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)   Strange bloodsucking outgrowth attaches itself to this F-35 belly   (gizmodo.com) divider line 100
    More: Scary, F-35B, fuselages  
•       •       •

13786 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 Jun 2012 at 10:50 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-25 10:16:41 AM
That plane has a lot of stealth sucking outgrowths.
 
2012-06-25 10:34:14 AM
Clearly its the Oscillation Overthruster!
 
2012-06-25 10:41:51 AM
I fully expected to see a Congresscritter mounted on the bottom of the plane.
 
2012-06-25 10:48:41 AM
It's nicked named the ex-wife
 
2012-06-25 10:56:22 AM
www.jeditemplearchives.com
 
2012-06-25 10:57:59 AM
i.huffpost.com
 
2012-06-25 11:01:52 AM

Ennuipoet: I fully expected to see a Congresscritter mounted on the bottom of the plane.


if they become airborne, we're all doomed
 
2012-06-25 11:02:39 AM
Is it this guy?

userserve-ak.last.fm

/hot like a Gatling gun
 
2012-06-25 11:07:32 AM

Marcus Aurelius: That plane has a lot of stealth sucking outgrowths.


Well you pay one defense contractor billions for stealthy design and materials.
Then you pay another one millions to stick non stealthy hardpoints on it.

It kind of makes sense in a way though. You can send it up with no external hardpoints to do stealth bombing missions or stalk and kill enemy fighters. Then once you own the airspace, you can load the sucker up and have some fun. I'd imagine when the war started, the F-35s would be flying with internal ordnance only. Once they're doing ground support later in the war (with the hostile fighters and SAMS all blown away), you don't really need stealth. Any man portable missile coming up at you is likely targeting the heat signature, not your radar signature.

/also supposedly the final version of the gun pod will be stealthy
 
2012-06-25 11:08:17 AM
An avionics pod tracking flight information and broadcasting it back to an operations center that monitors test flights?
 
2012-06-25 11:09:01 AM
3300 25mm rounds per minute


so that's about 50 25MM (about an inch) ROUNDS PER SECOND.

that'll leave a mark, as they say.
 
2012-06-25 11:13:21 AM

rickythepenguin: 3300 25mm rounds per minute


so that's about 50 25MM (about an inch) ROUNDS PER SECOND.

that'll leave a mark, as they say.


The pod only carries 220 rounds. So it's bad form to hold the trigger down for extended periods of time.
 
2012-06-25 11:13:39 AM
Meh. My Subaru has one of those on it's roof, with a big "Thule" logo on it.

For stealth.
 
2012-06-25 11:14:09 AM

Inquisitive Inquisitor: An avionics pod tracking flight information and broadcasting it back to an operations center that monitors test flights?


This is my guess...

Also, there needed to be an article about this?!? It looks totally mundane...
 
2012-06-25 11:14:54 AM
When are we going to learn that you cannot have a fighter without a gun?

farkin idiots.
 
2012-06-25 11:15:49 AM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-06-25 11:16:08 AM

Perlin Noise: Inquisitive Inquisitor: An avionics pod tracking flight information and broadcasting it back to an operations center that monitors test flights?

This is my guess...

Also, there needed to be an article about this?!? It looks totally mundane...


They say its a cannon because the F-35 has no room for an internal cannon.

Also, military is beginning to think that you don't need guns on fighters again.
 
2012-06-25 11:17:03 AM

ha-ha-guy: Then once you own the airspace, you can load the sucker up and have some fun.


This made me giggle.

Thank you
 
2012-06-25 11:17:37 AM
www.photohome.com

Farts in it's general direction
 
2012-06-25 11:18:13 AM

Marcus Aurelius: That plane has a lot of stealth sucking outgrowths.


You only need stealth for the first couple of waves. Once the enemy air-defense systems are down, you break out the hard-points so you can carry more ordnance. Without the ability to externally mount weapons, you're severely limiting your capabilities when it's really not necessary, which means you'd need more planes.
 
2012-06-25 11:25:34 AM

ha-ha-guy: You can send it up with no external hardpoints to do stealth bombing missions or stalk and kill enemy fighters. Then once you own the airspace, you can load the sucker up and have some fun. I'd imagine when the war started, the F-35s would be flying with internal ordnance only. Once they're doing ground support later in the war (with the hostile fighters and SAMS all blown away), you don't really need stealth.


Good point.

There's only so many radar sites and runways (for enemy fighters) out there. It isn't too hard to knock those back with aircraft configured for greater stealth. I'd even expect us to use B-2s, cruise missiles, or even stealthy drones for the hairy ones.

By the time we're loading the aircraft for bear, the majority of the radar sites and enemy aircraft will be gone or more readily evaded. Also, stealth on planes like this isn't so much to go downtown and drop a bomb in a very heavily defended airspace anymore. We'll be using drones for that in the near future. It's more to gain a bit of advantage over enemy defenses... if they can still detect you, but at only 25% of the range over a F-15 or F-16, well, that's a 75% increased chance you can find that poor bastard and shoot him to hell and gone before he even knows you're there.
 
2012-06-25 11:26:48 AM

fluffy2097: Perlin Noise: Inquisitive Inquisitor: An avionics pod tracking flight information and broadcasting it back to an operations center that monitors test flights?

This is my guess...

Also, there needed to be an article about this?!? It looks totally mundane...

They say its a cannon because the F-35 has no room for an internal cannon.

Also, military is beginning to think that you don't need guns on fighters again.


The standard F-35 does mount an internal cannon. They had to cut weight off the STOL F-35, so they removed the cannon as an internal install option. Since the STOL carrier is the carrier version it makes sense. There are a lot of cases were you send the carrier based F-35 on a ship strike mission and the enemy doesn't have air cover since they lack a carrier/are far from land. In those cases the cannon would be unneeded mass.

It will also be the one used on America's amphibs, so it will see lots of ground support duties where 5 seconds of 25mm isn't all that terrible useful. Cluster bombs on the enemy make the grunts a lot happer than a bullshiat strafing run/
 
2012-06-25 11:27:24 AM

fluffy2097: They say its a cannon because the F-35 has no room for an internal cannon.


The F-35B and F-35C versions do not have internal space for a gun. These are concessions made for the Marine version to get the STOVL and the Navy version (not sure why they excluded it on this version).

The primary model, the F-35A, has an internal 25mm 4 barrel Gatling gun.
 
2012-06-25 11:27:49 AM
Hehe, "hardpoint"
 
2012-06-25 11:27:55 AM

fluffy2097: When are we going to learn that you cannot have a fighter without a gun?

farkin idiots.


Didnt we do that in Vietnam... and it turned out POORLY?
 
2012-06-25 11:32:04 AM

Fish in a Barrel: Marcus Aurelius: That plane has a lot of stealth sucking outgrowths.

You only need stealth for the first couple of waves. Once the enemy air-defense systems are down, you break out the hard-points so you can carry more ordnance. Without the ability to externally mount weapons, you're severely limiting your capabilities when it's really not necessary, which means you'd need more planes.


Four AMRAAMS and a gatling gun aren't going to take out very many SAM sites.
 
2012-06-25 11:33:02 AM

Farking Canuck: fluffy2097: They say its a cannon because the F-35 has no room for an internal cannon.

The F-35B and F-35C versions do not have internal space for a gun. These are concessions made for the Marine version to get the STOVL and the Navy version (not sure why they excluded it on this version).

The primary model, the F-35A, has an internal 25mm 4 barrel Gatling gun.


I always thought that the Marines and Navy preferred it when the guns were loaded internally.
 
2012-06-25 11:33:19 AM

ha-ha-guy: /also supposedly the final version of the gun pod will be stealthy


And be $100 Billion over budget.
And deliver sometime in the early 3100's.

But hey, someone might be cheating us out of a $15,000/ year welfare check. Burn them!
 
2012-06-25 11:33:27 AM

liverpoolumd: fluffy2097: When are we going to learn that you cannot have a fighter without a gun?

farkin idiots.

Didnt we do that in Vietnam... and it turned out POORLY?


Since im sure you read neither the article nor the other 6 answers to the question you brought up:
The USAF version has an internal cannon

TO ALLOW THE AIRCRAFT TO MEET THE WEIGHT SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE STOL VERSION THE MARINES AND NAVY WILL USE, THE INTERNAL CANNON WAS OMMITTED.
the fact that they already have a gun pod ready and waiting is proof enough that they know the plane will need a cannon.
 
2012-06-25 11:34:05 AM

liverpoolumd: fluffy2097: When are we going to learn that you cannot have a fighter without a gun?

farkin idiots.

Didnt we do that in Vietnam... and it turned out POORLY?


The defense contractors LOVE this plane, and that's what really matters.
 
2012-06-25 11:35:27 AM

Subtle_Canary: liverpoolumd: fluffy2097: When are we going to learn that you cannot have a fighter without a gun?

farkin idiots.

Didnt we do that in Vietnam... and it turned out POORLY?

Since im sure you read neither the article nor the other 6 answers to the question you brought up:
The USAF version has an internal cannon

TO ALLOW THE AIRCRAFT TO MEET THE WEIGHT SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE STOL VERSION THE MARINES AND NAVY WILL USE, THE INTERNAL CANNON WAS OMMITTED.
the fact that they already have a gun pod ready and waiting is proof enough that they know the plane will need a cannon.


...which will make it too heavy to meet mission requirements. But no matter, the contractors are all getting paid, so it's all good.
 
2012-06-25 11:38:13 AM

akula: We'll be using drones for that in the near future.


Indeed. Drones and cruise missiles are cheap and it is really only an added bonus if the drone comes back. Losing a couple million in drones here and a couple million there isn't a big deal compared to millions dollars worth of fighter and a pilot who took years (and millions) to train. I personally always assumed the F-35's stealth features are there for the days when the pilots are flying around and suddenly that one SAM site (or Su-27) we missed flicks its radar on. It gives the pilots the option to quick dump all the external hardware, increase their stealth profile, and get the hell out of there. In the case we're you're loaded up with GBUs and a Su-27 appears, go to stealth mode and bail. Same for when you have a bunch of AAMs and some SAM site pops online right below you.

As you said if we really need stealth we'll get the dedicated stealth bomber or throw expendable munitions at the problem until it goes away. Plus they're building a next gen B-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-Generation_Bomber) and I'm sure we'll make a drone version of it as well.
 
2012-06-25 11:41:15 AM

Marcus Aurelius: ...which will make it too heavy to meet mission requirements. But no matter, the contractors are all getting paid, so it's all good.


Umh no. It merely makes the mass of the gun pod easily removable should you want something else there for the mission profile. It's a lot easier to unbolt an external gun pod and an internal one. It's also hard to shove some extra Storm Shadow cruise missiles into the spot where the internal gun pod was.

The STOL version does take off with less mass than the standard version. Thus the gun pod's mass was made optional on it, rather than standard.
 
2012-06-25 11:44:37 AM

ha-ha-guy: Marcus Aurelius: ...which will make it too heavy to meet mission requirements. But no matter, the contractors are all getting paid, so it's all good.

Umh no. It merely makes the mass of the gun pod easily removable should you want something else there for the mission profile. It's a lot easier to unbolt an external gun pod and an internal one. It's also hard to shove some extra Storm Shadow cruise missiles into the spot where the internal gun pod was.

The STOL version does take off with less mass than the standard version. Thus the gun pod's mass was made optional on it, rather than standard.


You know what else is really funny? The F-35 was supposed to be a cheaper alternative to the F-22, and it's ended up being 1/3 to 1/2 more expensive.

This thing has "boondoggle" written all over it.
 
2012-06-25 11:45:09 AM

fluffy2097: When are we going to learn that you cannot have a fighter without a gun?

farkin idiots.



To be fair, that's not a gun for air-to-air, it's a ground attack weapon. It makes sense to me, since dogfighting seems to not be quite what it used to be...
 
2012-06-25 11:47:53 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Subtle_Canary: liverpoolumd: fluffy2097: When are we going to learn that you cannot have a fighter without a gun?

farkin idiots.

Didnt we do that in Vietnam... and it turned out POORLY?

Since im sure you read neither the article nor the other 6 answers to the question you brought up:
The USAF version has an internal cannon

TO ALLOW THE AIRCRAFT TO MEET THE WEIGHT SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE STOL VERSION THE MARINES AND NAVY WILL USE, THE INTERNAL CANNON WAS OMMITTED.
the fact that they already have a gun pod ready and waiting is proof enough that they know the plane will need a cannon.

...which will make it too heavy to meet mission requirements. But no matter, the contractors are all getting paid, so it's all good.


Sigh.

The Marine requirements state the aircraft must be able to do a STOVL. including the internal gun keeps it from doing that in any and all respects.
The Marines understand that, just like with the Harriers, you wont always NEED a STOVL capability, in which case it would be prudent to have a means of loading the aircraft for bear. Just like the AV8B was often loaded with so many weapons it was restricted to CTOL operations so to will the F35.

So you have an aircraft now that, when necessary, can perform STOVL operations, and when it doesnt, can be quickly configured with an external gunpod and external ordnance.

now what seems to be the problem here?
 
2012-06-25 11:49:54 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Fish in a Barrel: Marcus Aurelius: That plane has a lot of stealth sucking outgrowths.

You only need stealth for the first couple of waves. Once the enemy air-defense systems are down, you break out the hard-points so you can carry more ordnance. Without the ability to externally mount weapons, you're severely limiting your capabilities when it's really not necessary, which means you'd need more planes.

Four AMRAAMS and a gatling gun aren't going to take out very many SAM sites.


The F-35 can carry air to ground store internally.
 
2012-06-25 11:52:26 AM

Subtle_Canary: Marcus Aurelius: Subtle_Canary: liverpoolumd: fluffy2097: When are we going to learn that you cannot have a fighter without a gun?

farkin idiots.

Didnt we do that in Vietnam... and it turned out POORLY?

Since im sure you read neither the article nor the other 6 answers to the question you brought up:
The USAF version has an internal cannon

TO ALLOW THE AIRCRAFT TO MEET THE WEIGHT SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE STOL VERSION THE MARINES AND NAVY WILL USE, THE INTERNAL CANNON WAS OMMITTED.
the fact that they already have a gun pod ready and waiting is proof enough that they know the plane will need a cannon.

...which will make it too heavy to meet mission requirements. But no matter, the contractors are all getting paid, so it's all good.

Sigh.

The Marine requirements state the aircraft must be able to do a STOVL. including the internal gun keeps it from doing that in any and all respects.
The Marines understand that, just like with the Harriers, you wont always NEED a STOVL capability, in which case it would be prudent to have a means of loading the aircraft for bear. Just like the AV8B was often loaded with so many weapons it was restricted to CTOL operations so to will the F35.

So you have an aircraft now that, when necessary, can perform STOVL operations, and when it doesnt, can be quickly configured with an external gunpod and external ordnance.

now what seems to be the problem here?


The first problem is that trying to make one airframe perform three very different roles gets you an aircraft that is compromised in all three roles.

The second problem is cost-plus defense development contracts.

Think about this: the B and C models will have a fly-away cost close to a quarter of a billion dollars each. EACH.
 
2012-06-25 11:54:30 AM

Fish in a Barrel: Marcus Aurelius: Fish in a Barrel: Marcus Aurelius: That plane has a lot of stealth sucking outgrowths.

You only need stealth for the first couple of waves. Once the enemy air-defense systems are down, you break out the hard-points so you can carry more ordnance. Without the ability to externally mount weapons, you're severely limiting your capabilities when it's really not necessary, which means you'd need more planes.

Four AMRAAMS and a gatling gun aren't going to take out very many SAM sites.

The F-35 can carry air to ground store internally.


I did not know that. I guess that makes sense since it probably had to include stealth ground attack in order to secure the contract.
 
2012-06-25 12:08:19 PM
don't know why they didn't just mount the 30mm cannon the AV8B carries... THAT was a monster.
 
2012-06-25 12:09:07 PM

Marcus Aurelius: The first problem is that trying to make one airframe perform three very different roles gets you an aircraft that is compromised in all three roles.

The second problem is cost-plus defense development contracts.

Think about this: the B and C models will have a fly-away cost close to a quarter of a billion dollars each. EACH.


GAO says 135 million or so. Although that will adjust as other countries decrease/increase their order due to budget issues. Flyaway cost is cost to build + R&D/# built.

Total cost is 1.45 trillion per year for 50 years of service out of them and we get 2,443 planes out of the deal. That's total cost of ownership, so flyaway cost plus future upgrade packages over 50 years. That's the GAO numbers. Lockheed is lying through their teeth of course and claiming a fly away of 77 million, but all defense contractors lie.

For comparison, the Silent Eagle costs 100 million per unit flyway. So it only costs an extra 35 million to go from 4.5 gen fighter to 5 gen fighter.

I know wiki has higher fly aways, but look at their sources. Single year military budgets. Right now the 2012 and 2013 budgets have a lot of front load costs and the fighters we're buying cost more. We only have 63 in service and we're paying extra for the testbed ones. So they have an above average flyaway cost due to the part of the formula that is R&D Cost/# Built. Once we enter mass production for the 2016 delivery date, Number Built goes up and the flyaway drops.

GAO 2012 figures: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE8 2S03L20120329

Basically right now the unit cost is so high because we're not buying many and a lot of the R&D is front loaded since the fighters are undergoing proving and fine tuning right now. Large scale production will drop the fly away cost.
 
2012-06-25 12:10:49 PM

prjindigo: don't know why they didn't just mount the 30mm cannon the AV8B carries... THAT was a monster.


Every AV-8B I ever saw had a 25mm Equalizer on it, which is what the F-35 has (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-12_Equalizer).
 
2012-06-25 12:14:51 PM

Nurglitch: Farking Canuck: fluffy2097: They say its a cannon because the F-35 has no room for an internal cannon.

The F-35B and F-35C versions do not have internal space for a gun. These are concessions made for the Marine version to get the STOVL and the Navy version (not sure why they excluded it on this version).

The primary model, the F-35A, has an internal 25mm 4 barrel Gatling gun.

I always thought that the Marines and Navy preferred it when the guns were loaded internally.


You are correct: The Navy & USMC never gave up their guns when the USAF
was all about the 'gunless' fighters. Practical experience in Vietnam and in
the various Arab/Israeli wars showed that even at transonic speeds having
a weapon that you could fire quickly was a great advantage, and AFAIR those
lessons have remained ingrained.

The only exception to this that I can recall (apart from the F-35) was the AV-8
Harrier, which has a semi-recessed cannon pod which is optimized for ground
strike rather than air combat. It does, however, carry a couple of Sidewinders
for that role, though. Since the F-35's VSTOL variant is intended to take over
the duties of the Harrier, having it mimic the successful weapon configuration
of its predecessor makes sense.

So, this isn't necessarily a boondoggle in theory, but it sure looks like
something got messed up in application, since it is a pretty ugly and obvious
add-on, unlike the Harrier's mountings.
 
2012-06-25 12:16:15 PM

ha-ha-guy: rickythepenguin: 3300 25mm rounds per minute


so that's about 50 25MM (about an inch) ROUNDS PER SECOND.

that'll leave a mark, as they say.

The pod only carries 220 rounds. So it's bad form to hold the trigger down for extended periods of time.


I've wondered why we're still going after higher rates of fire. The army realized long ago that full auto is just a waste of ammunition so the weapons soldiers carry today are configured to fire short bursts, not empty the clip with a single trigger pull. It seems to me that if you want to have an effective weapon, you are much better off putting 5 rounds per second on target rather than 50 "near" the target.
 
2012-06-25 12:20:51 PM

Subtle_Canary: now what seems to be the problem here?


The fact that the cost of one of them is roughly twice what it would cost to simply bribe the corrupt leadership of most shiathole countries to do what we want?
 
2012-06-25 12:21:16 PM

Mr. Eugenides: I've wondered why we're still going after higher rates of fire. The army realized long ago that full auto is just a waste of ammunition so the weapons soldiers carry today are configured to fire short bursts, not empty the clip with a single trigger pull. It seems to me that if you want to have an effective weapon, you are much better off putting 5 rounds per second on target rather than 50 "near" the target.


With aircraft cannons, the more rounds you can fire the more accurate you'll be. It's hard to account for inclination and windage when you're moving 250 knots.

With infantry, it's a different story.
 
2012-06-25 12:37:39 PM

Mr. Eugenides: I've wondered why we're still going after higher rates of fire. The army realized long ago that full auto is just a waste of ammunition so the weapons soldiers carry today are configured to fire short bursts, not empty the clip with a single trigger pull. It seems to me that if you want to have an effective weapon, you are much better off putting 5 rounds per second on target rather than 50 "near" the target.


Actually, while true for individual soldiers, the Army has been moving away from the individual soldier being the source of most of the combat power in favor of crew served weapons.

The difference is the amount of ammunition and the stability of the weapon. Basically, you don't have a soldier use an M-16 with a 30 round magazine on full auto from an unsupported position. Instead you have him use a M-2 or SAW mounted in a turret with a 200 round belt. Much beyond that and they'll break out the artillery, grenade launchers, tanks, and air support...

When it comes to planes, 'close enough' is about as good as you're going to get - you're frequently looking at 200mph differentials; it's not possible to line stuff up well enough for a single shot kill.

ha-ha-guy: Flyaway cost is cost to build + R&D/# built.


Incorrect. Flyaway is simply the marginal cost for 1 more aircraft, without research, without tools, maintenance, spares, etc...

Still, build more planes and flyaway still drops because more automation makes sense.
 
2012-06-25 12:51:11 PM

DrySocket: Clearly its the Oscillation Overthruster!


Interestingly enough, the overall shape was modeled after a watermelon under pressure

img59.imageshack.us

/What's that watermelon doing there?
//I'll tell you later
 
2012-06-25 12:59:50 PM

fluffy2097: Mr. Eugenides: I've wondered why we're still going after higher rates of fire. The army realized long ago that full auto is just a waste of ammunition so the weapons soldiers carry today are configured to fire short bursts, not empty the clip with a single trigger pull. It seems to me that if you want to have an effective weapon, you are much better off putting 5 rounds per second on target rather than 50 "near" the target.

With aircraft cannons, the more rounds you can fire the more accurate you'll be. It's hard to account for inclination and windage when you're moving 250 knots.

With infantry, it's a different story.


This. You're not targeting a slow/non-moving target on the ground. In the air, it's more about filling an area with rounds in a short period of time so you increase the odds that you hit a target when your closing speed is 400 kts+
 
2012-06-25 01:00:48 PM

fluffy2097: Mr. Eugenides: I've wondered why we're still going after higher rates of fire. The army realized long ago that full auto is just a waste of ammunition so the weapons soldiers carry today are configured to fire short bursts, not empty the clip with a single trigger pull. It seems to me that if you want to have an effective weapon, you are much better off putting 5 rounds per second on target rather than 50 "near" the target.

With aircraft cannons, the more rounds you can fire the more accurate you'll be. It's hard to account for inclination and windage when you're moving 250 knots.

With infantry, it's a different story.


Prima facie, what you just wrote is entirely wrong. The primary difference between an infantry soldier spraying a magazine toward an enemy on the move and an aircraft spraying 50 rounds at another aircraft (or ground target since that gun is more likely to be used in an anti-ground armor role) is that the infantryman is using his eyeball to target where the pilot has layers of technology helping him aim that gun. Once the pilot has selected a target, the computers should be refining the aim rather than relying on the "shotgun" approach.

We're not talking about a P-51 here. The difference between targeting in P-51 and an F-35 should be the difference between Sergeant York "wetting his sights" and Sergeant New-York using a BORS.
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report