Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

USAF Gets F-35 Flight Simulator

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the how-many-quarters-does-it-take? dept.

The Military 252

cylonlover writes "Eglin Air Force Base has just taken delivery of a piece of hardware that would surely be the ultimate toy for flight sim gaming fans. The F-35 Lightning II Full Mission Simulator (FMS) system includes a high-fidelity 360-degree visual display system and a reconfigurable cockpit that can simulate all three variants of the F-35 Lightning II for US and international partner services – the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35A, the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B, and the F-35C carrier variant."

cancel ×

252 comments

Yes, but... (3, Funny)

sycodon (149926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884292)

Is it MMOG?

Re:Yes, but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35884332)

I hope it doesn't use those proprietary piece of shit Nvidia GPUs.

Who cares, I'm enlisting NOW! (3, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884816)

This reprint of a reprinted Lockheed Martin press release is simply awesome and it has convinced me to enlist in the Air Force. I have also decided to call all my elected representatives and ask for more funding for Lockhe... the military. You should all do the same! And by the way, I totally do not work for Lockheed Martin and have no interest in promoting their excellent products... because they are so awesome, I don't need to! Now lets go blow up some brown people.

Re:Who cares, I'm enlisting NOW! (2, Funny)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884940)

I totally do not work for Lockheed Martin and have no interest in promoting their excellent products...

Obviously. Now put away that squeegee - I already told you my windshield is fine.

Re:Who cares, I'm enlisting NOW! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35885120)

I totally do not work for Lockheed Martin and have no interest in promoting their excellent products...

Obviously. Now put away that squeegee - I already told you my windshield is fine.

No it isn't fine. It's Canadian. It has Canadian filth on it. You people are dirty. Why do you bring your filth down here to our bright, clean,beautiful land? Go home, Bacon-Boy.

Top Gun (5, Funny)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884322)

This will really help us battle the Al Qaeda Air Force.

Re:Top Gun (2)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884374)

no it won't... all we need to defeat al qaeda air force (AQAF) is a couple of Cessnas and some hand grenades.

However, it WILL help us defeat the Chinese air force, if or when they invade Taiwan and start launching their new ballistic anti-ship missiles at our carriers.

Re:Top Gun (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884402)

There is no way we would go to war with China over Taiwan. They have nukes. That would be like China going to war with the USA if we decided to take Cuba. Not only are there nukes, but like my example geography highly favors the closer nation.

Re:Top Gun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35884492)

Think again we have this little thing called the Taiwan Mutual Defense Treaty where by if they're attacked we are obligated to give aid and military support.

Re:Top Gun (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884580)

Think again. Treaties get overlooked at times like that. We could not defend Taiwan from an all out Chinese attack. They could literally fight a war of attrition. In the end the last Chinese soldier would cross in a fishing boat to Taiwan, plant a PRC flag and die of radiation poisoning.

Re:Top Gun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35884950)

Why would the US care what happens to Taiwan in the aftermath... that's ignoring the bigger picture. An invasion by China would give the US legal and international excuse to put China firmly in its place. It would be a dream come true for the warmongers. Nukes probably wouldn't get involved as a result of China's military being decimated, provided the US wasn't the instigator.

TBH though mobilizing for full scale war like this takes ages and it'd probably be over before the US fully deployed. It'd be like a repeat of the Korean war but far worse.

Re:Top Gun (2)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 3 years ago | (#35885008)

You mean the one that stopped being good law during the Carter administration?

The only thing sillier than the assertion that a dead treaty would draw us into combat with China is the idea that China has any interest whatsoever of stirring that particular pot of worms. The only thing China has been interested in for about two decades now are markets for its labor force. Sure China likes takes the opportunity to use Taiwan for some elaborate posturing, but there is no way it would risk its economy over that tiny island.

If the Shanghai factories can't ship lawn chairs to Walmart, China falls from the inside without the US launching a single cruise missile.

Re:Top Gun (2)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35885048)

Think again. In the real world, the Chinese would fight a war of attrition and the US would kill them in mass from the air and sea. Unlike an assault, you don't need feet on the ground to defend a country because the indigenous population is fully capable of doing the shit work the US wouldn't want to do in the first place - as should be - its their nation. Which means, the US would have the luxury of shooting fish in a barrel finally being able to unleash its full military arsenal and potential.

And contrary to popular hype, over all, the Chinese technology is many, many decades behind the US; save only for tiny groups of premiere forces. The bulk of their military is equipped with Korean era weapons; and that's the minority who are actually equipped. Literally, the US' military is specifically designed to stomp on these types of forces, over and over and over again. Which means China absolutely does not want to combat the US unless they plan on using nukes - and even then, its complete suicide for the Chinese. Which means, it would be completely insane for them to start a war they are guaranteed to lose.

You need to understand, the US' power multipliers literally allow a single plane with a single bomb to completely destroy an entire armored brigade. That's no hyperbole and no exaguration. And no, I'm not talking about MOABs or nukes.

Furthermore, you really need to understand, what the world has seen of US capabilities in recent times literally a fraction of the force they can bring to bare on its enemies. Even China would be beaten into the stone age without the use of nukes should they ever draw the ire of the US. That's not to say the US wouldn't feel some pain, but understand full well, the outcome is fully understood without the need to ever wage war.

Re:Top Gun (3, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884510)

Geography didn't favor the Empire of Japan vs the United States or Germany vs the United States.

China and the US won't go to war over Taiwan in the near-term simply because China lacks the ability to invade Taiwan. Even with high profile programs like the new Chinese stealth fighter and a Chinese aircraft carrier, the People's Republic of China lacks the ability to project power across the Straights of Taiwan conventionally, they can point missiles at Taiwan and threaten them with nuclear weapons, but that's it. They can't invade because they don't have troop transport capability.

While China has nukes that can reach the United States, in a nuclear exchange between the PRC and US, the PRC can't destroy the US, the US certainly has the nuclear arsenal to destroy the PRC as a nation-state.

Right now and for the near to mid-term, the only nation that has nuclear parity with the US is the Russian Federation.

Re:Top Gun (3, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884630)

Geography never favors Japan, they have to import everything. Germany did not lose to the USA, it lost to the USSR. No male on my maternal grandmothers side lived through the war, all six of them died on the eastern front. Without the USSR in the war Germany would have lost the USA after berlin was nuked. If England did not fall first.

Re:Top Gun (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884722)

And Germany brought the USSR into the war by force.
The USSR was happy to simply allow the Germans to do whatever they wanted as long as they left the USSR alone.
The USSR were useless fucks.

Re:Top Gun (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884746)

Indeed getting the USSR into the war was a bad move. The USSR were not useless at all, they clogged the gears of the German war machines by throwing bodies at it.

Re:Top Gun (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884832)

Germany lost to the Allies.

Without the United Kingdom and the United States bombing the ever living crap out of Germany day and night, the Germans would have had the fuel, aircraft, armor and super weapons to end the Soviet Union.

The Eastern Front was a body dump for both sides while the Atlantic Wall, the North African campaign and air war in the west ground down Germany's extra man power and material, just like the western front did in WW1 for Germany.

Example, the Atlantic Wall in France alone had a garrison of 380,000 men and 2200 armored vehicles in from March 1942 to June 1944 and defense against Overlord brought that number to 1,000,000 by August 1 1944.

Had those men and vehicles been at Stalingrad, the initial strength could have gone from 270,000 to 470,000 men and 500 tanks to 2500 tanks.

Re:Top Gun (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35885104)

>

Had those men and vehicles been at Stalingrad, the initial strength could have gone from 270,000 to 470,000 men and 500 tanks to 2500 tanks.

The German supply lines would have been just that much more critical and inadequate.

Russia did not defeat the Germans as much as they simply slowed them down enough to let the weather defeat them.

Re:Top Gun (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35885170)

With hundreds of thousands of forced and hired labor no longer employed on the Atlantic Wall, we really can't say if the logistical system would be more stressed than it was in fall '42.

The Soviets had big victories at Stalingrad and Kursk in '42-'43, the weather didn't win or lose the war.

Re:Top Gun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35884704)

Who needs technology all they need to do is just walk over there. 1 billion people with arm's length between them and no terrain obstructions would occupy 1291 square miles. The land area of Taiwan is only 13892 square miles, allowing for just over 360 square feet per person (a square with just under 19 feet on each side).

In that respect, six billion people on the planet doesn't seem like a whole lot.

Re:Top Gun (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884744)

You know that Taiwan is separated from China by water right, 81 miles of it at the narrowest point?

That's a terrain obstruction that keeps the People's Liberation Army from just "walking over there".

Re:Top Gun (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884838)

Hey you! With the logic! Stop that!

Re:Top Gun (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884912)

Thats what I get for knowing some damned geography.

Next up "Why don't the Chinese just walk to Alaska and take the oil?"

Re:Top Gun (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35885126)

Do you know how long it would take China to manufacture enough landing craft to transfer huge armies 81 miles.

China has manufacturing capabilities that could do this in two months. It would take the world over a month to figure out they were even doing so.

Re:Top Gun (1)

nevermindme (912672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884594)

No way china would start anything with Taiwan at this point. US and other nations are itching for any excuse not to repay debt china has bought with slave labor and a manuplated currency.

Re:Top Gun (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884736)

Kinda like we never went to war in Vietnam because Russia had nukes. If anything the smartest play for us would be to tell the Chinese if they attack Taiwan we will respond by invading Cuba (again).

Re:Top Gun (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884774)

Vietnam was not openly backed by Russia. Russian troops were not boots on the ground. If DPRK invaded Taiwan at the behest of China that would be a similar situation and we would fight the DPRK.

Re:Top Gun (1)

stealth_finger (1809752) | more than 3 years ago | (#35885064)

but like my example geography highly favors the closer nation.

And the one with a shitload more people!

Re:Top Gun (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35884436)

If China invaded Taiwan, the US wouldn't do jack shit.

Re:Top Gun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35884538)

I thought the AQAF included various international and domestic passenger jets.... *ducks*

Re:Top Gun (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884806)

We owe China more than the expected value of Taiwan ATW (After the War)

Ugh the F-35... (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884336)

... is just garbage and Australia and the RAND corporation SAYS it's garbage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITbGBmaqQkk [youtube.com]

Re:Ugh the F-35... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884364)

Last I heard it was going to be more expensive than the F-22. WTF is the point of this aircraft?

Look the airforce, navy and marines want different things, it will never be cheaper to try to kludge one plane into all these roles.

Re:Ugh the F-35... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35884438)

Jack of all trades, master of none.

Plus if you have to arm up to fight in every possible operating theater in the world maybe it's time to rethink the whole "standing army" stance.

Re:Ugh the F-35... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35884622)

Are you really trying to argue that it would be cheaper to independently design and build 3 different planes?

Re:Ugh the F-35... (1)

Slutticus (1237534) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884884)

No, I don't think he's saying that at all. It would be more expensive sure, but certainly of far more value to have different aircraft that are actually designed to perfection for what the customers want. As the previous reply said: "jack of all trades, master of none." That is of course, only if the F-23 really is as shitty as people are making it out to be. I myself wouldn't turn one down. Imagine a VTOL landing in my work parking lot. Sweet.

Re:Ugh the F-35... (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884978)

Last I heard it was going to be more expensive than the F-22.

A source would be nice. Even the most pessimistic estimates I've seen still put it at less than half the price of the F-22.

Re:Ugh the F-35... (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884386)

The F-35 was never intended to be the top dog of the skies. That's what the F-22 was designed for. The F-35 is essentially a budget fighter/attack craft. They're designed to get a lot of them into the sky for minimum money (yes, that "minimum" cost still sounds high outside of context, but for a fighter it's pretty low).

Re:Ugh the F-35... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884464)

I thought the F-35 Block 3 was going to cost as much or more than an F-22?

Re:Ugh the F-35... (2)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884572)

I haven't seen any reports that puts them anywhere near the cost of an F-22.

You have to think of it this way: MOST of the time we're not fighting the Chinas or Russias of the world. We're fighting small countries with air forces that might have a few dozen surplused 50 year old fighters. We simply don't need state of the art for those battles, so why waste the money on it.

Bulk up the fleet with a cheaper plane that can do 99% of what our air forces need to do, and then keep a smaller number of F-22's ready for if we really do end up going to war with another superpower.

Think of them like an Atom processor - "good enough" for most tasks, and more efficient and cost effective. You only splurge for a more limited number if i7's for the things that really need it :D.

Re:Ugh the F-35... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884672)

Look at recent f-35 prices they are damn close these days. The predictions I read said they would soon cost more than an F22 if they did not already.

Re:Ugh the F-35... (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884880)

Fly away costs are at about $150 million for each.
F-35 cost keeps going up though.
Soooo.....

Re:Ugh the F-35... (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35885188)

We simply don't need state of the art for those battles, so why waste the money on it.

Bulk up the fleet with a cheaper plane that can do 99% of what our air forces need to do, and then keep a smaller number of F-22's ready for if we really do end up going to war with another superpower.

For the states we have been going up against, the Ancient F16 does just fine.
Keep a smaller number of F22s ready to maintain Air Superiority. The F16 is probably the most cost effective attack aircraft ever made. And yes, its been obsolete for 30 years. The saving grace is that everything any potential enemy has in quantity has been obsolete for longer.

Re:Ugh the F-35... (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884620)

Actually, the per unit cost of the F-35 is high.

F-35A - 122 million
F-35B - 150 million
F-35C - 140 million
F-22A - 150 million
Typhoon Tranche 3A - 131 million
Rafale M - 90 million
F-18E - 55 million
JAS-39 - 60 million
F-16E Block 60 - 65 million

Re:Ugh the F-35... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35884676)

CITATION NEEDED

Re:Ugh the F-35... (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35885182)

Google it yourself, the figures are readily available, hint, look up each type on Wikipedia, there are good sources for each cost per plane.

Re:Ugh the F-35... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35884770)

Steven Harper can apparently get F-35s for $75 million each. It's possible he has a "buy one get one free" coupon.

Re:Ugh the F-35... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884792)

Far more likely that Canada bought them long ago under a contract that even then was selling them at a loss to get volume. The US government would support that to keep US defense contractors busy.

Re:Ugh the F-35... (1)

no-body (127863) | more than 3 years ago | (#35885004)

... keep US defense contractors busy.

They should go fix bridges, roads and build high-speed rail instead of building cocky big-boy toys!

Not even considering the $$ and who lines whose pockets issue here.

Re:Ugh the F-35... (1)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 3 years ago | (#35885114)

There is no way to get reliable numbers on these planes. All their budgets are padded with money for black projects, and there is no reason to think the cost is spread proportionately.

Re:Ugh the F-35... (4, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884634)

The F-35 was supposed to be the replacement aircraft for the F/A-18, AV-8B Harrier and the F-16 - basically the mid-range strike fighter aircraft for the next 35 years for the USAF, USMC and the USN. It was also supposed to be a comparable replacement cost wise, with a lower cost per unit than the F-22 Raptor and lower maintenance than any of the aircraft it was replacing.

The problem is, today its over budget, late and is still suffering from drastic design and development problems - the VSTOL variant is almost dead in the water, with the word around the industry that Lockheed needs to do a radical redesign of both the airframe and the lift system for the F-35B, with the result that the USMC has switched part of its order to the carrier borne variant instead.

The lower maintenance cost requirement is going to be missed horrifically as well, with current estimates putting the aircraft to be more than 35% more expensive to maintain during its life than any of the aircraft it will be replacing.

With over 1,600 airframes intended to be sold during its life, it was supposed to be the cheap next generation aircraft that would become the mainstay of the US air capability for the next quarter of a century, but instead its turned into a seriously overpriced, under performing white elephant.

The F-35 was supposed to be second in the air only next to the F-22, it was supposed to be able to fight its way into a first world air defence zone, strike a ground target, and deal with any air threat whilst doing so - it was supposed to best anything the Russians or the Chinese could put in the sky.

Currently, its just a big waste of time and money.

Re:Ugh the F-35... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35884684)

What do you expect from a fighter aircraft which has an operating system programmed in C++?

No, I'm not joking.

(Before all you fanboys jump on me, C would be just as bad... worse, probably.)

Re:Ugh the F-35... (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884956)

Do you even know what you are talking about?

Re:Ugh the F-35... (1)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884762)

"But in a subsequent statement the organisation says RAND did not compare the fighting qualities of particular aircraft."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/25/2373632.htm [abc.net.au]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/29/2377266.htm [abc.net.au]

So it only *might* be an overpriced piece of junk. We don't know yet.

case of bad specifications (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35885046)

The F-35 was supposed to be a moderate performance, moderate cost fighter, like the glorious F-16. The military demanded too much, so the fixed unit cost was higher than expected. Instead of a redesign, the military wants the F-35 mass produced anyway. I wish they just made a next gen F-16.

That's all well and good... (1)

DaftDev (1864598) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884338)

...but can it run Crysis?

Re:That's all well and good... (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884898)

No.
That is yet one more thing it can not do.
At least though they never said it would.

world reboot to be coordinated from mebotuh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35884348)

renamed from utah earlier today, 'it looks like the 'there are over 4 billion too many unchosens', give us hillary, bomsway, mebotuh, is their terrifying mormormoniacal chant. the chosen ones' holycost weapons peddlers are winning friends in high places? hold on to your dream catchers. we'll be looking for you at the temple on fallout free friday, if we're still provably alive, above water, unfrozen, etc...

hymenism origins mystery, ma|n|gina found (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35884714)

last week it was the queer like jesus cave dwellers. not enough? following redevaluation to it's lowest possible demeanor, you guessed? the big ape. explicit love schmoozings to his uncle sam (ironic). get ready for some more keep it in your pants sermominations. will we ever learn anything from history? chariots? godlike? experimental? yikes

Great more money wasted (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884440)

On a project that is already behind and overbudget. Wonderful, especially while the reps are trying to cripple aid to the poor and handicapped.

And WTF do we need the F35 for exactly? Who the hell are we gonna fight that a well trained pilot in the F18 or even the F15-F16 won't be at the very least an even match? The Russians aren't building any new birds, the best they have is the Mg31 and those are rare, most of their is the MG 27 and SU27 which are 70s era tech. The Chinese? From the looks of their "stealth bird" it will be primitive as far as stealth and looks to be more for a national pride thing than a serious build up.

The rest of the world consists of threats of irregulars with ex Soviet hardware, most of it out of date and falling apart. hell the Brits are so desperate for targets in Libya just to give them an excuse to keep the Typhoon (their personal money hole) that they are blowing up abandoned tanks that the Libyans left rotting for lack of parts years ago just to have some footage to show the public.

This is stupid, its pointless, and it is nothing but more handouts to the top 1%ers in the MIC at a time when we can't afford it. We could have 10s of thousands of top o the line drones for less than this stupid ass plane, they would be cheaper, wouldn't risk multimillion dollar pilots, and are simple to replace. The age of fighter jocks is at an end, it is time for the government to face it and quit pissing money down a rathole.

Re:Great more money wasted (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884494)

MiG 31 is an ancient plane, I think you mean Su30. The Su30 is an update to the Su27 platform.

Re:Great more money wasted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35884592)

To be fair. The f35 is 90's tech. These things are in the pipeline so long that you're about 15-20 years off the leading edge.

Re:Great more money wasted (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884992)

Too true. I remember being a little surprised that the F-14, whose cultural heyday was the mid-80s, had been in service since the early 70s.

Re:Great more money wasted (3, Insightful)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884626)

Not that I think the F-35 is a good decision, but the ability of the United States to project power has been based on their military technology (especially air-force) having a FAR better then "even match" ratio.

Re:Great more money wasted (1)

supercrisp (936036) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884864)

Well, I worry that, like the B-2, the F-35 will be mission-incapable due to expense and maintenance requirements.

The B-2 is mission incapable? (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35885014)

How so? The thing has flown many missions including both Iraq wars, Kosovo, and most recently Libya. It does what it is advertised to do: Flys in a lot of bombs without being detected.

It is an exceedingly expensive bomber, but it does its job well.

Re:Great more money wasted (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884696)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_generation_jet_fighter

Both the Chinese and Russians are in the process of developing 5th gen fighters. The Chinese are still a decade off, but the Russians are not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA You also can't make any assumptions about the Chinese 5th Gen. The Chinese aren't stupid, and neither are they poor. Their top 25% is greater than our entire population, and they're trying to push out 600,000 engineers/year. To dismiss their ability to focus and solve a problem is pretty egotistical.

You're talking as if the world doesn't change. I'm pretty sure the rest of the military know better, and are planning ahead. Right now there is a big lull in nation scale war, but as peak oil becomes more apparent, global warming pressures cause droughts, and other factors start entering the world stage, it's stupid to assume the world is going to remain relatively peaceful and stable forever.

Besides that, the F-35 is supposed to be the cheaper and more flexible version of the plane that is supposed to challenge the next generation of fighters (F-22). Complaining about how expensive and unnecessary the F-35 will be requires you ignore the practical alternatives... which all seem to be more costly.

Re:Great more money wasted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35884712)

And WTF do we need the F35 for exactly? Who the hell are we gonna fight that a well trained pilot in the F18 or even the F15-F16 won't be at the very least an even match? The Russians aren't building any new birds, the best they have is the Mg31 and those are rare, most of their is the MG 27 and SU27 which are 70s era tech. The Chinese? From the looks of their "stealth bird" it will be primitive as far as stealth and looks to be more for a national pride thing than a serious build up.

Uh...when you're ahead, waiting around for the others to catch up is the single most stupid thing to you can think of, unless your plan is to no longer be ahead in the future.

The only valid strategy is to use your advantage to increase the gap even further. Then you continue doing that and hope others don't get lucky and leapfrog us by going through a different path (which happens more often than not).

Re:Great more money wasted (4, Informative)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884734)

"Who the hell are we gonna fight that a well trained pilot in the F18 or even the F15-F16 won't be at the very least an even match? "
Do you know what the prize is for second place in air combat? A tombstone.

I love strong opinion with weak knowledge. You go on about how the Russians planes are all 70s tech. Well they are not and lets just go through the list of current US aircraft shall we?
F-15 first flight 1972 entered service 1976. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle [wikipedia.org] .
F-16 first flight 1974 entered service 1978 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16 [wikipedia.org]
F-18 first flight 1978 entered service 1983 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18 [wikipedia.org]
F-18E first flight 1995 entered service 1999 I will give the Super Hornet second timeline since it really is a massive update to the Hornet and really isn't the same aircraft even if it derived from it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet [wikipedia.org]

So all of your examples are all based on 70s tech. Some of it early 70s tech. Yes they have been upgraded over the years but the basic airframes are all from the 1970s except for the F-18E/F which is sort of from the 90s.
And the F-15 was considered way to expensive when new. The thing is that we will be flying the F-22 and probably the F-35 for the next 30 plus years. You do not build a new fighter for the threats of today but for the threats 20 years from now. And the Mig-31 isn't really a fighter it is an interceptor The real current threats from from the SU-3x line of fighters but I am guessing that you are not really into military aviation that much. Nice to see that you lack of knowledge didn't stop you from voice such a long and loud opinion.
BTW the problem with drones is now and will be for a while is bandwidth. It takes a lot of bandwidth to uplink all the sensor data that a modern combat aircraft can gather and then you have the problem of time of signal for control. Until the drones are autonomous and pick pick their own targets "Wow how about that for a really bad idea?" and can handle air to air combat on their own they will be server limits to what they can do vs a manned aircraft.

Re:Great more money wasted (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884802)

Amusingly one design goal of the F-22 was to reduce cost of ownership over the F-15 ... didn't turn out that way, feature creep will kill any aerospace project, look at the shuttle. But at least that's one reason why they started the project.

Also the mig-27 was retired by the russians when I was a little kid, and they gave them to 3rd world countries. You're probably thinking of something like the new mig-35 which is arguably just a highly modernized -29.

Of course we could have built a modernized F15 to compete with the -35 instead of striking out in new territory...

Re:Great more money wasted (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884804)

Your point about the Typhoons isn't valid in the context you give - half of all targets hit in Libya have been estimated to be already unusable. For example, in the first wave of strikes, some of the primary targets were airfields that hadn't been used in a decade, TU-22 Blinder bombers that have sat on jacks and been covered in moss for 20 years and hardened aircraft shelters that house airframes that have long been stripped to the bone to keep a handful of other aircraft in the air.

Yes, the UK has a problem with the Typhoon, but its largely of the making of the British Government and not of the aircraft itself - the massive row recently about the RAF spending several hundred million British Pounds in adding an austere air-to-ground capability to its Tranche 1 Typhoons and then promptly putting them back on QRA rather than sending them to Afghanistan to use that new bombing capability...? What else is the RAF going to do when the government is against funding an actual supply chain thats worthy of the name? How can the RAF deploy an aircraft to a combat situation when its putting brand new aircraft straight into long term storage the moment they land from their delivery flight from BAE, just so they can be stripped down for spare parts to keep older aircraft in the air?!

How can the RAF deploy aircraft on a long term mission when it doesn't have the pilots to carry out rotations? The RAF has 46 aircraft delivered, while having only 49 pilots trained to an operational level. Only 8 of those pilots are current on the air-to-ground capability, thats not enough to carry out an operational deployment in a combat zone.

The British government is falling over itself to push the image that the Typhoon has a problem, even to the point of criticising the RAF for purchasing 60 aircraft that it will retire just 10 years after receiving them - if you don't know what I am talking about, the RAF is being pushed to retire the Tranche 1 Typhoons rather than upgrade them to the latest Tranche 2 or Tranche 3 standard, citing "incompatabilities in the airframe versions" - which is pure bullshit since the Austrian Eurofighters were delivered as Tranche 1 aircraft, with the Eurofighter consortium selling them on the basis that the upgrade to Tranche 2 would be done for no cost to the customer. It can't be that expensive if the consortium are offering to do it for free...

No, what the government want is less aircraft in operation - we have already sold batches of our production run to Austria and Saudi Arabia without any promise that extra aircraft would be ordered to make up for the short fall in deliveries to the RAF. If rumours prove to be true, our Tranche 3 aircraft (due to be delivered by the end of this decade) will be further reduced by a similar sale to Oman - again with no guarantees that any replacement aircraft will be ordered. If it stands as it currently does, the RAF will be reduced to just 96 Typhoons delivered and in service by the end of this decade.

Re:Great more money wasted (2, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884948)

You 02c has been determined to be worthless.
Second sentence.

Wonderful, especially while the reps are trying to cripple aid to the poor and handicapped.

Anyone who believes that the Republicans are Worse than the Democrats or the other way around has no opinion of merit.
Neither gives a shit about you. They both only want more power for the government.
They only differ in what they tell you is the reason for grabbing more power.

What I don't get (2)

ComputerGeek01 (1182793) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884466)

What I don't understand about this is how you build a simulator for a craft that only a handful of people have flown, is in limited production and for which there is no combat data in existence. I know that test pilots take their jobs pretty seriously but can they really have tried all of the stupid things that ALL of the multinational end-users are going to try?

Re:What I don't get (1)

b0bby (201198) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884564)

FTA "utilization of a significant amount of real aircraft parts and source code will allow us to train a wide variety of mission tasks previously not accomplished in simulators". As long as they get the physics right, it should be pretty realistic.

Re:What I don't get (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35884582)

They take the unknowns, apply their best guess, and then...simulate them.

Re:What I don't get (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884606)

"The key to perfection lies not in never making mistakes; but in making sure nobody can see them."

If the flight data are that limited, a sim based on a good model of the aircraft's shape and systems(which presumably was created during the design phase) is going to be substantially more accurate than the experiences of all but a few people on earth.

Re:What I don't get (1)

Tom9729 (1134127) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884614)

This may be naive but I think the point of a simulator is to model the plane's physical properties (things the engineer's already know, e.g. how much it weighs, how fast it can go) as closely as possible SO THAT you can use the computer to figure out the same things a test pilot would figure out without the risk an expense. It's probably also easier when the design changes to update the simulator than it is to update the prototypes.

Re:What I don't get (1)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884648)

Probably the same way they built simulators for Space missions before they went to space? I'd also guess that the software can probably be given updates as new things are discovered and changes to the planes are made.

Re:What I don't get (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884858)

In general, mission simulators are just that - simulators for the mission. Its to train the pilots on the systems in the cockpit, get them to know where things are and what to press to make stuff happen - these simulators are not meant to train pilots in the finer points of the actual aircraft handling, they will get that when they go to an Operational Conversion Unit (or the equivilent of). Basically its so when they get into the cockpit for the first time (since there won't be any two seater F-35s), they know how to handle emergencies and situations, they know what light means what and which button to press - they will have some familiarity with the aircraft before they fly it for the first time, and that familiarity will help them if they have an emergency on that first few flights.

Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35884498)

Can, like, get that for my Mac? Is it Open?

Oh yea? Well... (1)

file_reaper (1290016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884540)

I've had Eidos' Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Flight Sim on my Win 98 box since 1997. It has both the Boeing X-32 AND the Lockeed Martin X-35.

Take that USAF!

Re:Oh yea? Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35884650)

Janes Advanced Tactical Fighters!

DLC? (1)

HRbnjR (12398) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884548)

What kind of DLC is available for this game? Can I get an Insurgent Pack? How about Dudes with RPG's in Pickup Trucks? Rebel Strongholds Hidden Amongst Innocent Civilians?

Too realistic? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884574)

It sounds like only an actual fighter pilot would likely be very good at it. Unless it has an extremely simplified mode for beginners and non-pilots, it's probably far too complex for your average flight sim gaming fan.

tl;dr: It's a training tool, not a game.

Re:Too realistic? (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884690)

It sounds like only an actual fighter pilot would likely be very good at it. Unless it has an extremely simplified mode for beginners and non-pilots, it's probably far too complex for your average flight sim gaming fan.

tl;dr: It's a training tool, not a game.

Well, the B1 sim had a "crash override" setting that let you fly subterranean...

Re:Too realistic? (2)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884692)

Private Pilot flies the SR-71 simulator: http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/srsim~1.htm [wvi.com]

Private Pilots fly the Mig-29 (with a Russian Pilot in the 2nd seat) http://plan9.bell-labs.com/who/ken/mig.html [bell-labs.com]

Re:Too realistic? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884888)

Very cool - thanks. Although those do rather reinforce my point.

Re:Too realistic? (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884766)

Some people like games like that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV35B-vfT4U
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Combat_Simulator#A-10C_Warthog [wikipedia.org]

Re:Too realistic? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884926)

No doubt, but you can at least turn down the realism in that:

As with Black Shark a number of gameplay options provide the player with the possibility to customize the difficulty to their needs with the possibilities ranging from arcade settings to high realism simulator.

Re:Too realistic? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884984)

Your "average" flight sim gaming fan is not you average gamer.
They like it "REALISTIC".
On average.

Re:Too realistic? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35885032)

I'm aware. I didn't say "average gamer". And there's still such a thing as too realistic.

Re:Too realistic? (1)

CompMD (522020) | more than 3 years ago | (#35885016)

Its designed for fighter pilots. I'm an aerospace engineer and pilot, and have flown the USAF T-6 simulator. Its an actual T-6 cockpit with full, real instrumentation and 120 degree wraparound screen. The T-6 is the most similar to the aircraft I normally fly. But you know what? This was HARD. The T-6 is a very unstable aircraft and I had to be more cautious with my maneuvers. The engine develops tons of shaft horsepower so on my takeoff roll I needed a lot more right rudder than I anticipated (and I needed a bit of rudder trim once airborne), and the instrumentation is not as friendly as civilian avionics. After about 10 minutes in the air I got most everything figured out and was able to fly it and land it, but I had a bad landing and "damaged" the gear.

kill everything on the battlefield. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35884640)

Funny thing about planes is they are the only weapon in the world that can kill everything on the battlefield.

Victory goes to the force with the most planes.

Viva Lockheed

Viva Boeing

Planes destroyed the largest navy ship ever put to sea.

Planes protect the best army in the world.

Re: kill everything on the battlefield. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35885180)

Air power doesn't take land. Air power doesn't hold land. Air power is a support arm, nothing more. War will always need the ground-pounders

VSTOL works in sim, but not real life. (1)

bongey (974911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35884710)

The lift fan design still has many issues, glad they have SIM that shows how it suppose to work, but for now it is fairy tail. Bad design, they will get it to work for little benefit and costing a lot a money, they are already 50% over budget on the project. Only really benefits are less downward thrust temperature and greater vertical thrust , but significant wear and tear on transmission,clutch and drive train. The second largest reason for helicopter failures drivetrain failure(clutch,driveshaft,transmission)http://www.helicoptersafety.org/CommonAccidents.asp.

What's a good flight sim these days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35884958)

I started with Falcon 1 for Amiga, and went to Falcon 3 for a while, but that's about it... What's the gold standard now? I have a couple of Radeon 1G 5770s, big screen, and Windows 7 for gaming. Any recommendations?

PM wants his (1)

ubergeek65536 (862868) | more than 3 years ago | (#35885018)

When does Stephen Harper get his? It's the only reason I can see why he would waste our tax money on F35s

the dude (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35885088)

this has to be far cheaper then having pilots train in real jets. especially over a year or so. if i were rich i'd buy one and mod it so I could fly to space and land on mars.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...