The F-35 Lightning II

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > The F-35 Lightning II

Pidgin Englishman: Apr 30, 2007; If you shoot
you better hit your mark

Stubby little wings? Check
Internal payload limiting capabilities? Check
Advanced coatings causing severe operational limitations? Check
Limited cockpit visibility? Check
Arguably ineffective communist knock-off? Check

# ? Dec 29, 2016 21:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 19, 2024 15:34

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Let's be fair, every one of the space shuttles flew multiple missions before exploding or being grounded.

# ? Dec 29, 2016 22:07

Seizure Meat: Jul 23, 2008; by Smythe

Nenonen posted:

Let's be fair, every one of the space shuttles flew multiple missions before exploding or being grounded.

but also to be fair, it was hamstrung by capability creep instituted on it by the defense apparatus of this country

the entire reason it had that cargo bay and that sweet rear end robot arm and the ability to be launched, landed and relaunched quickly was because it needed to snatch Soviet satellites per the CIA etc

that's why the intelligence community has a mini-shuttle drone thing no one talks about to this day

# ? Dec 29, 2016 22:14

Cactus Ghost: Dec 20, 2003; you can actually inflate your scrote pretty safely with sterile saline, syringes, needles, and aseptic technique. its a niche kink iirc

the saline just slowly gets absorbed into your blood but in the meantime you got a big round smooth distended nutsack

thats actually a pretty apt comparison

or rather, it will be if and when the f35 ends up being cool as hell and totally redeems itself

# ? Dec 29, 2016 22:33

Seizure Meat: Jul 23, 2008; by Smythe

like, people forget that the shuttle never really came in for a landing, it actually crashed in a very rapid, yet extremely controlled manner

seriously, that things glide slope was like a dude jumping from the WTC

e- look at this poo poo

# ? Dec 29, 2016 22:37

theflyingexecutive: Apr 22, 2007

Nenonen posted:

Let's be fair, every one of the space shuttles flew multiple missions before exploding or being grounded.

they did for sure, but the system was pitched as a launch per month with a 150-launch life per shuttle

# ? Dec 29, 2016 22:42

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

theflyingexecutive posted:

they did for sure, but the system was pitched as a launch per month with a 150-launch life per shuttle

Who knows, maybe F-35 is a developmental dead-end or then it's the 21st century Sopwith Camel. But at least the space shuttle was truly vertical take-off capable...

# ? Dec 29, 2016 23:19

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

VikingSkull posted:

like, people forget that the shuttle never really came in for a landing, it actually crashed in a very rapid, yet extremely controlled manner

seriously, that things glide slope was like a dude jumping from the WTC

e- look at this poo poo

The actual landing looks pretty normal?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ189a3Wnk4&t=179s

# ? Dec 29, 2016 23:22

Seizure Meat: Jul 23, 2008; by Smythe

Strudel Man posted:

The actual landing looks pretty normal?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ189a3Wnk4&t=179s

it's flaring like a parachutist does when they land

the entire time before that it's dropping like a rock, and it had a touchdown speed like 70mph higher than a jetliner

# ? Dec 29, 2016 23:32

theflyingexecutive: Apr 22, 2007

Nenonen posted:

Who knows, maybe F-35 is a developmental dead-end or then it's the 21st century Sopwith Camel. But at least the space shuttle was truly vertical take-off capable...

haha the f35 is one place where I can never tell if someone is joking

# ? Dec 29, 2016 23:34

sullat: Jan 9, 2012

Thoguh posted:

Given Turkey's geographic location they'd have to basically declare war on NATO to get kicked out.

This would be true in a world where "facts" mattered. If only we lived in one.

# ? Dec 30, 2016 01:43

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

VikingSkull posted:

like, people forget that the shuttle never really came in for a landing, it actually crashed in a very rapid, yet extremely controlled manner

that's every plane ever except maybe the An-2 and the Fieseler Storch

# ? Dec 30, 2016 02:07

logikv9: Mar 5, 2009; Ham Wrangler

Humans move thanks to controlled falls

# ? Dec 30, 2016 02:08

Seizure Meat: Jul 23, 2008; by Smythe

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

that's every plane ever except maybe the An-2 and the Fieseler Storch

not many have a 4.5:1* glide slope and a rate of descent of 9,800 feet per minute though

*or 1:1 on initial reentry

# ? Dec 30, 2016 02:12

Prav: Oct 29, 2011

any landing your body can be recovered from is a good landing

# ? Dec 30, 2016 02:13

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

VikingSkull posted:

not many have a 4.5:1* glide slope and a rate of descent of 9,800 feet per minute though

*or 1:1 on initial reentry

Not many start out in LEO going 17,500 mph either

# ? Dec 30, 2016 06:21

Yinlock: Oct 22, 2008

logikv9 posted:

Humans move thanks to controlled falls

uh how can i be falling if i'm standing up, duh idiot

# ? Dec 30, 2016 06:47

Thoguh: Nov 8, 2002; College Slice

VikingSkull posted:

it's flaring like a parachutist does when they land

the entire time before that it's dropping like a rock, and it had a touchdown speed like 70mph higher than a jetliner

It's coming in at an orbital velocity, of course it has a different approach that a jetliner. That landing looks pretty normal so I'm not sure why you think it is wierd for a space plane.

# ? Dec 30, 2016 07:11

Thoguh: Nov 8, 2002; College Slice

VikingSkull posted:

not many have a 4.5:1* glide slope and a rate of descent of 9,800 feet per minute though

*or 1:1 on initial reentry

You are a very stupid person who should stop trying to post about spaceflight.

# ? Dec 30, 2016 07:12

Thoguh: Nov 8, 2002; College Slice

Of all the things you could complain about with the Shuttle, 'comes in hot like a carrier landing' isn't even on the scale since it was designed for that and never once failed a landing.

# ? Dec 30, 2016 07:21

byob historian: Nov 5, 2008; I'm an animal abusing piece of shit! I deliberately poisoned my dog to death and think it's funny! I'm an irredeemable sack of human shit!

Thoguh posted:

You are a very stupid person who should stop trying to post about spaceflight.

you made a triple post without a single joke and youre calling out stupid?

# ? Dec 30, 2016 10:54

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

You know who's stupid?

F-35

# ? Dec 30, 2016 11:26

Seizure Meat: Jul 23, 2008; by Smythe

Thoguh posted:

Of all the things you could complain about with the Shuttle, 'comes in hot like a carrier landing' isn't even on the scale since it was designed for that and never once failed a landing.

perhaps, and this is crazy, my original point was that the shuttle was bogged down by defense requirements and prolly would have been better suited as a spaceplane if the spaceplane people had total control over the program

nope, be pedantic about it you'll feel better

e- also I'm pretty sure one failed in a landing attempt

Seizure Meat has issued a correction as of 12:33 on Dec 30, 2016

# ? Dec 30, 2016 12:20

Cactus Ghost: Dec 20, 2003; you can actually inflate your scrote pretty safely with sterile saline, syringes, needles, and aseptic technique. its a niche kink iirc

the saline just slowly gets absorbed into your blood but in the meantime you got a big round smooth distended nutsack

VikingSkull posted:

e- also I'm pretty sure one failed in a landing attempt

i knew that was coming lol

# ? Dec 30, 2016 12:38

Seizure Meat: Jul 23, 2008; by Smythe

well to be fair it did land I guess

# ? Dec 30, 2016 12:41

Seizure Meat: Jul 23, 2008; by Smythe

quote:

NASA's early space shuttle concepts envisioned a two-stage fully reusable vehicle capable of taking off and landing like an airplane. "That's a far cry from what we got," Logsdon said.

By 1970, the White House had lost its appetite for large space programs, Logsdon said. Production of the Saturn 5 was ended, and NASA was told to forget about a space station for the time being.

That forced NASA to seek allies to justify building the shuttle. "The key ally was the national security community," Logsdon said.

The Pentagon agreed to get behind the shuttle provided it had certain characteristics, Logsdon said.

"One of those characteristics was the ability to launch classified payloads that could be up to 60 feet (18 meters) in length" and weigh up to 18,200 kilograms, Logsdon said. "The width of the payload bay was driven by NASA's desire to eventually build a space station."

Another Defense Department-driven requirement, Logsdon said, was the ability to take off and return to a West Coast launch site after a single polar orbit. Because of the Earth's rotation, a single polar orbit would not bring the shuttle back directly over its launch site, meaning it would have to glide farther through the atmosphere to land than otherwise would be the case. That drove NASA to add large delta-shaped wings and a more robust--not to mention heavier-- thermal protection system to its space shuttle design.

http://www.space.com/1438-chapter-opens-space-shuttle-born-compromise.html

herp derp the shuttle performed exactly as designed (the design was flawed)

# ? Dec 30, 2016 12:52

Pidgin Englishman: Apr 30, 2007; If you shoot
you better hit your mark

You've gotta wonder why they didn't just add vtol.

# ? Dec 30, 2016 13:47

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Couldn't get the unicorn dust engines to work, probably

# ? Dec 30, 2016 14:20

Concerned Citizen: Jul 22, 2007; Ramrod XTreme

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

Battleship-on-battleship engagements happened plenty, just not during World War Two because of an odd knock-on effect of the Washington and London Treaties. Because countries could only build so many of the things they were jealously kept away from action and the cruiser ended up doing most of the surface warfare.

also because they were incredibly vulnerable to air attack

# ? Dec 30, 2016 17:23

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Concerned Citizen posted:

also because they were incredibly vulnerable to air attack

After the first couple months of the war both sides struggled to blow up each others' battleships with air attacks. They were actually pretty hard to sink.

# ? Dec 30, 2016 17:59

Seizure Meat: Jul 23, 2008; by Smythe

Panzeh posted:

After the first couple months of the war both sides struggled to blow up each others' battleships with air attacks. They were actually pretty hard to sink.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1Ufc2hI4FM

# ? Dec 30, 2016 18:01

Darkman Fanpage: Jul 4, 2012

Panzeh posted:

After the first couple months of the war both sides struggled to blow up each others' battleships with air attacks. They were actually pretty hard to sink.

tell that to the prince of wales

# ? Dec 30, 2016 18:04