Yea, great picture. Our current enemies have no jets. How many gazillion did this picture cost? Universal health care is too expensive. No debt in the Bush years.
Hit up youtube for "breaking sound barrier" and such. Loads of videos cooler than that photo last I checked, usually on special "fly-by" days on carriers.
@Steffi: Though it's been explained, I have to chime in as fluid dynamics was my favorite subject in school. What you're seeing is water coming out of solution, a novel concept for the uninitiated.
The "Humidity" you always hear about means the nothing more than the relative amount of water per unit volume of air. Water is naturally soluble in air, and its status as a soluable is dependent on temperature, pressure, and volume. Vary any of the three the appropriate way and the water in the solution may condense.
When a plane passes through the air, it introduces a substantial variation in local pressure, especially at the wing tips. The drop in pressure yields conditions which result in the water coming out of solution, resulting in localized "fog," thus the contrails at the wingtips.
When the plane goes supersonic, it introduces a much more complex phenomenon commonly known as a shock wave, wherein the planes physical surface creates a conical pressure wave which depressurizes the air around it, creating the same localized "fog."
@elwood: It's highly dependent on the competence of the professor. There's no logic in counting courses at Kettering including fluid dynamics, differential equations, mechatronics, material science, circuits, finite element analysis and thermodynamics as favorite subjects while multivariate calculus, circuits lab, organic chem, and dynamic systems analysis 2 are horror shows of sanctioned cribbing and guessing.
It takes balls of solid tungsten to climb into the seat of a modern fighter. The damn things are designed to be dynamically unstable in order to be so maneuverable, but that makes them literally unflyable without the aid of several computers providing constant correction.
My condolences to the family. There's no way to sugarcoat an accident like this. Somebody's got to actually fire the beast up and fly it, and this guy's number came up.
First, sympathy to the pilot and his (I'm assuming the pilot if male) family, friends, etc.
Second, by the time you factor in the total spending on the F-22, you are talking $355 Million per aircraft. It's one of the greatest boondoggles in history, a fighter craft that won't do what's it's supposed to do, and is barely better than what's it replacing. From the 3/9 issue of American Conservative:
"The F-22 is the distillation of that failed dream. The huge weight, drag, and complexity burden of its stealth-compromised skin, big-ticket radar, and belly-fattening radar missile load have swollen it to bomber size, wrecked its maneuvering performance, and run its cost through the roof. The radar is useless because turning it on makes the F-22 an instant target. The stealth fails against World War II-technology search radars and against enemy fighters savvy enough to turn off their radars. The F-22's vaunted effectiveness is based only on peacetime exercises using rigged ground rules and missile lethality numbers unrelated to actual combat results or real enemy countermeasures. Even more telling is the number of combat sorties the F-22 has flown to help the fights in Iraq or Afghanistan since going operational in 2006: zero. "
It's also one of the reasons we could not get adequately armored Humvees and other vehicles to soldiers on the ground.
@don_mynack: Who ever wrote that clearly does not know anything about the capabilities of the F-22.
1. It has clearly a very maneuverable fighter. The huge control surfaces, thrust vectoring and advanced flight controls allow for some pretty crazy maneuverability.
2. Turning on the F-22's radar does not make it a target. The AESA radar can operate in low probability of intercept (LPI) mode. The mode allows the radar to frequency hop and change other parameters so that enemy's radar warning receiver just sees as noise. Also it is very narrow beam, so it has even less chance of being seen. Also a raptor at a range outside of the enemy's missiles could be using its radar to find the enemy and then send the information to the closer raptor that can fire its missiles at the targets without ever turning on its radar.
3. WWII radars with very long wavelengths may be able to detect the F-22. But detecting is very different than having a firing solution.
4. It does not matter if an enemy turns off its radar, because it can still be seen by the raptors radar or AWACs.
5. The effectiveness argument could be a good argument if it was based soley on the US Air force, but foreign pilots that have flown it or flown against it are in awe of it. The British pilots have said they could not even get a radar lock when they could see the plane. Also the Russians have said that it is far and beyond anything they make.
6. The raptors worth may be judged not by how much it is used, but in how much it is not used. Not to mention why should we be only equiped to fight a counter-insurgency? Why are we assuming that is all we are ever going to fight ever again?
Crack pipe. If it was actually an AMX instead of just being cloned, I'd go for it, but nah. It's a good-looking car, but honestly, if the owner's willing to fudge the badging, it makes me wonder what else is.
Other than the plane, which can be replaced, the loss of an experience test pilot is a big blow. I'm wondering what they were testing. They do some crazy stuff out at Edwards, and the pilots know the risks they are taking when they climb into a plane with experimental equipment on board.
Now I feel like I need to watch The Right Stuff again.
Dude, you just named some of my favorite movies of all time.
However, I love James Bond and Star Trek flicks as well, no matter how terrible they are, simply because of the awesomeness that is James Bond and Star Trek in general. There's a lot to be said for the Lord of the Rings trilogy, too. And Indiana Jones.
And, I know, I am weird as hell, but for some reason I find The Transporter movies to be stupidly entertaining. If they hired a real writer and added a little more character depth and development, and some better plot material, it could damn near be the next James Bond series.
The average flyaway cost is calculated by adding up the cost of parts and assembly of aircraft components (engines, airframe, etc.) and the cost of final assembly for the entire lot of aircraft purchased, and then divided by the number of aircraft produced in that lot.
It does not include the cost of logistical support.
The flyaway cost for Lot 7 aircraft in FY08 dollars is $141.507 million.
@pauljones-Jo Schmo's saintly and opposite twin.: "Listen, I don't want to play your games and I don't want to pay some documentation fee or for the undercoating that I didn't want! I will pay you 140 million and not a penny more and I will drive this thing out of here today!"
@pauljones-Jo Schmo's saintly and opposite twin.: You would think that the price of jet fighters goes down as they build more. However, the F-16 cost about $15 million when it came out. Now it is priced at about $50 million. Don't know why. How do I know this? I have been browsing e-bay, looking for an airforce to protect my private island. Along with browsing for a Bentley to pick up chicks.
Have you tried accounting for inflation in the 30+ years that the F-16 has been flying? Not mention vastly more complicated and expensive avionics fits?
When the F-16 first came out, it was intended to be a no-frills, bare-bones ACM fighter with little more than a ranging radar. It has now evolved into one of the most advanced strikefighters in existence. That kind of capability upgrade usually adds to the cost.
07/01/09
07/02/09
07/01/09
07/01/09
07/01/09
[www.youtube.com]
07/02/09
mmm... sound
07/01/09
/jalopnik stereotypes.
07/01/09
07/01/09
07/01/09
07/01/09
07/01/09
The "Humidity" you always hear about means the nothing more than the relative amount of water per unit volume of air. Water is naturally soluble in air, and its status as a soluable is dependent on temperature, pressure, and volume. Vary any of the three the appropriate way and the water in the solution may condense.
When a plane passes through the air, it introduces a substantial variation in local pressure, especially at the wing tips. The drop in pressure yields conditions which result in the water coming out of solution, resulting in localized "fog," thus the contrails at the wingtips.
When the plane goes supersonic, it introduces a much more complex phenomenon commonly known as a shock wave, wherein the planes physical surface creates a conical pressure wave which depressurizes the air around it, creating the same localized "fog."
07/01/09
07/01/09
07/02/09
07/01/09
YOU GO PLANE!
04/16/09
03/26/09
My condolences to the family. There's no way to sugarcoat an accident like this. Somebody's got to actually fire the beast up and fly it, and this guy's number came up.
03/26/09
Second, by the time you factor in the total spending on the F-22, you are talking $355 Million per aircraft. It's one of the greatest boondoggles in history, a fighter craft that won't do what's it's supposed to do, and is barely better than what's it replacing. From the 3/9 issue of American Conservative:
"The F-22 is the distillation of that failed dream. The huge weight, drag, and complexity burden of its stealth-compromised skin, big-ticket radar, and belly-fattening radar missile load have swollen it to bomber size, wrecked its maneuvering performance, and run its cost through the roof. The radar is useless because turning it on makes the F-22 an instant target. The stealth fails against World War II-technology search radars and against enemy fighters savvy enough to turn off their radars. The F-22's vaunted effectiveness is based only on peacetime exercises using rigged ground rules and missile lethality numbers unrelated to actual combat results or real enemy countermeasures. Even more telling is the number of combat sorties the F-22 has flown to help the fights in Iraq or Afghanistan since going operational in 2006: zero. "
It's also one of the reasons we could not get adequately armored Humvees and other vehicles to soldiers on the ground.
03/26/09
Don't hurt yourself grindin' that ax....
03/26/09
1. It has clearly a very maneuverable fighter. The huge control surfaces, thrust vectoring and advanced flight controls allow for some pretty crazy maneuverability.
2. Turning on the F-22's radar does not make it a target. The AESA radar can operate in low probability of intercept (LPI) mode. The mode allows the radar to frequency hop and change other parameters so that enemy's radar warning receiver just sees as noise. Also it is very narrow beam, so it has even less chance of being seen. Also a raptor at a range outside of the enemy's missiles could be using its radar to find the enemy and then send the information to the closer raptor that can fire its missiles at the targets without ever turning on its radar.
3. WWII radars with very long wavelengths may be able to detect the F-22. But detecting is very different than having a firing solution.
4. It does not matter if an enemy turns off its radar, because it can still be seen by the raptors radar or AWACs.
5. The effectiveness argument could be a good argument if it was based soley on the US Air force, but foreign pilots that have flown it or flown against it are in awe of it. The British pilots have said they could not even get a radar lock when they could see the plane. Also the Russians have said that it is far and beyond anything they make.
6. The raptors worth may be judged not by how much it is used, but in how much it is not used. Not to mention why should we be only equiped to fight a counter-insurgency? Why are we assuming that is all we are ever going to fight ever again?
03/26/09
03/26/09
03/26/09
03/26/09
03/26/09
Now I feel like I need to watch The Right Stuff again.
03/26/09
03/26/09
Hmmmm...there's a definite pattern there. Maybe I should be on Planeopnik.
03/26/09
Dude, you just named some of my favorite movies of all time.
However, I love James Bond and Star Trek flicks as well, no matter how terrible they are, simply because of the awesomeness that is James Bond and Star Trek in general. There's a lot to be said for the Lord of the Rings trilogy, too. And Indiana Jones.
And, I know, I am weird as hell, but for some reason I find The Transporter movies to be stupidly entertaining. If they hired a real writer and added a little more character depth and development, and some better plot material, it could damn near be the next James Bond series.
03/26/09
Read Yeager's autobiography. It's an excellent view into the man and what all he did test pilot and other exploits. He's an old school hoon.
03/26/09
03/26/09
The $150M/unit price includes spare parts and all the necessary training to service, repair, and (possibly) fly the thing.
Each unit in and of itself is probably a bit cheaper. Maybe $100M.
03/26/09
03/26/09
The average flyaway cost is calculated by adding up the cost of parts and assembly of aircraft components (engines, airframe, etc.) and the cost of final assembly for the entire lot of aircraft purchased, and then divided by the number of aircraft produced in that lot.
It does not include the cost of logistical support.
The flyaway cost for Lot 7 aircraft in FY08 dollars is $141.507 million.
03/26/09
"Let go talk to my sales manager, ok?"
03/26/09
Sales manager: "Make him an offer he can't refuse."
03/26/09
03/26/09
Have you tried accounting for inflation in the 30+ years that the F-16 has been flying? Not mention vastly more complicated and expensive avionics fits?
When the F-16 first came out, it was intended to be a no-frills, bare-bones ACM fighter with little more than a ranging radar. It has now evolved into one of the most advanced strikefighters in existence. That kind of capability upgrade usually adds to the cost.
03/26/09
So maybe - just maybe - that flippant picture that says "oh crap" is in incredibly bad taste.
03/26/09
But, to be fair, that picture is an exact summarization of what goes through a pilot's head in that situation.
03/26/09