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
    More: Asinine, fighter aircrafts, flight tests, F-16, F-35, air forces, F-15E, airplanes  
•       •       •

20469 clicks;  Favorite

352 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-03 05:45:26 PM  

dbrunker: MythDragon: Never bring a gun to a clank fight.

Girl Genius always gets a vote.


QFT.

Wicked Chinchilla: You want to biatch about a useless program that isn't going anywhere biatch about LCS. DD-1000


FTFY.

The Little Crappy Ship is a mediocre small combatant but it's better than no small escort ships, which is the alternative.

The Zumwalt class are going to be white elephant test beds at best.

"OK, let's build a ship with an unstable hull design that sacrifices survivability for a small increase in stealth, and pack it with entirely new, unproven systems. What could possibly go wrong?"


/spent a career in the Navy
//couldn't pay me enough to go into battle with either ship
 
2012-05-04 07:47:49 AM  

WhyteRaven74: The F-16 has as far as I know a better turn rate/turn radius. Also it has a better thrust to weight ratio and lower wing loading. So it should have a better climb rate than the F-35. Given that and that the F-35 doesn't have thrust vectoring, really no reason to not take the F-16.


Woosh. That's the sound of an F-35 pulling the joke over your head in a closed bay. Gun, knife fight, etc.

Beyond that, my point isn't that the F-35 was better or worse than the F-16, or that one or the other would win in a dogfight, it's that they aren't the same type of weapon, and if you pick the wrong type of weapon for your battle the particular statistics you're comparing are probably irrelevant. Bows and arrows have much better logistical performance than guns because the components are reusable and can often be improvised in-situ if necessary, but generally speaking I'd still rather have a gun.

BTW: Are dogfights still really a thing when you've got air-to-air missiles that have an order of magnitude more speed and maneuverability and than any plane, and an engagement range that's at least 10s of seconds of flight time from your target? I feel like you've already lost if you get into a scenario where the turning radius of your plane becomes a factor. But I'm not up on modern military aviation, so maybe I'm missing something.
 
Displayed 2 of 352 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 »
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