|
shiptalk https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=837808462937458
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
wdarkk posted:This one. They flew the prototypes until 1944 but never did much of anything with it. drat. Even with a few small bombs. They could have bombed NYC in a one way trip. Or even something more harmful, like doped up paratroopers with MG42's parachuting into times square. B4Ctom1 fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 13:12
|
|
|
Since we are talking about fantasy planes Here is mine that helped make my lovely website famous. Not just to the public but also caused government inquiries.  You are welcome to read and get mad and disagree with me about it, but I know I am right about what I put into this page http://www.outlawperformance.com/AC-17.htm edit: I made this page many years ago, and many of the things I showed or said on my page have come to fruition as public knowledge. Especially after a C-17 landed at the wrong airport. Also during airshows where the C-17 has been seen "dirtied up" and barely hanging in the air at higher throttle levels. Not only can it "hover" slowly in the air, it can do it better than a C-130. Basically it can do everything a C-130 does in pretty much every performance envelope and do it much better. 
B4Ctom1 fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I think we're going to need the story here I got inquiries from the USAF. They actually sent a request to use the picture (which is theirs but that I modified) on one of their websites as well as the information contained in the page, which is sort of theirs to begin with. Additionally, since the website is mine, I have all the access and IP visitor logs. I only initially showed the page to TFR, but somehow knowledge of it spread in a way that only internet things can. Suddenly there was a mass of odd IP traffic. The IP traffic whois showed the USAF, Boeing, General Dynamics, McDonnell Douglas, FLIR obviously, and a ton of other .MIL viewers. The odd one was a ton of people that viewed it using a group of the same IP's that resolves back to a university in Virginia. I can't remember which because it was all a few years ago and I just don't remember. It turns out that a certain 3 letter agency that likes to snoop on us all and collect all the data (all of it) routes some of their traffic through this university to mask their snooping. I found this out during a quick search that probably would have landed me on watch lists if the government didn't already know every loving thing about me already. B4Ctom1 fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
PCjr sidecar posted:How far could it launch an AeroGavin? Actually when I made that AC-17 page, someone reminded me of the insane gavin guy page.  I hope my optimism for an AC-17 concept doesn't come across as insane as thinking that aluminum barely-armored tracked cans are miracle vehicles. In the end we hear that the AC-130 is getting or has Viper Strike and maybe DAGR, so obviously I was on the right track with my thinking.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:Please enjoy the relevant combatreform page: I feel bad to possibly have inspired this. At least my page comes with the title "More total crap by B4Ctom1" But I did coin the name Spectre III !
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:The glory of the Soviet Navy shall never die! So patriotic
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
I'll just drop this right here http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kBwEFz_WIdQ
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
heart breaking http://news.usni.org/2014/12/22/navy-pays-texas-ship-breaker-penny-dismantle-carrier-ranger
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Having never been taught german or even taken a german language class (GO USA EDUCATION!) I am only able to discern this is relative to our thread Tell me more if you care to.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:Welp, it looks like the M113 'Gavin' is going to soon be officially retired and phased out with the new Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (or AMPV), which is just a I know this is gay, but I REALLY want a surplus gavin. With a home built turret, and a semi auto M2. Basically I want to build a lol mini/civilian version of a lovely Bradley out of a shittier Gavin.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:I feel like Charles Mann's 1491 and 1493 read a lot like a rebuttal to Guns, Germs, and Steel in some ways. That is one loving sexy plane. It is like the daddy of both the F-111, F-14, and F-15. I just watched a few videos, and its landing gear and its spacing/arrangement seem barely to maybe insufficient for the airframe. I could not find a picture or video of it actually firing or dropping anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:Don't lie to us, you just want to build the Aero-Gavin; we've all thought about it. Man that dude. I can't even call a Gavin a "Gavin". I prefer just to say M113 because gently caress that guy and his psycho "gavin" ramblings. Suicide Watch posted:Why didn't they do a Namer-like APC using the M1 chassis? That way we could use the pre-existing line and Congress can be satisfied. General Dynamics pushed a Stryker chassis instead. They won't loving stop building M1's, preferring to park them in rows in the desert. I agree, give them something useful like an M1 chassis APC to build. Put a Bushy on top of it for good measure. priznat posted:DoD Procurement Mucky Muck Come over Do we have whatever this is in the USA? I swear I hauled something the other day on my train that looked like M113's, and not bradleys either. I thought maybe they were some sort of uparmored M113. They had that heavy riveting and plating on the sides. I remember that specifically.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:The new AMPV is a Bradley The ones I saw did not have that thick tiled reactive armor (or whatever that is on the vehicles I looked up). Just a maybe 1"+ superfluous plate with a million rivets or bolts holding it on.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
I want to see the A-10's go to the Coast Guard. Reasons: An A-10 can and has a good record of finding a single man walking through miles of desert. As a matter of fact, if you are an enemy combatant, the last thing you want is an A-10 or two flying a search pattern looking for you. An A-10 can use its same search assets which have been improved and as a legacy of spending and repurposed to find a man bobbing in miles of sea. As a matter of fact, if I was a sailor from a sunken boat or who fell overboard, the very first thing I would want is an A-10 or two flying a search pattern looking for me. Once the A-10 found me, it could use it's same accurate bombing sight assets to drop a survival package to me in the sea. Even missing could continue to drop them with precision until I received what I needed to survive. Or just hang out on station until a Jayhawk could fly straight to me without having to search for me. The engines it uses are the General Electric TF34. Originally designed for the Navy Viking aircraft, this turbofan engine can ingest massive amounts of storm water without a performance issue that could affect such a small aircraft especially since it has two to make up the difference. The government agrees with me and either already has or is planning to fly A-10's into a hurricane. An A-10 can fly home with one engine. This is important when flying over vast open water. Even though the Coast Guard has retired is Harpoon anti-ship missiles. The F-16 and the A-10 share a few weapons computer systems. This is important because some F-16's flown by other countries carry the Harpoon. So an A-10 could theoretically be fitted with them if a war time need came about. They already Carry the AGM-65 which is a pretty awesome ship/boat/whatever destroyer. Plus there is a maritime version of the JDAM which is basically overkill for anything that floats. A-10's can already be fitted with air-to-air weapons. I don't thin it would be a problem to fit an A-10 with a mechanism to drop sonobuoys. It would be able to do the job well I think. There are no speed boats or light smuggling aircraft that could outrun or outmaneuver an A-10 enough to lose it. There are already variants of the A-10 which have been modified to two seats if the mandate ever arose. In absence of carrying bombs all over the place, the external ferry tanks could be installed and left on the planes for the remainder of their existence. Their ferry range, or as we could call it, "search range" for this purpose is according to Wikipedia, "2,240 nmi (2,580 mi, 4,150 km) with 50 knot (55 mph, 90 km/h) headwinds, 20 minutes reserve". The 30mm gun. Well, I am not going to suggest that it is replaced with ballast or special instruments. Nothing says, "heave to and prepare to be boarded" (or whatever the gently caress maritime authorities say) like an A-10 putting a half second burst of rounds across the water in front of you. Your, "we never even saw you" isn't going to pass muster. Even without firing the gun, nobody likes being stalked by A-10's. Not even OPFOR guys in exercises.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:A two seat A-10 does not exist. Prove me wrong. Great pics here 1/3 the way down http://www.air-and-space.com/20031025%20AFFTC%20Museum%20South%20Base.htm
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Sikorsky fantasy porn. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqorIPC-BbE Looks like HSLD types would like it over riding on the skids of a littlebird
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
um, the wing loading from these stunts is terrifying me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JSw7iGDpl4
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
MRC48B posted:I love the C-27J. It's like a mini-Hercules. Is this the one they want to make the mini AC-130 replacement from?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Rapier anti aircraft https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHGvDZOPZkk Rapier anti submarine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC7gilxJD-w
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The AF keeps starting and killing a next gen bomber program. It's basically the new tanker fiasco, except it hasn't gotten nearly as far along as the tanker poo poo did when Dryun hosed it all up in 97 or whatever. bomber 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Tsar bomba was 50MT iirc. So 10,000 Tsar bombas? Ok, 10,000 Tsar Bombas.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Video title: "[HD] F-16 90% or above throttle" ground test of F-16 engine Sound warning http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d9f_1422091862 edit: same but indoors on F-22 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a68_1360455988 B4Ctom1 fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Ocean Hellfires http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=74d_1422222939
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
cringeworthy UXO fuckery http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b10_1422102621
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
sky porn
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
M42 Duster and the Vulcan M113 were pretty cool.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Ok, who lost this? I think identifying the missiles on it might help
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Gervasius posted:China, I guess. Looks like CH-3. What are those doing in Iraq? Could this not be Iraq but instead be crashed in Pakistan or India? Who knows? Trying to guess based on the guy's appearance might not earn us any bronie points.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Welp.. A-10's being moved into europe http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/02/10/us-deploys-a10s-to-europe-amid-debate-to-arm-ukraine.html
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
That bright flash in the sky you saw just now was the last thing you WILL see. As if a psychotic Russian would tolerate all of his armor being perforated.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 07:08
|
|
They said "lethal aid," dammit.
|
Chase video from an F-18 of a Block IV Tomahawk hitting a moving ship target http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c8e_1423508031 great vid
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:How was he guiding it? Was it designating the target via laser? I think he was just filming it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
bewbies posted:It was a very first baby step to integrated fire control. It seems pretty dangerous. If an F18 can see a chinese or russian ship, then it can see the F18. If so the F18 can be shot down pretty handily. When did it become harder to shoot a ship in it's two dimensions than a plane it it's 3? My guess is the visibility. A plane is far enough off the deck that it is a sweeter radar visible target than a ship on the surface over the horizon. It just all seems so strange.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Oops. I would like to know more please! Are we even going to talk about the who, what, where? I mean unless that wing unlocked and folded back right when the photo was shot, we are looking at some amazing flying. On par with the Israeli F15 one winger landing. oh my god http://mofak.com/Night_Infamy.htm B4Ctom1 fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
Having multiple air superiority programs/airframes flying in the past has allowed the US to historically have force projection. Others had to yield to it's will. Since we don't really project our force in that way anymore, we only need one or two airframes to do that, especially with the shift to drone technology. Besides, nobody wants to spend billions (except those with aerospace jobs) on an air superiority fighter that is supposed to lead through upgrade programs for 15-20 years when the next logical progression in force projection is clouds of cheaper drones.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Uh, when did the US stop doing force projection? I hadn't noticed. Who said we stopped? I only said we changed the way that we do it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2015 18:54
|
|