kallend 2,027 #1 June 17, 2014 Just for the benefit of the Military Industrial Complex. So says the co-designer of the F-16 sploid.gizmodo.com/the-designer-of-the-f-16-explains-why-the-f-35-is-such-1591828468... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #2 June 17, 2014 Screw the F-35 brink back the F-14 it was the sexiest plane ever. Hell Tom Cruise still looks good, lets have him make another Top Gun also! Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #3 June 18, 2014 AnvilbrotherScrew the F-35 brink back the F-14 it was the sexiest plane ever. Hell Tom Cruise still looks good, lets have him make another Top Gun also! You may have your wish: http://www.kpopstarz.com/articles/95609/20140615/top-gun-2-release-date.htm"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #4 June 18, 2014 Quote Eisenhower warned us about this a long time ago. He warned that the F-35 couldn't fly in inclement weather? Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #5 June 18, 2014 Anvilbrother Quote Eisenhower warned us about this a long time ago. He warned that the F-35 couldn't fly in inclement weather? Also aboout people denying the holocaust.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #6 June 18, 2014 I agree with his complaint that trying to build one to make all the branches of the military happy is a recipe for a very expensive program that doesn't make anyone truly happy. This, and the associated funding instability, have been the downfall of many programs in the past. That said, his understanding of modern stealth and its combat function is lacking, his contempt for "electronic junk" is laughable, and his statements about the F-35 armament are patently false. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 June 18, 2014 kallend So says the co-designer of the F-16 past glory types often take a odd stance towards new design. Wozniak and Bill Joy often seem to shake their fist at youth. But overall, the need to have air superiority thru technology superiority seems pointless based on our recent conflicts. The current gen offers us the ability to shoot down opposing fighters before they even know our guys are there, but where are the targets? Once we wiped out all of Iraq's air force and AA capability, the B52 was the most effective plane. Aside from selling our planes to Taiwan, Israel, etc, what's the point? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #8 June 18, 2014 Anvilbrother Screw the F-35 brink back the F-14 it was the sexiest plane ever. Hell Tom Cruise still looks good, lets have him make another Top Gun also! I don't know about the relative merits of different fighter planes, but I'd love a ride in any of them. My childhood dream was to be a fighter pilot but I didn't have the eyes for it *sniff*Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bertt 0 #9 June 18, 2014 The F-4 was supposed to be all things to all people. It didn't need a gun. By the time it's reign was over, we had the F-14, the F-15, the F-16. the F/A-18, and the A-10. They all had guns, and the F-4 had a gun pod. The reason this keeps happening has nothing to do with stealth or armament and everything to do with who took a Congressman to lunch.You don't have to outrun the bear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #10 June 18, 2014 kallend Just for the benefit of the Military Industrial Complex. So says the co-designer of the F-16 sploid.gizmodo.com/the-designer-of-the-f-16-explains-why-the-f-35-is-such-1591828468 Look, it may be unworkable, but at least it's unaffordable. Outspending the enemy sure worked in Vietnam. The Soviet Union also got great results from a military that served the dual purpose of an economic black hole. We are NOT, repeat NOT, doing the same thing and expecting different results. This time it is truly different. We have Top Men in charge... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #11 June 18, 2014 QuoteBut overall, the need to have air superiority thru technology superiority seems pointless based on our recent conflicts. It's naive to think we'll never face an enemy that has a technologically advanced air force. Preparing for the last war instead of being prepared for the next is foolish. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #12 June 18, 2014 DanGQuoteBut overall, the need to have air superiority thru technology superiority seems pointless based on our recent conflicts. It's naive to think we'll never face an enemy that has a technologically advanced air force. Preparing for the last war instead of being prepared for the next is foolish. I am sure there is great hope in some of the chickenhawk quarters of a future conflict with Ivan or the chinks ( heard yesterday by a rabid follower of Infowars et al) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #13 June 18, 2014 the only thing stopping the govt from saving money is he govt itself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #14 June 18, 2014 QuoteI am sure there is great hope in some of the chickenhawk quarters of a future conflict with Ivan or the chinks ( heard yesterday by a rabid follower of Infowars et al) Regardless of whether there is hope, there is the possibility, and it seems more and more likely with the way Russia is acting lately. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #15 June 18, 2014 Stumpy ***Screw the F-35 brink back the F-14 it was the sexiest plane ever. Hell Tom Cruise still looks good, lets have him make another Top Gun also! I don't know about the relative merits of different fighter planes, but I'd love a ride in any of them. My childhood dream was to be a fighter pilot but I didn't have the eyes for it *sniff*Just the eyes? I didn't realise they made booster seats that big! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #16 June 18, 2014 QuoteWe have Top Men in charge... Who? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #17 June 18, 2014 Andy9o8QuoteWe have Top Men in charge... Who? Top. Men. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #18 June 18, 2014 winsor *** Quote We have Top Men in charge... Who? Top. Men. Why are you so sexist? No Top Women?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #19 June 18, 2014 turtlespeed ****** Quote We have Top Men in charge... Who? Top. Men. Why are you so sexist? No Top Women?When it comes to women, apparently we are Top-less.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 279 #20 June 18, 2014 While the F-35 program clearly has problems, more so than even the typical hi tech program, the guy in the video - Pierre Spray - doesn't necessarily have the last word on anything. While I haven't done any fact checking, one perceptive comment on the web page includes the following: QuotePierre Sprey didn't design the F-16. Sprey has never 'designed' anything with wings, and he still doesn't know diddley-squat about aircraft design OR air warfare. He started at the Pentagon in 1966 as one of Robert S. McNamara's (the genius [/sarc] behind the TFX) "wiz kids." [...] He came to OSD/SA in 1966, where he declared himself an expert on military fighter aircraft, despite his lack of experience. Sprey admitted being a gadfly, a nuisance, and an automatic opponent of any program he was not a part of. He was part of the "Fighter Mafia" that drafted the requirements that drove the F-16's design (lightweight, no radar). He played a bit role in developing top level requirements at OSD for a couple of years, basically parroting whatever John Boyd or Everest Riccione were hawking that day. [...] Sprey hasn't been directly involved in a DoD aircraft program since the early/mid 1970s, using 1960s technology. He comes from an era where electronics weren't reliable. It's too easy to pile onto the F-35 now. "Do everything" planes have tended to have problems in the past. On the other hand, sometimes a large, capable aircraft has the stretch capability if the designers don't try to do everything at once, and thus run out of time to get the job done. Like the F-15, at one time "not a pound for air to ground", yet now available in capable air to ground versions too. So I'm not so much against some of the design compromises (well, maybe the VTOL thing is a stretch), as being against the F-35 just getting so expensive and still not able to fulfill its basic functions. Just an amateur opinion. My overall point is still that Pierre Spray isn't necessarily a prescient oracle, but maybe just someone who is a pessimist and eventually gets to say "I told you so!" for one project or another. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #21 June 18, 2014 DanGQuoteBut overall, the need to have air superiority thru technology superiority seems pointless based on our recent conflicts. It's naive to think we'll never face an enemy that has a technologically advanced air force. Preparing for the last war instead of being prepared for the next is foolish. But spending a trillion dollars on a maybe standoff with China or Russia is a luxury we can no longer afford well. We have better uses for that money, or debt to pay off. It also buys a shit load of armed Predators. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #22 June 18, 2014 QuoteBut spending a trillion dollars on a maybe standoff with China or Russia is a luxury we can no longer afford well. We have better uses for that money, or debt to pay off. It also buys a shit load of armed Predators. Obviously, one trillion dollars is way, way too much. I'm not saying that the F-35 is the answer. I'm just saying that our air superiority shouldn't be assumed if we don't have the hardware to dominate any potential adversary. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #23 June 18, 2014 DanGQuoteBut spending a trillion dollars on a maybe standoff with China or Russia is a luxury we can no longer afford well. We have better uses for that money, or debt to pay off. It also buys a shit load of armed Predators. Obviously, one trillion dollars is way, way too much. I'm not saying that the F-35 is the answer. I'm just saying that our air superiority shouldn't be assumed if we don't have the hardware to dominate any potential adversary. Depends on if you are asking what it is for and whose pockets get lined with the extra.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #24 June 18, 2014 mr2mk1g ******Screw the F-35 brink back the F-14 it was the sexiest plane ever. Hell Tom Cruise still looks good, lets have him make another Top Gun also! I don't know about the relative merits of different fighter planes, but I'd love a ride in any of them. My childhood dream was to be a fighter pilot but I didn't have the eyes for it *sniff*Just the eyes? I didn't realise they made booster seats that big! Bite me gigantorNever try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #25 June 19, 2014 QuoteDepends on if you are asking what it is for and whose pockets get lined with the extra. All of the great military hardware that the US brings to bear on its enemies was made by private companies. Companies making a profit is not evil, is it? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
