• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The Most Technically Advanced . .

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Makes it's maiden test flight on Friday of last week, and NOBODY in the P&N even pays attention.

What kind of self serving introvert geeks are you guys?

F-35 First Flight

I am no longer on the project, left Fort Worth Aeronautics to work at the Michoud Astronautics Division
but this is a hell of a lot bigger acomplishment than most of you even can imagine.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,386
3,518
126
Same could have been said of the Wrights Plane, at one time. ;)

Interesting news though. :)
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
I've grown past the 'wow that's beautiful and neat' phase to the 'there is another tool for feeding the corrupt military industrial complex with our money, and creating yet more military power for exploiting others' phase. So, I don't get too positively excited by any new military weapons. Not even sharks. With freekin lasers.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
I wonder if the Russian S-400 system can take one out.

If not, ha ha to the rest of the world.

/Nelson Laugh
 

boredhokie

Senior member
May 7, 2005
625
0
0
So what need is this jet filling? Can it blow up underground bunkers better than any other plane? Do we need to come up with a new war to justify buying 200 of them to keep Lockheed in business?
 

tomywishbone

Golden Member
Oct 24, 2006
1,401
0
0
From the article:

Jon S. Beesley, chief test pilot for the Joint Strike Fighter, also known as the F-35, said the plane handled "marvelously," performed flawlessly and flew better than the simulator. He flew to 15,000 feet, escorted by three jets that provided safety and took pictures.


How do jets provide safety for other jets (other than in combat of course)?
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: boredhokie
So what need is this jet filling? Can it blow up underground bunkers better than any other plane? Do we need to come up with a new war to justify buying 200 of them to keep Lockheed in business?
Aliens, we need to defend the planet!
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron...


As progress in all these areas strengthens world trust, we could proceed concurrently with the next great work-the reduction of the burden of armaments now weighing upon the world. To this end we would welcome and enter into the most solemn agreements. These could properly include:

1. The limitation, by absolute numbers or by an agreed international ratio, of the sizes of the military and security forces of all nations.

2. A commitment by all nations to set an agreed limit upon that proportion of total production of certain strategic materials to be devoted to military purposes.

3. International control of atomic energy to promote its use for peaceful purposes only and to insure the prohibition of atomic weapons.

4. A limitation or prohibition of other categories of weapons of great destructiveness.

5. The enforcement of all these agreed limitations and prohibitions by adequate safeguards,including a practical system of inspection under the United Nations.

The details of such disarmament programs are manifestly critical and complex. Neither theUnited States nor any other nation can properly claim to possess a perfect, immutable formula. But the formula matters less than the faith-the good faith without which no formula can work justly and effectively.

The fruit of success in all these tasks would present the world with the greatest task, and the greatest opportunity, of all. It is this: the dedication of the energies, the resources, and the imaginations of all peaceful nations to a new kind of war. This would be a declared total war, not upon any human enemy but upon the brute forces of poverty and need.

The peace we seek, founded upon decent trust and cooperative effort among nations, can be fortified, not by weapons of war but by wheat and by cotton, by milk and by wool, by meat and by timber and by rice. These are words that translate into every language on earth. These are needs that challenge this world in arms.

- President Eisenhower
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
17
81
Originally posted by: boredhokie
So what need is this jet filling? Can it blow up underground bunkers better than any other plane? Do we need to come up with a new war to justify buying 200 of them to keep Lockheed in business?
No Lockheed Left Behind.
It seems that we're not using much of this super amazing technology on our terror crusade anyway. That doesn't mean that someone can't make money off of it though.


If I want to look at something good Lockheed did that I like, I look to the Mars Exploration Rovers. Lockheed built the aeroshell that let the rovers get through their atmospheric entry.
They'll also work on the upcoming Mars Science Lab mission. My request to them: Don't screw it up, damn it.


Want to see what they screwed up? Genesis, which was to be gently captured in mid-air by helicopter, smashed into the ground. Why? Lockheed installed a gravity sensor was installed upside down. Why wasn't this flaw found? Lockheed skipped the test that would have exposed it.
Mars Climate Orbiter: A joint screwup. Lockheed used English units. NASA, and most of the scientific community, use metric. Apparently no one checked the units, or no one indicated which were used. Burned up in Mars' atmosphere.



Craig - thank you for posting that speech. The sad thing is, I imagine that similar speeches were given numerous times in the past several thousand years, in each of the great civilizations that arose and ultimately collapsed.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
You will have to excuse the usual trolls CaptnKirk. I think this is a great accomplishment that should help streamline our military and reduce operating costs.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,293
0
0
This is a worthless piece of crap that isn't needed now. What we need in this new world is intelligence, human inteliigence. Buying boatloads of these is only good for keeping their manufacturers in business. This is like putting the cart before the horse. It's a machinery waiting for it's calling.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,293
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
You will have to excuse the usual trolls CaptnKirk. I think this is a great accomplishment that should help streamline our military and reduce operating costs.
Yeah, those are the keywords out of all the PR Departments in that industry. Like clockwork they say it, and like clockwork the military buys it. Then when they quit their jobs at the Pentagon, they go work for these same companies. Like clockwork.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: Narmer
This is a worthless piece of crap that isn't needed now. What we need in this new world is intelligence, human inteliigence. Buying boatloads of these is only good for keeping their manufacturers in business. This is like putting the cart before the horse. It's a machinery waiting for it's calling.
People said the same before WWII. Then we were caught with our pants down around the ankles by a country much smaller than us.

These programs should reduce the cost of the military by standarizing to one platform instead of many. We could continue to fly the F14s, F16s, F15s, F22s, F117s, Harriers, and A-10s and all the associated costs of maintaining seperate parts and crews for each plane if you want. Or we can widdle it down to a few variations of the same plane.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Genx87
You will have to excuse the usual trolls CaptnKirk. I think this is a great accomplishment that should help streamline our military and reduce operating costs.
Yeah, those are the keywords out of all the PR Departments in that industry. Like clockwork they say it, and like clockwork the military buys it. Then when they quit their jobs at the Pentagon, they go work for these same companies. Like clockwork.
Oh? Is that why there are several aircraft types in our inventory that can do the same job?
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,661
3,138
126
genx87 -- You will have to excuse the usual trolls CaptnKirk. I think this is a great accomplishment that should help streamline our military and reduce operating costs.

I totally agree!!

You have people on these forums who would rather be speaking german or Chinese than American!

The cold hard facts are there will always be a need to defend ourselves!

These same people would be crapping in ther pants if we ever God forbid have to fight a war on our own soil.

In fact these same people would be asking why the government didn`t outfit the military properly....way too funny!!
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
In fact these same people would be asking why the government didn`t outfit the military properly....way too funny!!
They already do. These are the same dopes who couldnt wait to be the first to complain HumVee's werent upspec'd with more armor to protect against IEDs.

6 years ago they were probably the first to complain spending money on more armor for a truck was a waste of money and only fueling the evil military industrial complex.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
Originally posted by: Genx87
In fact these same people would be asking why the government didn`t outfit the military properly....way too funny!!
They already do. These are the same dopes who couldnt wait to be the first to complain HumVee's werent upspec'd with more armor to protect against IEDs.

6 years ago they were probably the first to complain spending money on more armor for a truck was a waste of money and only fueling the evil military industrial complex.
Your example may have had merit if there was a valid purpose in invading Iraq.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
I read the Iraqi insurgency has spent only 200 million the last 3 years, what we spend in 28 hours and look who's winning. Tech is seemingly nothing compared to determination and willpower.
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,559
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
These programs should reduce the cost of the military by standarizing to one platform instead of many. We could continue to fly the F14s, F16s, F15s, F22s, F117s, Harriers, and A-10s and all the associated costs of maintaining seperate parts and crews for each plane if you want. Or we can widdle it down to a few variations of the same plane.
This thing can't replace an A-10 Warthog.
An F-35 being able to fly with one of it's engines and wings blown out? Good luck.
I don't see the F-35 replacing the F-22's role in air to air combat anytime soon either.

They should just make the F-35 as replacements for the F-16 and F-18 rather than trying to make the plane "jack of all trades, master of none".
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
I read the article the other day, but didn't think to post. Man those things are nice, even though all they are, are glorified stones.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
17
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
People said the same before WWII. Then we were caught with our pants down around the ankles by a country much smaller than us.
These programs should reduce the cost of the military by standarizing to one platform instead of many. We could continue to fly the F14s, F16s, F15s, F22s, F117s, Harriers, and A-10s and all the associated costs of maintaining seperate parts and crews for each plane if you want. Or we can widdle it down to a few variations of the same plane.
Hm, alright, so then we had all kinds of advanced fighters. I guess our pants were still down when 9/11 rolled around.
Solution to pull our pants up? 24/7 air patrols over all major cities and potential targets? Even then, we will still have security weaknesses. It'd just be a matter of time before they're found.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY