Zeppelin Insanity posted:

Remember when the US military said the F-35 was fully operational and in service and then Lockheed Martin said it will take another 4 years to write the software to fire the gun, and until then the gun does nothing.

That was some years ago. I wonder if the gun works now.

On a more serious note, yeah I think guns are good. The US has tried to get rid of guns from planes many times and it's always been a mistake. That said, the J-20 should be understood in the context of a high\low mix with Flankers, which are the world's most manoeuvrable dogfighters with the exception of the Su-57, of which only a handful exist. China operates a huge fleet of Flankers. The J-20s job is not dogfighting. Incidentally, the US also says the F-35's job is not dogfighting, and that dogfighting is stupid in general, so I doubt the US will be really trying to get into a dogfight with the J-20.

The other thing is that if the US was at war with China, it would likely mostly rely on Hornets from carriers, and F-16s from local vassals. Neither of those is an F-35.

The Oldest Man posted:

i'll defer to any us military pilot who's seen air to air combat

yeah i'll wait

yellowcar posted:

an f35 shot itself with its own cannon so yes it does work now

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a35938986/f-35-shoots-itself/

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/archaeo_concern/status/1703878823878516926?t=_UT6zIIBUK1lYE6l-Rf_NQ&s=19

quote:

The Marine Corps acting commandant, Eric Smith, on Monday issued a two-day stand-down to take place at some point this week for all aviation units both inside and outside of the United States, a spokesman told ABC News.

The move was made in the wake of a "mishap" with an F-35 fighter jet in South Carolina on Sunday outside Joint Base Charleston, where it had taken off from, according to military authorities.

That craft has not yet been located, though the military continues to search.

No Marine Corps units are allowed to fly until they have a two-day discussion about safety measures and procedures, the commandant said in a service-wide email on Monday. While Smith said he has full confidence in the aviation units, he said he felt this was the "right and prudent" thing to do given both this incident and another recent incident in Australia.

A Marine Corps spokesperson said in a statement on Sunday that the missing F-35's pilot "safely ejected from the aircraft. We are currently still gathering more information and assessing the situation. The mishap will be under investigation."

A spokesman at Joint Base Charleston said the jet was left on autopilot when the pilot ejected.

White House spokesman John Kirby said later Sunday on MSNBC that the U.S. still didn't know where the F-35 is, and he said he didn't know more about the reported mishap.

"We're staying in touch with the Pentagon as much as we can," he said. "Right now, we just don't know where that aircraft is. We're glad that pilot was able to eject safely [and we're making] sure he gets the medical care he needs."

"First thing, we need to literally try to find the aircraft. Then they'll have a chance to talk to the aviator when they get a chance," he said.

ABC News' Ben Gittleson, Nathan Luna, Noah Minnie and Martha Raddatz contributed to this report.

Kazzah posted:

yet more proof that stealth is just marketing BS

stephenthinkpad posted:

You know what's funny? F35's fat body. There is no way to you shoot a movie starring F35 that can make the plane look sexy from 90% of the angle. It's just so fat.

The only movie F35 can star in is National Lampoon's Misadventures.

Atrocious Joe posted:

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1703854163774382466

wait, what happened in Australia?

https://twitter.com/USMC/status/1695760700952445201

Oh of course an Osprey

Delta-Wye posted:

two days of safety briefings! for everybody! nothing of value will be learned!

yellowcar posted:

the x-32, boeing's competing design, looked even fatter

yellowcar posted:

the x-32, boeing's competing design, looked even fatter

yellowcar posted:

the x-32, boeing's competing design, looked even fatter

yellowcar posted:

the x-32, boeing's competing design, looked even fatter

yellowcar posted:

the x-32, boeing's competing design, looked even fatter

Kazzah posted:

yet more proof that stealth is just marketing BS

Slavvy posted:

I especially like how the air intake looks like it's hinged so it can gobble up biscuits and things

Also you will never convince me that plane lost in trials for anything other than being gently caress ugly

Ardennes posted:

It had a simpler but weaker VTOL system, but it probably didn’t it would have been more awkward in the sky than it’s competition. Boeing hadn’t designed a fighter in decades so there would have been some kinks to work out.

Boeing at one point was making street cars as well. They weren’t great.

quote:

Professor Seymour Melman partially blamed the use of a longtime defense contractor. Boeing Vertol's customary client (US Department of Defense) was relatively budget insensitive, more tolerant of cost overruns, and had sufficient funding and workforce to conduct complex maintenance, all contrary to the needs and abilities of a municipal transit agency.[44] The design team primarily had experience in aerospace design, not rail vehicles,[45] did not make a serious effort to gain that experience, and did not design for ease of maintenance. In some cases, portions of the SLRV had to be disassembled by acetylene torch to access components.[44]

Boeing marketed the SLRV as a system and took the role of an integrator, subcontracting the design and fabrication of major components to external suppliers from places as far as Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom. This approach created uncertainty in component delivery dates and essentially precluded prototype testing in favor of meeting contracted schedule milestones, turning MBTA and Muni into, effectively, beta testers for the SLRV.[44] Because no prototype testing was conducted prior to vehicle delivery, the appropriate identification and stock levels of spare parts could not be established before delivery, and MBTA was forced to cannibalize SLRVs for parts to maintain fleet availability during the early years of operation.[44]

Other specific problems with the SLRV include but are not limited to:

Derailments on tight curves,[10] which would seriously damage the car's articulation section, itself problematic as Boeing designed its own articulated section so as to avoid obtaining a license from overseas builders such as Duewag.[citation needed]
Another major problem was the shorting of electrical systems and premature failures in the car's motors and propulsion systems. Boeing used a relatively advanced chopper control system for the cars as insisted by the federal government. While such systems have been implemented successfully in many subway, light rail and trolley bus systems, the systems installed in Boeing's cars were found to be overly-complicated for the transit systems' use.[citation needed] It is however unclear how problematic this was as chopper control did prove to be commonplace in the United States into the early 1990s.
The SLRVs came equipped with overly complex plug doors, which were originally intended to accommodate high-platform operation for Muni in the Market Street Subway. Boeing established a requirement to have the doors automatically reopen if an obstruction was encountered while closing in order to avoid crushing passengers;[37]: 146  the firm initially charged with designing the doors successfully met this requirement, but made the doors too sensitive: the doors would recycle upon closing, as it detected a normal closure as an obstruction and would recycle the doors. Boeing hired another subcontractor to redesign the doors, stipulating that fewer components should be used.[44] These doors would frequently short circuit and caused a significant nuisance for the MBTA. The transit agency later attempted to correct the issues with the plug doors by adding a wider rubber strip and eliminating the recycling circuit, but the issue was not fully resolved until the mid-1990s, when MBTA retrofitted all Boeings with much more reliable bi-fold doors.[16]
The corrosion of car shells was another major issue. Cars are constructed primarily of low-alloy, high-tensile steel except for a stainless steel roof panel.[4] As both Boston and San Francisco are on the ocean, the cars were particularly susceptible to damage from sea spray. Some cars barely saw a decade of service before being withdrawn due to corroded bodies, as their bodies were shipped from Japan as deck cargo through the Panama Canal and spent a further amount of time sitting outside the Boeing plant near Philadelphia before being assembled and delivered.[citation needed]
The blended braking system incorporating a single mechanical disk brake on each axle with the resistive brake on the powered trucks was labor-intensive to maintain and unreliable. For the succeeding Type 7 cars delivered by Kinki Sharyo, MBTA chose to use a mechanical-only pneumatic braking system.[46]
The Boston cars' air-conditioning units were originally mounted under the car, and constantly sucked in dirt and debris from under the car. The MBTA later modified 76 SLRVs with roof-mounted air-conditioning units to address this.
The Acousta Flex composite resilient wheels that were originally fitted to the SLRV tended to fail in service and during testing; the bond failed between the elastomer and the wheel rim, which led to the wheel coming apart and also eliminated the electrical path to ground, as conductors were used between the wheel hub and rim. The Acousta Flex wheels were out of production by 1981.[47]: 9, 11 

crepeface posted:

lmfao how is every story about the f35 funnier than the last

Rodney The Yam II posted:

Ardennes posted:

What is the matter with a rathole?

Delta-Wye posted:

full of rats

Mantis42 posted:

oh great, you activated ratboy

Delta-Wye posted:

full of rats

yellowcar posted:

the x-32, boeing's competing design, looked even fatter