Sometimes I wish aliens would invade. Evil aliens. With appropriately similar mechanical and technical knowledge. Like Macross!

they forgot to mention it needs a specialized runway to land on - its engines simply melt any other ordinary landing surface

huh.... the harrier is 40 years old. this is cool, but hardly impressive.

The Harrier is to the F35 as the Sopwith Camel is to the Eurofighter.

Ok, thats hyperbole, but the Harrier was pretty limited. I wasn't supersonic for a start, no stealth capabilities, fairly limited air to air/manoeuverability etc. No gun for ground attack either.

Personally I think its a pretty incredible feat of engineering. On the flip side its going to cost the US taxpayer $320billion.

>> ^Jinx:

The Harrier is to the F35 as the Sopwith Camel is to the Eurofighter.
Ok, thats hyperbole, but the Harrier was pretty limited. I wasn't supersonic for a start, no stealth capabilities, fairly limited air to air/manoeuverability etc. No gun for ground attack either.
Personally I think its a pretty incredible feat of engineering. On the flip side its going to cost the US taxpayer $320billion.


It's a cool plane and all, but that number is absolutely insane.

$320 BILLION dollars.

Yeah, cut medical care, cut schooling, cut spending on space exploration, but don't touch the spending on making a fucking aeroplane for killing people.

And we wonder if countries have their priorities right when it comes to spending money.

and...because of drones, it is largely irrelevant.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^Jinx:
The Harrier is to the F35 as the Sopwith Camel is to the Eurofighter.
Ok, thats hyperbole, but the Harrier was pretty limited. I wasn't supersonic for a start, no stealth capabilities, fairly limited air to air/manoeuverability etc. No gun for ground attack either.
Personally I think its a pretty incredible feat of engineering. On the flip side its going to cost the US taxpayer $320billion.

It's a cool plane and all, but that number is absolutely insane.
$320 BILLION dollars.
Yeah, cut medical care, cut schooling, cut spending on space exploration, but don't touch the spending on making a fucking aeroplane for killing people.
And we wonder if countries have their priorities right when it comes to spending money.

But but but it creates jobs! But then so do oil spills.


Nasa's annual budget is what, about 18billion USD? Somebody smart and probably equally evil once discovered how to tap the limitless resource of fear. They got pretty rich.

>> ^kulpims:

they forgot to mention it needs a specialized runway to land on - its engines simply melt any other ordinary landing surface


Do you have a citation for that?

I think this video is damn impressive. This is clearly a huge leap from the Harrier.

It's a ridiculously expensive weapons program, but it is also a large scale program. F-35's are hardly the most annoying weapons we invest in. The F-22 or B-2 are far more annoying because the number of units is too small to mitigate the extreme development costs. It's pointless to develop an aircraft if you're not making 1,000 of them. This aircraft could easily see 2, 3, 4, or 5 thousand airframes built and sold internationally.

But anyway, I agree that our military budget, especially these money pit programs, should be severely curtailed.

Okay this is really cool and I think it's awesome.

But someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's really sad that they have to like put a soundtrack and special effects and whatever to sell this thing to our government. I mean....why can't they video tape it and be like "blah blah blah jet propulsion blah blah blah I'm wearing a labcoat". It really makes me feel like everyone in the Defense Department is like "YEAHHH WOOOOOOOOO ROCK OUT LOOK AT THAT THING GO!"

@Jinx, @spoco2

It's the most amazing white elephant I think I've ever seen take flight.

I thought they cut the VTOL version of the F-35 because of the rising cost of development?

Just a note, the F-22 production costs are currently more expensive than the F-35, but that's because the F-35 hasn't ramped up to full production yet. Once that becomes the case, the F-35 will end up costing more until its production stabilizes, and by that time the F-22 will end up dropping in price. Also of note, the F-22 surpasses the F-35 in most combat capabilities, be it air-to-air or air-to-ground. It has the capability of carrying more armaments, and a greater variety of armaments. It also has a better stealth aspect, higher speed, longer fuel range, and better maneuverability.
That's not to say that the F-35 is unnecessary. It's quicker to deploy and has better carrier capabilities. This is what it needs to fulfill its role as a strike fighter, whereas the F-22 is a superiority fighter.
This is why the F-15 Eagle has been in use for such a long time, alongside the F-16 Falcon, and the F-18 Hornet. While the Eagle was the main superiority fighter until the F-22, the Hornet and Falcon are carrier-capable, making their deployment easier.

Okay, wandered off for a bit there . . . long story short, fighter jets r cool.

Sure it looks cool. The technology is extremely impressive. BUT the cash can be far better spent elsewhere. When citizens in this country are dealing with poverty and economic collapse, buying a fighter jet is plain stupid.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'F35b, jet, vertical landing, lockheed martin' to 'F35b, jet, vertical landing, lockheed martin, stovl, jump jet, duct fan' - edited by calvados

It's what I always say: You need a 21. century aircraft designed to fight 21. century aircraft to fight tiny 20. century armies with a small/non-existant airforce.

I'm not seeing anything impressive about this. The jet engine has been around for a long time, and the Harrier was doing this forty years ago. The only difference is the electronics controlling it, and you can see that in action in a £200 model helicopter I can control with my phone.

The only reaction this video got from me was a 'why has it taken them so long to do this and why do people think it's impressive?'

>> ^robbersdog49:

I'm not seeing anything impressive about this. The jet engine has been around for a long time, and the Harrier was doing this forty years ago. The only difference is the electronics controlling it, and you can see that in action in a £200 model helicopter I can control with my phone.
The only reaction this video got from me was a 'why has it taken them so long to do this and why do people think it's impressive?'


You could make the same comparison in computers, or cars. This isn't a revolution in planes, but an evolution. And is still thrilling to people who love this type of thing. Why would you see an action movie, seen one seen'em all? Then answer is you like seeing them. @Jinx summed it up quite well, it has a huge power plant enabling supersonic flight and maintain a VERY highly stable hover state without using as much fuel. Even with that huge power plant and strange mechanical and aerodynamic arrangements to accommodate vertical abilities, manages to be "stelthy".

The beauty of some things is the combination of abilities that are normally thought to be mutually exclusive. It would be the same as a truck coming out that can carry 2 tons and still get better gas millage than a Prius, very worthy to note. If NASA came out with a new shuttle that was highly refined and enabled 4 times as much payload into space, would you knock it because "shuttles are 30 years old"?

War is hell, but learning chinese would be worse.

My question is.. will we ever actually use it? The F22 was damn impressive but because we no longer have any enemies with any real air force capability it was simply never used. I can see the whole 'but someday we might' attitude but to me that's bunk. I mean even if we invaded Iran, their airforce consists largely of 80's aircraft that we gave them, F4 Phantoms, F86 Sabers. Their most up to date aircraft are defunct F14's we purposefully sold them without given them any repair manuals and defective parts and some MiG-29's that the Russians gave them that are likewise as defunct. Sure they have a lot of these but against US or European aircraft such as the F-35 or Europe's modern Typhoon or Sukhoi SU-47, a country like Iran would be outmatched dramatically and a confrontation for air space would likely be over in weeks and we'd likely barely loose a single fighter thanks to modern fly-by-wire and 'fire and forget' weapons.

So in the end I just don't see the point. This is corporate welfare at it's finest.

I'm curious, what would happen if you shot a few rounds into that giant open target that has to come up when it goes into the air? If it slid back I feel like it would be hard to hit from the ground, but the way that thing pops up, feels like you to shoot into it and probably get material to fall into that intake and cause a crash or explosion.

Or if you are an action hero, lob a grenade against that backboard and just 3-point that fucker out of the air.

As long as this thing can rain fire and brimstone and unleash the hounds of hell on brown people, then the U.S. is happy enough to catch the bill.

What's great about this is it can stop still in the air and wait for protesters to come out before firing.

>> ^cito:

As long as this thing can rain fire and brimstone and unleash the hounds of hell on brown people, then the U.S. is happy enough to catch the bill.


That's a bit harsh. I'm sure they save the Hellhounds for gays and lesbians who want to get married.

Yawn.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2011USbt_12bs1n_40#usgs302

Defense is 16% of the budget. Health, Education and Welfare are all close.



>> ^honkeytonk73:

Sure it looks cool. The technology is extremely impressive. BUT the cash can be far better spent elsewhere. When citizens in this country are dealing with poverty and economic collapse, buying a fighter jet is plain stupid.

>> ^Xaielao:
Sure they have a lot of these but against US or European aircraft such as the F-35 or Europe's modern Typhoon or Sukhoi SU-47, a country like Iran would be outmatched dramatically and a confrontation for air space would likely be over in weeks and we'd likely barely loose a single fighter thanks to modern fly-by-wire and 'fire and forget' weapons.
So in the end I just don't see the point.


Uh, I think you already hit the point.

>> ^robbersdog49:
I'm not seeing anything impressive about this. The jet engine has been around for a long time, and the Harrier was doing this forty years ago. The only difference is the electronics controlling it, and you can see that in action in a £200 model helicopter I can control with my phone.

So... why aren't you in there bidding on next-gen fighter development contracts?

>> ^quantumushroom:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2011USbt_12bs1n_
40#usgs302
Defense is 16% of the budget. Health, Education and Welfare are all close.

>> ^honkeytonk73:
Sure it looks cool. The technology is extremely impressive. BUT the cash can be far better spent elsewhere. When citizens in this country are dealing with poverty and economic collapse, buying a fighter jet is plain stupid.



Are you saying this as if it's right?

You spend more on building and maintaining things for killing people than you do on teaching people (16% vs 14%), you spend a lot more on killing people than caring for those in need (16% vs 11%), only a fraction of what is spent on war is spent on giving decent transportation to you all (16% vs 4%), and healthcare is barely above war (16% vs 18%)... What if... crazy, I know, what if you cut that spending, that $964 BILLION (That's almost a fricken TRILLION dollars) in half... you'd have $480 BILLION to spend on BETTER things than armies and fucking weapons.

It's utterly sickening that your healthcare and education are scrounging for funds when that insane amount of money is available for use.

Sickening.

Yes, please come to a DEAD HALT in the sky -- I'm sure there's no small number of AA/GA missiles that would love a stationary target belching heat.

>> ^quantumushroom:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2011USbt_12bs1n_
40#usgs302
Defense is 16% of the budget. Health, Education and Welfare are all close.

>> ^honkeytonk73:
Sure it looks cool. The technology is extremely impressive. BUT the cash can be far better spent elsewhere. When citizens in this country are dealing with poverty and economic collapse, buying a fighter jet is plain stupid.



Uh, you quoted the wrong table--that table is the aggregate of all federal, state, and local spending, which drastically dilutes the numbers. The actual federal table is here: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_US_fed

You can see that defense is 25% of the federal budget. Second comes health care at 23% (Medicade, etc.), and third comes pensions at 21% (Social Security). Education, which I would argue is probably the greatest defense against warfare, gets a whopping 3% nod from the feds.

Defending a $320 billion jet program by highlighting its efficiency?>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^robbersdog49:
I'm not seeing anything impressive about this. The jet engine has been around for a long time, and the Harrier was doing this forty years ago. The only difference is the electronics controlling it, and you can see that in action in a £200 model helicopter I can control with my phone.
The only reaction this video got from me was a 'why has it taken them so long to do this and why do people think it's impressive?'

You could make the same comparison in computers, or cars. This isn't a revolution in planes, but an evolution. And is still thrilling to people who love this type of thing. Why would you see an action movie, seen one seen'em all? Then answer is you like seeing them. @Jinx summed it up quite well, it has a huge power plant enabling supersonic flight and maintain a VERY highly stable hover state without using as much fuel. Even with that huge power plant and strange mechanical and aerodynamic arrangements to accommodate vertical abilities, manages to be "stelthy".
The beauty of some things is the combination of abilities that are normally thought to be mutually exclusive. It would be the same as a truck coming out that can carry 2 tons and still get better gas millage than a Prius, very worthy to note. If NASA came out with a new shuttle that was highly refined and enabled 4 times as much payload into space, would you knock it because "shuttles are 30 years old"?

No one is saying it is money well spent, except you. But that doesn't mean you can't marvel at what it is. Pyramids are a terrible example of slave labor, but they are still impressive. Governments are good at spending money, every once in awhile, the product of their spending is very impressive...even if ill conceived.

>> ^messenger:

Defending a $320 billion jet program by highlighting its efficiency?>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^robbersdog49:
I'm not seeing anything impressive about this. The jet engine has been around for a long time, and the Harrier was doing this forty years ago. The only difference is the electronics controlling it, and you can see that in action in a £200 model helicopter I can control with my phone.
The only reaction this video got from me was a 'why has it taken them so long to do this and why do people think it's impressive?'

You could make the same comparison in computers, or cars. This isn't a revolution in planes, but an evolution. And is still thrilling to people who love this type of thing. Why would you see an action movie, seen one seen'em all? Then answer is you like seeing them. @Jinx summed it up quite well, it has a huge power plant enabling supersonic flight and maintain a VERY highly stable hover state without using as much fuel. Even with that huge power plant and strange mechanical and aerodynamic arrangements to accommodate vertical abilities, manages to be "stelthy".
The beauty of some things is the combination of abilities that are normally thought to be mutually exclusive. It would be the same as a truck coming out that can carry 2 tons and still get better gas millage than a Prius, very worthy to note. If NASA came out with a new shuttle that was highly refined and enabled 4 times as much payload into space, would you knock it because "shuttles are 30 years old"?

FTFY
>> ^criticalthud:

and...because of drones, it is utterly irrelevant.


Actually, and while I'm on this soapbox, @EMPIRE is right. By the title of this video, I though I was going to see something impressive, like landing on a vertical surface. Sure there are aspects of the F35 that are impressive, but VTOL is not one of them.

It's kinda like showing off a smart phone and going "it's a smartphone THAT MAKES PHONECALLS!!"

That said, while I am philosophically and pragmatically opposed to spending billions on flying killing machines that don't even have an enemy to fight, fighter jets are generally some of the most impressive bits of engineering around.

>> ^lantern53:

War is hell, but learning chinese would be worse.


Don't worry, the Chinese will never invade. They will simply foreclose.

Sorry your healthcare provider thinks you living for 6 more months isnt worth the 10k it'll cost. But have you seen this frickin awesome plane!?

I just want to know when the plane will transform into a giant robot so I can finish my pubescent Macross masturbation session.

>> ^kulpims:

they forgot to mention it needs a specialized runway to land on - its engines simply melt any other ordinary landing surface


Sure it needs a specialized runway, it's called China.

>> ^artician:

Sometimes I wish aliens would invade. Evil aliens. With appropriately similar mechanical and technical knowledge. Like Macross!


Or if it was like an alien invasion like in Robotech it'd be much cooler!

God, you people really are dead inside. bla bla it costs bla bla. It kills bla bla. bla bla moral high ground bla bla.

Its sad the only people who show any imagination anymore are the damn trolls.
Keep rehashing the same old myths over and over and it amounts to nothing.
its the Japanese No the Saudi's! No, its China! buying out the US!

No its just all FUD.

IT's a friken jet that can take off and land vertically!

True but,
the F35 is a Joint Strike Fighter. The JSF program is supposed to replace a wide variety of aging plane models (F-16, F-18, A-10, F117, etc.) It is one program that has two types of engines fitting in one plane. I think this is a better approach than updating one fighter/bomber/strike fighter at a time. Military programs like the JSF or UAV are used as a deterrent and we should always invest in them because they serve as a great political tool for Foreign policy, and as a great research tool for the our economy and the advancement of human achievement. It is because of programs like these that we have not used a Nuke or Dirty bomb in the last 50 years. Conventional warfare is still critical, whether you agree with it or not. If you want to blame our bullying around the world, then blame the politicians for that. That's a strategic failure, not an operational failure.

As for the space program. The U.S. is still spending tremendously into the space program through the U.S. Air Force. NASA has taken the passenger seat for all things critical when it comes to space, and I agree with that decision completely.

I support research programs like the JSF or the Air Force's GPS program among many other de-classified projects; however, I do not support the DOJ/DEA/ATF and 90% of the TSA. I think those departments are worthless and their funds could be used for education and healthcare.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^Jinx:
The Harrier is to the F35 as the Sopwith Camel is to the Eurofighter.
Ok, thats hyperbole, but the Harrier was pretty limited. I wasn't supersonic for a start, no stealth capabilities, fairly limited air to air/manoeuverability etc. No gun for ground attack either.
Personally I think its a pretty incredible feat of engineering. On the flip side its going to cost the US taxpayer $320billion.

It's a cool plane and all, but that number is absolutely insane.
$320 BILLION dollars.
Yeah, cut medical care, cut schooling, cut spending on space exploration, but don't touch the spending on making a fucking aeroplane for killing people.
And we wonder if countries have their priorities right when it comes to spending money.

War. Huh! Yeah! What are you good for? This.

I, for one, welcome more war if it gets us cool shit like this!

A US Navy report from the Naval Facilities Engineering Command published in January says that the jet efflux will “melt the top surface of asphalt pavements and is likely to spall the surface of standard concrete pavements” and that there are “no identified sealants that can survive a significant number of vertical landings”. It recommends that vertical landings are only made on specially designed continuous concrete pads (with no joints) of at least 100ft square.

A similar report published by the US Navy in November 2009 said that aircraft carrier decks will require significant strengthening to withstand the risk of buckling under the high temperatures generated by the F-35B.

http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/view_news.asp?ID=1749

The Harrier could also be used for vertical takeoff if required (VTOL), which I believe is not possible with the F35 (STOVL)?

>> ^Jinx:

The Harrier is to the F35 as the Sopwith Camel is to the Eurofighter.
Ok, thats hyperbole, but the Harrier was pretty limited. I wasn't supersonic for a start, no stealth capabilities, fairly limited air to air/manoeuverability etc. No gun for ground attack either.

>> ^ponceleon:

I'm curious, what would happen if you shot a few rounds into that giant open target that has to come up when it goes into the air? If it slid back I feel like it would be hard to hit from the ground, but the way that thing pops up, feels like you to shoot into it and probably get material to fall into that intake and cause a crash or explosion.
Or if you are an action hero, lob a grenade against that backboard and just 3-point that fucker out of the air.


Designed by the same person as the Death Star?