Permanently Deleted
I think the F-35 is a meme but the problem with the F-35 is some of the design philosophy leading to a shit plane when compared to some other fighters and the stupid program cost going crazy, there is still some interesting and valuable tech you can find if you found one of these on the bottom of the ocean for free, if anything just knowing what your enemy is doing in detail is already valuable.
I think people are still running off the steam from that time a Tomcat fell into the ocean off Scotland and it was a mad scramble to recover it before anybody else. The difference being the F-14 was a crazy capable aircraft and it was the height of the Cold War.
In their defense, the military has access to the source code for Windows and I wouldn't be surprised if that includes WMP
Looks like the pilot came in too slow. Especially when landing on a carrier, you're supposed to maintain thrust in case you need to abort the landing and go around. Let the arrester cables do the work. If you spool down the engines and try to glide the thing in like a Cessna, you will not be able to spool them back up before you're in the ocean.
You would think they would have an “aircraft carrier assist” function on a plane with the aerodynamics of a brick. But knowing the story of this airplane, they would rather not because it “saves” money or whatever.
Because it can’t land while the ship is moving. Like you could on the harrier because it was made for that purpose but the F-35 was made to be a replacement for every aircraft we have. There’s three variants though and this is the Carrier Variant. The VTOL was meant more for close air support and emergency landings rather than aircraft carrier landings after every flight. Except it can’t do the close air support better than the A-10 nor can it do VTOL better than the Harrier. Because VTOL doesn’t exist with the F 35 rather it has SVTOL because it’s too heavy. This is because a naval aircraft needs to be able to land on an aircraft carrier if SVTOL is unable to work. The aircraft that crashed was definitely a CV variant so it doesn’t even have those capabilities. This is because not only of the landing gear but it also has more powerful engines along with a longer wingspan. This has led to problems because it doesn’t act like the normal airplane. And I’m pretty sure all these variants have software so close to each other because Lockheed chose the cheaper route if just using the same software. To be honest, this aircraft will make a two part five hours long each episode :wtyp:. I wish I could be part of it because I remember being on Hickam AFB on Oahu and talking to pilots about it when it was still in trials and the US wanted to show it off during RIMPAC. I can seriously go on.
I can try to answer more if you want. The problem is that the biggest problems are actually within the software because most of its promises are in the software. And the software is top secret. But just by looking at the specs, you can see some major issues. Like it’s too wide, there’s two engines for land focused planes and it was designed by Congress.
Yup. And that was the Navy’s biggest complain. It was originally planned to be made with one engine but Navy planes are required to have two along with a bigger wingspan and some other things to make it able to fly over sea. Because flying over sea requires more power than flying over land. I will try to send some long videos of some old aircraft engineer who can explain some of the things I’m taking about. He doesn’t go into exact details but he does talk about the aerodynamics of the aircraft. It’s on YouTube because I saw someone on :reddit-logo: post it a couple of months ago.
You should seriously get in touch with them and get on that inevitable episode. This is a great post.
There are three variants:
- Air Force F-35A: a normal plane
- Marine F-35B: STOVL so it can take off and land on the smaller Marine helicopter carriers (but not carry as much fuel or ordnance) (look up Wasp-class amphibious assault ship)
- Navy F-35C: no STOVL, heavier landing gear, tail hook, and bigger wings so it can land on giant Navy supercarriers (while carrying almost as much stuff as the Air Force variant)
This was an F-35C.
To add to what the other person said, one of the things we learned about VTOL from the Harrier is that you really shouldn't do it unless you need to. Both harriers, the osprey and now the f-35 are the most dangerous aircraft the military uses for their own pilots, in part because the addition of VTOL capabilities adds a ton of complicated parts that might break during landing and get the pilot killed. Even landing normally in a VTOL-capable aircraft is less safe than if it were totally conventional because the compromises in design you have to make in order to make your aircraft VTOL-capable mean that it probably doesn't glide as well or handle as well at lower speeds compared to conventional aircraft.
Notably, helicopters are pretty dangerous too, but since they skip on a lot of the design features that VTOL planes have they can spend more of their weight and complexity being made relatively more safe than an aircraft that tries to be both can ever be.
There is TACAN which can be used for navigation and approach, but AFAIK once you're on approach you need to bring it down manually. Also, if there is a need to maintain radio silence, the ability to use this sort of system goes straight out the window. It's is a radio beacon which tells both friendly aircraft and unfriendly missiles exactly where they want to go.
Hope he's fine and does more test flights. Trashing these things is good praxis.
critical support to the air force pilot training program, keep it up
is that west wing or some shit in the background too? lmao
Lol how do you get qualified to fly as a carrier pilot if you can’t even follow a glide slope or make a go around decision
