Oh look, X is awash with a story about the F-35 again.
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (56)
sorted by:
Are there times that the US makes shit for the military that truly IS an overpriced piece of shit? Yes, just at the York for example.
However with it's aircraft, not really as much for one simple reason: look at any engagement after WW2 of how quickly the US takes Air Superiority.
The problem the US has is that it's opponents LIE about it's capabilities while the US has the resources to MEET those lies just look at the F-15, thanks to Soviet lies about the Migs capabilities, the US had 50 YEARS of uncontested air dominance.
And now we come to the modern problem best shown by the F22, it's shit is so advanced that other nations DON'T want to fight it and that's 20 years old. It's why subversion of the flesh controlling the equipment has been the focus since they can't compete otherwise. The F35 is the most exported military aircraft the US produces that they can't keep up with orders, something normies also ignore believing propaganda designed to make the US weaken themselves than the DOGE approach of cutting contracts for overpriced shit like a toilet seat costing a grand so they can instead buy more ammunition.
Hah. I love that little piece of military history. They were so freaked out they created an aerial wunderwaffen only to have a defector give them one and they went "wait, that's it?"
The thing is, understanding the 'why' of military technology requires a broad knowledge of a lot of other capabilities in military technology, almost all of which is outside the scope of any normie's experience, but christ, even Elon fucking Musk was shitting on the F-35 last November and said we should replace it with drones.
You'd think the guy whose ventures involve a lot of electronic communications would understand the biggest problem with using drones in a hostile threat airspace, namely, electronic warfare (or even anti-satellite kinetic warfare) taking out the drone command signals. AI technology isn't advanced enough to operate in the power, size, and performance limits of a small drone, and a drone that just executes pre-existing commands is called a 'cruise missile' and we already have those.
The SATCOM link on the MQ-9 is incredibly fragile. Do you remember those videos of the Russian jets fucking around with them? Every time the jet flew over the radome, they dropped video link for a few seconds. The fighters were over the radome for a fraction of a second and even that was enough to completely blank the signal out and it needed to reacquire.
It's incredibly frustrating watching something that is truly obscure knowledge be commented on by every single dump-truck-driving redneck with an opinion, when one actually has that expertise and knowledge firsthand.
Also, if you wanted to make a drone with the capabilities of an F-35, it'd just be an F-35 with a pile of incredibly expensive hardware strapped into the cockpit that would lose link every time it inverted, it'd cost more than the F-35 does now, and it would lose every single aerial engagement because it would have a ridiculous signal delay between something happening, the pilot seeing it in his ground control station, the pilot responding, and the aircraft accepting that response. The speed of light is fast, but we can't even play video games in Europe without lag being a make-or-break factor in your performance.
PS: And to nip this one in the bud, the limiting factor of g-forces on aircraft is usually the weapons, not the squishy man in the cockpit. A drone fighter wouldn't be able to pull more gs than a normal fighter. For one, high-g maneuvers means you're dumping all your airspeed. That's what the feeling g-forces is, all that momentum basically being 'wasted'. And second, if we magically could "actually" build aircraft to higher g-tolerances, but for some reason we do not, we already would do so to avoid the very real damage high-g maneuvers already cause to aircraft. A human can survive a 10-g turn, but the aircraft cannot, so why would a drone? When the pilot over-gs the aircraft, he'll land back at the airfield completely healthy. It's the aircraft that's now all bent and fucked up.
So much for you understanding science. We already have drones that survive 30, 40, even 50g's. They go by names like Sidewinder, Sparrow and Meteor. It's retarded jet jockeys that want man-in-the-loop ASF, when autonomous anti-air drones are just a RFP away. It is not a limitation of engineering, but of willingness to build something that does it.
Before you start making claims about how electronics cannot withstand 50g's, Spinlaunch already has electronics that survive 10,000g's. It's a solved engineering problem.
Which is why fighters are designed to limit g-load to 9g's. You have, as usual, reversed cause and effect.
Hey look, it's exactly the kind of person I was talking about: pseudo-intellectuals who don't know fuck-all but like to pretend they do.
Those "drones" you're talking about are single-use, extremely low-mass, and are powered by a fucking solid-fuel rocket and batteries. Coincidentally they're also unsophisticated, short-ranged, single-purpose designs.
Hey baby-rapist, would you like to explain to us why we don't just fire AIM-9s into combat from hundreds of miles away and let them fly themselves to the AOR to engage targets? Is that another riddle that you've solved, "hey why do you carry these on board this really big aircraft to bring them closer to battle"?
So you're alleging the problems of drone warfare have been solved? Since when, the AIM-7 days? Because an AIM-7 is, in your eyes, a 'drone'? Pack it up boys, Cato The Nobody pointed out we've had "drone warfare" since Vietnam!
You know what they also don't have? Wings that provide lift. These missiles have no use for wings. Aircraft do. Would you like to offer your brilliant engineering insights on how the concept of 'lift' is antiquated? Do you even know why we use wings?
aS uSuAl
You don't know the first fucking thing you're talking about. What is the maximum g-load of an F-15E with GBU-31s loaded, and why is it under the standard structural limitation of 9gs? You don't think they thought "hey it'd be nice to maintain the full envelope of performance even with weapons loaded"?
You think they just didn't have the 'willingness' to design a bomb that doesn't physically tear itself off the BRU rack?
Yeah sure, they just didn't have the "willingness". Nobody thought that maybe when your interdictor is g-limited from the fuel and weapons on board, that that could make the aircraft more vulnerable, and they should design it to withstand 50gs.
Good thing you're here to tell them to just design aircraft better. Shucks I guess all those rivets that I've personally seen popped out after an over-g were just because someone somewhere didn't want to design it better.
Which defense company do you work for, again?
This is how we can tell you're low iq, because you're already coping and seething this hard. Faggot.
They don't have the range. They're also heatseekers, VS the aim 174/260 missiles (as the latest and greatest) which are going to basically do just that.