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.

(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  
•       •       •

19981 clicks; posted to Video » on 06 Apr 2013 at 5:09 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-04-05 11:40:15 PM  
I wonder what kind of fuel consumption that is when doing vertical landings or hovering.
 
2013-04-05 11:44:41 PM  
images.tzaam.com
 
2013-04-05 11:45:05 PM  
Haven't the Brits been doing this for ages?
 
2013-04-05 11:52:37 PM  
Well, that's worth $395 billion.
 
2013-04-05 11:55:03 PM  

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


probably a lot less than for this guy


i780.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-06 12:04:28 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 12:05:53 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.


But, the cool green flames and flashy lights are the best part.
 
2013-04-06 12:10:00 AM  
Defense contractor propaganda meets the 21st century.
Eisenhower facepalms.
 
2013-04-06 12:22:38 AM  
If this is what they're letting the world see I wonder what they really have.
 
2013-04-06 12:34:52 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 12:42:44 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-06 12:57:31 AM  
These things first flew at the end of 2006.  How the fark does it take 7 years to progress to night landings?
 
2013-04-06 01:03:50 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 01:07:51 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 01:10:33 AM  

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
 
2013-04-06 01:36:00 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 01:58:58 AM  
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!
 
2013-04-06 02:14:25 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 03:03:58 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 04:23:20 AM  
That was awesome.
 
2013-04-06 05:30:22 AM  
Hey, Kim Jong Un, we're looking at you, Motherfarker!
 
2013-04-06 05:34:46 AM  
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
 
2013-04-06 05:40:46 AM  
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%.
 
2013-04-06 05:58:00 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 06:19:07 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 06:21:08 AM  

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?
 
2013-04-06 06:24:47 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 06:45:31 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 06:47:01 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 06:54:45 AM  

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...
 
2013-04-06 06:57:00 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 06:59:02 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 07:00:33 AM  

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?
 
2013-04-06 07:08:15 AM  

MurphyMurphy: 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.


It wouldn't happen because no one would pay for it.
How could a hospital justify spending fifty billion on a coaxial helicopter design that gets to accident scenes faster, over spending on more facilities and staff or paying their shareholders higher dividends?

dl.dropbox.com

It costs billions to develop these things and no one brings the kind of funding that the military does.  When deadlines are missed and accidents happen, no one can shoulder past the criticism like the military can. Security is a visceral need and its not hard for a soldier to justify spending money to keep the enemy off your doorstep.

An alternate world without that need doesn't give capitalism as many excuses to hustle the process. Development still happens, but its slow and plodding with extra care taken not to be wasteful.
Which sounds good until you realize it takes decades to develop the kind of helicopter that would have been built in three during the cold war.

/Even going to the moon wasn't done out of scientific curiosity.
/That was about keeping the red menace from getting the high ground.
/Once it was secured, the money and political will to explore dried up.
 
2013-04-06 07:17:50 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 07:18:39 AM  

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


I have no problem with that description.
 
2013-04-06 07:23:06 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 07:25:38 AM  

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?
 
2013-04-06 07:31:36 AM  

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..


www.military-today.com
 
2013-04-06 07:33:37 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 07:38:08 AM  
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.
 
2013-04-06 07:42:31 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.


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...)
 
2013-04-06 07:44:30 AM  

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 for one, the f35 program is just a huge money pit, even by dod standards.  It is a large money pot because of the many problems that have cropped up during its development and testing cycles.
 
2013-04-06 07:46:41 AM  

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.


I will argue point B. The size of the military steadily shrank by over 50% from 1970 to 2001 and at its most recent peak hit the highest level since 1997. The most recent numbers I could find put it on par with 1996 and that includes cadets and midshipmen that aren't even on active duty yet. The military is on a diet and has been dieting for quite some time.
 
2013-04-06 07:49:02 AM  
What pisses me off is that for the price tag of a single one of these babies, you could fully fund an average school district for about two years!

Also, it doesnt turn on a dime
 
2013-04-06 07:49:24 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 07:50:46 AM  

czetie: 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.


I do somewhat agree with that. I heard on the radio that Obama wants to put people to work improving our roads. I have no problem with that and it isn't often that I agree with him.
 
2013-04-06 07:50:48 AM  
O , o
 
2013-04-06 07:52:31 AM  

Dinobot: Also, it doesnt turn on a dime


But it can land on one(if you glue it down so it doen't blow away or get sucked into the engine).
 
2013-04-06 07:53:27 AM  
Good thing that money didn't need to be spent anywhere else!  Yessir, our roads, bridges, schools, and veterans have all the funding they need, so we might as well dump a bunch of money into a questionably-useful weapons system!  It's all about the jobs!
 
2013-04-06 07:56:47 AM  

RockofAges: muck4doo: 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?

A) Perception shapes reality, and in many moments of our lives, IS reality.

B) You honestly don't believe that America is constantly involved in these conflicts due to "fate", do you? I mean, some of them are justified, but at least a majority of them are very tenuous indeed.


I never mentioned "Fate" or anything like that. I said "Reality". It's something you should try to grasp sometime.
 
2013-04-06 08:11:50 AM  

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.


Canadians might display an inferiority comples towards Americans. However, Americans themselves have a massive inferiority comples towards old colonial powers in Europe.
 
2013-04-06 08:12:36 AM  

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


My father used to fly Harriers, he always said during VTOL manoeuvres you could physically see the fuel gauge needle moving.

Which is why he always pisses himself laughing at the climax of True Lies. 4 full tanks, he reckons
 
2013-04-06 08:20:19 AM  

spawn73: 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.

Canadians might display an inferiority comples towards Americans. However, Americans themselves have a massive inferiority comples towards old colonial powers in Europe.


I think you might be using the common parlance.
 
2013-04-06 08:30:12 AM  

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


i49.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-06 08:32:39 AM  

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


Well, I guess it was awesome when gramps did it.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-04-06 08:34:41 AM  
Cool.  But considering it was supposed to enter active service at the same time as the F-22... LOL.

Seriously it's made it's first night take off... so it'll be in service in what?  Another decade one testing and certification is done?
 
2013-04-06 08:42:17 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.


You think you know whats coming in 20 years? If you think the deciders at the pentagon knows, they are as full of shiat. They only care about making their friends rich so they can have a cozy consulting job working for them when a scandal hits them.
30 years ago noone was thinking that wireless tech would evolve to the point that we could fly a plane remotely from the us. Or that computer tech would allow us to send it autonomously land. What happens in 20 years? Target seeking bullets might be the next step.

Punch in: Osama bin Laden, enter. Fire.
 
2013-04-06 08:49:07 AM  

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


 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ ^^^^
 
2013-04-06 08:49:19 AM  

Elegy: [What's that Europe?]


Some of us Europeans have actually contributed to the development:
While the United States is the primary customer and financial backer, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark have agreed to contribute US$4.375 billion toward the development costs of the program.[1] Total development costs are estimated at more than US$40 billion (underwritten largely by the United States), while the purchase of an estimated 2,400 planes is expected to cost an additional US$200 billion.[2] Norway has estimated that each of their planned 52 F-35 fighter jets will cost their country $769 million over their operational lifetime.[3] The nine major partner nations, including the U.S., plan to acquire over 3,100 F-35s through 2035,[4] which, if delivered will make the F-35 one of the most numerous jet fighters.
Wikipedia


DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money.


It also looks a bit like an export product.

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.

Perhaps, but it's also what makes you the world's biggest weapons exporter.
 
2013-04-06 08:57:32 AM  
Wouldn't it have been easier to just burn the money in a bonfire?
 
2013-04-06 08:57:47 AM  
the soviets are gonna shiat themselves!
 
2013-04-06 09:05:15 AM  
Although my rational brain thinks "what a boondoggle!", the little kid inside is screaming and cheering "That was AWESOME!!!"

We're in the pipe, five by five.

colonialmarines.wikispaces.com
 
2013-04-06 09:08:23 AM  
Sci-Fi is just stuff we haven't figured out how to do yet, right? I get what people say about the military industrial complex and how it costs too much, and I agree with them, but when I worked on the flightline at Ellsworth AFB and they spooled one of the B1-B engines up to full power it was hard not to stand up and salute.
 
2013-04-06 09:11:26 AM  

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.


And yet somehow we managed to get Bin Laden without F-35's.

Gee you're dumb.
 
2013-04-06 09:16:01 AM  

Dinobot: What pisses me off is that for the price tag of a single one of these babies, you could fully fund an average school district for about two years!

Also, it doesnt turn on a dime


Neither does the average school district.
 
2013-04-06 09:19:30 AM  

Dansker: Elegy: [What's that Europe?]

Some of us Europeans have actually contributed to the development:
While the United States is the primary customer and financial backer, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark have agreed to contribute US$4.375 billion toward the development costs of the program.[1] Total development costs are estimated at more than US$40 billion (underwritten largely by the United States), while the purchase of an estimated 2,400 planes is expected to cost an additional US$200 billion.[2] Norway has estimated that each of their planned 52 F-35 fighter jets will cost their country $769 million over their operational lifetime.[3] The nine major partner nations, including the U.S., plan to acquire over 3,100 F-35s through 2035,[4] which, if delivered will make the F-35 one of the most numerous jet fighters.
Wikipedia

DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money.

It also looks a bit like an export product.

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.

Perhaps, but it's also what makes you the world's biggest weapons exporter.


It also keeps other nations from coming to collect their debts.
 
2013-04-06 09:21:08 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 09:24:41 AM  
Not bad, but it will never match the capabilities of the Raptor..
 
2013-04-06 09:32:54 AM  

jpo2269: Not bad, but it will never match the capabilities of the Raptor..


The F-22 and F-35 have different jobs. F-22s shoot down planes and sometimes drop bombs and F-35s drob bombs and sometimes shoot down planes, basically.
 
2013-04-06 09:35:54 AM  
There was a very good Nova episode called "Battle of the X-wing planes" that documented the competition between Boeing and Lockhead Martin to build the vertical lift off and landing joint fighter. Anybody interested in the joint fighter should look at it, it is very interesting.
 
2013-04-06 09:42:06 AM  
The F35 is an interesting aircraft but the kicker is the more stealthy, more maneuverable, faster, F22 is now cheaper to build and maintain.

Slap some bombing hard points on that thing (yes, that hurts the stealth) and be done with it while we work the busted F35.
 
2013-04-06 09:42:57 AM  

Newbaca: Wouldn't it have been easier to just burn the money in a bonfire?


There are two major flaws in your plan:
1) You can't sell a burnt out bonfire on the global market
2) Burning the cash would instantly and permanently remove that money from the US economy.

It's not like the money spent on a project like this just disappears with no further benefit to anyone.
Ultimately, a large portion is used to pay employees of subcontractors delivering thousands of components, and everyone else working on it, from engineers to test pilots. You know, members of the threatened middle class, who tend to use a lot of money on goods and services.
 
2013-04-06 09:45:08 AM  
And yes, I know its not that simple. They did, however, design the F22 to carry A2G weaponry just in case...
 
2013-04-06 09:50:55 AM  

MithrandirBooga: 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.

And yet somehow we managed to get Bin Laden without F-35's.

Gee you're dumb.


I see the point went right over your pointy head.
 
2013-04-06 09:54:03 AM  

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


I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
 
2013-04-06 09:58:51 AM  
So that's why they've been loud as fark buzzing over my house all week after dark.  Figured it had to do with the f-35s.  The thing is, not only are they up flying around, but they always have a couple of f-18 escorts along to monitor the flight and capture test footage.

/lives right outside the back gate.
//always aware of when they are doing testing
 
2013-04-06 10:05:11 AM  

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%.


Well, I agree, emotionally. But the track record says that when we do that we have to play catchup after somebody gets delusions of grandeur and starts trying to conquer the world.

Also, the problem with military spending is that we have a firm doctrine of controlling both oceans that are approaches to the US. Well, we got aircraft carriers, right? Well, those would be big fat targets without more ships to guard them. Still, they would all be targets without air power.... And planes need land bases, too. And land bases need to be defended by troops... It snowballs. You dig down and there are logical arguments for a good deal of the stuff.
 
2013-04-06 10:07:28 AM  

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.


That's 'cause he luvs 'murikkka.
 
2013-04-06 10:08:25 AM  

ongbok: There was a very good Nova episode called "Battle of the X-wing planes" that documented the competition between Boeing and Lockhead Martin to build the vertical lift off and landing joint fighter. Anybody interested in the joint fighter should look at it, it is very interesting.


This. Have it on the hard drive, great watch.

X-32 still looks funny to me. Even if Boeing had the better plane, I think aesthetics would have killed it for them anyway.

upload.wikimedia.org

//OMG! We're being attacked by flying guppies!
 
2013-04-06 10:08:37 AM  
Well filming that cost about a billion dollars
 
2013-04-06 10:14:00 AM  
Boon.

Doggle.
 
2013-04-06 10:14:02 AM  
Well, that was a trillion dollars well spent.

Compare that to the cost of the X-47 program which is a stepping stone to an air to air combat drone program, still under a billion dollars.
 
2013-04-06 10:16:02 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 10:16:16 AM  

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
 
2013-04-06 10:24:18 AM  

propasaurus: Well, that's worth $395 billion.


It takes that much money because Imaginary enemies are hard to fight.
 
2013-04-06 10:25:32 AM  
randomjsa: Morons who have no idea what the world will be like 20-30 years from now think we should stop developing better air craft

We SHOULD be developing better aircraft.  Unfortunately the F-35 ain't it.  The F-15 and F-16 have a better thrust/weight ratio, and the F-15 kicks its ass in combat radius and payload.  The F-35 is only stealthy from the front, and only when no external hard points are used (limiting it to internal fuel and 4 bombs or missiles).  For the cost of one F-35 you could fly away 5 F-15s.  The F-18 Super Hornet would also give it a run for the money.

If we really wanted better aircraft, we'd have chosen the Silent Eagle (a stealthed up F-15).  But that's not the point of the F-35.  The F-35 has been designed from the ground up to funnel tax dollars to various congressional districts.
 
2013-04-06 10:26:30 AM  
F-35 fighter panned by U.S. test pilots
www.cbc.ca


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.
 
2013-04-06 10:27:19 AM  

NathanAllen: Well, that was a trillion dollars well spent.


Where are you people getting "a trillion dollars" from?
The most recent info I can find says $400 billion:
The Pentagon envisioned the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as an affordable, state-of-the-art stealth jet serving three military branches and U.S. allies.
Instead, the Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) aircraft has been plagued by a costly redesign, bulkhead cracks, too much weight, and delays to essential software that have helped put it seven years behind schedule and 70 percent over its initial cost estimate. At almost $400 billion, it's the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history.

It is also the defense project too big to kill. The F-35 funnels business to a global network of contractors that includes Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) and Kongsberg Gruppen ASA of Norway. It counts 1,300 suppliers in 45 states supporting 133,000 jobs -- and more in nine other countries, according to Lockheed. The F-35 is an example of how large weapons programs can plow ahead amid questions about their strategic necessity and their failure to arrive on time and on budget.
Bloomberg
 
2013-04-06 10:29:44 AM  

Publikwerks: 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.

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...)


It is just as likely that drones will end up going away in 20-30 years.  All the major powers are working hard on jamming technology.  If you can't tell a drone where to go and what to do its completely useless.  Sure it is possible we could have completely autonomous drones to combat that problem.  But the 1st time that a drone decides that a crane in downtown LA looks enough like a north Korean SCUD Launcher to take a shot people will put an end to that quick.  The military will never put all their eggs in one basket.  Pilots are expensive as hell, but we will have them for the foreseeable future.  No way they take the chance that they will have to tell the president one day, "China has figured out how to jam our drones. They are selling the technology to anyone willing to pay.  We have no airforce until we rebuild our manned aircraft program.  It should take 10-20 years."
 
2013-04-06 10:29:46 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-06 10:30:35 AM  

DrPainMD: 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 you don't wonder where the nucs came from?
 
2013-04-06 10:34:58 AM  

indarwinsshadow:
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.


From your article:"The head rest is too large and will impede aft [rear] visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements," one test pilot was quoted as saying

That doesn't sound like something that should be too difficult to redesign. Isn't finding flaws like that exactly what test flights are for?
 
2013-04-06 10:39:13 AM  

Lonestar: 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.

You think you know whats coming in 20 years? If you think the deciders at the pentagon knows, they are as full of shiat. They only care about making their friends rich so they can have a cozy consulting job working for them when a scandal hits them.
30 years ago noone was thinking that wireless tech would evolve to the point that we could fly a plane remotely from the us. Or that computer tech would allow us to send it autonomously land. What happens in 20 years? Target seeking bullets might be the next step.

Punch in: Osama bin Laden, enter. Fire.




58 second mark
 
2013-04-06 10:46:33 AM  
...When it comes to the F-35, my logic is....uncertain....but holy shiat, that video is farking awesome.
 
2013-04-06 10:46:37 AM  

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 not like it, but without us. Your economy would come to an end within 90 days.
Have a nice day pants.
 
2013-04-06 10:47:40 AM  

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
 
2013-04-06 10:51:32 AM  
Health care for all Americans?:  Freedom: America, Bootstraps eleventy, libtard!

Billions wasted on the F35:  I got a chubby, get your purty mouth over here, libtard.
 
2013-04-06 10:53:41 AM  

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


but the Harrier will burn the pavement
 
2013-04-06 10:55:24 AM  

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 not like it, but w ...


you sound jelly
 
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.
 
2013-04-06 02:41:32 PM  

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

[psk.blog.24heures.ch image 460x315]



This is a very big IF being brought to us by the same people who thought fighters would no longer need guns or the ability to turn back in the sixties.

Its going to be a long time before drones are allowed to issue their own kill orders. Which means a drone cant be relied on to deal with any enemy that could jam communications, which also happens to be any enemy with an air defense network or fighters.

These aircraft will physically last for maybe thirty years in service, not counting upgrades. So unless we keep producing them or have hundreds of spares, they won't be the last two fighters we buy.

/Considering that it takes a decade or two just to develop a new fighters, their replacements are probably in the works now.
 
2013-04-06 02:41:35 PM  

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.


I, for one, approve of these statements.
 
2013-04-06 02:45:30 PM  

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.


What does the bombing of Pearl Harbor have to do with anything? You do know that the US Navy was fighting the Germans in the north Atlantic six months BEFORE Pearl Harbor, don't you? And that the US had built covert bases in Burma and were a week or two away from bombing the Japanese in China, don't you? The people of the US have overwhelmingly decided that "preemptive strikes" are OK, so the Japanese were totally justified in bombing Pearl Harbor.
 
2013-04-06 02:47:25 PM  

DrPainMD: 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.


It's a good thing the US sphere of interest doesn't extend beyond your major landmass...
 
2013-04-06 02:48:15 PM  

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.


PS. Military spending, above that necessary to defend the country, is a DRAIN on the economy, not an addition to it (well... it's all a drain, but a necessary one). Towns that exist only to serve non-necessary military bases SHOULD become ghost towns... the rest of us can't afford to prop them up any longer. Their local economies may tank, but the overall US economy would be better off.
 
2013-04-06 02:50:33 PM  

Kittypie070: 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.


I think you are thinking of the F-22. I can't find any instance of an F-35 killing its pilot.
 
2013-04-06 02:51:09 PM  

DrPainMD: 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.


I'm gonna be brutally honest with you: you have a decidedly inadequate grasp on global theater.
Now, if you don't believe the US should be a "superpower", that's something else, but the role of the military goes -well- beyond "protecting national sovereignty".
 
2013-04-06 02:52:54 PM  
I'm not much of an aviation guy, but that was very cool to watch.

One question I have about it however.  In what types of situation would this feature be used?  I'm trying to think of anytime a plane would be needed for vertical landing would be necessary.  It would seem that unless it can take off vertically, they would need a runway to get it back out of wherever it landed.

Am I wrong?  Please help me understand this better.
 
2013-04-06 02:53:17 PM  

Tobin_Lam: 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.

I will argue point B. The size of the military steadily shrank by over 50% from 1970 to 2001 and at its most recent peak hit the highest level since 1997. The most recent numbers I could find put it on par with 1996 and that includes cadets and midshipmen that aren't even on active duty yet. The military is on a diet and has been dieting for quite some time.


We spend more on our military than the next 25 countries combined. And 24 of those countries are our allies. And, we can't afford it. Cut it to $50 billion per year. Not gradually; immediately. Like ripping off a band-aid.
 
2013-04-06 02:53:39 PM  

DrPainMD: PS. Military spending, above that necessary to defend the country, is a DRAIN on the economy, not an addition to it (well... it's all a drain, but a necessary one).


..and an inadequate grasp of global economics.

A good deal of military efforts beyond our borders are specifically for the protection of economic interests.
 
2013-04-06 02:57:27 PM  

The Bestest: DrPainMD: 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.

I'm gonna be brutally honest with you: you have a decidedly inadequate grasp on global theater.
Now, if you don't believe the US should be a "superpower", that's something else, but the role of the military goes -well- beyond "protecting national sovereignty".


I've read almost every book by every former Sec. of State, retired general, retired president, and foreign policy maker, and I'm ex-military from a career military family. I have a much better grasp of the world than you think. I'm aware that the military goes well beyond protecting our borders. That's my complaint; it shouldn't extend any further. And, we aren't policing the world. We're propping up half the dictators on the planet.
 
2013-04-06 02:58:41 PM  

The Bestest: DrPainMD: PS. Military spending, above that necessary to defend the country, is a DRAIN on the economy, not an addition to it (well... it's all a drain, but a necessary one).

..and an inadequate grasp of global economics.

A good deal of military efforts beyond our borders are specifically for the protection of economic interests.


At the expense of our own people, infrastructure, education, etc.

Politicians whine about repairing and improving our highways, bridges, damns, and buildings being too costly and taking too long while supporting multi-billion dollar warplanes that take fifteen years to create and don't even work correctly.
 
2013-04-06 03:00:44 PM  

Dansker: 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.


That's because you are only looking at the most obvious consequence.  The US can't prevent Russia or China (or even Spain) from selling fighters to Paraguay.  If the US wanted to prevent Paraguay from having a powerful air force, the best way was to price Paraguay out of the market.

So, make the mega-expensive F-35 to raise the bar and provokes an arms race among countries to compete.  Everyone else puts all their resources into a few high-end fighters to keep up.  Production of low-end fighters is squeezed, and so countries like Paraguay have to rely on aftermarket and such to keep their air force stocked, or spend a fortune on a very small number of aircraft.  That was the idea anyway.

The problem is, the F-35 ended up being even more expensive than anticipated, and we hit a recession, so now even wealthy countries are still buying the relatively cheap airplanes.
 
2013-04-06 03:10:23 PM  

aerojockey: Dansker: 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.

That's because you are only looking at the most obvious consequence.  The US can't prevent Russia or China (or even Spain) from selling fighters to Paraguay.  If the US wanted to prevent Paraguay from having a powerful air force, the best way was to price Paraguay out of the market.


You're not selling weapons to either Russia or China. Spain is your NATO ally, so there is definately a way to prevent them from selling fighters to Paraguay, or any ither country you don't want to have them.

So, make the mega-expensive F-35 to raise the bar and provokes an arms race among countries to compete.


But making it mega expensive was NOT the plan. Quite the opposite, which is one of the main reasons your allies, including my country, joined the project in the first place.
 
2013-04-06 03:11:21 PM  

DrPainMD: I've read almost every book by every former Sec. of State, retired general, retired president, and foreign policy maker, and I'm ex-military from a career military family. I have a much better grasp of the world than you think. I'm aware that the military goes well beyond protecting our borders. That's my complaint; it shouldn't extend any further. And, we aren't policing the world. We're propping up half the dictators on the planet.


So your disagreement stems from the current role: I can respect that. That role, however, cannot change without a fundamental shift in how the world works, and the US's role (as a whole) in it.

The issue is this: let's say we suddenly decided "know what, this superpower thing just isn't working out" and we rework all of our mutual defense treaties, slash our carrier groups to 2, close our foreign bases and tell our multinational corporations "you're responsible for your own security abroad, now". We're done with the big chair. We essentially become present-day Germany (in terms of global influence).

Two problems with this: the US stepping down from its role as superpower doesn't suddenly create a global community, quite the opposite. Regional instabilities increase in areas that previously held US interest. There are other nations, China in particular, that would readily swoop into the role the US held, except with more pseudo-communist flavor.

The other is that even that hypothetical could never happen, because there are some very, very powerful men that particularly like the way things are now.
 
2013-04-06 03:15:42 PM  

L.D. Ablo: 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.


I think I see what you did there.
 
2013-04-06 03:19:10 PM  

Alphakronik: I'm not much of an aviation guy, but that was very cool to watch.

One question I have about it however.  In what types of situation would this feature be used?  I'm trying to think of anytime a plane would be needed for vertical landing would be necessary.  It would seem that unless it can take off vertically, they would need a runway to get it back out of wherever it landed.

Am I wrong?  Please help me understand this better.


Every single time it comes back to the boat.  L-class Amphibs (LHDs and the upcoming new LHAs) don't have catapult or arresting wire systems.  Every takeoff is a "short takeoff" or STO as the max deck run is ~800 ft.  Every landing is a vertical landing.  On your average LHD/LHA on a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) there are 6 Harriers (someday JSFs).  During OIF one, we had 2 "Harrier Carriers" that were nothing but AV-8s.  You can multiple your strike capability and flexibility without having to build $2 billion aircraft carriers.  LHD/LHAs are a lot cheaper.

That help?
 
2013-04-06 03:20:13 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: At the expense of our own people, infrastructure, education, etc.

Politicians whine about repairing and improving our highways, bridges, damns, and buildings being too costly and taking too long while supporting multi-billion dollar warplanes that take fifteen years to create and don't even work correctly.


Not necessarily. It's very easy to point at the big bad military as being the reason many of the things we need (or that people would rather have) don't get the funding they should simply because on its face, it's budget seems obscene. Yes, it's true that there's tons of waste (and by waste I mean things costing more than they should, much in the way that there's tons of waste in healthcare) and boondoggles in that budget. that is really only a minor issue though. The real issue is that some of the biggest beneficiaries of our military power and influence don't make their proportional re-investment.
 
2013-04-06 03:22:53 PM  

Dansker: You're not selling weapons to either Russia or China.


You are completely missing point.

Spain is your NATO ally, so there is definately a way to prevent them from selling fighters to Paraguay, or any ither country you don't want to have them.
 And you're pretty naive.


But making it mega expensive was NOT the plan. Quite the opposite, which is one of the main reasons your allies, including my country, joined the project in the first place.

Not breaking-the-budget-for-wealthy-countries expensive, no.  Out-of-the-price-range-of-poor-countries expensive, yes.
 
2013-04-06 03:24:12 PM  

kabar: Alphakronik: I'm not much of an aviation guy, but that was very cool to watch.

One question I have about it however.  In what types of situation would this feature be used?  I'm trying to think of anytime a plane would be needed for vertical landing would be necessary.  It would seem that unless it can take off vertically, they would need a runway to get it back out of wherever it landed.

Am I wrong?  Please help me understand this better.

Every single time it comes back to the boat.  L-class Amphibs (LHDs and the upcoming new LHAs) don't have catapult or arresting wire systems.  Every takeoff is a "short takeoff" or STO as the max deck run is ~800 ft.  Every landing is a vertical landing.  On your average LHD/LHA on a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) there are 6 Harriers (someday JSFs).  During OIF one, we had 2 "Harrier Carriers" that were nothing but AV-8s.  You can multiple your strike capability and flexibility without having to build $2 billion aircraft carriers.  LHD/LHAs are a lot cheaper.

That help?


Yes, Sir, that helps a lot.

 In my mind I just keep picturing a pilot landing in a clearing surrounded by thick jungle and "charlie", with a injured soldier coming out of the brush - bruised, battered, shot and bleeding limping as fast as he can to get the fark out.  He reaches the plane, the cockpit opens, and he barely climbs in.  Just as he says "ready", the pilot looks for a the "takeoff" button and says "well.....fark".
 
2013-04-06 03:24:50 PM  

The Bestest: DrPainMD: I've read almost every book by every former Sec. of State, retired general, retired president, and foreign policy maker, and I'm ex-military from a career military family. I have a much better grasp of the world than you think. I'm aware that the military goes well beyond protecting our borders. That's my complaint; it shouldn't extend any further. And, we aren't policing the world. We're propping up half the dictators on the planet.

So your disagreement stems from the current role: I can respect that. That role, however, cannot change without a fundamental shift in how the world works, and the US's role (as a whole) in it.

The issue is this: let's say we suddenly decided "know what, this superpower thing just isn't working out" and we rework all of our mutual defense treaties, slash our carrier groups to 2, close our foreign bases and tell our multinational corporations "you're responsible for your own security abroad, now". We're done with the big chair. We essentially become present-day Germany (in terms of global influence).

Two problems with this: the US stepping down from its role as superpower doesn't suddenly create a global community, quite the opposite. Regional instabilities increase in areas that previously held US interest. There are other nations, China in particular, that would readily swoop into the role the US held, except with more pseudo-communist flavor.


If you look at our foreign policy over the last 100 or so years, you will see a pattern of CREATING instability. Granted, much of that time we were just Great Britain's towel boy, but we haven't changed anything since taking over the empire from them. And, have you ever wondered why Switzerland doesn't get involved in world conflicts? It's because they know that whoever controls the resources still has to sell them to make a buck (and it's always about making a buck). They haven't been conned into thinking that they'll be cut off unless they spend a zillion dollars per year on their military.

The other is that even that hypothetical could never happen, because there are some very, very powerful men that particularly like the way things are now.

Yeah, there's that.
 
2013-04-06 03:35:19 PM  

aerojockey: Dansker: You're not selling weapons to either Russia or China.

You are completely missing point.


Or maybe you present a flawed argument.

Spain is your NATO ally, so there is definately a way to prevent them from selling fighters to Paraguay, or any ither country you don't want to have them.
 And you're pretty naive.


If Spain directly violated US wishes by reselling f35s, you could simply cut them off. Not to mention that a contract of that magnitude usually contains language along the lines of "Violation of this contract, including but not limited to resale to 3rd parties, will result in a fine of no less than 200% of the sales price.", thus effectively, economically preventing any sales to Paraguay etc.

The US is by far the biggest arms dealer on the planet; you have a dominant position in the world market, and none of the customers, who rely on buying your goods, especially those in NATO, can afford to piss you off that way.

Not breaking-the-budget-for-wealthy-countries expensive, no.  Out-of-the-price-range-of-poor-countries expensive, yes.

I wish I could take your word for it, but that's not how I work.
 
2013-04-06 03:37:12 PM  

Tobin_Lam: Kittypie070: 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.

I think you are thinking of the F-22. I can't find any instance of an F-35 killing its pilot.


Oh....FARK.

Sorry about that. :(

I dun goofed.
 
2013-04-06 03:40:09 PM  

Dansker: 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.


Oh, you're one of those that wants rational debate. K, keep reading.

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.


You seem to want me to let Denmark off the hook, vis a vis my "yuropoors screaming bloody murder about cost overruns." Which I'm happy to do, as that was directed more to the south and west of you than anywhere else. Denmark has been extremely responsible, IMO, with its involvement in the F-35 program. Level III buy in, essentially a small down payment for the right to order when the project completed. The project has run into problems, the price per unit double, you guys have reconsidered buying the F-35. No big deal, we appreciate your non-refundable deposit, and understand it is out of your price range.

The problem has been with the Level II and Level I partners. They don't seem to understand that the US contracting system runs on cost-plus contracting, and that building a next generation jet is a whole lot more expensive than building a car. Cost-plus is an effective tool for the US military - it secures high technology weapons that work exceptionally well and that have a very, very low failure rate in combat. The downside is that this method of contracting has quite a bit of waste and overruns built in to the system. But that's legit - the military cares less about costs than capability, and nobody wants weapons built by the lowest bidder.

I simply find it amusing that the partner countries would throw money into a US defense project with no apparent idea how the contracting system actually works in the US.  European partners want to be in on the latest and greatest technical advances in American military hardware, and don't want to wait another decade for the US to finally release those weapons on the general market. Fair enough. But turning around and losing your damn mind over cost overruns is ridiculous - can you think of any major piece of military hardware that the US has developed in the past two decades that hasn't had an enormous overrun? Did nobody in Europe or Canada do any research on the history of US weapons development before writing the check?

Europe, Canada, Oz, and Turkey all want the coolest new US toys, built by US companies, under the US system of arms contract. They all want it because they can't build it for themselves. But these countries want all of these shiny new toys that are at the bleeding edge of technology, without dealing with the negative outcomes associated producing these great new weapons, e.g. overruns in development costs.
 
2013-04-06 03:42:36 PM  

DrPainMD: And, have you ever wondered why Switzerland doesn't get involved in world conflicts?


Because they're constitutionally neutral, and because they have made a good living taking care of valuables belonging to citizens in countries that do get involved. Throw out neutrality, and they lose half their customer base.
 
2013-04-06 03:48:09 PM  

Elegy: Dansker: 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.

Oh, you're one of those that wants rational debate. K, keep reading.

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.

You seem to want me to let Denmark off the hook, vis a vis my "yuropoors screaming bloody murder about cost overruns."


I don't really care about that, I just thought your pic was retarded.
I mean, if you had said "What's that South America, I can't hear you over the awesome", or "East Asia", "Middle East", or "Africa", that would kinda make sense. But the only thing European countries are likely to say at this point is "Good to see that it works! I guess it's not a complete waste after all."
 
2013-04-06 03:57:39 PM  
In the first takeoff it looked like the canopy was up... did they have to cut the zero-zero ejection seat for budget reasons or something, leaving the pilot to climb out on the wing and jump in an emergency?
 
2013-04-06 03:59:26 PM  

Dansker: I don't really care about that, I just thought your pic was retarded.


Fair enough. Nobody bats a thousand.
 
2013-04-06 04:00:58 PM  
Was Vietnam the last war that featured air combat? I pray to god Canada cancels their order for the othe varient of this piece of shiat
 
2013-04-06 04:02:31 PM  

propasaurus: Well, that's worth $395 billion.



yea, a real steal for the american people seeing as how they're paying for it.   damn socialists!!
 
2013-04-06 04:02:37 PM  
HK-MP5-SD:  It is just as likely that drones will end up going away in 20-30 years.  All the major powers are working hard on jamming technology.  If you can't tell a drone where to go and what to do its completely useless.  Sure it is possible we could have completely autonomous drones to combat that problem.  But the 1st time that a drone decides that a crane in downtown LA looks enough like a north Korean SCUD Launcher to take a shot people will put an end to that quick.  The military will never put all their eggs in one basket.  Pilots are expensive as hell, but we will have them for the foreseeable future.  No way they take the chance that they will have to tell the president one day, "China has figured out how to jam our drones. They are selling the technology to anyone willing to pay.  We have no airforce until we rebuild our manned aircraft program.  It should take 10-20 years."

Not to mention that current UCAVs are entirely reliant on line-of-sight radio to fly and fight.  The only reason the US military can use them in faraway places beyond line-of-sight is 1) the ground environment is safe enough that you can risk putting control vans on the ground, in-theatre; and 2) DOD has already spent a few billion dollars on a worldwide high-bandwidth satcom constellation.

Most other nations on the planet will never be able to risk/afford 1) or 2), so drones will be pointless to them (except as local point defence) until the drones are able to fly and fight autonomously.
 
2013-04-06 04:04:00 PM  

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



we're going to need it, unfortunately, when the communist chinese we've been doing business with so freely decide they've had enough of U.S.
 
2013-04-06 04:04:08 PM  

Elegy:
I simply find it amusing that the partner countries would throw money into a US defense project with no apparent idea how the contracting system actually works in the US.  European partners want to be in on the latest and greatest technical advances in American military hardware, and don't want to wait another decade for the US to finally release them to the general market. Fair enough. But turning around and losing your damn mind over cost overruns is ridiculous - can you think of any major piece of military hardware that the US has developed in the past two decades that hasn't had an enormous overrun? Did nobody in Europe or Canada do any research on the history of US weapons development before writing the check?


To be fair, it's not just Europeans, who have had a problem with the increases. Your own Government Accountability Office was biatching about it as early as 2005, and Sen. John McCain has described the F-35's ballooning costs and delays as "disgraceful," "outrageous" and a "tragedy."
 
2013-04-06 04:07:24 PM  

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


your boys just got Punk'D with about a million  years of advanced technology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtBnB8ONiJA      SFW (and school)
 
2013-04-06 04:07:45 PM  

AndreMA: In the first takeoff it looked like the canopy was up... did they have to cut the zero-zero ejection seat for budget reasons or something, leaving the pilot to climb out on the wing and jump in an emergency?


notsureifserious.jpg

That's an airbrake/flap covering the lift fan that sits behind the cockpit. Here it is in daylight.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-06 04:08:20 PM  

Tobin_Lam: 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.


So you're a welfare favoring libtard?
 
2013-04-06 04:09:03 PM  

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!



lol    those middle easterners are just loaded with advanced Air technology too.   and those underware bombs, they're far more advanced than anything we can muster.
 
2013-04-06 04:10:32 PM  

Basily Gourt: 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

I have no problem with that description.


you won't until you figure out that the world could dispatch us easily if the world ever turned against us.

sweet dreams, crony capitalist.
 
2013-04-06 04:11:22 PM  
There was supposed to be a couple of links in my previous post:

Bloomberg
Washington Post
 
2013-04-06 04:13:56 PM  

Elegy: Dansker: I don't really care about that, I just thought your pic was retarded.

Fair enough. Nobody bats a thousand.


Ain't that the truth. I know I'm not imune to mistakes myself.
Cheers!
 
2013-04-06 04:41:25 PM  

cptjeff: 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.


aerojockey: 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.


I hate you both.  Seriously.  I always enjoyed being blissfully unaware of how airplanes work, and just counted on their relatively good safety record...
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to go do real science - Mixing goat, donkey, and chicken blood up and pouring it over brains so that I can look for magical lights that appear when I shine freaking lasers at them.
Also, set up for teeny tiny brain surgery tomorrow.
It's odd, somehow I prefer knowing that my job can easily give me cancer and what not to knowing anything about your job...
 
2013-04-06 05:08:37 PM  

indarwinsshadow: 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 sound jelly 

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.



har
 
2013-04-06 05:10:17 PM  

ThatGuyOverThere: It's odd, somehow I prefer knowing that my job can easily give me cancer and what not to knowing anything about your job...


I'm in politics, everybody already thinks they know everything there is to know about my job. I just studied aeronautical engineering for a bit in college, though that does seem to be what aerojockey does for a living. Also, you're welcome, and I think it's Continental that still runs a few turboprops.
 
2013-04-06 05:28:37 PM  
Good to know that the US is still world leader in advanced Streetlight technology.

=Smidge=
 
2013-04-06 05:43:41 PM  
Too bad we slashed our education budgets so much that the next generation won't be able to operate one of these.
 
2013-04-06 06:05:20 PM  
All the stealth in the world isnt going to save you when the politician directing the limited war from a penthouse in DC tells everyone they need visual confirmation before they can fire. At that point it comes down to who the better pilot is.


good thing we still train our pilots to fight.
 
2013-04-06 06:19:49 PM  

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


Clearly you don't "get" the freedom our military-industrial complex ensures.

/needs another engine.
 
2013-04-06 06:45:58 PM  
The F-35 is pretty much based on the Soviet Yak-141.   Down to the fact that Lockheed made a deal with Yakovlev.

www.kitsune.addr.com
 
2013-04-06 07:10:59 PM  

i1172.photobucket.com

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!


i1172.photobucket.com
i1172.photobucket.com

i1172.photobucket.com
i1172.photobucket.com
i1172.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-06 07:26:13 PM  
Is it going to beat the F-22's ratio of one hour of flight per > 23 hours of maintenance?
 
2013-04-06 08:12:44 PM  

way south: hasty ambush: IF UCAV technology proves out the will probably be America's last manned fighter.

[psk.blog.24heures.ch image 460x315]

This is a very big IF being brought to us by the same people who thought fighters would no longer need guns or the ability to turn back in the sixties.

Its going to be a long time before drones are allowed to issue their own kill orders. Which means a drone cant be relied on to deal with any enemy that could jam communications, which also happens to be any enemy with an air defense network or fighters.

These aircraft will physically last for maybe thirty years in service, not counting upgrades. So unless we keep producing them or have hundreds of spares, they won't be the last two fighters we buy.

/Considering that it takes a decade or two just to develop a new fighters, their replacements are probably in the works now.


When I was "on the inside" less than a year ago, there was no replacement on the drawing boards for the F-35 or F-22, and nothing scheduled.

Interesting bits that stuck in my head: The F-35 carries only 500 rounds for the gun. They go through those pretty quickly. The computer system has the ability to project into the helmet so that the pilot can effectively see through the airplane like it isn't even there. Many things are controlled by voice. The F-35 is being built by many countries. They will each get some.

The F-22 we aren't sharing, so I know which one I would rather have on my side in a fight.
 
2013-04-06 08:40:07 PM  
Heh. Done that 50 years ago, yanks. Try to keep up.

wdict.net
 
2013-04-06 08:41:11 PM  

MurphyMurphy: 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.



Anything that's going to be performing medivac missions will require a bay for passengers.  That's going to result in a significant increase in the size and span of the aircraft which will not only limit viable landing locations but will also require a significant increase in thrust.  Thrust from jet engines is a fairly significant hazard and poses a threat to the people you're trying to evacuate as well as any structures or unimproved areas (e.g. landing on grass or dry foliage) you try to land on.
 
2013-04-06 08:42:09 PM  

aerojockey: 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.


Do you mean the compressor blades? The turbine blades are single crystal, they don't deform...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_crystal
 
2013-04-06 08:57:08 PM  

Elegy: That's an airbrake/flap covering the lift fan that sits behind the cockpit. Here it is in daylight.

[i.imgur.com image 600x400]


Thanks for explaining, I was wondering what that big bump in the silhouette was.
 
2013-04-06 09:26:40 PM  

kabar: Alphakronik: I'm not much of an aviation guy, but that was very cool to watch.

One question I have about it however.  In what types of situation would this feature be used?  I'm trying to think of anytime a plane would be needed for vertical landing would be necessary.  It would seem that unless it can take off vertically, they would need a runway to get it back out of wherever it landed.

Am I wrong?  Please help me understand this better.

Every single time it comes back to the boat.  L-class Amphibs (LHDs and the upcoming new LHAs) don't have catapult or arresting wire systems.  Every takeoff is a "short takeoff" or STO as the max deck run is ~800 ft.  Every landing is a vertical landing.  On your average LHD/LHA on a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) there are 6 Harriers (someday JSFs).  During OIF one, we had 2 "Harrier Carriers" that were nothing but AV-8s.  You can multiple your strike capability and flexibility without having to build $2 billion aircraft carriers.  LHD/LHAs are a lot cheaper.

That help?


So true. It also is nice to know you can take a few maintainers, fuelers and ordanance bubbas, and turn an empty small stretch of road into a forward operating base if need be.

/1391
 
2013-04-06 09:39:07 PM  

Curt Blizzah: 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 image 500x323]

But, I'd prefer this:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 320x252]


Pffft: Matt Trakker had no problem stopping that
 
2013-04-06 09:42:24 PM  

Publikwerks: 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.

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...)


I've heard talk that the 35 was designed with drone interface in mind from the get-go, and that if the current climate surrounding drones wasn't so negative, that it would have been announced by now.
 
2013-04-06 09:56:36 PM  

ha-ha-guy: 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


Take everything we learned in the Agile Eagle program, slap it on top of the Silent Eagle program and... BAM!  Best fighter jet ever invented at almost off the shelf prices.

/Makes too much sense
//Won't ever happen.
 
2013-04-06 10:16:08 PM  

italie: Even if Boeing had the better plane


They may have. If Lockheed didn't get the F-35 contract, they were going to get out of the military aircraft business altogether, which would leave the US military with one supplier - Boeing. The US military likes having multiple options for suppliers, because (at least in theory) the competitive bidding process keeps costs down and increases quality.

I worked for LM when this competition was underway - not on aircraft development, but I did have the inside scoop just by being on the LM payroll at the time. And yeah, this may have been nothing more than a negotiating tactic. But that was the word in the trenches.
 
2013-04-06 10:33:02 PM  
While I agree we probably spend too much on the military... you need to keep in mind that Rich people pay most of the taxes, and government contractors and the military hire people who are in fact, not rich.  So its practically a wealth transfer/welfare system, but with the benefit of the fact that rich people really, really like having the worlds best military, and its one thing they dont mind being taxed for.

So... there you have it.
 
2013-04-06 10:33:10 PM  
Oh yeah,  totally worth the amount of money in 2012 dollars that would have gotten us the entire freaking Apollo program one-and-a-half times over again. We could have been to Mars and back, or had a semi-permanent presence on the Moon, for what that colossally-priced boondoggle will end up running us.

Fark that airplane.
 
2013-04-07 12:36:59 AM  

enforcerpsu: The F35 is an interesting aircraft but the kicker is the more stealthy, more maneuverable, faster, F22 is now cheaper to build and maintain.

Slap some bombing hard points on that thing (yes, that hurts the stealth) and be done with it while we work the busted F35.


This. And the new "budget" Virginia class subs are more expensive than their vastly superior Seawolf class they were designed to be cheaper than.

Stop farking around with defense spending and pic a goddamn project.
 
2013-04-07 12:42:11 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..

[www.military-today.com image 600x376]


The object is to respond to crashes faster, not cause more of them...
 
2013-04-07 12:49:48 AM  

Lonestar: 30 years ago noone was thinking that wireless tech would evolve to the point that we could fly a plane remotely from the us.


We have been remotely guiding things since WWII and that includes planes.
 
2013-04-07 12:58:59 AM  

Lord Summerisle: Heh. Done that 50 years ago, yanks. Try to keep up.

[wdict.net image 750x562]


That's because 75 years ago we gave you the technology, equipment, and resources to keep you alive.

Also, we fly those pictured Harriers better than you do. (And helped to refine them for the II version.)

But you can pretend you have a military as capable and advanced as ours. You are, after all, our ally, we'll protect you just as we protect others who can't do so for themselves. It is simple facts when I point out the superiority of our military and our many weapons and it isn't nationalism or pride. We might not be good for much these days but we can kill people very well.
 
2013-04-07 01:02:45 AM  

UnspokenVoice: Lonestar: 30 years ago noone was thinking that wireless tech would evolve to the point that we could fly a plane remotely from the us.

We have been remotely guiding things since WWII and that includes planes.


The key phrase in his sentence was 'from the US'. Nobody was remotely piloting jack shiat across the span of the Atlantic Ocean up until recently. If you gotta sit above the target (and thusly, its anti-air defenses) in order to remotely pilot your aircraft, you still arent gaining anything.
 
2013-04-07 01:21:14 AM  

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%.


Ok I'm with you on cutting the Defense budget but let's be real here. Closing all those foreign bases means we lose our ability to be anywhere in the world in a matter of seconds if shiat does get real. I'm neither a Righty or  Lefty, I'm about as middle of the road as they come, but god damn you sound like an idiot. Americas greatest assett as far as the military goes is our Navy, specifically our carrier fleet and the fact that we have a presence everywhere.I wish we would quit giving the military so much damn money and instead spend it on NASA or alternative energy, hell even some updated nuclear plants. But shutting down our over seas bases is not something I want to see. I'm not worried about our country militarily. It's just cool to visit any country on earth and see someone I know...
 
2013-04-07 01:21:37 AM  
Footage of first F-35B nighttime take off and landing tests looks like something straight out of a sci-fi movie

Well, yes, sci-fi movies often have scenes with completely normal, non-sci-fi-looking planes in them, so I guess this is true.
 
2013-04-07 01:40:22 AM  

Emposter: Footage of first F-35B nighttime take off and landing tests looks like something straight out of a sci-fi movie

Well, yes, sci-fi movies often have scenes with completely normal, non-sci-fi-looking planes in them, so I guess this is true.


I donno, A plane with full afterburner going pointed straight down is pretty out there.
 
2013-04-07 01:41:21 AM  
Aviationweek.com had something to say about the F-35B melting runways

The newly released [Air Force] document, hosted on a government building-design resource site, outlines what base-construction engineers need to do to ensure that the F-35B's exhaust does not turn the surface it lands on into an area-denial weapon. And it's not trivial. Vertical-landing "pads will be exposed to 1700 deg. F and high velocity (Mach 1) exhaust," the report says. The exhaust will melt asphalt and "is likely to spall the surface of standard airfield concrete pavements on the first VL." (The report leaves to the imagination what jagged chunks of spalled concrete will do in a supersonic blast field.)

Not only does the VL pad have to be made of heat-resistant concrete, but currently known sealants can't stand the heat either, so the pad has to be one continuous piece of concrete, with continuous reinforcement in all directions so that cracks and joints remain closed. The reinforced pad has to be 100 feet by 100 feet, with a 50-foot paved area around it.

By the way, any area where an F-35B may be stopped with the engine running - runway ends, hold-shorts on taxiways, and ramps - also has to be made of heat-resistant concrete to tolerate the exhaust from the Integrated Power Pack (IPP), which is acting as a small gas turbine whenever the aircraft is stopped.

[...]
What do "very small" and "significant" mean? In VL mode the main engine on the F-35B is producing some 15,700 pounds of thrust, while a Harrier's aft nozzles deliver about 12,000 pounds of thrust. (The fore-aft split is roughly equal.)

But the F-35's overall pressure ratio is almost twice as high, which would point to a much higher jet velocity (which LockMart doesn't mention), the JSF nozzle is much closer to the ground, and the Harrier has two nozzles, several feet apart.

End

They're redesigning the F-35's nozzle so that its output doesn't warp the structure of aircraft carriers (and other naval craft) through the steel deck plates
But there isn't much they can do for concrete and asphalt other than repave everything, which limits where these can be deployed.

Oh, and they had to redesign the fuel tank since it was at risk of exploding if the plane was struck by lightning.
This is the kind of clusterfark that you get from a bad procurement process where they're still designing the plan as it's being built.
 
2013-04-07 01:49:12 AM  

Malicious Bastard: from a bad procurement process where they're still designing the plan as it's being built.


That's a feature, not a bug. It makes it so there aren't any definitive stop points, and ensures that at any given point, cancelling the program incurs higher immediate costs than continuing it. There's even a term in the Defense industry for that kind of structuring: "Political Engineering".

Making a program politically impossible to cancel isn't just an art now, it's a science. And the F-35 is generally considered to be a masterpiece.

\Did like how they had to redesign the entire airframe to make the tailhook work on the navy version.
\\To us inside the beltway cynics, a lot of this is funny.
 
2013-04-07 02:09:27 AM  

fluffy2097: Emposter: Footage of first F-35B nighttime take off and landing tests looks like something straight out of a sci-fi movie

Well, yes, sci-fi movies often have scenes with completely normal, non-sci-fi-looking planes in them, so I guess this is true.

I donno, A plane with full afterburner going pointed straight down is pretty out there.


It's cool, but it's barely even a novel use of decades old technology.  I expect a bit more from my science fiction.
 
2013-04-07 02:12:39 AM  

Emposter: It's cool, but it's barely even a novel use of decades old technology. I expect a bit more from my science fiction.


Fark, where airplanes are sci-fi, and sci-fi is real technology...
 
2013-04-07 03:55:07 AM  
Nothing to see here. Move along.
img687.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-07 04:23:27 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.


The keyword is proportion. U.S. military spending and power is absurdly disproportionate compared to the rest of the world and no country really comes near in both spending and military power. Sure, you have to keep developing, but is the military spending really proportionate, and couldn't at least part of money be spent on something more useful, such as better education, environment, high speed rail, programs to support entrepreneurship etc.?  Of course you can't do that overnight as indeed a lot of people depend on the military budget for their jobs, but therein of course lies the biggest danger.

By making the military so important for the economy and the small very powerful group of businesses, businessmen and politicians that run the country, you are in fact creating an internal need for occasional conflict, in order to create profit as well as to promote patriotism to make sure the citizens don't start seeing what kind of country they are really living in.

You say it correctly, you never know how the world will look like in 20-30 years. But, then you also have to realize that this same argument is exactly why most of the world actually sees the U.S. as the biggest threat for the next 20-30 years (with China next), as you can never be sure how far the people will let their country go towards olicharchy and/or fascism, and what target will be next in order the fund the corporations and keep the people happy and patriotic.  You just have to look at example like Germany and Japan to see what happens if countries over the course of a few decades grow ever more militaristic: eventually it leads to war.

With all your hero worshipping, flag waving, gun-loving and authoritarianism there is no doubt that US culture is basically militaristic and the largest potential threat to world peace. Not now, but things can change. Iraq showed how easy it is for a small number of powerful people to fool their own citizens.

Spending such a ridiculous amount of money on military is not only a waste of money, it is potentially dangerous.
 
2013-04-07 10:48:36 AM  

Dansker: Some of us Europeans have actually contributed to the development:
While the United States is the primary customer and financial backer, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark have agreed to contribute US$4.375 billion toward the development costs of the program.[1] Total development costs are estimated at more than US$40 billion (underwritten largely by the United States), while the purchase of an estimated 2,400 planes is expected to cost an additional US$200 billion.[2] Norway has estimated that each of their planned 52 F-35 fighter jets will cost their country $769 million over their operational lifetime.[3] The nine major partner nations, including the U.S., plan to acquire over 3,100 F-35s through 2035,[4] which, if delivered will make the F-35 one of the most numerous jet fighters.
Wikipedia


Someone probably mentioned this down thread from the original comment but just in case no one has:

Do you think you are getting an F35 with the same capabilities as the US domestic versions? If so, I have some lovely bridges for sale you might be interested in....

/We don't export the good stuff, even to our best allies like the UK, just a watered down version of the good stuff. Enjoy a watered down version of a POS that will be obsolete by the time it enters service.
 
2013-04-07 10:48:59 AM  
look, we need fighter jets, i get it!

we need to keep making the best fighter jets before anyone else to maintain our edge.

unfortunately we also have to do it in a reasonably intelligent and responsible way and that's where we have failed.

whats worse than having no new jet is spending a trillion dollars on a jet that sucks.

the problem isn't military spending. the problem is ridiculously stupid military spending.

we fund airborne lasers but not veteran affairs, that tells us everything we need to know about our priorities

our military has become a corporate welfare system that is crippling our society.
 
2013-04-07 11:00:36 AM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: [i1172.photobucket.com image 324x289]

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!

[i1172.photobucket.com image 800x433]
[i1172.photobucket.com image 276x183]

[i1172.photobucket.com image 850x542]
[i1172.photobucket.com image 300x200]
[i1172.photobucket.com image 640x360]


I don't think India is really a threat to the US.  Nor do they want to be.
 
2013-04-07 12:01:21 PM  

Emposter: It's cool, but it's barely even a novel use of decades old technology. I expect a bit more from my science fiction.


well the  internet is just an automated telegraph machine. It's barely a novel use of electrical switching at all. It only even has 2 modes, on or off! IT's so goddamn basis you cant put a dimmer on it!

How totally un sci-fi.
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
 
2013-04-07 12:07:00 PM  

fluffy2097: Emposter: It's cool, but it's barely even a novel use of decades old technology. I expect a bit more from my science fiction.

well the  internet is just an automated telegraph machine. It's barely a novel use of electrical switching at all. It only even has 2 modes, on or off! IT's so goddamn basis you cant put a dimmer on it!

How totally un sci-fi.
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ


We use billions of times more bits than telegraphy. How many times more thrust do jet engines have compared to a few decades ago? Let's be generous and say twice. 2 = 1000000000 in your world?
 
2013-04-07 12:09:30 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Let's be generous and say twice. 2 = 1000000000 in your world?


I think your sarcasm detector needs calibration.
 
2013-04-07 12:30:33 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: We use billions of times more bits than telegraphy. How many times more thrust do jet engines have compared to a few decades ago? Let's be generous and say twice. 2 = 1000000000 in your world?


there are 2 bits.

on and off.

forum-img.pinside.com
 
2013-04-07 12:41:39 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: Quantum Apostrophe: Let's be generous and say twice. 2 = 1000000000 in your world?

I think your sarcasm detector needs calibration.


No, some people need to stop comparing information processing to moving mass.
 
2013-04-07 01:19:12 PM  
Fake and gay
 
2013-04-07 01:22:23 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Fuggin Bizzy: Quantum Apostrophe: Let's be generous and say twice. 2 = 1000000000 in your world?

I think your sarcasm detector needs calibration.

No, some people need to stop comparing information processing to moving mass.


Hows your research on living forever going QA?
 
2013-04-07 05:10:55 PM  

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.


Image too big and too proprietary to post directly
 
2013-04-07 06:33:27 PM  

fluffy2097: Hows your research on living forever going QA?


Pretty good, how's your Mars condo coming along, fluffster?
 
2013-04-07 07:50:04 PM  

enforcerpsu: d yes, I know its not that simple. They did, however, design the F22 to carry A2G weaponry just in case...


No they didn't; they tacked on that capability as an afterthought to make it at least slightly relevant in the current war.

To which it has never deployed anyway.
 
2013-04-07 09:33:20 PM  

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


That was my first question too...

Wow. The conservatives handling of the F-35 is one of the few bad marks i would give the conservatives here in Canada. The operating cost should damn well be factored into the "price estimate" -- what kind of trucking business buys a new fleet of peterbuilts without factoring in the fuel consumption or how expensive it is to get them changed constantly for interstate trucking?

my rough numbers put a tank of gas for that sucker at 8 grand and i bet an hour of use adds about 40 grand in labor for inspections and maintenance per hour its in the air...

We are talking about a plane that costs about 40-50 thousand dollars to just take out of the hanger to practice using it for an afternoon. How could you think that price shouldnt be factored into the overall purchase price? Nobody in real estate would think about buying property without factoring in costs like utilities and property tax...

Everyone knows the future is in swarms of unmanned bombs swarming above the battlefield like some cloud of surveillance and death from above.
 
2013-04-08 01:35:54 AM  
Please tell me that thing doesn't have to land using the afterburner.
 
2013-04-08 01:37:06 AM  

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 F-22 took years and years for delivery to operational squadrons.  I think congress had a bit to do with it.  For a while we had to call it the F/A-22 to ensure congress understood that it has a fighter and attack role.  If you called it an F-22 it would get corrected.
 
2013-04-08 01:42:44 AM  
It looks like attempting a vertical landing on an umimproved field would result in the aircraft digging its own grave.

/ glass parking lot
 
2013-04-08 01:42:50 AM  

Publikwerks: 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.

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...)


I am hearing it will be the last manned fighter we build.
 
2013-04-08 11:57:37 AM  
well that'll show the rest of the world we'll have no chinks in our armor
 
2013-04-08 12:51:43 PM  

Lord Summerisle: Heh. Done that 50 years ago, yanks. Try to keep up.

[wdict.net image 750x562]


Try to keep up with this, bloke.
Sod off, wanker.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-08 07:50:12 PM  
Begoggle

Fake and gay

Not fake, and no gay would design something that lousy, knowing full well his boyfriend might have to fly it.

It looks like a classic "horse designed by committee" trying to be everything instead of just performing a few roles really well.  And it appears we're now going to have to throw insane amounts of money at it to make it work.  The end state of machines like this tends to be sitting around unused, either because as mentioned earlier cost per flight hour both in terms of maintenance and amortized development costs is going to be some totally insane number like 50-70k or it just won't really be what mission planners want to use because of manpower needed to keep it going.

/ And as was also mentioned, the flying bomb is going to rule the skies here before too long.
 
2013-04-09 02:14:58 PM  

Full Blown Jimbo: Sci-Fi is just stuff we haven't figured out how to do yet, right? I get what people say about the military industrial complex and how it costs too much, and I agree with them, but when I worked on the flightline at Ellsworth AFB and they spooled one of the B1-B engines up to full power it was hard not to stand up and salute.


Last year I went to the Cocoa Beach Air Show and saw a pilot putting an F-22 through its paces. Even knowing what I know about the cost overruns, schedule overruns, and problems with the pilot oxygen systems, it was still amazing to see what that aircraft can do.

/The V-22 was cool, too.
 
2013-04-09 03:25:14 PM  

mikefinch: Everyone knows the future is in swarms of unmanned bombs swarming above the battlefield like some cloud of surveillance and death from above.


How many global SATCOM networks does Canada operate?

Good luck getting that cloud of drones to go anywhere.
 
2013-04-09 05:05:34 PM  

Thurston Howell: How many global SATCOM networks does Canada operate?

Good luck getting that cloud of drones to go anywhere.


You dont need all that -- heres how i think it would look: The swarm of say 100 grenade sized bots would not all be bombs. Some of the tiny drones scan the surroundings so they all know what their flying environment looks like. A few do targeting and handle the maths regarding how its blows something up. A few are master drones that the rest swarm around and these would feed info back and forth between real people in control rooms who could tell it where to head or whether or not  it should fire.

Out of 100 drones only half or so would actually be bombs -- and those could be of different payloads or whatever for anti personel or anti air or whatev. The other half would provide substance to the swarm while taking the brunt of the guidance and stuff off the actual weapons.

Like one of those rc helicopters. No satellites needed. Just have a whack of those teamed up to every group you put on the battle field. Needs work still but the concepts are all proven and workable.

Also -- low blow concerning the Radarsat.
 
2013-04-09 07:22:40 PM  
mikefinch: [...]A few are master drones that the rest swarm around and these would feed info back and forth between real people in control rooms who could tell it where to head or whether or not  it should fire.

[...] Like one of those rc helicopters. No satellites needed. Just have a whack of those teamed up to every group you put on the battle field. Needs work still but the concepts are all proven and workable.


I hate to break it to you, but the bolded part is why you need the satellites.  The problem is that without satellites, the people in the control rooms, the drone swarm, and the target all need to be within 2-3 miles of each other.  The RC quadrotors in that video link have a radio range of about 500-1000 feet.  Military swarms will obviously need better gear and range, but the basic principle applies.  How are you going pass command-and-control signals from humans to the birds, and receive intel/output from them?  Satellites.  Or a string of ground antennas ringing enemy territory.  Or one hell of a long USB cable.

Even if the drone swarm is semi-autonomous and doesn't require active radio uplinks to fly, identify targets, and fight, there's a pretty good chance that your targeting information will need to be updated somewhere between wheels-up and time on target.  If you can't pass updated information to the swarm (because of, ahem, a lack of satellites or ground stations with sufficient range), then the swarm is going to miss the show.

The swarm would need to be fully autonomous, able to fly, identify targets of opportunity, and fight without human input.  And that's a whole other ballgame.
 
2013-04-09 08:13:41 PM  

Thurston Howell: I hate to break it to you, but the bolded part is why you need the satellites. The problem is that without satellites, the people in the control rooms, the drone swarm, and the target all need to be within 2-3 miles of each other. The RC quadrotors in that video link have a radio range of about 500-1000 feet. Military swarms will obviously need better gear and range, but the basic principle applies. How are you going pass command-and-control signals from humans to the birds, and receive intel/output from them? Satellites. Or a string of ground antennas ringing enemy territory. Or one hell of a long USB cable.


I agree satellites would make the whole thing much more powerful. I dunno -- what about a series of ten beach ball sized fliers that were attached to a guy within a unit. The guy would be specialized and he would have extra gear. One robot would be controlled like an rc while the rest autononomsyly fed back video and data to the special coms guy who could pass on other orders to the master. I guess thats what im saying -- the swarm would maybe have to revolve around a master drone... with redundancies in the others if the master had problems...

I figure you could pass enough stuff over radio frequencies that a guy in an APC could use them like a scout while on patrol. They could peek around corners and give the guys on the ground quick and detailed info about whats out there...

I still think its one of the directions the battlefield is headed. Even one rc copter with cameras would be useful in urban warfare. Being able to have 10 small ones that could blow shiat up at the same time would be be even better.

And you could have one of those big communications planes the military has nearby to provide a flying command centre. I know they have that ability...
 
2013-04-09 09:36:07 PM  

mikefinch: [...] The guy would be specialized and he would have extra gear. One robot would be controlled like an rc while the rest autononomsyly fed back video and data to the special coms guy who could pass on other orders to the master. I guess thats what im saying -- the swarm would maybe have to revolve around a master drone... with redundancies in the others if the master had problems...

I figure you could pass enough stuff over radio frequencies that a guy in an APC could use them like a scout while on patrol. They could peek around corners and give the guys on the ground quick and detailed info about whats out there...


This is not too far off how the existing (non-swarm) man-portable UAVs operate now.  But they are scouts, they don't carry kinetics.

In order to heft operationally significant amounts of ordnance that will last beyond a single sortie, the size of the unit has to increase a fair bit, to something Cessna [or Predator] sized.  But once you're at that size, it's no longer a man-portable/launchable unit, and needs airfield infrastructure.

This concept is probably closer to what you had in mind, and it sounds interesting, though they are single-sortie deals and don't have a "brain" drone directing them.
 
Displayed 253 of 253 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


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