why isn't the F-35 fully composite (carbon fibre) ?
its a modern aircraft, its not like it was designed in the 70s when CF barely existed.
we keep hearing about how much stronger and lighter CF is compared to other materials (Alu, Steel, ...) yet the aviation industry seems sceptical about it.
why is that ?
It's brittle and those things are supposed to get hit with bullets
its not brittle if u dunk it in a thick coat of epoxy
thats actually a very valid point.
but what about commercial aircraft ? they still refuse to make structure/ribs out of it, they only use it on non critical parts.
America has more cost-efficient ways of putting carbon in the air
Maybe because when high up in the cold atmosphere going at high speeds the epoxy hardens and cracks off the craft? After so many fuckups they decided not to build it that way? Or they are just stupid and didn't test it yet.
T. aerospace larper
what if a bird/God dropped a pebble on it while it was flying at 500 mph?
what if a bird could fly at mach 2 and 30000ft you dumbfuck
Because it was never meant to be airplane that is used in real combat situation. It was always one of 'teh weaponz' that America used to frighten people who want to destroy it.
a bird/God, you fucking retard
what about the F-22? also a moder Aircraft its mostly titanium.
same with Russian jets, very little carbon fibre in their construction. and always in non critical parts.
the internal structure is always made of some sort of alloy.
WHAT IF I'M LITERALLY ON THE ISS AND A PIGEON DECIDES TO SHIT MY FUCKING DAY UP OH DAMN
...
Outer construction of the plane is supposed to be a special polymer or something to reduce/absorb radar reflections, it supposedly works against passive radar systems as well
Its also a really excellent way to get pilots to do dumb shit 'your plane cant be detected by radar go bomb some norks'
If I remember correctly that modern F-35 lost against cold war era F-16 in war-games dogfighting.
It is realistic scenario if you ever wage war against someone other than desert goat-fucking cult.
It's more likely than you think!
It's less manoeuvrable than last-gen aircraft, its stealth is an order of magnitude worse than the F-117 (which itself got shot down by a bunch of Serbs with SAMs from fucking 1961, meaning the F-35 "stealth" "fighter" is unable to hide from missiles that came out nearly half a century before its first flight), and it is not particularly capable at any of the roles it is expected to fill (since trying to be both a bomb truck for CAS and a high-altitude interceptor makes you capable of neither).
The F-35 was not supposed to be good. It was supposed to move money. That's why they got Lockheeb to make it. Asking why they didn't use a material that might have made it "better" is irrelevant, because its capabilities as an aircraft were not the point.
wew
thats not the point, see
HAHAHHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
...
Nope. That was effectively a debug flight with alpha software. The "it can't dogfight" meme is spread by people who don't grok software development and don't understand debugging and testing. Surely that's not a problem on Holla Forums. In actual wargaming against F-15s, F-16s, etc. the F-35 is undefeated.
Holy shit their going to get massacared with that mindset of fix it later costing a life or expensive plane.
the F-35 is too complex for its own good, there is just so many things that can fail.
it makes it highly unreliable.
Fuck off back to Holla Forums tripfag.
...
I believe the rationale was that dogfighting has almost become irrelevant due to sidewinder missile systems. youtube.com
Not so quick. Yes modern short range missiles are a wonder weapon against manned fighter jets because they're limited to pulling 9G while the missile can pull much more.
But remember the trend of UCAVs: we'll have unmanned combat jets which will be able to out turn the missiles once more. When that happens it wouldn't surprise me if they had to fallback to guns.
thats off topic
The answer to most military design conundrums is that military weapons are designed by private contractors to be as expensive as possible.
why don't they just put spinners and underglow while you're at it
when you get your capitalist consumerist country to invest in defense technology for decades without a single test
The Syrian plane downed by the US Navy in behalf of their friendly terrorist, not too long ago, managed to evade one sidewinder missile before being taken down by a different kind of missile
I'm going to go see the F-35B at an airshow next weekend. What snide remark can I loudly make for the marines to overhear and feel bad about their planefu?
Mostly screams as it falls out of the sky on top of your head
buy Sukhoi Su-57 instead comrade
only 50 million a piece
...