tbh the reddit post said romanian, and it reminded me of those vlad! supersonic videos that were romanian or yugoslavian or something

It sometimes bugs me when people assume a "sonic boom" only occurs when the aircraft passes into, and then out of, supersonic flight. When in fact, the boom is a pressure wave that continuously propogates along the flight path, more of a "sonic roar" and only a boom because YOU aren't moving.


(ps. this isn't a comment on anything people have said here, just anecdotal)

Tags for this video have been changed from 'f18, jet, airplane, speed, mach 1, shock wave, halo, supersonic, fly over' to 'f18, jet, airplane, speed, mach 1, shock wave, halo, supersonic, fly over, flyby' - edited by calvados

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.

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.

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"?

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"?

>> ^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"?

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

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.

I wonder if architectural engineers ever saw this footage before and if it would help them more accurately model WTC2's collapse..
---------

I was on R train riding to work, while at the last stop in Brooklyn conductor announced that "due to smoke conditions" at WTC station my train would be skipping that stop. So I got out a stop earlier at 'White Hall' station. I had no idea what was going on. I had my headphones on listening to music. The moment I stepped outside I heard a noise as if a helicopter and then a loud boom. I thought that was just a supersonic boom of a plane. I saw people on the street looking up in the sky and thought to myself why they are looking up in the sky, if that was a supersonic boom that plane was long gone. I still had no idea what was going on. As I got closer to my office, I crossed Wall St and suddenly I felt something like dust/dirt/tiny shards of glass falling on me and large amount of papers flying around. By the time I got to Maiden Ln where my office was I could clearly see what was happening.

If I hadn't gotten off one stop earlier, I think I would have been stuck on that train under WTC....... ;(

Agreed.

And thanks for overlooking any snarkiness in my original comment (it was submitted pre-coffee).
>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^bamdrew:
(Psst)... hey... letting you in on a secret... NASA's not dead.
New bot (Curiosity) launching to Mars later this year; should land Aug. 2012.
Also, Opportunity found a fucking amazing rock just this week; search out that shit if you're interested.
I'm actually very excited by the new direction in manned space exploration... essentially a focus on funding technology development and testing to make near earth orbit commonplace. http://www.nasa.gov/about/whats_next.html
>> ^Boise_Lib:
This is a great video.
RIP US space program.


You're absolutely correct. NASA's alive I'm just mad at the politicians.
I'm anxiously awaiting the arrival at Pluto of the Horizon. Last I heard that will be in 2015-16.
I've always said that in order to have a better manned space program--build more robots. Build a bunch of little ones and spread them all over Mars.

>> ^bamdrew:

(Psst)... hey... letting you in on a secret... NASA's not dead.
New bot (Curiosity) launching to Mars later this year; should land Aug. 2012.
Also, Opportunity found a fucking amazing rock just this week; search out that shit if you're interested.
I'm actually very excited by the new direction in manned space exploration... essentially a focus on funding technology development and testing to make near earth orbit commonplace. http://www.nasa.gov/about/whats_next.html
>> ^Boise_Lib:
This is a great video.
RIP US space program.



You're absolutely correct. NASA's alive I'm just mad at the politicians.

I'm anxiously awaiting the arrival at Pluto of the Horizon. Last I heard that will be in 2015-16.

I've always said that in order to have a better manned space program--build more robots. Build a bunch of little ones and spread them all over Mars.

(Psst)... hey... letting you in on a secret... NASA's not dead.

New bot (Curiosity) launching to Mars later this year; should land Aug. 2012.

Also, Opportunity found a fucking amazing rock just this week; search out that shit if you're interested.

I'm actually very excited by the new direction in manned space exploration... essentially a focus on funding technology development and testing to make near earth orbit commonplace. http://www.nasa.gov/about/whats_next.html

>> ^Boise_Lib:

This is a great video.
RIP US space program.