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.

(Gizmodo)   Pure airplane porn: the next fighter jet we don't need   (gizmodo.com) divider line 303
    More: Asinine, Lockheed Martin, F-22, economic power, USAF, fifth generation, airplane porn, F-16, airplanes  
•       •       •

35923 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Jan 2012 at 12:26 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



303 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-05 09:00:49 AM  
Dying military industry still wants to fight the last war. News at 11.
 
2012-01-05 09:11:12 AM  
They will be flying from a bunker in their pyjamas. And if they want to go all Maverick and Ice Man, they can always go to the locker room and wave their dicks around. Even the United States Air Force is talking about this. The fighter UAVs, not the dick waving.

lulz
 
2012-01-05 09:16:57 AM  
So you're telling me it's going to take them 18 years to get the new fighter that we "don't need" built, and that during those 18 years, nothing's going to change that might make the new one necessary?

Seems kind of spooky that it takes 18 years to design a plane. I know it's complicated and all, but that's not really a good situation to be in if we needed innovation in a pinch.
 
2012-01-05 09:19:40 AM  
China is no threat only because they love us too much. I'm serious about that (new window).

The Russians on the other hand are saber rattling assholes (new window).

I'm not sure if there is a conclusion to these things. It would be nice if our taxes weren't being used to "police the world" (as if it's our (new window) job).

Finally the budgeting of these things. Our real enemies are the Iran's and the Taliban's of the world. Since most of the huge budget for these programs is in R&D... why not just build new versions of existing planes (new window).
 
2012-01-05 09:23:33 AM  

serial_crusher: So you're telling me it's going to take them 18 years to get the new fighter that we "don't need" built, and that during those 18 years, nothing's going to change that might make the new one necessary?

Seems kind of spooky that it takes 18 years to design a plane. I know it's complicated and all, but that's not really a good situation to be in if we needed innovation in a pinch.


This isn't a typical airplane. They're striving to beat the current best-of-the-best which requires actually developing completely new technology which could be used elsewhere, think Apollo and Shuttle tech, sure we didn't need the things but the advancements that came out of those programs have greatly benefited and advanced society as a whole. I'm not saying this will be the case with this plan but it isn't hard to imagine that the things invented for this will find application elsewhere in the aerospace industry.

I think its sad that the military really is the first and last place for aerospace tech financing. They are the only entity willing to dump millions/billions into advancing the industry and pushing the envelope. Private sector will never spend that type of dime without a definite X return on whatever particular project. If left completely with private sector we would all still be flying turbo props for everything.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-01-05 09:40:16 AM  

serial_crusher: So you're telling me it's going to take them 18 years to get the new fighter that we "don't need" built, and that during those 18 years, nothing's going to change that might make the new one necessary?

Seems kind of spooky that it takes 18 years to design a plane. I know it's complicated and all, but that's not really a good situation to be in if we needed innovation in a pinch.


Yes. Eighteen years from now the F-22 & F-35 will still be fairly new, and more advanced than anything flying. The F-15 first saw service in 1974, so 18 years isn't that long.
 
2012-01-05 09:57:40 AM  
You know subby, there are other parts of military hardware that isn't "used" on a daily basis. Submarines and ballistic missiles for example. That does not make them useless; they might be needed some day, and having them might deter the other guys. (or force them to spend too much money for their own hardware)

But sure, it would have been interesting to see a F-22A over Libya, but apparently their radio systems etc are not combat ready. And then there is the whole loss of consciousness due hypoxia-thing which grounded the whole fleet. Having said that, the F-22A is a lot better than the fiasco that is the F-35 Lightning II series, which are, slow, short legged, loud and have a small payload; the list goes on and on. They are not even really stealthy compared to F-22As but are almost as expensive. The F-22A production line should have been kept open longer, same thing with the B-2s which are still the best bomber in the US arsenal even though only a handful (20 or so) were ever made.

Also the legacy stuff should be updated, because Super Hornets, F-16E's and F-15SEs pretty surely have a lot more firepower than a silver bullet airforce consisting solely of expensive, maintenance intesive hardware can ever have.
 
2012-01-05 10:01:05 AM  
The B-2 has been in service for 57 years.

The F-14 flew 35 years.

The F-4 flew 36 years.
 
2012-01-05 10:09:51 AM  
Errr b-52
 
2012-01-05 10:15:33 AM  

Fear_and_Loathing: The B-52 has been in service for 57 years.


If the B-2 was in service 57 years ago, Russia may not exist anymore.
 
2012-01-05 10:17:02 AM  
See the above correction
 
2012-01-05 10:18:38 AM  
The Raptor has so seen combat!
They used them to fight the Decepticons!
 
2012-01-05 10:20:45 AM  
Meanwhile, in Oxfordshire, a new squadron of Spitfires is being built. (new window)

Al-yoo-min-ee-umm.
 
2012-01-05 10:21:08 AM  
How much is this thing going to end up costing us?
 
2012-01-05 10:30:29 AM  

Rusty Shackleford: a new squadron of Spitfires is being built.


I was going to say cool, but they are scaled down replicas.
 
2012-01-05 10:44:27 AM  
You know, I always wondered whether fighter jets, with human pilots within them, are even necessary anymore.

I imagine a future where air war is conducted by large swarms of drones, each swarm (not each drone) under the control of AI-assisted human pilots from afar. I mean, we have the technology. Why aren't we going there, and instead placing our men and women in harm's way?
 
2012-01-05 11:08:44 AM  

RexTalionis: You know, I always wondered whether fighter jets, with human pilots within them, are even necessary anymore.

I imagine a future where air war is conducted by large swarms of drones,

digitaljournal.com

Kill Sarah Connor?
 
2012-01-05 11:15:13 AM  
War will never be reduced to remote control. The people in power will always need to send poor people to their death. Poor people are a lot cheaper than these expensive machines. The machines are just there to give people a small sense of security. That is necessary to keep today's kids willing to die for their country.
 
2012-01-05 11:21:01 AM  

jaylectricity: War will never be reduced to remote control. The people in power will always need to send poor people to their death. Poor people are a lot cheaper than these expensive machines. The machines are just there to give people a small sense of security. That is necessary to keep today's kids willing to die for their country.


We're talking air combat here, not ground actions. In future wars, the drones piloted from around tha world would be used to protect the poor people on one side while helping them kill the poor people on the other side.
 
2012-01-05 11:21:37 AM  

RexTalionis: You know, I always wondered whether fighter jets, with human pilots within them, are even necessary anymore.

I imagine a future where air war is conducted by large swarms of drones, each swarm (not each drone) under the control of AI-assisted human pilots from afar. I mean, we have the technology. Why aren't we going there, and instead placing our men and women in harm's way?


i worked on a program like this in college in our virtual reality lab

and no, it's not classified or anything.
 
2012-01-05 11:35:11 AM  

serial_crusher: So you're telling me it's going to take them 18 years to get the new fighter that we "don't need" built, and that during those 18 years, nothing's going to change that might make the new one necessary?

Seems kind of spooky that it takes 18 years to design a plane. I know it's complicated and all, but that's not really a good situation to be in if we needed innovation in a pinch.


This is why "The F-15 is good enough" is simply wrong. As Eisenhower pointed out, you can't beat your plowshares into swords anymore - and he endorsed a large, continuous military-industrial complex to meet the nation's defense needs.
 
2012-01-05 11:36:53 AM  

RexTalionis: You know, I always wondered whether fighter jets, with human pilots within them, are even necessary anymore.

I imagine a future where air war is conducted by large swarms of drones, each swarm (not each drone) under the control of AI-assisted human pilots from afar. I mean, we have the technology. Why aren't we going there, and instead placing our men and women in harm's way?


A colleague of mine predicted the F-35 would be the last manned fighter the US produces. I think he's not making a SAFE bet, but neither am I willing to categorically state he is wrong.
 
2012-01-05 11:39:02 AM  

jaylectricity: War will never be reduced to remote control. The people in power will always need to send poor people to their death. Poor people are a lot cheaper than these expensive machines. The machines are just there to give people a small sense of security. That is necessary to keep today's kids willing to die for their country.


Well, you still need boots on the ground to win a war, no matter WHAT the Air Force marketing literature will tell you. It doesn't have to be OUR boots (Libya), but boots you need, and we're nowhere NEAR changing that. Pilots, OTOH, are rarely just poor minorities - they're very educated and have all kinds of post-career earning potential.
 
2012-01-05 11:43:15 AM  

Galwran: You know subby, there are other parts of military hardware that isn't "used" on a daily basis. Submarines and ballistic missiles for example. That does not make them useless; they might be needed some day, and having them might deter the other guys. (or force them to spend too much money for their own hardware)

But sure, it would have been interesting to see a F-22A over Libya, but apparently their radio systems etc are not combat ready. And then there is the whole loss of consciousness due hypoxia-thing which grounded the whole fleet. Having said that, the F-22A is a lot better than the fiasco that is the F-35 Lightning II series, which are, slow, short legged, loud and have a small payload; the list goes on and on. They are not even really stealthy compared to F-22As but are almost as expensive. The F-22A production line should have been kept open longer, same thing with the B-2s which are still the best bomber in the US arsenal even though only a handful (20 or so) were ever made.

Also the legacy stuff should be updated, because Super Hornets, F-16E's and F-15SEs pretty surely have a lot more firepower than a silver bullet airforce consisting solely of expensive, maintenance intesive hardware can ever have.


The F-35 electronics suite makes the F-22 look like an Atari Pong game.

OK, maybe not that big a difference, but it's a significant one. The F-35 BY NATURE has to have shorter legs and lighter payload: it has to do one thing the F-22 cannot: land on a carrier.
 
2012-01-05 12:28:17 PM  
fap
 
2012-01-05 12:29:16 PM  
The Raptor may be a piece of shiat, but I just saw two fly over, coming out of Dobbins ARB. They look pretty freakin' awesome.
 
2012-01-05 12:33:15 PM  
Fighters with people in them? You have to use your arms and legs? That's like a baby's toy!
 
2012-01-05 12:33:22 PM  

serial_crusher: Seems kind of spooky that it takes 18 years to design a plane. I know it's complicated and all, but that's not really a good situation to be in if we needed innovation in a pinch.


18 years?!

www.americaspace.org
Disapproves.
 
2012-01-05 12:33:53 PM  
I'm all for it, as long as only 1%ers pay for it:-.
 
2012-01-05 12:34:05 PM  
Looks a bit like the old Northrup/McDonnell-Douglas YF-23.
 
2012-01-05 12:36:07 PM  
There will be pilots, but they would not need big birds like the F-X. They will be flying from a bunker in their pyjamas. And if they want to go all Maverick and Ice Man, they can always go to the locker room and wave their dicks around.

You stay classy, Gizmodo. Wonder why nobody respects bloggers as journalists?
 
2012-01-05 12:37:39 PM  

vygramul: jaylectricity: War will never be reduced to remote control. The people in power will always need to send poor people to their death. Poor people are a lot cheaper than these expensive machines. The machines are just there to give people a small sense of security. That is necessary to keep today's kids willing to die for their country.

Well, you still need boots on the ground to win a war, no matter WHAT the Air Force marketing literature will tell you. It doesn't have to be OUR boots (Libya), but boots you need, and we're nowhere NEAR changing that. Pilots, OTOH, are rarely just poor minorities - they're very educated and have all kinds of post-career earning potential.


They're still 99 % ers.
 
2012-01-05 12:37:54 PM  

Aarontology: How much is this thing going to end up costing us?


I think it's like 1/10th the cost of funding for PBS. So let's see, 800,000,000,000 * .10 = 80,000,000,000.

Basically it's a steal compared to that cash whore Big Bird.
 
2012-01-05 12:38:00 PM  

serial_crusher: Seems kind of spooky that it takes 18 years to design a plane. I know it's complicated and all, but that's not really a good situation to be in if we needed innovation in a pinch.


Much like congress and the presidency, program leadership and political whims can change over the design cycle. This can change the requirements and that is what adds cost and time. This doesn't happen on every program, but high-profile ones it happens to more often.

It doesn't take 18 years for a dedicated group to design a plane.
It takes 18 years for a recycling political machine to design a plane.

There's a huge difference.
 
2012-01-05 12:38:26 PM  

jaylectricity: War will never be reduced to remote control. The people in power will always need to send poor people to their death. Poor people are a lot cheaper than these expensive machines. The machines are just there to give people a small sense of security. That is necessary to keep today's kids willing to die for their country.


Maybe that applies to grunts on the ground, but pilots are hardly the oppressed poor. Pilots cost a fortune to train and drones cost nothing compared to manned aircraft. Most pilots come from pretty nice backgrounds and have sweet and very lucrative jobs waiting for them as civilian airline pilots or contractors when they retire from the military. If anything, if you are desperate to blame all our problems on the ebil rich and not our out of control welfare state as you clearly are, getting rid of military pilots is an attack on the middle class.

But don't let that stop you from looking for you paranoid delusions of the ebil rich.

/we invaded iraq for oil to fuel our welfare state
 
2012-01-05 12:39:49 PM  
I'm cool about a new, sixth-generation, fighter jet. But, I am a little prejudiced.
 
2012-01-05 12:41:38 PM  
FTA:

The USAF and Lockheed Martin's objectives are: Greatly increased speed, longer range, extended loiter times, multi-spectral stealth, ubiquitous situation awareness, and self-healing structures and systems are some of the possible technologies we envision for the next generation of fighter aircraft.

They don't need no stinkin' plane, they need...

www.wallpapergate.com

/ ♫ Da, da da da da, da da da da, da da da, da da daa, daa, da da, da da daa... ♫
 
2012-01-05 12:43:41 PM  

Fear_and_Loathing: The B-52 has been in service for 57 years.


For some (completely irrelevant) perspective, the B-52 was designed in a weekend. (new window)
 
2012-01-05 12:43:54 PM  
The children at gizmodo are now experts at defense?
 
2012-01-05 12:45:04 PM  
Just use A-10s for everything. Stealth? No, the A-10 wants you know it's coming. Carrier-based operations? Ha, the A-10 can just slam into the ocean and swim back.
 
2012-01-05 12:45:41 PM  

vygramul: The F-35 electronics suite makes the F-22 look like an Atari Pong game.


Pong is awesome!
 
2012-01-05 12:48:27 PM  
But surely they'll work against all those Taliban and Vietnamese holed up in caves and forests! And what about those Iraqis we surely can't hit without a plane!
 
2012-01-05 12:49:51 PM  
whoaaaa...

How much does it cost? 465 quadrillion dollars? I'll take ten.

www.inquisitr.com
 
2012-01-05 12:51:35 PM  
It's all robot wars from here on out
 
2012-01-05 12:54:15 PM  

cgraves67: They will be flying from a bunker in their pyjamas. And if they want to go all Maverick and Ice Man, they can always go to the locker room and wave their dicks around. Even the United States Air Force is talking about this. The fighter UAVs, not the dick waving.

lulz


This.

/The Navy does the dick waving.
//HEEEEEyyoooooo
 
2012-01-05 12:55:25 PM  
The article defines the need while asking the question. The 6th gen fighter is targeted for 2030. The author says the Russians and Chinese won't have have a competitor for the F-22 for twenty years. Oh wait, that's 2030 too.

Why do people think we should go to war with comparable equipment? We don't want the outcome to be in question, ever. You field the high school football state champs, I bring LSU. You bring Boise St, I show with the Packers. Why on earth would we want a fair fight?
 
2012-01-05 12:55:54 PM  

vygramul: A colleague of mine predicted the F-35 would be the last manned fighter the US produces. I think he's not making a SAFE bet, but neither am I willing to categorically state he is wrong.


If we don't include the Super Tuscano, I think he may well be right. Take out the pilot and the plane gets smaller, lighter, and cheaper. Pilots can't be held at risk, so losing a drone doesn't then require a CSAR mission involving several other highly trained (at great expense) people who are themselves in significant danger. Without the CSAR infrastructure, costs go down yet again. Since no human life is at risk in the cockpit, we can dial back the survivability of the drones, allowing us to swarm the bad guys with easier to shoot down aircraft, but so many they can't hope to get even half of them (the "quantity has a quality all its own" argument).

With the way technology is going, there are fewer and fewer reasons to keeping humans in the cockpit.
 
2012-01-05 12:56:16 PM  
But what will we use when Space Nazis invade with their Giant Lunar built UFOs?
 
2012-01-05 12:56:29 PM  

RexTalionis: You know, I always wondered whether fighter jets, with human pilots within them, are even necessary anymore.

I imagine a future where air war is conducted by large swarms of drones, each swarm (not each drone) under the control of AI-assisted human pilots from afar. I mean, we have the technology. Why aren't we going there, and instead placing our men and women in harm's way?


I think a lot of that depends on whether or not we can keep the enemy from taking over the drone controls.
 
2012-01-05 12:57:21 PM  

Aarontology: How much is this thing going to end up costing us?


Not a dime. It's a picture on some Lockheed-Martin marketing material.
 
Displayed 50 of 303 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report