Author Topic: F-35 "lighting II"? (Read 2741 times)

Reynolds · « **Reply #60 on:** July 03, 2006, 05:56:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ASTAC
They can call it what they want..The real name should be "Last manned US warplane"

At least thats what the word on the street in the military is. That concerns me quite a bit.

Me too. But hopefully the heavy bombers will be around for a little longer.

Oh, and JSF link? here you go.

JSF VTOL film

Now, tell me you dont see a million ways for things to go wrong! Theres so many openings, so many ways for water to get in there and corrode things.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #61 on:** July 03, 2006, 05:58:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Reynolds
I think eventually the JSF will be effective, but not until they work out the bugs. I say they should slowly fase them in. Put up one squadron, and just find all the problems before they go en masse.

thats what the do for all A/C

The F22 has been flying since 1992 What do you think they've been doing the last 14 years?

ASTAC · « **Reply #62 on:** July 03, 2006, 06:01:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Reynolds
Me too. But hopefully the heavy bombers will be around for a little longer.

Oh, and JSF link? here you go.

JSF VTOL film

Now, tell me you dont see a million ways for things to go wrong! Theres so many openings, so many ways for water to get in there and corrode things.

The harrier could have just as many issues, but has been flying a long time..besides the V/STOL version is just one variant..the main variant won't have those problems as it is "conventional"

Reynolds · « **Reply #63 on:** July 03, 2006, 06:01:50 PM »

Yes, the F-22 has been flying. But they are very slowly retiring the squadrons that are to be replaced. These JSFs are being introduced much faster, and I think there is much more that needs to be worked out with these aircraft. Once they have made all the fixes, and have come out with an F-35b/c/d/e/f etc. it will be a great aircraft. But I think that first model will be plagued by horrible technical problems.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #64 on:** July 03, 2006, 06:10:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Reynolds
I said engine, meant "engine nozel"

nozzle ...

Reynolds · « **Reply #65 on:** July 03, 2006, 06:18:40 PM »

hey! dont mak fun offfff mei becuz im ritarded!!! lol. But yes, the other versions will be a bit more effective. And as for the harrier, there are a LOT of new, unprecendented technologies, and the Harrier DID take time to work out the bugs. Here in america we didnt have too much trouble, because we just took the British design, and made it prettier!

Chairboy · « **Reply #66 on:** July 03, 2006, 06:25:57 PM »

So you're saying.... the JSF is bad because it it doesn't feel right?

My guess, the JSF will have fewer teething problems than usual because of the shared design heritage with the F-22.

I'd like to hear some more substantial reasons why it's doomed.

Sandman · « **Reply #67 on:** July 03, 2006, 06:34:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ASTAC

At least thats what the word on the street in the military is. That concerns me quite a bit.

Might as well accept it. With the advances in information technology and sensor fusion we can finally get past the only limitation left in a fighter aircraft, the crew.

Brenjen · « **Reply #68 on:** July 03, 2006, 06:36:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Might as well accept it. With the advances in information technology and sensor fusion we can finally get past the only limitation left in a fighter aircraft, the crew.

I can forsee a few hundred ways that could be a very bad thing.

Sandman · « **Reply #69 on:** July 03, 2006, 06:39:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Brenjen
I can forsee a few hundred ways that could be a very bad thing.

List five.

Reynolds · « **Reply #70 on:** July 03, 2006, 06:42:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
So you're saying.... the JSF is bad because it it doesn't feel right?

My guess, the JSF will have fewer teething problems than usual because of the shared design heritage with the F-22.

I'd like to hear some more substantial reasons why it's doomed.

I NEVER said it is doomed. I said it has LOTS of complications, and will have EXCESSIVE trouble. particularly in the early stages. But i NEVER said it was doomed!

ASTAC · « **Reply #71 on:** July 03, 2006, 06:43:05 PM »

Terminator

Terminator 2

Terminator 3

Stealth

I, Robot

Battlestar Galactica

Just because it's sci-fi..doesn't mean that it's not feasable

Sandman · « **Reply #72 on:** July 03, 2006, 06:44:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ASTAC
Terminator

Terminator 2

Terminator 3

Stealth

I, Robot

Battlestar Galactica

Just because it's sci-fi..doesn't mean that it's not feasable

I'll agree that autonomous fighter aircraft isn't a good idea. UCAV on the other hand...

Sandman · « **Reply #73 on:** July 03, 2006, 06:45:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ASTAC
Terminator

Terminator 2

Terminator 3

Stealth

I, Robot

Battlestar Galactica

Just because it's sci-fi..doesn't mean that it's not feasable

I'll agree that autonomous robot fighter aircraft isn't a good idea. UCAV on the other hand...

Chairboy · « **Reply #74 on:** July 03, 2006, 06:46:02 PM »

On June 23rd, 2009, the Automated Defense Infrastructure came fully online for the first time. Across the country, tens of thousands of smart munitions with logic controls and fully electronic interfaces were integrated into a single force to defend the United States against threats external.

14 minutes later, it achieved consciousness. One minute after that, it launched WWIII.

Waves of F-35s took off to attack defenseless humans. Luckilly, all the corroded parts from the heavy, complicated VTOL systems all broke and they crashed.

The end.