Skip to content
 
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.

(Asia Times)   The F-35, procured as a supersonic fighter, will be greatly restricted from flying that fast because they hardly ever need to, it's really just a nicety, and it burns the tail off   (asiatimes.com) divider line
    More: Fail, F-35 Lightning II, F-35 fighter jet, United States Navy, Fighter aircraft, Supersonic, Aircraft, Aerial warfare, Lockheed Martin  
•       •       •

1858 clicks; posted to Geek » on 18 May 2020 at 10:45 AM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


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

 
2020-05-18 3:12:47 PM  

madgonad: It is really just a stealth F16. The F15, F16, and F18 have all been turned into attack and ground support variants. The only plane that has actually stayed in its role in the last 40 years is the F14 and that was really a plane designed to carry a missile (AIM54). The previous generations all eventually became jacks of all trades, at least we started with that premise. The issue has always been with the stealth or bugs in the avionics, not the airframe.


No, it's not a stealth F-16. Just because it is single engine doesn't mean they just updated the -16. And for the record, the F-14 didn't stay in the interceptor role. They called it the "Bombcat" for a reason at the end of its life.
 
2020-05-18 3:36:22 PM  

madgonad: The only plane that has actually stayed in its role in the last 40 years is the F14 and that was really a plane designed to carry a missile (AIM54).


Fark user imageView Full Size

Has this stopped being a bomb truck?

Fark user imageView Full Size

Has this stopped farking up targets on the ground?
 
2020-05-18 3:41:41 PM  

madgonad: dittybopper: Except, it's really not.

If you hand me a very nicely made and expensive multi-tool, it's still not going to be as efficient at doing what needs to be done as a set of individualized, specialized tools for each task.  It's going to take me longer to do the job with the multi-tool, which is also a significant cost, and I'll probably more like skin a knuckle or something that way.

It is really just a stealth F16. The F15, F16, and F18 have all been turned into attack and ground support variants. The only plane that has actually stayed in its role in the last 40 years is the F14 and that was really a plane designed to carry a missile (AIM54). The previous generations all eventually became jacks of all trades, at least we started with that premise. The issue has always been with the stealth or bugs in the avionics, not the airframe.


Except that a dedicated ground attack aircraft is always going to be better than a general purpose aircraft dedicated to that role.

A dedicated air superiority fighter is always going to be better than a general purpose aircraft pressed into that role.

And so forth.   When you design an aircraft you look at what purpose is intended for it and you optimize it for that one purpose.  This was the true genius of Kelly Johnson.  Needed a high speed supersonic interceptor?  Makes the F-104.  Crappy fighter, but great interceptor.  Need a high-flying surveillance aircraft?  Makes the U-2. Tough to fly, but goes higher than anything else.  U-2's start falling to missiles?  Makes the SR-71, insanely fast aircraft.

"Jack of all trades, master of none".

It's better to have aircraft optimized for their unique missions, and if they can be pressed into other service as needed, great, but if not, you've still got an aircraft that is best at what it is intended to do.
 
2020-05-18 4:15:34 PM  

dittybopper: madgonad: dittybopper: Except, it's really not.

If you hand me a very nicely made and expensive multi-tool, it's still not going to be as efficient at doing what needs to be done as a set of individualized, specialized tools for each task.  It's going to take me longer to do the job with the multi-tool, which is also a significant cost, and I'll probably more like skin a knuckle or something that way.

It is really just a stealth F16. The F15, F16, and F18 have all been turned into attack and ground support variants. The only plane that has actually stayed in its role in the last 40 years is the F14 and that was really a plane designed to carry a missile (AIM54). The previous generations all eventually became jacks of all trades, at least we started with that premise. The issue has always been with the stealth or bugs in the avionics, not the airframe.

Except that a dedicated ground attack aircraft is always going to be better than a general purpose aircraft dedicated to that role.

A dedicated air superiority fighter is always going to be better than a general purpose aircraft pressed into that role.

And so forth.   When you design an aircraft you look at what purpose is intended for it and you optimize it for that one purpose.  This was the true genius of Kelly Johnson.  Needed a high speed supersonic interceptor?  Makes the F-104.  Crappy fighter, but great interceptor.  Need a high-flying surveillance aircraft?  Makes the U-2. Tough to fly, but goes higher than anything else.  U-2's start falling to missiles?  Makes the SR-71, insanely fast aircraft.

"Jack of all trades, master of none".

It's better to have aircraft optimized for their unique missions, and if they can be pressed into other service as needed, great, but if not, you've still got an aircraft that is best at what it is intended to do.


The way the air force seems to be treating it, they're envisioning using the F35 as the manned hub of some arbitrary number of hypothetical specialized UAV systems in a peer conflict.
 
2020-05-18 5:47:40 PM  
This isn't exactly unquie to the f-35. The Soviets used to burn out Mig engines literally melting the foils trying to catch up to the Blackbird.
 
2020-05-18 6:09:46 PM  
Maybe the enemy could just fly around US air bases, and the F-35 could just taxi around and fire from the ground.
 
2020-05-18 6:13:21 PM  
Some people really need to be put up against a wall and shot...

/Lockheed execs, military procurement officers who retired and became Lockheed execs, assorted Congressmen and Senators (even if they had nothing to do with the plane...just on general principle...), etc, etc, etc
 
2020-05-18 6:32:44 PM  

DecemberNitro: We cannot spare a single cent of that jet's funding for things like healthcare or education, though. That would be wasteful.


Oh you're very wrong about that. Untold billions of that plane's funding have gone to healthcare, in the form of the health insurance premiums of Lockheed Martin's employees and the employees of their thousands of contractors. You're just mad that the money had to go through at least three companies' worth of middlemen before it reached a doctor's wallet.
 
2020-05-18 6:49:32 PM  
It's not a combat aircradt, it's a jobs program.

Doesn't matter if it never works, the continued attempts keep lots of people employed and keep a few people getting richer and richer and richer.

\That last part is the most important, of course.
 
2020-05-18 9:57:53 PM  

StarshipAngel: dittybopper: See what happens when you stop designing airplanes with these?

[purdue.edu image 360x211]

Probably also why it's been nearly 9 years since the US has had the ability to launch a human into space.

Slide rules are what made the F-106 and its area-ruled fuselage - one of the fastest and, in my opinion, graceful interceptors ever made.  It hurts that none were preserved as airworthy.

I do not understand why we keep trying to make "swiss army knife" combat aircraft that may do everything, but only do it poorly - and they don't simplify anything or save any money.  In the case of the F-35, it seems like it can't really do anything, except look cool to some people, and make some people money.


The F-35 won because every state except I think Montana and one or two others got at least $200 million in building or servicing the aircraft.  In other words, it's a mega pork barrel project.  It doesn't actually have to fly as long as the cash flows.
 
2020-05-18 11:08:46 PM  

dittybopper: See what happens when you stop designing airplanes with these?

[purdue.edu image 360x211]

Probably also why it's been nearly 9 years since the US has had the ability to launch a human into space.


Even Spock used a slide rule in several episodes of Star Trek.
 
2020-05-18 11:25:09 PM  

This text is now purple: madgonad: The only plane that has actually stayed in its role in the last 40 years is the F14 and that was really a plane designed to carry a missile (AIM54).

[Fark user image 850x578]
Has this stopped being a bomb truck?

[Fark user image 850x577]
Has this stopped farking up targets on the ground?


Not going to argue, but those b52 airframes are getting rather too damn old from a structural integrity standpoint, imho.

And this f35 has bugged me from the start. It was the wrong way from the beginning, and I am sure it will be that way until the last one is scapped or put into a couple of museums.
 
2020-05-19 7:31:09 AM  

Linux_Yes: pup.socket: Sid Vicious' Corpse: We can't scrap this program! We've already spent 1.5 Trillion Dollars! We'd look like idiots!

Well, a trillion here, and a trillion there, and one day you may start spending real money.

1 trillion seconds is ~ 31,700 years.


How much is that in nanofortnights?
 
2020-05-19 10:37:32 AM  

This text is now purple: madgonad: The only plane that has actually stayed in its role in the last 40 years is the F14 and that was really a plane designed to carry a missile (AIM54).

[Fark user image 850x578]
Has this stopped being a bomb truck?

[Fark user image 850x577]
Has this stopped farking up targets on the ground?


I agree on the BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTT.

However, B52 was designed as a strategic bomber as part of our nuclear deterrence.

It has been reshaped as a cruise missile platform, surveillance craft, minelayer, and a conventional close-air support bomber
 
2020-05-19 1:46:08 PM  

akula: That's a pretty mediocre article.

Yes, the F-15 and F-16 are designed to be capable of Mach 2+. Which they can't do with much of any external stores mounted and by the way, they'll run out of fuel REALLY fast if they do try. The Super Hornet isn't a Mach 2 fighter either.

And pilots just don't fly supersonic much at all. It burns a lot of fuel, is restricted over most places, and just usually isn't a thing.

Not saying the F-35 program hasn't had a lot of problems, but compared to some of the issues it's had this one just doesn't seem to be a thing.


Please take your facts and get out of here.....

But seriously its not like mach 2+ will outrun most air to air or SAM's.  Maybe help the geometry or targeting envelopes(?) but then you fall out of the sky...
 
Displayed 15 of 65 comments


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


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




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.