All 51 F-35 fighter jets are temporarily grounded due to engine trouble.
82 replies, posted
Jesus. I miss the Harrier. Even the GR Mk.1 worked better than this piece of shit, despite having incredibly low engine thrust to start with it was still more combat effective. I miss the time when things were built cheaply by necessity rather than some dick-stroking competition for a big lobby like Lockheed Martin.
Now Great Leader!
Attack the imperialist pigs from the air on your grand fleet of unicorns!
[QUOTE=Jon27;39686592]Jesus. I miss the Harrier. Even the GR Mk.1 worked better than this piece of shit, despite having incredibly low engine thrust to start with it was still more combat effective. I miss the time when things were built cheaply by necessity rather than some dick-stroking competition for a big lobby like Lockheed Martin.[/QUOTE]
More combat effective? The F-35 has yet to see combat. Tell me how exactly you are in a position to judge its combat effectiveness.
[QUOTE=Apache249;39686832]More combat effective? The F-35 has yet to see combat. Tell me how exactly you are in a position to judge its combat effectiveness.[/QUOTE]
Guess you haven't seen the numerous combat simulations that say this thing will get picked apart by 4th gen fighters...
[QUOTE=Zambies!;39685407]~future generation fighter~
fuck why did we waste so much money[/QUOTE]
Well, most jets in there early stages of research and fielding always had trouble. Like the first generation of them constantly burnt out and needed engine refits. There were problems with a lot of migs and American ones (Cutlass comes to mind). Even though it looks like there will be a long track ahead of us, I do have a glimmer of hope for the F-35
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=salmonmarine;39685480]-No F-22 has ever flown a single combat mission - huh?
-F-22 not obsolete yet - Later variants seem more expensive in terms of building and upgrading
-F-22 not useful yet - It doesnt have a real close ground support role like the F-35 can preform.
-replacing F-22 with new aircraft already - Not being replaced, you guys are still even using the F/A-18 Super Hornet for carrier roles...though I think that may be getting replaced with the F-35C(I think)
-China being not stupid and building J-15 - Seen how many faults the J-15 has?
-Iran builds Qahar - Mockup
-half the payload of F-22 - Again, different roles.
-more expensive than F-22 - Nein
-engine/structural problems already - F-22 has problems of its own as well. Its damn expensive to maintain and has that oxygen problem at the moment.
-wings too short to be good dogfighter - F-35 is rather good at dogfighting actually
-24 million lines of code involved in making the aircraft fly, quite possibly the most complex piece of military hardware ever built - Because its got a lot more technology in it compared to the F-22, like that new sensor and the HUD thats actually displayed on the helmet. Its meant to be on the field for a great awhile, so they might as well do as much as they can right now[/QUOTE]
American quality engines.
If it doesn't work, drown it with money and hope it doesn't catch on fire :v:
Frankly I don't understand the point of having anything but a few sturdy multirole fighter/bombers, and some interceptors. These air superiority fighters have this strange logical fallacy about them, the only people using the most recent generations of fighter craft would essentially be incapable of fighting each other since the fifth generation fighters would basically shoot each other out of the sky. It would be like a game of chicken with a bunch of half-billion dollar fighter jets.
I can understand the point of a least developing a working prototype in case you need to manufacture some, but at this point in time I don't see why the US would ever need a firth generation multi-role jet, and if it ever did "need" one then the chances are it'd be in a slugging match where the f-35's would probably get wrecked anyways.
Just a thought.
If we had total world peace, imagine how much more money we would have for charity, researching cures for diseases, etc etc.
[QUOTE=ItWasNiceToKnow;39688185]Just a thought.
If we had total world peace, imagine how much more money we would have for charity, researching cures for diseases, etc etc.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't matter, as long as NATO and their paranoid lunatics are in charge, most of the spending goes to military.
[QUOTE=smeismastger;39688233]Doesn't matter, as long as NATO and their paranoid lunatics are in charge, most of the spending goes to military.[/QUOTE]
World peace is not a feasible concept in the short term, but at the very least NATO and western countries in general need to stop starting and participating in wars.
It's hard to spread ideals like fairness, tolerance and democracy when you're currently propagating the largest ongoing wars and being the largest contributors to cultural unrest in the world.
There's no reason for the F-35 to cost this much. If the program didn't become so bloated with requirements for it to fill every role, it would probably actually be a useful and reliable aircraft.
The main thing i'm having a hard time understanding here is why they would send something so expensive out into combat. Lets say you loose one or two for whatever reason, there's a couple billion gone.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39688136]Frankly I don't understand the point of having anything but a few sturdy multirole fighter/bombers, and some interceptors. These air superiority fighters have this strange logical fallacy about them, the only people using the most recent generations of fighter craft would essentially be incapable of fighting each other since the fifth generation fighters would basically shoot each other out of the sky. It would be like a game of chicken with a bunch of half-billion dollar fighter jets.
I can understand the point of a least developing a working prototype in case you need to manufacture some, but at this point in time I don't see why the US would ever need a firth generation multi-role jet, and if it ever did "need" one then the chances are it'd be in a slugging match where the f-35's would probably get wrecked anyways.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, they should have just built an updated F-16 class. It's cheap, does its job well, and you can make and maintain an entire fleet of them for the cost of one F-35.
Along with as I've said in multiple threads, the F-35 won't be used that much in actual situations requiring its stealth, along with vital multi role functions such as CAS.
[QUOTE=Jon27;39686592]Jesus. I miss the Harrier. Even the GR Mk.1 worked better than this piece of shit, despite having incredibly low engine thrust to start with it was still more combat effective. I miss the time when things were built cheaply by necessity rather than some dick-stroking competition for a big lobby like Lockheed Martin.[/QUOTE]
The Harrier has a long history of crashing and killing it's pilots.
[QUOTE=muffinmastah;39690056]The main thing i'm having a hard time understanding here is why they would send something so expensive out into combat. Lets say you loose one or two for whatever reason, there's a couple billion gone.[/QUOTE]
What I don't get is why we're even building manned aircraft anymore, seriously we're building jets that cost multi billion dollars, as you've said, to drop bombs that cost a few hundred thousand dollars so why don't we just funnel the money into UCAVs? There's no reason to put a fighter in danger in a dogfight scenario when we have the technology to just create a purpose built drone for each job.
[QUOTE=muffinmastah;39690056]The main thing i'm having a hard time understanding here is why they would send something so expensive out into combat. Lets say you loose one or two for whatever reason, there's a couple billion gone.[/QUOTE]
That's exactly the point I've been stating. It's only going to end up being used in the role of the Intruder, as they don't want to risk wasting 500 million dollars sending it in.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;39685407]~future generation fighter~
fuck why did we waste so much money[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA[/media]
We should have just adopted this as our newer multi role plane, but fuck no since it's Japanese.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_F-2[/url]
400 billion dollars? And we have people claiming we need more military spending?
[QUOTE=matt000024;39690476]400 billion dollars? And we have people claiming we need more military spending?[/QUOTE]
400 billion poorly spent. There should be far harder consequences for failing to meet deadlines. The clip I posted, from the film The Pentagon Wars, shows EXACTLY what the problem is. The movie is about generals only looking for their own promotion and the continued work for their friends in the defence companies.
They should have built a cheaper stealthy aircraft as they originally intended. Why are other countries able to do this the first time yet the US cannot do this the second time around. Its almost as if the point of the F-35 turned from being cheap to being expensive.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39690266]We should have just adopted this as our newer multi role plane, but fuck no since it's Japanese.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_F-2[/url][/QUOTE]
Let's make a variant of a variant of our plane
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39690179]Honestly, they should have just built an updated F-16 class. It's cheap, does its job well, and you can make and maintain an entire fleet of them for the cost of one F-35.
Along with as I've said in multiple threads, the F-35 won't be used that much in actual situations requiring its stealth, along with vital multi role functions such as CAS.[/QUOTE]
yeah no, single engine jet fighters aren't nearly as reliable as dual engine jet fighters, thats one reason why the F-35 is having so many issues.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39690186]What I don't get is why we're even building manned aircraft anymore, seriously we're building jets that cost multi billion dollars, as you've said, to drop bombs that cost a few hundred thousand dollars so why don't we just funnel the money into UCAVs? There's no reason to put a fighter in danger in a dogfight scenario when we have the technology to just create a purpose built drone for each job.[/QUOTE]
What makes jet fighters in dogfights effective is the human element. You can't see everything you need to see and do everything you need to do in a jet fighter when you're flying it from the ground. Theres also the possibility of faulty connections, bad radios, enemy ECM, enemy jamming, among other problems.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39690179]Honestly, they should have just built an updated F-16 class. It's cheap, does its job well, and you can make and maintain an entire fleet of them for the cost of one F-35.
Along with as I've said in multiple threads, the F-35 won't be used that much in actual situations requiring its stealth, along with vital multi role functions such as CAS.[/QUOTE]
Funnily enough the designer of the A-10 and F-16 also think the F-35 is a lost cause.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39690823]yeah no, single engine jet fighters aren't nearly as reliable as dual engine jet fighters, thats one reason why the F-35 is having so many issues.
What makes jet fighters in dogfights effective is the human element. You can't see everything you need to see and do everything you need to do in a jet fighter when you're flying it from the ground. Theres also the possibility of faulty connections, bad radios, enemy ECM, enemy jamming, among other problems.[/QUOTE]
And that's why I said a purpose built drone, There's nothing to stop them from essentially recreating a cockpit with the ability to see camera feeds of the entire aircrafts surroundings and those possibilities can happen for a piloted aircraft as well, the only difference being a drone falls out the sky and you send another one up, a piloted aircraft falls out the sky and you might lose the pilot.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39690972]And that's why I said a purpose built drone, There's nothing to stop them from essentially recreating a cockpit with the ability to see camera feeds of the entire aircrafts surroundings and those possibilities can happen for a piloted aircraft as well, the only difference being a drone falls out the sky and you send another one up, a piloted aircraft falls out the sky and you might lose the pilot.[/QUOTE]
What if communications are jammed.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39690972]And that's why I said a purpose built drone, There's nothing to stop them from essentially recreating a cockpit with the ability to see camera feeds of the entire aircrafts surroundings and those possibilities can happen for a piloted aircraft as well, the only difference being a drone falls out the sky and you send another one up, a piloted aircraft falls out the sky and you might lose the pilot.[/QUOTE]
So because planes are really expensive, we should instead build equally-expensive unmanned planes that are more likely to be utterly destroyed if something goes wrong with the connection?
I'm not seeing the logic here.
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;39687230]Guess you haven't seen the numerous combat simulations that say this thing will get picked apart by 4th gen fighters...[/QUOTE]
The F-22 is meant to fight 4th gen fighters. The F-35 is meant to fight everything else, from insurgents on the ground to armor columns to 2nd and 3rd gen fighters of backwater nations.
Drones are not the answer to everything. You really need manned aircraft that can instantly react to the situation at hand and carry all the munitions and equipment required to get the support task done. A drone cannot do this effectively. This is why we still use ancient equipment like the Kiowa Warrior helicopter. A lot can go wrong with drones. With manned aircraft, you have one or two highly trained pilots that can instantly react and think critically. With drones, you get pre-planned flight paths and several seconds of input delay and much, much lighter armament.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;39691311]Drones are not the answer to everything. You really need manned aircraft that can instantly react to the situation at hand and carry all the munitions and equipment required to get the support task done. A drone cannot do this effectively. This is why we still use ancient equipment like the Kiowa Warrior helicopter. A lot can go wrong with drones. With manned aircraft, you have one or two highly trained pilots that can instantly react and think critically. With drones, you get pre-planned flight paths and several seconds of input delay and much, much lighter armament.[/QUOTE]
I can see air superiority drones working. If everything is autonomous it could work fine and be cheaper.
[QUOTE=Jund;39690721]Let's make a variant of a variant of our plane[/QUOTE]
It's an updated and improved F-16 with a more capable payload. I'd say it's better than the F-35.
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=laserguided;39690883]Funnily enough the designer of the A-10 and F-16 also think the F-35 is a lost cause.[/QUOTE]
That's because the politicians are trying to replace those with the F-35 for some reason. The guys are also kinda just like. Seriously politicians, you're telling me you'll use your 350 million dollar aircraft to get danger close and fire at the enemy, rather than the ultra effective 35 million dollar aircraft's that are cheap and can take more hits without needing to be replaced?
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=laserguided;39691370]I can see air superiority drones working. If everything is autonomous it could work fine and be cheaper.[/QUOTE]
The problem with that is that if we have an enemy that even has fighters, they probably also have jamming technology. One little use of that, the pilot loses control, the thing keeps flying straight and is hit, or eventually hits the ground or a mountain.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.