mrbradlymrmartin posted:

you made a triple post without a single joke and youre calling out stupid?

Darkman Fanpage posted:

tell that to the prince of wales

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

Panzeh posted:

After the first couple months of the war both sides struggled to blow up each others' battleships with air attacks. They were actually pretty hard to sink.

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

Disagree.

quote:

The four British ships fired more than 2,800 shells at Bismarck, and scored more than 400 hits, but were unable to sink Bismarck by gunfire. At around 10:20, running low on fuel, Tovey ordered the cruiser Dorsetshire to sink Bismarck with torpedoes and sent his battleships back to port.

VikingSkull posted:

*posts song about ineffectual air attacks leading to lengthy surface battle with the Bismarck taking a ton of punishment*



like, I have no actual idea what you're talking about anymore, none at all, you have me completely bamboozled as to what your intentions are

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

I thought you were agreeing with the claim that battleships sucked and were easy to sink with aircraft because of the Bismarck getting hobbled by Ark Royal's planes. You very obviously weren't but I didn't realize that, so that's a pretty big on my part.

OMGVBFLOL posted:

did you guys see that movie "battleship" based on the milton-bradley tabletop game for kids ages 9-18

VikingSkull posted:

gently caress

Thoguh posted:

C-SPAM is a place to let it all hang out.

VikingSkull posted:

it was actually a fun movie

rudatron posted:

Kinky

zegermans posted:

The biggest plothole is why does a museum-piece battleship still have live ammunition loaded, or at all readily available?

zegermans posted:

The biggest plothole is why does a museum-piece battleship still have live ammunition loaded, or at all readily available?

zegermans posted:

The biggest plothole is why does a museum-piece battleship still have live ammunition loaded, or at all readily available?

Baloogan posted:

lol you need to read mahan

blamegame posted:

loL@x32

blamegame posted:

loL@x32

Prav posted:

lol at the guys trying to sell JET FIGHTERS!! to the usaf and not making sure that their product looks cool as hell. that's priority #1

Concordat posted:

didn't people call the F-4 Phantom II ugly.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Concordat posted:

didn't people call the F-4 Phantom II ugly.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Concordat posted:

didn't people call the F-4 Phantom II ugly.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

quote:

USAF F-4 Phantom jets to be retired and used as ground targets
The last of thousands of F-4 Phantom jets that have been a workhorse for the U.S. military over five decades are being put to pasture to serve as ground targets for strikes by newer aircraft, the Associated Press reports. The U.S. Air Force will hold a “final flight” retirement ceremony today at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, where the last F-4s are still flying for the U.S. military.

Here is the rest of the Associated Press article:

The ceremony will celebrate the airplane’s rich military history as the jet was a mainstay during the Vietnam War and used for decades for reconnaissance missions and anti-missile electronic jamming.

McDonnell Douglas – now part of Boeing Corp. – built more than 5,000 F-4s for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. It first flew in the late 1950s, and production ended in 1985.

The last F-4s still flying for the U.S. military took on a different role, serving as aerial targets and test aircraft during Air Force training over the New Mexico desert. The planes are either flown by pilots or remotely as drones by controllers on the ground. They’ve been used as targets for missiles and also used to test new radars and other missions. But with the retirement this week, the planes will no longer fly and instead be used as ground targets.

That the plane stayed in service so long is a testament to a range of roles that the F-4 could handle thanks to its large size, powerful engines and a two-member crew, said Jeff Duford, a National Museum of the Air Force research curator.

While other aircraft could handle some of the same missions, “there were none that were as flexible as the F-4,” Duford said.

“It was not the best of anything but it could do everything,” said Craig Schorzman, a retired Air Force colonel who lives in Tucson, Arizona, where he trained to fly the F-4 in the 1960s while at Davis Monthan Air Force Base before deploying to Germany and then Southeast Asia.

“It wasn’t the best air-to-air but we could do it. It could do close air support (of ground troops). It could do bombing. It could do any role, including nukes – we could do it.”

The aircraft “was hardy and very sturdy,” Schorzman said, recalling times when his plane made it back to base despite being shot up. “It saved my tail a few times.”

Schorzman said the fighter-bomber could use a precision guidance system to guide bombs to their targets. “We could go into a mouth of a cave.”

The Navy originally got production F-4s to intercept enemy bombers threatening U.S. aircraft carriers, and initial models relied on air-to-air missiles. They were later fitted with guns during the Vietnam War to combat enemy fighters.

As a dogfighter, the F-4 wasn’t great but could counter North Vietnam’s more nimble MiG fighters by using its more powerful engines to climb to get into a good position or get out of a bad one, Schorzman said.

While other aircraft such as the F-15 supplanted the F-4 in the fighter-bomb role, it still flew on for many years as camera-toting reconnaissance jets and in electronic-warfare versions that blinded enemy anti-aircraft missiles’ guidance systems.

“I think it really speaks to the usefulness of the platform,” Duford said.

The remaining 13 QF-4s at Holloman are flown by a detachment of a squadron at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida, and dozens of the target planes have been shot down either over White Sands Missile Range near Holloman or over the Gulf of Mexico.

The Tyndall squadron has already converted to flying F-16s as aerial targets, and the Holloman detachment is getting its first F-16 target version this week.

(the above was written by the Associated Press)

Prav posted:

lol at the guys trying to sell JET FIGHTERS!! to the usaf and not making sure that their product looks cool as hell. that's priority #1

Nenonen posted:

Makes you think - Top Gun was filmed with a budget of $15 million, which is peanuts compared to what arms companies put into promoting their products. What they should be doing is this:

Dalael posted:

drat that plane looks awesome. From the moment I saw topgun and read Buck Danny, I fell in love with the F-14. I was really sad when I heard they were being retired.

OMGVBFLOL posted:

I lolled when the military said they'd be shredding all the remaining F-14s to keep Iran from getting spare parts.

Iran. Getting spares from New Mexico.

de facto admitting that their boneyard people will steal spares for money lmao

etalian posted:

The largest US boneyard is in AZ and has 4200 planes:


http://www.worldrecordacademy.com/biggest/largest_military_aircraft_cemetery_The_Boneyard_sets_world_record_101577.htm

mrbradlymrmartin posted:

lololol i was lookin at all that and just seein the dollar signs id get haulin whatever i could knock off and theow in the back of the truck to the scrap yard

mrbradlymrmartin posted:

yeah the boneyard is a junkyard (not a scrapyard) but since theres a lotta superdelicate parts they take good care of em for junkers to make sure the fancy parts dont get cucked by the heat/sand. the relatively dry climate def helps here too yeah

but gently caress man just think what you could do if you got a couple buddies with sledgehammers and pickups, you could cart off tons of beautiful metal to sell to a scrapyard holy trumpin poo poo