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.
Duplicate of another approved link: 7080991


(Mother Jones)   The US Air Force's new fighter jets can do everything, and by everything we mean almost nothing, including fly very much   (motherjones.com) divider line 351
    More: Asinine, fighter aircrafts, flight tests, F-16, F-35, air forces, F-15E, airplanes  
•       •       •

20468 clicks; Favorite

351 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-02 05:42:49 PM  
Warbirds thread!

www.asisbiz.com

www.richard-seaman.com

members.quicknet.nl

www.richard-seaman.com
 
2012-05-02 05:43:20 PM  
should have just crowd-sourced the damn thing like they did with the Euro-fighter which is supposedly every bit as fantastically awesome as the F-22 but cheaper and more reliable AND they got a bunch of countries to split the cost.

But that would be all socialisty I guess
 
2012-05-02 05:43:52 PM  
It may be because some of the best engineering minds in the world are working in advertising. Perhaps you've heard of the company:

http://www.Google.com/
 
2012-05-02 05:44:33 PM  

Oznog: I don't know much about the F35, but the Stealth Bomber was criticized as an extravagant, useless toy by many.

The A10 Warthog was first delivered in 1976. The Air Force didn't want it then, as loitering close-in air support wasn't what they did. It was relatively slow and absurdly cumbersome. Then they wanted to replace it with an F16 variant designed for the close-in air support. Didn't see combat until Gulf War 1991, when they realized it was the king of a modern battlefield.

The SR71 Blackbird would be easy to criticize too. I mean, such a piece of junk, it leaks fuel all over the runway because it can't seal its own airframe when cold. It lacks the technology of a $10 jerry can. So a person could readily conclude it's an ill-designed piece of junk that was never designed to actually be USED.


All three of those planes had carefully designed roles.

B-2- It's a stealth bomber. It can deliver a massive payload without anyone seeing it coming. But it's incredibly expensive and we can't use it in the rain. At least it does it job fairly well.

A10- It's a tough-as-nails close-air-support doombringer. Great armament and loiter time. Also isn't very expenive and the ground troops farking love them.

SR-71- Stealth spyplane that could exceed Mach 3.5. Very expensive, costs $300,000 per hour to keep it airborne. Originally designed as the A-12, but I'm not entirely sure if Lockheed ever seriously considered putting bombs on it. I know the YF-12 development was an interceptor, but that lacked maneuverability.

Basically, all of these planes are/were the absolute best in the world at what they were designed to do when they came out. The F35, OTOH, wasn't even designed to beat the F22, and it can't beat the F16 in a dogfight. It also isn't all that fast or stealthy, nor does it have long legs. What little stealth it has gets totally negated by exterior armaments and the fact that it needs massive radar blips to refuel it.

The F35 can't hide, can't bomb, can't fight, can't turn, and can't run.

To add insult to injury, we're not even getting the parts compatibility we initially demanded. We could have just ordered three different types of good, cheaper planes for a fraction of the cost from multiple contractors, creating competition. Instead we married this non-functional piece of shiat built around conjectural technology. The "invisible cockpit" HUD's supposed to have a latency of 40 ms MAXIMUM in order to work. They're still working at around 200 ms. So when a pilot snaps his head to the side, he's still facing forward. This will get people killed.
 
2012-05-02 05:44:36 PM  
The F-35 is the jack of all trades and a master of none. That is what happens when you try to build a plane to do everything, it ends up being mediocre. It is supposed to be a purpose built air force plane that can land on a ship and provide close in air support. Why does the air force want a plane that has had to make sacrifices to land on a boat. Why not build a plane that the air force actually needs and then another plane that can land on the boat, say like the F-16 and F-18.
 
2012-05-02 05:45:27 PM  
Did anyone ever see that movie the pentagon wars?
 
2012-05-02 05:45:33 PM  
ok, for the source whiners:

Link

foreign policy. that should be a fair enough source.
 
2012-05-02 05:45:46 PM  
Why do one thing right when you can do do five things half-assed.
~Ven-Dor, God of No-Bid Government Contractors
 
2012-05-02 05:46:51 PM  
Maybe it's because the engineers went to public schools, where they were packed in like sardines and spent all their time prepping for the next standardized test used to shame the teachers.
 
2012-05-02 05:46:51 PM  
We just have the tribes push the planes at each other.
 
2012-05-02 05:47:11 PM  

spcMike: Oznog: The SR71 Blackbird would be easy to criticize too. I mean, such a piece of junk, it leaks fuel all over the runway because it can't seal its own airframe when cold. It lacks the technology of a $10 jerry can. So a person could readily conclude it's an ill-designed piece of junk that was never designed to actually be USED.

The leaks are actually meant to be in there as the heat generated by the aircraft in flight causes the fuel tank to expand. Without the holes in the tank it would've over pressurized and burst.

But lets not bring engineering into this.


sounds like they didn't. I would think engineering would overcome such a problem without having it leak fuel.
 
2012-05-02 05:48:03 PM  

Happy Hours: spcMike: Oznog: The SR71 Blackbird would be easy to criticize too. I mean, such a piece of junk, it leaks fuel all over the runway because it can't seal its own airframe when cold. It lacks the technology of a $10 jerry can. So a person could readily conclude it's an ill-designed piece of junk that was never designed to actually be USED.

The leaks are actually meant to be in there as the heat generated by the aircraft in flight causes the fuel tank to expand. Without the holes in the tank it would've over pressurized and burst.

But lets not bring engineering into this.

sounds like they didn't. I would think engineering would overcome such a problem without having it leak fuel.


They did solve it in the most elegant way possible. Physics did it for them.
 
2012-05-02 05:48:27 PM  

Happy Hours: spcMike: Oznog: The SR71 Blackbird would be easy to criticize too. I mean, such a piece of junk, it leaks fuel all over the runway because it can't seal its own airframe when cold. It lacks the technology of a $10 jerry can. So a person could readily conclude it's an ill-designed piece of junk that was never designed to actually be USED.

The leaks are actually meant to be in there as the heat generated by the aircraft in flight causes the fuel tank to expand. Without the holes in the tank it would've over pressurized and burst.

But lets not bring engineering into this.

sounds like they didn't. I would think engineering would overcome such a problem without having it leak fuel.


PV=nRT

kthxbai
 
2012-05-02 05:48:33 PM  

Just another Heartland Weirdass: Did anyone ever see that movie the pentagon wars?


I heard they wanted to add portholes to the F-35 so the pilots could stick their guns out to fire at the enemy.

/I know a simple yes would have been fewer keystrokes.
 
2012-05-02 05:51:37 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: I call shenanigans. On source and reportage


bornyesterday: Shenanigans. When was the last time Mother Jones wrote an impartial anything


You could always follow the links to the actual articles.

LA Times

Foreign Policy

I mean, I know that's way more time consuming than just knee-jerkingly attacking the messenger.

And between the F22, F35 and the Osprey I really am wondering if we can actually effeciently produce a decent plane these days.
 
2012-05-02 05:52:55 PM  
Really, after decades of demonizing higher education and "fancy book learnin," and slashing funds to organizations like NASA (guess who tests a lot of new experimental aircraft), we aren't as proficient in science and engineering as we used to be. Gee, if only there were some way to fix this going forward.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-02 05:52:59 PM  

there their theyre: The F-35 is the jack of all trades and a master of none. That is what happens when you try to build a plane to do everything, it ends up being mediocre. It is supposed to be a purpose built air force plane that can land on a ship and provide close in air support. Why does the air force want a plane that has had to make sacrifices to land on a boat. Why not build a plane that the air force actually needs and then another plane that can land on the boat, say like the F-16 and F-18.


FYI - There are THREE variants of the F-35 - The Air Force is not making any sacrifices because their variant does not have the capability to land on a carrier, not does it utilize VTOL.

Before you start crying about something, try learning the facts. It can save you some time.
 
2012-05-02 05:54:34 PM  

fusillade762: Clemkadidlefark: I call shenanigans. On source and reportage

bornyesterday: Shenanigans. When was the last time Mother Jones wrote an impartial anything

You could always follow the links to the actual articles.

LA Times

Foreign Policy

I mean, I know that's way more time consuming than just knee-jerkingly attacking the messenger.

And between the F22, F35 and the Osprey I really am wondering if we can actually effeciently produce a decent plane these days.


today's aircraft are very complicated pieces of equipment. They take time to work out the problems. The Osprey is a perfect example of this fact.
 
2012-05-02 05:54:43 PM  

Oznog: I don't know much about the F35, but the Stealth Bomber was criticized as an extravagant, useless toy by many.

The A10 Warthog was first delivered in 1976. The Air Force didn't want it then, as loitering close-in air support wasn't what they did. It was relatively slow and absurdly cumbersome. Then they wanted to replace it with an F16 variant designed for the close-in air support. Didn't see combat until Gulf War 1991, when they realized it was the king of a modern battlefield.

The SR71 Blackbird would be easy to criticize too. I mean, such a piece of junk, it leaks fuel all over the runway because it can't seal its own airframe when cold. It lacks the technology of a $10 jerry can. So a person could readily conclude it's an ill-designed piece of junk that was never designed to actually be USED.


The difference between the examples you cite, and the F-35 is that when the B-2, the A-10, and the SR-71 were proposed, people criticized those designs for being extravagant and overdesigned for a mission that didn't exist. The F-35 is supposed to do every mission (a dubious prospect to begin with), and it can't do any of them. This isn't a case of the critics lacking vision. It's a case of the emperor having no clothes.
 
2012-05-02 05:54:54 PM  

there their theyre: That is what happens when you try to build a plane to do everything


Approves

history.defense.gov
 
2012-05-02 05:55:45 PM  
The F-35 has turned into a mess? F-111 engineers not surprised.
 
2012-05-02 05:56:41 PM  
What an F-35 that worked may have looked like:

farm3.static.flickr.com
 
2012-05-02 05:56:52 PM  

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Warbirds thread!

[www.asisbiz.com image 640x434]

[www.richard-seaman.com image 640x460]

[members.quicknet.nl image 640x480]

[www.richard-seaman.com image 640x460]


WWII plane porn. I could name them all: Corsair, B-24 Liberator, F4 Phantom, B17 Flying Fortress.
 
2012-05-02 05:57:24 PM  

chuckufarlie: They take time to work out the problems.


Then the people designing them shouldn't be getting paid while they're past the delivery date. And the problems aren't about complexity, they're about things not being done right.
 
2012-05-02 05:58:23 PM  

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Warbirds thread!

[www.asisbiz.com image 640x434]

[www.richard-seaman.com image 640x460]

[members.quicknet.nl image 640x480]

[www.richard-seaman.com image 640x460]


I see your warbirds, and raise you the most beautiful plane ever built.

upload.wikimedia.org

/love me some Spitfires
 
2012-05-02 05:58:23 PM  

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Warbirds thread!


Since you mentioned it;

www.seanmmaloney.com

My country hasn't built anything this nice in 50 years. All we do is buy American military hardware.
 
2012-05-02 05:58:31 PM  

Bag of Hammers: Why do one thing right when you can do do five things half-assed.
~Ven-Dor, God of No-Bid Government Contractors


For 5 times the money, too.
 
2012-05-02 05:58:49 PM  
thecarthatHomerdesignedforUnkieHerb.jpg
 
2012-05-02 05:59:24 PM  
When companies purchase lemons or have contracts that are somehow 100% cost added, they sue or fight tooth and nail to get as much back as they can.

When governments purchase lemons or have contracts that are somehow 100% cost added, they get people behind their keyboards defending their actions while simultaneously complaining about having taxpayer money spent on anything else. Or on the news.

I kinda wonder what would happen if the Pentagon sued for failing to provide what presumably was stated in the contract, assuming the bidding process led to some form of agreement. Would set an interesting precedent.
 
2012-05-02 05:59:35 PM  

fusillade762: Clemkadidlefark: I call shenanigans. On source and reportage

bornyesterday: Shenanigans. When was the last time Mother Jones wrote an impartial anything

You could always follow the links to the actual articles.

LA Times

Foreign Policy

I mean, I know that's way more time consuming than just knee-jerkingly attacking the messenger.

And between the F22, F35 and the Osprey I really am wondering if we can actually effeciently produce a decent plane these days.


The F-22 wouldn't be so expensive (per plane) if we looked at the manufacturing cost of each plane, or if we ordered more of them... it's disingenuous to talk about the "most expensive fighter get" when we spend all that money in R&D, then only order a few dozen aircraft.
 
2012-05-02 06:00:15 PM  

Don Bigles: TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Warbirds thread!

[www.asisbiz.com image 640x434]

[www.richard-seaman.com image 640x460]

[members.quicknet.nl image 640x480]

[www.richard-seaman.com image 640x460]

I see your warbirds, and raise you the most beautiful plane ever built.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x458]

/love me some Spitfires


I prefer the P-51D myself but Spits are right up there.
 
2012-05-02 06:00:41 PM  

jvl: Wait... a plane which has just been delivered a few months back might not be fully combat ready?

(Also: durr let's bog down our new design for the air force with stupidity like vtol for the marines)


You obviously are a connoisseur of durr.
 
2012-05-02 06:01:22 PM  
Why don't they just use their cool Transformer planes like the one in their recruiting ads?
They say "It's what we do every day".

Link
 
2012-05-02 06:01:23 PM  
But our precious national defense contractors all got paid, and isn't that really the most important part?
 
2012-05-02 06:01:24 PM  
How much money is saved because of the aircraft's stealth capability? A strike package needs no or fewer aircraft dedicated to SEAD and ECM/ECCM missions. So overall you need fewer aricraft, pilots, ground crews, spare parts etc etc.
 
2012-05-02 06:01:41 PM  

Happy Hours: sounds like they didn't. I would think engineering would overcome such a problem without having it leak fuel.


it's a plane designed and built in the '60s that still holds speed and altitude records 50 years later.
 
2012-05-02 06:02:51 PM  
What we have here is a failure to communicate that results are expected to follow money.
LOTS of money.
Lots and lots of MONEY!

Some would call it profiteering, but it is just old fashioned graft.
Money goes to contractors goes to cleaners goes to campaign and lobby payments to politicians goes to contractors.
 
2012-05-02 06:02:53 PM  

fusillade762: Osprey


To be fair, it sounds like they finally have the kinks worked out of that one. And I was always willing to give that bird a lot of slack since it's so unique. Revolutionary designs like that tend to kill a lot of people during development. That's always been the nature of pushing the envelope in aviation.
 
2012-05-02 06:03:31 PM  

fusillade762: [...]

And between the F22, F35 and the Osprey I really am wondering if we can actually effeciently produce a decent plane these days.


There is no incentive for any company in the MIC to produce a decent weapon. It's like big Pharma and other huge conglomerates: making a durable item doesn't generate cash flow. Making an item that is already obsolete by the time it gets to the customer will generate future income.

Also, like big Pharma: don't cure the disease, help alleviate the problem, but make sure the customer is forever using the product.

In the military case, the disease is fictional: an enemy state wanting to attack the US. Don't cure the disease by unmasking the fiction. Keep pushing the fear button and provide inadequate equipment to fight the figment-of-imagination next war.
 
2012-05-02 06:03:32 PM  

firefly212: or if we ordered more of them.


The USAF was originally planning on having 750 F-22's, with production starting in 1994. In 2004 that got cut to the final number of 187. Why the cuts? The project was way way over budget. Oh and it was introduced into service in 2005, only 11 years late.
 
2012-05-02 06:04:41 PM  

chuckufarlie: there their theyre: The F-35 is the jack of all trades and a master of none. That is what happens when you try to build a plane to do everything, it ends up being mediocre. It is supposed to be a purpose built air force plane that can land on a ship and provide close in air support. Why does the air force want a plane that has had to make sacrifices to land on a boat. Why not build a plane that the air force actually needs and then another plane that can land on the boat, say like the F-16 and F-18.

FYI - There are THREE variants of the F-35 - The Air Force is not making any sacrifices because their variant does not have the capability to land on a carrier, not does it utilize VTOL.

Before you start crying about something, try learning the facts. It can save you some time.


Yeah there are three variants but they still share a common airframe. And for them to do that, compromises had to be made to the airframe.
 
2012-05-02 06:05:23 PM  

ladyfortuna: Whether it's true or not, there goes my Lockheed Martin stock (all 4 shares of it). Thanks, jerk writers.


I am not so sure how much the market will react to Mother Jones "reporting" on military hardware.
 
2012-05-02 06:05:24 PM  

chuckufarlie: there their theyre: The F-35 is the jack of all trades and a master of none. That is what happens when you try to build a plane to do everything, it ends up being mediocre. It is supposed to be a purpose built air force plane that can land on a ship and provide close in air support. Why does the air force want a plane that has had to make sacrifices to land on a boat. Why not build a plane that the air force actually needs and then another plane that can land on the boat, say like the F-16 and F-18.

FYI - There are THREE variants of the F-35 - The Air Force is not making any sacrifices because their variant does not have the capability to land on a carrier, not does it utilize VTOL.

Before you start crying about something, try learning the facts. It can save you some time.


The AF is sacrificing, all right. They're lowering their combat effectiveness for the sake of some part compatibility with the other branches of the military.

It's like arming yourself with a Swiss Army knife instead of a machete because you might need that corkscrew at some point.
 
2012-05-02 06:06:30 PM  
Linking to a farking Mother Jones article about the US Military?

I suppose subby would recommend National Review for tips on the best courses for Liberal Arts majors to take...

/mega-facepalm
 
2012-05-02 06:07:00 PM  

Fuzzmosis: When companies purchase lemons or have contracts that are somehow 100% cost added, they sue or fight tooth and nail to get as much back as they can.

When governments purchase lemons or have contracts that are somehow 100% cost added, they get people behind their keyboards defending their actions while simultaneously complaining about having taxpayer money spent on anything else. Or on the news.

I kinda wonder what would happen if the Pentagon sued for failing to provide what presumably was stated in the contract, assuming the bidding process led to some form of agreement. Would set an interesting precedent.


Technically, the government should try these bastards for treason. Making claims to defend the country and them providing fraudulent weapons is tantamount to treason. Hang the lot.
 
2012-05-02 06:07:18 PM  

hasty ambush: How much money is saved because of the aircraft's stealth capability? A strike package needs no or fewer aircraft dedicated to SEAD and ECM/ECCM missions. So overall you need fewer aricraft, pilots, ground crews, spare parts etc etc.


The Foreign Policy article claims that the F-35s stealth capabilities are vastly overexaggerated. So...

chuckufarlie: FYI - There are THREE variants of the F-35 - The Air Force is not making any sacrifices because their variant does not have the capability to land on a carrier, not does it utilize VTOL.


I think the article's point is that the three variants all come from the same basic airframe design and that therefore the compromises are inherent in all variants. So while the Air Force version might not be able to use VTOL, it will still not be as good as it would have been if that requirement for the core design had never been there.

But then again, the validity of that argument depends on how much commonality there is between variants.
 
2012-05-02 06:08:25 PM  

Desquamation: Don Bigles: TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Warbirds thread!

[www.asisbiz.com image 640x434]

[www.richard-seaman.com image 640x460]

[members.quicknet.nl image 640x480]

[www.richard-seaman.com image 640x460]

I see your warbirds, and raise you the most beautiful plane ever built.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x458]

/love me some Spitfires

I prefer the P-51D myself but Spits are right up there.


Not really knocking the P-51, but I'm always kind of amused when it's held up as a great feat of American engineering, when it was designed by a German and was pretty useless until they put the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine in it. It's still a nice plane, though.

And speaking of Germans...
www.richard-seaman.com

/yellow-nosed bastard
 
2012-05-02 06:09:38 PM  
I find it amusing that any of you are taking a story about military aircraft in farking "Mother Earth News" seriously.

funnypagenet.com
 
2012-05-02 06:10:23 PM  
This is an arena where incremental engineering is the ultimate stupid.
 
2012-05-02 06:10:38 PM  

insano: Luckily we can cut funding to NPR to offset fighter jet costs, right?


Not completely, but if we also stop all funding for Planned Parenthood we'll be in the black again.
 
Displayed 50 of 351 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report