Oldmann1584
Active member
i didn't realize people actually cared about fighter jets this much
Only FIGHTER JETS
- Thread starter Dr.Gnar
- Start date
Actually they were F-5E's and F-5F's from the US Navy - Same Northrop airframe though.
F-5's were also used in Apocalypse Now for the Napalm scene - supplied by the Philippines.
This all reminds me of the F-20, and how it somehow wasn't brought on - even though it was like a super upgraded F-5 that was pretty much equal to the F16, yet was cheaper to build and maintain. Best fighter never produced...
F-5's were also used in Apocalypse Now for the Napalm scene - supplied by the Philippines.
This all reminds me of the F-20, and how it somehow wasn't brought on - even though it was like a super upgraded F-5 that was pretty much equal to the F16, yet was cheaper to build and maintain. Best fighter never produced...
USMC Pilots take the cake there...
Haha. Least the ones I've met through friends/random shit have all been extremely egotistical...
One dude had the gall to hit on my girlfriend at the time right in front of me when we were out at a bar. then he proceeded to insult me for being a 'twig ass pipsqueek' when she told him off. I would have had words for him myself, but what good would it have done - dude was like 5'8 and had an obvious napoleon complex haha.
I don't even know why he was wearing his marines pilot garb on anyways. We were nowhere near Miramar or anything...
One dude had the gall to hit on my girlfriend at the time right in front of me when we were out at a bar. then he proceeded to insult me for being a 'twig ass pipsqueek' when she told him off. I would have had words for him myself, but what good would it have done - dude was like 5'8 and had an obvious napoleon complex haha.
I don't even know why he was wearing his marines pilot garb on anyways. We were nowhere near Miramar or anything...
pbandj
Active member
fucking little man syndrome is a bitch. I fucking hate dudes like that, always something to prove.
most of the guys i've hung out with that are naval aviators are over all pretty good dudes, it's the occasional asshole you have to look out for, and they're typically FNG's at that... yet again always something to prove.
most of the guys i've hung out with that are naval aviators are over all pretty good dudes, it's the occasional asshole you have to look out for, and they're typically FNG's at that... yet again always something to prove.
Yeah, one of my pretty good friends flew P3's. He now flies them for Calfire. Coolest guy ever - that said, it's not like he's flying jets I suppose? haha.
Yeah, he's never flown one into a Hurricane, but he did fly them over Kandahar in Afghanistan. Now he flies them over fucking forest fires and gets to bomb fires with retardant and water. Pretty sweet show.
He did however fly supersonic trainers before he decided he really wanted to fly bigger planes like the c130.
He did however fly supersonic trainers before he decided he really wanted to fly bigger planes like the c130.
howlongcanausern
Active member
this sound gives me such a boner:
sherwood4099
Active member
That is because they are constantly in development even as they are deployed we upgrade avionics, targeting, radar, weapons capabilities etc all the time. Look at the difference between a B52 in the 60s compared to our modern ones. Or the orginal apache compared to the longbow. It's a good sign it means we are making the most out of each platform.
snowbombz
Active member
Very true, however its not necessarily a good thing.
The F22 has practical role in the military today; it was designed for the Cold War. flying one f22 is more expensive than just flying two fa18s (not to mention the upfront cost) , one with radar jammers (fa18g) and another with weapons (fa18f). Sure it pushes the envelope on technology, but its a pointless machine with a 130 million dollar price tag. There is a reason its cancelled.
The F22 has practical role in the military today; it was designed for the Cold War. flying one f22 is more expensive than just flying two fa18s (not to mention the upfront cost) , one with radar jammers (fa18g) and another with weapons (fa18f). Sure it pushes the envelope on technology, but its a pointless machine with a 130 million dollar price tag. There is a reason its cancelled.
Flying~Squirrel
Active member
when the first jet planes were being developed towards the end of WWII, they were a lot more expensive than the piston engine planes of the time and therefore didnt get used much, even though there performance was much greater. 20 years later, as jet engines became more mundane, they became cheaper to produce and soon piston engines were completely obsolete. now to apply that analogy in the 21st century, the piston aircraft are non stealth fighter (f/a-18, f-15, su-27, etc.) and the jet engine is fifth generation aircraft (f-22, f-35, t-50, etc). give it some time and a combination of competition and new innovation will make 5th generation planes much easier to produce.
pbandj
Active member
f/a18f's have radar jammers already, though their scope is limited.
when f/a 18 f's and 22's go up against each other it is ultimately a draw, unless they get a visual. because neither one can see each other on radar.
that being said, the russians recently released a SAM that can overcome the jammer's of the f/a 18-f, and the e 18-g, thus making both useless and a stealth design useful.
when f/a 18 f's and 22's go up against each other it is ultimately a draw, unless they get a visual. because neither one can see each other on radar.
that being said, the russians recently released a SAM that can overcome the jammer's of the f/a 18-f, and the e 18-g, thus making both useless and a stealth design useful.
I'd love radar and stealth technology to get so badass that they have to go back to guns... haha.
Flying~Squirrel
Active member
they put a gun in the f-22 for a reason
RickAstley
Member
That was a great, great post
I just wish they would put 2 of the guns they slapped on the A10 in another plane - imagine that fucker being around in ww2...
Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_military_aircraft
In the 1986 film Top Gun[/i], Lt. Pete "Maverick" Mitchell (Tom Cruise) squared off against MiG-28s with no NATO reporting name and of unspecified nationality. These were nothing more than American Northrop F-5s, which at the time were being used as aggressor aircraft for dissimilar air combat training at the real TOPGUN seminar (now known as theUnited States Navy Fighter Weapons School). The F-5s "acting" as MiG-28s were painted flat black to indicate their villainous status, and retained those paint jobs after production closed.[4] The paint also increased the aircraft's visibility, a plus for filmmaking. The nation flying these MiG-28s is not specified whatsoever in the film but assumed to be theSoviet Union or another Communist state; audio commentary on the film's Special-Edition DVD release states that they were originally intended to be North Korean. In the script, American pilots are warned that the MiG-28 is armed with the Exocet, a French-made anti-ship missile not found in the inventory of Soviet forces. In video games licensed from the films, the enemy planes are replaced with real Soviet aircraft, the MiG-29 "Fulcrum".
In the 1986 film Top Gun[/i], Lt. Pete "Maverick" Mitchell (Tom Cruise) squared off against MiG-28s with no NATO reporting name and of unspecified nationality. These were nothing more than American Northrop F-5s, which at the time were being used as aggressor aircraft for dissimilar air combat training at the real TOPGUN seminar (now known as theUnited States Navy Fighter Weapons School). The F-5s "acting" as MiG-28s were painted flat black to indicate their villainous status, and retained those paint jobs after production closed.[4] The paint also increased the aircraft's visibility, a plus for filmmaking. The nation flying these MiG-28s is not specified whatsoever in the film but assumed to be theSoviet Union or another Communist state; audio commentary on the film's Special-Edition DVD release states that they were originally intended to be North Korean. In the script, American pilots are warned that the MiG-28 is armed with the Exocet, a French-made anti-ship missile not found in the inventory of Soviet forces. In video games licensed from the films, the enemy planes are replaced with real Soviet aircraft, the MiG-29 "Fulcrum".
Dr.Gnar
Member
On October 14, 1947, the Bell X-1 became the first airplane to fly faster than the speed of sound. Piloted by U.S. Air Force Capt. Charles E. "Chuck" Yeager, the X-1 reached a speed of 1,127 kilometers (700 miles) per hour, Mach 1.06, at an altitude of 13,000 meters (43,000 feet)
This is the X-15 from the 1960's. During its research program the aircraft set unofficial world speed and altitude records of 4,520 mph (Mach 6.7 on Oct. 3, 1967, with Air Force pilot Pete Knight at the controls) and 354,200 ft (on Aug. 22, 1963, with NASA pilot Joseph Walker in the cockpit). The X-15 had no landing gear, but rather skidded to a stop in a 200 mph landing on skis. It had reaction controls for attitude control in space, and was a major step on the path toward space exploration. Much of what was learned on the X-15 was applied to the Space Shuttle.
The Russian Tupolev Tu-160 (Blackjack) is the largest and heaviest bomber ever produced, mounting the most powerful jet engines ever used on a military aircraft. It was Russia's answer to the American B-1 Lancer. Note the similarities. First pic (Tu-160), second pic (B-1).
And here's some more B-2 Spirit porn.
This is the X-15 from the 1960's. During its research program the aircraft set unofficial world speed and altitude records of 4,520 mph (Mach 6.7 on Oct. 3, 1967, with Air Force pilot Pete Knight at the controls) and 354,200 ft (on Aug. 22, 1963, with NASA pilot Joseph Walker in the cockpit). The X-15 had no landing gear, but rather skidded to a stop in a 200 mph landing on skis. It had reaction controls for attitude control in space, and was a major step on the path toward space exploration. Much of what was learned on the X-15 was applied to the Space Shuttle.
The Russian Tupolev Tu-160 (Blackjack) is the largest and heaviest bomber ever produced, mounting the most powerful jet engines ever used on a military aircraft. It was Russia's answer to the American B-1 Lancer. Note the similarities. First pic (Tu-160), second pic (B-1).
And here's some more B-2 Spirit porn.
Bodhisattva_
Active member
Oh fuck yeah. And flying planes and cutting chute cords was badass.
pbandj
Active member
that's because they're basically just floating targets now.
with the advanced technology the planes have they can just launch a missile from 40 miles out and sink the fuckers..
granted they are badass, but they're more or less just useless at this point. not to mention most of our current wars are based inland at this point, granting them even further redundancy.
with the advanced technology the planes have they can just launch a missile from 40 miles out and sink the fuckers..
granted they are badass, but they're more or less just useless at this point. not to mention most of our current wars are based inland at this point, granting them even further redundancy.
geteducated
Active member
so then what are air craft carriers? not floating targets?
there are two kinds of boats in the navy. targets and submarines.
there are two kinds of boats in the navy. targets and submarines.
Dwarftosser1
Active member
The Missouri is a museum at Pearl Harbor.
TACO-DOG.exe
Active member
pbandj
Active member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleships#Modern_times
i'd like to highlight
"With the decommissioning of the last Iowa-class ships, no battleships remain in service (including in reserve) with any navy worldwide."
i'd like to highlight
"With the decommissioning of the last Iowa-class ships, no battleships remain in service (including in reserve) with any navy worldwide."
geteducated
Active member
they told him his wife was on board.
TACO-DOG.exe
Active member
the pilot was all like LOL NOPE
pbandj
Active member
the rail gun is an interesting idea no doubt, however it will probably be contained to use on cruisers and destroyers, seeing as rail guns are recoil-less they won't need a platform as big as a battleship to be fired.
battleships at this point just cost to much damn money to manufacture, fuel, and man. even the next generation of carriers are getting fitted with more efficient reactors, and have a much lower crew number. as I previously stated they are large targets. when air craft carriers took over as the "capital" ships, naval warfare changed drastically, I mean what's the point of a huge ass ship that's limited to firing shells 40 miles when you have much smaller craft that can launch cruise missiles 600 miles, or a ship that can launch air craft to rain down hell on the enemy combatants... despite how awesome they are, they just aren't practical any longer.
battleships at this point just cost to much damn money to manufacture, fuel, and man. even the next generation of carriers are getting fitted with more efficient reactors, and have a much lower crew number. as I previously stated they are large targets. when air craft carriers took over as the "capital" ships, naval warfare changed drastically, I mean what's the point of a huge ass ship that's limited to firing shells 40 miles when you have much smaller craft that can launch cruise missiles 600 miles, or a ship that can launch air craft to rain down hell on the enemy combatants... despite how awesome they are, they just aren't practical any longer.
"Red 2 come back to base... You're cleared to land"
"copy that..... SIIIIKEEEEE... leeeroooyyyy jeeenkinssss"
"Red 2..."
"copy that..... SIIIIKEEEEE... leeeroooyyyy jeeenkinssss"
"Red 2..."
geteducated
Active member
this shit blows my mind.
like a fighter doing that, ya okay whatever, but a kc?? damn!!!
like a fighter doing that, ya okay whatever, but a kc?? damn!!!
geteducated
Active member
cuttin the grass!
geteducated
Active member
apparently the f15 photo was released around the time NK lit their failed rock.
these are all bases in south east asia area.
Dr.Gnar
Member
I'm doubtful they'd ever need it given the current fleets, weapons, and technology.
Regarding Iran...
"But if the Iranian military threat is much more potent than it was in the 1980s, the Pentagon insists that it still would be no match for US firepower. One aircraft carrier is able to deploy more air power than the entire Iranian air force, and it is difficult to argue with the assessment of most military analysts that it would take just a few days to knock out the entire Iranian military effort."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Can-Iran-close-down-the-Strait-of-Hormuz.html
This video makes me smile very much
/images/flash_video_placeholder.png
Deck view of the USS Wisconsin
/images/flash_video_placeholder.png
Regarding Iran...
"But if the Iranian military threat is much more potent than it was in the 1980s, the Pentagon insists that it still would be no match for US firepower. One aircraft carrier is able to deploy more air power than the entire Iranian air force, and it is difficult to argue with the assessment of most military analysts that it would take just a few days to knock out the entire Iranian military effort."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Can-Iran-close-down-the-Strait-of-Hormuz.html
This video makes me smile very much
/images/flash_video_placeholder.png
Deck view of the USS Wisconsin
/images/flash_video_placeholder.png
ActualNinja
Member
dunno if anyone posted this yet