|
Here are three (of many) reasons why the F-35 will never fail, not matter how much of a failure it is.  
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 22:54 |
|
|
David Copperfield posted:Is the Osprey still a deathtrap or just was one for decades? (Ignoring that it's taking you to places with Marines) It's not so much that it was a deathtrap, as Marines are dumb and love to cram troops into experimental aircraft.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
blowfish posted:which one is the bottom one? Japan's new
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
ArmZ posted:wait how exactly do we know that black programs don't go over budget? and if they don't why don't they? Every military procurement program has gone over budget. Black programs just have a hell of a lot more wiggle room when it comes to hiding the costs from congress and the public. Even procurement successes like the F-16 were still over budget, just orders of magnitude less over budget than the rest of the pack. A procurement program that doesn't go over budget is a failure, as it didn't put enough money into the right pockets.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
etalian posted:In related news the marine launch version is riddled with flaws: Love how Lockmart and the DOD say the F-35 has room to grow and upgrade. Not with under 400 lbs to spare. - they've already undergone the most extensive, invasive, and drastic weight reduction program an airframe has ever experiences. - this isn't the 1950's or 60's or even the 70's. This airframe was designed for and built with the Pratt & Whitney F135, and it's going to die with it. There won't be any swapping for a better model. - I don't think there is a single military airframe currently in use by the US, or any other nation in the world that has actually lost weight as it has matured and been upgraded. Here is what properly designed fighters are capable of doing/becoming. . . something the F-35 will never, every come close to mimicking. F-16: Designed as a cheap, lightweight fighter. Small, speedy, agile. Nobody would have imagined that it would be one of the most capable bomb trucks in the USAF.  F-15: Designed as a pure air superiority fighter "not a pound for ground". It has a variation nicknamed "the mud hen".  F-18 Hornet: Designed as a cheap multi-role fighter, also able to engage in  missile mode. Dassault Rafale: Sporting the Ace Combat Load  The F-35 will never even begin to approach the versatility of these "outdated" jets, even though it was designed from the ground up to be a jack of all trades multi-role fighter.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
etalian posted:Yeah basically due the airframe design it will never make a decent fighter bomber like the F-15 or F-16. I don't think it can even pretend to be a bomber. With a weight margin that thin, can it even get airborne with a bomb load? I'm pretty sure every mission it ever had to go on will require aerial fueling once it's off the runway, but will the US have to develop aerial arming as well? Can any USAF goons confirm that F-35 pilots are on "crash diets" or is Atkins now OPSEC?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
Blacknose posted:And we don't have the ships to properly support then, nor the oilers to get them anywhere. Also we're a dumb irrelevant nation desperately clinging to the notion that anyone cares about us. Non-Nuclear, catapult-less carriers. . . is Britain going through a hipster phase?  "I like the vintage style stuff better!"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Catzilla posted:Because it is too expensive to put catapults on the carriers, it means we have to buy the B version, which is the most expensive one of the three (and the worst it seems). But surely, the money saved buying the actual carrier version, would pay for the catapult system? And wouldn't that mean we could fly other aircraft off the carrier also? Since they are getting the B version, and can't catapult aircraft, look forward to every combat mission requiring an immediate aerial refueling and much decreased weapons load. If you want to take off with 4 missiles, that's probably going to be ok. If you want to take off with two missiles and two bombs of a useful size. . . might have move that carrier a little closer to land so you don't have to send your refueler into a hostile environment. WAIT! How the gently caress does Britain plan on refueling these things? Are they going to buddy refuel? Because good loving luck getting an F-35B off the deck with any amount of fuel that can be spared to top up a friend? Is every mission going to be shade of "Operation Black Buck?" If Britain took part in an OIF or Libya style mission, would they have to dock the bloody carrier in an Iraqi or Libyan port? If they plan on using RAF refueling aircraft, then why not just have Eurofighters do it? None of this makes any sense!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
But seriously. . . how does the Royal Navy plan on refuelling these in the air?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Lazyfire posted:Some systems, generally your larger platforms like boats and supply/refuling planes are made so you can go on Newegg and get a new processor when doing upgrades and changeouts. With a fighter they probably have to replace all the flight computer stuff and then check all the code to make sure things still work. I imagine on the F-35 that the systems were programmed like the AI in old computer games where the AI was based on processor cycles and so if you upgraded your computer you could make things unwinnable. I don't know how they could gently caress it up that bad, but they could. Also you've got certain standards of testing and durability and reliability that have to be met for military equipment, and 100X that for fighters and other aircraft where the pilot can't hot-swap things should a cct or processor go bad. I'm sure Godholio or Holocaust bloopers can come in here and explain that the standards and testing practices are so high as to require nearly a decade for one part to get "passed for use". They can tell you how the current generation of AWACs are pretty much flying "museums of 70/80's" computer hardware and how all of that could probably be replaced by a $600 gaming rig off of Newegg, but that's not 99.9999999% reliable for the next 20 years, and it also doesn't make a bunch of contractors and congressmen hundreds of millions either. Another thing to remember is that there probably isn't a single off-the-shelf electrical/electronic component in the F-35. The processors that run everything are probably special one-off Power PC chip batches made at IBM specifically for the F-35 and each one probably has thousands of hours of testing before getting the go-ahead to be put in an airframe. Edit: If I'm not mistake, the F-35 also has to pass certain EMI/EMP standards, with different key components meeting certain EMI hardness goals, so your average i7 processor is probably not going to make the cut in its current (sub-billion dollar) configuration. Blistex fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Jemmy Ducks posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD-J1KksHUQ I love how he says, "It has the full capability, internal weapons, stealth characteristics. . . ", while this image is on the screen, showing a configuration that is strictly speaking, neither of those things. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
ElGroucho posted:In their defense, if it wasn't for their pretty dress blues, recruitment for them would drop 75% The Marine corps dress uniform literally looks like a retard was given a bin of random uniforms from all over the world, and then picked individual pieces at random and put them on. (This is somewhat true since Marines are literal retards)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Phrosphor posted:I think the marines must have the best PR in the world. USMC: The Angus Beef of the US Military
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:on the other hand it can actually fly and carry ammo Has a loiter time longer than the microwave instructions on a TV dinner.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:I like how the air force's boner for pew pew fighter planes means that they want to get rid of all the planes that are actually relevant to the wars america is actually fighting. Just call the navy if you need any electronic warfare done.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
F-16 would be an A wing?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Hexyflexy posted:That soviet b29 copy was.. Interesting! "Right, we don't get this, so we'll copy things that are obviously patches to the superstructure" which made sense at the time. I'm interested what the Chinese pulled on the f35, not that I'll ever know, lockmart won't say anything, and there's no way the Chinese would. The bolded part is the single biggest "win" they could have pulled, but I doubt that was something they got. Them stealing the F-35 plans gives them the ability to skip a few years of development in certain areas. Like you mentioned, those engines might as well be martial reactors, as they don't have anything close to this level of technology to make something with those kids of tolerances and reliability, with anything approaching the weight and power output. There is a reason why they are still using Russian engines, which themselves are also decades behind when it comes to longevity. The F-35 plans will give them some new ideas that they can use in their next airframe. Regarding the supposed B-2 plans being stolen? It's very similar to the Russian's getting the B-29 planes. When they got a close look at it (B-29) the Soviets realized that their current manufacturing industry was incapable of creating such a thing, and massive changes on a national level would have to be made for them to approach being able to produce the millions of parts necessary. They had to retool current factories and build a ton of new ones just to make an aircraft that Boeing was able make itself. It's pretty crazy to imagine that an entire nation had to make a concious effort to do something that one US company was doing. With the B-2, the Chinese are pretty much in the same boat. They have neither the facilities, know-how, or technical ability to make such an aircraft unless the government steps in and says, "this is a national priority, and we are going to outright take over current factories and build new ones to make this happen. Also there is a reason that the US has more super-carriers than B-2's, because they are gently caress-off expensive, and that alone is pretty much the best copy-protection you could ever have. Like I said before, all the Chinese can get from these stolen plans are a few pointers that might save them a few prototypes for different components. Basically they sat down at a table in a restaurant and one of those kiddie maze place mats has already been 8% filled in.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
I'm Crap posted:the b-29 wasn't the result of one plucky american company run by noble job creators just putting something together overnight, it was the result of a massive national program that cost 7 or 8 times as much as the manhattan project. it was a massive leap forward and america had to make a huge effort to get the thing built too. The point being that the entire aviation industry in Russia had to be re-tasked to do this as they had never attempted something this ambitious, while the US (Boeing) was able to produce over a thousand a year (yes they used subcontractors), but it's not like Consolidated, Republic, Grumman, and all the others had to drop what they were doing and prioritize the B-29. NihilismNow posted:They don't though. US built 21 B-2's and 20 are still active. They have 10 active super carriers and 2 under construction. Yah, I meant "Built", and on further reflection, the Midways were not super carriers, despite the angled flight decks, so B-2's win by 2, as opposed to losing by 1.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Phrosphor posted:
I think the most plausible answer is that Lockmart constructed a 3000 foot long arm that is attached to the bottom of that F-35 mockup, and anchored into the ground below. The reason why you can't see the arm, or any indication of photo-manipulation is that the arm is angled at 45 degrees and is blocked by the F-35's tubby fuselage and stubby wings. Diagram 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
/\ The harrier is even designed to do a "gear up" landing without suffering too much damage. The mattresses being sucked into the engine resulted in a phenomenally more expensive repair bill. Landing without the mattresses would have likely resulted in a bit of buffing and replacing a panel or two. I think they tried to claim that a golf cart accident later on in the hangar was the reason the airframe suffered so much damage.crabcakes66 posted:We don't really know that do we? From what I have been told the stealthiness of both aircraft is highly dependant on configuration. The fact that the F-22 doesn't have a giant "IR Missiles please gently caress me here" gaping anus of an engine nozzle like the 35 does is enough for me to believe the 22 is miles more stealthy from any angle but directly ahead. That engine nozzle has got to be a really good x-band reflector. Also, the fact that the Russians are advertising that they can see the F-22 leads me to believe that they cant. If you have that kind of tech, keep it secret so that it ends up being a costly mistake for your enemy. Advertising it seems to be a bluff that they are hoping sells more units or make the US think twice about deploying anywhere they might not want them to (Ukraine). During the cold war (and I think even more recently) a few US officers ended up in deep poo poo by letting slip even lesser OPSEC stuff about radar capabilities, and I imagine the Soviets/Russians are just as secretive. China claiming the same is even more laughable, but is probably along the lines of the latter reason mentioned. Blistex fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Lil Peeler posted:Is there a story behind this image I want to know. Gear malfunction, and the base commander ordered them to lay down mattresses instead of doing a belly landing which the airframe was totally designed to take. Engine was a complete write-off as it inhaled a shitload of fabric and springs.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
blowfish posted:they pulled the plane into the hangar in still repairable condition and then crashed a vehicle into it Wasn't that the commander that authorized the retardedness trying to pass the buck and shirk responsibility for the whole debacle, saying, "It was ok until the unavoidable mishap in the hangar."? HEY VAPER posted:You said it in your own post, but perhaps the f35 is lovely enough that China can already see it, not a huge stretch of the imagination. They were claiming to have seen the F-22. The F-35 (to my knowledge) has never been airborne
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Otisburg posted:They were raping an underage phillipina on a pile of discarded matresses and called in air support? Until proven otherwise, I'm going to assume this is the real answer.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
EMILY BLUNTS posted:yes Pluto is my favorite horrible thing If Curtis LeMay was turned into a piece of military hardware, this would be it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
thathonkey posted:Hahaha 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6YKDPDgSrc
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Otisburg posted:Scandal in the caliphate today as lawmakers grilled OmarCorp's chief executive over the flammability of the mk2 rockethilux, a weapon system already over-budget with a projected drive-away cost of like a thousand dinars per unit. I would love to see the oversight committee meetings. Omar: "Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the flagrantly false allegations Mr. Abdul has made against me and my program." <Omar's aid runs into the opposition benches and sets off his suicide vest> Speaker: "We will have a short boy-love break and reconvene in 4 hours." <guards fire AKs into the ceiling of the chamber to signify the end of the debate>
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Trochanter posted:Our parliament's mace-bearer recently killed a guy. He used a handgun though. When I first heard about that on CBC radio I instantly pictured Hill security and Ottawa police coming around the corner and finding the gunman on the floor with his head totally caved in and Kevin Vickers holding a blood and brain caked ceremonial mace.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
How in the gently caress does a car have that many lines of code? Are they including the code in all of the different CAD programs they used to design it and the operating systems they used to run the CAD programs?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
By the time the F-35 is off the ground the USAF's new "air superiority fighter" will be a Boeing Dreamliner with a laser.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
gary oldmans diary posted:but imagine how much having one would have helped at guadalcanal On 7 August 1942, Allied forces land on the Island of Guadalcanal, taking the Japanese engineers by total surprise, and capturing the nearly complete airfield *The USN unloads F-35's on to Guadalcanal. They lower them from the flight deck, on to waiting barges, and safely transport them to shore 4 KM away in rough seas.* (25/25 still operational) *The US Marines have to transport the F-35's to the partially completed airstrip 500m away along the serviceable road the retreating Japanese engineers have left behind(18/25 still operational) *A F-35 attempts to take off from Henderson field, swallows a falling palm leaf, catches on fire* (17/25 still operational) *Marines spend the next two days clearing 40 acres of jungle to make a safe area for the F-35 to take off from. Also it rained that night.(12/25 still operational) *Betty bombers fly a night mission and drop bombs on Henderson field. A lucky hit from a 500lb bomb throws dirt in the air near two F-35's. (10/23 still operational) *A 30x30' cement pad is poured for the aircraft to VTOL from/on. Also, jungles have humidity. (8/25 still operational) *A Japanese bombardment mission happens during then night. Two Japanese battleships and support craft shell the island, but no hits land within 300m of the airfield.(7/25 still operational) *Marine pilots scramble to intercept a pair of Betty Bombers who are attempting a brazen daylight bombing run. (4/25 still operational) *A local girl wandered within sight of the Marines. The first marine to rape the 7 year old forgot others were waiting, and strangled her when he was finished. A riot ensues.(3/25 still operational) *Henderson field receives 5 B-17 bombers and 200 USAAF peronelle to operate and maintain them. (2/25 still operational) *The USN Island hopping campaign has forced the IJN/IJA to abandon Rabaul airbase, meaning there are no longer any Japanese assets within the F-35's operational range..(1/25 still operational) *While doing maintenance, a Marine pretends that a wrench is his penis and drops it. (0/25 still operational) Blistex fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Ivor Biggun posted:You also had a chance to change the design for HMS Prince of Wales half-way through so that it could have a catapult and use the F-35C (or a better aircraft) but cooler heads prevailed and the MOD sensibly opted to build the carrier without a catapult so it can only ever use the F-35B. Or helicopers. A carrier without a catapult is a straight-up scrub tier carrier. Why does Britain even pretend they have a navy any more?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Libelous Slander posted:someone please post legit criticisms of the A-10 warthog so i can reduce my blood pressure It's something that was pretty much obsolete in its intended purpose the day it rolled off the assembly line. For mud-wars against people too backwards to scrounge up some SAMs it's ok, but even Syrian rebels would make it have to stay at high altitudes, thus negating the gun. If it's going to stay way up there, then you might as well get a high flyer that can get to an area much faster when needed ASAP (several minutes instead of an hour). If you want loiter time, might as well get something like a B-52 that can stay up there all day and drop 20x the payload. For what it is being used for right now, it's pretty decent at its job, but even scrub-tier soviet era SAMs, or readily available MANPADs will mean it isn't safe at any altitude. It's an ugly/sexy beast with a massive cannon, a decent loiter time, and it can carry a shitload of ordinance, but that's only going to take you so far in anything but the most pacified airspace with the most ill-equipped foe. One of those would last 20 seconds over the Ukraine, and even Syria would be dicey if you decided you wanted to try a gun run.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:This still loving baffles me. Why the absolute gently caress does america need four (five? six?) seperate militairies to wage war? Wouldn't the solution to the above problem be "airforce do your goddamned job" not "make three new airforces"? Another world. Another time. In the age of Devil-Dogs. A hundred years ago this land was green and good. Until the F-35 cracked. Two pieces were lost. A shard of the Navy and one of the Army. Then strife began. And two new services appeared. The retarded Marines. The gentle Air Force. Here in the castle of the F-35, the Marines took control. Now the Marines gather in the sacred rape chamber where the F-35 hangs above a shaft of air and fire. The Marines with their hard and twisted bodies, their harsh and twisted wills. For a hundred years they have ruled. Yet now there are only ten. A retarded race ruled by a retarded General imprisoned within themselves in a retarded land. Today once more they gather at the F-35 as the first sun climbs to its peak. For this is the way of the Marines. As they ravaged the land, so to they learned to draw new life from Congress. Today once more they will replenish themselves. Cheat death again. Through the power of their source, their treasure, their fate, the F-35.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Well there's this movie you see... Yeah. The Pentagon Wars is pretty much the go-to Book/Movie for people who don't want to look at millions of charts or dig through actual senate committee reports and minutes. The book is a pretty interesting read and gets into some good detail, the movie is really good, but gets a bit of a hollywood (HBO) glossing over for entertainment purposes. While it is not 100% accurate, the movie is great at giving you some idea how things spiral out of control (time and money wise) and why.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
blowfish posted:
The current band of poo poo-tier US podunk SWAT-Fetishists imagine knocking on any suspect's door is just asking for 20,000 Rounds of Teflon-Coated Police killer bullets from a ceramic gun of an insane madman. That's why they are so over the top in use of force and the use of no-knock raids. If the police actually cared about safety and not spending money to justify more, they would wait until the suspect was going to get the paper in the morning or coming back from the grocery store. Apprehending suspects between their front door and car is pretty much the best place to do it without a situation getting out of control or people getting hurt.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Lazyfire posted:Yeah, you could theoretically undo some B-nuts and disengage the thrust bars in two hours easy, but getting to the hookups, and actually doing that may require you to remove maintenance panels and pull external hardware off the engine to get it to fit out of the space. Also each one of those access panels has to have their RAM coatings over the seams reapplied in a very specific and costly way by Lockmart. A million per panel would not surprise me at all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Lazyfire posted:I believe the stealth on the F-35 is actually a composite weave instead of a paint this time, so it's actually part of the pieces of the plane instead of a coating, and it still doesn't work or last. I'm talking about the RAM putty they use around access panels so that there is a stemless fit (sort of like doing drywall and mudding the gaps). So if for some reason you needed to pop a panel to get access to a hydraulic, a CCT board, or anything not very routine, then you have to remove the putty, take off the panel, do the work, then replace the panel and reapply the putty which is apparently the part that is super expensive because Lockmart has to do it and it has to be an incredibly exacting process under laboratory conditions or it doesn't work (like the rest of the jet). This is one of the reasons mentioned why Canada/Australia/UK/whoever else should not get them because even the most simple things can incur massive costs. Also this makes it much, much harder to look for structural issues and other problems, because everything is held together with glue and million dollar putty, so nobody in the world (except for the Lockmart factory and maybe one or two US Airbases) is going to be able to do what is considered normal maintenance on these cans.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Lazyfire posted:Because of this thread I went out and got a copy of Pentagon Wars, the book, not the HBO movie. It's a pretty good read if not a bit dated. For example, the author holds Dick Cheney up as an adherent of sane defense acquisition and spending, as he wrote the book back when Cheney was the Secretary of Defense under the first President Bush and the US had just completed Desert Storm. Take whatever Sprey says with a grain of salt. If he had his way the F-16 would be flying with a $10 radar and two missiles. While he has some valid points about the F-35, you have to remember that he is a bitter old man that's mad that he isn't calling the shots.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 22:54 |
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:"Sweet, finally got the gun software, now I can fight without missiles!" Every time you try to fire a missile... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd4fj9Efl4s&t=62s
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 13:37
|
|