|
Well, as long as the last NATO soldier kills the last WARSAW PACT soldier before he starves/freezes to death. Which would be a technical win, the best win of all!
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Well, as long as the last NATO soldier kills the last WARSAW PACT soldier before he starves/freezes to death. Which would be a technical win, the best win of all! At the end of the war, if there's two Americans and one Russian, we win. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
On the subject of aircraft, the US is starting work on a B-52 replacement, finally. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Its probably not a b-52 replacement as much as a b-1/ b-2 replacement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:On the subject of aircraft, the US is starting work on a B-52 replacement, finally. Nope, it's the B-1 replacement. The B-52 still has long decades of service ahead of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Nope, it's the B-1 replacement. The B-52 still has long decades of service ahead of it. We should try our had at the XB-70 again. Speaking of which, god drat the 60's were an amazing time for aircraft design.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Forget a desperate NATO deciding to go nuclear. We know from stuff leaked during the 90's before the Russians closed down the archives again, that by the mid 80's the Warsaw Pact was planning to start any offensive with tactical nuclear strikes Nothing I've ever seen describes what you say. 1960s plans later obtained from ex-WP countries (not the fUSSR itself!) showed liberal use of nuclear weapons, though notionally not as a first strike, but there are ex-generals, staff people, nuclear planners, etc. on the record that the Soviets were fast moving away from nuclear warfighting in the 1970s. Also, 'by the mid 80s' Gorby was implementing a defensive posture, and you can trace that exact development in Lautsch's recollection on East German Army planning in the late 80s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:We should try our had at the XB-70 again. F-9 Cougar F-10 Skyknight F-11 Tiger A-3 Skywarrior A-5 Vigilante F-101 Voodoo F-102 Delta Dagger F-105 Thunderchief F-106 Delta Dart I might be forgetting some. Certainly it was a good time to be someone who designed and produced aircraft. I'm not sure how good USG acquisitions strategy was though, since they ended up with so many different airframes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:F-6 Skyray These names are terrible. Who came up with these, a bored mid-level functionary with no imagination?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:F-6 Skyray
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:F-6 Skyray The second generation was awesome but goddamn would every one of those jets kill you with absolutely no warning whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:F-6 Skyray Wrong decade, all of those aircraft were designed and put into service in the 1950s. The 1960s was where you saw the A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair II, F-4 Phantom, and F-111 Aardvark all enter into service, and where a lot of modern fighters (Such as the F-15) started their initial design phases. Slaan posted:These names are terrible. Who came up with these, a bored mid-level functionary with no imagination? The Thud had a great name you charlatan. Fake Edit: Also seriously how can you hate "Skywarrior" or "Vigilante".
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Wrong decade, all of those aircraft were designed and put into service in the 1950s. The 1960s was where you saw the A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair II, F-4 Phantom, and F-111 Aardvark Yeah you're right- AWIJ wrote "design." I was thinking of when they served. If all those aircraft were all on the drawing board at the beginning of the jet age- then the sheer number of different airframes being acquired makes more sense. It's amazing to me that in '53, the F-86 Sabre was the best thing the Americans had flying, and about seven years later they were already rolling out the F-4 Phantom II.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:Yeah you're right- AWIJ wrote "design." I was thinking of when they served. In '55 we had Drakens flying around here in Sweden and they were pretty dang advanced for the era!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
The B-29 first flew in 1942 and was in service for 16 years. The B-52 first flew 10 years later, has been in service for 60 years and is projected to be in service for up to 100.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
How can anyone hate 'voodoo' as a name. Bears and B-52's, proving that when they peaked, they peaked hard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:The B-29 first flew in 1942 and was in service for 16 years. The B-52 first flew 10 years later, has been in service for 60 years and is projected to be in service for up to 100. Ah but all the currently flying B-52s are of the H variety, those were all built in the early 60s so they're merely 50 years old! The currently flying bears were actually built in the 80s and 90s so they're actually newer than the B-1 and some of the F-15E fleet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:The B-29 first flew in 1942 and was in service for 16 years. The B-52 first flew 10 years later, has been in service for 60 years and is projected to be in service for up to 100. Technically they were in service until the mid 60's if you count the Tu-4
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
lol a literal flying penis
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Ah but all the currently flying B-52s are of the H variety, those were all built in the early 60s so they're merely 50 years old! Korea operates Phantoms that are newer than our F-15's 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Because of their speed and the distance of their missions they can't necessarily be used for interdiction missions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Gonna go out on a limb and assume the poster didn't know what interdiction means. See also: CAS in every SA argument ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
I think we can all agree that "Hustler" is the best name for a plane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Don't know if anyone else posted a picture of this ad, but:
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:Don't know if anyone else posted a picture of this ad, but: So it is an image of a clearly grounded plane... done up to look like its in the air? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:So it is an image of a clearly grounded plane... done up to look like its in the air? It makes more sense that they forgot to add retractable landing gear to the plane. It makes sense in F-35 context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
You're both being stupid. There's a runway right in the background, for god's sake. It's blatantly obvious the plane just took off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:You're both being stupid. There's a runway right in the background, for god's sake. It's blatantly obvious the plane just took off. That runway is perpendicular to the plane, so is this the Side-ways VTOL F-35 model? If the plane just took off why is the Lift fan in the vertical position and not in the horizontal one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Is that a sail on the top
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
TheDarkFlame posted:Is that a sail on the top no it's a solar panel because it takes too much fuel to power the electricals and the afterburners at the same time
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:Don't know if anyone else posted a picture of this ad, but: this machine kills fascists?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:You're both being stupid. There's a runway right in the background, for god's sake. It's blatantly obvious the plane just took off. The canopy is open
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
etalian posted:this machine kills fascists? As long as you can talk them into taking a test flight, I guess
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:The canopy is open Look closer, it's the vtol fan cover Still hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Why can't the F-35 just hover, why does it even need to land?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:The canopy is open No. Look again. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
TheDarkFlame posted:Is that a sail on the top Its for catching solar winds to mars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
when you all gently caress up this hard at owning something like the f-35 of all things you really need to step back and reevaluate your posting decisions
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:No. Look again. Clearly photoshopped. F35 can't fly. You can tell that it was edited because all the pixels under the plane are distorted. Trust me I work with jpegs professionally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
Do they have to scrape off all the Canadian flag decals now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 15:42
|
|
