What, having one destroyed by Bruce Willis and a bridge in Die Hard 4 didn't do anything for it?


More screencaps

I just had an awesome mental image of one of these hovering over a well with a rope connecting it to a child in the well and someone yelling "OK, now pull!" The child was, of course, cooked to a crisp by the jet exhaust.

vpb: Or for it to work. That would help.

And we're done. The damned thing should be called the F-35 Dead Albatross, as it's been hanging around Venlet's neck for far too long.

cgraves67: I just had an awesome mental image of one of these hovering over a well with a rope connecting it to a child in the well and someone yelling "OK, now pull!" The child was, of course, cooked to a crisp by the jet exhaust.

I'm ok if it was this child:

Still building battleships?

Anyone familiar with the F-111, or F-1-a-lemon if you prefer, is not surprised by this. The F-111 was supposed to be for the Air Force and Navy, ended up just an Air Force place, and except for the EF-111 variant, was pretty well a dud.

JohnAnnArbor: You mean one plane can't be all things to all customers?

*shakes tiny fist*

FormlessOne: vpb: Or for it to work. That would help.

And we're done. The damned thing should be called the F-35 Dead Albatross, as it's been hanging around Venlet's neck for far too long.


/would like the company

vpb: Or for it to work. That would help.

It suffers from the same problem all mega contract "one vehicle to replace them all" schemes do.
Making one thing perfect in all roles is expensive and challenging, and the bidding process is rife with corruption and politics. Eventually it will work, but not in a timely fashion and never at a reasonable price.
We could have had three sets of crappy but still awesom planes for a fraction of the price.
The F-22 should have learned us this lesson.

/that and the space shuttle.
/politics makes everything better...

I am pretty sure the F-35 is going to get all of the closeups and press it needs when it stars along side Captain crazy in the new top gun movie coming out.

Even Canada's Conservative government, which has sworn up and down that these things were crucial for defending arctic sovereignty (despite ruinous cost estimates and the planes not really being suitable), are starting to hint they might back out of the program. I'm not sure if that means it is horribly farked, or they're just waffling for political reasons.

It can incinerate children and puppies. Close enough.

The F-35A was supposed to be in service by this year. Now, according to story from a few days ago it won't be in service for the Air Force until after 2016. That's over 10 years after the first flight. And the F-35A was always planned, and appears to still be planned, to go into service first, with the Navy and Marines versions coming after.

way south: vpb: Or for it to work. That would help.

It suffers from the same problem all mega contract "one vehicle to replace them all" schemes do.
Making one thing perfect in all roles is expensive and challenging, and the bidding process is rife with corruption and politics. Eventually it will work, but not in a timely fashion and never at a reasonable price.
We could have had three sets of crappy but still awesom planes for a fraction of the price.
The F-22 should have learned us this lesson.

/that and the space shuttle.
/politics makes everything better...

But... we manufacturer a part in almost every state. You don't really want to lose jobs in every state do you?

JohnAnnArbor: WhyteRaven74: Anyone familiar with the F-111, or F-1-a-lemon if you prefer, is not surprised by this. The F-111 was supposed to be for the Air Force and Navy, ended up just an Air Force place, and except for the EF-111 variant, was pretty well a dud.

It was a reasonable tactical bomber.

It bombed the french embassy in Libya. Whoops... total accident, not because a guy hopped up on amphetamines was pissed France denied airspace and made the mission last 10 hours longer.

The terrain following radar in the f111 was awesome.

The goal of such planes is not to fly, it's to transfer untold amounts of money from the government to companies. And then when the planes don't work, it's bailout time. Private market, it works.

I don't mind spending tax dollars if something useful is obtained. Is this thing any good for anything besides killing people and blowing things up?
Is it even especially good for that?

Like it or not guys, but this program is almost ready for full production. Anyone interested in not wasting money, yet calling for for the F-35 to be canceled is a moron. The US and most of our allies are relying on these planes to go operational. Cancellation would throw half of NATO countries strategic plans into chaos, and cause the start of more new plane programs since new ones are needed no matter what.






Stop it with the F-35 derp please. If it was left up to fark, we also wouldn't have the Osprey, which is another awesome aircraft.

jso2897: Is it even especially good for that?

Apparently from some stuff floating around, it doesn't have the performance that was promised, has been reclassified from ultra-low observable to low observable, meaning that instead of having the radar cross section of a bird it has the cross section of a beach ball. And there have been other issues apparently.

They finally got an F-35 to stay airborne for 93 minutes!

/At Lockheed, they never forget whose money they're stealing.

Maul555: Like it or not guys, but this program is almost ready for full production. Anyone interested in not wasting money, yet calling for for the F-35 to be canceled is a moron. The US and most of our allies are relying on these planes to go operational. Cancellation would throw half of NATO countries strategic plans into chaos, and cause the start of more new plane programs since new ones are needed no matter what.

[images.defensetech.org image 490x350]
[www.aviationnews.eu image 600x400]
[www.patricksaviation.com image 640x336]


Stop it with the F-35 derp please. If it was left up to fark, we also wouldn't have the Osprey, which is another awesome aircraft.

[static.desktopnexus.com image 450x281]

It is nice to encounter a sane, rational AND intelligent person on Fark. I can leave happy.

jso2897: I don't mind spending tax dollars if something useful is obtained. Is this thing any good for anything besides killing people and blowing things up?
Is it even especially good for that?

It is especially good at protecting our freedom, our lives and our soldiers.

HotIgneous Intruder: They finally got an F-35 to stay airborne for 93 minutes!

/At Lockheed, they never forget whose money they're stealing.

The F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) jet AF-1 flew to Mach 1.53, the fastest-to-date speed of the existing aircraft fleet. AF-7 completed the longest test mission to date lasting 4.1 hours. Link (new window)

That was 9 months ago. Any other Derp?

I am sure they have done much more since then, but I don't care to look right now.

The following statistics reflect the cumulative flight test activity totals for 2011:

• F-35A CTOL jets have flown 183 times.

• F-35B STOVL aircraft have completed 166 flights.

• F-35C CV jets have flown 62 times.

From the start of flight testing in December 2006 through June 13, 2011, F-35s flew 971 times, including the production-model acceptance flights and AA-1.

way south: one vehicle to replace them all

But it's gotta have two different types of engines.

how does it do against IEDs?

*not very useful vs an insurgency.jpg

Because dropping $50,000-dollar bombs with a $197 million-dollar aircraft on guys who carry RPGs and AK rifles and live in caves and adobe huts is so cost efficient.

Gotcha.
Democracy, fark yeah!

Maul555: Stop it with the F-35 derp please. If it was left up to fark, we also wouldn't have the Osprey, which is another awesome aircraft.

How many troops did the Osprey kill before all the "kinks" were worked out?
Any idea?
Worth it?

/Democracy, hell yeah!

/V-22 Osprey: 22 years, $16 billion dollars, 30 dead.

Democracy, fark yeah!

tricycleracer: Maul555: Stop it with the F-35 derp please. If it was left up to fark, we also wouldn't have the Osprey, which is another awesome aircraft.

Should we be making major defense budget appropriations based upon "awesomeness"?

There's a good reason why the Osprey wasn't canceled after the accidents. It can move 20,000lbs of cargo or two dozen troops twice as fast as any helicopter.

HotIgneous Intruder: /V-22 Osprey: 22 years, $16 billion dollars, 30 dead.

Democracy, fark yeah!

Because new types of aircraft never crash, right? I'm sure there were no deaths involved with the development of the UH-1 or the H-21, right?

HotIgneous Intruder: Maul555: Stop it with the F-35 derp please. If it was left up to fark, we also wouldn't have the Osprey, which is another awesome aircraft.

How many troops did the Osprey kill before all the "kinks" were worked out?
Any idea?
Worth it?

/Democracy, hell yeah!

Probably a lot less than those who've died working out the kinks of submarines. Also drastically less than those who die in training accidents each year, the current average of that is I think around 500. Militarying is dangerous work, even just testing new equipment or training is potentially lethal. The fact is though, the Osprey, unlike the F-35 and F-22, is actually operational, used in real world missions.

shoulda gone with the boeing contract. now THAT was a cool looking plane

I'll say it again in case anyone missed it. We have no opponents currently that can threaten our current aircraft. Additionally, in 10-20 years(when this thing finally get flying) it will be unable to survive in a combat environment facing any competent opponent. It's a hand out to defense contractors and will never fill a role that could not be filled by a much cheaper and less advanced aircraft.

At high altitudes it's thermal emissions are going to stick out like a sore thumb, at low altitudes it's going to be fairly cheap to find it via it's aural emissions. For the price of this thing you could build dozens if not hundreds of fairly autonomous drones with one or two thermal guided missiles each and that ratio is only going to get worse as time goes on.

The F-35 simply cannot survive a confrontation with a modern opponent and is completely unnecessary against any non-modern opponent.

It is a gold plated coffin.

threadjackistan: I'll say it again in case anyone missed it. We have no opponents currently that can threaten our current aircraft. Additionally, in 10-20 years(when this thing finally get flying) it will be unable to survive in a combat environment facing any competent opponent. It's a hand out to defense contractors and will never fill a role that could not be filled by a much cheaper and less advanced aircraft.

At high altitudes it's thermal emissions are going to stick out like a sore thumb, at low altitudes it's going to be fairly cheap to find it via it's aural emissions. For the price of this thing you could build dozens if not hundreds of fairly autonomous drones with one or two thermal guided missiles each and that ratio is only going to get worse as time goes on.

The F-35 simply cannot survive a confrontation with a modern opponent and is completely unnecessary against any non-modern opponent.

It is a gold plated coffin.

lol... Liar...

Jubeebee: threadjackistan: The F-35 simply cannot survive a confrontation with a modern opponent and is completely unnecessary against any non-modern opponent.

but I was under the impression that the F35 could kick the piss out of anything short of the F22 in air-to-air combat.

The problem is that it's never going to fly against anything like an f-22 or s-35 or whatever else the russo-chinese are cobbling together for the cameras. If it ever goes into air combat against anything newer than a rusting MiG-29, it's going to be flying against unmanned drones guided by cheap and quickly deployed ground and air sensors. It'll be massively outnumber and out maneuvered by aircraft unencumbered by fragile pilots.

If they somehow manage to run out of missiles and survive running away from the hordes of cheap drones, if those are the planes we are depending on to defend our airfields then they'll never be able to get rearmed and refueled around quickly enough.


tl;dr
It's very simple math, if (# of enemy aircraft > # of defensive weapons) you lose.

If they have $1b and you have $10b, but their 1b = 1000 simple drones and your 10b = 100 advanced aircraft * 6 missiles each, you still lose. Even if every single one of your missiles kills an enemy, you're still out numbered 4 to 1 when you run out of ammunition.

threadjackistan: Jubeebee: threadjackistan: The F-35 simply cannot survive a confrontation with a modern opponent and is completely unnecessary against any non-modern opponent.

but I was under the impression that the F35 could kick the piss out of anything short of the F22 in air-to-air combat.

The problem is that it's never going to fly against anything like an f-22 or s-35 or whatever else the russo-chinese are cobbling together for the cameras. If it ever goes into air combat against anything newer than a rusting MiG-29, it's going to be flying against unmanned drones guided by cheap and quickly deployed ground and air sensors. It'll be massively outnumber and out maneuvered by aircraft unencumbered by fragile pilots.

If they somehow manage to run out of missiles and survive running away from the hordes of cheap drones, if those are the planes we are depending on to defend our airfields then they'll never be able to get rearmed and refueled around quickly enough.


tl;dr
It's very simple math, if (# of enemy aircraft > # of defensive weapons) you lose.

If they have $1b and you have $10b, but their 1b = 1000 simple drones and your 10b = 100 advanced aircraft * 6 missiles each, you still lose. Even if every single one of your missiles kills an enemy, you're still out numbered 4 to 1 when you run out of ammunition.

Yes, now can you please the countries that have or are developing and planning to field advanced drone fleets numbering in the thousands in the next 20 years?

No?

Shut the fark up then.

VRaptor117: threadjackistan: Jubeebee: threadjackistan: The F-35 simply cannot survive a confrontation with a modern opponent and is completely unnecessary against any non-modern opponent.

but I was under the impression that the F35 could kick the piss out of anything short of the F22 in air-to-air combat.

The problem is that it's never going to fly against anything like an f-22 or s-35 or whatever else the russo-chinese are cobbling together for the cameras. If it ever goes into air combat against anything newer than a rusting MiG-29, it's going to be flying against unmanned drones guided by cheap and quickly deployed ground and air sensors. It'll be massively outnumber and out maneuvered by aircraft unencumbered by fragile pilots.

If they somehow manage to run out of missiles and survive running away from the hordes of cheap drones, if those are the planes we are depending on to defend our airfields then they'll never be able to get rearmed and refueled around quickly enough.


tl;dr
It's very simple math, if (# of enemy aircraft > # of defensive weapons) you lose.

If they have $1b and you have $10b, but their 1b = 1000 simple drones and your 10b = 100 advanced aircraft * 6 missiles each, you still lose. Even if every single one of your missiles kills an enemy, you're still out numbered 4 to 1 when you run out of ammunition.

Yes, now can you please the countries that have or are developing and planning to field advanced drone fleets numbering in the thousands in the next 20 years?

No?

Shut the fark up then.

You think they're just going to tell you? I'm sure the Russians are just going to come out and say "Hey guys, stop wasting money on your expensive fighters, we're developing a counter-measure that will totally neuter them the first time they go toe to toe."

You do realize the Russians have about a thousand years more experience at this whole "espionage" thing?

Maul555: That was 9 months ago. Any other Derp?

The first flight was in 2006, they should've reached all those performance marks a few years ago.

change1211: Because new types of aircraft never crash, right? I'm sure there were no deaths involved with the development of the UH-1 or the H-21, right?

First flight 1989, introducing 2007. That's enough time to scrap the design, start from scratch and get something that works right.

beer4breakfast: It can move 20,000lbs of cargo or two dozen troops twice as fast as any helicopter.

V-22 cruising speed, 277 mph, payload capacity, internal 10,000 lbs, 24 troops seated or 32 troops floor loaded

CH-53E cruising speed, 173 mph, payload capacity, internal 30,000 lbs, 37 troops or 55 with centerline seats

What was that about twice as fast?

What's really scary is that we've put all our eggs in one basket, and since its an international effort others have put all their eggs in our basket as well. So we're at the point were it has to work and we've got to make it work because we don't have the time to start a new jet program. Ick.