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 F-35 has a new feature: self immolation   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 59
    More: Fail, F-35B, jet aircraft, U.S., fighter aircrafts, UTX, eternal flame, Pratt & Whitney  
•       •       •

4238 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Jun 2014 at 7:20 AM (8 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-24 12:15:56 AM
Gotta love the military industrial complex. Bridges and infrastructure on the other hand...
 
2014-06-24 04:44:53 AM
The Joke Strike Freighter at its best!
 
2014-06-24 07:28:49 AM
Ehh... I've got little love for the JSF program as the idea, while seemingly sensible (everyone buys one jet, splits the cost) was flawed militarily (one weakness shared across all jets, one jet cannot do all jobs effectively, one manufacturer means massive corruption).

That said, this kind of stuff isn't unusual.
Complex aircraft have lengthy and troublesome development cycles.

/One of Russia's new fighters burst into flame while parked on a runway just the other day.
/practically destroying the thing, yet no wailing and gnashing of teeth.
 
2014-06-24 08:01:51 AM
Maybe that's so if the pilot realizes we are in an unsustainable and pointless war, he can just explode the fighter and be done with it.
 
2014-06-24 08:02:24 AM
I'm so glad Australia bought $12 billion worth of these during budget cuts.
 
2014-06-24 08:09:04 AM

spamdog: I'm so glad Australia bought $12 billion worth of these during budget cuts.


But what are they gonna do with just 3 of them?
 
2014-06-24 08:20:58 AM
img.fark.net
EXTERMINA....too late sigh.
 
2014-06-24 08:21:37 AM
This is the part where idiots and people directly benefiting from this travesty tell us how great this plane is.
 
2014-06-24 08:34:32 AM
Let's get this out of the way. Suck it Lockheed.

texasscribbler.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-06-24 08:56:32 AM
It is interesting comparing the complaints about the roll out of ACA to the roll out of the F-35.  Both are complex system.  One had some bumps that took about 2 months to resolve and it is the worst thing in the world.  The other has been struggling for a couple years now yet I don't hear any credible calls to cancel the project.
 
2014-06-24 08:58:44 AM

spamdog: I'm so glad Australia bought $12 billion worth of these during budget cuts.


Nearly as awesome as the UK buying them for the new air carriers and then selling off all the Harriers, so we now have no jets when the carriers come online soon and we will have no planes for them for several years.
 
2014-06-24 09:02:38 AM

Muta: It is interesting comparing the complaints about the roll out of ACA to the roll out of the F-35.  Both are complex system.  One had some bumps that took about 2 months to resolve and it is the worst thing in the world.  The other has been struggling for a couple years now yet I don't hear any credible calls to cancel the project.


One benefits Senators, Congresscritters and their largest donors. The other looks like it helps teh p00rz and and attractive and successful President while actually being a handout to the insurance industry.
 
2014-06-24 09:09:19 AM
Meh.

The B29 had all sorts of problems and I reckon it did alright. They'll figure it out. Or not
 
2014-06-24 09:28:21 AM

spamdog: I'm so glad Australia bought $12 billion worth of these during budget cuts.


luckily they have those new a330 tankers to refuel them too
 
2014-06-24 09:49:33 AM
way south:

/One of Russia's new fighters burst into flame while parked on a runway just the other day.
/practically destroying the thing, yet no wailing and gnashing of teeth.


The Indians did wail and gnash their teeth. Not at all happy with PAK-FA, or so I read.
 
2014-06-24 09:51:29 AM

KidneyStone: Meh.

The B29 had all sorts of problems and I reckon it did alright. They'll figure it out. Or not


The F35 has less range, payload, and a worse flight envelope than an F-15.  It is only somewhat stealthy, against airborne radars, when lightly loaded.  The sustained turn load was recently dropped to 5 Gs (C model only - A and B are less) which means most front line fighters flying today will eat it alive in a dogfight.  The visibility is also poor, and the miracle helmet that is supposed to make up for this shortcoming is buggy.

Most of these issues cannot be fixed.  But I'm sure we'll keep throwing money at it anyway.
 
2014-06-24 10:05:52 AM
Clearance, Clarence.
 
2014-06-24 10:08:00 AM

way south: Ehh... I've got little love for the JSF program as the idea, while seemingly sensible (everyone buys one jet, splits the cost) was flawed militarily (one weakness shared across all jets, one jet cannot do all jobs effectively, one manufacturer means massive corruption).


Except that the JSF isn't built by only one manufacturer.  The frame is build by one company, but the rest of it is farmed to dozen other companies - systems, radars, weapons, etc.

The truth is you should ONLY have one company building a frame.  But the rest can be quite modular.  And in this case, it is.  I won't argue about the job effectiveness issue, I'm not terribly knowledgeable in the areas of mission needs.
 
2014-06-24 10:14:12 AM

Marcus Aurelius: KidneyStone: Meh.

The B29 had all sorts of problems and I reckon it did alright. They'll figure it out. Or not

The F35 has less range, payload, and a worse flight envelope than an F-15.  It is only somewhat stealthy, against airborne radars, when lightly loaded.  The sustained turn load was recently dropped to 5 Gs (C model only - A and B are less) which means most front line fighters flying today will eat it alive in a dogfight.  The visibility is also poor, and the miracle helmet that is supposed to make up for this shortcoming is buggy.

Most of these issues cannot be fixed.  But I'm sure we'll keep throwing money at it anyway.


Is the F22 any better?
 
2014-06-24 10:16:30 AM

8tReAsUrEz: way south:

/One of Russia's new fighters burst into flame while parked on a runway just the other day.
/practically destroying the thing, yet no wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The Indians did wail and gnash their teeth. Not at all happy with PAK-FA, or so I read.


Serves em right for not buying American.

/but do they really need fighter jets to guard their casinos?
 
2014-06-24 10:21:19 AM
the F-35 has a history of tank leaks. a design flaw.
 
2014-06-24 10:22:09 AM

zarberg: Is the F22 any better?


the f22 performs like a beast

with that, it's just a question of if the cost is worth it
 
2014-06-24 10:24:24 AM
Drones are the future and big biz knows it. One last big suck at the teat.
 
2014-06-24 10:29:20 AM
It has the radar signature of a charcoal briquette.
 
2014-06-24 10:40:04 AM

zarberg: Is the F22 any better?


Massively better in almost every way. The F-22 is the fighter you have protecting the homeland, while the JSF is for foreign governments and the Navy. Until it got mission creep the JSF was always pitched towards me as the "almost as good" next-gen fighter.

That being said, they're  all obsolete already (not uncommon in military hardware with development cycles measured in decades), because human-occupied fighters are crippled with their squishy meat components. The real next gen is in drone fighters, because a computer can do maneuvers that would stroke out and heads-explode human pilots.
 
2014-06-24 10:53:53 AM

GardenWeasel: Let's get this out of the way. Suck it Lockheed.

[texasscribbler.files.wordpress.com image 850x1275]


The most beautiful plane the USAF has.
 
2014-06-24 10:58:35 AM
Estimated total cost of the F-35 program over its projected 55 year lifespan (I know right, what a joke) is 1.58 trillion dollars.

Total current student loan debt, 1.02 trillion.

Scrap this shiatheap of a program, and use the money for something worthwhile.
 
2014-06-24 11:02:55 AM
The real idiocy of the program is that we're still building these things to carry and keep meat sacks alive.

/new models of manned fighters are a waste of time
 
2014-06-24 11:27:26 AM
So what we should do is give these planes to our enemies and they will kill themselves trying to fly them.
 
2014-06-24 11:34:49 AM
What's the obsession with having one do-it-all fighter? And who the F are we in arms race with anyway? Is our current fighter stock really so outdated? And aren't drones the wave of the future?
 
2014-06-24 11:41:07 AM

senorpogo: What's the obsession with having one do-it-all fighter? And who the F are we in arms race with anyway? Is our current fighter stock really so outdated? And aren't drones the wave of the future?


It's all about paying contractors.

We're so used to the "military-industrial complex" wasting tax dollars in this country that we are almost blind to the reality of it. The primary mission of US military is to funnel tax dollars to defense contractors. The secondary mission of the US military is to protect corporate interests in foreign countries.

Once you understand that, all of our foreign policy makes sense.
 
2014-06-24 11:46:14 AM
"Boondoggle"
 
2014-06-24 11:48:01 AM

senorpogo: What's the obsession with having one do-it-all fighter?


in theory, if you had one airframe with a few relatively straightforward mods that could change its role, it would hugely simplify all kinds of logistics and purchasing issues. you could, say, deploy 10 fighters to an area with kits that would let each of them fill 4-5 different roles, which would be far easier money and supply wise than sending 40-50 fighters to that area. same with parts purchasing - if a certain part is common to the airframe, each part in stock can be used broadly across the fleet

so ideally one plane that can do everything would be far cheaper than a bunch of specialists on both the procurement and use ends. but by bloating the project, it took away the only real benefit of such a plane
 
2014-06-24 11:51:58 AM

Strolpol: The real idiocy of the program is that we're still building these things to carry and keep meat sacks alive.


No chance in hell the Air Force will push unmanned fighter aircraft without some meat in the sky with it. It completely destroys the fighter pilot mentality/ego/culture. Plus drone interfaces aren't that good yet. And purely AI controlled with weapons involved? Not going to happen.

Seriously though- outside of life support systems, can current technology perform maneuvers that would incapacitate a pilot? I assumed that the G force issue was stress on the airframe.
 
2014-06-24 11:57:13 AM

whither_apophis: Drones are the future and big biz knows it. One last big suck at the teat.


MisterMook: That being said, they're  all obsolete already (not uncommon in military hardware with development cycles measured in decades), because human-occupied fighters are crippled with their squishy meat components. The real next gen is in drone fighters, because a computer can do maneuvers that would stroke out and heads-explode human pilots.


Strolpol: The real idiocy of the program is that we're still building these things to carry and keep meat sacks alive.

/new models of manned fighters are a waste of time


senorpogo: And aren't drones the wave of the future?

"What's going on? Hang on! Hang on!. . . . Uh-oh! shiat! It's spinning! . . . Okay, I think it just fell out of the sky."

Unidentified pilot of Predator drone that crashed near Kandahar Air Base in Afghanistan on March 2, 2013.

Yeah... about that...
 
2014-06-24 11:59:30 AM
Okay, Fark decided to eat my link for some reason.

"What's going on? Hang on! Hang on!. . . . Uh-oh! shiat! It's spinning! . . . Okay, I think it just fell out of the sky."
--Unidentified pilot of Predator drone that crashed near Kandahar Air Base in Afghanistan on March 2, 2013.
 
2014-06-24 12:00:43 PM

thehobbes: Strolpol: The real idiocy of the program is that we're still building these things to carry and keep meat sacks alive.

No chance in hell the Air Force will push unmanned fighter aircraft without some meat in the sky with it. It completely destroys the fighter pilot mentality/ego/culture. Plus drone interfaces aren't that good yet. And purely AI controlled with weapons involved? Not going to happen.

Seriously though- outside of life support systems, can current technology perform maneuvers that would incapacitate a pilot? I assumed that the G force issue was stress on the airframe.


That's the thing. You use the weight saved by cutting life support systems to strengthening the airframe.
 
2014-06-24 12:06:16 PM
thehobbes:
Seriously though- outside of life support systems, can current technology perform maneuvers that would incapacitate a pilot? I assumed that the G force issue was stress on the airframe.

Yes, current aircraft have airframes that support maneuvers that will black out a pilot due to excessive G force.  at least the F-22 did.  its also a design consideration.  you don't NEED to have an airframe or design that strong because these are piloted by people.  think what type of maneuvers a jet could perform if you removed the human element in the performance equation.

just look at model airplanes.  some of those things perform maneuvers, that if scaled up would flatten a human riding in it.
 
2014-06-24 12:07:36 PM

Riothamus: thehobbes: Strolpol: The real idiocy of the program is that we're still building these things to carry and keep meat sacks alive.

No chance in hell the Air Force will push unmanned fighter aircraft without some meat in the sky with it. It completely destroys the fighter pilot mentality/ego/culture. Plus drone interfaces aren't that good yet. And purely AI controlled with weapons involved? Not going to happen.

Seriously though- outside of life support systems, can current technology perform maneuvers that would incapacitate a pilot? I assumed that the G force issue was stress on the airframe.

That's the thing. You use the weight saved by cutting life support systems to strengthening the airframe.


Also no more Mike Durants, Francis Gary Powerses, and John McCains.
 
2014-06-24 12:09:52 PM

thehobbes: Strolpol: The real idiocy of the program is that we're still building these things to carry and keep meat sacks alive.

No chance in hell the Air Force will push unmanned fighter aircraft without some meat in the sky with it. It completely destroys the fighter pilot mentality/ego/culture. Plus drone interfaces aren't that good yet. And purely AI controlled with weapons involved? Not going to happen.

Seriously though- outside of life support systems, can current technology perform maneuvers that would incapacitate a pilot? I assumed that the G force issue was stress on the airframe.


Air Force pilots can resist all they like, but as of five years ago or so they're cavalry soldiers in 1930. They might linger on for a decade or more in diminishing roles, but the future is Wall-E, not Top Gun.

Current technology has been hampered by the meat for most of the tech's lifetime. Sure, you can still crash a drone, but if a drone crashes you're only losing the drone. The real cost over time for a piece of military hardware is the meat. Drones make meat safer and the hardware harder. It's a no brainer.
 
2014-06-24 12:16:07 PM
A Predator drone costs about $4 million. The whole program was about $2.5 billion.
One F-35 costs about $140 million. The program is estimated at this point to be over $1 trillion.
 
2014-06-24 12:25:32 PM

MisterMook: thehobbes: Strolpol: The real idiocy of the program is that we're still building these things to carry and keep meat sacks alive.

No chance in hell the Air Force will push unmanned fighter aircraft without some meat in the sky with it. It completely destroys the fighter pilot mentality/ego/culture. Plus drone interfaces aren't that good yet. And purely AI controlled with weapons involved? Not going to happen.

Seriously though- outside of life support systems, can current technology perform maneuvers that would incapacitate a pilot? I assumed that the G force issue was stress on the airframe.

Air Force pilots can resist all they like, but as of five years ago or so they're cavalry soldiers in 1930. They might linger on for a decade or more in diminishing roles, but the future is Wall-E, not Top Gun.

Current technology has been hampered by the meat for most of the tech's lifetime. Sure, you can still crash a drone, but if a drone crashes you're only losing the drone. The real cost over time for a piece of military hardware is the meat. Drones make meat safer and the hardware harder. It's a no brainer.


True. Would drones be susceptible to jamming or hacking though? I remember reading a PopSci about the future of air warfare where they were insisting that there had to be a human involved in the use of weaponry through either a drone pilot or verification with a human controller, so would that prevent the UCAV from being able to engage as needed if signal interference?
 
2014-06-24 12:28:49 PM

limeyfellow: spamdog: I'm so glad Australia bought $12 billion worth of these during budget cuts.

Nearly as awesome as the UK buying them for the new air carriers and then selling off all the Harriers, so we now have no jets when the carriers come online soon and we will have no planes for them for several years.


That is the improved plan, from when they were going to build a STOVL carrier first and a CATOBAR carrier second and only buy the CATOBAR capable fighters.

I really wish Canada wasn't involved in this. I just don't see any reason to get these. The Air Force needs new fighters, that is clear, because the current air frames are wearingout.

The obvious replacement was to get some new Super Hornets. It is more than capable of performing any mission the Air Force can reasonably expect to be called upon for (Canada will not be taking on any first class militaries where top of the line hardware is required) and the similarity to the current Hornets minimizes the transition costs for air and ground crews. It is a proven piece of hardware and they could have been delivered years ago.

There are also a number of other currently operational fighters that can match anything in the air today (except the F-22) that could have been looked into. But instead we get what was basically a rigged scenario to select the F-35 from day one.
 
2014-06-24 12:29:20 PM

MisterMook: Air Force pilots can resist all they like, but as of five years ago or so they're cavalry soldiers in 1930. They might linger on for a decade or more in diminishing roles, but the future is Wall-E, not Top Gun.


I'm not sure they're fully obsolete. Some roles will require humans in cockpit for the near future- I'm not sure how well it would work to have UCAVs for air to air... any improvement in maneuverability from not having to protect the thinking meat would be offset by any communications lag to the aircraft. But for some other roles (most air to ground) there's really not much need to have a real pilot in the cockpit anymore. Maybe have some manned aircraft for those times when UCAVs aren't feasible (say, there's jamming that could hamper control), but UCAVs for once the field is cleared for them.

But yeah, the days of the pilot jumping into the plane to cover the dawn patrol are coming to a close. It's going to be robots up there for a day at a time, landing only to rearm and get maintenance (in flight refueling will keep them up there). They'll be up there all the time, watching for Sarah Connor.
 
2014-06-24 12:53:37 PM

thehobbes: Strolpol: The real idiocy of the program is that we're still building these things to carry and keep meat sacks alive.

No chance in hell the Air Force will push unmanned fighter aircraft without some meat in the sky with it. It completely destroys the fighter pilot mentality/ego/culture. Plus drone interfaces aren't that good yet. And purely AI controlled with weapons involved? Not going to happen.

Seriously though- outside of life support systems, can current technology perform maneuvers that would incapacitate a pilot? I assumed that the G force issue was stress on the airframe.


There's the major flaw with the "manned aircraft are dead" argument. Compared to being in the cockpit, flying a drone today is like wearing an eyepatch and drunk goggles. Until they perfect some sort of direct neural interface that can't be jammed, hijacked, or farked with in general by the enemy, manned aircraft aren't going anywhere. That's not to say drones don't serve a purpose. There are some missions drones do really, really well, and in the future we might see more of a convergence between autonomous technology and conventional autopilots, where a human is present but only takes over during critical phases of the mission; bomber and transport crews could be reduced to one or two instead of four to six (although I doubt nuclear missions will be allowed to fly without two people onboard for the same reason missile silos require two people to turn the launch keys).
 
2014-06-24 01:06:32 PM

MisterMook: zarberg: Is the F22 any better?

Massively better in almost every way. The F-22 is the fighter you have protecting the homeland, while the JSF is for foreign governments and the Navy. Until it got mission creep the JSF was always pitched towards me as the "almost as good" next-gen fighter.

That being said, they're  all obsolete already (not uncommon in military hardware with development cycles measured in decades), because human-occupied fighters are crippled with their squishy meat components. The real next gen is in drone fighters, because a computer can do maneuvers that would stroke out and heads-explode human pilots.


The F-22 was intended as a dedicated air superiority fighter (and has very minimal ground attack capabilities) while the F-35 was to be a second tier fighter and general workhorse. Think a modern version of the F-15 and F-16 pairing (although the F-35 was to be more versatile).
 
2014-06-24 01:11:35 PM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: That's not to say drones don't serve a purpose. There are some missions drones do really, really well, and in the future we might see more of a convergence between autonomous technology and conventional autopilots, where a human is present but only takes over during critical phases of the mission; bomber and transport crews could be reduced to one or two instead of four to six (although I doubt nuclear missions will be allowed to fly without two people onboard for the same reason missile silos require two people to turn the launch keys).


There was a pretty cool popsci out a few years ago painting the scenario of a human pilot flying a manned craft with drone wingmen, Electronic warfare jammer drones, some strike drones he could send after high risk SAM sites that he'd specify from the air, probably an insanely maneuverable air to air drone to cover the entire strike force. Cool article but I can't find it online. 

For noncombat support roles like KC135 drivers I could see being taken over by drones though. I never understood who would willingly fly a tanker all day.
 
2014-06-24 01:46:07 PM

thehobbes: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: That's not to say drones don't serve a purpose. There are some missions drones do really, really well, and in the future we might see more of a convergence between autonomous technology and conventional autopilots, where a human is present but only takes over during critical phases of the mission; bomber and transport crews could be reduced to one or two instead of four to six (although I doubt nuclear missions will be allowed to fly without two people onboard for the same reason missile silos require two people to turn the launch keys).

There was a pretty cool popsci out a few years ago painting the scenario of a human pilot flying a manned craft with drone wingmen, Electronic warfare jammer drones, some strike drones he could send after high risk SAM sites that he'd specify from the air, probably an insanely maneuverable air to air drone to cover the entire strike force. Cool article but I can't find it online. 

For noncombat support roles like KC135 drivers I could see being taken over by drones though. I never understood who would willingly fly a tanker all day.


I would actually expect the non-comabt roles to be some of the least likely to be replaced with drones.

The big advantages of drones are not putting a pilot at risk, more capable of maneuvering, and not needing space for an aircrew.

In the case of a large tanker aircraft, those are likely to be too significant of concerns. They generally avoid combat and keep crews safe, they don't perform high G maneuvers, and removal of the aircrew would not likely provide a significant gain in fuel capacity.

And, all else being equal, you always want a pilot in the cockpit when things go haywire.

Crew reductions from automation and even partial ground based control, sure. But I doubt complete removal of the aircrew.
 
2014-06-24 02:12:13 PM
The F-35 was ALWAYS pitched as this generations F-16 compared to this generations F-15 (the Raptor). Those old enough to remember will also remember that the protest we have now, are basically a mirror of what we went through with the preceding fighters

The F15 was derided as a single focus gold plated bird too expensive to build in numbers and far too advance in comparisons to its enemies to warrant the cost. It then went on to become THE fighter of the 20th century with the best A2A record of any combat fighter plane ever.

The F-16 was the cheaper alternative to the F15 that was mocked as being a single engine throw away fighter whose only merit was the ability to flood the sky with a cheap plane with virtually no range and pitiful armament. It was a point defense fighter and nothing else.

The F-15 then went on to become one of the most widely used combat aircraft in the free world with its multimission capability and performance being the bar to which others are compared.


Basically what im saying is every plane to come down the pipe has had to put up with people bashing it based on established airframes with which it will be compared. You cant build a plane to do a variety of missions? The F-18 has been doing it for ages. Single aircraft that is successful across many missions and many branches? The Phantom was doing that before half of yall were born.
 
2014-06-24 02:42:45 PM

Subtle_Canary: Basically what im saying is every plane to come down the pipe has had to put up with people bashing it based on established airframes with which it will be compared. You cant build a plane to do a variety of missions? The F-18 has been doing it for ages. Single aircraft that is successful across many missions and many branches? The Phantom was doing that before half of yall were born.


IMO the navy just got smart when it came to the Hornet. They commissioned the production of the E/F "Super Hornet" variant when in reality the Rhino is a new aircraft. But on paper it looks like it is just a variant.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report