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.

(YouTube)   Footage of first F-35B nighttime take off and landing tests looks like something straight out of a sci-fi movie   (youtube.com) divider line 253
    More: Cool, F-35B, external fuel tank, goal post, F-18, nozzles, landing, hurling, sci-fi  
•       •       •

19978 clicks; posted to Video » on 06 Apr 2013 at 5:09 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-06 10:56:44 AM  

IronTom: Benevolent Misanthrope: Haven't the Brits been doing this for ages?

but the Harrier will burn the pavement


Both the Harrier and F-35 will melt asphalt if they hover over it.  The F-35 jet fountain is even stronger, and thus, the concrete requirements for VTOL pads are greater.  A Harrier's jet exhaust at the limit is 800C.
 
2013-04-06 10:57:00 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: muck4doo: DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

So, next conflict we get in just use nukes instead?

/Why is fark so full of stupid people?
 [img28.imageshack.us image 320x214]


I really don't know whether I should laugh or cry.
 
2013-04-06 11:04:56 AM  

Tobin_Lam: DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

That worked out so well until December 7, 1941. Besides, closing the bases is the last thing the economy needs. In some cities, the local base is one of the largest employers in the region. Not everybody that works on base is in the military.


You understand that Roosevelt did everything in his power to have Japan attack us, right?
 
2013-04-06 11:05:21 AM  

Dansker: Some of us Europeans have actually contributed to the development:


Yes, I know. The US has let you buy in to the tune of 10% development cost, giving you access to one of the most advanced pieces of military hardware in the world at a fraction of the cost we are paying for it. The reaction of you yuropoors has (of course) been to scream bloody murder about program costs and repeatedly threaten to cancel all funding and future buy orders. It's almost as if you desperately want to remain a military power with world influence, while simultaneously shuffling off all the costs and negative externalities onto the US.....

LewDux: Elegy: [i.imgur.com image 300x199]

[i49.tinypic.com image 368x516]


You. I like you. Enjoy.
 
2013-04-06 11:12:03 AM  

italie: StrangeQ: italie: DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

Unfortunately, the cuts you propose are keeping half of our country employed (directly and indirectly). I'd love for nothing more than the 14 trillion spent the last few years on blowing shait up to be re-directed to other things. The road map to get that done without putting out country into an instant poverty tailspin is more complex than the whole of congress could manage to understand.

It wouldn't really even be that hard.  A large chunk of that money goes into aerospace, so all we'd have to do is say "hey, aerospace contractors...I know we've been doing lots of stuff with making bombs and finding better ways to go faster and blow things up better, but we're thinking a change of pace.  Let's go to the moon, permanently.  Here's money, make it happen."  Then you would have all the same engineers doing essentially the same jobs but for a purpose not solely focused on war.

And what of the clerical, administrative, food service, janitorial, etc...

What of all the military who are there for the "3-squares and a bunk" but not prison aspect?

What of those that are there for the family housing?

What of the oil and munitions industries?

What of the linen industry?

What of the patch/medal industry?

Christ, the boot industry alone might implode.


So it's sound economics for the government to pay people to waste money? Think of all the money that could be available for small businesses to hire people or a entrepreneur to start a new business
 
2013-04-06 11:13:02 AM  
So, can someone answer an incredibly stupid question?

How the hell is that thing not leaving flaming craters all over the runway when it lands?
 
2013-04-06 11:13:31 AM  

IronTom: indarwinsshadow: lewismarktwo: spawn73: Elegy: [i.imgur.com image 300x199]

Europe is a continent, not a country.

Anyway, I know Americans tend to have massive inferiority complexes. But, what the hell are you talking about?

No no no, (US) Americans have superiority complexes, it's Canadians that have the inferiority complex.

Not in the slightest. It's a common misconception like saying the terrorists involved in 9/11 crossed the border from Canada into the United States. It was repeated over and over, and it's total bullsh*t. The average Canadian, like the average American, doesn't walk around saying "gee. I wish we had lots of military hardware and were just like Americans". Quite the opposite. Most Canadians don't trust Americans. We view you as openly hostile towards our country and trust you as far as we can throw you. We see your messed up economy, your messed up gun laws, your messed health care, welfare and retirement models as somethings to be avoided at all costs. Most of us think your politicians are antangonizing nut jobs who are out to screw the rest of the world out of anything they can get for personal gain. We see your war in Iraq as an illegal campaign and a war for oil that benefitted Cheney and Bush and friends. We see your bailout of the banks and car companies as enriching the rich and screwing the poor. The list is endless. And you and your fellow Americans are really seriously deluded if you think even for a fraction of a second we're jealous of anything (except maybe having warm weather in the winter in your southern states) you have....Dude. Do you get it? We're rich. You're poor in every sense of the word. Ever see anyone wishing they were poor? Actually, at best we tolerate you because we have too, not because we want too.
Is that clear enough? I'm sure there are millions of people who want to be Americans. They're just not from Canada.
Oh, and just for the hell of it. Your country is almost completely dependant on us for oil. You may n ...


Awww. You can't troll me so easy bro. Nice try though. I'd post the "I ain't even mad" meme but it's been over used on Fark, so I'll let it alone.
 
2013-04-06 11:13:53 AM  
It's a piece of sh*t that will fall short of the expectations of every one of the services that it's trying to please. It's a flying symbol of over compromise, broken promises, project overrun, and the sunk cost fallacy. It will be far more expensive and somewhat less capable than many of the aircraft it is supposed to replace.

But hey, it makes semi-entertaining youtube videos.

POS.
 
2013-04-06 11:14:35 AM  

2xhelix: Benevolent Misanthrope: Haven't the Brits been doing this for ages?

No.  Harriers aren't stealth and have top speed of 735 mph.  F-35B is stealth and can go 1218mph.  Plus they  have really cool green flames and lights.


/No, I'm not serious about last part.


It is "stealthy".
 
2013-04-06 11:18:20 AM  

Publikwerks: MurphyMurphy: n a parallel universe, that video could have been testing for a next-gen medical evac vehicle better than a helicopter in every way..


The Osprey is awesome as long as no one shoots/throws rocks or pointy sticks at it.
 
2013-04-06 11:18:55 AM  
The SR-71 was designed and built by a team of roughly 100 engineers. The JSF has 900 on the air frame alone...

/Skunkwerks is not what it used to be, but hey, it's a helluva jobs program
 
2013-04-06 11:19:10 AM  

Elegy: Dansker: Some of us Europeans have actually contributed to the development:

Yes, I know. The US has let you buy in to the tune of 10% development cost, giving you access to one of the most advanced pieces of military hardware in the world at a fraction of the cost we are paying for it. The reaction of you yuropoors has (of course) been to scream bloody murder about program costs and repeatedly threaten to cancel all funding and future buy orders. It's almost as if you desperately want to remain a military power with world influence, while simultaneously shuffling off all the costs and negative externalities onto the US.....


i1.kym-cdn.com

LewDux: Elegy: [i.imgur.com image 300x199]

[i49.tinypic.com image 368x516]

You. I like you. Enjoy.


Thanks
 
2013-04-06 11:19:52 AM  
MugzyBrown:
So it's sound economics for the government to pay people to waste money? Think of all the money that could be available for small businesses to hire people or a entrepreneur to start a new business

Not arguing that point in the slightest. I'm just making the counterpoint that not one person ever put in charge of those decisions could successfully navigate from point A to point B. Combine that with 400 people in charge having to come to a consensus road map, and well....
 
2013-04-06 11:25:29 AM  
Big deal.  Gimmee a Bic lighter and a couple of FiberOne bars and I can do pretty much the same thing.
 
2013-04-06 11:25:33 AM  

Elegy: Dansker: Some of us Europeans have actually contributed to the development:

Yes, I know. The US has let you buy in to the tune of 10% development cost, giving you access to one of the most advanced pieces of military hardware in the world at a fraction of the cost we are paying for it.


You are also going to receive the bulk of the combined production, and most of the money is spent in your country, so I'm not sure what you think is wrong with that.

The reaction of you yuropoors has (of course) been to scream bloody murder about program costs and repeatedly threaten to cancel all funding and future buy orders. It's almost as if you desperately want to remain a military power with world influence, while simultaneously shuffling off all the costs and negative externalities onto the US.....

I can't see that any of that applies to Denmark, but I expect you'll be happy to explain.
I'm not sure any part of that rant applies to Denmar.

LewDux: Elegy: [i.imgur.com image 300x199]

[i49.tinypic.com image 368x516]

You. I like you. Enjoy.
 
2013-04-06 11:26:26 AM  
Damn editing fail!
 
2013-04-06 11:43:06 AM  

randomjsa: In this thread...

Morons who have no idea what the world will be like 20-30 years from now think we should stop developing better air craft that first came in to wide use 10-20 years ago.

You jump up and down crying about every weapons system we develop and how much it costs. I'm just wondering precisely how long you think we should use the technology we have and not attempt to upgrade it because as you can see it takes more than a decade now to get a new system up and going.

If you waited for a world and a conflict that needed the F-35 and F-22 before you decided to make them you would never, ever, be able to develop them in time enough to use them.


We already have planes in the inventory that can perform every mission the F-35 was designed to do, just as well (if not better) than the F-35.

It's an overpriced boondoggle that hasn't managed to live up to it's promise. We should stop throwing good money after bad.
 
2013-04-06 11:51:15 AM  

kabar: basemetal: I wonder what kind of fuel consumption that is when doing vertical landings or hovering.

A Harrier burns up to about 230 lbs/min in hovering flight for comparison.  I'll ask my F-35 buddies what they burn.

/Harrier pilot


Wow, that's a lot, probably can't do that for a long time?
 
2013-04-06 11:58:34 AM  

Your Average Witty Fark User: So, can someone answer an incredibly stupid question?

How the hell is that thing not leaving flaming craters all over the runway when it lands?


Runways are tough.
Seriously, think about the forces involved. The thrust being pointed straight at the runway is enough to counter the plane's weight, and a little bit more. It also diffuses fairly easily. And fighter jets are relatively light.

Compare that to the forces a runway has to take when a fully loaded C-5 dumps its ass on the runway.
 
2013-04-06 12:22:53 PM  

muck4doo: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: muck4doo: DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

So, next conflict we get in just use nukes instead?

/Why is fark so full of stupid people?
 [img28.imageshack.us image 320x214]

I really don't know whether I should laugh or cry.


Both
 
2013-04-06 12:31:26 PM  

basemetal: kabar: basemetal: I wonder what kind of fuel consumption that is when doing vertical landings or hovering.

A Harrier burns up to about 230 lbs/min in hovering flight for comparison.  I'll ask my F-35 buddies what they burn.

/Harrier pilot

Wow, that's a lot, probably can't do that for a long time?


NATOPS (aka the book) limit is 5 min of sustained hovering flight due to bleed air restrictions.  It's all weight/environmental based though.  On average, you can hover with around 3-4k worth of fuel on board, but sometimes as it gets high/hot/low barometer, you can't hover till around 1k.  It varies wildly, but the jet can calculate it real time.  Still up to the pilot not to F it away.  Hovering for 5 min is a LONG time - you usually only come close during airshows or post-maintenance check flights.

And to the poster who asked how it doesn't "leave flaming craters" on the runways... You only hover over concrete surfaces.  More than about 5 knots of ground speed on landing dissipates the heat enough on asphalt though (at least for the Harrier).
 
2013-04-06 12:32:05 PM  

basemetal: kabar: basemetal: I wonder what kind of fuel consumption that is when doing vertical landings or hovering.

A Harrier burns up to about 230 lbs/min in hovering flight for comparison.  I'll ask my F-35 buddies what they burn.

/Harrier pilot

Wow, that's a lot, probably can't do that for a long time?


Don't know about this plane but apparently about 5 tons of fuel is common in fighter jets. So less than 10 minutes of hovering on a full tank, but realistically you're probably looking at typical 30 seconds.
 
2013-04-06 12:32:30 PM  
we can have nice toys like this, but we have to spend 60% of our total budget to have it.
 
2013-04-06 12:33:30 PM  
SacriliciousBeerSwiller

The Osprey is awesome as long as no one shoots/throws rocks or pointy sticks at it.

When I worked in news, they would crash very often on the North Carolina coast during test runs.  Many pilots gave their lives for it.

The designers really want this:

cdn.ttgtmedia.com

But, I'd prefer this:

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-06 12:33:49 PM  

MindStalker: basemetal: kabar: basemetal: I wonder what kind of fuel consumption that is when doing vertical landings or hovering.

A Harrier burns up to about 230 lbs/min in hovering flight for comparison.  I'll ask my F-35 buddies what they burn.

/Harrier pilot

Wow, that's a lot, probably can't do that for a long time?

Don't know about this plane but apparently about 5 tons of fuel is common in fighter jets. So less than 10 minutes of hovering on a full tank, but realistically you're probably looking at typical 30 seconds.


Opps, math fail, thats 43 minutes.
 
2013-04-06 01:09:15 PM  

indarwinsshadow: F-35 fighter panned by U.S. test pilots
[www.cbc.ca image 620x349]


Long and short of the article, pilots can't see behind them because of a bad seating design. From what I gather from the article, it's death to a fighter pilot if they can't see behind them.


This is partially by the belief that F-35 will only be engaging at extreme ranges and carrying all-aspect missiles that don't care if the enemy is behind, ahead, or beside them.  The problem here is this is the same mentality that got us into trouble during the Vietnam war, an over-reliance on missiles at the expense of their dog-fighting capabilities.

Modern air combat doctrine dictates that most aerial combat is resolved at 5-15 miles, an F-35 striking ground targets with glide bombs will launch their bombs at ~15+ miles from a target.  They don't build these planes expecting them to ever get close enough to engage with their nose cannon, if I recall correctly at some point during the JSF program they didn't even have a nose cannon.  We might never see a conflict were these shortcomings manifest, but if we do... It would be unfortunate.  Mind you we will probably be putting out our first sixth gen fighter by the time any of "enemies" have a viable fifth gen competitor.

Has there ever been a prettier jet than the P-80?
 
2013-04-06 01:35:48 PM  

RockofAges: Tobin_Lam: DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

That worked out so well until December 7, 1941. Besides, closing the bases is the last thing the economy needs. In some cities, the local base is one of the largest employers in the region. Not everybody that works on base is in the military.

A) Godwin, Amerikuhhh Fark Yeah! Style.

B) While you may be correct that slicing the military this drastically at once would have catastrophic economic repercussion, there is no arguing the fact that the military sector in the United States has been fattened up by such an indescribable amount for uncountable years, and certainly could do with quite a bit of year over year dieting.


The years are pretty countable.   We failed to deactivate the massive military we built after WWII.   Prior to that, what sat at the core of America's strength wasn't the military, but our industrial capabilities that allowed us to switch from peace time to war time activities relatively quickly.  We reduced the military drastically after every major war we've ever fought, going right back to the revolution.   When we got to WWII, we kept it around because of teh Bomb and the commies and shiat.
 
2013-04-06 01:38:09 PM  

SJKebab: Krymson Tyde: If this is what they're letting the world see I wonder what they really have.

They're letting the world see this so that the countries who bought into the program don't renegotiate their contracts.


I thought only two countries were buying the B model-the US and UK.  and the UK was thinking about buying the C model instead.  Could be wrong.
 
2013-04-06 01:42:19 PM  
no idea why they called it the "lightning]["

It's SO obvious from the audio it should be named
 
2013-04-06 01:43:10 PM  

cptjeff: Your Average Witty Fark User: So, can someone answer an incredibly stupid question?

How the hell is that thing not leaving flaming craters all over the runway when it lands?

Runways are tough.
Seriously, think about the forces involved. The thrust being pointed straight at the runway is enough to counter the plane's weight, and a little bit more. It also diffuses fairly easily. And fighter jets are relatively light.

Compare that to the forces a runway has to take when a fully loaded C-5 dumps its ass on the runway.


Call me stupid, but I don't understand how a flame that hot, with that much pressure, isn't melting the runway. I understand they're tough. I understand one of these is relatively lightweight. I guess I don't understand the rest.
 
2013-04-06 01:43:52 PM  
EVIL STUPID EDITOR turned my link into an include...

http://dailyinspires.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Thunderball-Wallp a per-1.jpg
 
2013-04-06 01:45:35 PM  

Your Average Witty Fark User: cptjeff: Your Average Witty Fark User: So, can someone answer an incredibly stupid question?

How the hell is that thing not leaving flaming craters all over the runway when it lands?

Runways are tough.
Seriously, think about the forces involved. The thrust being pointed straight at the runway is enough to counter the plane's weight, and a little bit more. It also diffuses fairly easily. And fighter jets are relatively light.

Compare that to the forces a runway has to take when a fully loaded C-5 dumps its ass on the runway.

Call me stupid, but I don't understand how a flame that hot, with that much pressure, isn't melting the runway. I understand they're tough. I understand one of these is relatively lightweight. I guess I don't understand the rest.


The runways are made from more than 30 inches of steel reinforced concrete.
 
2013-04-06 01:53:20 PM  

basemetal: I wonder what kind of fuel consumption that is when doing vertical landings or hovering.


My first through.

roacsb:
Got to talk to a Raptor pilot at an airshow. I said what that plane could was just amazing.

He said 'Well just think of the things it can do that we can't show you.'
 
2013-04-06 01:54:13 PM  

CaptSacto: Defense contractor propaganda meets the 21st century.
Eisenhower facepalms.


For better or worse we are stuck with F-35.  UCAVs are not far enough enough along and and the F-35 replaces aircraft whose airframes are nearing the end of their service life and productions lines have closed like the Harrier for example.   We got caught in a crunch were our current aircraft are wearing out faster than UCAVs could be ready to replace them.  As it is the F-35 is going to be hard pushed to make the timeline.

The Marine Corps has bought the UKs 70 odd retired harriers and spares to use for parts so they can keep their planes flying until the F-35Bs is ready and available in enough numbers.

In some cases buying new is cheaper in the long run as older equipment becomes more expensive to maintain like our  KC135 tanker fleet .

Cancelling the F-35 sounds good until you do the math and look at the safety/maintenance/availability concerns.

If nothing else look at it as a jobs program and economic stimulus -far more successful than the shovel ready and green jobs programs.

IF UCAV technology proves out the will probably be America's last manned fighter.

psk.blog.24heures.ch
 
2013-04-06 01:58:19 PM  
I'm still waiting for the mass produced, drone version of the B-2.  Now that will be useful.

/the big problem is the F-15 Strike Eagle actually carries a larger ground attack payload
//the the Silent Eagle has a better anti-air payload
/while the F-35 is supposed to be stealthier than the Silent Eagle, it keeps getting reclassified as less and less stealthy
/definitely going to be a huge upgrade over the Harriers though
 
2013-04-06 01:59:51 PM  
Our highway system is falling apart, thousands of old buildings sit rotting and crumbling, the economy still hasn't fully recovered, and our school systems are barely operating with outdated junk. But we have lots of shiny new toys with which to bring destruction and death upon other countries, paid for by a budget that's twice as much as the next five military budgets combined, because we think we're the policeman of the world and everyone else should bow to our wishes. And this toy newest toy is outperformed by decades-old toys we still have plenty of which work perfectly fine.

Yay, America.
 
2013-04-06 02:01:56 PM  

Your Average Witty Fark User: Call me stupid, but I don't understand how a flame that hot, with that much pressure, isn't melting the runway. I understand they're tough. I understand one of these is relatively lightweight. I guess I don't understand the rest.


The exhaust flame isn't that hot.  Keep in mind that the internal temperature has to be cool enough not to melt the engine parts.  Except for a few parts in engine core, which are made of high-tempeature titanium alloys, most parts of the engine would melt (or at least soften) at a lower temperature than the runway would.  Also, most of the engine exhaust is actually bypass air.
 
2013-04-06 02:06:57 PM  

Your Average Witty Fark User: Call me stupid, but I don't understand how a flame that hot, with that much pressure, isn't melting the runway. I understand they're tough. I understand one of these is relatively lightweight. I guess I don't understand the rest.


Even if they're taking off and landing from dirt strips, the force the jet is applying is still not any more force than what the runway would receive with the plane parked on it, just distributed a little differently- and actually over more area than it would be with the landing gear. Simple physics. And materials that respond that badly to brief exposure to hot gasses, directed directly at them or not, don't get used for runways.
 
2013-04-06 02:12:41 PM  

aerojockey: Keep in mind that the internal temperature has to be cool enough not to melt the engine parts.


Actually, not so much. That's one way they've made jet engines more efficient over the years- they run them hotter than the melting point of the parts to achieve more complete fuel ignition. The trick is creating a boundary layer of cool(er) air between the parts and the ignition mixture. They're often shooting flame through those things hotter than the melting point of every part in the engine.

\Enjoy your next flight.
 
2013-04-06 02:16:10 PM  

Publikwerks: To be fair, in 20-30 years, it's gonna be drones, drones and more drones. Why put a guy in a plane when a high performance drone will be able to pull more Gs, weight less, spend more time airborne  and require far less logistics and consideration(don't have to worry about rescuing a pilot, ect...)


The big problem is you don't win the space war, you don't get to use drones since the other guy is going to shoot down all your command and control satellites.  So the wise man doesn't put all his eggs in one basketball.

That said, I'm not sure I see the role of the F-35 exactly.  If we win the space war, stealthy bombing is not exactly a problem.  Fab up a stealth model of the Reaper drone and send a couple in, even if you lose one or two, no big deal you're still way ahead in terms of cost given the price of a Reaper versus a F-35.  Once you have air superiority and the SAM capabilities removed, the best weapons for ground support are the B-52, the AC-130, the Strike Eagle and attack helicopters, none of are going to win any awards for stealth, nor do they need to be.

On the flip side, you lose the space war and suddenly you're potentially farked by the drone swarm.  At that point it seems like we'd actually have more need for F-22s and really damn good aircraft to have a chance against the drone swarm.

To me I always end up seeing the F-35 as an unpleasant jack of all trades.  Buy the Air Guard units Silent Eagles and see what Boeing can brew up in terms of a Silent Strike Eagle.  Give the USAF more F-22s, the Raptor costs 150 million per unit while the F-35 now costs ~200 million per unit.  The Silent Eagle is ~100 million per unit.  The Navy will have to settle for the new Super Hornet and whatever drones they can fab up for the carrier or maybe we can scrounge up some funds to navalize a batch of F-22s.

Spend the rest of the money ensuring we'll have working satellites and no one else will if WWIII breaks out.
 
2013-04-06 02:16:31 PM  
spaceaboveandbeyond.tvbyyourcommand.net

How about we just skip the F-35 and go right to the Hammerhead?
 
2013-04-06 02:17:47 PM  
Ok, here's the problem with the F-35.  (And the F-22 too.)

They were both conceived during an economic booms, when money flowed freely.  The genius military planners got together and decided, "I know what we'll do, we'll only fund really, really expensive airplanes.  That way small dangerous countries like Paraguay will never be able to afford them, whereas wealty NATO countries can."

Of course, then the economy falters and suddenly that didn't seem like such a great idea.  Smaller, leaner airplanes like the F-16 and F-18 (that, you'll note, were conceived in more bearish times) are still flying off the assembly lines, meanwhile lots of wealthy countries are balking at buying F-35s.  Freaking Canada is probably not going to buy them.  It wouldn't surprise me to see the F-18 outlast the F-35 in production.

The other problem with the F-35 is the same old story, selling a superficially good but ultimately bad idea to Congress to get them to fund it.  Supposedly a single airframe supporting three vastly different missions would save money, but you end up with an airframe that is suboptimal for all the missions and doesn't actually save money.
 
2013-04-06 02:25:29 PM  

ha-ha-guy:  Give the USAF more F-22s, the Raptor costs 150 million per unit while the F-35 now costs ~200 million per unit.


Or $137 million.

Allies have agreed to purchase 721 fighters, yet the soaring price is painful for nations with shrinking defense budgets. The estimated cost of each plane has about doubled to $137 million since 2001, according to a GAO report last year.
Bloomberg
 
2013-04-06 02:27:21 PM  
The F-35 is truly something straight out of science fiction. Unfortunately, that work of science fiction is "Superiority" by Arthur C. Clarke.
 
2013-04-06 02:28:36 PM  

cptjeff: aerojockey: Keep in mind that the internal temperature has to be cool enough not to melt the engine parts.

Actually, not so much. That's one way they've made jet engines more efficient over the years- they run them hotter than the melting point of the parts to achieve more complete fuel ignition. The trick is creating a boundary layer of cool(er) air between the parts and the ignition mixture. They're often shooting flame through those things hotter than the melting point of every part in the engine.


You're right, but note that I didn't say it had to be below the melting point of the materials, I just said it had to be cool enough not to melt the engine.

And, if you want to know the REAL trick, it's the simple fact that heat transfer is not instantanous.  There's no possibility to create much of a boundary layer in the burner itself because of the highly turbulent nature, yet the burner doesn't melt because it's considerably cooler on the outside so the heat can't stick around.  The boundary layer tricks are uses mostly with turbine blades, which, although the air is cooler there, it's more of a problem because the turbines are under high centrifugal force and will deform well under the melting point.
 
2013-04-06 02:29:42 PM  

Donau: indarwinsshadow: F-35 fighter panned by U.S. test pilots
[www.cbc.ca image 620x349]


Long and short of the article, pilots can't see behind them because of a bad seating design. From what I gather from the article, it's death to a fighter pilot if they can't see behind them.

This is partially by the belief that F-35 will only be engaging at extreme ranges and carrying all-aspect missiles that don't care if the enemy is behind, ahead, or beside them.  The problem here is this is the same mentality that got us into trouble during the Vietnam war, an over-reliance on missiles at the expense of their dog-fighting capabilities.

Modern air combat doctrine dictates that most aerial combat is resolved at 5-15 miles, an F-35 striking ground targets with glide bombs will launch their bombs at ~15+ miles from a target.  They don't build these planes expecting them to ever get close enough to engage with their nose cannon, if I recall correctly at some point during the JSF program they didn't even have a nose cannon.  We might never see a conflict were these shortcomings manifest, but if we do... It would be unfortunate.  Mind you we will probably be putting out our first sixth gen fighter by the time any of "enemies" have a viable fifth gen competitor.

Has there ever been a prettier jet than the P-80?


Missiles weren't as sophisticated in Vietnam. There is no reason for an enemy aircraft to be close enough to use the nose gun. Even if someone managed it, we'd still shoot them out of the sky because we are practicing all the time. Part of the reason the Luftwaffe eventually failed was that they kept pilots in combat until they died whereas the US pulled experienced pilots from the front lines to train the newbies. Eventually, the average American pilot was more skilled than a Luftwaffe pilot. We continue the training with things like Red Flag so pilots can experience aerial combat without actually getting shot down. Every aspect of the battlefield is practiced except no missiles or bullets are actually fired. Statistics show that a pilot is far more likely to die in his first ten dogfights than the rest but we simulate those as best we can so our pilots are far more likely to survive.
TL;DR The USAF is badass because it already thought of your scenarios and has developed means to counter them.
 
2013-04-06 02:30:28 PM  

aerojockey: Ok, here's the problem with the F-35.  (And the F-22 too.)

They were both conceived during an economic booms, when money flowed freely.  The genius military planners got together and decided, "I know what we'll do, we'll only fund really, really expensive airplanes.  That way small dangerous countries like Paraguay will never be able to afford them, whereas wealty NATO countries can."


That doesn't sound at all like the way things are decided in the real world. If the US doesn't want Paraguay to buy these planes, the US can simply refrain from selling them to Paraguay.
 
2013-04-06 02:33:11 PM  

hasty ambush: If nothing else look at it as a jobs program and economic stimulus


It's entire purpose is to shovel tax dollars into various congressional districts.  That's also why they wanted a second engine.

Fixing our roads and bridges would be a far better use of our tax dollars.

/no F-15 has even been shot down in air to air combat
//and that's good enough for me
 
2013-04-06 02:36:23 PM  
I won't be impressed until that thing stops trying to kill my pilots.

With the advanced resources the companies had in R&D, using supercomputers to aid in designing and simulating every piddling detail, and billions upon billions of dollars of taxpayer money being poured into it, that bird should have been FLAWLESS.
 
2013-04-06 02:40:59 PM  

muck4doo: DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

So, next conflict we get in just use nukes instead?

/Why is fark so full of stupid people?


What "next conflict?" Our national sovereignty hasn't been challenged since the War of 1812. The only conflicts are the ones we create or stick our noses into in order to justify more military spending. And, no, it doesn't mean rely only on nukes; even with a 75% reduction in military spending, we'd have more than enough military might to repel an invasion with conventional means. But, as I said, there will be no invasion; we have nukes.

Stupid people, indeed.
 
Displayed 50 of 253 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report