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.

(Yahoo)   The good news: The F-35 program is showing increases in efficiency and there are new foreign buyers showing interest. The bad news: The software the plane needs to operate may not be ready by 2017, when full-scale production should be underway   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 190
    More: Interesting, F-35, Lockheed Martin, United Technologies Corp., U.S. Defense Department, Pratt & Whitney, hacking attacks, EADS, BAE Systems  
•       •       •

4403 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Apr 2013 at 9:55 AM (52 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-25 11:16:15 AM

pkellmey: A stealthy, networked, drone fighter fleet would put most manned fighters to shame. Plus, in total, it would be a less expensive project and not put pilots at risk.


Those only work against nations without an air force for electronic counter measures.

For dealing with the nations that are lining up to buy these:
dl.dropboxusercontent.com

Depending on drones for our air defense may prove to have a few shortcomings.
 
2013-04-25 11:21:52 AM
michiganftl,
The M-16 always worked fine (ok, maybe a few small additions, like a forward assist helped), it was just some stupid army guys who saw 'outer space parts' and believed that it never had to be cleaned. Once they issued cleaning kits (pretty quickly, because, ya know, it's not cheap to train a grunt and then have him die) they worked fine.


I don't claim to have the 1000 yard stare here, but when the enemy leaves weapons by dead soldiers that is a strong indication they are junk, or at least were.

I swear I heard a source state that part of the problem was stick powder vs ball power, but don't swear by it.
 
2013-04-25 11:26:01 AM

mark12A: I really, reallly, really WANT the F-35B. Fark the other varients. A vertical takeoff/landing supersonic fighter can be really, really, really useful.

If we had F-35B's and V-22's in 1979, the Iranian hostage rescue would have gone quite differently....


Well if we had a time machine we'd get our folks the fark out of there.
 
2013-04-25 11:26:50 AM

Enemabag Jones: michiganftl,
The M-16 always worked fine (ok, maybe a few small additions, like a forward assist helped), it was just some stupid army guys who saw 'outer space parts' and believed that it never had to be cleaned. Once they issued cleaning kits (pretty quickly, because, ya know, it's not cheap to train a grunt and then have him die) they worked fine.

I don't claim to have the 1000 yard stare here, but when the enemy leaves weapons by dead soldiers that is a strong indication they are junk, or at least were.

I swear I heard a source state that part of the problem was stick powder vs ball power, but don't swear by it.


I swear I've heard that story too, if that helps.
 
2013-04-25 11:28:08 AM

Enemabag Jones: michiganftl,
The M-16 always worked fine (ok, maybe a few small additions, like a forward assist helped), it was just some stupid army guys who saw 'outer space parts' and believed that it never had to be cleaned. Once they issued cleaning kits (pretty quickly, because, ya know, it's not cheap to train a grunt and then have him die) they worked fine.

I don't claim to have the 1000 yard stare here, but when the enemy leaves weapons by dead soldiers that is a strong indication they are junk, or at least were.

I swear I heard a source state that part of the problem was stick powder vs ball power, but don't swear by it.


I'm going from what I've seen/read not from any experience, but you're also looking at the enemy had the AK-47 which is legendary for it's ability to take a punishment (hell, to clean it just tie some boot strings in a knot, dip 'em in motor oil and run em through the barrel, that's clean enough). Also, the 5.56x45mm vs the .7.62x39mm, whereas in the jungle you're looking at engagements that aren't very long range, negating the long range accuracy of the M16 and favoring the spray and pray of the larger 7.62x39mm round. Add into that the ease of the 'enemy' procuring larger amounts of 7.62x39mm and a bit more difficult for the 5.56x45mm and I think it's more than just 'the M16 was a crappy weapon'. It just wasn't the 'best' weapon for the job that was being done.

//yeah I know, no one cares.
 
2013-04-25 11:28:18 AM

UNC_Samurai: Slaves2Darkness: The problems with the F-35 make me wonder if China is running an espionage campaign to sabotage the dam thing.

China is running Congress?


The money trail has to lead somewhere. Why not China?
 
2013-04-25 11:30:06 AM

Enemabag Jones: michiganftl,
The M-16 always worked fine (ok, maybe a few small additions, like a forward assist helped), it was just some stupid army guys who saw 'outer space parts' and believed that it never had to be cleaned. Once they issued cleaning kits (pretty quickly, because, ya know, it's not cheap to train a grunt and then have him die) they worked fine.

I don't claim to have the 1000 yard stare here, but when the enemy leaves weapons by dead soldiers that is a strong indication they are junk, or at least were.

I swear I heard a source state that part of the problem was stick powder vs ball power, but don't swear by it.


It was a combination of factors. Switching powder for cheaper ammo, only to have the cheaper powder increase fouling. Some idiot thought the M16 was "self cleaning" (the gas tube is, but the rifle itself needs cleaning), so they didn't issue cleaning kits. In a humid jungle environment the things gunked up nice and fast. They also tried to cheap out and do without a chrome lined bore; the extra lubricity given by a chromed bore makes a good cleaning less necessary, and if you aren't cleaning it at all while it's shooting dirtier ammo, it sure won't help things.

The stories about troops being killed with cleaning rods down the barrel of a nonfunctional rifle were apocryphal; I'm not aware of any confirmed cases of that (not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying it seems to be something of an urban legend- a bunch of guys whose buddies saw it, but nobody who was actually there). The powers that be certainly botched the introduction of the rifle but once they figured out what was going on it was sorted out quickly.
 
2013-04-25 11:31:17 AM

MichiganFTL: Alonjar: another cultural observer: Thunderpipes: Aarontology: Four hundred billion dollars for a plane that doesn't even really work

Or about five sequesters worth.

That is like 9 Solyndras.

Or 61,000 Teapot Domes

Or 13.3 million college educations.

7 HP Print Cartridges. 9 days of Medicare.


5 golden rings,
4 calling birds
3 french hens
2 turtle doves
and a cartridge in a bare tree.
 
2013-04-25 11:31:19 AM

way south: Those only work against nations without an air force for electronic counter measures.

For dealing with the nations that are lining up to buy these:
[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 640x359]

Depending on drones for our air defense may prove to have a few shortcomings.


Clearly Russia, China and India are lining up their air forces to conquer us Red Dawn style. Everyone panic and spend a few trillion more on the F-35 and F-22
 
2013-04-25 11:32:38 AM

MichiganFTL: The M-16 always worked fine


The AK-47 always worked better.
 
2013-04-25 11:33:01 AM

mainstreet62: No matter what gets shot at it, the SR-71 can outrun it. Mostly.


Sure, but it takes all of Rhode Island just to make a three-point turn.
 
2013-04-25 11:34:51 AM

I_Am_Weasel: It's not that the software won't be completed until 2017, it's that it just won't be ready to run until 2017.  They're using Java.


You vastly underestimate the amount of time that would take.

/fark Java
 
2013-04-25 11:36:19 AM

TuteTibiImperes: MythDragon: [www.airforce-technology.com image 620x371]

Who needs anything else?

That thing is more like a flying tank than a fighter plane, but they are very cool.


It's a gun with wings.

img36.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-25 11:36:36 AM
Great News Everyone! The Human Eviscerator has made great progress in its production! The bad news... The AI continues to question why must it slay humans needlessly, and continues to try and use diplomacy instead in all VR conflicts.
 
2013-04-25 11:36:40 AM
McDonnell Douglas knew how to do fighters without all the "unforeseen"  costs LockMart causes and we pay. -and all the worthless gizmos. A F15 would work just fine.

/ MD's not Bloeings plane. Just like Delta2 was MD's but the lazy B ruined it.
 
2013-04-25 11:37:29 AM

Marcus Aurelius: MichiganFTL: The M-16 always worked fine

The AK-47 always worked better.


Depends on the job you want to do. Ability to rapidly change roles, accuracy and carry additional ammo are all areas where the M16 always outshined the AK47. Now, in terms of ease of cleaning/production and ruggedness, the AK47 is awesome, but the latter gap is closing/closed with the introduction of new platforms (SCAR/416). So, always is not really the best description.
 
2013-04-25 11:38:36 AM

HAMMERTOE: mainstreet62: No matter what gets shot at it, the SR-71 can outrun it. Mostly.

Sure, but it takes all of Rhode Island just to make a three-point turn.


It'll get to those turns first. ;-)
 
2013-04-25 11:43:54 AM
The M-16 was so temperamental, anything from sand to upward pressure on the bottom of the clip would cause it to jam. I'm positive the buildup of carbon in the gas system has already been covered, so ubiquitous was it. I used to be able to coax small charcoal briquets out of mine.
 
2013-04-25 11:45:43 AM

Maud Dib: It's a gun with wings.


Hells yes! And an armored bathtub for a cockpit!. Those things would still fly with half a wing sheared off.
 
2013-04-25 11:51:45 AM

mbillips: TheShavingofOccam123: We can build thousands of MP-38s or millions of Stens.

You know why nobody uses Stens any more?


Well, there was that problem with the dancing Sten gun...

/my point is where does quality top quantity or vice versa. The Serbs did manage to shoot down--supposedly with obsolete equipment--one of our stealth fighters. Right after that we bombed the Chinese embassy so who knows where there was collaboration before or after the shoot down. Apparently the 1960's era missile used to shoot down the fighter had a tech upgrade.
 
2013-04-25 11:56:04 AM

MichiganFTL: Depends on the job you want to do. Ability to rapidly change roles, accuracy and carry additional ammo are all areas where the M16 always outshined the AK47. Now, in terms of ease of cleaning/production and ruggedness, the AK47 is awesome, but the latter gap is closing/closed with the introduction of new platforms (SCAR/416). So, always is not really the best description.


Not to mention the AK weighs a fark ton compared to an AR.  Weight reduction was the primary driving factor in the original design of the AR platform.
 
2013-04-25 12:02:54 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: mbillips: TheShavingofOccam123: We can build thousands of MP-38s or millions of Stens.

You know why nobody uses Stens any more?

Well, there was that problem with the dancing Sten gun...

/my point is where does quality top quantity or vice versa. The Serbs did manage to shoot down--supposedly with obsolete equipment--one of our stealth fighters. Right after that we bombed the Chinese embassy so who knows where there was collaboration before or after the shoot down. Apparently the 1960's era missile used to shoot down the fighter had a tech upgrade.


The Serbs shot down a stealth fighter using a weapon with visual targeting.  No amount of stealth will protect you from that and nothing but an absurd amount of luck would let them shoot down another one.
 
2013-04-25 12:04:44 PM

Marcus Aurelius: MichiganFTL: The M-16 always worked fine

The AK-47 always worked better.


Eh...better all depends really.

If we are starting out 1000yds away in a wide open field walking towards each other, give me the M-16 anyday.

If we are 50 yds away and have to pull our rifles from underneath 1' of mud before engaging...I'll take the AK.
 
2013-04-25 12:10:59 PM
dittybopper:

Well, duh.  Software is often a sticking point, especially if it has to work with nearly 100% reliability.  The amount of testing and integration necessary to get it right can be very expensive, and you need to build slack into the schedule to account for unforeseen problems.

I mean, "The Mythical Man-Month" was written nearly 40 years ago, so it's not like this should be a surprise to anyone.


There is also the problem that you have to wait for the hardware design to become tangible before you start writing software for it.  And the design cycle is so slow the whole engineering team might be learning as they go.  The F14, F15, F16 and F18 were all designed 30 or more years ago. You're lucky if your chief engineer was even in high school then.
 
2013-04-25 12:21:05 PM

pkellmey: A stealthy, networked, drone fighter fleet would put most manned fighters to shame. Plus, in total, it would be a less expensive project and not put pilots at risk.


already been done

static.giantbomb.com
 
2013-04-25 12:23:15 PM

HAMMERTOE: The M-16 was so temperamental, anything from sand to upward pressure on the bottom of the clip would cause it to jam. I'm positive the buildup of carbon in the gas system has already been covered, so ubiquitous was it. I used to be able to coax small charcoal briquets out of mine.


Every time I go to the range I see a whole line of people fiddling with their AR-15s.  The larger calibers seem to be less temperamental, i.e. the .308, but I'll stick to my A-bolt for long range and virtually anything else at less than 300 yards.
 
2013-04-25 12:24:24 PM

steve_wmn: dittybopper:

Well, duh.  Software is often a sticking point, especially if it has to work with nearly 100% reliability.  The amount of testing and integration necessary to get it right can be very expensive, and you need to build slack into the schedule to account for unforeseen problems.

I mean, "The Mythical Man-Month" was written nearly 40 years ago, so it's not like this should be a surprise to anyone.

There is also the problem that you have to wait for the hardware design to become tangible before you start writing software for it.  And the design cycle is so slow the whole engineering team might be learning as they go.  The F14, F15, F16 and F18 were all designed 30 or more years ago. You're lucky if your chief engineer was even in high school then.


Plus they're probably limited to cramming a ton of functionality into a shiatty, closed architecture like Integrity.  Not too mention Lockheed is infamous for dumping a ridiculous, tangled web of requirements on their subcontractors.  The bulk of the development cycle is spent deciphering requirements and arguing with QA on how they should be interpreted.  Every argument ends in a document re-write, followed by a reset on the validation process.
 
2013-04-25 12:24:26 PM
The F-35 will be a resounding success...for the people who set up the deals and collect the juicy commissions.

Your role, citizen, is to Keep America Safe by subsidizing these deals.  Remember the Heroes.  Denounce the Tourists.
 
2013-04-25 12:27:06 PM
I'm sick of fake wars. When will we have a real one to use all these toys?
 
2013-04-25 12:28:16 PM

olddeegee: I have mixed feelings. The geek in me loves the tech, but manned fighters are sooo 20th century. That being said, the R&D that went into this isn't a waste. R&D never is.


We don't really understand gravity, but another 400 billion onto the uncountable pile of wealth we have already spent figuring out better ways to kill each other is money well spent?

It really isn't hard to understand why the human race is in such sad shape.
 
2013-04-25 12:34:07 PM

Wrath of Heaven: bongmiester: Wrath of Heaven: F-15SE eh??

Ohhhhhh... she sexxy, F-15 with internal weapon bays 8 )

Excellent *tents fingers*

[www.aviationnews.eu image 789x478]


add vectored thrust and we'll talk


She's got a host of other goodies to tempt you with...
[i729.photobucket.com image 850x637]


Looks like it is missing the best and most important feature...a walkman

i53.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-25 12:34:15 PM

kapaso: olddeegee: I have mixed feelings. The geek in me loves the tech, but manned fighters are sooo 20th century. That being said, the R&D that went into this isn't a waste. R&D never is.

We don't really understand gravity, but another 400 billion onto the uncountable pile of wealth we have already spent figuring out better ways to kill each other is money well spent?

It really isn't hard to understand why the human race is in such sad shape.


www.enterstageright.com
 
2013-04-25 12:35:21 PM

Marcus Aurelius: HAMMERTOE: The M-16 was so temperamental, anything from sand to upward pressure on the bottom of the clip would cause it to jam. I'm positive the buildup of carbon in the gas system has already been covered, so ubiquitous was it. I used to be able to coax small charcoal briquets out of mine.

Every time I go to the range I see a whole line of people fiddling with their AR-15s.  The larger calibers seem to be less temperamental, i.e. the .308, but I'll stick to my A-bolt for long range and virtually anything else at less than 300 yards.


AR-15 is the new .22, it's like the starter firearm for people. Those people are usually not the brightest on the billions of spaces, crevices and parts an AR-15 has to be able to clean when they go home. The next time at the range "Daddy, my thing won't fire" "Well, that's because you're an r-tard junior".

/SCAR17
 
2013-04-25 12:39:20 PM

MichiganFTL: Those people are usually not the brightest on the billions of spaces, crevices and parts an AR-15 has to be able to clean when they go home.


Know how I know you've never cleaned one?

If it takes you more than 15 minutes to clean your AR, you're overdoing it. Snake the bore a couple times. Wipe out the upper and lower. Spend the rest of the time cleaning the bolt carrier group and lube the fark out of it.
 
2013-04-25 12:46:18 PM

Hyjamon: pkellmey: A stealthy, networked, drone fighter fleet would put most manned fighters to shame. Plus, in total, it would be a less expensive project and not put pilots at risk.

already been done

[static.giantbomb.com image 640x480]


A few dozen Scourge will mop that up.
 
2013-04-25 12:47:50 PM

akula: MichiganFTL: Those people are usually not the brightest on the billions of spaces, crevices and parts an AR-15 has to be able to clean when they go home.

Know how I know you've never cleaned one?

If it takes you more than 15 minutes to clean your AR, you're overdoing it. Snake the bore a couple times. Wipe out the upper and lower. Spend the rest of the time cleaning the bolt carrier group and lube the fark out of it.


I'm a perfectionist. I will take it apart to a piece, down to the firing pin and get each piece of the BCG wiped out with a q-tip. And yeah, if you don't spend some time with it (not every time like I am prone to do), you're going to get some fun carbon buildup in place you don't want.

/yes, I know, there's a difference in buildup between piston/gas blah blah
 
2013-04-25 12:54:50 PM

MichiganFTL: akula: MichiganFTL: Those people are usually not the brightest on the billions of spaces, crevices and parts an AR-15 has to be able to clean when they go home.

Know how I know you've never cleaned one?

If it takes you more than 15 minutes to clean your AR, you're overdoing it. Snake the bore a couple times. Wipe out the upper and lower. Spend the rest of the time cleaning the bolt carrier group and lube the fark out of it.

I'm a perfectionist. I will take it apart to a piece, down to the firing pin and get each piece of the BCG wiped out with a q-tip. And yeah, if you don't spend some time with it (not every time like I am prone to do), you're going to get some fun carbon buildup in place you don't want.

/yes, I know, there's a difference in buildup between piston/gas blah blah


I wipe out the bolt carrier like that too, even scraping out the carbon buildup. Where most folks go wrong is they try to clean the upper and lower to the point where patches show no dirt whatsoever... that's just time consuming and unnecessary. Wipe the worst of the crap out and be done with it, spend your time on the bolt and carrier (where it really matters). I don't tear down the bolt unless I'm having problems, which I never do.

And I even run mine suppressed (although I do cheat, the BCG in those are a fully chromed setups that are easier to clean). Those gunk up horribly, but even then it isn't that hard to clean. The AR cares more about being nicely lubed than about being operating room clean.
 
2013-04-25 01:00:01 PM
Good, Good, it's a sign that we're beginning to get on top of the bloated war machine we've been feeding tax money to.  They're so bloated with cash it's going to take them that long to spend it all.
If we spend enough of our taxes on death machines we'll be so busy spending it, maybe they won't have time for a war.

That was the initial thought but since the Military Industerial Complex makes its money from oversea's sales as well (you are aware we are also the largest exporter of killing machinery aren't you?), we'll need another war to prove to potential buyers that this stuff works. That's just the way it is.  Who's going to invest in hardware that doesn't work?  I mean look at the Boeing Screamliner, you don't want a little problem with battery fires getting in the way of killing do you?

This business will get out of hand blah blah blah.
 
2013-04-25 01:00:47 PM

MichiganFTL: SuperNinjaToad: UNC_Samurai: Part of me thinks that having a standardized cross-service fighter is a little too similar to the standardization of equipment that was attempted under the McNamara DoD.

But then again, the M-16 eventually worked, and we're still using variants of it to this day.  So maybe in time the F-35 will have been worth it.

The M-16 took dozens of years for it to work properly. It also caused thousands of lives because it didn't work properly for the longest time.
We can't have that type of a problem with a 5th Gen jet fighter. The risk is just too great!

The M-16 always worked fine (ok, maybe a few small additions, like a forward assist helped), it was just some stupid army guys who saw 'outer space parts' and believed that it never had to be cleaned. Once they issued cleaning kits (pretty quickly, because, ya know, it's not cheap to train a grunt and then have him die) they worked fine.


Oh, and they started to use the ammo the gun was designed to be used with, instead of the "we know what we're doing" ammo that the Army issued.  Just because it fits in the chamber for one shot doesn't mean that's "just fine".
 
2013-04-25 01:06:35 PM

MadHatter500: MichiganFTL: SuperNinjaToad: UNC_Samurai: Part of me thinks that having a standardized cross-service fighter is a little too similar to the standardization of equipment that was attempted under the McNamara DoD.

But then again, the M-16 eventually worked, and we're still using variants of it to this day.  So maybe in time the F-35 will have been worth it.

The M-16 took dozens of years for it to work properly. It also caused thousands of lives because it didn't work properly for the longest time.
We can't have that type of a problem with a 5th Gen jet fighter. The risk is just too great!

The M-16 always worked fine (ok, maybe a few small additions, like a forward assist helped), it was just some stupid army guys who saw 'outer space parts' and believed that it never had to be cleaned. Once they issued cleaning kits (pretty quickly, because, ya know, it's not cheap to train a grunt and then have him die) they worked fine.

Oh, and they started to use the ammo the gun was designed to be used with, instead of the "we know what we're doing" ammo that the Army issued.  Just because it fits in the chamber for one shot doesn't mean that's "just fine".


There are stories of ARVN elite troops who were issued early M-16s and had no problem with jamming. Of course, they spent hours cleaning their weapons regularly.
 
2013-04-25 01:23:22 PM

zarberg: way south: Those only work against nations without an air force for electronic counter measures.

For dealing with the nations that are lining up to buy these:
[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 640x359]

Depending on drones for our air defense may prove to have a few shortcomings.

Clearly Russia, China and India are lining up their air forces to conquer us Red Dawn style. Everyone panic and spend a few trillion more on the F-35 and F-22




...because those are the only potential enemies with air forces, and because we never ever use fighter jets for anything other than defending against an invasion of US soil.

/the old jets will wear out, new ones are always being designed.
/the day people put their faith in a remote controlled airliner is the day I trust a drone for anything more than reconnaissance.
 
2013-04-25 01:38:26 PM

dittybopper: This is a common problem with high-tech projects.  Nothing unique.


Really?  Can you name a software package that took more than 5 years to develop and then was late?  (difficulty, shiatty games don't count)

Look, yes, high-tech projects do tend to crop up with major delays.  But 5 years is an outrageously long time for software.  I've seen complicated software, I've even made some.  If it's taking 5 years... you are doing something wrong.

This isn't a high-tech project problem.  This is a government contractor -unlimited money- problem.  These projects are so far out of control that is has actually become "normal" for this to happen to any new military hardware.

Do try and recall that when the US government decides something MUST be done, it farking well is done.  Moon landing?  Manhattan project? etc etc.

Hell, 50, yeah FIVE ZERO years ago Lockeheed was able to design and build the SR71.  The first airframe flew.  (it crashed too)  It cost under a billion dollars and it was DONE in less than 10 years (I think it was more like 6).  The modern version of that is to deliver one prototype and then fark up the production runs for the rest of time.  (FA18Active as an example) It makes the contractor rich, and the US government doesn't seem to give a fark.
 
2013-04-25 01:50:46 PM

SuperNinjaToad: UNC_Samurai: Part of me thinks that having a standardized cross-service fighter is a little too similar to the standardization of equipment that was attempted under the McNamara DoD.

But then again, the M-16 eventually worked, and we're still using variants of it to this day.  So maybe in time the F-35 will have been worth it.

The M-16 took dozens of years for it to work properly. It also caused thousands of lives because it didn't work properly for the longest time.
We can't have that type of a problem with a 5th Gen jet fighter. The risk is just too great!


As it was designed, and the ammunition spec'd out, the M16 would have done fairly well anywhere. Granted, the original bakelite (polyoxybenzylmethylenglycolanhydride) plastic sucked because it was brittle. The real problems came from the military trying to cheapen the weapon and changing the powder in the ammo.
 
2013-04-25 01:59:40 PM

mainstreet62: TuteTibiImperes: mainstreet62: MythDragon: [www.airforce-technology.com image 620x371]

Who needs anything else?

The A-10 is very useful, but ugly as shiat, hence the Warthog moniker.

THIS, however, is pure awesomeness:

[static.ddmcdn.com image 400x264]

Also very cool, but it's a spy plane, it doesn't carry any weapons AFAIK, and doesn't it gush fuel on takeoff until it hits sufficient speed that the body panels swell to actually fit together?

I'm sure with today's technology we can fix all those issues. That beast was built nearly 50 years ago and there's still very little outside of missiles/lasers that can outrun it.


It wasn't a fault. It was designed into the plane on purpose to account for thermal expansion. It's wasteful, sure but that's what had to be done for the performance requirements. They just refuel immediately after takeoff once the panels have thermally expanded into shape and away they go.

To your second point: Yeah it can outrun anything in the sky and take nifty pictures..........and that's about it.  So you can see we'd be seriously wanting in the offense dept if we somehow replaced the F-35 with this.

Oh and there's only a handful left, and all the designers and builders are all dead or very close to it by now.  I think we're better off designing a new plane.

/not a fan of the ridiculous over budget runs on the F35
 
2013-04-25 02:03:18 PM

MichiganFTL: Marcus Aurelius: HAMMERTOE: The M-16 was so temperamental, anything from sand to upward pressure on the bottom of the clip would cause it to jam. I'm positive the buildup of carbon in the gas system has already been covered, so ubiquitous was it. I used to be able to coax small charcoal briquets out of mine.

Every time I go to the range I see a whole line of people fiddling with their AR-15s.  The larger calibers seem to be less temperamental, i.e. the .308, but I'll stick to my A-bolt for long range and virtually anything else at less than 300 yards.

AR-15 is the new .22, it's like the starter firearm for people. Those people are usually not the brightest on the billions of spaces, crevices and parts an AR-15 has to be able to clean when they go home. The next time at the range "Daddy, my thing won't fire" "Well, that's because you're an r-tard junior".

/SCAR17


Back when I was in grad school, I was surprised when I saw an AR-15 sitting on my roommate's bed.  I was rather annoyed that he hadn't told me he was keeping it, or a bunch of other random guns.

I was even more annoyed to see how dirty it was.  I broke the entire thing down for him to show him all the carbon buildup.  He honestly didn't know how to do it.

/I have no idea why a civilian would ever want one.  I've spent waaay too much time cleaning them.
 
2013-04-25 02:03:43 PM

Pocket Ninja: I see no solution but to end all entitlement programs and immediately transfer all the money to the F-35 program. We're already almost $400 billion in, so it's clear that the program is too big to fail and we must be prepared to ensure its success no matter what the cost. Furthemore, if decreased orders are the reason that its production may be slowing, we should enact programs to increase interest and incentivize buyers. For example, we might offer the wealthiest 1% of Americans a new tax credit that they could use to offset their recent tax increase -- one of the largest tax increases in modern history, I might add -- where if they agree to buy 1 or 2 F35s for their own, personal use, they can claim the amount spent as a special "Air Patriot" deduction. And before any gun-grabbing liberals start flailing their hands and crying about whether citizens have the "right" to own an F35 or two, let me just say that the constitution is a living document, people. It evolves with time. If the Founders had been fighting a British army with RADAR-guided missiles, they would have almost certainly considered an F35 squadron to be part of any "well regulated militia." Let's not pretend that we're still fighting with muskets, mkay?


Heck, we might even be able to solve our budget deficit by selling military escorts (not the prostitution kind), to the highest bidder.    Trying to get to the Oscars without the paparazzi taking  pictures up your skirt, hire some Marines to follow you around with full gear.
 
2013-04-25 02:04:57 PM
The economics of the program were based upon huge export sales. That the best estimate is now a five-fold increase in price, customers like Canada are sensibly pulling out. This means the only ones who will be saddled with this product is the US. By Rev B or C, it may end up being a fine aircraft but the credibility of the project managers, and projections are clearly not worth a damn.

What happened?

A lack of competition. Now that there is no practical competition, the suppliers are robbing the paymaster. Enjoy your crony capitalism.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-25 02:28:09 PM

HAMMERTOE: mainstreet62: No matter what gets shot at it, the SR-71 can outrun it. Mostly.

Sure, but it takes all of Rhode Island just to make a three-point turn.



You misspelled "Nevada."
 
2013-04-25 02:30:27 PM

way south: zarberg: way south: Those only work against nations without an air force for electronic counter measures.

For dealing with the nations that are lining up to buy these:
[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 640x359]

Depending on drones for our air defense may prove to have a few shortcomings.

Clearly Russia, China and India are lining up their air forces to conquer us Red Dawn style. Everyone panic and spend a few trillion more on the F-35 and F-22

...because those are the only potential enemies with air forces, and because we never ever use fighter jets for anything other than defending against an invasion of US soil.

/the old jets will wear out, new ones are always being designed.
/the day people put their faith in a remote controlled airliner is the day I trust a drone for anything more than reconnaissance.


There really isn't a single accurate piece of information in your entire post.  Did you know that?  I wonder also, because I don't care about the rest, but I wonder if you know that airliners already fly 80%+ of their flight on autopilot and that the newest of the bunch don't actually require pilots at all?  Because you've been flying around in a 'drone' aircraft for a very long time now.  Why do you think airline pilots make so little money?  Seriously, these two things are directly related.

I could go into a great deal of detail on this, and how ILS is used to "autoland" most airliners (the big ones) and that's the exact same system that global hawks use to land.  Or how the newest flight systems on 747s are in fact the same flight system used on Ratheons newest toys, or how they were in fact developed in partnership with Boeing going back nearly 20 years.  Or how the military has been flying drones for more than 50 years.  Or how the germans used remote controlled bombs in ww2.  Or any number of other points related to the fact that "drone" is a new word for an old thing.
 
2013-04-25 02:45:26 PM

Kahabut: way south: zarberg: way south: Those only work against nations without an air force for electronic counter measures.

For dealing with the nations that are lining up to buy these:
[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 640x359]

Depending on drones for our air defense may prove to have a few shortcomings.

Clearly Russia, China and India are lining up their air forces to conquer us Red Dawn style. Everyone panic and spend a few trillion more on the F-35 and F-22

...because those are the only potential enemies with air forces, and because we never ever use fighter jets for anything other than defending against an invasion of US soil.

/the old jets will wear out, new ones are always being designed.
/the day people put their faith in a remote controlled airliner is the day I trust a drone for anything more than reconnaissance.

There really isn't a single accurate piece of information in your entire post.  Did you know that?  I wonder also, because I don't care about the rest, but I wonder if you know that airliners already fly 80%+ of their flight on autopilot and that the newest of the bunch don't actually require pilots at all?  Because you've been flying around in a 'drone' aircraft for a very long time now.  Why do you think airline pilots make so little money?  Seriously, these two things are directly related.

I could go into a great deal of detail on this, and how ILS is used to "autoland" most airliners (the big ones) and that's the exact same system that global hawks use to land.  Or how the newest flight systems on 747s are in fact the same flight system used on Ratheons newest toys, or how they were in fact developed in partnership with Boeing going back nearly 20 years.  Or how the military has been flying drones for more than 50 years.  Or how the germans used remote controlled bombs in ww2.  Or any number of other points related to the fact that "drone" is a new word for an old thing.


Not disagreeing with anything you're saying here. But I still would/will want a standby human pilot aboard the flights in the unlikely event of failure of the auto functions. Wouldn't you?
 
Displayed 50 of 190 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report