backtop


Print 86 comment(s) - last by My Croft.. on Aug 21 at 1:41 PM


The F-35 JSF in all its glory
Lockheed has proposed a JSF that fly by remote control

Lockheed Martin’s new single-engine F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the latest Swiss Army Knife of fighter aircraft for the US military.  The plane, which is destined to replace the F-16, AV8-B, A-10 and F/A-18, will be available in three variants:

  • F-35A: Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL)
  • F-35B: Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL)
  • F-35C: Carrier Based Variant (CV)

Lockheed is now proposing a fourth variant that it has been working on for the past two years. The design proposal is for an unmanned version of the F-35 that could operate as a hybrid -- that is, it could be configured to either fly by remote or if need be with a human pilot in the cockpit. Many have stated that the F-35 would be the last manned fighter jet for the Air Force as the military has been pouring more and more dollars into unmanned combat systems. Lockheed's proposed unmanned J-35 would bridge the gap between the past and the future of aerial combat. From the Washington Post:

The Pentagon, looking to save money, has accelerated spending on unmanned systems since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. This year, it allocated $2 billion for unmanned aircraft and millions more in the supplemental budget, compared with $363 million in 2001. The figure is projected to reach more than $3 billion by the end of the decade. What has resulted is a hodgepodge of unmanned vehicles, such as small, bomb-seeking robots that can be carried in a backpack, and airplanes that provide surveillance for days at a time. The systems have become bigger and more expensive in recent years, such as the Predator, built by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., and the Global Hawk, which has a 134-foot wingspan, comparable to the Boeing 737.

Lockheed has been playing second fiddle to other names in the industry, namely Boeing, when it comes to unmanned aircraft. The price tag of the F-35 program has also ballooned from $201 billion to $276 billion. The price increase along with the government's increasing fascination with unmanned drones is probably why the initial order for 2,000 planes could likely drop significantly in the near future.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

zomg
By shadowzz on 8/17/2006 11:57:08 AM , Rating: 4
Did I read a quarter of a TRILLION dollars on this thing?




RE: zomg
By Knish on 8/17/2006 11:58:43 AM , Rating: 2
RE: zomg
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/17/2006 11:59:15 AM , Rating: 2
That's for the entire program including 2,000 planes (at the moment) plus developmental costs IIRC.


RE: zomg
By GoatMonkey on 8/17/2006 1:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
I expect to see them build the SDF-1 for that kind of money.


RE: zomg
By NerV04 on 8/17/2006 1:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
and mayb a few veriteks? dont know if i spelt it right...


RE: zomg
By GoatMonkey on 8/17/2006 2:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly! I expect to see some freakin giant robots with lasers and a thousand missiles on their shoulders, with a super flying aircraft carrier that can also change into a freakin super giant robot and kick everyone's asses.

But no... all we get is a little stealth fighter. I guess it's ok. But man $250,000,000,000,000.00 holy crap!



RE: zomg
By glennpratt on 8/17/2006 2:34:24 PM , Rating: 2
Umm, now I don't know where you went to school but where I went 250 billion dollars looks like this: $250,000,000,000


RE: zomg
By GoatMonkey on 8/17/2006 2:44:21 PM , Rating: 2
Hah... I thought it said 250 trillion. Same difference though, huge amount of money.


RE: zomg
By thegrimreaper3 on 8/17/2006 8:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
Well if you think about it the government buys nails at $5 or whatever it was so you can only imagine how much an aircraft is!


RE: zomg
By Dustin25 on 8/17/2006 2:17:57 PM , Rating: 3
Everyone knows the J-10 owns the f-35. Cherry busted hymen ftw!


RE: zomg
By Lord 666 on 8/17/2006 9:38:10 PM , Rating: 2
Why such surprise, this is using proven technology as it was used on 9/11 to pilot the planes.

Of course DoD increased spending on unpiloted planes after 9/11 because their Proof of Concept worked tremendously well.



RE: zomg
By Nfarce on 8/17/06, Rating: 0
RE: zomg
By Lord 666 on 8/17/06, Rating: -1
RE: zomg
By johnsonx on 8/18/2006 12:38:07 AM , Rating: 3
dumbass


RE: zomg
By TomZ on 8/18/06, Rating: -1
RE: zomg
By Lord 666 on 8/18/2006 12:54:27 AM , Rating: 1
I was actually in NYC on 9/11/2001, where were you?!

Not to get personal, but to sheepishly believe the US Government story (full of holes perpetuated by mindless "patriots") when this article PROVES the aerospace engineers have the technology to pull it off... then not to question is more disgraceful and disrespectful to those no longer with us.


RE: zomg
By TomZ on 8/18/06, Rating: -1
RE: zomg
By Lord 666 on 8/18/2006 1:37:10 AM , Rating: 3
Likewise, there is no factual proof 19 amatuers hijacked planes on 9/11. A passport that somehow survived fire and collapsing of the WTC buildings? Some blurry footage of people taking money out at a ATM machine? A split second video showing something appearing in front of the Pentagon?

For every "fact" that suggests it was genuinely terrorists who did this, there are conflicting forensic items that dispute the events. What about the FAA tapes that are still classified showing the flight patterns? Firefighter recordings that state the fire was under control and "small." Firefighter recordings that are still classified. Seismographs showing explosion like activity. The very fact that all of the remains of WTC were sent to scrap yards and not forensically analyzed. The fact that several of the named terrorists have been found to be still living. First and only time steel buildings collapsed because of fire.


RE: zomg
By johnsonx on 8/18/2006 5:19:14 AM , Rating: 2
my oh my, you've been drinking LOTS of the kool-aid, haven't you?


RE: zomg
By Chillin1248 on 8/18/2006 6:29:44 AM , Rating: 3
You know something asshole, I was in NYC staring out at the burning towers as well. So don't make it like your the only god of this forum who saw 9/11.

You are so full of conspiracy nonesense it is almost funny if it weren't so sad.You take a line from "V from Vandetta", then take another from Metal Gear Solid in the form of "Patriots", and then to top it off you read into everything that the "Loose Change" video said. I suggest you search for "Loose Change Lies", maybe that will teach you some common sense. But kids like you need to feel that they are superior and "in the know" while everyone around them are idiots, so I doubt anything will convince you no matter how concrete the proof; so I am not going to bother.


RE: zomg
By Shoal07 on 8/18/2006 10:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
It really is insane when a bunch of terrorist hijackers from around the world hijack multiple planes and crash them into skyscrapers and THAT isn't big enough of a conspiracy... No, idiots have to make one up that invovles government remote controlled planes. Plain stupid.

Some people need to leave mommy and daddy's basement and get some fresh air.


RE: zomg
By My Croft on 8/21/2006 1:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone loves a good conspiracy theory.


RE: zomg
By Lord 666 on 8/18/2006 10:47:32 AM , Rating: 2
Just stating a fact that I was in NYC that day and will never disrespect those parted from us without getting personal. Immediately after 9/11, I too wanted to go get those "terrorists" responsible. However, as the years went on, there are now more questions than answers revolving around that day. There has not been any concrete proof from the government about 9/11 nor any capture of Bin Laden in five years. But articles like this one make it technologically feasible to accomplish what has been earlier suggested. Even the wording of this article are perculiar, "The Pentagon, looking to save money, has accelerated spending on unmanned systems since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks" Would having these JSFs prevented 9/11? Would having pilotless aircraft aided domestic security? Neither would have done anything. Maybe if all commercial aircraft are required to have this remote control capability, then an event like this can be prevented.

Correct, that line from "V for Vendetta" was very fitting and thats why I used it. Don't understand the "Patriots" reference, this term was pounded into our heads by our government immediately after 9/11... Patriot Act, etc Saw "Loose Change" and searching for your "Loose Change Lies" at your suggestion. But from what I have found so far, the disputes of "Loose Change" are very weak.

The forensic items I mention have been brought to light by several sources, including mainstream media. There are facts within "Loose Change" but there is ancedotal information as well.


RE: zomg
By dgingeri on 8/18/2006 12:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
You know what? There are no more questions about 9/11 except those raised by the anti-Bush people who want to come up with something thay can pin on Bush as being evil. Guess what? There already is one thing, his cooperation with the banking and credit card industries. Call him evil for that, but he did not plan or cause 9/11.

I have seen "V for Vendetta" and you know what I saw? I saw the far leftists trying to destroy the democratic process by producing hate filled, closed minded sheep that protest the protection of innocents by both the US in Iraq and Israel in Lebanon. The people who were being killed by the US and Israel in the middle east are the very people who were supporting the terrorists who were killing innocent civilians in Isreal, Iraq, and the US. The far leftists, who want power so bad they can taste it, are willing to lie about anything just so they can overthrow the properly elected people who actually will defend the people being victimized by tyrants. You want to hate manipulators? Take a look to the left.


RE: zomg
By The Cheeba on 8/19/2006 10:38:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
by the anti-Bush people who want to come up with something thay can pin on Bush as being evil.

There doesn't need to be a conspiracy for Bush to be evil. We're better off without him.


RE: zomg
By dgingeri on 8/18/2006 12:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why such surprise, this is using proven technology as it was used on 9/11 to pilot the planes.


What kind of retard actually believes the US government committed the acts on 9/11?? I don't care how much of a conspiracy nut you are, that is beyond belief at any level of intelligence. Any human being would have to turn off about 90% of their usable brain to believe that. Hello 35IQ.


RE: zomg
By jmunjr on 8/18/2006 1:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe it, but it is plausible. The assumption/belief that our own government is "good" and would never directly harm their own people is irresponsible. Even our Founding Fathers recognized this and put rules in place to protect citizens from our government. The problem is those rules were not good enough, and our citizens have become so complacent and reliant on our government that the likelihood of horrible acts against the people in order to gain more power is now a possibility, if not already a reality.

Thinking your government could never do a thing like 9/11 really is irresponsible. You don't have to believe it happened, but you should believe it could happen.


RE: zomg
By TomZ on 8/18/2006 1:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
I don't trust our government either, but I also don't think they would be evil enough to murder thousands of its own citizens either. I also cannot think of any even remotely reasonable motive that the government would have in doing something like this.


RE: zomg
By jmunjr on 8/18/2006 1:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
There isn't a reasonable motive for murdering civilians, at least in a good person's mind. Acquisition of power is reason enough for some however. I think it is a stretch that the WTC was targeted by our government, but I certainly think there are MANY within our government who would support such actions. Get enough of these scum in the right paces with the right resources and some bad things can happen. Do it enough and the snowball gets bigger..



RE: zomg
By Chillin1248 on 8/18/2006 3:45:20 PM , Rating: 3
Here are two sources:

This one debunks the "Loose Change" video:

http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html


This one debunks a number of 9/11 myths. Such as:

quote:
fact that steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C


http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/12...


RE: zomg
By Lord 666 on 8/18/2006 4:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
What about the FAA tapes that are still classified showing the flight patterns? Firefighter recordings that state the fire was under control and "small." Firefighter recordings that are still classified that actually reached the crash area. The very fact that all of the remains of WTC were sent to scrap yards and not forensically analyzed. The fact that several of the named terrorists have been found to be still living. First and only time steel buildings collapsed because of fire.

The PM article addresses none of the above. Also disappointed the PM series does not have larger pictures.



RE: zomg
By Chillin1248 on 8/18/2006 8:17:28 PM , Rating: 3
What is there to forensically investigate in the rubble? Hell a number of peices of the WTC are still around, if you want to test them so bad go ahead.

What about the tapes? Government property that will be released in the future, they certainly don't "hide" something. Do you think the government if it was able to put thousands of pounds of TNT in the WTC without anyone noticing, would have taken down the few cameras on the route the plane was going to fly?

Isn't it interesting that "classified" material somehow is in the hands of every person and more incredibly it incriminates the government? First of all does anyone know the original source of the supposed fire fighter tapes? Second, they were probably talking about the stairwell area around them for evacuation and not the entire floor... I mean we saw it burning ourselves.

Where is the source for the supposedly living terrorists?

First and only time a steel building has been hit by a 767 with a full load of fuel onboard.


RE: zomg
By a1trips on 8/18/2006 10:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
First , err i believe the government was implictly involved, not explicitly. But then i have a brain and i remember how pearl harbor was an "engineered situation", just like 9/11.. Ya think those schmucks up top don't read history?

AND i sincerely hope i do not need to clarify.heh

==> this goes out to all the " get some kool aid types"


RE: zomg
By johnsonx on 8/19/2006 12:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
you've been sipping on the kool-aid too, haven't you?


RE: zomg
By Lord 666 on 8/19/2006 12:58:58 AM , Rating: 2
Yet both of the twin towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, which was the largest airplane of the era. http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/wt/cp/if/ro/

Comparing the 707 and 767, both aircraft are similar with their capacities... with the 707 having a faster top speed.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product...

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_2...

Even if Leslie miscalculated the fuel or velocity variables, consider this... a US Bomber B-25 did run into the Empire State building between the 79 and 80th floors at 300mph. The fire was put out in 40 minutes and the building stayed intact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building

Yes, the B-25 is much smaller than a 767, but that is not the perculiar aspect; both towers have this gaping flery hole on their side. The south tower was hit much lower than the north. However, when both collapsed, they fell down very symmetrically just as planned demolitions occur and occured exactly the same. Yet, the South Tower would have had a greatly probability to tilt, lean, or hit another building since the impact was lower. You state that steel weakens by 50% around 648C. Focusing on the the physics, this would imply the collapses would not be symmetrical and have building distortion as the building heated up. Moving back to metallurgy, there was molten material flowing from the building prior to the collapse of white/yellow color being seen visible for up to one month. That is not Al, but some variation of Fe!

But this discussion wouldn't be complete without discussing Building 7 which is the only steel building in the world to collapse due to fire, again collapsing very symmetrically as in a controlled demolition. No asterick on this building saying it was hit by a plane, there wasn't any impact to it, just supposedly a fire internally that somehow started.

Is it really a surpise that half of New Yorkers polled feel that the US Government knew of the attacks but did not act? http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855


RE: zomg
By NT78stonewobble on 8/19/2006 7:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
As far as i remember it was designed to be able to withstand the impact of a 707 with next to zero fuel on board and / or not moving at full speed.

Over half the mass of a liner is made up of fuel as far as I know.

Besides a dildo might also be designed to give satisfaction but it is not guaranteed.

Additionally you cannot really compare the the empire state building to the twin towers. Not from a construction point of view.

You say that the south tower would have a tendency to fall to a side.

No, the buildings weight were carried in the core. It was that which failed and pulled the rest of the building down with it. On the spot and centered.

You mention that building 7 like it somehow proves your case. Actually the way you describe it it just proves that the theory of jet fuel burning inside near the structural core is quite possibly correct.





RE: zomg
By Googer on 8/20/2006 12:24:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did I read a quarter of a TRILLION dollars on this thing?


Yes, and at that price it is a real bargain. Once they get mass production working in full steam the price per each air craft will drop eponetialy.

When it comes to air dominance the F-22 is the king of the skies. F22s perfromance and capability (minus the VTOL) is far superior to the f35JS;F It's (F22) price tag has scared off many in Washington. But proponents of the F22 argue that it should built and ordered in large numbers. Airforce Officals (Proponents) of the F-22 say that if it were produced in large numbers its total cost would not be much higher than that of the F35 JSF.

The F22 easily guanentees American Air Dominiance for the next twienty years at minimum.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki