Boeing or Lockheed-Martin JSF?

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:30 am

Which do you like?

EDIT: For some stupid reason, the Preview/Submit buttons swap randomly. Anyway, which one do you think is better in terms of aesthetics as well as technical capabilities?

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:16 pm

I can't find any info on the abilities of the Boeing JSF. I did find some basics on the Lockheed one (they already have A, B and C models...)

here

and here

My biggest whine on the Lockheed F-35? It's only got one bloody engine!

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:04 pm

From what I recall the Boeing JSF was cheaper, but I don't know if that meant it was better.

In terms of aesthetics - for whatever good that entails - I kinda like the delta-wing design of the Boeing.

Josh · Post by **Josh** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:45 pm

The Boeing looks like a grouper (fish). Chunky.

Knowing damned little else, I'll go with the JSF on aesthetics.

Post by **B4UTRUST** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:13 pm

Stofsk wrote:From what I recall the Boeing JSF was cheaper, but I don't know if that meant it was better.

In terms of aesthetics - for whatever good that entails - I kinda like the delta-wing design of the Boeing.

Neither really, but I look at it from a maintenance standpoint.

And you said it righ there, cheaper. That's what the government looks for, regardless of the end amount that it costs to maintain(which is usually 100-200x more then it would be to have just gone with a better slightly more expensive system to begin with but nooooo....). So if Boeing is cheaper we'll get the Boeing. *shudders* Though neither are worth it IMO. We should dump some of this R&D money into maintaining and making our existing equipment better instead of building a new piece of shit budget dump.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:18 pm

Give healthcare a chance: scrap the JSF.

I couldn't resist.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:54 pm

I should point out that the JSF is on budget and on time. Perhaps the only fucking modern weaponsystem we're buying this century to do so. Do we want to send the message that being on time and on budget will get you cut? Do we want more LAVs and Ospreys gentlemen?

Also I've been told a little story of a test pilot who managed to "kill" two F-16s easy. So it's clearly at least a small improvement. And frankly... The F-15, 16 and 18 are all good birds, great birds of their times. But now they are older than I am and there is a limit to how much upgrading you can slam into a frame before it's just stops doing any good and just sucks up money. With the Russians and the Europeans developing craft that are at least the equal of our current fighters we must bring the airfleet up to a new level.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 10:08 pm

I prefer this one.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 10:18 pm

frigidmagi wrote:I should point out that the JSF is on budget and on time. Perhaps the only fucking modern weaponsystem we're buying this century to do so. Do we want to send the message that being on time and on budget will get you cut? Do we want more LAVs and Ospreys gentlemen?

Also I've been told a little story of a test pilot who managed to "kill" two F-16s easy. So it's clearly at least a small improvement. And frankly... The F-15, 16 and 18 are all good birds, great birds of their times. But now they are older than I am and there is a limit to how much upgrading you can slam into a frame before it's just stops doing any good and just sucks up money. With the Russians and the Europeans developing craft that are at least the equal of our current fighters we must bring the airfleet up to a new level.

Agreed, in a day of 'bradley' type programes, it's nice to see an actual program be in time and schedual. On the single engien, it was designed to be that way, a easy and cheap fighter.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 10:49 pm

On the single engien, it was designed to be that way, a easy and cheap fighter.

Yeah I know but I still like the greater safety margin a second engine would give the pilot.

Ra · Post by Ra » Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:08 pm

The Lockheed-Martin F-35, hands down. She's a pretty little beast, and high performance too.
- Ra

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman · Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:06 am

I pick the Boeing; same reason I choose YF-23 Black Widow over F-22 Raptor; aesthetics.

Ra · Post by Ra » Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:33 am

Problem is, while the Black Widow II was a far better-looking aircraft with even better performance than the Raptor (thus why I like it too), the X-32 is ass-ugly.

- Ra

Lindar · Post by **Lindar** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:50 am

*reads through, looks at the pictures again and feels slightly confused* I hate to break it to ya guys... but those don't exactly look real... they look like toys to me. But then again....*shrug*

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:01 am

Look, big manly toys, I mean, females can shop for thousands of dollars, but men can spend millions on one item.

Ra · Post by Ra » Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:08 am

Lindar wrote:*reads through, looks at the pictures again and feels slightly confused* I hate to break it to ya guys... but those don't exactly look real... they look like toys to me. But then again....*shrug*

They're CGI images, true. Only about two X-32 (the Boeing one) prototypes and three X-35 (the Lockheed one) protypes have even been built thusfar.
- Ra

Lindar · Post by **Lindar** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:34 pm

Ra wrote:
Lindar wrote:*reads through, looks at the pictures again and feels slightly confused* I hate to break it to ya guys... but those don't exactly look real... they look like toys to me. But then again....*shrug*
They're CGI images, true. Only about two X-32 (the Boeing one) prototypes and three X-35 (the Lockheed one) protypes have even been built thusfar.
- Ra

*AHs* I see i see. OK then.

Ace~ Beware who you accuse of over shopping, or you'll go back to your Papas house.

Caz · Post by **Caz** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:52 pm

Dude. This thread just gave me a massive boner.

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:59 pm

Caz wrote:Dude. This thread just gave me a massive boner.

*Opens mouth. Thinks. Closes mouth*

Ahem. One of the piccies isn't working for me.

Caz · Post by **Caz** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:09 pm

Pcm979 wrote:
Caz wrote:Dude. This thread just gave me a massive boner.
*Opens mouth. Thinks. Closes mouth*

Ahem. One of the piccies isn't working for me.

Planes are hot. 'Nuff said.

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:13 pm

Is that why they're called Boeing?

Caz · Post by **Caz** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:19 pm

Pcm979 wrote:Is that why they're called Boeing?

I drive past that plant every day to work with a ginormous petrified junk of lady wood in my pants.

Post by **B4UTRUST** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:19 pm

Caz wrote:Planes are hot. 'Nuff said.

Since I work on planes, does that make me, by association hot too? Or at least luke warm?

Caz · Post by **Caz** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:26 pm

B4UTRUST wrote:
Caz wrote:Planes are hot. 'Nuff said.
Since I work on planes, does that make me, by association hot too? Or at least luke warm?

Indeed. Welcome to the realm of Hot.

Post by **B4UTRUST** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:26 pm

Caz wrote:
B4UTRUST wrote:
Caz wrote:Planes are hot. 'Nuff said.
Since I work on planes, does that make me, by association hot too? Or at least luke warm?
Indeed. Welcome to the realm of Hot.

W00t!

LibriumArcana.Games

Boeing or Lockheed-Martin JSF?

#1 Boeing or Lockheed-Martin JSF?

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12

#13

#14

#15

#16

#17

#18

#19

#20

#21

#22

#23

#24

#25