The problem with the F35 is the squishy organic component in the cockpit.

The concept of a jet fighter is pointless these days and the idea of a "dogfight" doubly so.

Bet they had to air out that cockpit after landing. Seriously though, she kept flying and followed the instructions to a 'T'. Most things in her life will seem easy compared to this scenario.

Have you ever ridden a 10+ speed or mountain bike for hours on end? Recumbent bikes are far more comfortable, and can facilitate greater pedal power because you have something to push against.
I couldn't figure out why there's no cockpit or fairing. That seems like a design flaw to me....or a planned upgrade at extra cost.

if it's such a bulky machine, why not make it regular bike sitting position with an encloded cockpit? Better visibility and warmer in cold Swedish winters.

I supported the Macs in offices and graphics departments for about 15 years and was a big advocate. Apple used to have a commercial where they compared the stacks of manuals you needed to run a PC, with the small booklet that came with the Mac.

Now every update to iTunes makes me cringe, the GUI is like a cockpit and I feel like I need a stack of manuals to do what used to be simple.

Calling this guy a 'cyclist' is like calling an 8 year old that sits in a plane cockpit a 'pilot'.

I'm sure the pilots were getting a chuckle out of it too. Heck, maybe they were taking their own video from the cockpit. Hmm...

I change my vote from Fake Camp to Real Camp.

I guess it's not that unsafe (proximity to workstations) since it's tethered to the ceiling. They would have to make a serious "back cage" before they un-tether this model - if it fell down it would destroy all those control boards on its back. Also would have to beef up safety in the drivers cockpit (not that I'd ever sign up to be a beta mech driver)

Your video, 360° Video Inside US Attack Helicopter Cockpit, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

A lot of the clips of Spitfires in this are actually Hurricanes (the Spitfire is the one with the bubble canopy). Of course, they had the same engine in them with the same problem.

Great film, though, Battle of Britain. I understand a lot of the effects in it were inspirations for Star Wars (particularly the head on shot of a pilot in his cockpit which is starting to explode around him and then cut to the external shot of the model exploding).

ed: You don't actually see a Spitfire until 0:26 and the plane used as an example doing a roll is a Hurricane.

Bernie or bust.


25 things I trust more than Hillary Clinton:
• Mexican tap water
• A wolverine with a ‘pet me’ sign
• A mixed drink served by Bill Cosby
• A straight shave from Jodi Arias
• An elevator ride with Ray Rice
• Browns going to the Super Bowl
• Brian Williams memory
• Pete Carroll coaching decisions
• Loch Ness monster sightings
• Pinocchio
• The Boy that cried Wolf
• A snapping turtle in a mud bath
• A Nigerian inheritance email
• A pilot alone in the cockpit
• A factory packed parachute
• A test fart in bed with the flu
• Tying Anthony Weiner’s shoes
• Harry Reid’s exercise equipment
• A kiss from Judas
• An Afghan wearing a backpack
• A Dana White apology
• Keeping my healthcare plan
• A North Korean trial
• A BIC pen that won’t leak
• A tuna fish sandwich left on a city bus

The 1970 Bronco would be ok; the occupants inside...
Hmmm.

Cockpit design is the trick, eh?

I'm saying that the F-35 doesn't need to do the job of the A-10 in the same style, because helicopters and drones already fill that loitering style of close air support. And they fill it better than the warthog. Drones loiter better and longer, and helicopters are less vulnerable while having just as much fire power, with the ability to keep enemies suppressed without stopping to turn around and run in again. Helicopters don't even fly that much slower than the A-10 and they have the advantage of being able to stay on the friendly side of the battle-line while firing at the enemy, as well as being able to use terrain as cover.
And fast movers do a better job of delivering bombs.

The warthog was created as a soviet tank killer and hasn't been used in the role ever, since the cold war never became a hot war. It was created in a time where high losses were acceptable. You could argue it was made to fight a war that didn't happen either. But it's been upgraded with all sorts of sensors that are already in helicopters and drones to extend it's role into something it wasn't really designed for in the first place.

I'm not beating up the warthog, it's my 2nd most favourite plane. I've logged some 400+ virtual flying hours in the A-10C in DCS World. I know what every single switch does in the cockpit. And I've dropped thousands of simulated laser and GPS guided bombs, launched thousands of mavericks, and strafed thousands of BMPs. I love the thing really
But it's duties are performed better by a range of modern aircraft now.

The Air Force is quite silly when it comes to close ground support. They never learn that the 'we'll be in and out before they can touch us' doesn't work well.

To give you an idea of what they are planning to return us to with this idea and plane, I refer you to the Vietnam War. The F4 was capable of fast fly-by's, but the problem was that in the foliage it was hard to hit targets at speed. Therefore the F4's had to start reducing speed and take higher attack angles, which caused an issue with the engines. Flameouts and stalls were rampant because the plane was designed for fast fly-by's, not the type of combat it was seeing. Additionally, the slow speed and high AoA EXPOSED the plane to severe enemy return fire. The F-4, by 1 January 1972, ranked second to the F-105 in SEA combat losses-362 (all models), most of them downed by the enemy. Later, in F-4Es alone, the Air Force lost eight in 2 months of intensive combat.

The Air Force found that relying extensively on Helicopters such as the Cobra was ineffective as well. They could deliver good anti-personnel coverage, but not hard targets. They were also slower to arrive to the combat arena. Finally, no helicopter we have ever put in combat, prior to the Apache, has been heavily armored. We don't use Hinds like Russia. The Apache is armored with Kevlar areas and reinforced armor around the cockpit, and has proven effective in open land combat, but has not been extensively tested in areas of high cover during actual combat.

Ironically, the painful lessons learned in Vietnam led to the development of another aircraft, The A-10. Sadly, we are going to waste a ton of money and probably quite a few pilots before we learn this lesson again.

The F-35 can do everything better than any other plane. It's weapons are better, it's senors are better, and it's communication and situational awareness is much better. Thanks to the stealth, it has better survivability.

The only area it has some disadvantages in performance are the acceleration and maneuverability. Which is a small disadvantage, it still accelerates incredibly fast, just slower than a lighter plane, which is just physics. But it's not a slouch by any means. Plus the maneuverability is still being worked on, it's all fly by wire and they can do some really magic things with those systems once it's all tuned. They haven't started pushing it to the limits yet from what I've heard. (and honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole "our plane sucks" thing was another tactic of spreading misinformation).

Here's the other thing. The F-16 can out maneuver and out accelerate the F-35. But every Russian fighter can out accelerate and out maneuver the F-16, anyway. Yet the F-16 always comes out on top. Why is that? Superior sensors, weapons, comms and tactics.

The F-35 is the best plane to achieve air superiority, because not many pilots have a death wish. Air combat is about survival, not about kills. Even in the Gulf war, the Iraqi's didn't want to fly against the F-15s because they knew they'd get just get shot down. They never even took off. So imagine how they would feel against a plane that can't be detected, let alone locked onto. A plane that can lock onto you and fire without you knowing. Not a good feeling knowing that at any moment you could explode without warning.

The A-10 is bullet proof, but not missile proof. It's a sitting duck against shoulder mounted IGLA's. Only the cockpit is bullet proof BTW which is great for the pilot, but not so great for the rest of the plane

I agree that the F-35 for the current war is overkill, but electronics and technology keeps getting cheaper day by day, and in 10 years time, even the current enemies will start buying more sophisticated systems. It's better to be prepared. As being reactionary like in WW2 and Vietnam was quite costly to the lives of allied forces. The F-35 will probably be in service for another 30 years, so it needs to try to meet as many requirements as it can for that time period, until the next plane comes out shooting lasers instead of missiles.

Also close air support these days is already done mostly by soft skin planes like the F-16. So not much difference there. Apart from the expense I guess. It's not low and slow either. You have a plane fly at such speed and high altitude the people on the ground never even know about it.


If you feel like it I'll give you a game of DCS World some time. It's a free flight sim (also used to train US national guard and other nations too). It really demonstrates the value of good sensors and weapons over flight performance

Now when it comes to being a waste of money, only time will tell. I guess either way it's win win though, because if there is no conflict that needs this plane it's only a good thing. And if there is a conflict we have the plane ready. But for the time being it really does seem like it's a waste of money. A lot of money, especially in a time of debt.