|
It holds the secret third engine for when it goes hypersonic.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:36 |
|
|
Psion posted:Well by that logic it could be the storage tank for the poop; Fullbacks have a toilet onboard. And a cot!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
priznat posted:This seems relevant, being that it was during the cold war and USN personnel were involved: Speaking of cold war deep sea stuff the story of the Glomar Explorer is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 02:08
|
|
FATWOLF posted:Speaking of cold war deep sea stuff the story of the Glomar Explorer is amazing. If by amazing you mean "colossal failure that cost a fortune and was a possible kickback from the Nixon administration to Howard Hughes". The original plan to salvage the important parts of the wreck with ROVs was passed over for the Glomar Explorer which managed to drop the important parts of the wreck. ... or did it. 
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
Yeah it was just a very ambitious cloak and dagger scheme that makes for an amazing story regardless of the outcome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
Psion posted:You know, this has been bothering me for a while, and really started bothering me when I was flying one in Ace Combat a lot (shut up It's an ovipositor. Where do you think Su-31s come from?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 03:08
|
|
)
|
There are very few places you could take a dump in relative comfort while breaking the sound barrier! Less now that the Concorde isn't flying anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 03:11
|
|
|
Psion posted:You know, this has been bothering me for a while, and really started bothering me when I was flying one in Ace Combat a lot (shut up Serious answer: Countermeasures dispenser.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 03:14
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Serious answer: Countermeasures dispenser. pretty sure it's the galley pod
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 07:14
|
|
|
It's how they mate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 07:41
|
|
|
RWR/Rear facing radar/chaff/flare dispensor/ EW pod. Its all the things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 09:17
|
|
|
On Su-27s at least it's where the drogue chute comes out. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 13:07
|
|
|
Found a couple pictures from some terrible forum I'd rather never speak of again. Amusingly, they linked to Livejournal. I should've gone there first, it's the Russian source for everything. Have some sweet Sukhoi photos: http://dmitrydreamer.livejournal.com/24772.html There's something EM-transparent on the tip of the stinger and what look like vents (supposedly for the APU exhaust?) and chaff/flare dispensers on the bottom. The -34's chute pops from further up the fuselage, so what's in the stinger is clearly something else. also some extreme internet grognards claim that it's even worse: There's the standard Su-34 stinger and then a modified, different version! Too many airplane dicks. (The theory is the modified one is for a jammer/ELINT/SEAD platform, a la EF-111 that can shoot back) So apparently it does everything, indeed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
It's clearly nothing more than an enormous cock 'n balls flipping off the west. quote:24. Quite a few places in the tail section is a gas turbine APU, which allows running engines on the ground without the use of ground equipment. This increases the autonomy and expands the number of airbases. All Su-34, manufactured in 2011 equipped with APU. A lot of holes in the bottom of the beam - a place for the false heat targets. Worst of all, between the nosejob and suppository, they made it ugly. It takes a lot to turn an Su-27 ugly, but the Su-34 somehow managed it. With such a high polar moment of inertia, it's ruined the Su-27's maneuverability, too. grover fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Jan 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
I donno, I think it looks cute like a big-headed cartoon character.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
The Su-34 is adorable. You take that back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
The Sukhoi was ugly the second they put canards on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
jwoven posted:The Sukhoi was ugly the second they put canards on it. Look at how wrong you are. So sad that they pulled the canards from the production version of the -35 though. 
Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Jan 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
I like the look of the 35 without canards, but they fit the 34 just fine. At no point can a Sukhoi be 'ugly'. The Typoon, on the other hand... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
s0nar posted:The Su-34 is adorable. You take that back. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
The -34 is probably the only ugly jet Sukhoi has produced since the Su-25 (which is ugly by design) and I can't think of one that is ugly (or at least, uglier than its contemporaries) beyond that, so I can cut them some slack on it.Mr. Despair posted:So sad that they pulled the canards from the production version of the -35 though. According to my extremely detailed research on "the internet" which may have consisted of five, maybe six whole clicks, canards are apparently complete poo poo for low RCS, and thus are getting ditched by everyone. Except the Chinese J-20, because I guess they just don't care. Psion fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Jan 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
It's because it was in the design of the Lavi and they can't make anything that isn't copied THERE I SAID IT  Except freaky-rear end bullpup rifles I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 03:21
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Look at how wrong you are. Only looks good from that angle because you can't see the canards  Gross:   Hooray:  
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
jwoven posted:Only looks good from that angle because you can't see the canards They're both awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
Psion posted:canards are apparently complete poo poo for low RCS, Not strictly true; the Eurofighter's FLCS automatically adjusts trim so the canards can be kept in a position that minimises their signature.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Not strictly true; the Eurofighter's FLCS automatically adjusts trim so the canards can be kept in a position that minimises their signature. I'm not a Radar Master, but wouldn't this fail miserably if you had two+ sources trying to paint the Eurofighter? Plus the geometry of canards just doesn't lend itself to super-low RCS. Like anything that's a tradeoff, though - if they provide enough benefit in other areas, then they aren't inherently bad for having a downside. Everything has a downside. bring back variable geometry e: okay I've been making bad jokes about it looking like a dick but come on from this angle you've got the balls and everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
That jet is hung.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
Psion posted:okay I've been making bad jokes about it looking like a dick but come on from this angle you've got the balls and everything. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
Insert name here posted:I knew I liked that picture for a reason. This puts all those hours grinding in the Su-34 in AH in a new, somewhat unsettling context.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 05:44
|
|
|
Psion posted:I'm not a Radar Master, but wouldn't this fail miserably if you had two+ sources trying to paint the Eurofighter? Well yeah, but obviously as you said the canards give it an advantage in manoeuvrability.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
I heard you guys were talking about sexy aircraft? (bonus: with canards)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 05:58
|
|
|
jwoven posted:Only looks good from that angle because you can't see the canards I'd never seen that plane before. It's awesome! But I think this plane is the best looking plane ever. So... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:I heard you guys were talking about sexy aircraft? (bonus: with canards) Yay Swedish aircraft sex time! The Draken looks like some super-villain's personal jet from an alt-history timeline.  Gripen and Viggen. Know what's even cooler than calling your plane "Thunderbolt"?  Building a gliding sub-munitions dispenser for it that can be released from just above the treetops at mach 0.9 and naming it after the Mjollnir, the hammer of Thor, god of Thunder, that's what.   ...well, OK, sometimes I too like to go hogging   The Tunnan ("Barrel") wasn't the sleekest plane but it did stand up for itself, like a fat redneck female drunkenly defending her male companion from the lustful glances of other females at the water hole.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 09:51
|
|
|
SAAB automobile can burn in hell though (different division and all that anyway)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 10:03
|
|
|
gently caress the haters, Su-34's own, canards own, get out. Edit: the Su25 looks great too 
Xerxes17 fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Jan 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 12:56
|
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:I heard you guys were talking about sexy aircraft? (bonus: with canards) Still the best value for a new build tactical fighter in my humble opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 14:37
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Still the best value for a new build tactical fighter in my humble opinion. Still the prickly supply issues of buying equipment from a neutral country if you ever go to war though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 15:31
|
|
|
Krigen posted:Still the prickly supply issues of buying equipment from a neutral country if you ever go to war though. Eh, but you'll always run this risk to some degree...just look at the Argentinians and the (lack of) French support for their equipment during the Falklands conflict. Hell, look at the dispute going on with the JSF and the U.S. refusing to allow access to the source code for other countries buying the jet. Really you're probably better off buying from someone like Sweden that has a much more hands off foreign policy than someone like the U.S. that is going to put all sorts of caveats on what you can and can't do with the weapons system and that has such an expansive foreign policy that you run the very real risk of trying to go to war with a country 15 years down the road and finding out that since they are now a U.S. ally due to some vagary of world affairs your support just got cut off. (This is assuming you are an unaffiliated country...obviously a country like the U.K. or Japan gains significant advantages from buying poo poo from the U.S. given those bilateral relationships.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:36 |
|
|
I don't know what you're smoking, getting into bed with the US was the worst thing British hawks ever did. What yes, let us rely completely on an ally who is across an easily blockade ocean  On that note...  
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 16:23
|
|