Jump to content

F-35 and its future. Was the project an overall failure?


Hummingbird

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

At this point every time I see one of SUBS' posts I worry that one of my physics degrees will spontaneously catch fire


It will be fine my friend, as Subs hinted to earlier, his ‘repulsive shadow’ has many uses - protection of vehicle occupants, similar for aircraft, incredible really.

The only degrees that may be susceptible to instant immolation may be bovine excretion awards that subs seems to have a few of . . . 
 

High class bull-sh1t.

  • Like 2

Alien desktop PC, Intel i7-8700 CPU@3.20GHz 6 Core, Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. TM Warthog stick and Throttles. Saitek ProFlight pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2021 at 5:53 AM, Mars Exulte said:

  No, it's not. I'm on Heaven's email update mailing list and I never got a notice.

  I'm pretty sure it's atoms tightly bound by their magnetic fields, which I can turn on and off with my mind. I bought TELEKINESIS with Bitcoin on the Silk Road.

 

  Wrong wrong wrong. It rolls out the top when you squeeze it, just like an old tube of toothpaste.

 

  Wrong. It's directly tied to the light switch in my bathroom. It's connected to the fart fan via GRAVITY ELEMENT.

 

  I heard it will mostly be used to protect children from small dachsunds.

 

  Everybody knows God hates motorcycles. If there's any safety tech, they'll be the last to get it. He usually stipulates in the EULA that it can't be used for motorcycles. He hates them after he got cut off in Chicago one time.

 

  True, it's approximately the same size and shape of a pineapple, but tastes more like prunes.

 

  It blows every circuit in ELECTRICAL SYSTEM and a tow tic-tac must be called from HEAVEN. They are really expensive though, and this guy ''Bob's Tic Tac Tows'' is really dishonest, so I suggest not using him.

 

  I think you must have made somebody angry so they aren't giving you the latest information anymore. Everything you're saying is at least twenty years out of date.

God has a Harley Davidson, people ride bikes in Heaven. This technology is too much for you so you can go away then. 

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, SUBS17 said:

God has a Harley Davidson, people ride bikes in Heaven. This technology is too much for you so you can go away then. 

You've met God then when you were up there? I thought it'd have better taste than riding a rubbish Harley, but still, in light of the firms bad finances over the last decade, pretty poor form of the chaps up there to not be supporting them much if they like the ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the "one design fits all" question: I'm not sure they could have made a navalised version of the F-16. You need to put the bigger gear somewhere, you need strengthened airframe and you need more low-speed controlability hence maybe a bigger wing. So if they would have opted for a one size fits all for 4th gen, it would have been the Hornet. We would have missed out on one of the very best fighters ever! 

I also think the F-35A has in some aspects a suboptimal design due to the F-35B requirements. It could have been slicker, and cheaper. 

It' still a magnficent aircraft of course, ,and with the future adaptive cycle engine could really come of age. 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tflash said:

On the "one design fits all" question: I'm not sure they could have made a navalised version of the F-16. You need to put the bigger gear somewhere, you need strengthened airframe and you need more low-speed controlability hence maybe a bigger wing.

  I dunno, they managed it ok with the F-8 and A-7 which were long spindly single engine planes, too, with not terribly huge wings (albeit they were top mounted, though I dunno how significant a factor that is).

 

2 hours ago, tflash said:

So if they would have opted for a one size fits all for 4th gen, it would have been the Hornet.

   Possibly. I think it's probably BETTER suited for carrier usage cause of the lower speed handling, but the cost of a compromise design is it is biased more toward one or the other but suitable for both.

 

2 hours ago, tflash said:

We would have missed out on one of the very best fighters ever! 

  And had twice as many of... one of the very best fighters ever? They handle differently from each other and have slightly different ''best performance'' margins, but they're both equally effective at pretty much everything. So ultimately, it comes down to ''We would have missed out on a really cool plane!'' That's not a good way to balance your budget or streamline your logistics.

 

  And again, what few differences there are, particularly initially as far as avionics, would simply not have existed if a compromise design had been settled on in the first place.

 

2 hours ago, tflash said:

I also think the F-35A has in some aspects a suboptimal design due to the F-35B requirements. It could have been slicker, and cheaper. 

It' still a magnficent aircraft of course, ,and with the future adaptive cycle engine could really come of age. 

  Afaik, literally every new generation of aircraft was decried as a waste, its flaws nitpicked, gradually refined, and then ''it's the bestest most coolest thing ever''. Everybody likes the F-14 now, but it was aggressively fought against because the F-4 was ''battle hardened, good enough, and loved by all''. The F-22 was dumped because of all the same crap, and now people all agree dumping it was stupid. Now we have the F-35, I don't think it's getting dumped (too many countries involved and too many of them built already) in twenty years everybody will blow its horn about how grand and awesomest it is and take it's place among the halls of fame @@

 

  It's almost like people behave in a really predictable fashion regardless of context

  • Like 1

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

  Afaik, literally every new generation of aircraft was decried as a waste, its flaws nitpicked, gradually refined, and then ''it's the bestest most coolest thing ever''. Everybody likes the F-14 now, but it was aggressively fought against because the F-4 was ''battle hardened, good enough, and loved by all''.

For the record, the F-14 had two total hull losses during testing. The second flight of the first prototype and then example #10. The test pilot who got to punch out of the first one bought it in the second. Yet, it's the definition of American cool. 


Edited by MiG21bisFishbedL

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

  I dunno, they managed it ok with the F-8 and A-7 which were long spindly single engine planes, too, with not terribly huge wings (albeit they were top mounted, though I dunno how significant a factor that is).

 

   Possibly. I think it's probably BETTER suited for carrier usage cause of the lower speed handling, but the cost of a compromise design is it is biased more toward one or the other but suitable for both.

 

  And had twice as many of... one of the very best fighters ever? They handle differently from each other and have slightly different ''best performance'' margins, but they're both equally effective at pretty much everything. So ultimately, it comes down to ''We would have missed out on a really cool plane!'' That's not a good way to balance your budget or streamline your logistics.

 

  And again, what few differences there are, particularly initially as far as avionics, would simply not have existed if a compromise design had been settled on in the first place.

 

  Afaik, literally every new generation of aircraft was decried as a waste, its flaws nitpicked, gradually refined, and then ''it's the bestest most coolest thing ever''. Everybody likes the F-14 now, but it was aggressively fought against because the F-4 was ''battle hardened, good enough, and loved by all''. The F-22 was dumped because of all the same crap, and now people all agree dumping it was stupid. Now we have the F-35, I don't think it's getting dumped (too many countries involved and too many of them built already) in twenty years everybody will blow its horn about how grand and awesomest it is and take it's place among the halls of fame @@

 

  It's almost like people behave in a really predictable fashion regardless of context

 

The loss of the F-14 was due to one person and their CHATEL. The F-14 could still return with improvements such as FBW and better ordnance, it could also return if the CHATEL of Davids were to be UNSEATED which is weird but that is his wacky cult and their influence on the World. (TURDSHERA!)

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Yet, it's the definition of American cool. 

  Being the star of the most successful piece of military propaganda in recorded history probably had a lot to do with that :p

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

  Being the star of the most successful piece of military propaganda in recorded history probably had a lot to do with that 😛

Certainly, but it was still pretty cool before hand.

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...