Cool. Yanks like Canada! Guess what we are getting?

Discussion in 'Off Topic International' started by hezey, Feb 23, 2011.

  1. hezey

    hezey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,319
    Location:
    British Columbia, Canada
    I didn't know about this until now, it isn't very new news, but is still pretty cool:

    Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II


    Byin' 70 of em, first batch. there will be more too.
    :turret::joystick::@popcorn::@drunk::@drunk::turret::@drunk::turret::D:@drunk::@drunk::duel:
     
  2. mumble

    mumble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    in a bar
    I'm still unsure how to feel about the F-35 program. I think it might be a turkey. However, they thought the F-16 was crap when it first came out, and I really want to fly one in spite of it.
     
  3. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,690
    Location:
    xUSSR
    germans fucked phantoms and tornados and superstarfightersg and run their lifes to mig-29
     
  4. hezey

    hezey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,319
    Location:
    British Columbia, Canada
    I don't know what it would be like in war. I like the look, I have flown many pretend sightseeing tours in a pretend f35. In the pretend version, nobody was trying to kill me, either pretend kill me or real life kill me. I had fun.
    I know other aircraft are similar. I like them also and I will fly pretend flights of those also.
    I would not like to fly a fighter plane at wartime in real life. I don't think I would like to fly one in a peaceful flight, because I would crash it and die. I don't not want China and the USA or Russian and Chechnya to go to war. I do not want Mexico invaded by Venezuela. That sort of stuff doesn't make me happy. Any of that sort of stuff makes other people happy? Well, I don't want to be drinking at the same table as men who think that way.
    I only like to fly pretend military planes. I like to fly pretend models of those planes in pretend environments like a PC.
    That is what I am writing about.
    Birds are beautiful animals. But when those birds shit all over my lawn furniture, I don't like them very much. When those birds get into my corn and peck away at my crop, I don't like them very much. There are no corn destroying bird simulators and I don't know if I would pay money to use a pretend bird shitting on lawn furniture simulator. Well, maybe if I had a decent PC and the simulation had accomplishable goals that didn't involve any real-life risk to me or my crops....

    I never want to see the USA war against Russia or China or Venezuela or anyone else.

    I wish the industrial complexes of various warlike nations would produce more planes like these ones:










    [​IMG]
     
  5. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,086
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    Useless! There aren't any gun barrels/pods! :D
     
  6. mumble

    mumble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    in a bar
    If that's a L-39, I wouldn't mind having one. I hear they're a lot of fun.
     
  7. looseleaf

    looseleaf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,025
    It's all pointless.

    ALL fighter planes are now have exceeded the g-forces of the human limit of endurance.

    The future will no longer have human pilots but remote equipment "operators" or rather "managers" of robotic flight assets.

    Already in the era of the F-14s most air to air missiles were "shoot and forget" and/or beyond visual range targeting.

    In any war/armed conflict of the future if the goal is air superiority, there will be no need for the "classically trained" fighter pilot.

    IT'S OVER.


    Computer control of missiles, long range, extensive loitering time over target unmanned flying weapons platforms will command the skies of any combat zone of any size territory with the minimum of human management.

    NO MORE "SPAM IN THE CAN".

    Take off, landing, air to air refueling, Bombing, strafing and CAP, all can be performed reliably by computer systems.


    The new adaptive control system in that F-35 is far beyond what any human can do. Even the earliest "fly by wire" systems had to slow down as to not damage the frail life form in charge.

    All this is true with the planes you know NOW.

    Imagine what it's like with those planes no one can talk about......

    Technology is taking away the last romantic notions of air combat.

    Unfortunately it is also obscuring the reality of war; killing.

    In this newer version of war in this digital age, we no longer see the flying body parts, no longer is there the smell of burning flesh, cordite, semtex, fuel.
    No longer is the sound of screaming of agony and death heard.

    It will be one button push, one trackball moving the cross hairs over the blip on the screen and the synthetic voice confirming the destruction of whatever that blip represented.

    No time to contemplate what that was or what that did. Just another X over the O.

    Now mass murder, mass destruction is reduced down to a simple game of PONG.

    :zzz:
     
  8. Red Ant

    Red Ant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Messages:
    4,946
    Location:
    Germany
    That may be the future, but it's definitely not the NEAR future. Manned fighters are here to stay at least for another couple decades.
     
  9. hezey

    hezey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,319
    Location:
    British Columbia, Canada
    Skip the stuff below. It ain't worth shit.
    I am in a mood today.
    I am staring at My End. It is near. I see things short sighted people ain't. I am not alone nor unique. People who are staring at The Grim Reaper, can see a long way. This is typical of those of us who can see that being.

    Busy little humans, too smart for their own good.
    Fuckups


    There is a huge difference between a f16 and a f35. I am 52. I remember the prototype of the f16. I bought a model of it, I loved it. I was 16. My memory of it is clear as day. It was only yesterday. It was 36 years ago. Some people think that 36 years is a long time. That is called short sighted.
    I remember seeing so many salmon on the river next to me that a visitor or fisherman could jump from the backs of one fish to the next.
    When I was 16, there was a lot more forest in the Amazon than there is now.
    When People who lived around the Mediterranean shores were busy cutting down all the cedar, there were forests north Africa and the Middle east. Short sighted historians for some reason fail to widely publish the fact that people, us, humans destroyed those forests. I don't know how long it took. But really, it wasn't long.
    How long did it take for the Netherlands to go from a low plain, to a shallow ocean and then be turned into a low plain again by people?
    We are running out of potable water. Fossil fuels have been burnt, releasing their carbon, stored lovingly inside the globe by The Creator, safely, so we couldn't have to breath it. How long did it take for us to release the djin of carbon pollution?
    Not long, we have 'history' that describes clear night skies.
    There are tortoises that are long lived enough that that they were caged in royal gardens and lived while mankind was riding on the backs of animals, if they were lucky enough to own lands stolen from other, weaker humans.
    Britain is a concentration camp, overcrowded, tense, miserable. Diverted by bread and circuses.
    The USA has risen to great power in a couple hundred years and is now seeing itself pox ridden, desperate, robbing and pillaging to steal resources from other peoples, nations.
    The Chinese are waiting patiently and they will rule, as they have before, Maybe. Now we have nuclear weapons.
    We may see the end of civilization and in our grand-children's time, we will be living on a de-forested salt plains, scrounging for relics, like the Europeans did after Rome collapsed.
    Jews, who write, have a recorded history, so do Chinese, so do Indians. Mexico's cultures were decimated and crushed and enslaved by the Spanish only a few hundred years ago.
    We look at yeast through or gadgets and we shake our heads at their fecundity, their unthinking over-consumption, their desperate attacks on each others' colonies for space and food energy. And then those yeast cultures collapse and we swig the bear they pissed into bottles for us as their populations collapsed, in a few minutes or hours.
    I think nukes are a terrible curse, nukes are liable to eliminate any chance we have, as a species. They are trumps and those trumps don't win the play, the destroy the game, they end the game.
    Bio war, nukes, chemical air, radiation, chemical water, resistant microorganisms, viruses. Drugs that turn active creative humans into idiots. Psych wizardry.
    Jews and Chinese and Indians and the ghosts of the Toltec are far seeing, not short sighted.

    Why fucking bother.

    Yeast.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2011
  10. looseleaf

    looseleaf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,025
    I can assure you that the planes of the F-35 generation will be shot down by robot/ fully autonomous flying weapon platforms.

    It's sooner than you think.

    I'm sorry to say....
     
  11. looseleaf

    looseleaf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,025
    I'll take the Macchi 339 any day.

    I can't believe the Lockheed/Macchi deal went down to that Cessna/pilatus prop joke trainer........



    However I am still in love with the T-38 !!!!!
    :(
     
  12. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,086
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    Well, just need the proper software for those un-manned aircraft and I'll be able to hit the skies. I've got the experience. :D
     
  13. mumble

    mumble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    in a bar
    a.k.a. most expensive warbirds game ever
     
  14. Red Ant

    Red Ant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Messages:
    4,946
    Location:
    Germany
    Gee, how did I miss that? :p

    I realize that machines are not subject to many of the limitations that human pilots are and have many advantages (higher G tolerance, quicker response time, ability to 'do the math' much faster and deal with more complex threat scenarios in less time than it would take a human brain). However, there are a few things in which humans still got a machine beat (and will continue to do so until someone develops a 'real' thinking AI). In a close air support scenario with tons of friendly troops interspersed with hostiles do you really want a machine to make the decision whether a potential target REALLY is a target or just a friendly? Friendly fire is a big enough problem with human pilots at the controls ... it would be a lot worse if all you had were UCAVs. Remember that remote-controlling UCAVs may not be possible if the enemy you're fighting has the ability to jam communications, so the UCAV may have to operate autonomously.

    Maybe some day UCAVs will take over the skies completely, but not just yet. They will continue to become an ever more useful addition to modern air forces, but they aren't going to replace manned aircraft for a while.
     
  15. looseleaf

    looseleaf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,025

    Same way you missed Yuri's day ..... :rolleyes:


    ha ha ha... Red, I disagree.

    When you have flying weapons platform with:

    computer controlled autonomous flight capable of g-forces that would crush the strongest human with any kind of g-suit.

    near instantaneous computing of trajectories, control surface management system( one of the greatest features: the computer analyzes all the control surfaces available (in case of combat damage and/or system failures) and reconfigures flight control to manage flight direction, course speed evasive maneuvers etc.

    Considering that most air to air combat can now be with weapons "out of sight" and "shoot and forget" the "spam in the can" is being more and more a liability than an asset.


    It's a sad day as we lift the fine veil of romanticism of air to air combat, but that is the way of technology.

    Maybe all we will have left is the simulation game....
     
  16. Mcloud

    Mcloud Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    2,438
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
  17. Red Ant

    Red Ant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Messages:
    4,946
    Location:
    Germany
    loose, no disrespect but did you actually READ any of what I wrote? I conceded that in purely air-to-air terms, UCAVs may soon be superior to manned fighters (we aren't there just yet), but air-to-air isn't the only thing fighters are used for. In fact, these days it's not even the primary role. Arguably the main thing NATO / U.S. fighters have been doing in the last couple decades is interdiction / strike / recon / CAS. At present, UCAVs aren't even remotely adequate for ANY of these mission profiles.
     
  18. looseleaf

    looseleaf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,025

    HUmmmm... "for only 75 million each... ooops wait, sorry that will be 129 million each.


    Where can anything like this be allowed in the real world?

    "Bartender, I have a gin martini , shaken and not stirred, how much will that be?"

    "$.375, sir."

    "Thank you, I'll have one"

    Ok, that will be $6.00..

    WTF? You said $3.75...

    Yes, we had a cost over-run, sorry, but it's $6.50 now.


    I'd like to buy that K car, how much?

    $6,000

    OK, let's do the paperwork.

    Wait a minute, this contract is for $10,000!!!!!! WTF??????

    Oh yes, we had a cost over-run... and you did want one with tires and a motor...

    This is bullshit.
     
  19. looseleaf

    looseleaf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,025


    Yes, Red, and I still think that there is no mission a computerized aircraft cannot do that a Human can.

    The Russian shuttles fly themselves to the space station and back.

    NASA had a fully autonomous aircraft take-off go cross country and land by itself.

    This one aircraft was a large as a 747 :

    http://www.hiller.org/condor.shtml
     
  20. Zembla JG13

    Zembla JG13 FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    4,791
    Location:
    .be
    That day has been way past us ever since the Sparrow was succeeded by the AMRAAM.

    Beyond visual range combat makes the reality just as harsh, there's no romanticism out there. An AWACS patrols 300-400km from the hot spot, sees an enemy plane take off, dispatches a few fighters to take it out. The fighters engage at a range of 40-60km. The other fighter, most likely outdated material, doesn't even know what's happening before he's plummeting back down to earth.

    There hasn't been a real air to air war since the Gulf War, and even that one was very one-sided. Planes are becoming just another tool of gunboat diplomacy. Bombing is the main purpose, when/if air to air happens, the opposition's fighterjets will be facing a generation gap that cannot be bridged.

    Maybe it's a good thing that the latest generation of fighterjets hasn't really been up against each other yet.

    Oh, BTW, the F-35 has a 7.5G maneuverability limit or something. A bit like a Super Hornet.

    BTW2: From what I understand, the main purpose/benefit of U(C)AV's is loitering. They can be continuously up there to provide instant air support in case the need arises.

    -Z