F-35 Delayed After Fourth Prototype Becomes Self-Aware And Has To Be Destroyed

[rickstef]

Originally Posted by WVA

Interesting, and funny replies here, but I would like to know just what "became self aware and had to be destroyed" really means. How does an airplane, in spite of all of it's sophisticated stuff, become "self-aware"? Just some technical jargon, or is this the future of robotic stuff?

Jim,

It is a take off on the Terminator movies, explained in T2 and T3: Rise of the Machines

and the nightmare scenario described by Arthur C Clarke in some of his books on robots

[airdave]

In spite of its sophisticated stuff?
I would think it is as a result of its sophisticated stuff.

Self aware = "I think, therefore I am"
The final step for an A.I.
Skynet goes online.
The final step to conciousness.

The fear of Skynet being a reality.
The human fear is that robots will take over.

The headline is a joke.
The human vs robots joke.

[willygoat]

The gun is still in-op right now. I did see that they are testing the gun pods for the Marines. Makes sense as they will be the first to be "operational" with the F-35.

I know it's a very complicated aircraft and sensor system, but the protracted development is insane. The Air Force model (F-35A) can still only go up to mach 1.2, which is well short of its supposed top speed. It can pull a whopping 5.5g's, and only use a 20 degree angle of attack. A Cessna 150 can go farther out of level than that.

The F135 engines are still being watched closely I think. Hmmm. Maybe they should have actually had a competition for engine developers like initially planned.

[mercurykid]

Here in Marietta, Georgia, USA where Lockheed has a huge presence, the general impression is that the F-35, despite the MANY, MANY problems it continues to have, the aircraft will be built in sizable numbers of each version.

The USN, the USAF, and the Marine Corps have already designed and built major infrastructures to serve the aircraft regardless of when it actually comes on line in real numbers. All three service branches have placed significant emphasis on how the aircraft will benefit each respective service; doctrine (premature as it might be) has already been folded into operational planning in such a way that the aircraft must not fail (regardless of actual performance). In short, each service branch has too many eggs in this one F-35 basket, much prestige on the line, careers in high places jeopardized, and finally.... the general understanding that too much money has been spent on this most expensive weapon system in world history to not complete it, despite the many broken promises, performance issues, unit cost inflation, and general understanding (even within the military circles) that this albatross will never perform as originally intended or promised.

The F-35 will just be another aircraft on the flight line. It will do a few things well, but much fewer than intended. It will augment other more capable aircraft in the world inventory, but it will be infamous for its many shortcomings. We tax payers will pay the ultimate price for this fiasco of a weapon system. The actual developers, generals, admirals, and the politicians who pushed for it will be retired and enjoying the fruits of this whole failed endeavor.

Look for the first of many books to historically document this failed project within the next few years. It will be a best seller indeed!

[willygoat]

Originally Posted by mercurykid

Look for the first of many books to historically document this failed project within the next few years. It will be a best seller indeed!

I bet there will be a bunch of them! I'm sure they speak pretty highly of the
C-130 in Marietta though. The Herc is still rolling off the line after over 50 years!

[maurice]

"I think, therefore I am"

I am convinced that Rene Descartes got it completely wrong when he made that statement.
I can accept that he did think he thought but that was not in itself sufficient proof of his existence.
The only conclusion he could have accurately come to as the starting point for his Meditations was that therefore he thought he was.
My tag line is an attempt to present the truth of the matter and to correct this appalling error that has persisted and misled people for centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medita...rst_Philosophy



(Try not to take this post too seriously folks)

[mercurykid]

Yes, the C-130 is legendary. Every one was built here in our town and not a day goes by that we don't see several flying around the area. The J version is currently on the production line, and though sales have been slow, the line is projected to be open for at least another decade.

The C-130 is a great example of a design that far out paced it's original intent.

[Paper Kosmonaut]

Indeed, the C-130 is an example of an aircraft which has proven itself completely. Just like the BUFF, it has such good qualities the air forces flying it just cannot do without it. It's a good plane.
Good planes not necessarily have unblemished reputations. The F-16 also had its share of problems, as did the F-104 or other legendary aircraft.
The fact C-130s and B-52s still are operational and going strong shows there are machines which are worth keeping and flying.

Sir Sidney Camm, designer of the Hurricane, was quoted when the TSR was cancelled: "For an aircraft to succeed, it has to get four dimensions right. Wingspan, length, height and politics." While the TSR2 failed in just the last one, I think the F-35 just scores full points at politics and far below average on the other three.
It could very well be the F-35 will share the same fate as say, the Douglas Skyray, the Grumman F-11f or the first McDonnel Phantom. They all had just a short operational life.
But then again, the F-35 might turn out to be a formidable opponent. (which brings us back to the comic part of the story.)


Cartoon by Arend van Dam.
And someone came with a solution to the lack of all-round vision in the cockpit:

As you see, the Dutchies really are quite fond of mocking the stubby bug.

[sharunas]

Aircraft such as C-130 or B-52 ain't anymore in the same area of new technology development. Those are just like hammer (IMHO) - you could improve one by making handle out of carbon fiber, it would cost 10x more and would make work easier only by 10%...

Today the net is loaded with critics regarding new usa's 5-gen aircrafts, uselessness of stealth... Majority of criticism comes from non-NATO countries. But at the same time those countries are developing their own 5-gen stealth fighters. So where's the point?

[Paper Kosmonaut]

Originally Posted by sharunas

Aircraft such as C-130 or B-52 ain't anymore in the same area of new technology development. Those are just like hammer (IMHO) - you could improve one by making handle out of carbon fiber, it would cost 10x more and would make work easier only by 10%...

Today the net is loaded with critics regarding new usa's 5-gen aircrafts, uselessness of stealth... Majority of criticism comes from non-NATO countries. But at the same time those countries are developing their own 5-gen stealth fighters. So where's the point?

Trends. Even Iran is (pretending to?) create a stealthy airplane. (most pictures of that are a joke in itself, IMHO) As far as I know the stealth uselessness discussion stems mostly from the quotes of one person.

And I know the C-130 and B-52 are not in the same league as the B-2 and the A400M. But the fact they still fly and are used after more than 50 years of service shows they are needed, necessary and sturdy. Same goes for the U2. No need for a replacement when the old one still is adequate in its work.
A B-52 could come home with its entire tail shot off. An F-15 has been able to fly back to base with just one wing. I doubt the F-35 will be able to do so.

And hammers are still useful. You cannot drive a nail into a wall with a plastic calculator. furthermore, replacing the wooden or steel handle with carbon would make it more prone to breaking. Hammers don't have wooden (or steel) handles for millennia for nothing.