- Aug 13, 2001
- 8,975
- 11
- 81
Regardless of your feelings on the war, you still have to be awed by the sheer awesomeness of our military vehicles...
- Thread starter SaltBoy
- Start date
I actually prefer the look of the A-10 Warthog or the SR-71 Blackbird. 
Edit: For the stealth fighter you've got it linked to a B-1 bomber. Medium altitude, high speed bomber
Edit: For the stealth fighter you've got it linked to a B-1 bomber. Medium altitude, high speed bomber
The A-10 has to be the most amazing aircraft. I have seen photos of them with large chunks of fuselage and wings missing and the pilots were still able to fly them home.
- Aug 13, 2001
- 8,975
- 11
- 81
Whoops. I thought the B-1 WAS a fighter. My bad.Originally posted by: Feldenak
I actually prefer the look of the A-10 Warthog or the SR-71 Blackbird.
Edit: For the stealth fighter you've got it linked to a B-1 bomber. Medium altitude, high speed bomber
Originally posted by: SaltBoy
Whoops. I thought the B-1 WAS a fighter. My bad.Originally posted by: Feldenak
I actually prefer the look of the A-10 Warthog or the SR-71 Blackbird.
Edit: For the stealth fighter you've got it linked to a B-1 bomber. Medium altitude, high speed bomber
No problem. Easy, general-purpose rule: "B" designation = bomber (B-17, B-24, B-36, B-52, etc...), "F" designation = figher (F-15, F-4, F-16, etc..), and so on and so forth.
Man, that A-10 is one ugly mutha'... but it can 0wnz j00, and everyone else, too.
And the SR-71... that thing is MONEY! The top UNCLASSIFIED speed of that thing was Mach 3.6 or something... at an altitude of 50,000-ish+ feet. So, you know that thing really moves at 4-5 Mach at or above 70k feet! Just guessing, but if I remember all the stuff I read when I was younger about this sexy machine, there were no Russian missiles ever made that could outrun that thing (at least back by mid 80's when I salivated over that plane).
And the SR-71... that thing is MONEY! The top UNCLASSIFIED speed of that thing was Mach 3.6 or something... at an altitude of 50,000-ish+ feet. So, you know that thing really moves at 4-5 Mach at or above 70k feet! Just guessing, but if I remember all the stuff I read when I was younger about this sexy machine, there were no Russian missiles ever made that could outrun that thing (at least back by mid 80's when I salivated over that plane).
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: SaltBoy
Whoops. I thought the B-1 WAS a fighter. My bad.Originally posted by: Feldenak
I actually prefer the look of the A-10 Warthog or the SR-71 Blackbird.
Edit: For the stealth fighter you've got it linked to a B-1 bomber. Medium altitude, high speed bomber
No problem. Easy, general-purpose rule: "B" designation = bomber (B-17, B-24, B-36, B-52, etc...), "F" designation = figher (F-15, F-4, F-16, etc..), and so on and so forth.
Except for the F-117.
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: SaltBoy
Whoops. I thought the B-1 WAS a fighter. My bad.Originally posted by: Feldenak
I actually prefer the look of the A-10 Warthog or the SR-71 Blackbird.
Edit: For the stealth fighter you've got it linked to a B-1 bomber. Medium altitude, high speed bomber
No problem. Easy, general-purpose rule: "B" designation = bomber (B-17, B-24, B-36, B-52, etc...), "F" designation = figher (F-15, F-4, F-16, etc..), and so on and so forth.
Except for the F-117.
The exception that proves the rule?
Actually they make me sick. How many people could have been fed with all of the money wasted on that crap?
wow, you replied to my post like a true politician. instead of rebutting what i said you simply pointed me off on a tangent.
Oh brother... a rant about world hunger. I'm not saying you are wrong, but... Do you know how much US grain and corn goes bad each year?
Do you know how much $$ the US spends to have farmers NOT farm?
I am fairly certain that there is enough food to go around in the world.... or there easily could be. But the problem is not necessarily money, it's just supreme mis-management by governments and stuff. Look at Iraq. That countries population could have been one of the richest in the world. But it's butthead leader takes the money for himself.... does dumb stuff that lands him sactions... and who does that affect... the common people.
In some places, the aid workers are attacked, thereby reducing affectiveness of aid distribution.
So, there are many factors to the problem.... but I wouldn't blame it on not enough $$ to provide food for everyone. Heck... N & S Dakota have a total population of about 7 (no offense), there is plenty of land there to grow a whole bunch o' summer crop.
And think... as much as the US military and might can seem somewhat oppresive, I wondered what the world would be like if we pulled ALL troups and weapons back to the US - just defended our own space? There is a possibility that the Middle East could be a complete wasteland... a sheet of glass due to do Pakistani/Indian tensions/nukes. Milosevik would likely still hang on to power (mayby I'm wrong here... can't remember the specifics of that whole deal). etc. Granted, there are probably a few things that would better off, but I bet, all-in-all, things are better off due to our military, defenses, and $$ we spend on spy/ware planes.
Just rambling... wife is outta town, and I'm goofin' off.
Do you know how much $$ the US spends to have farmers NOT farm?
I am fairly certain that there is enough food to go around in the world.... or there easily could be. But the problem is not necessarily money, it's just supreme mis-management by governments and stuff. Look at Iraq. That countries population could have been one of the richest in the world. But it's butthead leader takes the money for himself.... does dumb stuff that lands him sactions... and who does that affect... the common people.
In some places, the aid workers are attacked, thereby reducing affectiveness of aid distribution.
So, there are many factors to the problem.... but I wouldn't blame it on not enough $$ to provide food for everyone. Heck... N & S Dakota have a total population of about 7 (no offense
), there is plenty of land there to grow a whole bunch o' summer crop.And think... as much as the US military and might can seem somewhat oppresive, I wondered what the world would be like if we pulled ALL troups and weapons back to the US - just defended our own space? There is a possibility that the Middle East could be a complete wasteland... a sheet of glass due to do Pakistani/Indian tensions/nukes. Milosevik would likely still hang on to power (mayby I'm wrong here... can't remember the specifics of that whole deal). etc. Granted, there are probably a few things that would better off, but I bet, all-in-all, things are better off due to our military, defenses, and $$ we spend on spy/ware planes.
Just rambling... wife is outta town, and I'm goofin' off.
And think... as much as the US military and might can seem somewhat oppresive, I wondered what the world would be like if we pulled ALL troups and weapons back to the US - just defended our own space? There is a possibility that the Middle East could be a complete wasteland... a sheet of glass due to do Pakistani/Indian tensions/nukes. Milosevik would likely still hang on to power (mayby I'm wrong here... can't remember the specifics of that whole deal). etc. Granted, there are probably a few things that would better off, but I bet, all-in-all, things are better off due to our military, defenses, and $$ we spend on spy/ware planes.
Just rambling... wife is outta town, and I'm goofin' off.
ok i'll partially agree with you on that
however, i'm of the personal belief that more people would be saved by spending all military money (not just the us, all countries) on humanitarian things. food, medicine, water. i'm sure that more people have died in the world over the centuries due to things like hunger and malnutricion than those that have died due to wars. it's debateable tho, i don't have numbers sitting in front of me here.
Originally posted by: Superdoopercooper
Man, that A-10 is one ugly mutha'... but it can 0wnz j00, and everyone else, too.
And the SR-71... that thing is MONEY! The top UNCLASSIFIED speed of that thing was Mach 3.6 or something... at an altitude of 50,000-ish+ feet. So, you know that thing really moves at 4-5 Mach at or above 70k feet! Just guessing, but if I remember all the stuff I read when I was younger about this sexy machine, there were no Russian missiles ever made that could outrun that thing (at least back by mid 80's when I salivated over that plane).
From what I understand, the SR-71 program was scraped b/c right when we got it done the Russkies made a missle that could catch it, and therefore it never overflew the USSR as much as the U2, the SR-71 also had all kinds of problems, because it could not sit on the ground, it flew and existed fine at high speed and high altitude, but on the ground the hoses would all start leaking and maintenance kinda sucked, but it was amazing anyway.
Makes you wonder in the 60s we fly to the moon, and build the sr-71(1964), what have we done since? lol
Many people compare the the b17 to the a10 in their durability.
And the stealth bomber would have been much better if the it was not Black, but the military did not think the public would fund a baby blue stealth fighter, no lie.
There are too many peopl here right now, the more people that live on the earth the lower all of our standard of living will be, why support hyper growth in countries in Africa, where 1/3 of the population has aids anyway. Once people figure out that not having 8 kids might mean you get enough food then we can help them.
Check out this Population info
edit: I don't know how the italics got turned on
And the reason they don't want to paint em blue is they don't look menacing anymore
they have to be intimidating even if it means that guys with AK-47's and regular AA guns have a better chance at them and your point being? why the hell should billions of dollars be spent on weapons and not food or humanitarian aid?
Originally posted by: Sxotty
Originally posted by: Superdoopercooper
Man, that A-10 is one ugly mutha'... but it can 0wnz j00, and everyone else, too.
And the SR-71... that thing is MONEY! The top UNCLASSIFIED speed of that thing was Mach 3.6 or something... at an altitude of 50,000-ish+ feet. So, you know that thing really moves at 4-5 Mach at or above 70k feet! Just guessing, but if I remember all the stuff I read when I was younger about this sexy machine, there were no Russian missiles ever made that could outrun that thing (at least back by mid 80's when I salivated over that plane).
From what I understand, the SR-71 program was scraped b/c right when we got it done the Russkies made a missle that could catch it, and therefore it never overflew the USSR as much as the U2, the SR-71 also had all kinds of problems, because it could not sit on the ground, it flew and existed fine at high speed and high altitude, but on the ground the hoses would all start leaking and maintenance kinda sucked, but it was amazing anyway.
Makes you wonder in the 60s we fly to the moon, and build the sr-71(1964), what have we done since? lol
Many people compare the the b17 to the a10 in their durability.
And the stealth bomber would have been much better if the it was not Black, but the military did not think the public would fund a baby blue stealth fighter, no lie.
The reason the SR-71 leaked fuel was because it had to be designed that way. Due to the skin of the aircraft expanding at high speeds, it had gaps and leaks while on the ground (cold). At operational speed those leaks would seal up nice and tight. The aircraft was/is an engineering marvel.
Sxotty,
The SR-71 wasn't decommissioned until the mid 80s. maybe even the early 90s when it finally made it final flight! So, it got plenty of use. Much was covert and classified, so you wouldn't know it even if they were using it. It was, in the latter part of it's life, used for CIA ops.
And, I still think that it was uncatchable by a missile. I think the big thing was that the altitude factored WITH the speed. A SAM would have to launch and travel 15-20 miles just to get to the altitude at which the SR71 was flying. Then, even if the missile was a tad faster, it would take a heck of a long time to reach targe. This all equals: missile out of gas!! I could be wrong... but this is what I remember.
But you are right: on the ground, that thing was a wreck. It was designed to PURPOSELY have wide tolerances and "holes" in the fuel tanks/joints on the ground, so that when it was skimming the atmosphere at Mach 4 and it super heated to XXX degrees, everything would expand and form perfect seals and stuff. So, what they would do is load enuff fuel into the plane to allow it to leak a few gallons, basically get it off the ground, and up to a particular altitude, and then refuel it. I think with a fully loaded tank on the ground it was too much weight to get off the ground. The thing is a flying gas-tank.
And when it would land, they couldn't touch the thing for quite a while. Too hot.
The SR-71 wasn't decommissioned until the mid 80s. maybe even the early 90s when it finally made it final flight! So, it got plenty of use. Much was covert and classified, so you wouldn't know it even if they were using it. It was, in the latter part of it's life, used for CIA ops.
And, I still think that it was uncatchable by a missile. I think the big thing was that the altitude factored WITH the speed. A SAM would have to launch and travel 15-20 miles just to get to the altitude at which the SR71 was flying. Then, even if the missile was a tad faster, it would take a heck of a long time to reach targe. This all equals: missile out of gas!! I could be wrong... but this is what I remember.
But you are right: on the ground, that thing was a wreck. It was designed to PURPOSELY have wide tolerances and "holes" in the fuel tanks/joints on the ground, so that when it was skimming the atmosphere at Mach 4 and it super heated to XXX degrees, everything would expand and form perfect seals and stuff. So, what they would do is load enuff fuel into the plane to allow it to leak a few gallons
, basically get it off the ground, and up to a particular altitude, and then refuel it. I think with a fully loaded tank on the ground it was too much weight to get off the ground. The thing is a flying gas-tank. And when it would land, they couldn't touch the thing for quite a while. Too hot.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
The B2 was basically a failure, wasn't it? Something about it originally being intended to go in on solo bombing missions undetected, unload its payload and streak home undetected. But considering the cost of losing even just one B2 is so enormous each bomber is escorted by fighters on each run anyway. We might as well just use B1Bs, F16s or whatever the heck else is in the arsenal.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter