The sky-high aircraft and aviation thread

And am I right in thinking there's a legal aspect — a person has to press the button?

Or issue the command. Same thing really.

Just look at how much, money, time and effort went into making a drone land by itself.

And now most top-line drones do that without any fuss.

At the moment, legal issues ensure that there's a man in the kill-chain for a drone strike. This is not, however, despite what anyone may think, carved in stone and immutable. Taranis is designed to be eventually fully autonomous from take off to time on target to landing. That's why there's a growing fuss this side of the Atlantic about the program.

I would say there are other communications solutions than direct line-of-sight or drone relay, but yeah, all of the solutions are either short range, expensive, or both. One idea I had in mind was a communications relay hoisted up in a aerostat or a modified transport plane.

The Danes consider the F-35 to be superior to the F/A-18 Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon when it comes to meeting their operational requirements. They launched an entire website explaining why. Hopefully they aren't disappointed when it's finally ready.

What it's like to wear the F-35 pilot's helmet. No HUD experience, though.

That Danish test was bribed and rigged. There's no way in Hell an F-35 did all that successfully when it can't dogfight an F-16 that's weighed down with drop tanks.

Possibly because the F-16 wouldn't get anywhere near the dogfight phase and a single test doesn't prove the F-35 can't dogfight.

No your right, it would not get any where near dog fight range because the F-35 would be too busy being on fire on the runway.

To be fair, given the F-16's early reputation, it probably just flew into the terrain after takeoff.

That also prevents dogfighting because now both are smoking craters.

And without dogfighting, we are now in the F-35's domain!

Yup, a burning fire on the ground

Which is another moot point because nearly every single aircraft ever designed either crashed or burned during test phases.

Clearly the USAF should've stuck with the F-86 Sabre.

The real question is, which fire burns hotter, the F-16 or the F-35?

No but they should not be going with something which.

• Cant fire its guns.
• Has 2 seconds worth of ammunition for the guns if it COULD fire them
• Thats 120 bullets by the way, less then a soilder caries for his assault rifle.
• Cant hold the munitions it was suposed to carry.
• Some how its unable to mount a 250 pound bomb.
• Snaps the pilots kneck on ejection
• Prevents the pilot from turning his head around
• Looses a dogfight to a 40 year old aircraft carrying drop tanks
• Melts carrier flight decks

Among a wide variaty of further issues.

There is teathing issues, and then there is this totaly unredeamable pile of shite.

Th F-35 melts flight decks on takeoff an landing, given that the normal reaction to an air crash is to get out the brooms....

My money is on it burning hotter.

edited 30th May '16 5:33:38 PM by Imca

Immy.

It was a joke.

I think that was pretty obvious.

Its hard to tell because there are some people here who legitimatly think its great. >.<

I would pothole to Joking Mode but then I'd need to wait five minutes for the F-35 to burn through enough asphalt to make one.

Note that the F-35 melts carrier decks because it directs the exhaust directly at the deck on vertical takeoff and landing. Just being on fire wouldn't burn with the same intensity because it wouldn't be focused in a jet.

And really though, how do carrier decks fare against jetfuel fires normally? Do they shrug it off? Do they melt? I know they've got some real world experience on the subject.

Full disclosure: When I was 12, I thought that the F-35 was the shit.

^ Full disclosure: When I was 12, the F-35 wasn't even on the drawing board.

Well, you're like a thousand years old.