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

Haven't the Brits been doing this for ages?

Well, that's worth $395 billion.

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

probably a lot less than for this guy

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.}

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.

But, the cool green flames and flashy lights are the best part.

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

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

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.

These things first flew at the end of 2006.  How the fark does it take 7 years to progress to night landings?

GAT_00: These things first flew at the end of 2006.  How the fark does it take 7 years to progress to night landings?

It was hard to get the CGI right.
Millions of dollars in DoD funding and many interns were sacrificed.

GAT_00: These things first flew at the end of 2006.  How the fark does it take 7 years to progress to night landings?

The A variant started in '06, according to Wiki the B variant (the one with the VTOL system) didn't start tests of that system until 2010.  Still though, close to three years before attempting a night landing seems like a lot, but I'm not an aircraft engineer.

CaptSacto: GAT_00: These things first flew at the end of 2006.  How the fark does it take 7 years to progress to night landings?

It was hard to get the CGI right.
Millions of dollars in DoD funding and many interns were sacrificed.

I'm going to hold out for the 3-D IMAX video

/71 fps no less

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

The Harrier was introduced in 1969 and was replaced by the Harrier II, which was designed by British Aerospace, McDonnell-Douglas and Boeing.  Those are what's flying today.  But they aren't supersonic or stealthy, so the F-35 is a big upgrade.

They have a handful of F-35s down here at MCAS Yuma, but they're supposed to eventually have five squadrons.  One flew in March, but I haven't seen it yet.

It's still fun to watch the Harrier IIs and F-5s roll out.

Thank god we're prepared to defeat the 21st Century Soviet Air Force.  Damn, I was worried they were getting a tech leap forward on us.

Whew!

wejash: Thank god we're prepared to defeat the 21st Century Soviet Air Force.  Damn, I was worried they were getting a tech leap forward on us.

Whew!

While I'm all for developing cool technology stuff even if we'll never need it, I wish more of it would be spent on things like NASA programs that have the possibility of enriching humanity as a whole instead of just new and better ways to drop bombs on people we don't like.

Heck, if we cut our defense budget in half we'd still have more to work with than the next four biggest spenders combined, and just think of where we'd be in terms of space exploration if that type of funding had been available to NASA since the end of the cold war.  We'd probably have permanent manned installations on the moon and Mars by know and be getting ready to land men on Europa.

GAT_00: These things first flew at the end of 2006.  How the fark does it take 7 years to progress to night landings?

Well they didn't think it would be a good idea to show everyone videos of the ones that flipped over, crashed and exploded.

That was awesome.

TuteTibiImperes: wejash: Thank god we're prepared to defeat the 21st Century Soviet Air Force.  Damn, I was worried they were getting a tech leap forward on us.

Whew!

While I'm all for developing cool technology stuff even if we'll never need it, I wish more of it would be spent on things like NASA programs that have the possibility of enriching humanity as a whole instead of just new and better ways to drop bombs on people we don't like.

Heck, if we cut our defense budget in half we'd still have more to work with than the next four biggest spenders combined, and just think of where we'd be in terms of space exploration if that type of funding had been available to NASA since the end of the cold war.  We'd probably have permanent manned installations on the moon and Mars by know and be getting ready to land men on Europa.

Not to mention if they gave the money to NASA that they give directly to Lockhead and Boeing and BAE and Northrop and Raytheon and....

those defense tech companies would still receive contracts and stay afloat!
(who do you think built the space shuttle hull, or it's cockpit HUD unit, or all it's other parts, or basically anything we strap to a rocket and fire into space.. including the rockets themselves)
..while the money is used to pursue advancement of our entire species across countless applications, not strictly just our nation's military prowess.

In fact, in that one point alone you can see that there is more than meets the eye to our insistence on massive military spending. As with space research it's usually the same pockets that are being filled.

The discoveries and tech that result from a vibrant space program have proven to be a boon to both commercial and military tech advancement.
While discoveries and tech that result from vibrant "defense" programs usually stay hidden out of some fear of public backlash or espionage by foreign nations.

Large space programs have a habit of bringing nations together in a spirit of both competition and cooperation.
Who needs a liberal wetdream candyland like that?
Large military programs have a habit of starting wars with previously innocuous nations filled with brown people in the middle of the desert (the perfect place to test out your... I mean free the crap out of people)

It's a cool jet and I love hardware, but I agree with your sentiment. Imagine where we could be if these types of techs were in pursuit of something other than death and war.

In a parallel universe, that video could have been testing for a next-gen medical evac vehicle better than a helicopter in every way... all made possible by the advancements towards a lightweight recoverable/reusable lander. Of course that's straight from my ass, but as long as all we focus on is better ways of blowing each other up we'll never know.

/But then the beast living under the Pentagon's belly would rumble and the commies terrorists would win, and we can't have that.

REO-Weedwagon: There are estimates this thing will cost one trillion dollars after design, production, upgrades, and cleanups of the wreckage. It's such a pile of sh*t there are pilots refusing to fly it. Of course the real problem is PBS and welfare queens.

"America... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable." HST

Fine derp you have there.

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?

muck4doo: REO-Weedwagon: There are estimates this thing will cost one trillion dollars after design, production, upgrades, and cleanups of the wreckage. It's such a pile of sh*t there are pilots refusing to fly it. Of course the real problem is PBS and welfare queens.

"America... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable." HST

Fine derp you have there.

Nope. Derp, by definition, is exclusively right wing.

muck4doo: So, next conflict we get in just use nukes instead?

/Why is fark so full of stupid people?

Apparently you aren't familiar with the finer points of nuclear deterrence strategy.

It not only has defined our role as a superpower in the 2nd half of the 20th century, today and will well into the future.... it's also responsible for the global power distribution we have today and is likely the only reason the U.N. didn't see the same fate as the League of Nations.

It's a minor topic probably not worth you looking into or understanding.

MurphyMurphy: muck4doo: So, next conflict we get in just use nukes instead?

/Why is fark so full of stupid people?

Apparently you aren't familiar with the finer points of nuclear deterrence strategy.

It not only has defined our role as a superpower in the 2nd half of the 20th century, today and will well into the future.... it's also responsible for the global power distribution we have today and is likely the only reason the U.N. didn't see the same fate as the League of Nations.

It's a minor topic probably not worth you looking into or understanding.

You're right. We should have just nuked Pakistan when we wanted to kill Bin Laden.

muck4doo: MurphyMurphy: muck4doo: So, next conflict we get in just use nukes instead?

/Why is fark so full of stupid people?

Apparently you aren't familiar with the finer points of nuclear deterrence strategy.

It not only has defined our role as a superpower in the 2nd half of the 20th century, today and will well into the future.... it's also responsible for the global power distribution we have today and is likely the only reason the U.N. didn't see the same fate as the League of Nations.

It's a minor topic probably not worth you looking into or understanding.

You're right. We should have just nuked Pakistan when we wanted to kill Bin Laden.

So you have no frame of reference here, Donny.

You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

MurphyMurphy: muck4doo: MurphyMurphy: muck4doo: So, next conflict we get in just use nukes instead?

/Why is fark so full of stupid people?

Apparently you aren't familiar with the finer points of nuclear deterrence strategy.

It not only has defined our role as a superpower in the 2nd half of the 20th century, today and will well into the future.... it's also responsible for the global power distribution we have today and is likely the only reason the U.N. didn't see the same fate as the League of Nations.

It's a minor topic probably not worth you looking into or understanding.

You're right. We should have just nuked Pakistan when we wanted to kill Bin Laden.

So you have no frame of reference here, Donny.

You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

No no. I see your point. We got lots of nukes. That's all we need. Spending money on planes and stuff isn't necessary.

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?

Maybe we don't need to get in so many conflicts. Being the world's policeman is something we don't have to do.

MrBallou: 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?

Maybe we don't need to get in so many conflicts. Being the world's policeman is something we don't have to do.

Agreed. But it isn't reality, is it?

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%.

and as long as power wealthy families who own the corporations, banks and government continue to be in charge it will just get worse. looking at headline news from the past 10-20 years, there is absolutely nothing that will inspire Americans to use their millions of beloved firearms for more than slaying deer, street crime and masturbation.

Tobin_Lam: 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.

If you think that spending public money to prop up the economy is bad unless it's spend on the military, you might be a Republican.

More seriously: spending tax money on a military we don't need and won't use is like digging holes, filling them with money, and then covering them over. If you want to boost a local economy and keep people employed with tax money -- which, I agree, is sometimes a good idea when you need to buffer change or soften decline -- spend it on things that will actually produce economic benefit or leave some lasting benefit, like roads, schools, fire stations, healthcare. Something with a multiplier greater than 1, rather than a multiplier close to zero.