NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Can you say "Tie-fighter" boys and girls? The new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter combines the best of several technologies to make this aircraft like something out of Star Wars. But the price, the price! Argh!


Jet lets fingers do the flying (http://www.hamptonroads.com/pilotonline/news/)


http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/1774/x359yf.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's touch screens, voice activated commands and helmet-mounted displays are cutting edge. LOCKHEED MARTIN PHOTO


By JACK DORSEY, The Virginian-Pilot
© January 22, 2006

VIRGINIA BEACH — Five dozen men, many of them former pilots who have helped shape naval aviation for the past 50 years, were spellbound as they looked into the simulated cockpit of the Navy’s next-generation fighter jet.

Two 8-by-20-inch touch screen displays dominated the dashboard.


Tapping the screen changes radio channels. Touching it elsewhere selects a weapon to use: missile, bomb, cannon.

Pointing to a landing spot on the map display tells the computer to fly the plane there – nearly hands off.

A visual system built into the pilot’s helmet projects an image onto the visor, giving real-time navigation and targeting information. No matter which way the pilot’s head turns, the data are always in view.



F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER



The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will use a more powerful engine - nearly twice the kick of current engines - stealth technology and touch screen and voice commands in the cockpit to stake its claim as the world's premier strike aircraft through 2040.

The first flight of a production-line model is scheduled for October, with operational aircraft set for delivery in 2007.

STATUS

The Joint Strike Fighter is halfway through a 10-year development and testing phase.

A total of 22 test aircraft will be built during the current phase: 14 for flight tests, seven for tests on the ground and one for radar tests.

Flight tests will be conducted at Edwards Air Force Base in Califoria, Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Maryland and near the Lockheed Martin plant in Fort Worth, Texas. The Navy and Marine variants will undego sea trials aboard U.S., British and Italian aircraft carriers.

Lockheed Martin expects to complete 20 planes in a month once full production begins in 2013. The plane will be built on a moving assmbly line - a first for a fighter. Final assembly will take only five months. Most fighters are assembled in 13 months.

A total of 2,852 aircaft are scheduled for delivery to the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and to the British Royal Navy and Air Force.

ENGINE



The F-35 will have two interchangeable choices for its single engine, either of which will deliver 40,000 pounds of thrust - more than twice as much as each of the F/A-18 Hornet's twin engines.

The Air Force and Navy versions of the F-35 will use engines built by Pratt & Whitney, above. General Electric and Rolls-Royce are teaming up to build the Marine Corps version, which will be able to take of vertically and hover.

COCKPIT



Instead of "heads-up" readouts projected onto fighter cockpit windows, the F-35 will use a system contained within the pilot's helmet. An Israeli firm is developing the technology.

In addition, the vertical-takeoff version of the F-35 will be controlled by only a throttle, as opposed to the three primary controls used in a conventional Harrier jet. the swiveling exhaust nozzles will be controled instead by a computer.

Voice commands are integrated into the controls to rapidly react to changing mission requirements.

There is no control stick in the floor. It’s been replaced by sliding knobs on each side of the cockpit, with fingertip switches.

The one on the left is the throttle. The right one controls direction.

“If you have two fingers and can touch the screen, you can fly this thing,” an F/A-18 Hornet pilot quipped from the back of the crowd of admirers.

This is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, an amalgam of cutting-edge fighter technology. It will cost between $37 million and $48 million, depending on which of three models is bought.

Although top Pentagon officials are thinking about cutting the size and scope of the F-35 program to reduce defense budgets, for now the plan is a $256 billion, 20-year program to build 3,500 to 4,000 planes.

Up to 6,000 could be turned out when sales to America’s NATO allies are counted.


Nearly ready for flight


The F-35 is scheduled to go into flight less than a year after the first plane rolls off a Texas assembly line in October. The planes could come to Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach in about 2013 as a replacement for the F/A-18 C and D model Hornets.

Marine Corps Lt. Col. Arthur “Turbo” Tomassetti, the only pilot to have flown all three versions of the fighter, promises that its pilots are in for a treat.

“On the Navy and Marine side, we don’t have stealth airplanes yet, so just the fact we are getting one of those is a huge deal,” said Tomassetti, chief test pilot and commanding officer of Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 at Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Maryland .

At war, the F-35 would be among the first jets to enter the conflict to support troops on the ground or knock out missile sites. It also would be able to engage enemy targets in the sky.

It has two bomb bays and 11 places for wing-mounted weapons.

Its low radar profile gives it stealth, while a revolutionary new radar inside the plane will allow it 360-degree vision to better evade attackers.

It will be the first airplane that allows pilots to remain unseen yet still communicate by radio . The F-35 will not carry any iron, or “dumb,” bombs, only next-generation guided munitions.

The uniqueness of the F-35, Tomassetti said, is not in an individual piece of equipment.

“We already have touch screens, voice-activated cockpits and in-helmet displays,” he said. “But now what you are talking about is a combination of the helmet-mounted display, touch screens and voice activation. That’s never been done all in one before.”

Plans call for the F-35 to be a multi national premier strike aircraft through 2040. The plane will allow the Air Force to field an almost all-stealth fighter force by 2025.

The F-35 would replace the Marine Corps’ aging AV-8B Harriers, the Air Force’s A-10 Thunderbolts and F-16 Falcons, the Navy’s F/A-18C Hornets and the United Kingdom’s Harriers, both its air force and navy versions.

Lockheed Martin is developing the plane with its principal industrial partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems.

Two separate, interchangeable engines are under development: one by Pratt & Whitney and the other by the General Electric/Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team.


Headed to Oceana?


For Oceana, 100 or more F-35s could replace the F/A-18C Hornets. They would serve beside the newer F/A-18 E and F model Super Hornets.

Then again, that might not happen, said Rear Adm. Steven Enewold, the executive officer of the Joint Strike Fighter Program.

“It’s not clear to me yet that we wouldn’t have a consolidated JSF base somewhere that would have all three versions,” Enewold said from his Washington office.

It would be natural to bring them together because the planes have the same engines and avionics and require the same technical skills to maintain and operate them, he said.

“It is not a far stretch to think we might have an Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps consolidation base somewhere,” he said.

The Navy must decide this year where to base its F-35s.


The pros are impressed


Enewold brought his presentation and a mock-up of the F-35’s cockpit to Oceana in August.

Members of the Association of Naval Aviation’s Hampton Roads Squadron marveled at the aircraft’s gadgets and technology.

It has tools that weren’t even dreams 20 years ago, said retired Vice Adm. Dick Dunleavy of Virginia Beach.

“It is the future, and we are going forward with it,” said the former A-6 Intruder bombardier/navigator, who commanded the aircraft carrier Coral Sea and the Atlantic Fleet’s air arm.

Despite his concerns about the aircraft’s cost, he’s impressed by its innovations.

“That is our strength as Americans – our technology and our people – and they put both of them in there quite well.”

But the aviators also had questions. Among them: What about jet noise?

It is the No. 1 issue among many who live and work near Oceana, the Navy’s only master jet base on the East Coast.

“We don’t know yet,” said Enewold, who has been with the program since January 2002. “The engine is about the same thrust as the F-14 … and will make the same kind of noise.”

However, the plane’s single engine is so powerful that “we don’t see any reason to operate the afterburner around the field,” Enewold said.

Since the engine has not yet been mounted in the first F-35 – the Pratt & Whitney model is being installed –its exact loudness isn’t known.

The engine’s large size may help lessen its noise, though.

“I hear that because it is a bigger engine, it is not near as shrill,” said John Smith, a Lockheed Martin spokesman at the company’s Fort Worth, Texas, plant. “It has a lower sound to it, maybe the same decibels, but it is not the same ear-splitting decibels as the F-18” with its two smaller engines.


International interest


The F-35 program emphasizes collaboration among NATO nations, including Britain, Italy, Norway, Turkey, Australia, Canada and Denmark.

“It is like no other program I have been associated with,” Enewold said.

The plane is designed to have a long range, to use common hardware and software, to be used and maintained by all service branches and to be highly reliable.

“You can schedule maintenance when you want it, because it will tell you when it will break,” Enewold said.

Even its construction is revolutionary, according to Lockheed Martin.

There are three sub- assembly points: The forward fuselage is being buil t in Fort Worth by Lockheed Martin; BAE Systems is building the aft fuselage and tails in Samlesbury, England; and Northrop Grumman is constructing the center fuselage in Palmdale, Calif.

Once the sub sections are completed, they will be sent to the Fort Worth plant, Smith said.

The first production plane began to take shape just before Christmas in Forth Worth with the installation of horizontal tails, which joined the aft fuselage and forward fuselage.

“For the first time in history, we will have a moving assembly line for a fighter,” Smith said. “There have been moving assembly lines for commercial airliners and other things, but not for a fighter.”

Its engine is to be installed this week.

Final assembly will take five to six months instead of 13 months for previous aircraft, the company said.

“Once full production rates are achieved in the 2013 time frame, we will be building a plane a day. Our goal is 20 per month,” Smith said.


Love and hate


While Tomassetti believes former Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier pilots will be more than pleased with the F-35, he’s not sure other fliers will be.

“If you talk to a Harrier guy, they are very excited,” he said. “It’s all good to them.”

That’s mainly because the F-35 short take-off and vertical-landing model will have all digitized controls, allowing computers to do the things that burden a Harrier pilot.

“Basically you have three things to move with your two hands,” he said of the Harrier. “It’s a very busy aircraft.”

However, the F-35 is not without its detractors.

“Talk to the F-18 guys and they are complaining it is a single engine,” Tomassetti said.

Since the late 1960s, the Navy has preferred twin engines for its carrier-based aircraft but has lived with single engines in the A-7 Corsairs and A-4 Skyhawks.

Some Air Force pilots may not be thrilled either.

“The F-16 guys will say it is not as fast, or potentially maneuverable,” Tomassetti said. “Some of the folks flying the cutting-edge stuff say, 'They can’t do this thing that my current airplane can do.’”

All that aside, Tomassetti said, “there are some tremendous capabilities” with stealth and sensors far ahead of what’s now available in combat aircraft.

“Everything you will get in the F-35 is better than what we get today.”

I'm too lazy to read the whole thing. What's the price?

Cost (per jet): " It will cost between $37 million and $48 million, depending on which of three models is bought."
This is exciting but I won't be that thrilled until we have panoramic cockpits. :p

I'm too lazy to read the whole thing. What's the price?
Your IMMORTAL SOUL plus tax.

i posted a pic of that in the best weapon ever thread. its simply awesome.

The UK should have taken a larger part of this, and ditched the Eurofighter completely.

It sounds neat, but I'm a little worried about the whole voice operated thing. I mean, what if a pilot acidently says the wrong thing and ends up dropping a bomb? ;)

Your IMMORTAL SOUL plus tax.

LOL!

It sounds neat, but I'm a little worried about the whole voice operated thing. I mean, what if a pilot acidently says the wrong thing and ends up dropping a bomb? ;)

I am also worried about the touch screens.

You have to memorize the layout, or look at them when touching, instead of looking out the cockpit...sounds dangerous when in combat situations!

What happened to old fashioned switches, knobs and buttons? That is more Star Wars---this thing is more Star Trek!;)

It needs a pilot? How 20th century.

Am I the only one that can't for the life of me discern the resemblance between that jet and a TIE fighter?

What a good job that author would have made as a fluffer.

The stuff that's being promised in that piece is more or less an impossible amalgamation of everything and the kitchen sink that people want out of an airplane, all without the comensurate increase in cost. In civilian life, we answer such claims made by commercials with the cliche: "If it looks too good to be true. . ." In the military, apparently, we spend $256 billion.

Take, for instance, the claim about stealth. Stealth tech is overrated anyway, as the primary aim of most stealth is to reduce the front-on signature of an airplane, not the side or tail signature. Moreover, technology already exists to detect stealthed planes: while dopplar radar can't pick up a stealthed plane, for instance, it can read the wake it produces in the atmosphere plain as day, and stealth does nothing to deal with the most common form of target-acquisition gear: heat-seeking Surface or Air-to-Air missiles. In this case, however, I know that this article is especially bullshit because they are describing an impossibility: a stealthed plane with an external missile and bomb rack. Even if you miss the plane with your radar, the bombs and missiles are not made of the same material and increase the surface area and reflective signature of a plane; ergo, by externally mounting your bombs and missiles, you nullify any advantage you might have with stealth tech. That's why planes like the F-20 Raptor, F-117 Nighthawk, and B-2 all have internal bomb bays. The bomb loadout described in this article, however, says that it specifically carries wing-mounted weapons.

Moreover, it looks as if they are going to use it to absolutely retarded stuff. You don't use an air-superiority fighter, for instance, to replace the A-10: the A-10 has never been liked by the Air Force because it doesn't really blow shit out of the air well, but by God, they are the best thing since sliced bread when it comes to air-to-ground support. They are ungodly tough to kill, and their heavy payload combined with a vicious nose-mounted minigun makes them murder for any opposing heavy armor or APC's. The JSF doesn't have the minigun, nor does it have the durability of the A-10.

Put simply, any time people are suggesting that the same plane can replace both a heavy-air-to-ground fighter-bomber like the A-10 and an air-superiority fighter like the F-16 (which, by the way, was never accepted by the USAF not because it wasn't really, really good, but specifically because it only had a single engine--the same kind of layout used by the JSF), I'm pretty damn suspicious. When they tell me that it also has a crapload of doodads on it, I'm even more suspicious, because usually the most effective weapons in the field are those with the fewest things that can go wrong with them. When they tell me that the price is going to be around 46 million a fighter for a stealth-teched fighter with a hand's-free TAG system, a ridiculously low sum, I know that they're full of it. This is something put out purely to save the asses of Air Force careers that are tied to this project. Watch in the coming years how, just like the Raptor, expectations of what the machine can do continue to fall, while the price per fighter continues to climb.

Pity it's too heavy for the aircraft carriers we were going to make to run them from...

Moreover, it looks as if they are going to use it to absolutely retarded stuff. You don't use an air-superiority fighter, for instance, to replace the A-10

Depends. If it floats like a Harrier and packs a variant of the GAU-8 (which the Ground Attack version is meant to) then it might just do it.

Am I the only one that can't for the life of me discern the resemblance between that jet and a TIE fighter?
No, you ain't! That's why I said what I did about "Can you say 'TIE fighter' boys and girls?" :)

Am I the only one that can't for the life of me discern the resemblance between that jet and a TIE fighter?


yeah I was wondering about that myself.

I get to use an F-35C simulator from Lockheed Martin in February. They are bringing a simulator for our NROTC Battalion to use for a day, although the AFROTC gets to use it too.

Pity it's too heavy for the aircraft carriers we were going to make to run them from...



Depends. If it floats like a Harrier and packs a variant of the GAU-8 (which the Ground Attack version is meant to) then it might just do it.

You don't spend money on stealth tech for a ground-attack platform, because the most dangerous threat to a ground-attack fighter is a Stinger, and stealth does nothing against a heat-seeking GTA missile. Instead, you build your plane to survive impact and still head home. I don't care how adaptable you can make it: it won't survive getting a wing blown off and still be able to return to base. An A-10 can do that.

The stinger really isn't a threat. The stinger would be a threat against a helo, but they can't really be effective against a jet fighter.

The UK should have taken a larger part of this, and ditched the Eurofighter completely.
Different purposes.
Both may be officially dubbed as "multi-role", but the Eurofighter and the F-35 are meant to do very different things for the British.

==========================

But why do they have to make these things so expensive for crying out loud?
It's the law of diminishing returns: The more you spend, the less one extra dollar is going to give you.
How are these things going to perform if they are outnumbered 1:2 or 1:3 against the newest Sukhois?

The stinger really isn't a threat. The stinger would be a threat against a helo, but they can't really be effective against a jet fighter.

Depends what fighter and what mission. An F-15 doing long-range TAG-guided bombing missions from 20,000 feet doesn't have to worry about a Stinger at all. An A-10 that has half its wing shot off or an engine blown out by a Stinger is in trouble but can limp back home. A JSF that takes a Stinger up the tailpipe (and mind you, you have to move pretty slow for Ground-support, so this is a distinct possibility) is just going to crash. Furthermore, you are still forgetting that quite a few other GTA platforms exist which can also wreak havoc with stealthed planes. Don't you remember how the Serbs took down an F-117 over Kosovo? They did so with heat-seeking SAM batteries.

.
How are these things going to perform if they are outnumbered 1:2 or 1:3 against the newest Sukhois?

Bravely.

Bravely.
:D

Different purposes.
Both may be officially dubbed as "multi-role", but the Eurofighter and the F-35 are meant to do very different things for the British.


It's really the ground attack Eurofighters that the RAF want though; in fact the UK might end up selling its air defence variants anyway.

Depending on how FOAS pans out, it probably would have been better just to go with F-35s. Cheaper anyway.

Depending on how FOAS pans out, it probably would have been better just to go with F-35s. Cheaper anyway.
To be quite honest, if I had to design an air force, I'd buy Saab Gripens, various Sukhois and A-10s. Then I'd put up an order for the F-35, but pending confirmation that it really turns out as capable as they say it will.

To be quite honest, if I had to design an air force, I'd buy Saab Gripens, various Sukhois and A-10s. Then I'd put up an order for the F-35, but pending confirmation that it really turns out as capable as they say it will.

Someone has to keep BAE systems going though.

ONLY 37 -48 Million!!! Holy fuck! More wasted money on an already bloated military? Why don't we just flush the money down the toilet and cut out the middle man? :rolleyes:

Your comparison of this guy to a TIE fighter is very... appropriate.:p

This will be very useful in our struggle against the Soviet Union.

Oh wait...

ONLY 37 -48 Million!!! Holy fuck! More wasted money on an already bloated military? Why don't we just flush the money down the toilet and cut out the middle man? :rolleyes:
Because having a sewer system filled with money doesn't act as a very effective deterrent to potential invaders?
You may think that the US is secure, but we've still got Canada and Mexico to worry about. Some day, they might form an alliance, and they'll we'll be fucked over from both directions.

We'll pour out of the north like vikings upon the foolish Dark agers! Your tiny airplanes will be useless once your areodromes have been iced over. oh, and Alaskas on our side. They're actually Russia's, but we're borrowing it.

I sure would like it a little more if it had two engines. That does more for reliability than any of the slick gadgets in the cockpit. Damn, there's another problem, only one man in the plane.

Am I the only one that can't for the life of me discern the resemblance between that jet and a TIE fighter?
This doesn't even rank X-Wing.

This will be very useful in our struggle against the Soviet Union.

Oh wait...

The cold war is back on. After much hand wringing Bush, Blair and Putin decided that it's cancellation was premature.

Am I the only one that can't for the life of me discern the resemblance between that jet and a TIE fighter?


Both are employed by an evil empire?

Both are employed by an evil empire?
Why do you make it your mission in life to be a troll?

It's nice, sure, but nothing beats one of these.

http://www.thunderinthevalleyairshow.com/images/Static%20P-51.jpg

The shape of the body plus the sound of a Rolls-Royce Merlin 61 liquid cooled in-line "Vee" engine? Fuck yeah.

It's nice, sure, but nothing beats one of these.

http://www.thunderinthevalleyairshow.com/images/Static%20P-51.jpg

The shape of the body plus the sound of a Rolls-Royce Merlin 61 liquid cooled in-line "Vee" engine? Fuck yeah.
Ah, P-51D. I love those.

Your IMMORTAL SOUL plus tax.

I'll take seven.

Am I the only one that can't for the life of me discern the resemblance between that jet and a TIE fighter?

The following sentence has never been typed by my hands, and probably never will be again:

I completely agree with Melkor Unchained.

The most sci-fi-ish things about its exterior are its fairly stubby wings (sneakily hidden by the profile view), and that's hardly a new innovation- look at the Concord. Heck, this thing is rather distinctly unlike a TIE fighter in one regard- TIEs are cheap.

I believe that I voice the thoughts of many other people: Do we really need something this expensive, with this many doo-dahs and gadgets that may be really, really harmful in combat? From years of keyboarding, I can tell you that being able to feel the edges of buttons is rather helpful in making sure you don't hit the wrong button, and sliding knobs seem far too inflexible compared to the ease and simplicity of a normal control stick. In addition, voice recognition software is nowhere near reliable enough for military use, especially since the US military tends to have personnel with a variety of accents.

Oi- they're planning vertical take-off capabilities, too. As Xenophobialand
said, this thing is a giant blob of stuff that people want in airplanes that hasn't worked very well so far. I predict a crash and burn- hopefully, it'll happen before a real one occurs.

It sounds neat, but I'm a little worried about the whole voice operated thing. I mean, what if a pilot acidently says the wrong thing and ends up dropping a bomb? ;)
A more likely scenario would be a malfunction in the plane's radio communications. If he's taxiing on the runway and some children run accross his plane's path. Pilot yells "fucking kids!" Plane starts playing Michael Jackson tunes.

ONLY 37 -48 Million!!! Holy fuck! More wasted money on an already bloated military? Why don't we just flush the money down the toilet and cut out the middle man? :rolleyes:
These newer aircraft will save money. What you should be looking at is the equivalent airforce these planes replace. A single B-2, for example replaces an enourmous force, not just of bombers but planes dedicated to force protection, and everything that goes into supporting them and keeping them battle ready (training pilots, maintainence, etc). To say nothing of the technological developments that make it into the consumer space.

When done well, new military hardware is often an excellent investment that creates new industries.

Why do you make it your mission in life to be a troll?

When I see people celebrating tools of death and destruction I believe someone needs to raise some questions. Strange that new weapons systems or military vehicles are constantly lauded here, but I have yet to see a similar post triumphally hailing the development of a new kind of kidney dialysis machine or pacemaker. Maybe military hardware is 'sexy', while equipment which directly saves lives isn't?

When I see people celebrating tools of death and destruction I believe someone needs to raise some questions. Strange that new weapons systems or military vehicles are constantly lauded here, but I have yet to see a similar post triumphally hailing the development of a new kind of kidney dialysis machine or pacemaker. Maybe military hardware is 'sexy', while equipment which directly saves lives isn't?
When a kidney dialysis machine that travels faster than the speed of sound and produces spectacular explosions is developed it will be lauded on this board.

Because having a sewer system filled with money doesn't act as a very effective deterrent to potential invaders?
You may think that the US is secure, but we've still got Canada and Mexico to worry about. Some day, they might form an alliance, and they'll we'll be fucked over from both directions.
Oh, yeah! Those jalapeño-powered moose are going to make short work of you, just wait and see.

This doesn't even rank X-Wing.
Meh, even a Y-wing could take it on. I mean, no ion cannon, no linked lasers, slow as hell, and doesn't even have hyperdrive.

I know, I know, your basic TIE doesn't have hyperdrive or even armor, but at least it's much more manouverable.

I am also worried about the touch screens.

You have to memorize the layout, or look at them when touching, instead of looking out the cockpit...sounds dangerous when in combat situations!

What happened to old fashioned switches, knobs and buttons? That is more Star Wars---this thing is more Star Trek!;)I didn't see this said in the (long, may have skipped bits) article, and it may be a different development, but as well as having vital cockpit displays replicated/solely in helmet-mounted HUD (so you can always see your airspeed/etc, even while looking out of the side of the cockpit at your bandit or bogie), there's something in the pipeline that has underside cameras feeding images to self-same HUD so that you can effectively see the 'external view' even if looking towards the 'glass cockpit' (or even through the floor) you are, in effect, in an even more glass cockpit, as if the entire nosecone were (to various degrees) transparent.


But I'm not pilot enough (only an armchair one, which doesn't count) to know what kinds of things the JSF's pilots will want in their helmets, what on the screens and what sort of things they'll not usually want to see but have on a handy, tappable 'sidebar' menu on demand (and what information will be moved over/out-of-sight when that occurs).

They seem to have experienced pilots on their side, so I expect they won't completely 'over-user-friendlyise' it (a la Windows XP) and make the experts squirm.

Yay! Denmark was mentioned! Score one for the bad guys! :)

These newer aircraft will save money. What you should be looking at is the equivalent airforce these planes replace. A single B-2, for example replaces an enourmous force, not just of bombers but planes dedicated to force protection, and everything that goes into supporting them and keeping them battle ready (training pilots, maintainence, etc). To say nothing of the technological developments that make it into the consumer space.

When done well, new military hardware is often an excellent investment that creates new industries.

Erm, what forces would this plane replace? It's an air superiority figher. It will replace current air superiority fighter. Unlike the B-2, which limited the need for escort fighters, this plane wouldn't eliminate the need for any kind of plane or equipment, except maybe dumb bombs- and precision bombs are much, much more expensive. So how does this save money?

Your IMMORTAL SOUL plus tax.
lol

2040?!?! no! My plans will be ruined! Nooooooooooooooooo

When I see people celebrating tools of death and destruction I believe someone needs to raise some questions. Strange that new weapons systems or military vehicles are constantly lauded here, but I have yet to see a similar post triumphally hailing the development of a new kind of kidney dialysis machine or pacemaker. Maybe military hardware is 'sexy', while equipment which directly saves lives isn't?

Well they won't let us have a nudie thread so we have to get excited about something else.

The following sentence has never been typed by my hands, and probably never will be again:

I completely agree with Melkor Unchained.

The most sci-fi-ish things about its exterior are its fairly stubby wings (sneakily hidden by the profile view), and that's hardly a new innovation- look at the Concord. Heck, this thing is rather distinctly unlike a TIE fighter in one regard- TIEs are cheap.

I believe that I voice the thoughts of many other people: Do we really need something this expensive, with this many doo-dahs and gadgets that may be really, really harmful in combat? From years of keyboarding, I can tell you that being able to feel the edges of buttons is rather helpful in making sure you don't hit the wrong button, and sliding knobs seem far too inflexible compared to the ease and simplicity of a normal control stick. In addition, voice recognition software is nowhere near reliable enough for military use, especially since the US military tends to have personnel with a variety of accents.

Oi- they're planning vertical take-off capabilities, too. As Xenophobialand
said, this thing is a giant blob of stuff that people want in airplanes that hasn't worked very well so far. I predict a crash and burn- hopefully, it'll happen before a real one occurs.

I predict it will perform amazingly well when it enters combat.

I really hope that the F-35s computer systems aren't Windows based.....

I really hope that the F-35s computer systems aren't Windows based.....
Windows Fighter Edition has finished installing updates and needs to restart.

Do you want me to:

RESTART NOW ---------------- BUG YOU EVERY 5 SECONDS

Erm, what forces would this plane replace? It's an air superiority figher. It will replace current air superiority fighter. Unlike the B-2, which limited the need for escort fighters, this plane wouldn't eliminate the need for any kind of plane or equipment, except maybe dumb bombs- and precision bombs are much, much more expensive. So how does this save money?
The F-22 is the airsuperiority fighter. 1 being equivalent to about a dozen F-15s.

The F-35 would replace F-16, F-18, Superhornets, F-14s perhaps, A-6, Harriers (UK), Super Harriers (US Marines), and perhaps F-4s, F-15 Strike Eagles. Stealth reduces the need for air defense supression, and makes it easier to do air defense surpression (that'll probably be done with UCAVs like the X-45) It acts as a force multiplyer. The same number of planes, which are cheapers to operate, train for, and maintain, can do more. So that means fewer KC-130s too. Fewer bombs. Fewer wearhouses to stock pile bombs in. Fewer people guarding said wearhouses, maintaining fenses, using the sewer, electricity, etc etc etc. And again, on a per item basis, smart bombs are pricey, even though they're getting cheaper all the time. But on a per mission objective achived basis they're VASTLY cheaper.

1 B-2 can do 8 times what a flight of hundreds or even thousands of B-17s and their fighter escorts could do, suffering horrendous casualties. When you consider that most of the economic capital tied up in the plane, was developing the techology, which filters on down to everything from antennas to more fuel efficient, and thus cheaper jetliners, and even lighter but far stronger car parts, B-2s are very cheap. And so it is with this. And UCAVs, and on and on. Really what the military is spending money on is developing better tools, their end game is a better edge of their opposition, but at the end, we all get to keep the tools and know how.

They will be good, if they don't keep gaining wieght and cost.

Australias buying about a 100. It will be the most expensive military purchase in our history but it will be worth it. As it is no one in South East Asia can match Australias air power but with the JSF we shall rule the skies mwhahahaha!

On a side not Australia stupidly bought 50 M1A1s to replace our Leopard 1s. We should have got the Mekerva Mk IV i tells ye. Better for infantry support and infantry is Australias traditional strong point.

WTF is 50 tanks going to do even if they are good tanks. They will be so spread out or so confined they will be useless. We should have got about 150 Merkavas. Mmm Isreali combat proven goodness with supreme infantry support capabilities.

Wicked ;)

-snip-


aww i was hoping it would look like this:
http://www.alliancecollectibles.com/images/eiii/eiiigsarc170.jpg

or this:
http://www.eitechnologygroup.com/images/gallery/illumination/tie_fighter_big.jpg

or perhaps:
https://www.nonstoptoys.com/images/dtri.jpg

As you did say it was star wars like....gahd

They will be good, if they don't keep gaining wieght and cost.

Australias buying about a 100. It will be the most expensive military purchase in our history but it will be worth it. As it is no one in South East Asia can match Australias air power but with the JSF we shall rule the skies mwhahahaha!

On a side not Australia stupidly bought 50 M1A1s to replace our Leopard 1s. We should have got the Mekerva Mk IV i tells ye. Better for infantry support and infantry is Australias traditional strong point.

WTF is 50 tanks going to do even if they are good tanks. They will be so spread out or so confined they will be useless. We should have got about 150 Merkavas. Mmm Isreali combat proven goodness with supreme infantry support capabilities.

You should count yourself lucky.

In Canada, were replacing our Leopards 1s with a Stryker Mobile Gun System....

You should count yourself lucky.

In Canada, were replacing our Leopards 1s with a Stryker Mobile Gun System....


You mean you guys don't use mounties and canoes any more in your armed services?:p