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)   The guy who designed the F-16 tears calls the F-35 a turkey. Proceeds to tell the kids to get off his lawn   (sploid.gizmodo.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, F-16  
•       •       •

4475 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Jun 2014 at 12:02 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-17 11:43:27 AM  
Meh.  Just upgrade these with new engines:

www.militaryaircraft.de
 
2014-06-17 12:04:45 PM  
Tears calls?

Engrish?
 
2014-06-17 12:07:20 PM  
THANKS GIZMODO.

I hope those guys don't consider themselves journalists. It would take you all of five minutes to write a good summary.
 
2014-06-17 12:10:23 PM  
Turns out a plane designed to do everything will do nothing well. Why is this still a surprise?
 
2014-06-17 12:10:28 PM  
The F-16 was, and still is one of the best and most economical combat aircraft ever made.
 
2014-06-17 12:16:45 PM  
I'm glad someone finally pointed out the lies and idiocy of "stealth".

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 
2014-06-17 12:18:26 PM  
The F-16 can cry?
 
2014-06-17 12:23:05 PM  
I have a bad feeling this guy is spot on, and he may need to close his mouth before Lockheed arranges an "accident" for him.

An awful lot of people have been bumped off over matters FAR less than $1 trillion.
 
2014-06-17 12:32:56 PM  

Keyser_Soze_Death: The F-16 was, and still is one of the best and most economical combat aircraft ever made.


devcentral.f5.com

Disposable aircraft, made by Bic.

...ahem....

Sorry for that, don't know what came over me. Dad was a F-4 and F-15 back seater, the hatred of the F-16 is a reflex.  The F-16 is good at what it was designed to do: Cover a 50-100 mile zone and absolutely hunt down and destroy anything that flew in that area.

But it is out classed in a lot of other categories by other aircraft. We just happen to have a few thousand of them laying around, so they get to carry a bomb or two and be useful. The F-35 will have the same limited payload problem, except that if/when we lose one, it's going to cost a looooot more.
 
2014-06-17 12:39:19 PM  
Unknown to NATO, Yugoslav air defenses operators had found they could detect F-117s with their "obsolete" Soviet radars after some modifications.  In 2005, Colonel Zoltán Dani confirmed in an interview suggested that those modifications involved using long wavelengths, allowing them to detect the aircraft when the wheel well or bomb bay doors were open. In addition, the Serbs had also intercepted and deciphered some NATO communications, and thus were able to deploy their anti-air batteries at positions best suited to intercept NATO planes.

On March 27, 1999, the 3rd Battalion of the 250th Air Defence Missile Brigade of the Army of Yugoslavia, under the command of Colonel Dani, downed F-117 Air Force serial number 82-0806.[2][4]
The Army of Yugoslavia unit was equipped with a Yugoslav version of the Soviet Isayev S-125 "Neva" missile system (NATO reporting name, SA-3 "Goa").[Note 1][1][2][5]
At about 8:15 pm local time, with a range of about 8 miles (13 km) several missiles were launched. According to Sergeant Dragan Matić, who was identified in 2009 as the soldier who fired the missiles, they detected the F-117 at a range of about 50 to 60 kilometres (31 to 37 mi), operating their equipment for no more than 17 seconds to avoid being locked on to by NATO anti-air suppression.[2] According to Dani in a 2007 interview, his troops spotted the aircraft on radar when its bomb-bay doors opened, raising its radar signature.

Now let's see. How does the F-35 mount its bombs? Internally with bomb-bay doors.

1.bp.blogspot.com

/the radar signature of a bee...a 60,000 pound bee
 
2014-06-17 12:39:20 PM  
This is perhaps the worst Fark headline of the last six months.


When the "get off my lawn" meme -- a tired hallmark of unimaginative posts -- becomes the only redeeming thing about your headline, it's time to rethink your definition of clever.
 
2014-06-17 12:45:12 PM  

Keyser_Soze_Death: The F-16 was, and still is one of the best and most economical combat aircraft ever made.


But it's worth noting the amount of development and failure that went into getting to that point.  The F-16 is a culmination of decades of expensive projects and learning.  The F-35 is a very expensive research project, it's the first of its kind, and likely later revisions will be serviceable planes, but, more likely, the next plane in the line will see far less problems.  The F-4 went through tons of revisions from release to final versions because of problems with the plane(performance problems, spins, no cannon in initial versions, etc).
 
2014-06-17 12:47:53 PM  
Pierre Sprey also had a hand in designing the A-10, a contender for the best CAS aircraft ever built.  I agree with his idea that making the F-35 do both CAS and air superiority was a recipe for failure.
 
2014-06-17 01:01:25 PM  
On paper, the F35 can outperform the F16; heck, on paper, it outclasses the current F18s as well.

But the F35 is the answer to a question that no one seriously asked, and that the military basically took back years ago.  Even with significant upgrade costs, F18s and F16s could do 98% of what the F35 is supposed to be designed to do (minus some stealth stuff), and for less total cost.
 
2014-06-17 01:01:54 PM  
He makes many good points, but Steath is NOT a complete scam. It works for high frequency radar, which is the only radar that air to air missiles and opposing fighter aircraft can have, since their antenna sizes are small. Ground based radar controlled SAMs are another matter. But ground based radar does have llimited visibility...

I also don't have a problem with VTOL like he does. We need as many F-35 VTOLs as we can get. Having a serious fighter that isn't dependent on runways could save our ass one day.
 
2014-06-17 01:04:50 PM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I'm glad someone finally pointed out the lies and idiocy of "stealth".

What's the frequency, Kenneth?



It's not lies and idiocy, and stealth done correctly is actually much cheaper and effective than the traditional approach. Stealth aircraft require far less auxiliary support than non-stealth aircraft because they're able to passively defeat a whole lot of anti-air defenses that would otherwise require support. In a  traditional conflict, this is a game changer. When you're bombing insurgents in the desert it can be counter-productive.

It's important to remember that stealth doesn't make planes invisible or invincible:  it reduces the range at which they can be detected and engaged.

A traditional bomber is easily detected and engaged by anti-air defenses. To conduct a bombing mission, you first must suppress those anti-air defenses (SEAD) from the ground or from the air. If you're fighting a modern adversary, you also need interceptor aircraft to protect your bombers from airborne threats. Then you need additional support to coordinate this big operation. This takes a tremendous amount of time and money, and exposes many people to significant risk (SEAD in particular).

In contrast, depending on the placement of enemy radar, a stealth aircraft can slip through cracks in the radar screen not accessible to non-stealth aircraft. They will be visible only for the brief time during which they actually engage their target, and then they can slip back out. There are far fewer aircraft and people involved, exposed to much less risk. There is still the risk of a stealth aircraft being shot down, but much fewer stealth aircraft can be used and have an equal probability of success than a large number of non-stealth aircraft.
 
2014-06-17 01:08:26 PM  
mark12A:

I also don't have a problem with VTOL like he does. We need as many F-35 VTOLs as we can get. Having a serious fighter that isn't dependent on runways could save our ass one day.

Find a US Marine airframe mechanic who services Harriers and ask what he/she thinks of VTOL.

Hint* They hate them, because the damned things almost vibrate themselves to pieces and require more review maintenance than conventional aircraft.
 
2014-06-17 01:14:43 PM  

Gary-L: mark12A:

I also don't have a problem with VTOL like he does. We need as many F-35 VTOLs as we can get. Having a serious fighter that isn't dependent on runways could save our ass one day.

Find a US Marine airframe mechanic who services Harriers and ask what he/she thinks of VTOL.

Hint* They hate them, because the damned things almost vibrate themselves to pieces and require more review maintenance than conventional aircraft.


Well, yes, it's a pain in the ass, but it's a necessity for a branch whose mission requires it if they want something faster than a helicopter.
 
2014-06-17 01:16:00 PM  

State_College_Arsonist: Pierre Sprey also had a hand in designing the A-10, a contender for the best CAS aircraft ever built.  I agree with his idea that making the F-35 do both CAS and air superiority was a recipe for failure.


The A-10 was great when it was designed, and it's great against insurgent threats who don't have modern AA equipment, but it's easy pickings for forces who do have modern AA. They wouldn't last very long in combat against another nation, or they'd be restricted to operating in relatively safe areas (i.e. not where ground troops really need CAS).

It's just too big and slow. It relies on the idea that friendly forces can keep enemy air threats in check, which just isn't possible now that any random person on the ground can have a missile launcher capable of killing you.
 
2014-06-17 01:16:50 PM  
Maybe the F35 is being designed by kids.  It would explain some things.
 
2014-06-17 01:20:22 PM  
The F-16 is an aircraft designed with one mission in mind, interception, for one user, the USAF. The F-35 is designed for multiple missions for multiple users. It's no surprise that it's going to under-perform in each individual mission compared to single-purpose aircraft.

The benefits of a multi-user multi-purpose aircraft is consolidating the supply chain. Replacing 10 different types of aircraft with one type means that you have more depot space for spare parts because you don't have to keep inventory for 10 different kinds of aircraft. This ultimately reduces the overhead costs of the branches' fleets.

Sure, the initial cost is astronomical, but the Pentagon is gambling on reducing the long-term cost of parts, parts storage, and crew training. And these planes are expected to last 30 years or more. The individual multi-billion dollar cost of each airframe will not seem so bad from the perspective of a 2044 US GDP.
 
2014-06-17 01:20:25 PM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: Now let's see. How does the F-35 mount its bombs? Internally with bomb-bay doors.


Military planners are well aware that opening bomb bays will disrupt the stealth profile of the F35. The solution is simple: don't fly around with your bomb bays open any longer than you have to.
 
2014-06-17 01:32:15 PM  

State_College_Arsonist: I agree with his idea that making the F-35 do both CAS and air superiority was a recipe for failure.


More like a recipe to convince 535 people that we are actually serious about saving money.  Which is usually the same thing, and is in this case, but it's not always.
 
2014-06-17 01:34:28 PM  
Lt. Col. John "Clear Eyes" Visine
 
2014-06-17 01:39:48 PM  

cgraves67: The F-16 is an aircraft designed with one mission in mind, interception, for one user, the USAF. The F-35 is designed for multiple missions for multiple users. It's no surprise that it's going to under-perform in each individual mission compared to single-purpose aircraft.

The benefits of a multi-user multi-purpose aircraft is consolidating the supply chain. Replacing 10 different types of aircraft with one type means that you have more depot space for spare parts because you don't have to keep inventory for 10 different kinds of aircraft. This ultimately reduces the overhead costs of the branches' fleets.

Sure, the initial cost is astronomical, but the Pentagon is gambling on reducing the long-term cost of parts, parts storage, and crew training. And these planes are expected to last 30 years or more. The individual multi-billion dollar cost of each airframe will not seem so bad from the perspective of a 2044 US GDP.


Yeah, but the "jack of all trades, master of none" theory of design NEVER works out. The tradeoffs are ALWAYS detrimental.

That's not true of just airplanes, either. Purpose built-devices (and software, and anything really) are ALWAYS better. And easier to manage. And in the end, more flexible.
 
2014-06-17 01:49:44 PM  

Fubini: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I'm glad someone finally pointed out the lies and idiocy of "stealth".

What's the frequency, Kenneth?


It's not lies and idiocy, and stealth done correctly is actually much cheaper and effective than the traditional approach. Stealth aircraft require far less auxiliary support than non-stealth aircraft because they're able to passively defeat a whole lot of anti-air defenses that would otherwise require support. In a  traditional conflict, this is a game changer. When you're bombing insurgents in the desert it can be counter-productive.

It's important to remember that stealth doesn't make planes invisible or invincible:  it reduces the range at which they can be detected and engaged.

A traditional bomber is easily detected and engaged by anti-air defenses. To conduct a bombing mission, you first must suppress those anti-air defenses (SEAD) from the ground or from the air. If you're fighting a modern adversary, you also need interceptor aircraft to protect your bombers from airborne threats. Then you need additional support to coordinate this big operation. This takes a tremendous amount of time and money, and exposes many people to significant risk (SEAD in particular).

In contrast, depending on the placement of enemy radar, a stealth aircraft can slip through cracks in the radar screen not accessible to non-stealth aircraft. They will be visible only for the brief time during which they actually engage their target, and then they can slip back out. There are far fewer aircraft and people involved, exposed to much less risk. There is still the risk of a stealth aircraft being shot down, but much fewer stealth aircraft can be used and have an equal probability of success than a large number of non-stealth aircraft.


Everywhere where we've used stealth "fighters" / bombers, we've had SEAD and air cover. Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan, it's never been the stealth aircraft leading the charge. I recall reading that they've always operated at night also - and that F-16s attacking ground targets at night had the same survival rate as F-117's.
 
2014-06-17 01:56:21 PM  
images.nintendolife.com

The F35 is basically a red mage. A fat and slow red mage, so its not even a good red mage, that the pentagon had make its test easier for it to pass.
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-pentagons-new-trillion-dollar-j et -is-a-garbage-can
 
2014-06-17 02:04:28 PM  
Canada doesn't require a multirole aircraft. We need multiple aircraft that excell at thier job. You are never going to get the best by trying to combine specialist ideas into a single package...........

Realistically IMO we should have 60-80 combat fighters, 30-40 support aircraft, 30-40 Choppers geared for transport and SAR, 20-25 Choppers geared strictly for combat operations and ground support, and 8 or 10 recon/radar aircraft. (IN ADDITION TO CURRENT AIRCRAFT)
I am for the use of drones as a way to maintain Arctic interests. They would present a cheap affordable way to patrol these remote hostile areas.

In addition to the above reduce but continue to utilize the CF-18 for training and home defense rolls, it is still a good aircraft for these rolls for at least the next decade. Also continue with the current stock of Griffons and Chinooks but dispose of the Sea Kings.

If we ever need more than that, at that point we'd be calling NATO in for aid anyway..............
 
2014-06-17 02:11:06 PM  
The final production F-16 wasn't even able to meet the criteria it was suppose to.  Instead it is a Short ranged, fair weather, interceptor, that is about it.  When it's engine gets knocked out it has about 15 seconds of control before it locks up.

An F-15 or F-18 can do vastly better then the F-16
 
2014-06-17 02:14:43 PM  

Arkanaut: Fubini: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I'm glad someone finally pointed out the lies and idiocy of "stealth".

What's the frequency, Kenneth?


It's not lies and idiocy, and stealth done correctly is actually much cheaper and effective than the traditional approach. Stealth aircraft require far less auxiliary support than non-stealth aircraft because they're able to passively defeat a whole lot of anti-air defenses that would otherwise require support. In a  traditional conflict, this is a game changer. When you're bombing insurgents in the desert it can be counter-productive.

It's important to remember that stealth doesn't make planes invisible or invincible:  it reduces the range at which they can be detected and engaged.

A traditional bomber is easily detected and engaged by anti-air defenses. To conduct a bombing mission, you first must suppress those anti-air defenses (SEAD) from the ground or from the air. If you're fighting a modern adversary, you also need interceptor aircraft to protect your bombers from airborne threats. Then you need additional support to coordinate this big operation. This takes a tremendous amount of time and money, and exposes many people to significant risk (SEAD in particular).

In contrast, depending on the placement of enemy radar, a stealth aircraft can slip through cracks in the radar screen not accessible to non-stealth aircraft. They will be visible only for the brief time during which they actually engage their target, and then they can slip back out. There are far fewer aircraft and people involved, exposed to much less risk. There is still the risk of a stealth aircraft being shot down, but much fewer stealth aircraft can be used and have an equal probability of success than a large number of non-stealth aircraft.

Everywhere where we've used stealth "fighters" / bombers, we've had SEAD and air cover. Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan, it's never been the stealth aircraft leading the charge. I recall reading that they've always operated a ...


The Navy likes the EA-18G "Growler".  Its electronic threat targeting and countermeasure are supposedly effective against the VHF (long wavelength that Sprey mentioned) radars and in other cases where the F-35 may be vulnerable.
 
2014-06-17 02:17:47 PM  

cgraves67: The F-16 is an aircraft designed with one mission in mind, interception, for one user, the USAF.


I'm sorry everyone has been using your F-16 with great success, in the wrong manner.

I do hope Denmark gets out of the F-35 soon though. Being best ally with USA just isn't worth it, when you force that crap on us.
 
2014-06-17 02:20:36 PM  
The US Navy and the F/A-18E are laughing at the 'one airframe for all roles is a disaster!' argument.
 
2014-06-17 02:26:51 PM  
The VTOL component is actually the worst part. There is zero farking reason we need a stealth capable VTOL plane. The sacrifices in every area of performance make it an expensive turd.

If the dumb farking marines want a VTOL jet then build one from the ground up instead of this absolute mess that will get its ass kicked by upgraded aircraft from the 60s.


The A and C almost make sense and might be okay(but still worse than if we just kept making F-22s and used F-15 and F-18s). But the B is a farking shiatshow and will probably kill more Marines than enemy action.
 
2014-06-17 02:28:00 PM  
There has been so many arguments about the F-35, from its stealth not being good enough, a few weeks ago it couldn't land on carriers and its budget is now blown out the water. Most arm chair generals will continue to bad mouth the F-35, its actually a decent airframe and does what it was designed to do.

Yes it costed a little more then it should, but most aircrafts have that problem with inflation (F-14 for example).
 
2014-06-17 02:30:12 PM  

Arkanaut: Everywhere where we've used stealth "fighters" / bombers, we've had SEAD and air cover. Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan, it's never been the stealth aircraft leading the charge. I recall reading that they've always operated at night also - and that F-16s attacking ground targets at night had the same survival rate as F-117's.


I remember a different Iraq I guess.

"U.S. Forces used three platforms during the Gulf War that were in the stealth/low-observability category: the F-117 stealth fighter and two long-range cruise missiles, the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) and the Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile (CALCM)......The F-117, which flew only two percent of the total attack sorties, struck nearly forty percent of the strategic targets and remained the centerpiece of the strategic air campaign for the entire war.
Low observability made possible direct strikes at the heart of the Iraqi air defense system at the very outset of the war. In the past, air forces fought through elaborate defenses and accepted losses on their way to the target or rolled those defenses back. In the Gulf War, the Coalition could strike Iraqi air defenses immediately, and they never recovered from these initial, stunning blows. With the combination of stealth and accuracy possessed by the F-117 and cruise missiles, these two platforms carried out all attacks against downtown Baghdad; the F-117 operated at night and the TLAMs during the day. Given the American sensitivity to casualties--our own and Iraqi civilians--they were ideal weapon systems for attacking targets in the heart of a heavily defended, heavily populated city. Moreover, the F-117 had a psychological utility that was probably shared only by the B-52. Both were aircraft of a kind that only a super-power could have, and both could deliver destruction with no advanced warning--small wonder, then, that both figured prominently in psychological operations pamphlets that were showered upon Iraqi troops.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/stealth.html
 
2014-06-17 02:32:20 PM  

Keyser_Soze_Death: The F-16 was, and still is one of the best and most economical combat aircraft ever made.


I remember reading about John Boyd's involvement in the design. They used the same engine as the F-15 but only one instead of two because air to air combat traditionally happens at sub-sonic speeds. Also a lot of the high dollar value long range missiles were not included because in all of the air to air combat during vietnam long range missiles were only responsible for two successful engagements.
 
2014-06-17 02:37:51 PM  
Iraq's military was overrated shiat and lol at using it's performance as an example for anything.
 
2014-06-17 02:55:56 PM  

acefox1: The US Navy and the F/A-18E are laughing at the 'one airframe for all roles is a disaster!' argument.


No, I think there are some guys still left in the Navy that remember this bullshiat and still cringe at the thought of a jack-of-all-trades aircraft.

steeljawscribe.com
 
2014-06-17 02:58:46 PM  
It needs more portholes.
 
2014-06-17 03:01:34 PM  
 
2014-06-17 03:11:44 PM  

The Madd Mann: Turns out a plane designed to do everything will do nothing well. Why is this still a surprise?


As a Jack of all trades I'm getting kicked by this comment.

CSB my Grandfathers name was Jack.
 
2014-06-17 03:20:19 PM  

Fubini: The A-10 was great when it was designed, and it's great against insurgent threats who don't have modern AA equipment, but it's easy pickings for forces who do have modern AA. They wouldn't last very long in combat against another nation, or they'd be restricted to operating in relatively safe areas (i.e. not where ground troops really need CAS).


What, you mean like Iraq or Serbia?
 
2014-06-17 04:25:17 PM  

The Madd Mann: Turns out a plane designed to do everything will do nothing well. Why is this still a surprise?


What doesn't it do well?
 
2014-06-17 04:25:48 PM  
The F-35 isn't a total waste of money. It has stealth features more advanced than the F-22 (notably using its fuel to cool its skin to reduce its IR signature). The biggest problem with it is what they promised in terms of software. The command, control and coordination features they promised are incredible. Things like sharing radar an IR sensor data between planes are all major complexities that are taking a long time to develop. This added layer of complexity shouldn't have been included in the base platform. The US should have focused on the base flying and fighting platform first and then included the software features as an upgrade.

Since the F-35 is a jack of all trades lets compare it to a jack of all trades like the Tornado or the F-111. It will kick the Tornado and F-111's butt. Now add to that the B version is far more capable than the Harrier. Then consider it is stealth. Now place a value on it.
 
2014-06-17 04:28:08 PM  

Keyser_Soze_Death: The F-16 was, and still is one of the best and most economical combat aircraft ever made.


www.aviatorgear.com

Damn right.
 
2014-06-17 04:31:15 PM  
The F-35 is a welfare program for the Defense Industry. That is all.
 
2014-06-17 04:33:45 PM  

Fubini: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I'm glad someone finally pointed out the lies and idiocy of "stealth".

What's the frequency, Kenneth?


It's not lies and idiocy, and stealth done correctly is actually much cheaper and effective than the traditional approach. Stealth aircraft require far less auxiliary support than non-stealth aircraft because they're able to passively defeat a whole lot of anti-air defenses that would otherwise require support. In a  traditional conflict, this is a game changer. When you're bombing insurgents in the desert it can be counter-productive.

It's important to remember that stealth doesn't make planes invisible or invincible:  it reduces the range at which they can be detected and engaged.

A traditional bomber is easily detected and engaged by anti-air defenses. To conduct a bombing mission, you first must suppress those anti-air defenses (SEAD) from the ground or from the air. If you're fighting a modern adversary, you also need interceptor aircraft to protect your bombers from airborne threats. Then you need additional support to coordinate this big operation. This takes a tremendous amount of time and money, and exposes many people to significant risk (SEAD in particular).

In contrast, depending on the placement of enemy radar, a stealth aircraft can slip through cracks in the radar screen not accessible to non-stealth aircraft. They will be visible only for the brief time during which they actually engage their target, and then they can slip back out. There are far fewer aircraft and people involved, exposed to much less risk. There is still the risk of a stealth aircraft being shot down, but much fewer stealth aircraft can be used and have an equal probability of success than a large number of non-stealth aircraft.


You know something. Refreshing.

/my kid was a lead engineer on the F35
//his mom and dad are both pilots
///we have confidence in this version and future iterations of F35
 
2014-06-17 04:43:09 PM  

Tobin_Lam: The Madd Mann: Turns out a plane designed to do everything will do nothing well. Why is this still a surprise?

What doesn't it do well?


Anything.
 
2014-06-17 04:52:55 PM  

crab66: Tobin_Lam: The Madd Mann: Turns out a plane designed to do everything will do nothing well. Why is this still a surprise?

What doesn't it do well?

Anything.


Like what?
 
2014-06-17 05:05:30 PM  

Tobin_Lam: crab66: Tobin_Lam: The Madd Mann: Turns out a plane designed to do everything will do nothing well. Why is this still a surprise?

What doesn't it do well?

Anything.

Like what?


Range.
Speed.
Payload.
Maneuverability
Cost per unit.
Reliability.
Durability( single engine).
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | 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