5 ms·
> Paraphrasing Thiel, "what happened to the future? We were promised Blackbirds and got the F-35 instead." It's kinda weird how the F-35 just looks somehow dat
by blattimwind 8y ago
> Paraphrasing Thiel, "what happened to the future? We were promised Blackbirds and got the F-35 instead."
It's kinda weird how the F-35 just looks somehow dated and like a slob compared to e.g. the older (and cooler looking) F-22. Though perhaps "cool looks" is maybe not the prime factor in fighter jet selection...
- combatentropy 8y agoKelly Johnson, who led the project to build the Blackbird, disagrees. "All of us had been trained by Kelly Johnson and believed fanatically in his insistence that an airplane that looked beautiful would fly the same way." --- Ben Rich, Skunk Works This quote opens an essay on beauty by Paul Graham, http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html
- js2 8y agoFunction follows form?
- ReptileMan 8y agoThey merge at a point. The moment they merge you have achieved Nir... Unix ideal.
- mixmastamyk 8y agoBelieve he also had to be convinced by Rich to support the boxy F-117A.
- Teknoman117 8y agoThe F-117 was mostly a limitation of computing technologies at the time. We (apparently) didn't have the horsepower to model radar hitting curved surfaces, so the boxy plane came as a result of the limitations of the modelling system.
- ohaideredevs 8y agoThe F-22 outperforms the F-35 in virtually every aspect. It's possible to stick F-35s 360 thermals on the F-22 too.
- shawnz 8y agoThen why are people buying F35s? EDIT: Thanks everyone, I wasn't aware that the F22 had a higher price and additional export restrictions.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y agoIt is supposed to be the cheaper stealth fighter.
- ceejayoz 8y agoFor the same reason people buy Corollas when Audis are available. Even with all the troubles the F-35 has had, the F-22s still have a substantially higher unit cost. The F-22 also can't be sold as an export.
- mrep 8y ago1. F22's are banned from being sold to anyone but the US. 2. F22's are only fighter jets. F35 for better and worse is designed to do just about everything.
- ohaideredevs 8y agoThe F-15Es do better in strike roles than planes that weren't supposed to be pure fighters.
- greedo 8y agoThe motto of the F-15 when it was initially designed was "not a pound for air to ground."
- 8y ago
- frou_dh 8y ago> Though perhaps "cool looks" is maybe not the prime factor in fighter jet selection... The urban legend about why the X-32 lost out to what become the F-35 is it having a stooopid looking mouth on it: https://i.imgur.com/1GW21we.jpg https://i.imgur.com/1GW21we.jpg
- huffmsa 8y agoThe x-32 was just happy to be there. Like a big metal basking shark.
- lallysingh 8y agoSome mean looking teeth, or a spooky spiral may have changed that.
- knolan 8y agoSince the selection of the JSF was during the Clinton presidency, the X-32 was often referred to as Monica.
- monocasa 8y agoFrom what I've heard, the fact that the X-35 looked cooler than the X-32 was a non trivial component of it being selected in the JSF program.
- darkpuma 8y agoThat's a damn shame because the X-32 is easily one of the world's cutest airplanes.
- mywittyname 8y agoDelivering death with a smile.
- usrusr 8y agoAnd why not? With the multitude of ground based missiles fielded today, a considerable part of the role of fighter aircraft is status. Imagine a programme as expensive as the F-35 that resulted in a plane so ugly that you'd want to hide it. It would be objectively worse at projecting power without actually fighting it out even if it had slightly better performance characteristics.
- monocasa 8y agoOh sure, I'm not expressing judgement. Given a volunteer military, and remembering their advertising in high school, they probably want people to feel as cool as possible joining up too.
- DoofusOfDeath 8y agoif "cool looks" was a factor, IMHO the YF-23 is near the top.
- Scramblejams 8y agoYes, amazing looking aircraft. Never seen more beautiful lethality in an airplane. I've always thought it was a shame the YF-23 wasn't developed into the role eventually filled by the F-35. It had a lower radar cross-section than the F-22, could supercruise faster, had better range, and with the deletion of the afterburners (not necessary for the revised role, especially when you can truck along at M1.8 without them) it could have opened up a lot of space for additional weapons storage.[0] And it was a long way to being a developed aircraft. Could have been finished much more cheaply than the F-35, no doubt.[1] [0] Not sure of the CG shift implications, though. [1] Not sure if those savings would have been eaten up by higher operating costs.
- greedo 8y agoWell, the F-23 was never going to be VSTOL, nor take off a carrier. So it never would have fulfilled the roles of the F-35. It would have been a nice replacement for the F-111 and Strike Eagle however.
- tdfx 8y agoI remember an artistic rendering of the A-12 Avenger when I was younger. I thought it was the coolest plane I had ever seen.
- benj111 8y ago"If it looks right, it flies right" Quote I've heard attributed to WW2 pilots, but google isn't helping me with.