XD45 7,124 Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 What a piece of SHIT. https://www.yahoo.com/news/usaf-paint-trucks-because-f-35-t-fly-033918678.html 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thebuns1 4,323 Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Yeah. At least it looks cool. Lol. Thing is a piece of shit. Too bad they want to keep dumping money into a proven shitty piece of work. Why won't they just scale down an SR71 and go from there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
james lambert 3,059 Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 The concept of KISS keep it simple stupid was lost long ago. plumbing fuel around the airframe as a coolant may sound good but I dont think its such a good idea 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DLT 1,646 Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Total piece of shit. They should rename it the F35 Maxi-pad. Discard after one use. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HB of CJ 1,263 Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Perhaps it is not using fuel as a coolant, which has been around for 70 years, but the naggy fact that this aircraft is not. Still has not even flown up to expectations. I suggest the top 5 people and the connected politicians who are making the real money off this disaster should be taken out behind the chemical building and taught a very big lesson. HB of CJ (old coot) 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rhodes1968 1,638 Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Damn I just spit coffee all over my damned screen. I know you aint but it just has to be said... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ronin38 2,117 Posted December 10, 2014 Report Share Posted December 10, 2014 Somehow, I find this story VERY hard to believe... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
XD45 7,124 Posted December 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2014 From my view inside the defense industry I find this story all too easy to believe. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sim_Player 1,939 Posted December 10, 2014 Report Share Posted December 10, 2014 It actually makes perfect sense, especially if they are pushing the engine to it's limits. I don't understand whether it concerns the engine or the cooling of other system components. I still can't believe they scrapped the F-22. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Garys4598 1,065 Posted December 10, 2014 Report Share Posted December 10, 2014 Fucktarded. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted December 10, 2014 Report Share Posted December 10, 2014 Meh.... The B-52 had worse teething pains, and they will be the go to Bomber for 100 years! When fielding a new weapons platform, if it works perfectly the first time, that means that the technology is already obsolete. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bobthetomato 15 Posted December 10, 2014 Report Share Posted December 10, 2014 Don't worry. I'm sure the will accept 2 billion dollars to fix the problem. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thebuns1 4,323 Posted December 11, 2014 Report Share Posted December 11, 2014 I'm gunna save up for an A10. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Capt Nemo 882 Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 It's just like the Army's LHX program that tried to build a light super attack helicopter. They overloaded it with so much shit that when you had the spec'd loiter time, you only had the firepower of the two .38's the pilots were carrying. And it was supposed to be as lethal as a company of Apache's, but only carried 8 Hellfires, and 500 rounds in the gun. The Army spent billions on that piece o shit! Have seen the F-22 in airshow manuvers. ONE MUTHAFUCKIN SCARRY PLANE!!!!!!!! Love to pay taxes to support those! Remember the F-20? An F-5 with an engine powerful enough to match the capabilities of the airframe, with the same abilities, and half the price of the F-16. But it didn't look as "cool". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sim_Player 1,939 Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) This is the country that built the SR-71. Cutting-edge tech costs money. Lots of it. Suck it up. Most contracts specify requirements and then, when they are met, the military adds heavy weaponry that defeats the airframe advantages. Edited December 19, 2014 by Sim_Player 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DLT 1,646 Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 All the F22 airs how maneuvers I've seen pale in comparison to some mig 29 and SU27 stunts. But since one costs a hell of a lot more than the other, maybe that's why our planes don't appear to perform as well. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thebuns1 4,323 Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Its too bad a lot of our electronics are made in China. Always been a fan of SU series. But I wish I was rich enough to have my own F18. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ruffian72 548 Posted December 20, 2014 Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 Well, fuel temp. (hot)is an issue with many motors. Usually unexpected due to modern injection and amount of return/bypass. 1st electronic injection diesel heavy truck motors, especially Detroit Diesels, others that fallowed learned from their issues, also major issue is the EPA constant changes of regs on fuel, causes issues not in original design, older fuel grades that were used prior to new formulas/additives/grades. Different scale yet same type issue on older diesels or gas motors. Performance or actual components fail, especially on Bio-fuel the gov. has mandated on military hardware. Hero, those China electronics WILL be an issue some day. Many of our weapons systems will fail, if certain people decide to go to a hot war. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
patriot 7,197 Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Most contracts specify requirements and then, when they are met, the military adds heavy weaponry that defeats the airframe advantages. The A-10 Warthog is the exception to that rule. They handed Fairchild a GAU-8 and said "I want this to fly". They gave us one HELL of a tank-killin' close support aircraft! There's STILL no replacement for it! That 30mm autocannon is a beautiful sound when it's pointed at our enemies. It flies. They dies. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vulcan16 971 Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 The concept of KISS keep it simple stupid was lost long ago. plumbing fuel around the airframe as a coolant may sound good but I dont think its such a good idea Commercial airliners have been doing this for decades. Several major components are cooled by fuel. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lone Eagle 839 Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 Most contracts specify requirements and then, when they are met, the military adds heavy weaponry that defeats the airframe advantages. The A-10 Warthog is the exception to that rule. They handed Fairchild a GAU-8 and said "I want this to fly". They gave us one HELL of a tank-killin' close support aircraft! There's STILL no replacement for it! That 30mm autocannon is a beautiful sound when it's pointed at our enemies. It flies. They dies. I remember my uncle(retired Army TI/crash inspector) telling me stories of when they were still testing the platform. The recoil of the GAU-8 can literally stall the plane if the pilot fires too long of a burst. The pilots have to learn how to open the throttles at the same time they fire to keep from stalling and crashing, while maintaining a target lock. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.