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.

(Gizmodo)   This insane image is not a 3D game or a movie, it's the first production model of America's newest stealth machine of destruction   (gizmodo.com ) divider line
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

15701 clicks; posted to Geek » on 31 Jul 2013 at 9:45 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-08-01 12:22:19 AM  
Two things:
1) WTF is so impressive about a blurry snapshot of an airplane?
2) WTF is it lately with all the greenlighted headlines lately that just copy and paste the headline of the god damned article?
 
2013-08-01 12:27:58 AM  

RassilonsExWife: 2) WTF is it lately with all the greenlighted headlines lately that just copy and paste the headline of the god damned article?


Fark has, unfortunately, gone from "It's not news" to "Real news."
 
2013-08-01 12:35:31 AM  
And each one costs as much as Obamacare, but it's ok because war.
 
2013-08-01 12:41:17 AM  

Starry Heavens: RassilonsExWife: 2) WTF is it lately with all the greenlighted headlines lately that just copy and paste the headline of the god damned article?

Fark has, unfortunately, gone from "It's not news" to "Real news."


Starve the squirrel.
 
2013-08-01 12:42:56 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-08-01 12:43:35 AM  
It might as well be a movie or a game. By the time that thing ever enters active service *if it does* we'll have moved to a mostly drone fleet anyway.
 
2013-08-01 01:02:18 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Every decade has its over budget and delayed all-in-one plane that's decried as a boondoggle at the time...

[www.vojsko.net image 850x637]


My understanding was that the only good thing to come out of the F-111 program was the F-14 and F-15 after they saw what a bag of fail the VFX was.
 
2013-08-01 01:21:39 AM  
Why are we still preparing to fight the Soviet Union in a world war in Europe?
 
2013-08-01 01:24:03 AM  
isnt this the one with the engine and the replacement engine developed for some awful reason?
 
2013-08-01 01:25:37 AM  
The great thing about the F-35, is that it can operate either as a stealth fighter, with two bombs, or it can operate as a non-stealth fighter, with the payload of an F-16. Yet it costs more than buying a stealth fighter and an F-16.

Isn't our military-industrial complex awesome?
 
2013-08-01 01:32:45 AM  
I will say one positive thing about the F-35, though: the engine (and also the second, unnecessary engine) they developed for it is bad-farking-ass. 40,000lbf at afterburner, good TSFC at military power, and it doesn't bat an eyelash at vectored thrust, vertical flight, or supersonic cruise.

If they built a slightly enlarged F-16 (say, the size of the Mitsubishi F-2) powered by an F135 engine, using the multi-axis vector system that was tested in the 80s, with more radar-absorbent materials and using the radar developed for the F-22 program, it'd be the best fighter plane of all time.

/of all time
 
2013-08-01 02:27:16 AM  

akula: JonBuck: So, this program cost a trillion dollars? What would have been the comparative costs of designing three different specialized aircraft instead? I doubt they saved any money following this approach.

Lifetime program cost.

And for anybody thinking not buying this thing would free up that money for other uses, keep in mind that we DO need some kind of new multirole fighter. Even if it isn't the F-35 (I think this has turned into quite the boondoggle, myself), it would need to be something else that would cost the majority of that money.


Why? No, really, why? What imminent threat to America has anywhere near the capabilities to take on our current military? For farks sake, most of our wars in the last half century or more have been against people using guerilla tactics, which aren't much of a challenge when it comes to air superiority. And we're allied (or at least VERY important trading partners) with pretty much all of the few nations that COULD challenge us on technologically even footing.
 
2013-08-01 02:37:52 AM  
Its simple. Wrack up trillions of dollars in debt (much of it to China) maintaining military superiority over the world. Start a war with China, win, cancel our debts, remain the most powerful nation on earth for free.
 
2013-08-01 02:44:51 AM  

Science_Guy_3.14159: My favorite for the modern day fighters has to be the F-16, incredible maneuverability, pretty good speed but most importantly the only aircraft to cost less then it's predecessor


A 40 year old airframe is 'modern?'
 
2013-08-01 03:06:07 AM  
It is a pretty cool looking boondoggle.
 
2013-08-01 03:20:20 AM  

MrEricSir: [img24.imageshack.us image 432x604]

^ What subby's idea of "cool" may look like.


Yea, because military research and development never ever helped humanity
 
2013-08-01 04:16:46 AM  
Yo F35, I'm really happy for you. I'mma let you finish, but the F14 Tomcat was the most iconic fighter jets of all time. The most iconic fighter jet of all time.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-08-01 05:35:39 AM  
log_jammin:Great. soon the Ugandan air force will be raining death over the skies of America.

I thought Uganda's stealth jets were all carrier-based.
 
2013-08-01 05:39:13 AM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: The great thing about the F-35, is that it can operate either as a stealth fighter, with two bombs, or it can operate as a non-stealth fighter, with the payload of an F-16. Yet it costs more than buying a stealth fighter and an F-16.

Isn't our military-industrial complex awesome?


Listen man, just because 'Merica already has a fleet of bombers capable of flying to the other side of the planet, drop a nuke, then fly back without ever stopping on top of dozens of nuclear armed submarines and thousands of ICBMs doesn't mean we're safe.  The eagle will never stop crying until we have complete air coverage by hundreds of invisible jet fighters that transform into fighting robots that can give high fives to the Statue of Liberty.  And maybe not even then.
 
2013-08-01 05:39:42 AM  

RassilonsExWife: Two things:
1) WTF is so impressive about a blurry snapshot of an airplane?
2) WTF is it lately with all the greenlighted headlines lately that just copy and paste the headline of the god damned article?


1) subby is easily impressed
2) subby has no imagination and fark is not what it once was. see featured partner.

-Everyone likes revenue, but it's a little jarring to see some of these partner links in the mix on Fark, a site with such a sharply defined sensibility. Fark's guidelines for submissions exhort users not once but twice to "Make the tagline funny" but the links to Buzzfeed's sponsored stories don't even attempt that.
 
2013-08-01 05:41:47 AM  
CSB:
Was out tooling around in a 172 today near Hill AFB. Had a pair of F-16s fly practically right over top of us...probably within a few thousand feet.

The F-16 is a magnificent fighter jet.
 
2013-08-01 06:20:55 AM  

Cyno01: Its simple. Wrack up trillions of dollars in debt (much of it to China) maintaining military superiority over the world. Start a war with China, win, cancel our debts, remain the most powerful nation on earth for free.


And you know someone at the Pentagon has already discussed this option. Sadly, the amount of people we would have to kill for this to work would be in the 10s of millions. We would basically have to knock China back 100yrs on infrastructure and decimate their population which would leave them as the big, starvingest third world country on the planet. Just to cancel some irresponsible debt.
 
2013-08-01 07:19:37 AM  

INeedAName: Cyno01: Its simple. Wrack up trillions of dollars in debt (much of it to China) maintaining military superiority over the world. Start a war with China, win, cancel our debts, remain the most powerful nation on earth for free.

And you know someone at the Pentagon has already discussed this option. Sadly, the amount of people we would have to kill for this to work would be in the 10s of millions. We would basically have to knock China back 100yrs on infrastructure and decimate their population which would leave them as the big, starvingest third world country on the planet. Just to cancel some irresponsible debt.


The US doesn't need to worry about its "irresponsible debt" to China.  It is literally non-material.  Boogety boo.
 
2013-08-01 07:22:49 AM  
I am assuming we can now afford this plane because the US has balanced its budget and nearly paid off the $15 Trillion debt.
 
2013-08-01 07:32:54 AM  

Makh: Other than debt, we could solve all of our problems with less than a trillion dollars.  We could high speed rail the country, fix our bridges and have roads that recharge electric cars...Or we could have this fighter jet.


A new high speed rail line is approximately $10 million per mile. That comes out to a conservative $500 billion for the U.S. So half your money would just go towards rail. Bridge repair in the US is another conservative $76 billion. Building better batteries technology and production, electric charging infrastructure, smart grid technology development and implementation, etc., is estimated to be more than the rest of your budget. That still leaves alternative energy technology to fix coal or nuclear power issues, etc. Unless if you are saying we could use the money to build a time machine that would move us back in time so we could make those investments up front. That may be a better way to use the investment.
 
2013-08-01 07:42:49 AM  
It's no YF-29.
 
2013-08-01 07:44:22 AM  
No. I will not get excited over weapon porn. Lockheed is a drain on society. They are the quintessence of the military-industrial complex. They get tens of billions of dollars per year to make offensive weapons that return little to no value to the taxpayer, as anyone actually in the business of defending us from foreign invaders will tell you that we have more tanks, helicopters, and jet fighters than we need. Lockheed's corporate logo should be a f*cking mothball.
 
2013-08-01 07:47:50 AM  
Is this the one where the engine alone ended up costing more than the Manhattan Project? Well at least we're getting some spiffy pics out of it. Lemme know when they shoot down their first underwear bomber.
 
2013-08-01 08:06:53 AM  
Meh. I'm dissapoint.
 
2013-08-01 08:21:06 AM  
www.wired.com
F-35,go home and get your farkin' shinebox.
 
2013-08-01 08:25:40 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Yo F35, I'm really happy for you. I'mma let you finish, but the F14 Tomcat was the most iconic fighter jets of all time. The most iconic fighter jet of all time.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x523]


Iconic, yes, But the Tomcat was also maintenance heavy and quite the disaster during its testing phase.
Granted if we start listing weapons that started out as boondoggles and ended up icons, we could be here all day.
 
2013-08-01 08:31:43 AM  
Meh, will never compare to the Raptor..

i336.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-01 08:38:03 AM  
It's never the things you fear that get you, in the end.
It's always something else, some unanticipated, unintended consequence that takes you out.
 
2013-08-01 08:41:23 AM  
And the enemy now has AC in their top of the line attack vehicle.
 
2013-08-01 08:41:40 AM  

Fark It: And inferior to the A-10 in CAS, and F/A-18 in maneuverability....


...with the loyalty of a cat, and the cleanliness of a dog!
 
2013-08-01 08:45:58 AM  
Yes citizens.
Your government will do this, but then when you break a leg or get sick, you're on your farking own.
 
2013-08-01 08:48:32 AM  
And NOT due to TopGun, I really miss the F14.
 
2013-08-01 08:55:09 AM  

jpo2269: Meh, will never compare to the Raptor..


don't be hasty, the F-35 may yet have it's numbers slashed due to budget overruns.
 
2013-08-01 08:55:16 AM  

Mr. Eugenides: Fark It: mrlewish: Fark It: log_jammin: thank god. we were starting to fall behind the rest of the globe on jet fighter technology.

The F-35 is a giant step behind when you compare its capabilities to the capabilities of the aircraft it's supposed to be replacing.

Yep. Other than it's stealth capabilities it is an inferior aircraft compared to the F-16.

And inferior to the A-10 in CAS, and F/A-18 in maneuverability....

Well, that's the problem with any all-in-one option.  You may reach the point where it can do everything well, but it will never be best at anything.  That doesn't mean that's a bad thing.


It does when we could have ordered one each of the three old planes, out of the factory this year, for less money than a single replacement. And not have to completely change any of our logistics/maintenance infrastructure.
 
2013-08-01 09:02:31 AM  

clkeagle: Mr. Eugenides: Fark It: mrlewish: Fark It: log_jammin: thank god. we were starting to fall behind the rest of the globe on jet fighter technology.

The F-35 is a giant step behind when you compare its capabilities to the capabilities of the aircraft it's supposed to be replacing.

Yep. Other than it's stealth capabilities it is an inferior aircraft compared to the F-16.

And inferior to the A-10 in CAS, and F/A-18 in maneuverability....

Well, that's the problem with any all-in-one option.  You may reach the point where it can do everything well, but it will never be best at anything.  That doesn't mean that's a bad thing.

It does when we could have ordered one each of the three old planes, out of the factory this year, for less money than a single replacement. And not have to completely change any of our logistics/maintenance infrastructure.




Factories don't work that way.
The tooling been dismantled and the staff has gone home. You'd be paying new jet money for a thirty year old design. You can remanufacture old frames but they'll run out of flight hours eventually.
Cutting the numbers of new stealth fighters doesn't help much either since the production costs are nothing compared to the design costs, and we still need the planes.
Hence why its a boondoggle.

Maybe we should have bought half a dozen less specialized designs, but you'd end up spending similar money if you want anything that conforms to the modern ideal of a fighter.
 
2013-08-01 09:10:13 AM  

BHShaman: And NOT due to TopGun, I really miss the F14.


It's OK grandpa. Take a nap and feel better.
/F-14 was a hog.
 
2013-08-01 09:30:28 AM  
It's not too late to pick up some new migs.
 
2013-08-01 09:39:40 AM  
i30.tinypic.com

"i farking warned you, but nooooooooo! you wouldn't listen!"
 
2013-08-01 10:01:55 AM  

LordJiro: akula: JonBuck: So, this program cost a trillion dollars? What would have been the comparative costs of designing three different specialized aircraft instead? I doubt they saved any money following this approach.

Lifetime program cost.

And for anybody thinking not buying this thing would free up that money for other uses, keep in mind that we DO need some kind of new multirole fighter. Even if it isn't the F-35 (I think this has turned into quite the boondoggle, myself), it would need to be something else that would cost the majority of that money.

Why? No, really, why? What imminent threat to America has anywhere near the capabilities to take on our current military? For farks sake, most of our wars in the last half century or more have been against people using guerilla tactics, which aren't much of a challenge when it comes to air superiority. And we're allied (or at least VERY important trading partners) with pretty much all of the few nations that COULD challenge us on technologically even footing.


It takes so long to make a new weapon system that an imminent threat will be long gone by the time the weapon designed to counter it hits production. Does the fire department wait until ther's a fire to order a new truck? It is called planning and preparing. You don't wait until something happens and then prepare for it.

Tommy Moo: No. I will not get excited over weapon porn. Lockheed is a drain on society. They are the quintessence of the military-industrial complex. They get tens of billions of dollars per year to make offensive weapons that return little to no value to the taxpayer, as anyone actually in the business of defending us from foreign invaders will tell you that we have more tanks, helicopters, and jet fighters than we need. Lockheed's corporate logo should be a f*cking mothball.


You're right. We don't need anything made by Lockheed. They make nothing but weapons, right?
 
2013-08-01 10:02:43 AM  

jpo2269: Meh, will never compare to the Raptor..

[i336.photobucket.com image 850x637]


I got yelled at for hugging the nose cone of the Yf-22 at the Wright Pat Airforce Museum.  Good thing they didn't see me trying to get a better look inside the engines.  Badass plane in person.
 
2013-08-01 10:17:44 AM  

GardenWeasel: Meh

[img.ehowcdn.com image 615x475]


I wish I was smart enough to pilot one of those.  I'd probably be dead now, but I would have lived out that dream.
 
2013-08-01 10:55:13 AM  

Tobin_Lam: LordJiro: akula: JonBuck: So, this program cost a trillion dollars? What would have been the comparative costs of designing three different specialized aircraft instead? I doubt they saved any money following this approach.

Lifetime program cost.

And for anybody thinking not buying this thing would free up that money for other uses, keep in mind that we DO need some kind of new multirole fighter. Even if it isn't the F-35 (I think this has turned into quite the boondoggle, myself), it would need to be something else that would cost the majority of that money.

Why? No, really, why? What imminent threat to America has anywhere near the capabilities to take on our current military? For farks sake, most of our wars in the last half century or more have been against people using guerilla tactics, which aren't much of a challenge when it comes to air superiority. And we're allied (or at least VERY important trading partners) with pretty much all of the few nations that COULD challenge us on technologically even footing.

It takes so long to make a new weapon system that an imminent threat will be long gone by the time the weapon designed to counter it hits production. Does the fire department wait until ther's a fire to order a new truck? It is called planning and preparing. You don't wait until something happens and then prepare for it.

Tommy Moo: No. I will not get excited over weapon porn. Lockheed is a drain on society. They are the quintessence of the military-industrial complex. They get tens of billions of dollars per year to make offensive weapons that return little to no value to the taxpayer, as anyone actually in the business of defending us from foreign invaders will tell you that we have more tanks, helicopters, and jet fighters than we need. Lockheed's corporate logo should be a f*cking mothball.

You're right. We don't need anything made by Lockheed. They make nothing but weapons, right?


Spy satellites, I suppose, aren't technically weapons, but it's certainly fair to say that Lockheed makes absolutely nothing that isn't part of the military/intelligence/security triad. Some amount of that is necessary, but don't try to pretend the company isn't three times the size it needs to be, which absolutely does constitute a "drain on society," like I said.
 
2013-08-01 11:16:43 AM  

Tommy Moo: Spy satellites, I suppose, aren't technically weapons, but it's certainly fair to say that Lockheed makes absolutely nothing that isn't part of the military/intelligence/security triad.


Look at their product page. Just look at their space products on the left pull-down and you can that sentence is incorrect.
 
2013-08-01 11:40:13 AM  
I wonder if we can consider the trillions in debt a kind of insurance policy on Taiwan. I.E. if China ever invades Taiwan we just claim all debt invalid.
 
2013-08-01 12:37:30 PM  
Um, Lockheed doesn't build the F-35, that's McDonnell-Douglas, same folks who make the F-18. Lockheed does have an interesting project in the works for compact fusion. If they pull that off, they'll own the world.  http://www.fusenet.eu/node/400
 
Displayed 50 of 117 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


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