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 49
    More: Cool, F-35B, external fuel tank, goal post, F-18, nozzles, landing, hurling, sci-fi  
•       •       •

19966 clicks; posted to Video » on 06 Apr 2013 at 5:09 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-06 05:40:46 AM
7 votes:
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 07:42:31 AM
3 votes:

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 12:22:38 AM
3 votes:
If this is what they're letting the world see I wonder what they really have.
2013-04-06 03:19:10 PM
2 votes:

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 02:27:21 PM
2 votes:
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 10:46:37 AM
2 votes:

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 07:53:27 AM
2 votes:
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 07:38:08 AM
2 votes:
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 01:58:58 AM
2 votes:
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 12:34:52 AM
2 votes:

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.
2013-04-05 11:44:41 PM
2 votes:
images.tzaam.com
2013-04-06 10:33:02 PM
1 votes:
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 06:05:20 PM
1 votes:
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 05:43:41 PM
1 votes:
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 04:07:45 PM
1 votes:

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 03:40:09 PM
1 votes:

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 02:52:54 PM
1 votes:
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 02:33:11 PM
1 votes:

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 02:29:42 PM
1 votes:

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 02:17:47 PM
1 votes:
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 02:16:10 PM
1 votes:

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 01:59:51 PM
1 votes:
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 01:35:48 PM
1 votes:

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 01:09:15 PM
1 votes:

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 11:18:55 AM
1 votes:
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 11:13:53 AM
1 votes:
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 10:25:32 AM
1 votes:
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 10:24:18 AM
1 votes:

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


It takes that much money because Imaginary enemies are hard to fight.
2013-04-06 10:08:25 AM
1 votes:

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 09:35:54 AM
1 votes:
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 09:21:08 AM
1 votes:

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 09:05:15 AM
1 votes:
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 08:49:19 AM
1 votes:

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 08:30:12 AM
1 votes:

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


i49.tinypic.com
2013-04-06 07:44:30 AM
1 votes:

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 07:31:36 AM
1 votes:

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 07:18:39 AM
1 votes:

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 07:00:33 AM
1 votes:

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 06:59:02 AM
1 votes:

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 06:57:00 AM
1 votes:

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 06:47:01 AM
1 votes:

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 06:45:31 AM
1 votes:

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 05:58:00 AM
1 votes:

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 05:34:46 AM
1 votes:
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 02:14:25 AM
1 votes:

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 12:10:00 AM
1 votes:
Defense contractor propaganda meets the 21st century.
Eisenhower facepalms.
2013-04-06 12:04:28 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-04-05 11:52:37 PM
1 votes:
Well, that's worth $395 billion.
2013-04-05 11:40:15 PM
1 votes:
I wonder what kind of fuel consumption that is when doing vertical landings or hovering.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report