring topic.

On a side question, isn't 30% of the airforce required to be unmanned by 2010?
 
2001-10-26 06:17:17 PM
er.. to have unmanned planes, that is.
 
2001-10-26 06:17:18 PM
not all are for U.S. Don't forget foreign military sales...
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report