Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Komo)   Australia plans to buy Super Hornets. OH GOD, NOT THE AMERICANIZED SUPER HORNETS   (komonews.com) divider line 42
    More: Scary, super  
•       •       •

1752 clicks; posted to Business » on 17 Aug 2011 at 6:04 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



42 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-08-17 03:42:25 PM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2011-08-17 04:08:56 PM  
AHHHH THE AMERICANIZED SUPER HORNETS ARE IN MY EYES AGGGGHHHHH
 
2011-08-17 04:25:53 PM  
t0.gstatic.com
SON OF A BEE
 
2011-08-17 04:59:32 PM  
pfft, like a killer insect would be ANYTHING new to them.
 
2011-08-17 05:45:49 PM  
Walker:

hillbillypharmacist:


Both of you! Stop that right now! I mean yellow jackets and wasps are one thing but hornets just plain scare the hell out of me.
 
2011-08-17 06:17:25 PM  
Ha ha! I was on the F/A-18 Super Hornet program at Boeing when we lost the JSF contract (HOL AMC OFP, operator team). We had a meeting about it. One of the things management said was that, given past performance, JSF was likely to run well over-budget and behind-schedule. At the time Boeing was also aggressively investing in modernizing and stream-lining F/A-18 assembly so they could get the jet down to $40 million a piece. Given those two predictions, they thought we'd be in a good position to pick up some sales when Lockheed failed to deliver. At the time it seemed like empty morale boosting, but maybe they knew what they were talking about after all. :)
 
2011-08-17 06:18:04 PM  

Monkey2: Walker:

hillbillypharmacist:

Both of you! Stop that right now! I mean yellow jackets and wasps are one thing but hornets just plain scare the hell out of me.


images.nationalgeographic.com

I'll be in your dreams... hehe
 
2011-08-17 06:21:53 PM  
What an Americanized hornet might look like:

www.productioncars.com

/hot like a... well, like a hornet!
 
2011-08-17 06:28:11 PM  
I was going to call them chazwazzas.
 
2011-08-17 06:38:43 PM  

Branniganslaw:

I'll be in your dreams... hehe


I hate you so much...not really but that did kind of freak me out. Now stop it!

/If I wasn't laughing I would be REALLY mad right now
 
2011-08-17 06:48:15 PM  

Monkey2: Branniganslaw:

I'll be in your dreams... hehe

I hate you so much...not really but that did kind of freak me out. Now stop it!

/If I wasn't laughing I would be REALLY mad right now


Sorry bud, I couldn't resist.
 
2011-08-17 06:51:11 PM  
Why even have an Australian military?

I could see some sort of reserve corp that could be called up during an emergency, but if I were them I'd just keep relying on the United States. It's not like the Americans have problems with the Aussies. Heck, we love them and their crazy ways.

I've never met an Australian in my entire life, but I'd like too.
 
2011-08-17 07:17:31 PM  
t1.gstatic.com
 
2011-08-17 07:23:50 PM  

SkittleBrau: What an Americanized hornet might look like:

[www.productioncars.com image 504x294]

/hot like a... well, like a hornet!


What one in flight might look like:

www.amchornet.com
 
2011-08-17 08:22:22 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: Ha ha! I was on the F/A-18 Super Hornet program at Boeing when we lost the JSF contract (HOL AMC OFP, operator team). We had a meeting about it. One of the things management said was that, given past performance, JSF was likely to run well over-budget and behind-schedule. At the time Boeing was also aggressively investing in modernizing and stream-lining F/A-18 assembly so they could get the jet down to $40 million a piece. Given those two predictions, they thought we'd be in a good position to pick up some sales when Lockheed failed to deliver. At the time it seemed like empty morale boosting, but maybe they knew what they were talking about after all. :)


I know a bunch of folks that work over there... I'm thinking anything that sells more Super Hornets is a good thing for our area. Why governments aren't looking at the Silent Eagle is beyond me, methinks it would be a great solution and cheaper than the pooch-screw that has become Lockheed's current modus operandi.

Damn shame the YF-23 wasn't chosen, I half wonder if whole squadrons of McD F-23s would be in service, not limited to low altitudes due to a not yet fixed oxygen issue, and for less money than the F-22.
 
2011-08-17 08:29:00 PM  
I know theres a lot of stuff going on over there, but is the actual assembly line for the F/A18 on the other side of the airport?
 
2011-08-17 08:36:27 PM  

akula: Damn shame the YF-23 wasn't chosen, I half wonder if whole squadrons of McD F-23s would be in service, not limited to low altitudes due to a not yet fixed oxygen issue, and for less money than the F-22.


Given that the YF-22 was chosen because of it's developmental lead, and that the YF-23 was 25% larger, probably not. F-22 would be a reasonably good stimulus program, aging fleet being replaced by more fuel efficient (when flying) aircraft at full production would reduce costs, provide capability, and save more money later earlier.

/just saying...
 
2011-08-17 08:40:09 PM  
i148.photobucket.com
 
2011-08-17 09:13:10 PM  

Shafty: I know theres a lot of stuff going on over there, but is the actual assembly line for the F/A18 on the other side of the airport?


As far as I know, final assembly for those things is there on the northeast side of the airport. Somebody who works there could tell exactly where, but I've seen photos that indicate that's where the assembly line is.

Tickle Mittens: Given that the YF-22 was chosen because of it's developmental lead, and that the YF-23 was 25% larger, probably not. F-22 would be a reasonably good stimulus program, aging fleet being replaced by more fuel efficient (when flying) aircraft at full production would reduce costs, provide capability, and save more money later earlier.


Could be. If we could actually get the damn things to fly. I wouldn't mind us getting a few less stealthy 4.75 generation fighters (the F-16XL and F-15 Silent Eagle) to fill in where stealth isn't as necessary... we may end up wishing we had more airplanes and stealth isn't always needed.
 
2011-08-17 09:24:51 PM  
Ah, the ongoing clusterfark that is Australia's DoD procurement. Wait a year to decide whether to buy the expensive F-35 that is well behind schedule or buy more of the cheap Super Hornets that were only initially purchased to plug a capability gap caused by earlier delays in the F-35 program.
 
2011-08-17 09:26:53 PM  

akula: Could be. If we could actually get the damn things to fly. I wouldn't mind us getting a few less stealthy 4.75 generation fighters (the F-16XL and F-15 Silent Eagle) to fill in where stealth isn't as necessary... we may end up wishing we had more airplanes and stealth isn't always needed.


Stealth means no external hard points, which in term means less ordnance. As a former grunt all I can say to that is "fark you air force". When I need a close air strike everyone is going to know what the fark is going down.

/yes I know the F-22 is a pure air superiority fighter
//however our last major aerial battle was when?
 
2011-08-17 09:46:09 PM  

ha-ha-guy: Stealth means no external hard points, which in term means less ordnance. As a former grunt all I can say to that is "fark you air force". When I need a close air strike everyone is going to know what the fark is going down.


There's times when stealth is needed. However, once the enemy's air force has been shot from the sky and/or blown up on the tarmac and the air defense system has been dismantled, there's just not much need for it.

IMO, we're better off with some stealth planes for those initial stages, but it doesn't take long until an unstealthy airplane that cost half as much has the same surviviability because there's just nothing left to shoot at it. It doesn't matter how stealthy the F-35 is when the other team doesn't have a functioning radar left. May as well load up a F-16, F-18, or whatever and go drop bombs on the guys shooting at your guys.
 
2011-08-17 09:56:03 PM  

akula: ha-ha-guy: Stealth means no external hard points, which in term means less ordnance. As a former grunt all I can say to that is "fark you air force". When I need a close air strike everyone is going to know what the fark is going down.

There's times when stealth is needed. However, once the enemy's air force has been shot from the sky and/or blown up on the tarmac and the air defense system has been dismantled, there's just not much need for it.

IMO, we're better off with some stealth planes for those initial stages, but it doesn't take long until an unstealthy airplane that cost half as much has the same surviviability because there's just nothing left to shoot at it. It doesn't matter how stealthy the F-35 is when the other team doesn't have a functioning radar left. May as well load up a F-16, F-18, or whatever and go drop bombs on the guys shooting at your guys.


Aside from some F-4s and MiGs duking it out over Vietnam we haven't had any kind of aerial combat for 50 years. Every time go to war we fry the OPFOR with cruise missile strikes on their runways, SAM sites, etc. After which we end up orbiting B-52s or AC-130s over the target and those things are definitely not stealth.

Yet the air force wanted 200+ Raptors with their stealth, sexy vectored thrust and zero ground attack ability. The thing has yet to fly an aerial combat mission while drones and Strike Eagles do the heavy lifting.

The F-22 project should exist as a development project and nothing else. Keep the technology alive and advancing. Something we can put into production if we start blowing the shiat out of China for some reason. Maybe a test squadron or two to let the pilots learn the vectored thrust system. For what we spent on the F-22 we could have brought a massive number of Silent Eagles (as a first strike wild weasel/air space penetrator deal) into service plus a bunch of new ground attack planes or drones which would actually be useful given the wars we fight.

For that matter the B-2 replacement project should have been given higher priority than the F-22. We actually use B-2s.

/or you know use the money to help with the debt
 
2011-08-17 10:11:21 PM  

Shafty: I know theres a lot of stuff going on over there, but is the actual assembly line for the F/A18 on the other side of the airport?


Yeah, it's right at the edge of the Airport property. It was just a 15 minutes walk across the foot bridge from my cube when I still worked there. It is an awesome place. I miss it sometimes.

ha-ha-guy: /yes I know the F-22 is a pure air superiority fighter


Except when funding is in jeopardy; then it's designation sprouts a "/A" just long enough to get a few more gigabucks.

ha-ha-guy: Aside from some F-4s and MiGs duking it out over Vietnam we haven't had any kind of aerial combat for 50 years.


Not true! Sadam was able to briefly get a couple Migs into the air during the first gulf war. They made wonderful targets.
 
2011-08-17 11:08:32 PM  

ha-ha-guy: Aside from some F-4s and MiGs duking it out over Vietnam we haven't had any kind of aerial combat for 50 years. Every time go to war we fry the OPFOR with cruise missile strikes on their runways, SAM sites, etc. After which we end up orbiting B-52s or AC-130s over the target and those things are definitely not stealth.

Yet the air force wanted 200+ Raptors with their stealth, sexy vectored thrust and zero ground attack ability. The thing has yet to fly an aerial combat mission while drones and Strike Eagles do the heavy lifting.

The F-22 project should exist as a development project and nothing else. Keep the technology alive and advancing. Something we can put into production if we start blowing the shiat out of China for some reason. Maybe a test squadron or two to let the pilots learn the vectored thrust system. For what we spent on the F-22 we could have brought a massive number of Silent Eagles (as a first strike wild weasel/air space penetrator deal) into service plus a bunch of new ground attack planes or drones which would actually be useful given the wars we fight.

For that matter the B-2 replacement project should have been given higher priority than the F-22. We actually use B-2s.

/or you know use the money to help with the debt


The current field of war never stays the same. It constantly evolves and there is never a guarantee that the NEXT war is going your way. Vietnam pushed our shiat in for a while and it had a lot to do with the fact we went off of assumptions about war that where only true in a think tank and not the field of battle, we where never at a risk of actually losing, but they did a grand job of actually fighting back pretty hard considering their size and our losses. Fighting a fully modern nation, will be wholly different than fighting the usual group of substandard military units we have bothered using as testbeds for our current war platforms.

We are a formidable fighting force, but one thing about a real war. When it comes, you want anything and everything possible and as much as it you can field. While there are merits to keeping things going and warmed up on the drawing board, here is the kicker, that development requires money, and a load of it and one of the main ways companies get recouped for development is material orders. Otherwise it is reliant on government grants, and since you haven't noticed, those are notoriously hard to keep going just off of 'potential' future merits. Especially when it doesn't deliver real hands on results AND jobs/money to states so that Congress people who don't know anything more than the average twelve year old about war, will keep supporting the war machine.

There is plenty of waste and room to fix our military issues. Namely the 35 is a glaring lighthouse shinning a light on that kind of thing. But ignoring the need for a system that actually CAN provide superiority now, rather than after a 'projected' delivery date like the 35 is invaluable. It is similar to why we need our manufacturing base back stateside, we can rebuild it, but doing so in the middle of a total war is not something you want to do.

Just for some mental thought, view
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9ff_1313439625 and think about what your seeing. Granted even if most of the systems are currently only 70-80% of our strength technology wise, they can do serious damage to our existing fighting force. Now think about the unthinkable, one day we may not be fighting China, but another western nation... again.

We can either keep up militarily and keep pushing the boundary and keep our perceived dominance for as long as possible and ensuring that a total war does not pop due to a completely hopeless dominance militarily (Peace thru strength). OR we go isolationist and pull back militarily and hope for a W.W.II part two in which we have plenty of time to build up and retool. Any in between causes a high chance for needless losses and conflict. War will come again.
 
2011-08-17 11:50:02 PM  

Monkey2: Both of you! Stop that right now! I mean yellow jackets and wasps are one thing but hornets just plain scare the hell out of me.


Um... all hornets and yellowjackets are in fact wasps.
 
2011-08-18 12:29:31 AM  

ha-ha-guy: akula: Could be. If we could actually get the damn things to fly. I wouldn't mind us getting a few less stealthy 4.75 generation fighters (the F-16XL and F-15 Silent Eagle) to fill in where stealth isn't as necessary... we may end up wishing we had more airplanes and stealth isn't always needed.

Stealth means no external hard points, which in term means less ordnance. As a former grunt all I can say to that is "fark you air force". When I need a close air strike everyone is going to know what the fark is going down.

/yes I know the F-22 is a pure air superiority fighter
//however our last major aerial battle was when?


Yeah, loved how the Air Farce tried to kill the A-10 and what gets some of the most use? The A-10! The Marines could better use 'em than Harriers. Face it, the Blue Suiters have never liked to move mud.
 
2011-08-18 12:54:57 AM  
I like my RAAF the same way I like my coffee.

COVERED IN BEES
 
2011-08-18 01:25:39 AM  
It's such a shame all of these badboys (new window) got sent to the shredder. I know it was a 40 year old design, but they plan on running B-52 and C-130 variants until those designs get close to 100 years old...why not the Tomcat?
 
2011-08-18 06:23:56 AM  

VictorOfBorge: ha-ha-guy: akula: Could be. If we could actually get the damn things to fly. I wouldn't mind us getting a few less stealthy 4.75 generation fighters (the F-16XL and F-15 Silent Eagle) to fill in where stealth isn't as necessary... we may end up wishing we had more airplanes and stealth isn't always needed.

Stealth means no external hard points, which in term means less ordnance. As a former grunt all I can say to that is "fark you air force". When I need a close air strike everyone is going to know what the fark is going down.

/yes I know the F-22 is a pure air superiority fighter
//however our last major aerial battle was when?

Yeah, loved how the Air Farce tried to kill the A-10 and what gets some of the most use? The A-10! The Marines could better use 'em than Harriers. Face it, the Blue Suiters have never liked to move mud.


The Army was more than happy to take the A-10 of USAF hands to supplement the AH-64 Apache, since USAF wanted to replace the A-10 with the F-16 as its ground support aircraft. The USAF didn't like the A-10 simpy becuase it wasn't "sexy" enoguh. But, the F-16 ground variant did not perfrom as well as it should, and the Gulf War (1991) demonstrated how useful, and tough the A-10 really was; the air force then decided to keep the A-10.

Marines would have a problem with the A-10 becuase the Devil Dogs require that S/VTOL capability...you take off and land a combat loaded A-10 off a Wasp or Tarawa class amphibious assault ships.
 
2011-08-18 06:27:07 AM  

Frothy Panties: VictorOfBorge: ha-ha-guy: akula: Could be. If we could actually get the damn things to fly. I wouldn't mind us getting a few less stealthy 4.75 generation fighters (the F-16XL and F-15 Silent Eagle) to fill in where stealth isn't as necessary... we may end up wishing we had more airplanes and stealth isn't always needed.

Stealth means no external hard points, which in term means less ordnance. As a former grunt all I can say to that is "fark you air force". When I need a close air strike everyone is going to know what the fark is going down.

/yes I know the F-22 is a pure air superiority fighter
//however our last major aerial battle was when?

Yeah, loved how the Air Farce tried to kill the A-10 and what gets some of the most use? The A-10! The Marines could better use 'em than Harriers. Face it, the Blue Suiters have never liked to move mud.

The Army was more than happy to take the A-10 of USAF hands to supplement the AH-64 Apache, since USAF wanted to replace the A-10 with the F-16 as its ground support aircraft. The USAF didn't like the A-10 simpy becuase it wasn't "sexy" enoguh. But, the F-16 ground variant did not perfrom as well as it should, and the Gulf War (1991) demonstrated how useful, and tough the A-10 really was; the air force then decided to keep the A-10.

Marines would have a problem with the A-10 becuase the Devil Dogs require that S/VTOL capability...you take off and land a combat loaded A-10 off a Wasp or Tarawa class amphibious assault ships.


Marines would have a problem with the A-10 becuase the Devil Dogs require that S/VTOL capability...you can't take off and land a combat loaded A-10 off a Wasp or Tarawa class amphibious assault ships...


/FTFM...aaargh
 
2011-08-18 11:38:00 AM  

ha-ha-guy: akula: ha-ha-guy: Stealth means no external hard points, which in term means less ordnance.

Yet the air force wanted 200+ Raptors with their stealth, sexy vectored thrust and zero ground attack ability. The thing has yet to fly an aerial combat mission while drones and Strike Eagles do the heavy lifting.



The Raptor is as ground capable as a bare bones Strike Eagle. They both can use JDAMs and conventional heavy ordinance. The F-15E still needs a AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Pod to use laser guided munitions, which is purchased and integrated for additional cost. However, the F-15E is a better bomb truck.


akula: ha-ha-guy:

IMO, we're better off with some stealth planes for those initial stages, but it doesn't take long until an unstealthy airplane that cost half as much has the same surviviability because there's just nothing left to shoot at it. It doesn't matter how stealthy the F-35 is when the other team doesn't have a functioning radar left. May as well load up a F-16, F-18, or whatever and go drop bombs on the guys shooting at your guys.



The F-35 is way more than stealth. The most impressive (and expensive) technologies on this bird are the systems integration, sensor fusion, and situational awareness. The augmented vision system alone will most likely make it the best air to ground platform ever fielded.
 
2011-08-18 11:59:22 AM  

Monkey2: Walker:

hillbillypharmacist:

Both of you! Stop that right now! I mean yellow jackets and wasps are one thing but hornets just plain scare the hell out of me.


Bees don't like them either.

Link (new window)
 
2011-08-18 12:23:21 PM  

b2theory: The F-35 is way more than stealth. The most impressive (and expensive) technologies on this bird are the systems integration, sensor fusion, and situational awareness. The augmented vision system alone will most likely make it the best air to ground platform ever fielded.


Yes, I know the avionics suite in the things is damned impressive. What I wonder is if we could have put them into an airframe that costs a hell of a lot less and actually does more. The F-35 had better not be all about stealth, because once you hang real bombs on it, that goes out the window. And we're still paying a hell of a lot for the things. I somehow doubt that if we put a similar avionics suite in a F/A-18E/F, the end price would be anywhere close to the JSF price tag or the issues they're having getting them rolled out on time.
 
2011-08-18 02:44:45 PM  

Frothy Panties: Frothy Panties: VictorOfBorge: ha-ha-guy: akula: Could be. If we could actually get the damn things to fly. I wouldn't mind us getting a few less stealthy 4.75 generation fighters (the F-16XL and F-15 Silent Eagle) to fill in where stealth isn't as necessary... we may end up wishing we had more airplanes and stealth isn't always needed.

Stealth means no external hard points, which in term means less ordnance. As a former grunt all I can say to that is "fark you air force". When I need a close air strike everyone is going to know what the fark is going down.

/yes I know the F-22 is a pure air superiority fighter
//however our last major aerial battle was when?

Yeah, loved how the Air Farce tried to kill the A-10 and what gets some of the most use? The A-10! The Marines could better use 'em than Harriers. Face it, the Blue Suiters have never liked to move mud.

The Army was more than happy to take the A-10 of USAF hands to supplement the AH-64 Apache, since USAF wanted to replace the A-10 with the F-16 as its ground support aircraft. The USAF didn't like the A-10 simpy becuase it wasn't "sexy" enoguh. But, the F-16 ground variant did not perfrom as well as it should, and the Gulf War (1991) demonstrated how useful, and tough the A-10 really was; the air force then decided to keep the A-10.

Marines would have a problem with the A-10 becuase the Devil Dogs require that S/VTOL capability...you take off and land a combat loaded A-10 off a Wasp or Tarawa class amphibious assault ships.

Marines would have a problem with the A-10 becuase the Devil Dogs require that S/VTOL capability...you can't take off and land a combat loaded A-10 off a Wasp or Tarawa class amphibious assault ships...


/FTFM...aaargh


Good post Frothy!

Agreed, the Marines need VSTOL and the Harrier does that job, but the A-10 is more survivable, has more loiter, carries more and moves mud like nobody's business. I just have problems with Air Farce attitudes toward ground support. Yeah, they might get a chance to put on their scarves and play "Red Baron" sometime in the future, but right now, they've got to support the boots on the ground. I'm also really skeptical about this F-35 ever getting the bugs worked out. Also, stealth, is not a real high priority when you're dealing with people who are just using RPG's for AAA fire. I know it won't always be that way, but it just seems the F-35 is "too prissy" to survive getting low and close for the ground pounders.
 
2011-08-18 02:55:07 PM  

VictorOfBorge: I just have problems with Air Farce attitudes toward ground support. Yeah, they might get a chance to put on their scarves and play "Red Baron" sometime in the future, but right now, they've got to support the boots on the ground.


Split the Air Force up into Logistic, Strategic Air and Space command shiat (C-130s, B2s, satellites, shiat like that) and then fold the ground attack stuff back into the Army. Navy and Marines as it turns out where smart to keep their own toys.

b2theory
Until the F-22 can self designate for laser guided munitions it isn't as capable as other planes. GBU-24s and other members of the Paveway family are still heavily used and something the F-22 can't guide in.
 
2011-08-18 03:41:51 PM  

Frothy Panties: Marines would have a problem with the A-10 becuase the Devil Dogs require that S/VTOL capability...you can't take off and land a combat loaded A-10 off a Wasp or Tarawa class amphibious assault ships...


RATO bottles :D

But seriously though, re-engine the A-10s with the CF34-10 which produces up to twice the thrust of the A-10's TF34-GE-100's despite only an 8" increase in diameter, fit the main wing with full-span slats to get the stall speed down by a few more knots, and you'd cut the takeoff run down to only 235 meters at a 44,000lb combat takeoff weight. A Wasp-class AAS is 253 meters long. It would be a tight squeeze but you could totally do it.

Landing, though, would definitely require installing an arrestor cable system.
 
2011-08-18 03:52:43 PM  
What about the dogs who shoot bees from their mouths?
 
2011-08-19 07:12:40 AM  

89 Stick-Up Kid: What about the dogs who shoot bees from their mouths?


I didn't know Homer was in weapons development!
 
2011-08-19 02:20:58 PM  

Frothy Panties:
Marines would have a problem with the A-10 becuase the Devil Dogs require that S/VTOL capability...you take off and land a combat loaded A-10 off a Wasp or Tarawa class amphibious assault ships.


Wishes they could have built this ftw..
www.yojoe.com
 
2011-08-19 06:06:06 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: Ha ha! I was on the F/A-18 Super Hornet program at Boeing when we lost the JSF contract (HOL AMC OFP, operator team). We had a meeting about it. One of the things management said was that, given past performance, JSF was likely to run well over-budget and behind-schedule. At the time Boeing was also aggressively investing in modernizing and stream-lining F/A-18 assembly so they could get the jet down to $40 million a piece. Given those two predictions, they thought we'd be in a good position to pick up some sales when Lockheed failed to deliver. At the time it seemed like empty morale boosting, but maybe they knew what they were talking about after all. :)


Were yall the team producing the interesting beast with a massive front intake that almost dwarfed the cockpit above it? and, if so, what was that model? I've been trying to think of that thing's name for a few days now since watching a documentary on the competition for that contract
 
2011-08-20 11:25:07 AM  

Somaticasual: Were yall the team producing the interesting beast with a massive front intake that almost dwarfed the cockpit above it? and, if so, what was that model? I've been trying to think of that thing's name for a few days now since watching a documentary on the competition for that contract


Yeah, our entry into the Joing Strike Fighter competition was the X-32. She was an ugly beast, no denying that.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report