Page 1 of 2
#1 Boeing or Lockheed-Martin JSF?
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:30 am
by Stofsk
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?
#2
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:16 pm
by frigidmagi
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!
#3
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:04 pm
by Stofsk
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.
#4
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:45 pm
by Josh
The Boeing looks like a grouper (fish). Chunky.
Knowing damned little else, I'll go with the JSF on aesthetics.
#5
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:13 pm
by B4UTRUST
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.
#6
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:18 pm
by Stofsk
Give healthcare a chance: scrap the JSF.

I couldn't resist.
#7
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:54 pm
by frigidmagi
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.
#8
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 10:08 pm
by The Cleric
I prefer this one.

#9
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 10:18 pm
by Knife
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.
#10
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 10:49 pm
by frigidmagi
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.
#11
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:08 pm
by Ra
The Lockheed-Martin F-35, hands down. She's a pretty little beast, and high performance too.
- Ra
#12
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:06 am
by Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman
I pick the Boeing; same reason I choose YF-23 Black Widow over F-22 Raptor; aesthetics.
#13
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:33 am
by Ra
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
#14
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:50 am
by Lindar
*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*
#15
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:01 am
by Ace Pace
Look, big manly toys, I mean, females can shop for thousands of dollars, but men can spend millions on one item.

#16
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:08 am
by Ra
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
#17
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:34 pm
by Lindar
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.
#18
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:52 pm
by Caz
Dude. This thread just gave me a massive boner.
#19
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:59 pm
by Pcm979
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.
#20
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:09 pm
by Caz
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.
#21
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:13 pm
by Pcm979
Is that why they're called Bo
eing?

#22
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:19 pm
by Caz
Pcm979 wrote:Is that why they're called Bo
eing?

I drive past that plant every day to work with a ginormous petrified junk of lady wood in my pants.
#23
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:19 pm
by B4UTRUST
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?
#24
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:26 pm
by Caz
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.
#25
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:26 pm
by B4UTRUST
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!