Do you have adblock enabled?
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 06:11:13 PM  

hdhale: I find it amusing that any of you are taking a story about military aircraft in farking "Mother Earth News" seriously.

[funnypagenet.com image 574x341]


It is a story about your money.
The plane, the plane, boss, is just windowdressing.
 
2012-05-02 06:11:19 PM  
I've been pondering this. What would happen if the US government suddenly just canceled the F35 contract because it didn't get what it paid for, and canceled a few other contracts as well?

Lockheed's stock price would crash.

Then the government could buy up the stock for pennies on the dollar, resume the contract, and fire every non-engineer who fisted the American taxpayer.

After all, national defense isn't governed by the market. Why do we seek a market-based solution?

Nationalize national defense. And don't give me any of that "but all the good engineers go into the private sector!" garbage. NASA gets plenty of great engineers. Hell, if we cut out the profiteers, we could afford to pay the engineers more anyway.
 
2012-05-02 06:13:03 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: . Revolutionary designs like that tend to kill a lot of people during development.


upload.wikimedia.org

The Bell XV-3, first flight 1955, continued being flown until 1966.

upload.wikimedia.org

Bell XV-15, first flight 1977, flew until 2003.

Two of each were built, and in each case one was damaged yet in both cases the pilots were only injured and in the case of the XV-15 the incident was due a loose bolt, not anything to do with the actual design. And it was the success of the XV-15 that lead to the V-22 program.
 
2012-05-02 06:13:51 PM  
i see the defense industry apologists have shown up to ignore the LA times and FP links and just "lol mother jones"

i see nobody is able to effectively defend that this plane isn't a massive pile of fail though.
 
2012-05-02 06:14:02 PM  
If you think next-gen air combat involves dogfights, please stop talking.
 
2012-05-02 06:14:28 PM  
WhyteRaven74: The F-35 has turned into a mess? F-111 engineers not surprised.

Nor are F-4 engineers
 
2012-05-02 06:14:59 PM  

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 was about to point out how stupid this is, then I realized who posted it. Carry on, you wayward troll.

firefly212: 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.


Problem is, the costs of the F-22 skyrocketed in all buckets. The R&D costs went through the roof, the promised capabilities needed more expensive parts than originally estimated, and the maintenance costs are farking insane because of the way they had to meet requirements. We could have ordered a thousand of them, and they still would have been ridiculously overpriced.

The procurement system rewards overpricing while producing a product with as little leeway as possible; once your foot is in the door and a contract signed, it's "more sensible" to increase the price 10% than to throw away 50% of the money by cancelling the program. So Boeing (or whoever) submits engineering change requests that change the currently priced option for X into option Y which fixes a bunch of problems but costs 10x as much.

The whole procurement system is a farking mess.
 
2012-05-02 06:16:05 PM  
...and finally, it was capitalism itself that defeated the corporatocracy.
 
2012-05-02 06:19:36 PM  

Riothamus: I've been pondering this. What would happen if the US government suddenly just canceled the F35 contract because it didn't get what it paid for, and canceled a few other contracts as well?

Lockheed's stock price would crash.

Then the government could buy up the stock for pennies on the dollar, resume the contract, and fire every non-engineer who fisted the American taxpayer.

After all, national defense isn't governed by the market. Why do we seek a market-based solution?

Nationalize national defense. And don't give me any of that "but all the good engineers go into the private sector!" garbage. NASA gets plenty of great engineers. Hell, if we cut out the profiteers, we could afford to pay the engineers more anyway.


Profiteers and Politicians are siamese twins, joined at the hip pocket..
Can't get rid of one w/o the other.
 
2012-05-02 06:21:06 PM  

hdhale: I find it amusing that any of you are taking a story about military aircraft in farking "Mother Earth News" seriously.

[funnypagenet.com image 574x341]


Umm, you can take it seriously when they're repeating the same thing as senior military experts. Don't white-knight the F35. farking thing's supposed to cost $1.5 TRILLION over its lifespan according to the latest (presumably low) estimates. We've already spent $400 billion on it since 2001.

To put that in relative terms, FOX NEWS (a source you'll love) claims that universal healthcare, assuming costs won't go down, could cost up to $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/18/universal-health-care-cost- trillion/

At least we'd get something out of universal healthcare.
 
2012-05-02 06:22:19 PM  

Man... with all these warbirds, I need to go get a picture of the Commanche in the hangar down the street. Am I serious? Yes. The most expensive and (still) flyable helicopter that was never used in the military and will rot in a hangar (not even on display!) in Alabama. Sad panda is sad. Got some crazy stuff out here, like a fixed-wing Chinook. You read that right.

Speaking of Sad Pandas: Air Force is looking to significantly downsize their A-10 fleet. As an Army guy that absolutely LOVES that ugly beast, I am entering a small depression at that thought. God I love close air support from that belching-vulcan of a bird.

img717.imageshack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
2012-05-02 06:22:29 PM  

Oldiron_79: Nor are F-4 engineers


Well the F-4 was supposed to be a Navy plane, then Robert McNamara decided the Navy and AF should have a unified force so the AF got it then. With the F-111 it was supposed to be for the Navy and AF from the start, just like the F-35 is supposed to be for the AF, Navy and USMC. In the case of the F-4, the first flight was three years after MD got the actual requirements for it and it entered service two years later. Not a bad development time. And then the F-4 was selected for the AF after a fly off in early 1962, and the next year the first plane actually built for the AF rolled off the line.
 
2012-05-02 06:22:50 PM  
Flying piano, and no shots of this yet?
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-02 06:23:05 PM  
cache.gawkerassets.com

These guys are the future, not the F-35
 
2012-05-02 06:23:21 PM  

elkev: A virtual flying piano, the F-35 lacks the F-16's agility in the air-to-air mode and the F-15E's range and payload in the bombing mode, and it can't even begin to compare to the A-10 at low-altitude close air support for troops engaged in combat

Is that because it wasn't designed to do any of those things?


Sadly the Fail-35 was designed to replace the A-10, F-16, F/A-18 and AV-8 Harrier. It dose poorly at all of there jobs. The Fail-22 was to replace the F-15 but since the Fail-22 was canceled the Fail-35 will be replacing the F-15 as well.

Some one needs to pull the plug on the Fail-35. The A-10s we have now are fine. Nothing is wrong with the F-16s we have now. The F-15 can be replaced by the F-15 Stealth Eagle. AV-8 are going to be hard to replace. The AV-8 get a major up grade to add things like Fly by Wire or we call Boeing and ask for the X-32 to replace the AV-8.
 
2012-05-02 06:24:32 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Fish in a Barrel: . Revolutionary designs like that tend to kill a lot of people during development.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x426]

The Bell XV-3, first flight 1955, continued being flown until 1966.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x487]

Bell XV-15, first flight 1977, flew until 2003.

Two of each were built, and in each case one was damaged yet in both cases the pilots were only injured and in the case of the XV-15 the incident was due a loose bolt, not anything to do with the actual design. And it was the success of the XV-15 that lead to the V-22 program.


Two designs and four whole planes. The paradigm wasn't exactly well explored. And IIRC, two of the Osprey crashes were manufacturing flaws, not design flaws.
 
Ehh
2012-05-02 06:25:23 PM  
The P-38: "1937 Army specification for an interceptor that could reach 20,000 feet in 6 minutes...appeared in force in the Southwest Pacific in mid-1943."

So the procurement system hasn't been corrupted since then?
 
2012-05-02 06:25:50 PM  

Don Bigles: 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 image 640x461]

/yellow-nosed bastard


I'd have gone with the FW-190 myself.
 
2012-05-02 06:26:01 PM  

Chief_ Danz153A: Man... with all these warbirds, I need to go get a picture of the Commanche in the hangar down the street. Am I serious? Yes. The most expensive and (still) flyable helicopter that was never used in the military and will rot in a hangar (not even on display!) in Alabama. Sad panda is sad. Got some crazy stuff out here, like a fixed-wing Chinook. You read that right.

Speaking of Sad Pandas: Air Force is looking to significantly downsize their A-10 fleet. As an Army guy that absolutely LOVES that ugly beast, I am entering a small depression at that thought. God I love close air support from that belching-vulcan of a bird.

[img717.imageshack.us image 640x425]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


I've never understood why the USAF never opened up a pure ground-attack pilot school for people who only wanted to fly A10s, and ordered more A10s. I mean, they don't go supersonic, A10 pilots probably don't need to be as well trained as fighter pilots (so you can lower requirements a bit). But in modern warfare, close air support is the most useful component of air combat. The Russians figured that out in WWII.
 
2012-05-02 06:26:03 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: 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.


The Osprey really is a good plane nowadays. It's the safest aircraft in the Marine inventory, by far, and is extremely capable. The only problem with it is the Air Force being dicks about picking air refueling that can refuel it; the Marines (and SOCOM) are buying shiatloads of Ospreys and want to buy more, but refueling them is a serious issue. You can't realistically put 100 Ospreys in, say, Guam without needing to ship them over by boat.

Seth'n'Spectrum: But then again, the validity of that argument depends on how much commonality there is between variants.


Quite a lot, considering if there were significant airframe variances they would each be designated something different than F-35. Most of the time (and there are significant exceptions), you can take one variant and convert it to a different one with minimal structural changes.

Riothamus: What would happen if the US government suddenly just canceled the F35 contract because it didn't get what it paid for, and canceled a few other contracts as well?


IIRC, there are two general termination options. The first one is termination for convenience, which gives Lockheed full termination liability to cover every single one of their costs up to that point as well as extra money to shut down the line, dispose of tooling, etc. In a T for C, Lockheed loses nothing but future profits. The other option is a termination for default, which is a kick in the nuts to the company as a whole; all of their contracts with the government are immediately terminated for default as well, and their company is prevented from entering contracts with the government for like 7 years. T for D is the nuclear option. That there's no option for the government between those points is one of the bigger problems with procurement.

/ianal, grain of salt, etc.
 
2012-05-02 06:28:37 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com

I had a guarantee military sale with ED 209. Renovation program. Spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it worked or not?

/surprised this hasn't shown up sooner
//hot
 
2012-05-02 06:28:58 PM  

BigBooper: Marcus Aurelius: elkev: A virtual flying piano, the F-35 lacks the F-16's agility in the air-to-air mode and the F-15E's range and payload in the bombing mode, and it can't even begin to compare to the A-10 at low-altitude close air support for troops engaged in combat

Is that because it wasn't designed to do any of those things?

The F-35 is designed to replace the F-16, F-18, and the (now defunct) Harrier jump jet. I'm assuming they're throwing the F-15 on the scrap heap as well.

Isn't that the problem? The F-35 is supposed to replace damn near every aircraft in the military.


That's part of the problem. Part of the problem is that the three variants make it massively multirole, and it's hard to engineer a product to do different things. It was tried with the F-111 and that also failed, although I think that the F-35 is closer to practicable than the F-111. There will be another round of redesign and delays, and it will all cost more money than we put into things like education. Oh, ah.

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


Well, yeah, Mother Jones reporting about military aircraft is kinda disingenuous, since they wouldn't be happy if the thing were successful. That having been said, I've watched this stuff my almost my whole life and the development and deployment of new planes has not really ever been something the military and their industry partners were good at. The B-1 was a boondoggle at inception, but did eventually become valuable/useful after a fundamental redesign for a different mission. The B-2 has a unit cost of $1B before adding in bells and whistles like development cost. The Osprey? Let's just not go there.

OTOH, the update programs have been relatively successful. LMCO just announced a new variant (F-16V) of the F-16, which first flew before I was born. The F-15 (first flew before I was born) were updated in 2002, and since the Air Force was basically told "no more F-22s", I wouldn't be surprised if there was another update, and the F-15 Strike Eagle is getting a stealth makeover. F/A-18 of course led to the F/A-18 Super Hornet.
 
2012-05-02 06:29:03 PM  
I THINK THAT THE OPINION OF SOMEONE A JOURNALISM DEGREE IS WORTH MORE THAN SOMEONE WITH DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN AEROSPACE EQUIPMENT AND TACTICS
 
2012-05-02 06:30:37 PM  
To be fair, the USAF didnt want the A-10 because back in the olden days the enemy was the USSR and it was assumed any battlefield it would fly over would be saturated with enough enemy anti-air assets as to make a slow bird like the A-10 a flying casket for any pilot tasked to fly it.

Then all of a sudden we started picking on 3rd world nobodies that couldnt put up a decent CAP flight to save their lives and the primary threats to the A-10 became getting shot down by its own fighter escorts.
 
2012-05-02 06:30:46 PM  
Welcome to "Design by Committee".

Every General level officer and high-ranking politician with varied level of interest in the different companies designing this plane stuck their hand into the pot, and we end up with "The Homer"
 
2012-05-02 06:32:04 PM  

Riothamus: 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


I hope you're not referencing the ideal gas law to describe the behavior of a liquid.
 
2012-05-02 06:32:26 PM  

Allen262: Some one needs to pull the plug on the Fail-35. The A-10s we have now are fine. Nothing is wrong with the F-16s we have now. The F-15 can be replaced by the F-15 Stealth Eagle. AV-8 are going to be hard to replace. The AV-8 get a major up grade to add things like Fly by Wire or we call Boeing and ask for the X-32 to replace the AV-8.


When I was working at Boeing, after we lost the JSF program, they laid out a new strategy. The plan was to double down on the existing portfolio of aircraft, improving them as relentlessly as possible, and then wait for Lockheed to go over schedule and over budget. The idea was that by the time the F-35 was ready to ship, the F/A-18 would do most of it's job, plus some things the 35 couldn't, with a proven track record, at only $40 million a copy.

I'm still not sure it'll work, but at least part of the plan has come to fruition.
 
2012-05-02 06:32:59 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: The paradigm wasn't exactly well explored


Explored enough the military didn't expect any significant issues. Then issues happened. There was a pretty good amount of flight test data, especially from the XV-15, when they decided to go for the V-22. On the other side there was the F-117 which was ordered up after the Air Force was impressed by the results of the Have Blue program, which was shorter and didn't ever get to produce as much data. The F-117 was a big departure from any previously built airplane and it was delivered on time and on budget. Then again it was done by Lockheed's Skunk Works whereas the V-22 was a joint project between Boeing and Bell, a joint venture that only occurred because the DoD told contractors to team up. Bell had figured they'd do it themselves, then partnered up with Boeing cause basically that's what the DoD wanted and well Boeing was willing.
 
2012-05-02 06:36:30 PM  

tlchwi02: i see the defense industry apologists have shown up to ignore the LA times and FP links and just "lol mother jones"

i see nobody is able to effectively defend that this plane isn't a massive pile of fail though.


Yup. Tried pointing out the sources but no one seems to be listening.


lazyguineapig33: I THINK THAT THE OPINION OF SOMEONE A JOURNALISM DEGREE IS WORTH MORE THAN SOMEONE WITH DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN AEROSPACE EQUIPMENT AND TACTICS


This phrase can be used for pretty much any industry. So if you're going to ignore 90% of all reporting where are you going to get your information from?
 
2012-05-02 06:36:33 PM  

lazyguineapig33: I THINK THAT THE OPINION OF SOMEONE A JOURNALISM DEGREE IS WORTH MORE THAN SOMEONE WITH DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN AEROSPACE EQUIPMENT AND TACTICS


The people with experience are facepalming hard these days and a few are going "I told you so".
 
2012-05-02 06:37:43 PM  
I like when they stop flying them, they're loud as shiat compared to an F-15
 
2012-05-02 06:39:00 PM  

rocketpants: Riothamus: 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

I hope you're not referencing the ideal gas law to describe the behavior of a liquid.


2.bp.blogspot.com

Have you ever boiled a covered pot of water before? The gas (OMG CONVERTED FROM A LIQUID) will find a way out.
 
2012-05-02 06:39:23 PM  
This pic was on Lockheed Martins website for a while before it got edited and swapped out. See if you can spot the awesome.
www.hrwiki.org
 
2012-05-02 06:39:28 PM  
F-22 that is. Dunno about the F-35, never seen one other than sitting on the ground.
 
2012-05-02 06:41:47 PM  

NutWrench: This pic was on Lockheed Martins website for a while before it got edited and swapped out. See if you can spot the awesome.
[www.hrwiki.org image 579x457]


It's the dicks, isn't it?
 
2012-05-02 06:41:53 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Fish in a Barrel: The paradigm wasn't exactly well explored

Explored enough the military didn't expect any significant issues. Then issues happened. There was a pretty good amount of flight test data, especially from the XV-15, when they decided to go for the V-22. On the other side there was the F-117 which was ordered up after the Air Force was impressed by the results of the Have Blue program, which was shorter and didn't ever get to produce as much data. The F-117 was a big departure from any previously built airplane and it was delivered on time and on budget. Then again it was done by Lockheed's Skunk Works whereas the V-22 was a joint project between Boeing and Bell, a joint venture that only occurred because the DoD told contractors to team up. Bell had figured they'd do it themselves, then partnered up with Boeing cause basically that's what the DoD wanted and well Boeing was willing.


You can have all the data in the world on one model, but that's not going to tell you what the general characteristics of a new category of aircraft are going to be. If they didn't expect to encounter some major road bumps, they were overly confident, IMHO.

Now the F-117 program was definitely well executed. You'll get no arguments about that from me. But then, it's Skunk Works. Who would expect less?
 
2012-05-02 06:42:20 PM  
Riothamus:
"I've never understood why the USAF never opened up a pure ground-attack pilot school for people who only wanted to fly A10s, and ordered more A10s. I mean, they don't go supersonic, A10 pilots probably don't need to be as well trained as fighter pilots (so you can lower requirements a bit). But in modern warfare, close air support is the most useful component of air combat. The Russians figured that out in WWII."

Are you implying the absolute "I WIN THE AVIATION INTERNETS" of the IL-2!? Because I agree!
www.warbirdphotographs.com


The A-10 is absolutely fantastic at what it does and it does if for far cheaper than the F35 EVER will. The Air Force thankfully has adopted more ground-support formal instruction for their pilots, so there is that. As far as them needing less instruction than a fighter pilot... egh... air to air is the easy part now due to modern munitions. Locking in on a poorly marked target and ensuring you don't hit 20 or so friendlies in a danger-close type mission... that's a big pile of colon-puckery. Strafing with this bad bird was also done during this war and that's even more of a colon-pucker as it's not guided munition *and* there are civilian worries *and* there are friendly crunchies in the area. Tough stuff.

As for other threads worth commenting on: P51 was amazing when mated to the Merlin. Still would prefer it over the Spitfire. P-38 was a sexy awkward beast too after they knocked out all the bumps (tweaked stuff like reversing the rotation of the engines due to some weird aerodynamic factors).
 
2012-05-02 06:42:48 PM  

Ehh: The P-38: "1937 Army specification for an interceptor that could reach 20,000 feet in 6 minutes...appeared in force in the Southwest Pacific in mid-1943."

So the procurement system hasn't been corrupted since then?


P-38s first started flying January 1939, entered operational service 1941. Part of the delay was debugging the shift in center of lift in high-speed flight, which was an unknown physical phenomenon at the time, causing control lock and crash. The engineers actually had to learn new scientific facts about the world to make the plane work.
 
2012-05-02 06:43:59 PM  

Riothamus: It's the dicks, isn't it?


It's motherfarking Strongbad!!
 
2012-05-02 06:44:37 PM  

Subtle_Canary: Then all of a sudden we started picking on 3rd world nobodies that couldnt put up a decent CAP flight to save their lives and the primary threats to the A-10 became getting shot down by its own fighter escorts.


Then, all of a sudden? Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Manuel Noriega, Maurice Bishop, et al. would like a word with you.

How about this compromise? "then, all of a sudden, we stopped worrying about the Soviets."
 
2012-05-02 06:45:43 PM  

brukmann: If you think next-gen air combat involves dogfights, please stop talking.


That's why they initially built the F-4 without a gun. They were wrong
Next time, it will be much, much different. But even at missile range, there will be shooting.
 
2012-05-02 06:46:10 PM  

azazyel: Back when Eisenhower was the President,
Golf courses was where most of his time was spent.
So I never really listened to what the President said,
Because in general I believed that the General was politically dead.
But he always seemed to know when the muscles were about to be flexed,
Because I remember him saying something, mumbling something about a Military Industrial Complex.
Americans no longer fight to keep their shores safe,
Just to keep the jobs going in the arms making workplace.
Then they pretend to be gripped by some sort of political reflex,
But all they're doing is paying dues to the Military Industrial Complex.
The Military and the Monetary,
The Military and the Monetary,

Gil Scott Heron, this is the full audio version


Ah, yes - the first rapper - and still the best.
 
2012-05-02 06:48:37 PM  
also posting some love for the A-10. its a FARKING flying TANK!! how can you go wrong with that?? and i thought they just did a refit for them to A-10c and added a bunch of digital bells and whistles. phasing out those gloriously ugly bastards is pure fail.

but maybe some farker with stronger military geek-fu than i can answer this for me...outside of europe and israel, who the fark has a military that can go toe to toe with our 30 yr old fleet of current jets? i haven't heard squat about a new mig in YEARS, so really, whats the point?
 
2012-05-02 06:50:28 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.


I love how it takes years to design one of these things while the B52 was designed one drunk weekend at a motel.
 
2012-05-02 06:51:10 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: elkev: A virtual flying piano, the F-35 lacks the F-16's agility in the air-to-air mode and the F-15E's range and payload in the bombing mode, and it can't even begin to compare to the A-10 at low-altitude close air support for troops engaged in combat

Is that because it wasn't designed to do any of those things?

The F-35 is designed to replace the F-16, F-18, and the (now defunct) Harrier jump jet. I'm assuming they're throwing the F-15 on the scrap heap as well.


The Harrier is not defunct just not in production. The USMC still uses them and purchased the UKs retired airframes and parts to keep using them.

Navy, Corps buying decommissioned U.K. Harriers

"The Navy and Marine Corps have agreed to buy Britain's entire decommissioned fleet of 74 Harrier jump jets, along with engines and spare parts - a move expected to help the Corps operate Harriers into the mid-2020s"

The F-35 programins a multi-national program. The F-35 Lightning II system development partners included The USA & Britain (Tier 1), Italy and the Netherlands (Tier 2), and Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Turkey (Tier 3), with Singapore and Israel as "Security Cooperation Partners."
 
2012-05-02 06:51:28 PM  

NutWrench: This pic was on Lockheed Martins website for a while before it got edited and swapped out. See if you can spot the awesome.
[www.hrwiki.org image 579x457]


Do I spy Strong bad in the cockpit?
 
2012-05-02 06:51:32 PM  
The Boeing X-32 Should have won the Joint Strike Fighter Competition, it was a far superior design and actually inovative and used new technology...Not just old ideas made more expensive and more complicated.
 
2012-05-02 06:54:37 PM  

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: 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.


No it's because the specs for this aircraft were written by a by a farking military committee. Remember the old saying, a mule is a horse designed by committee.
 
2012-05-02 06:55:02 PM  

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


You'd be wrong.

/The some of the best engineers in the world made that plane
 
2012-05-02 06:56:26 PM  

HeartlessLibertarian: The Boeing X-32 Should have won the Joint Strike Fighter Competition, it was a far superior design and actually inovative and used new technology...Not just old ideas made more expensive and more complicated.


Uh... what? The JSF contract explicitly called for no new technology. It was supposed to be as low-risk as possible. Boeing actually protested Lockheed's win, in part, because Lockheed's lift-fan was a new concept, which Boeing felt violated the competition constraints.
 
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 »
Advertisement
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