It's really too bad this thing doesn't have a diploid chromosomal count compatible with humans......Otherwise, she and I would make sweet SWEET love and pop out little invisible to radar Kryptonians.
@Noobs-R-Us: You know that movie is a semi-true story?
Its highly glamorized and dramatized to the point little is based on fact, but the Firefox is actually based on the real Mig-25 Foxfire, which scared the bejesus out of the west when we first started seeing it show up because of how fast it was as a interceptor, capable of actually intercepting the SR-71.
Firefox the movie is a fictional retelling of how the US finally got to see one up close, when a pilot defected to Japan.
@Jim Topoleski: The MiG-25 was developed, at hideous expense and effort, to counter the American XB-70.
We never seriously intended to build the XB-70, it was primarily for research and concept validation, but as soon as we saw the Soviets were in a lather about it, the supposedly "ultra secret" project was leaked just enough to ensure they wasted tons of rubles on defending against it.
I see a massive oil shortage. Pipelines inexplicably encountering significant maintenance downtime. Unusual weather reported, leading to unexpected downtime in drilling schedules. And then just a string of figures...$4.50...$4.75...$5.85.
It is my understanding that the military purchased lots of computer chips from China and uses them in everything from aircraft to desktops. Perhaps the groundwork for espionage was built into the manufacturing process.
People who ask why we need this plane, are the same kind of people who ask why we need the military. The idea isn't that we want to use the equipment, the idea is that we keep the force ready so that ideally we discourage people from making us use it.
The planes these are replacing have reached the end of their airframe life.
@Lite: supports Bacon Salt...And so should you.: It's not like we are nor do we need to keep the actual 1970's era F-15's maintained, it just seems like we can build new F-15E's with upgraded avionics and still maintain air dominance. At the very least certainly no plane's come close to matching the F-22, so why the need to spend the billions to get the next generation already.
Turn and burn lots of cash. Great plane but like a recently acquired PC its tech is obsolete. Granted it surpasses anything out there but unless it can detect a nuclear brief case at 50,000 feet. It can only look forward to smaller and smaller budget. The UAVs are coming and the A 10s can will be upgraded.
An awesome plane, for sure, though I wish the geniuses developed a more original name.
The F-35 is called the Lightning II for a reason. The original P-38 Lightning was an aircraft flown by the US in WWII. It was primarily a highly maneuverable and fast fighter bomber, thanks to its twin-engine design.
While the F-35 does have some similarities in function to the P-38, it's an entirely different aircraft. A single, jet engine. Stealth. Mostly designed for air-to-air combat, since I doubt you'll be able to cram a ton of bombs (literally) onto its tiny airframe. The most important part is the VTOL (vertical take-off & landing) aspect of the F-35, pioneered by the Harrier and Osprey. The P-38 could definitely not take off or land vertically. The Harrier II would be a much better fit, even though the Harrier has more structural resemblance to the F-4 Phantom.
Sorry for the aero-geek tirade, but I do loves me my planes. And the shows Dogfights & Battle 360 on the History Channel!
07/19/09
07/18/09
07/18/09
07/18/09
07/07/09
Those pictures are the same as those artist renditions of the F-117 in the 90s from before they revealed the Wobbly Goblin.
Tom Clancy even had a plane looking like that in his US-Soviet WWIII novel Red Strom Rising
Looks like Ivan is about 20yrs behind the times
07/07/09
[www.modelingmadness.com]
I was wondering if anyone else would mention that.
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
Anyhow, it's not just about the equipment but also who's operating it. U.S. fighter pilots are trained way better than their Russkie counterparts.
07/07/09
Its highly glamorized and dramatized to the point little is based on fact, but the Firefox is actually based on the real Mig-25 Foxfire, which scared the bejesus out of the west when we first started seeing it show up because of how fast it was as a interceptor, capable of actually intercepting the SR-71.
Firefox the movie is a fictional retelling of how the US finally got to see one up close, when a pilot defected to Japan.
07/07/09
07/07/09
We never seriously intended to build the XB-70, it was primarily for research and concept validation, but as soon as we saw the Soviets were in a lather about it, the supposedly "ultra secret" project was leaked just enough to ensure they wasted tons of rubles on defending against it.
07/08/09
The internet, as always, is your friend.
[en.wikipedia.org]
07/08/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
anyone else get it?
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
I see a massive oil shortage. Pipelines inexplicably encountering significant maintenance downtime. Unusual weather reported, leading to unexpected downtime in drilling schedules. And then just a string of figures...$4.50...$4.75...$5.85.
07/07/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
04/21/09
03/02/09
The planes these are replacing have reached the end of their airframe life.
03/02/09
03/02/09
The point is to stay ahead of people, not keep up w/ them.
Pretty much it's government funded research that eventually ends up in public domain for other companies to use for profit/technology advancement.
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
The F-35 is called the Lightning II for a reason. The original P-38 Lightning was an aircraft flown by the US in WWII. It was primarily a highly maneuverable and fast fighter bomber, thanks to its twin-engine design.
While the F-35 does have some similarities in function to the P-38, it's an entirely different aircraft. A single, jet engine. Stealth. Mostly designed for air-to-air combat, since I doubt you'll be able to cram a ton of bombs (literally) onto its tiny airframe. The most important part is the VTOL (vertical take-off & landing) aspect of the F-35, pioneered by the Harrier and Osprey. The P-38 could definitely not take off or land vertically. The Harrier II would be a much better fit, even though the Harrier has more structural resemblance to the F-4 Phantom.
Sorry for the aero-geek tirade, but I do loves me my planes. And the shows Dogfights & Battle 360 on the History Channel!
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09