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.

(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
    More: Interesting, F-35, Lockheed Martin, United Technologies Corp., U.S. Defense Department, Pratt & Whitney, hacking attacks, EADS, BAE Systems  
•       •       •

4437 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Apr 2013 at 9:55 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



190 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-04-25 08:37:17 AM  
Does it come with a frogurt?
 
2013-04-25 08:39:15 AM  
This is a common problem with high-tech projects.  Nothing unique.
 
2013-04-25 08:40:59 AM  
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?
 
2013-04-25 08:43:32 AM  
Why do we need a new jet fighter?

With existing tech, we can just make a kind of phalanx of guided missiles. Maybe one misses. For the price of an F-35, we can just launch 100.
 
2013-04-25 08:46:12 AM  
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.
 
2013-04-25 08:57:24 AM  
Four hundred billion dollars for a plane that doesn't even really work

Or about five sequesters worth.
 
2013-04-25 09:07:54 AM  

doglover: Why do we need a new jet fighter?

With existing tech, we can just make a kind of phalanx of guided missiles. Maybe one misses. For the price of an F-35, we can just launch 100.


That has been the argument since about 1945, but it still hasn't caught on, for good reason.
 
2013-04-25 09:13:05 AM  

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?


I like this, but let me expand on this. I disagree on the point of transferring ALL money to the F35 program. Should they get some of it? Sure. Instead, I think we need to put more money in our domestic drone program so Americans can truly fear understandthe awesome power of fully operated remote controlled airplanes that can unleash Hellfire missiles on the urbangeneral public. You know, in case the  poor and senior citizenswelfare victims decide to riot after their entitlement programs are removed.

Also, defund the Dept of Education and the FDA and replace it with a program that uses slave labor former welfare recipients and their children to manufacture bootstraps as part of a new Happiness and Strappiness program designed to bring the textile and shoe industry back to this country.
 
2013-04-25 09:46:28 AM  
Defund Planned Parenthood and re-educate the former staff from Baby Killingtm to coding. With all that money and manpower, they could knock that software out in a month.
 
2013-04-25 09:48:24 AM  
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.
 
2013-04-25 09:57:20 AM  
But at least the money we're spending on that plane isn't going to any welfare queens!
 
2013-04-25 09:59:17 AM  

Pocket Ninja: 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?

i.imgur.com


The game has changed a bit since 1791.
 
2013-04-25 09:59:39 AM  

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?


WHO ARE YOU. And why are you giving this talent away for free? I appreciate it, don't get me wrong...
 
2013-04-25 10:03:30 AM  
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.
 
2013-04-25 10:03:40 AM  

doglover: Why do we need a new jet fighter?

With existing tech, we can just make a kind of phalanx of guided missiles. Maybe one misses. For the price of an F-35, we can just launch 100.



We don't. But there are a lot of Congress-critters with aerospace contractors in their districts that need money.
 
2013-04-25 10:03:45 AM  
nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com

Canadian national spokesman for Lockheed Martin
 
2013-04-25 10:04:00 AM  
Software doesn't need to be ready for production, all chips are reprogrammable.
 
2013-04-25 10:04:01 AM  

theurge14: Pocket Ninja: 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?

[i.imgur.com image 470x260]

The game has changed a bit since 1791.


planetmut.com

"I suppose I could give up one of them and still be feared ..."
 
2013-04-25 10:05:05 AM  
Boyd was right.
 
2013-04-25 10:07:24 AM  
Can't we just go back to the golden days when gentlemen in fabulous mustaches graced the skies in multiple-wing wicker baskets and threw bricks at one another?
 
2013-04-25 10:07:40 AM  

Aarontology: Four hundred billion dollars for a plane that doesn't even really work

Or about five sequesters worth.


That is like 9 Solyndras.
 
2013-04-25 10:09:00 AM  
F-15SE eh??

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

Excellent *tents fingers*

www.aviationnews.eu
 
2013-04-25 10:09:24 AM  

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!
 
2013-04-25 10:09:42 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.


So they'll still be downloading updates and be asked if they want to install the Ask Toolbar?

/Or was it McAfee scanner?
 
2013-04-25 10:10:15 AM  

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
 
2013-04-25 10:11:04 AM  
The problems with the F-35 make me wonder if China is running an espionage campaign to sabotage the dam thing.
 
2013-04-25 10:12:04 AM  
Oh No!  However are we going to protect ourselves?!
 
2013-04-25 10:13:24 AM  
Why not just do what Microsoft does and beta test the software on their consumers? We could save the government billions in research.
 
2013-04-25 10:13:25 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-25 10:13:42 AM  

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?


I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
2013-04-25 10:13:55 AM  

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
 
2013-04-25 10:14:27 AM  

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?
 
2013-04-25 10:14:34 AM  
Boeing Co's F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Typhoon, built by EADS, Finmeccanica SpA and BAE Systems Plc, are also competing for the contract

The F-15 Silent Eagle should be the plane we're buying instead of the F-35.  It has better payload, better range, better performance, a much lower unit cost, and is built on an airframe that has never been downed in air-to-air combat.
 
2013-04-25 10:14:45 AM  
The F-35 is just like the Nazis Tiger tanks - awesome but too complex and expensive.
 
2013-04-25 10:15:22 AM  

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.


Actually McNamara's DoD did attempt to introduce a cross-service fighter. It ended up being the F-4. And the first few blocks didn't even include a machine gun, because why would you need a machine gun if you have these fancy new missiles? And why would an air-superiority fighter have to be maneuverable if it can fly at Mach 2?

Though at least they weren't trying to make the F-4 be a bomber too. Unlike with this turkey...
 
2013-04-25 10:16:11 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Boeing Co's F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Typhoon, built by EADS, Finmeccanica SpA and BAE Systems Plc, are also competing for the contract

The F-15 Silent Eagle should be the plane we're buying instead of the F-35.  It has better payload, better range, better performance, a much lower unit cost, and is built on an airframe that has never been downed in air-to-air combat.


and is about as stealthy as a flying barn
 
2013-04-25 10:17:34 AM  
No problem -- if the plane breaks down mid-flight, just tell them to reboot.

It's the solution to every problem, I'm told.  We're told to accept this as though it's normal.
 
2013-04-25 10:18:09 AM  

doglover: Why do we need a new jet fighter?

With existing tech, we can just make a kind of phalanx of guided missiles. Maybe one misses. For the price of an F-35, we can just launch 100.


Because then the Air Force wouldn't have a reason to exist. They wouldn't like that.
 
2013-04-25 10:18:56 AM  

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


The problems have been related to too many people in congress trying to get a piece of the pie for their home state/district and legislating/back-room dealing a ton of inefficiency into the program.

Plus, our 'corporate citizens' seem to have lost their moral compasses since the F-14/F-15/F-16 were developed in the 60s/70s.  They're more concerned about profits and how much money they can soak the government for than building the absolute best plane that they can.
 
2013-04-25 10:19:10 AM  
Unless they transform into robotic form and can function in space, I'm not impressed.
 
2013-04-25 10:19:47 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?


That would explain a lot.
 
2013-04-25 10:21:22 AM  

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!


*****EAM*****
STATUS: URGENT
SENDER: CINC-CENTCOM
RE: M-16 STANDARD INFANTRY

***MESSAGE FOLLOWS****

It has come to the attention of CINC/CENTCOM that the M-16 has been confused by many enlisted men as a marital or reproductive aid.  Many of these men are now expectant fathers because of their misunderstanding and misuse of the M-16, and many female personnel have found themselves operationally exhausted following said misuse.  All line officers are advised to re-instruct enlisted personnel on the proper use of the M-16, and strongly advise against its misuse.  A re-training manual (479 pages plus 2 sets of safety addenda, entitled "The M-16: Not Built for Love") will be forthcoming.

****END EAM****
 
2013-04-25 10:21:29 AM  
Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. Half the price fo the F-35, and we already know they work.
 
2013-04-25 10:22:12 AM  
www.geeknewscentral.com

Hi! looks like you are trying to shoot down an SU-27. Would you like help? Yes No
 
2013-04-25 10:23:19 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Marcus Aurelius: Boeing Co's F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Typhoon, built by EADS, Finmeccanica SpA and BAE Systems Plc, are also competing for the contract

The F-15 Silent Eagle should be the plane we're buying instead of the F-35.  It has better payload, better range, better performance, a much lower unit cost, and is built on an airframe that has never been downed in air-to-air combat.

and is about as stealthy as a flying barn


"Do not ask me to approach the battle meekly, to creep through the shadows, or to quietly slip on my foes in the dark. Let my enemies cower at my advance and tremble at the sight of me."
 
2013-04-25 10:24:25 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Boeing Co's F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Typhoon, built by EADS, Finmeccanica SpA and BAE Systems Plc, are also competing for the contract

The F-15 Silent Eagle should be the plane we're buying instead of the F-35.  It has better payload, better range, better performance, a much lower unit cost, and is built on an airframe that has never been downed in air-to-air combat.


This.
 
2013-04-25 10:25:55 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?


Duh, they have bought the last three presidents.
 
2013-04-25 10:26:03 AM  

another cultural observer: 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!

*****EAM*****
STATUS: URGENT
SENDER: CINC-CENTCOM
RE: M-16 STANDARD INFANTRY

***MESSAGE FOLLOWS****

It has come to the attention of CINC/CENTCOM that the M-16 has been confused by many enlisted men as a marital or reproductive aid.  Many of these men are now expectant fathers because of their misunderstanding and misuse of the M-16, and many female personnel have found themselves operationally exhausted following said misuse.  All line officers are advised to re-instruct enlisted personnel on the proper use of the M-16, and strongly advise against its misuse.  A re-training manual (479 pages plus 2 sets of safety addenda, entitled "The M-16: Not Built for Love") will be forthcoming.

****END EAM****


assets0.ordienetworks.com
 
2013-04-25 10:26:47 AM  
The United States is counting on foreign sales...

Why are we selling weapons of war to other countries again? Has that ever NOT come back to bite us in the ass at some point?
=Smidge=
 
2013-04-25 10:28:12 AM  

Nurglitch: Voiceofreason01: Marcus Aurelius: Boeing Co's F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Typhoon, built by EADS, Finmeccanica SpA and BAE Systems Plc, are also competing for the contract

The F-15 Silent Eagle should be the plane we're buying instead of the F-35.  It has better payload, better range, better performance, a much lower unit cost, and is built on an airframe that has never been downed in air-to-air combat.

and is about as stealthy as a flying barn

"Do not ask me to approach the battle meekly, to creep through the shadows, or to quietly slip on my foes in the dark. Let my enemies cower at my advance and tremble at the sight of me."


I believe the term you are looking for is "flying tennis court".
 
2013-04-25 10:28:16 AM  
miss diminutive

Can't we just go back to the golden days when gentlemen in fabulous mustaches graced the skies in multiple-wing wicker baskets and threw bricks at one another?


My great grandfather was knocked out of the sky by a Fokker who threw a brick at him. And that Fokker was flying a Junkers!
 
2013-04-25 10:30:27 AM  
Lockheed is really shiatty with writing avionics software.

Back when I was a rocket scientist I met a guy who worked for Lockheed on their X-33 program.  One of the selling points was a composite fuel tank that would save weight.  But they knew it wouldn't work and they'd have to switch to tried-and-true aluminum.  Why?  They needed more time to write the avionics software, and switching the design from composite to AL gave them necessary cover.
 
2013-04-25 10:31:33 AM  

Voiceofreason01: and is about as stealthy as a flying barn


Silent Eagle not just Eagle. It has just so much Eagle....

Seriously though, stealth is quickly becoming irrelevant in modern warfare. Networked detection schemes in frequencies outside of the traditional radar detection frequencies will mean no matter how "stealthy" you are, you will still be seen...

/Or IR
 
2013-04-25 10:32:08 AM  

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


They did this one a bit differently. They skipped a lot of pre-production testing with the idea that any problems would be found in flight test and then fixes would be incorporated right back into the working production line. They called it concurrency and its failure has caused a lot of the delays and overruns.

In 2011, program head Vice Adm. David Venlet confirmed that the concurrency built into the program "was a miscalculation"
 
2013-04-25 10:33:11 AM  
Smidge204

The United States is counting on foreign sales...

Why are we selling weapons of war to other countries again? Has that ever NOT come back to bite us in the ass at some point?
=Smidge=


We can always do like France did during the Falkland Island. Sell the Argentinians the Excorcet missile and then sell the Britts the technology to defeat it.

Profit profit!
 
2013-04-25 10:34:06 AM  

Smidge204: Why are we selling weapons of war to other countries again? Has that ever NOT come back to bite us in the ass at some point?


It's not like we are exporting the "good" version (quotes because I don't like the F-35)
 
2013-04-25 10:35:24 AM  

Nurglitch: "Do not ask me to approach the battle meekly, to creep through the shadows, or to quietly slip on my foes in the dark. Let my enemies cower at my advance and tremble at the sight of me."


You forgot the rest: "Let my enemies cower at my advance and tremble at the sight of me and shoot me down from 5 miles away as is the nature of modern warfare."
 
2013-04-25 10:35:40 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: Though at least they weren't trying to make the F-4 be a bomber too. Unlike with this turkey...


The F-4 was a bomber.  It wasn't an effective fighter when introduced.  The missiles sucked.
 
2013-04-25 10:37:23 AM  

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

They did this one a bit differently. They skipped a lot of pre-production testing with the idea that any problems would be found in flight test and then fixes would be incorporated right back into the working production line. They called it concurrency and its failure has caused a lot of the delays and overruns.



Ahh, so they are using the Microsoft business model.
 
2013-04-25 10:38:17 AM  
Nurglitch:
"Do not ask me to approach the battle meekly, to creep through the shadows, or to quietly slip on my foes in the dark. Let my enemies cower at my advance and tremble at the sight of me."

That's nice but it sounds like a good way to get your ass shot.
 
2013-04-25 10:39:38 AM  

Smidge204: The United States is counting on foreign sales...

Why are we selling weapons of war to other countries again? Has that ever NOT come back to bite us in the ass at some point?
=Smidge=


Come now. How could selling advanced technologies to other countries possibly go wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_A6M_Zero

"It has been claimed that the Zero's design showed clear influence from American fighter planes and components exported to Japan in the 1930s, and in particular the Vought V-143 fighter. Chance Vought had sold the prototype for this aircraft and its plans to Japan in 1937."
 
2013-04-25 10:40:02 AM  

MyRandomName: all chips are reprogrammable.


Oh yeah? Plenty of defense satellites are launched with one time programmable FPGAs (or ASICs).

//no idea about the F-35
 
2013-04-25 10:40:37 AM  

miss diminutive: Can't we just go back to the golden days when gentlemen in fabulous mustaches graced the skies in multiple-wing wicker baskets and threw bricks at one another?


Actually, if you want to do that sort of thing, you can, for about the price of a decent car:

www.airdromeaeroplanes.com

Though, please, don't grow a mustache.
 
2013-04-25 10:41:26 AM  
Bring the SR-71 back.

No matter what gets shot at it, the SR-71 can outrun it. Mostly.
 
2013-04-25 10:42:11 AM  

ghall3: Smidge204: Why are we selling weapons of war to other countries again? Has that ever NOT come back to bite us in the ass at some point?

It's not like we are exporting the "good" version (quotes because I don't like the F-35)


Plus of the nations we're selling it to, Turkey is the only one that we would conceivably ever be at odds with, and that's a long shot.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if there is some undisclosed backdoor built into the electronics package that would let us remotely deactivate the planes should we ever find ourselves facing off against them in combat.
 
2013-04-25 10:42:30 AM  
Well, that's what happens when you fund the NEA.  Thanks Libs for killing our freedoms.
 
2013-04-25 10:43:05 AM  
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.
 
2013-04-25 10:44:01 AM  

Lord_Baull: Ahh, so they are using the Microsoft business model.


Yes, but unlike Microsoft, Lockheed doesn't have millions of free beta-testers worldwide.
 
2013-04-25 10:44:09 AM  

xxmedium: "It has been claimed that the Zero's design showed clear influence from American fighter planes and components exported to Japan in the 1930s, and in particular the Vought V-143 fighter. Chance Vought had sold the prototype for this aircraft and its plans to Japan in 1937."


You read the end of that paragraph? "Allegations about the Zero being a copy have been mostly discredited. "
 
2013-04-25 10:44:53 AM  
us government wouldnt let them sell the f22 globally...but these international sales will help.

the problem is that we keep creating aircraft that will be put in service well after their lifespan.  look at the b52...that sucker will keep getting retrofitted and flying for 100 years before they are grounded.  ben rich (skunk works guy who helped on the f117) even hit this point in his book when the b2 cost jumped over $1 billion.

the goal is to create aircraft that are cheaper, good for 20 years, and then scrapped.  otherwise you get an expansive airplane graveyard/parking lot at a variety of west and southwest airports.
 
2013-04-25 10:45:12 AM  

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

They did this one a bit differently. They skipped a lot of pre-production testing with the idea that any problems would be found in flight test and then fixes would be incorporated right back into the working production line. They called it concurrency and its failure has caused a lot of the delays and overruns.

In 2011, program head Vice Adm. David Venlet confirmed that the concurrency built into the program "was a miscalculation"


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.
 
2013-04-25 10:45:22 AM  
It probably hasn't helped that they just transferred a bunch of the programmers on it about 1000 miles away from home.

The big problem that I see with it is that it is the Swiss Army Knife of airplanes.  It has a lot of widgets and tools but it is hard to make them all useful.
 
2013-04-25 10:45:56 AM  

dittybopper: miss diminutive: Can't we just go back to the golden days when gentlemen in fabulous mustaches graced the skies in multiple-wing wicker baskets and threw bricks at one another?

Actually, if you want to do that sort of thing, you can, for about the price of a decent car:

[www.airdromeaeroplanes.com image 330x204]

Though, please, don't grow a mustache.


Sounds like fun, although I'm sure they'd make me supply my own bricks.

Harry Freakstorm: My great grandfather was knocked out of the sky by a Fokker who threw a brick at him. And that Fokker was flying a Junkers!


Loves me some good WWI humour.
 
2013-04-25 10:47:09 AM  
When the BSOD could actually result in Death!!!

images.techhive.com
 
2013-04-25 10:47:53 AM  
www.airforce-technology.com

Who needs anything else?
 
2013-04-25 10:49:53 AM  
fark it, push it out the door anyhow... we'll get paid, and can always maybe sorta patch it down the road if we're forced to.

/Electronic Arts school of business
 
2013-04-25 10:50:25 AM  

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
 
2013-04-25 10:50:34 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-25 10:51:30 AM  

ghall3: Silent Eagle not just Eagle. It has just so much Eagle....


There is also some Eagle under the floorboards.
 
2013-04-25 10:53:03 AM  

ghall3: Silent Eagle not just Eagle. It has just so much Eagle....


Dude, you got a little eagle on your chin there...
 
2013-04-25 10:53:26 AM  

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?
 
2013-04-25 10:54:54 AM  

StopLurkListen: WHO ARE YOU. And why are you giving this talent away for free? I appreciate it, don't get me wrong...


I have actually long suspected that Pocket Ninja does not, in fact, post his work for free....
 
2013-04-25 10:55:22 AM  

Uzzah: ghall3: Silent Eagle not just Eagle. It has just so much Eagle....

There is also some Eagle under the floorboards.


sigh...

"It's just that the luxury edition has so much more eagle, it saddens me to think of you missing out. "
 
2013-04-25 10:55:53 AM  
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....
 
2013-04-25 10:58:25 AM  
Bogdan welcomed recent management changes at Lockheed, and said the executives running the company and the F-35 program now showed "a different culture and a different attitude."

Oh, horseshiat. They're there to ride the gravy train, as ever.
 
2013-04-25 10:59:23 AM  

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
 
2013-04-25 10:59:30 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-25 11:01:55 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Boeing Co's F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Typhoon, built by EADS, Finmeccanica SpA and BAE Systems Plc, are also competing for the contract
The F-15 Silent Eagle should be the plane we're buying instead of the F-35.  It has better payload, better range, better performance, a much lower unit cost, and is built on an airframe that has never been downed in air-to-air combat.



A single F35 is supposed to be able to down a wing of F-15's without them even knowing what hit them.  They beat the snot out of F-15s in combat exercises.

Public Savant: The F-35 is just like the Nazis Tiger tanks - awesome but too complex and expensive.


Maybe... although the nazi tank divisions were never really defeated by other tanks.  The vast majority were lost due to a lack of air superiority, and a lack of fuel.  Neither of which is a problem for the United States.  Granted, we have had problems with a lack of oxygen....

/rimshot
 
2013-04-25 11:02:59 AM  
Your airspeed is 410 knots. Your altitude is 18,000 feet. Your flight control system has an available update. Click here to delay update until later (requires reboot).  20 seconds ... 10 seconds ...
 
2013-04-25 11:03:54 AM  
We can build thousands of MP-38s or millions of Stens.
 
2013-04-25 11:05:47 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-25 11:06:48 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.


Wait 'til Oracle starts monkeying with the attitude control API.
 
2013-04-25 11:06:53 AM  

enry: 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.

So they'll still be downloading updates and be asked if they want to install the Ask Toolbar?

/Or was it McAfee scanner?


Surfcanyon
 
2013-04-25 11:07:46 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-25 11:08:59 AM  

give me doughnuts: Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. Half the price fo the F-35, and we already know they work.


USAs NATO allies are mostly looking at the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafaele or Saab Gripen as alternatives AFAIK.

The F35 is only in the picture because USA is strongarming their allies into choosing it.
 
2013-04-25 11:09:12 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....


Yeah, they could've broken down on the way to rescue the hostages instead of....oh, right.
 
2013-04-25 11:12:00 AM  

Alonjar: A single F35 is supposed to be able to down a wing of F-15's without them even knowing what hit them.  They beat the snot out of F-15s in combat exercises.


The F-15SE is NOT the F-15C. The avionics, radar, everything has been upgraded. The airplane even utilizes some stealthy features (there's a reason the vertical stabilizers are canted on the -15SE, whereas all other variants have them completely vertical). And when you don't need the stealth anymore (once you've beat the hell out of the air defense radars with B-2s, Tomahawks, Apaches, Predators, and spit wads), the -15SE even has an extra wing station on each side for externally carried ordnance. While I don't know it for sure, I rather suspect the F-15s we're building now for Saudi Arabia (with most of the avionics and radar goodies installed) will be a harder kill for a -35, let alone something with a few extra tweaks like the Silent Eagle.

The F-22 is supposedly king shiat, even over the -35. The -35 is a step up from the 4th gen fighters, but isn't as superior as the -22... not as stealthy, not as maneuverable.

While there's a role for stealth aircraft, I have to think right now that there's little point in every aircraft being all that stealthy. It's expensive to develop and maintain, and once the first week of a conflict is out there's just not that much need for it for most of the force. We could buy more -15SEs than we can -35s, get them sooner, require less training to maintain them since we know how the airframe behaves, and get the same job done. All from a proven program (as opposed to Lockheed's recent love for playing bait and switch with costs and delivery dates).
 
2013-04-25 11:12:08 AM  

jjorsett: Your airspeed is 410 knots. Your altitude is 18,000 feet. Your flight control system has an available update. Click here to delay update until later (requires reboot).  20 seconds ... 10 seconds ...


[E]ject [R]eboot [C]ontinue ?
 
2013-04-25 11:12:58 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.


[citation needed]. Sure, that's the future, but we're a LOOOONG way from having the airframes ready, let alone the networking and remote weapons systems. And drones won't be that much cheaper; you save money on life support, but you give it back in remote piloting gear. It can be only so small in order to carry enough fuel and weapons.

Superior performance isn't a given, either. On the one hand, a drone can pull more Gs, but on the other hand, the sensor feedback is much quicker in a manned fighter.

As for pilot risk, meh, they're fighter pilots. Our combat losses since Vietnam have been negligible; about the same risk they face in training. You saying no one should ride in airplanes because it's unsafe?
 
2013-04-25 11:14:52 AM  

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


You know why nobody uses Stens any more?
 
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?
 
2013-04-25 02:46:25 PM  
If you haven't seen the movie 'Deal of the Century', find it. I'll bet most of the people in this thread have seen it though.

//Just a little touch up!!
 
2013-04-25 02:58:30 PM  
Toxic Park:

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?

Oh hell yes.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a pilot, but I still want someone qualified and experienced with that plane in the cockpit.  Even if the robot is doing the flying.  My ability to fly a jumbo is probably OK.  My ability to land that beast is not.  And of course, as a pilot, I greatly distrust the computer that claims to be able to fly.  It turns out most of them are good at it, but one of these days....


Also, did you know the propeller on an airplane is only there to keep the pilot cool?  Yeah, stop it and watch him start sweating.
 
2013-04-25 03:19:17 PM  
And this was supposed to be the cheaper alternative to the F22.
 
2013-04-25 03:29:16 PM  

Jarhead_h: And this was supposed to be the cheaper alternative to the F22.


Yup. That's the real insult of the entire thing. While it's still cheaper than the F-22, it isn't cheaper by the margin promised. We might as well have just made a multirole version of the F-22 and saved all the trouble.
 
2013-04-25 03:48:43 PM  

Kahabut: I could go into a great deal of detail on this


...and you'll never get to the part where "remote controlled" is not synonymous with "automated".

The problem is that a drone interceptor would have to, under all conditions (night, weather, jamming, and anywhere in the world whether you've got a satellite working or not), identify its target to a human operator and get the authorization to shoot.

Foregoing that authorization means you've got a flying landmine that's due to end someone's career.  Mandating it means you've got a vulnerability where the enemy just needs to jam the right signal to silence your weapon.

Theres a difference between a missile sent to kill a target and a robot sent to find something to kill.
If the vehicle finds itself in a tight bank with an enemy fighter and can't get its dish into an uplink position, its going to quickly fail at defending itself.

I'm saying that there aren't many people who want that prospect between them and an enemy cluster bomb falling on their heads.
 
2013-04-25 04:07:44 PM  

way south: Kahabut: I could go into a great deal of detail on this

...and you'll never get to the part where "remote controlled" is not synonymous with "automated".

The problem is that a drone interceptor would have to, under all conditions (night, weather, jamming, and anywhere in the world whether you've got a satellite working or not), identify its target to a human operator and get the authorization to shoot.

Foregoing that authorization means you've got a flying landmine that's due to end someone's career.  Mandating it means you've got a vulnerability where the enemy just needs to jam the right signal to silence your weapon.

Theres a difference between a missile sent to kill a target and a robot sent to find something to kill.
If the vehicle finds itself in a tight bank with an enemy fighter and can't get its dish into an uplink position, its going to quickly fail at defending itself.

I'm saying that there aren't many people who want that prospect between them and an enemy cluster bomb falling on their heads.


The whole "asking for permission to kill" thing is going to be extremely temporary.  Sentry style defensive drones will merely have an on/off mode, the entire advantage of using a computer is that it can act faster than a human can think, and we can use an endless amount of them.

War in the future WILL involve massive clouds of autonomous drones which are capable of target acquisition and distinction.  They will be capable of operating with zero outside communication, specifically because of the jamming issues you suggested.  Morality doesnt come into play... this WILL happen at some time, its just a matter of when.  Its inevitable.
 
2013-04-25 04:08:11 PM  

way south: Kahabut: I could go into a great deal of detail on this

...and you'll never get to the part where "remote controlled" is not synonymous with "automated".

The problem is that a drone interceptor would have to, under all conditions (night, weather, jamming, and anywhere in the world whether you've got a satellite working or not), identify its target to a human operator and get the authorization to shoot.

Foregoing that authorization means you've got a flying landmine that's due to end someone's career.  Mandating it means you've got a vulnerability where the enemy just needs to jam the right signal to silence your weapon.

Theres a difference between a missile sent to kill a target and a robot sent to find something to kill.
If the vehicle finds itself in a tight bank with an enemy fighter and can't get its dish into an uplink position, its going to quickly fail at defending itself.

I'm saying that there aren't many people who want that prospect between them and an enemy cluster bomb falling on their heads.


I get where you are coming from.  It's just not accurate to the world we live in.  AtoA combat is not done "top gun" style.  There are no 6g climbs into a scissor into a cobra and then you line up your gun sights and open fire.  No.  Drones do not dog fight.  Modern FIGHTERS don't even dogfight.  Modern air to air combat happens at 5+ miles.  A signature is analysed, identified, and a missile is dispatched.  The missile accelerates to mach3 or so and uses a proximity fuse to detonate a shrapnel charge near the signature (which we all hope wasn't an airliner).  There is no scenario in which a drone will engage in a dog fight.  They aren't built for it, and even if they were, it is simply not how modern air combat works.

I'd rather have 100 drones in the air than 5 fighters with human pilots.  Because in any situation where enemy air power can reach me (west coast USA), I'd rather have as many missile launching vehicles as we can get airborne and I want them all told to shoot at anything that isn't squawking friendly ident.

It's also worth noting that despite the propaganda on the subject, modern drones are fully capable of being told: Take off from here, fly to here, here, here, here and here, drop this munition on this target and watch for targets of opportunity  use engagement protocol 6a, and then fly here, here, here and land.  At no point is a human being required in this system.  Do we currently claim to operate such a mission with human oversight?  Yes, we claim that.  There is no technological reason for it, but lots of people like you are deeply afraid of "terminators", so we lie to the public about how these things actually work.

Sleep tight.
 
2013-04-25 04:13:39 PM  
Why don't they just stick a smart phone in it?
 
2013-04-25 04:17:19 PM  

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

Who needs anything else?


Ground support fighter that gets chewed up by air superiority fighters.
 
2013-04-25 04:46:12 PM  

StopLurkListen: WHO ARE YOU. And why are you giving this talent away for free? I appreciate it, don't get me wrong...


he's Illuminati don't fall for it
 
2013-04-25 04:47:15 PM  
I always wondered about the effectiveness of stealth. Everything I have read states that the cross-section goes down to a hummingbird or bumblebee, not completely invisible.

If I was a radar operator and I saw a hummingbird coming at me at mach 1.5, I might say "Hmmm, that's strange".
 
2013-04-25 04:48:44 PM  

Public Savant: The F-35 is just like the Nazis Tiger tanks - awesome but too complex and expensive.


Sadly, that's only true of the F-22.  The F-35 is going to be more like an F-18, we're expecting to lose a lot of them in combat but at least they're versatile!
 
2013-04-25 04:57:47 PM  

Jument: Why don't they just stick a smart phone in it?


That's what she said
 
2013-04-25 04:58:48 PM  

LeftCoast_eh: If I was a radar operator and I saw a hummingbird coming at me at mach 1.5, I might say "Hmmm, that's strange".


That hummingbird really wants him some farking sugar water.
 
2013-04-25 05:05:55 PM  

Kahabut: Modern FIGHTERS don't even dogfight.


It doesn't matter so much what they do regularly, its what they need to do in extreme situations.  We're talking about a vehicle that will be the last line of defense between your soldiers and a very bad day.

They need the ability to dogfight both because politics often demands pilots get within visual range before shooting (radar can't be trusted to tell migs apart from airliners) and because our enemies are now playing with stealth.   It wouldn't be wise to depend on a sensor guided weapon as your last resort.

We need human oversight because someone has to be held responsible when people are going to be killed.    At least with a missile I know my liabilities, where the targets are identified in advance.
If this thing gets into a tussle with a puddle jumper full of tourists over some fishing village, I wouldn't want my name on any piece of paper associated with it.

The problem of terminators not that they'll take over the world. Its that they just don't care for the differences between schoolchildren and enemy soldiers.
Its going to take alot of programming skill and computing power to make them care.
 
2013-04-25 05:06:15 PM  

MichiganFTL: 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.


We could stand off at 500 yards and shoot at each other. I get the M16.
 
2013-04-25 05:12:49 PM  

bigdanc: Public Savant: The F-35 is just like the Nazis Tiger tanks - awesome but too complex and expensive.

Sadly, that's only true of the F-22.  The F-35 is going to be more like an F-18, we're expecting to lose a lot of them in combat but at least they're versatile!


Wait, so you're saying that we have Tiger tanks for our Tiger tanks? It makes me think of that really muscle-y guy in cartoons who would flex giant muscles then flex harder until muscles popped up on his muscles.

way south: The problem of terminators not that they'll take over the world. Its that they just don't care for the differences between schoolchildren and enemy soldiers.Its going to take alot of programming skill and computing power to make them care.


It'll be even harder than that. You're assuming that soldiers will always look like soldiers.
 
2013-04-25 05:18:37 PM  

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

Who needs anything else?

Ground support fighter that gets chewed up by air superiority fighters.


War is a giant game of rock<->paper<->scissors. Half the battle is having a rock, a paper, and a scissors on hand. The other half is knowing when the enemy is going to play on or the other and counter it appropriately.

The United States armed forces generally dominates because we have working rocks, paper, and scissors and are up against enemies that lack one or more of the above.
 
2013-04-25 05:39:11 PM  
torusXL:
It'll be even harder than that. You're assuming that soldiers will always look like soldiers.


Sometimes they look like cake.
cdn.cakecentral.com
 
2013-04-25 05:49:55 PM  

gaslight: cake


lie
 
2013-04-25 06:24:09 PM  

torusXL: Wait, so you're saying that we have Tiger tanks for our Tiger tanks? It makes me think of that really muscle-y guy in cartoons who would flex giant muscles then flex harder until muscles popped up on his muscles.


No I'm saying that the F-22 is the super advanced and unrealiable thing that rapes the sky.  The F-35 is the super expensive and unreliable thing that (will probably) get shot down all the time, especially when it chooses to pretend it's an A-10 because it can't carry its payload internally which negates its stealth advantages.  Its also not very durable.

So when it's playing the true multi-role, er, role, it's actually only marginally better than the F-18, you know, the AC it's replacing and, er, costs many times as much as.

5th gen is stupid anyways cause the age of the manned jet, as someone pointed out earlier, is over.  Drones, lasers and naval railguns is how non ground control warfare is probably going to look in the later half of this century.
 
2013-04-25 06:29:10 PM  
What is Blizzard the one developing it?
 
2013-04-25 06:41:14 PM  

Kahabut: 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.


You've never worked in avionics, have you?  There is this evil little thing called DO-178B, which essentially treats software design exactly like hardware design.  Spend years getting the requirements perfect, then more years getting the design perfect (which is really just more requirements, because the diagrams and flowcharts one would find in an actual software design aren't "traceable" enough), then hire a couple of bums off the street code-monkey software contractors to implement the thing in 6 months.  The code will naturally be perfect because it directly follows from perfect requirements and design, right?  Of course, anyone who's ever written software knows that this approach never works, and the budget, in both time and money, at least triples over the course of the project.

I've written some of the code for one of the F-35's modules and systems for other aircraft, too, and every time it's the same.  There are actually people who make a living solely from quibbling over minutiae in the wording of the requirements.

\Lovin' my new job in the commercial sector
 
2013-04-25 07:45:45 PM  

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]


COBRA had all the good jets.
 
2013-04-25 08:17:15 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Boeing Co's F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Typhoon, built by EADS, Finmeccanica SpA and BAE Systems Plc, are also competing for the contract

The F-15 Silent Eagle should be the plane we're buying instead of the F-35.  It has better payload, better range, better performance, a much lower unit cost, and is built on an airframe that has never been downed in air-to-air combat.


...except it's not very stealthy and it's not 5th Gen. Other than that I suppose you're right especially the part about the airframe dating back to the early 1970's!

A single F-35 can eat a bunch of Eagles for lunch and then go back for more!!
 
2013-04-25 08:30:42 PM  

dittybopper: Well, duh. Software is often a sticking point,


Spoken like a poser;.
 
2013-04-25 08:34:40 PM  
Sounds like they're looking for an excuse to off-shore the software. Why don't we get North Korea to write it? I'm sure they could use the money.
 
2013-04-25 08:37:00 PM  

Fark Me To Tears: Sounds like they're looking for an excuse to off-shore the software. Why don't we get North Korea to write it? I'm sure they could use the money.


They write that base 6 crap.
 
2013-04-25 08:52:13 PM  
These rich and powerful wastes of oxygen gotta have their toys to compensate for their tiny, limp dicks,

/People with a modicum of intelligence should have zero respect for the suited ones.
 
2013-04-25 10:26:55 PM  
<i>A Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is pictured with the space shuttle Endeavour mounted atop its 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) at the 461st Flight Test Squadron (FLTS)</i>

No wonder the F-35 program is so expensive.
 
2013-04-25 10:53:28 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: Marcus Aurelius: Boeing Co's F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Typhoon, built by EADS, Finmeccanica SpA and BAE Systems Plc, are also competing for the contract

The F-15 Silent Eagle should be the plane we're buying instead of the F-35.  It has better payload, better range, better performance, a much lower unit cost, and is built on an airframe that has never been downed in air-to-air combat.

...except it's not very stealthy and it's not 5th Gen. Other than that I suppose you're right especially the part about the airframe dating back to the early 1970's!

A single F-35 can eat a bunch of Eagles for lunch and then go back for more!!


You may wish to read up on what is generally considered "5th generation" fighters. While it's not a widely agreed upon definition, the only item that the F-15SE and some others don't meet are all aspect stealth (the F-35 isn't all aspect either; the ass end is going to show up on radar screens like a billboard with that exhaust nozzle back there). AESA radar, check. Enhanced situational awareness, check. Increased maneuverability, check. Reduced radar signature (the Silent Eagle's frontal radar cross section is not that far off the F-35) rather than full blown stealth. Oh, and the F-15SE is way faster (Mach 2.5 vs. 1.6 for the F-35) and has longer range on internal fuel tanks.

The airframe of the F-15 has evolved over time as well too. Sure, the design elements were laid down in the 1970s, but the F-22's own design (and nobody is claiming the F-35 is as capable as the -22) is in the neighborhood of 20 years old (first flight was in 1997... sixteen years ago).

Again, while the F-35 would do in the F-15C, I rather doubt it would be near as successful against modern evolutions such as the F-15SA or the F-15SE.

Just because there's new dogs out there don't mean the old ones haven't learned some new and impressive tricks.
 
2013-04-26 01:06:44 AM  

ZeroKnightRaiden: <i>A Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is pictured with the space shuttle Endeavour mounted atop its 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) at the 461st Flight Test Squadron (FLTS)</i>

No wonder the F-35 program is so expensive.


Muscles popping out of muscles, man.
 
2013-04-26 06:16:08 AM  
It would be a shame not to have a huge war and use these cool figher jets.
 
2013-04-26 09:39:46 AM  
NASA sent three men to the moon with a guidance computer that had a 16-bit, 2MHz processor and 32K of memory.

/If you believe that sort of thing.
 
2013-04-26 09:43:29 AM  

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

The AK-47 always worked better.


Especially back when it was the Browning Model 8 Police:

img838.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-26 09:46:10 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: dittybopper: Well, duh. Software is often a sticking point,

Spoken like a poser;.


Like a poser?  I've been writing software for a living for roughly 20 years now.  If you count the stuff I wrote for fun prior to being a professional, I've been writing it almost 35 years now.
 
2013-04-26 09:49:22 AM  

UnspokenVoice: MichiganFTL: 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.

We could stand off at 500 yards and shoot at each other. I get the M16.


Deal.  I'll even make it easier for you:  I get my Remington 700 in .30'06.

;-)
 
2013-04-26 10:49:48 AM  

dittybopper: WhoopAssWayne: dittybopper: Well, duh. Software is often a sticking point,

Spoken like a poser;.

Like a poser?  I've been writing software for a living for roughly 20 years now.  If you count the stuff I wrote for fun prior to being a professional, I've been writing it almost 35 years now.


Yeeeeep. Really spoken like a true poser.
 
2013-04-26 01:16:37 PM  

torusXL: dittybopper: WhoopAssWayne: dittybopper: Well, duh. Software is often a sticking point,

Spoken like a poser;.

Like a poser?  I've been writing software for a living for roughly 20 years now.  If you count the stuff I wrote for fun prior to being a professional, I've been writing it almost 35 years now.

Yeeeeep. Really spoken like a true poser.


Oh, I get it.  You're *TROLLING*.
 
2013-04-26 02:14:32 PM  

dittybopper: Oh, I get it.  You're *TROLLING*.


Shhhhhhh.

*gives dittybopper a soothing caress*
 
Displayed 190 of 190 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  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