7 ms·
Weird theory of mine: The DoD ultimately picks these winning planes based on which one “looks cooler” or basically has better aesthetics. I think the F-35 has
by guscost 6y ago
Weird theory of mine: The DoD ultimately picks these winning planes based on which one “looks cooler” or basically has better aesthetics.
I think the F-35 has better aesthetics than the Boeing X-32, just like the F-22 has better aesthetics than the YF-23. You could say I’m used to seeing the winning designs as “normal”, but I distinctly remember having this reaction before the JSF competition was over.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- porphyra 6y agoI don't think the F-22 has better aesthetics than the YF-23. The YF-23 looks super awesome with its diamond-shaped wing. The Boeing X-32's frog-mouthed appearance is a bit ugly though.
- DanCarvajal 6y agoYF-23 is 30 years old and still looks futuristic.
- mhh__ 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Bird_of_Prey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Bird_of_Prey That makes this positively alien then
- mrtksn 6y agoYF-23 looks like what the non-human enemy would have used. It’s cool but it doesn’t look like “ours”. I guess that the “If we are the goodies why the weapons look alien” question comes to mind since people would always think that they are the good ones and the foreigners are the ones that we should be suspicious of.
- systemvoltage 6y agoThis is not your weird theory. There is some truth to it. Look up Kelly Johnson’s account on several books about military airplanes. In case if anyone doesn’t know he is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Johnson_(engineer) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Johnson_(engineer) Basically his philosophy, at some corner of his brains was "If it cools beautiful, it will fly well." The way I think of it is - streamlined shapes are generally more pleasing to human vision system. Not sure why, some innate biological/evolutionary trait. So, Kelly designed a lot of beautiful planes with his gut instinct when there is no data/objectivity, but only some instincts to rely on. Legendary engineer!
- larrywright 6y agoKelly absolutely hated the design of the stealth fighter, which I believe was the first plane the skunkworks built after he retired.
- thedrbrian 6y agoBen Rich , Kelly’s successor, also though the military gave out contracts to less good aircraft/companies due to how much other work they had. For example Lockheed got the F-117 but didn’t get the order for the follow up large bomber. That went to their competitor because they hadn’t had a contract in years and might be going out of business. See Lockheed’s SENIOR PEG here https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/lockheeds-senior-peg-the-forgotten-stealth-bomber-1534057907 https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/lockheeds-senior-peg-the-f... Interesting idea to have a larger force of cheaper planes rather than the small group of super expensive B-2s that the US got.
- anonisko 6y agoI'd be shocked if the military doesn't include aesthetics when considering which new equipment to use. You'd want to look badass and cool to the people you serve and hellish and terrifying to those you attack. The psychological impact in both directions almost certainly has important, real world consequences.
- stretchcat 6y agoI think to an extent the public will decide ugly planes look badass if the planes are presented that way in media. The F-117 was a really bizarre plane, but became so iconic gamers today still buy computer mice that look like it. This said, I think there are limits. I don't think the F-35 will ever achieve the same level of coolness that the F-22 has; the F-22 look very sleek while the F-35 looks like it ate too many hamburgers.
- anonisko 6y agoIt could be a moving or cyclical target. Once the collective subconscious comes to consensus that a particular design is what looks 'cool', then it opens up a niche for someone to come in and do something 'ugly' as a demonstration of power. It's like saying, "this is so much better that we don't even care what you think about its appearance." I think the Cybertruck is attempting to do exactly this to wedge itself into the 'badass' American pickup truck market. "Oh that's a cute little F-150 with all it's smooth curves. Does the paint job match your nail polish?" Those without power will always look for new niches and edges to leverage their way into power. That often comes from just mentally reframing what you decide is valuable, because the market for traditionally valuable things is already too crowded. Note; I'm not really giving a moral judgement or approval of this kind of machismo mentality. Just doing some armchair psychology.
- ardit33 6y agoThe Boeing was not just ugly, it failed to do both stovl and supersonic in one fighter, which was a requirement ‘ Due to the heavy delta wing design of the X-32, Boeing demonstrated STOVL and supersonic flight in separate configurations, with the STOVL configuration requiring that some parts be removed from the fighter. The company promised that their conventional tail design for production models would not require separate configurations. By contrast, the Lockheed Martin X-35 concept demonstrator aircraft were capable of transitioning between their STOVL and supersonic configurations in mid-flight.[4]
- stretchcat 6y agoOh boy I couldn't disagree more, the F-22 is doubtlessly cool, but it has nothing on the YF-23. And the X-32 was positively adorable (which isn't cool I guess, but I still love it.) I think the F-35 is downright fugly though, it's too bloated and bumpy looking.
- cartoonfoxes 6y agoThat's why the F-35's nickname is "Fat Amy".
- euler_angles 6y agoIn case someone reads this comment and wonders what the actual names of this aircraft are: The official name is the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. It comes in three variants: * F-35A (Conventional TakeOff/Landing - CTOL) * F-35B (Short TakeOff/Vertical Landing - STOVL) * F-35C (Carrier Variant - CV) While an unofficial nickname hasn't solidly grabbed on, I think, given that USAF Fighter Weapons School calls it the "Panther", that will probably be what holds at least in the US.
- cartoonfoxes 6y agoPanther, as in "60% of the time it works every time"?
- euler_angles 6y agoTo give a serious answer, as in a stealthy animal that stalks its prey unseen until the final, decisive moment and then can exit the situation with haste.
- WJW 6y agoDamen shipyards is on record for stating that they regularly tweak warship designs to "look sleeker and meaner" because it both makes the admirals happy and also reaffirms the beliefs of the public of how warships are "supposed" to look. I'd be very surprised if military aircraft designers did not do something similar. In any case it's also good military thinking. Sun Tzu already said that the pinnacle of warfare is to gain victory without fighting, and one of the ways to do so is to look so menacing that your opponent does not want to engage. Sleek, powerful looking military hardware has that effect much more than bloated and clunky stuff.
- Judgmentality 6y ago> In any case it's also good military thinking. Or more likely enemies see it as posturing and strike full force, thinking they can pierce the superficial veil of technological supremacy. Come on, security theater is bullshit. How many people actually think the TSA does anything useful? If anything it lulls people into a false sense of safety, making us weaker. If our enemies are so easily deterred that our appearance matters more than our capability, then they are not enemies worth taking seriously. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/the-tsa-doesnt-work-and-maybe-it-doesnt-matter/394673/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/the-tsa... https://www.heritage.org/transportation/commentary/heres-how-bad-the-tsa-failing-airport-security-its-time-privatization https://www.heritage.org/transportation/commentary/heres-how...
- wtvanhest 6y agoHijackings were extremely common prior to flight security. TSA was another level, that was extremely frustrating throughout the 2000s, but at a minimum it prevents wildly unstable people from boarding with weapons Check out this list https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings
- Judgmentality 6y agoI wrote a rebuttal with sources but on second thought, I think you make a good point. I should look at the data more and revisit my stance.
- manfredo 6y agoThe F-35 also has a better (lower) radar cross section than the X-32 which had exposed turbine blades. And crucially, the prototype X-32 failed to demonstrate simultaneous VTOL and supersonic flight, while the X-35 did. Seeing as this was the main characteristic the military wanted, this is a pretty significant shortcoming. It's true that more conservative designs have historically prevailed over technically more impressive exotic designs. I think this is not about looking cooler (the YF-23 looked cooler than the F-22 IMO), and more about risk aversion when billions of dollars and people's lives are on the line. And there are still exceptions to this like the B-2. Although it drew on experience from the XB-35.
- chipsa 6y agoThe production version of the X-32 was supposed to have a radar blocker fitted over the front of the turbine to hide the blades. Probably not quite as effective as the serpentine duct seen on the F-22 and F-35, but it would significantly reduce returns.
- enw 6y agoI think this is much more common and crucial for success than we admit. Aesthetics have a very real impact on customers and observers, but we like to pretend it’s not that important.
- Animats 6y agoHave you seen the F-35 in VTOL mode? [1] All those covers open and nozzles stick out so the thing can exert thrust downward. It's amazing that it works. It's not surprising how expensive it was to make it work. The Harrier was kind of elegant, just some pivoting nozzles. [1] https://youtu.be/zW28Mb1YvwY https://youtu.be/zW28Mb1YvwY
- euler_angles 6y agoThe direct lift system of the Harrier is simple but not robust. Turbines hate ingesting hot gas, and a Harrier in a descending hover is descending straight into its own hot exhaust. This can and did cause "pop stalls" which led to an abrupt loss of thrust just when you want consistent thrust, near the ground in a hover. The LiftFan of the F-35B serves to shield the front intakes of the engine from ingesting hot gas, plus there is an auxiliary air inlet on the top of the plane that opens up and allows cold air from above to get sucked straight into the front face of the engine. The 3 Bearing Swivel Nozzle (main engine nozzle pivoting down and somewhat steerable) combined with roll posts in the wings that can give translational thrust/roll control, and a Variable Aperture Vane Box Nozzle (VAVBN) under the lift fan all combine to give high control authority in the hover, and the flight control system has special modes to make controlling the F-35B simpler. Harriers required constant adjustment in the hover to keep from losing control. In the F-35B, once the altitude and attitude in the hover are set, the jet will maintain that as long as there's fuel remaining, without corrective pilot inputs required.
- notional 6y agoI think a lot of weight is placed on the strength of which senate district the plane will be made in. HN tends to argue in a political vacuum but it's hard to ignore that 2 very popular and vocal senators are home to the LM plant in Fort Worth where these planes are constructed. Their influences on DoD budgets/plans in not insignificant.
- GVIrish 6y agoNo, the X-32 lost the competition because it didn't perform as well on several objective measures as the X-35. To the point that very late in the game Boeing tried to switch to a four post tail design and dramatically redesign the wings. But the redesign came too late to be incorporated into their demonstrator aircraft.
- SkyMarshal 6y agoThe F-35 definitely looks nicer than the Boeing X-32 did, but F-22 vs YF-23 is more of a tossup, "eye-of-the-beholder" thing. Back during that competition I actually liked the looks of the YF-23 better, but the F-22 won because it was just a better air superiority fighter (YF-23 had no thrust vectoring, not as maneuverable). F-22 has since grown on me aesthetically.
- flukus 6y agoThat sounds crazy, but multiple times I've been party to multi million dollar software contracts being clinched with a few lines of css to fit the clients corporate theme.
- Triv888 6y agoBut when something looks cooler, a lot of times, they also put more efforts in other areas of the design.
- euler_angles 6y agoOh this is far from a weird theory. I've spoken to people who worked on the program during the fly-off in 2000/2001 and every single one of them say something like "We would never have chosen the Boeing entry because just look at it"
- nradov 6y agoPBS Nova showed a good summary of the selection process. Regardless of aesthetics, the F-35 was objectively superior based on the rating criteria. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/