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.

(CNN)   Not news: Yet another tactical jet fighter debuts. News: Costs one-eighth as much to operate as an F-16. Fark: It's from a company that makes golf carts and Cessnas, and absolutely nobody asked for it   ( cnn.com) divider line
    More: Strange, F-16s, Air National Guard, jet fighters, Aviation Week  
•       •       •

8623 clicks; posted to Business » on 21 Sep 2013 at 10:32 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



145 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-21 08:39:11 AM  
It's so cute when these small timers think they can just waltz into the Military Industrial Club and order a drink.
 
2013-09-21 09:10:10 AM  
I'm not seeing it. This might sell overseas to tin pot dictators, but it seems to me that drones are a better bet for the future.
 
2013-09-21 09:20:24 AM  
"We began development of the Scorpion in January 2012 with the objective to design, build and fly the world's most affordable tactical jet aircraft capable of performing lower-threat battlefield and homeland security missions," Textron Chairman and CEO Scott Donnelly said in a statement.

Makes sense for those applications. Wonder what the range is?
 
2013-09-21 09:31:16 AM  
So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have; and costs so much less than the F22 and F35 that Congress could buy twice as many of his planes as the amount of the other two that they ordered, give tax breaks to billionaires, fully fund Obamacare, expand spending on social welfare programs (welfare, food stamps, unemployment, Social Security, etc) and infrastructure upgrades, give more tax breaks to billionaires, and still have enough money left over to eliminate the deficit.

Any guesses as to how long until he gets killed in an airplane "accident?"
 
2013-09-21 09:42:14 AM  
Umm... Doesn't Cessna make Cessnas?
 
2013-09-21 09:47:08 AM  
The joint venture, Textron AirLand...

Lord. I hope the plane is better than that name.
 
2013-09-21 10:02:31 AM  
Neither shocked nor awed.
 
2013-09-21 10:06:49 AM  

King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have


Did you read the article? The thing is basically only useful when the enemy has a) no aircraft and b) no air defenses.
 
2013-09-21 10:07:18 AM  

King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have;


It's not "better than" the others, necessarily. It's suited for lighter missions that do not call for the capabilities of an F-16 or F-22. It's like, well, using a golf cart to get around the golf course instead of a Ferrari.
 
2013-09-21 10:31:32 AM  
 
2013-09-21 10:39:37 AM  

vartian: The joint venture, Textron AirLand...

Lord. I hope the plane is better than that name.


Do you get the feeling that the Air and Land part of the plane will merge regularly?
 
2013-09-21 10:51:29 AM  
Hah, my dad used to design aircraft engines for Textron!  No, they don't (or at least didn't) make airplanes, just the engines. He originally worked for Avco Lycoming, but Avco was bought out by Textron about three years before he left the company.  My dad worked on engines that were used in Pipers, Cessnas, and some other small aircraft.

Dad worked for a number of other companies, including another aerospace company, but I think he enjoyed his time at Textron the most.
 
2013-09-21 10:51:44 AM  
Nah we have to buy F35s because buying cost effective planes is socialism. See all that socialist money that could go to things like feeding people and healing the sick is more importantly spent blowing up afghans at 15k per fuel hour.

Call me when someone successfully does the world a favor and starts wasting people at the top of the military industrial prison complex.
 
2013-09-21 11:02:56 AM  
I'd love to see something like this happen, but much like corporations, the government loves to over pay for things that don't do the job the best.
 
2013-09-21 11:04:15 AM  

Nabb1: King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have;

It's not "better than" the others, necessarily. It's suited for lighter missions that do not call for the capabilities of an F-16 or F-22. It's like, well, using a golf cart to get around the golf course instead of a Ferrari.


It probably has much better loiter time on-station with a weapons load than an F-16 or F-35. So from the perspective of an infantryman who just wants air support on-tap and doesn't care how sexy the pilot feels doing it, it's probably objectively quite a lot better to have in the sky. And a 3,000 lb payload is quite a number of Small Diameter Bombs or Hydra rockets, plus a small gun pod. In fact, that's more weight than A-10s typically carry externally in a combat zone (the A-10 can carry a lot more than 3,000lb, of course, but it impacts the maneuverability to the extent that they never carry anything close to their maximum load into battle).

Light attack jets like this are farking brilliant for cooperating with ground troops, as long as you've already got air superiority. And it's not like establishing air superiority is a problem for the US Air Force.

The main question is, is this a solution in need of a problem? A-10s are going to be flying for quite a while to come, and they can do the same job just as well if not better (being less vulnerable to ground fire), and drones are really effective at the overwatch mission since they don't have to deal with pilot fatigue during a long flight.
 
2013-09-21 11:04:33 AM  

edmo: It's so cute when these small timers think they can just waltz into the Military Industrial Club and order a drink.




Textron purchased Bell Helicopter in 1960.
Bell of course, now makes the V22 tilt rotor, a plane which is pretty much worthless. First plane the Marine Corp ever purchased with no armaments.

strikehold.files.wordpress.com
Overpriced, unsafe and inadequate.
 
2013-09-21 11:05:49 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Umm... Doesn't Cessna make Cessnas?


Cessna is a subsidiary of Textron.
 
2013-09-21 11:19:56 AM  

flak attack: Vodka Zombie: Umm... Doesn't Cessna make Cessnas?

Cessna is a subsidiary of Textron.


It's like an onion, man. Layers upon layers!
 
2013-09-21 11:24:41 AM  

Ricardo Klement: I'm not seeing it. This might sell overseas to tin pot dictators, but it seems to me that drones are a better bet for the future.


Good point; this sounds like a economy-class buggy whip.  But would they be allowed to sell them to tin-pot dictators?  The ones who have money tend to be enemies of the US.
 
2013-09-21 11:33:03 AM  
Wasn't the last fighter jet named Scorpion too unwieldy for combat with all of them rocket pods in the wingtip?
 
2013-09-21 11:33:17 AM  
No, the shape of the wings tell the whole story of FAIL!
 
2013-09-21 11:35:11 AM  
That's actually pretty cool, but why use these instead of drones?

Hell, it's getting hard to justify the use of fighter aircraft, period, now that drones are so sophisticated.
 
2013-09-21 11:38:03 AM  

flondrix: Ricardo Klement: I'm not seeing it. This might sell overseas to tin pot dictators, but it seems to me that drones are a better bet for the future.

Good point; this sounds like a economy-class buggy whip.  But would they be allowed to sell them to tin-pot dictators?  The ones who have money tend to be enemies of the US.


Why not? They make for great target practice if we decide we want some foreign adventurism.
 
2013-09-21 11:38:26 AM  

Ricardo Klement: I'm not seeing it. This might sell overseas to tin pot dictators, but it seems to me that drones are a better bet for the future.


i.imgur.com

It doesn´t have any weapons though.

However, the above plane was one a Swedish guy exported to Biaffra during the Nigerian civil war. With rockets mounted on the wings, and flown by skilled pilots, they totally caught the Nigerian airforce by surprise, destroying several of sophisticated Mig fighters on the ground.

They continued service throughout the war (thus a picture of a surviving example).
 
2013-09-21 11:43:01 AM  

spawn73: Ricardo Klement: I'm not seeing it. This might sell overseas to tin pot dictators, but it seems to me that drones are a better bet for the future.

[i.imgur.com image 500x333]

It doesn´t have any weapons though.

However, the above plane was one a Swedish guy exported to Biaffra during the Nigerian civil war. With rockets mounted on the wings, and flown by skilled pilots, they totally caught the Nigerian airforce by surprise, destroying several of sophisticated Mig fighters on the ground.

They continued service throughout the war (thus a picture of a surviving example).


What doesn't have any weapons? The Scorpion in the article can carry 3,000lbs of ordnance.
 
2013-09-21 12:02:36 PM  

Ricardo Klement: I'm not seeing it. This might sell overseas to tin pot dictators, but it seems to me that drones are a better bet for the future.


Drones are likely better bet for the US and a few other nations.  But they not only require air superiority, but space and transmission band capability/superiority so they can be flow by somebody across the globe.

So if you are not the US/UK/China/Russia, I wonder how much you can really trust that your communications system can't be hijacked or shutdown by the NSA and the like. So I can see these good for not just small dictators, but nations just under super power status.
 
2013-09-21 12:10:54 PM  

realmolo: That's actually pretty cool, but why use these instead of drones?

Hell, it's getting hard to justify the use of fighter aircraft, period, now that drones are so sophisticated.


For now, the human visual system still beats a grainy camera image with satellite delay. Operating a drone is supposedly like looking through a straw at the world below. Live humans can scan a much bigger area faster, particularly when flying low and fast, where the drone's narrow field-of-view would be stifling. Making a precision strike on a known target is one thing, but when you have to respond to a battlefield as it develops, it's hard to beat having a real person on the scene.
 
2013-09-21 12:19:16 PM  

Ricardo Klement: spawn73: Ricardo Klement: I'm not seeing it. This might sell overseas to tin pot dictators, but it seems to me that drones are a better bet for the future.

[i.imgur.com image 500x333]

It doesn´t have any weapons though.

However, the above plane was one a Swedish guy exported to Biaffra during the Nigerian civil war. With rockets mounted on the wings, and flown by skilled pilots, they totally caught the Nigerian airforce by surprise, destroying several of sophisticated Mig fighters on the ground.

They continued service throughout the war (thus a picture of a surviving example).

What doesn't have any weapons? The Scorpion in the article can carry 3,000lbs of ordnance.


Oh OK, I was just looking at it and thought it didn´t.
 
2013-09-21 12:27:57 PM  
Either that or peru will get some great fuel-efficient fighter jets. Seriously, though, what a random way to jump into the DOD market..
 
2013-09-21 12:54:38 PM  

Nabb1: King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have;

It's not "better than" the others, necessarily. It's suited for lighter missions that do not call for the capabilities of an F-16 or F-22. It's like, well, using a golf cart to get around the golf course instead of a Ferrari.


I like that golf-cart/Ferrari analogy.  Who wouldn't want a Ferrari?  But I'd wager there are a few more golf-carts than Ferraris in the world doing more useful work.
 
2013-09-21 01:02:27 PM  
I'd want that plane if I were a billionaire with a pilots license.
 
2013-09-21 01:20:07 PM  
To many of the commenters here:

Look, is this really so hard to figure out? You use the right tool for the job, and you try to have the right mix of tools in your toolbox.

If there's a niche this plane can fill better than an F-22 / F-35 or a drone, they should have a fair chance to make their case.
 
2013-09-21 01:27:32 PM  

edmo: It's so cute when these small timers think they can just waltz into the Military Industrial Club and order a drink.


Textron's already a member.
 
2013-09-21 01:29:17 PM  
Well, if your name is Costa Rica, or Zaire or something like that, and you've never been in a war, or at least a war requiring the most sophisticated jets, and you only need aircraft for patrols and the occasional interdiction, then something like this may be right up your alley,  Hell, if your name is Nigeria or Yemen and you have the occasional internal issues but really never involve yourself in outside wars, this still may fit your needs.
 
2013-09-21 01:29:24 PM  

HempHead: the V22 tilt rotor, a plane which is pretty much worthless. First plane the Marine Corp ever purchased with no armaments


It has the same kind of armament as the Sea Knight it's replacing.
 
2013-09-21 01:37:58 PM  
Sometimes when I hop on an EZ-GO cart I notice the "A Textron Company" logo and I remember that my experience with Textron is far different than the people who know Textron as a company that rains death upon them.
 
2013-09-21 01:58:22 PM  

wingnut396: Ricardo Klement: I'm not seeing it. This might sell overseas to tin pot dictators, but it seems to me that drones are a better bet for the future.

Drones are likely better bet for the US and a few other nations.  But they not only require air superiority, but space and transmission band capability/superiority so they can be flow by somebody across the globe.

So if you are not the US/UK/China/Russia, I wonder how much you can really trust that your communications system can't be hijacked or shutdown by the NSA and the like. So I can see these good for not just small dictators, but nations just under super power status.


Nations just under super power status will either a) have air superiority, in which case drones are better, or b) won't have air superiority, in which case, these things will last about 15 seconds.
 
2013-09-21 02:11:01 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Nabb1: King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have;

It's not "better than" the others, necessarily. It's suited for lighter missions that do not call for the capabilities of an F-16 or F-22. It's like, well, using a golf cart to get around the golf course instead of a Ferrari.

It probably has much better loiter time on-station with a weapons load than an F-16 or F-35. So from the perspective of an infantryman who just wants air support on-tap and doesn't care how sexy the pilot feels doing it, it's probably objectively quite a lot better to have in the sky. And a 3,000 lb payload is quite a number of Small Diameter Bombs or Hydra rockets, plus a small gun pod. In fact, that's more weight than A-10s typically carry externally in a combat zone (the A-10 can carry a lot more than 3,000lb, of course, but it impacts the maneuverability to the extent that they never carry anything close to their maximum load into battle).

Light attack jets like this are farking brilliant for cooperating with ground troops, as long as you've already got air superiority. And it's not like establishing air superiority is a problem for the US Air Force.

The main question is, is this a solution in need of a problem? A-10s are going to be flying for quite a while to come, and they can do the same job just as well if not better (being less vulnerable to ground fire), and drones are really effective at the overwatch mission since they don't have to deal with pilot fatigue during a long flight.


A-10's for awhile yet?  Maybe not.
 
2013-09-21 02:14:24 PM  

edmo: It's so cute when these small timers think they can just waltz into the Military Industrial Club and order a drink.


Yeah, this.
They're going to wake up robbed and raped in a motel room with a dead hooker.
 
2013-09-21 02:16:23 PM  

Ricardo Klement: King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have

Did you read the article? The thing is basically only useful when the enemy has a) no aircraft and b) no air defenses.


In other words, every country we've gone to war with over the last few decades.  Sounds perfect.  Next time we start feeling we need to go blow up random brown people in some goat farking cave, we can send these instead of tens of billions of dollars of state of the art military technology.
 
2013-09-21 02:20:35 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have

Did you read the article? The thing is basically only useful when the enemy has a) no aircraft and b) no air defenses.

In other words, every country we've gone to war with over the last few decades.  Sounds perfect.  Next time we start feeling we need to go blow up random brown people in some goat farking cave, we can send these instead of tens of billions of dollars of state of the art military technology.


Even the maker would not say that Iraq had no air defenses. This thing wouldn't have made it out of Iraq in 2003, much less 1991. Nor would it have fared well in Libya nor in a hypothetical Syria scenario.
 
2013-09-21 02:23:40 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have

Did you read the article? The thing is basically only useful when the enemy has a) no aircraft and b) no air defenses.

In other words, every country we've gone to war with over the last few decades.  Sounds perfect.  Next time we start feeling we need to go blow up random brown people in some goat farking cave, we can send these instead of tens of billions of dollars of state of the art military technology.

Even the maker would not say that Iraq had no air defenses. This thing wouldn't have made it out of Iraq in 2003, much less 1991. Nor would it have fared well in Libya nor in a hypothetical Syria scenario.


Iraq had air defense for all of what? 3 days?  After that, why fly the $25k / hr plane instead of the $3k / hr plane once you've destroyed everything that resembles AA technology of the country you are invading.  I don't think this plane is meant to replace every other option we have.  It's meant to fill in when we have a laughable advantage over some 3rd world piece of shiat country.  The only way we "lose" those wars is by draining billions of dollars fighting against hundred dollar toys.

We have air superiority within hours.  We invade countries for years.  Work it out.
 
2013-09-21 02:27:55 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have

Did you read the article? The thing is basically only useful when the enemy has a) no aircraft and b) no air defenses.

In other words, every country we've gone to war with over the last few decades.  Sounds perfect.  Next time we start feeling we need to go blow up random brown people in some goat farking cave, we can send these instead of tens of billions of dollars of state of the art military technology.

Even the maker would not say that Iraq had no air defenses. This thing wouldn't have made it out of Iraq in 2003, much less 1991. Nor would it have fared well in Libya nor in a hypothetical Syria scenario.

Iraq had air defense for all of what? 3 days?  After that, why fly the $25k / hr plane instead of the $3k / hr plane once you've destroyed everything that resembles AA technology of the country you are invading.  I don't think this plane is meant to replace every other option we have.  It's meant to fill in when we have a laughable advantage over some 3rd world piece of shiat country.  The only way we "lose" those wars is by draining billions of dollars fighting against hundred dollar toys.

We have air superiority within hours.  We invade countries for years.  Work it out.


So what you're saying is that we needed the high-tech planes to start with. Because these things would never have gotten to the targets to destroy the air defenses.
 
2013-09-21 02:36:06 PM  

Ricardo Klement: So what you're saying is that we needed the high-tech planes to start with..


Correct. And after April 2003, we didn't need to be flying F-16s at a cost of $25,000.00/hour
 
2013-09-21 02:37:17 PM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: To many of the commenters here:

Look, is this really so hard to figure out? You use the right tool for the job, and you try to have the right mix of tools in your toolbox.

If there's a niche this plane can fill better than an F-22 / F-35 or a drone, they should have a fair chance to make their case.


You're talking about a bunch of people who brag about the specs on their system that they use to watch heavily pixelated 4-color animated GIFs of a cat falling down...
 
2013-09-21 02:37:34 PM  

jaytkay: HempHead: the V22 tilt rotor, a plane which is pretty much worthless. First plane the Marine Corp ever purchased with no armaments

It has the same kind of armament as the Sea Knight it's replacing.




Sea Knight has two door mounted .50 caliber Browning M2s.
 
2013-09-21 02:39:00 PM  
**AK-47 armament sold separately.
 
2013-09-21 02:41:24 PM  

HempHead: edmo: It's so cute when these small timers think they can just waltz into the Military Industrial Club and order a drink.

Textron purchased Bell Helicopter in 1960.
Bell of course, now makes the V22 tilt rotor, a plane which is pretty much worthless. First plane the Marine Corp ever purchased with no armaments.

[strikehold.files.wordpress.com image 850x607]
Overpriced, unsafe and inadequate.


The Osprey has killed more Marines than have been killed by combatant enemies.
 
2013-09-21 02:45:03 PM  

realmolo: That's actually pretty cool, but why use these instead of drones?

Hell, it's getting hard to justify the use of fighter aircraft, period, now that drones are so sophisticated.


Every third world dictator will want 100 of these.  Iran is still using F-4's from the 1960's.  Imagine how shoddy the "air force" of some really backward places are.  What do you suppose the air force of the Congo is like?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_of_the_Democratic_Republic_of _t he_Congo#Aircraft

Notice Cessna all over that thing.
 
2013-09-21 02:45:16 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have

Did you read the article? The thing is basically only useful when the enemy has a) no aircraft and b) no air defenses.

In other words, every country we've gone to war with over the last few decades.  Sounds perfect.  Next time we start feeling we need to go blow up random brown people in some goat farking cave, we can send these instead of tens of billions of dollars of state of the art military technology.

Even the maker would not say that Iraq had no air defenses. This thing wouldn't have made it out of Iraq in 2003, much less 1991. Nor would it have fared well in Libya nor in a hypothetical Syria scenario.

Iraq had air defense for all of what? 3 days?  After that, why fly the $25k / hr plane instead of the $3k / hr plane once you've destroyed everything that resembles AA technology of the country you are invading.  I don't think this plane is meant to replace every other option we have.  It's meant to fill in when we have a laughable advantage over some 3rd world piece of shiat country.  The only way we "lose" those wars is by draining billions of dollars fighting against hundred dollar toys.

We have air superiority within hours.  We invade countries for years.  Work it out.

So what you're saying is that we needed the high-tech planes to start with. Because these things would never have gotten to the targets to destroy the air defenses.


I'm pretty sure any plane we've flown in the last 50 years would have handled Iraq's mighty air defense and air force just fine, up to and including this little toy plane we're discussing.  I don't think you understand exactly how superior our military really is.  Largely because we don't find out about most of it until a decade or two after we start using it.

Again, this cheapy little plane isn't meant to be the only weapon we have.  I'm not sure why you keep insinuating that other than that you don't understand the military doctrine of the United States.
 
2013-09-21 02:45:25 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: HempHead: edmo: It's so cute when these small timers think they can just waltz into the Military Industrial Club and order a drink.

Textron purchased Bell Helicopter in 1960.
Bell of course, now makes the V22 tilt rotor, a plane which is pretty much worthless. First plane the Marine Corp ever purchased with no armaments.

[strikehold.files.wordpress.com image 850x607]
Overpriced, unsafe and inadequate.

The Osprey has killed more Marines than have been killed by combatant enemies.


Air Force guys point out that the Osprey crashes are largely Marine phenomena, and that therefore it must be something the Marines are doing.
 
2013-09-21 02:46:40 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have

Did you read the article? The thing is basically only useful when the enemy has a) no aircraft and b) no air defenses.

In other words, every country we've gone to war with over the last few decades.  Sounds perfect.  Next time we start feeling we need to go blow up random brown people in some goat farking cave, we can send these instead of tens of billions of dollars of state of the art military technology.

Even the maker would not say that Iraq had no air defenses. This thing wouldn't have made it out of Iraq in 2003, much less 1991. Nor would it have fared well in Libya nor in a hypothetical Syria scenario.

Iraq had air defense for all of what? 3 days?  After that, why fly the $25k / hr plane instead of the $3k / hr plane once you've destroyed everything that resembles AA technology of the country you are invading.  I don't think this plane is meant to replace every other option we have.  It's meant to fill in when we have a laughable advantage over some 3rd world piece of shiat country.  The only way we "lose" those wars is by draining billions of dollars fighting against hundred dollar toys.

We have air superiority within hours.  We invade countries for years.  Work it out.

So what you're saying is that we needed the high-tech planes to start with. Because these things would never have gotten to the targets to destroy the air defenses.

I'm pretty sure any plane we've flown in the last 50 years would have handled Iraq's mighty air defense and air force just fine, up to and including this little toy plane we're discussing.  I don't think you understand exactly how superior our military really is.  Largely because we don't find out about most of it until a decade or two after we start using it.

Again, this cheapy littl ...


I'm not the one who pretended we didn't need the other aircraft.

And, no, this little plane wouldn't have done well. I don't know where you're getting that, because the builder sure as hell says the opposite.
 
2013-09-21 02:57:32 PM  

HempHead: jaytkay: HempHead: the V22 tilt rotor, a plane which is pretty much worthless. First plane the Marine Corp ever purchased with no armaments

It has the same kind of armament as the Sea Knight it's replacing.

Sea Knight has two door mounted .50 caliber Browning M2s.

 
V-22s can carry an M240s, M2 or GAU-17.

Your "no armament" comment is wrong. No need to defend it, it's just wrong.
 
2013-09-21 02:59:00 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have

Did you read the article? The thing is basically only useful when the enemy has a) no aircraft and b) no air defenses.

In other words, every country we've gone to war with over the last few decades.  Sounds perfect.  Next time we start feeling we need to go blow up random brown people in some goat farking cave, we can send these instead of tens of billions of dollars of state of the art military technology.

Even the maker would not say that Iraq had no air defenses. This thing wouldn't have made it out of Iraq in 2003, much less 1991. Nor would it have fared well in Libya nor in a hypothetical Syria scenario.

Iraq had air defense for all of what? 3 days?  After that, why fly the $25k / hr plane instead of the $3k / hr plane once you've destroyed everything that resembles AA technology of the country you are invading.  I don't think this plane is meant to replace every other option we have.  It's meant to fill in when we have a laughable advantage over some 3rd world piece of shiat country.  The only way we "lose" those wars is by draining billions of dollars fighting against hundred dollar toys.

We have air superiority within hours.  We invade countries for years.  Work it out.

So what you're saying is that we needed the high-tech planes to start with. Because these things would never have gotten to the targets to destroy the air defenses.

I'm pretty sure any plane we've flown in the last 50 years would have handled Iraq's mighty air defense and air force just fine, up to and including this little toy plane we're discussing.  I don't think you understand exactly how superior our military really is.  Largely because we don't find out about most of it until a decade or two after we start using it.

Again, th ...


You do realize we have multiple ways of dealing with enemy radar and detection systems, right?  It's not all about the plane being flown over head.  Again, I don't think you quite understand how our military's combined forces doctrine works or the level of top secret power we have at our disposal.  This plane would have been fine.  We could have sent trainer planes into Iraq and been fine.  Possibly not 100% casualty free, but I don't think we would have been in a panic about losing air superiority, regardless of what we were flying.

This cheap plane would merely be a tool in our toolbelt.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It also happens to be a tool that won't send us another few billion into debt when we decide that syripakiranistan needs some of it's caves blowed the fark up.  Not really sure what's to dislike here, or what exactly you're arguing about.
 
2013-09-21 03:05:47 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Air Force guys point out that the Osprey crashes are largely Marine phenomena, and that therefore it must be something the Marines are doing


Wikipedia says:

Operators
United States Air Force - 31 CV-22s as of January 2013
United States Marine Corps - 164 MV-22s as of January 2013


Also, I would guess the Marines' missions are rather more challenging.
 
2013-09-21 03:08:22 PM  

jaytkay: Ricardo Klement: Air Force guys point out that the Osprey crashes are largely Marine phenomena, and that therefore it must be something the Marines are doing

Wikipedia says:

Operators
United States Air Force - 31 CV-22s as of January 2013
United States Marine Corps - 164 MV-22s as of January 2013

Also, I would guess the Marines' missions are rather more challenging.


5x as much. That doesn't really contradict the Air Force on that.
 
2013-09-21 03:11:22 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: You do realize we have multiple ways of dealing with enemy radar and detection systems, right?  It's not all about the plane being flown over head.  Again, I don't think you quite understand how our military's combined forces doctrine works or the level of top secret power we have at our disposal.  This plane would have been fine.  We could have sent trainer planes into Iraq and been fine.  Possibly not 100% casualty free, but I don't think we would have been in a panic about losing air superiority, regardless of what we were flying.

This cheap plane would merely be a tool in our toolbelt.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It also happens to be a tool that won't send us another few billion into debt when we decide that syripakiranistan needs some of it's caves blowed the fark up.  Not really sure what's to dislike here, or what exactly you're arguing about.


I'm sure you're some kind of expert on our top secret power. But I suggest if you think this is a great plane, you go talk to some combat aviators and ask them how it'd do. Especially since the builder disagrees with your assessment of it.
 
2013-09-21 03:12:07 PM  

Ricardo Klement: That doesn't really contradict the Air Force on that.


Yes, it does. More missions. More planes. More crashes. Not surprising.
 
2013-09-21 03:15:16 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: You do realize we have multiple ways of dealing with enemy radar and detection systems, right?  It's not all about the plane being flown over head.  Again, I don't think you quite understand how our military's combined forces doctrine works or the level of top secret power we have at our disposal.  This plane would have been fine.  We could have sent trainer planes into Iraq and been fine.  Possibly not 100% casualty free, but I don't think we would have been in a panic about losing air superiority, regardless of what we were flying.

This cheap plane would merely be a tool in our toolbelt.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It also happens to be a tool that won't send us another few billion into debt when we decide that syripakiranistan needs some of it's caves blowed the fark up.  Not really sure what's to dislike here, or what exactly you're arguing about.

I'm sure you're some kind of expert on our top secret power. But I suggest if you think this is a great plane, you go talk to some combat aviators and ask them how it'd do. Especially since the builder disagrees with your assessment of it.


WTF are you even talking about.  I highly suggest you read the things that are said to you before you just spout off like a fool.  While you're at it, google "strawman" and learn how not to use one for every argument you try to make.  Hint A: I never said I think it's a great plane.  That's as good a place as any to start your education.
 
2013-09-21 03:15:19 PM  
Do not want-does not look cool.  Plus couldn't a high performance turbo prop plane perform the same missions as this plane at yet a fraction of the cost?
 
2013-09-21 03:16:59 PM  

jaytkay: Ricardo Klement: That doesn't really contradict the Air Force on that.

Yes, it does. More missions. More planes. More crashes. Not surprising.


You didn't provide evidence of either number of missions or even casualty rates.
 
2013-09-21 03:19:34 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: You do realize we have multiple ways of dealing with enemy radar and detection systems, right?  It's not all about the plane being flown over head.  Again, I don't think you quite understand how our military's combined forces doctrine works or the level of top secret power we have at our disposal.  This plane would have been fine.  We could have sent trainer planes into Iraq and been fine.  Possibly not 100% casualty free, but I don't think we would have been in a panic about losing air superiority, regardless of what we were flying.

This cheap plane would merely be a tool in our toolbelt.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It also happens to be a tool that won't send us another few billion into debt when we decide that syripakiranistan needs some of it's caves blowed the fark up.  Not really sure what's to dislike here, or what exactly you're arguing about.

I'm sure you're some kind of expert on our top secret power. But I suggest if you think this is a great plane, you go talk to some combat aviators and ask them how it'd do. Especially since the builder disagrees with your assessment of it.

WTF are you even talking about.  I highly suggest you read the things that are said to you before you just spout off like a fool.  While you're at it, google "strawman" and learn how not to use one for every argument you try to make.  Hint A: I never said I think it's a great plane.  That's as good a place as any to start your education.


and furthermore, my family has had career military men for generations.  My father was involved with shiat in the 80's that you, the general public, still don't have a clue about.  So while i'm no top secret expert, I have a good idea of how far military technology is ahead of public perception.  You think the F117 was hot shiat in 1991?  That plane had been around since the 70's.
 
2013-09-21 03:21:14 PM  
 
2013-09-21 03:24:09 PM  
semperfimac.net

Wouldn't be the first Cessna the Air Force has flown.
 
2013-09-21 03:29:39 PM  
This look like the Tata Nano of tactical jet fighters.
 
2013-09-21 03:31:39 PM  

Ricardo Klement: jaytkay: Ricardo Klement: That doesn't really contradict the Air Force on that.

Yes, it does. More missions. More planes. More crashes. Not surprising.

You didn't provide evidence of either number of missions or even casualty rates.


You're welcome to do that. Knock yourself out. We'll all be anxiously awaiting your findings.
 
2013-09-21 03:38:02 PM  

centrifugal bumblepuppy: Short memories?


The F-20 was much more comparable to an F-16.

TFA is about a subsonic plane with 3,000 lb bomb capacity

Tigershark was a Mach 2+ plane with an 8,000 lb bomb capacity.

/ Great aircraft, the Tigershark
 
2013-09-21 03:47:36 PM  

jaytkay: Ricardo Klement: jaytkay: Ricardo Klement: That doesn't really contradict the Air Force on that.

Yes, it does. More missions. More planes. More crashes. Not surprising.

You didn't provide evidence of either number of missions or even casualty rates.

You're welcome to do that. Knock yourself out. We'll all be anxiously awaiting your findings.


So, basically, it's two sets of assertions, yours, and my CSB Air Force guy. We have one piece of data, that the Marines have 5x the casualties.

OK, then.
 
2013-09-21 03:53:04 PM  

Ricardo Klement: the Marines have 5x the casualties.


And more than 5x the planes. You need to also look at number and type of missions.

Or you could just listen to the whiny "them other guys ain't no good like our guys" we've all heard from every dumbass service member ever.
 
2013-09-21 03:53:21 PM  
Needs more dakka.
 
2013-09-21 04:03:06 PM  

jaytkay: Ricardo Klement: the Marines have 5x the casualties.

And more than 5x the planes. You need to also look at number and type of missions.

Or you could just listen to the whiny "them other guys ain't no good like our guys" we've all heard from every dumbass service member ever.


That's what I said - you have to look at the other numbers. You haven't shown any other numbers. Everything either of us has said has been bare assertion EXCEPT that the Marine casualties are 5x those of the Air Force.
 
2013-09-21 04:03:56 PM  
Market it to bored rich people; they'll have fun and some of them will die in the process, so everyone wins.
 
2013-09-21 04:13:27 PM  

Ricardo Klement: you have to look at the other numbers


The numbers you haven't bothered to look up? Go get them and we can all learn something. TIA!
 
2013-09-21 04:31:28 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: You do realize we have multiple ways of dealing with enemy radar and detection systems, right?  It's not all about the plane being flown over head.  Again, I don't think you quite understand how our military's combined forces doctrine works or the level of top secret power we have at our disposal.  This plane would have been fine.  We could have sent trainer planes into Iraq and been fine.  Possibly not 100% casualty free, but I don't think we would have been in a panic about losing air superiority, regardless of what we were flying.

This cheap plane would merely be a tool in our toolbelt.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It also happens to be a tool that won't send us another few billion into debt when we decide that syripakiranistan needs some of it's caves blowed the fark up.  Not really sure what's to dislike here, or what exactly you're arguing about.

I'm sure you're some kind of expert on our top secret power. But I suggest if you think this is a great plane, you go talk to some combat aviators and ask them how it'd do. Especially since the builder disagrees with your assessment of it.

WTF are you even talking about.  I highly suggest you read the things that are said to you before you just spout off like a fool.  While you're at it, google "strawman" and learn how not to use one for every argument you try to make.  Hint A: I never said I think it's a great plane.  That's as good a place as any to start your education.


So we're down to "it's another tool in our toolbelt."

And here I thought you said,

Spaced Cowboy: Next time we start feeling we need to go blow up random brown people in some goat farking cave, we can send these instead of tens of billions of dollars of state of the art military technology.


I guess I misunderstood and you meant IN ADDITION to? Or are the super-high-tech top-secret platforms just really cheap?
 
2013-09-21 04:32:04 PM  

jaytkay: Ricardo Klement: you have to look at the other numbers

The numbers you haven't bothered to look up? Go get them and we can all learn something. TIA!


The numbers you haven't bothered to look up either. You can't pretend that your not providing information is superior to my not providing information.
 
2013-09-21 04:35:04 PM  
It may very well be cheaper as it's made now, but by the time you add all the systems that are required on military aircraft it's going to cost just as much, if not more that what the AF is currently using. That's assuming it could even be modified to fit and use all those systems.
 
2013-09-21 04:40:03 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: You do realize we have multiple ways of dealing with enemy radar and detection systems, right?  It's not all about the plane being flown over head.  Again, I don't think you quite understand how our military's combined forces doctrine works or the level of top secret power we have at our disposal.  This plane would have been fine.  We could have sent trainer planes into Iraq and been fine.  Possibly not 100% casualty free, but I don't think we would have been in a panic about losing air superiority, regardless of what we were flying.

This cheap plane would merely be a tool in our toolbelt.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It also happens to be a tool that won't send us another few billion into debt when we decide that syripakiranistan needs some of it's caves blowed the fark up.  Not really sure what's to dislike here, or what exactly you're arguing about.

I'm sure you're some kind of expert on our top secret power. But I suggest if you think this is a great plane, you go talk to some combat aviators and ask them how it'd do. Especially since the builder disagrees with your assessment of it.

WTF are you even talking about.  I highly suggest you read the things that are said to you before you just spout off like a fool.  While you're at it, google "strawman" and learn how not to use one for every argument you try to make.  Hint A: I never said I think it's a great plane.  That's as good a place as any to start your education.

So we're down to "it's another tool in our toolbelt."

And here I thought you said, Spaced Cowboy: Next time we start feeling we need to go blow up random brown people in some goat farking cave, we can send these instead of tens of billions of dollars of state of the art military technology.

I guess I misunderstood and you meant IN ADDITION to? Or are the super-high-tech top-secret platforms just really cheap?


Read the part before the comma too, you illiterate dipshiat.  Complete sentences, how the fark do they work...

God damn, you're stupid.  I'm putting on a hazmat suit just in case that shiat is contagious.  Just to really help you out of your din of retardation and confusion, this is from my second post in this thread:  I don't think this plane is meant to replace every other option we have.  Stop playing FoxNews and trying to derive full meaning of an entire paragraph from a 3 word clip.

Your time on fark is going to be very unpleasant unless you can get a better grasp on this whole communication thing.  You seem to be really bad at this.
 
2013-09-21 04:41:47 PM  
Quick question for the military folk, from a vocabulary pedant:

Is the "tactical" in "tactical jet fighter" redundant? Aren't all fighter planes necessarily tactical? Can you have a "strategic jet fighter" - does that just mean air superiority over a large area?
Obviously, strategic bomber is a valid category, but not sure how it works for fighters.
 
2013-09-21 04:42:38 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: You do realize we have multiple ways of dealing with enemy radar and detection systems, right?  It's not all about the plane being flown over head.  Again, I don't think you quite understand how our military's combined forces doctrine works or the level of top secret power we have at our disposal.  This plane would have been fine.  We could have sent trainer planes into Iraq and been fine.  Possibly not 100% casualty free, but I don't think we would have been in a panic about losing air superiority, regardless of what we were flying.

This cheap plane would merely be a tool in our toolbelt.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It also happens to be a tool that won't send us another few billion into debt when we decide that syripakiranistan needs some of it's caves blowed the fark up.  Not really sure what's to dislike here, or what exactly you're arguing about.

I'm sure you're some kind of expert on our top secret power. But I suggest if you think this is a great plane, you go talk to some combat aviators and ask them how it'd do. Especially since the builder disagrees with your assessment of it.

WTF are you even talking about.  I highly suggest you read the things that are said to you before you just spout off like a fool.  While you're at it, google "strawman" and learn how not to use one for every argument you try to make.  Hint A: I never said I think it's a great plane.  That's as good a place as any to start your education.

So we're down to "it's another tool in our toolbelt."

And here I thought you said, Spaced Cowboy: Next time we start feeling we need to go blow up random brown people in some goat farking cave, we can send these instead of tens of billions of dollars of state of the art military technology.

I guess I misunderstood and you meant IN ADDITION to? Or are the super-high-tech top-secret platforms just really cheap?

Read the part before the comma too, you illiterate dipshiat.  Complete ...


Oh, and now you're going to pretend that when you talked about our recent wars, like Iraq, that you DIDN'T say we'd send in the high-tech stuff to take out the air defenses?

How cute.

But I'm sure this is just a great plane and the only reason the military men and the generations before them in the Pentagon don't get it is because they're not smart like your family's generations of military men.
 
2013-09-21 04:46:03 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: You do realize we have multiple ways of dealing with enemy radar and detection systems, right?  It's not all about the plane being flown over head.  Again, I don't think you quite understand how our military's combined forces doctrine works or the level of top secret power we have at our disposal.  This plane would have been fine.  We could have sent trainer planes into Iraq and been fine.  Possibly not 100% casualty free, but I don't think we would have been in a panic about losing air superiority, regardless of what we were flying.

This cheap plane would merely be a tool in our toolbelt.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It also happens to be a tool that won't send us another few billion into debt when we decide that syripakiranistan needs some of it's caves blowed the fark up.  Not really sure what's to dislike here, or what exactly you're arguing about.

I'm sure you're some kind of expert on our top secret power. But I suggest if you think this is a great plane, you go talk to some combat aviators and ask them how it'd do. Especially since the builder disagrees with your assessment of it.

WTF are you even talking about.  I highly suggest you read the things that are said to you before you just spout off like a fool.  While you're at it, google "strawman" and learn how not to use one for every argument you try to make.  Hint A: I never said I think it's a great plane.  That's as good a place as any to start your education.

So we're down to "it's another tool in our toolbelt."

And here I thought you said, Spaced Cowboy: Next time we start feeling we need to go blow up random brown people in some goat farking cave, we can send these instead of tens of billions of dollars of state of the art military technology.

I guess I misunderstood and you meant IN ADDITION to? Or are the super-high-tech top-secret platforms just really cheap?

Read the part before the comma too, you illiterate dips ...


I rarely ever find someone so thoroughly incapable of putting together coherent thoughts, even on this fark.  I'm sorry, but we're done here.  I have 4 solid walls in this room that can put together a more coherent debate than whatever it is you are doing.

Enjoy your stay here.  You're going to be a chew toy for a lot of very bored farkers.
 
2013-09-21 04:49:00 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: I rarely ever find someone so thoroughly incapable of putting together coherent thoughts, even on this fark.  I'm sorry, but we're done here.  I have 4 solid walls in this room that can put together a more coherent debate than whatever it is you are doing.

Enjoy your stay here.  You're going to be a chew toy for a lot of very bored farkers.


Do pop in and let us know about all your inside information on our super-cheap top-secret stuff.
 
2013-09-21 04:50:38 PM  

spawn73: However, the above plane was one a Swedish guy exported to Biaffra during the Nigerian civil war. With rockets mounted on the wings, and flown by skilled pilots, they totally caught the Nigerian airforce by surprise, destroying several of sophisticated Mig fighters on the ground.


www.ipass.net
What use does Biafra have for an airplane?
 
2013-09-21 04:53:59 PM  
The argument for this plane is simple:

Don't buy super-expensive planes with high operating costs for missions where a cheap plane that can be operated cheaply will do.

It's pretty farking obvious we'd be better off using these and not buying expensive planes we will never need. Did we even really need both the F-22 and F-35? Hell, do we even really need to replace the F/A-18 Super Hornet? There is literally only ONE country on the entire planet that could give the US any trouble in an air war, and guess what... The Cold War has been over for 22 farkING YEARS!

Time to use that money on something other than prosthetic dicks for warmongers.
 
2013-09-21 05:23:43 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
Did someone say drone?

/obscure?
 
2013-09-21 05:31:06 PM  
"Deal of the Century"?
 
2013-09-21 05:37:26 PM  

Ricardo Klement: King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have

Did you read the article? The thing is basically only useful when the enemy has a) no aircraft and b) no air defenses.


In today's world, that is about 90% of the people we are going to go blow up.
 
2013-09-21 05:39:12 PM  

ReapTheChaos: , but by the time you add all the systems that are required on military aircraft it's going to cost just as much


I'm sure it has those already. Most of it what it needs is cheap stuff you can get off the shelf. It hardly needs things like advanced radar or other systems.
 
2013-09-21 05:39:54 PM  

edmo: It's so cute when these small timers think they can just waltz into the Military Industrial Club and order a drink.


"Small timers"?  Tell me again what word pops into your head when you think of small personal planes?
 
2013-09-21 05:44:29 PM  
People are right, the US military has never utilized small, light weight, cheap to operate planes with limited weapons payloads...

www.combataircraft.com

oh wait...
 
2013-09-21 05:54:39 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Even the maker would not say that Iraq had no air defenses. This thing wouldn't have made it out of Iraq in 2003, much less 1991. Nor would it have fared well in Libya nor in a hypothetical Syria scenario.


It would've done perfectly well at what it's meant to do. Once you either take out radar installations or you have them all jammed six ways to Sunday, unless you're up against someone with anything near the latest and greatest stuff, you don't really need much to do well. And part of what the US makes sure to keep in the stockpile is electronics warfare capable planes, for the reason it makes things a lot easier, even when such planes themselves have no defensive let alone offensive capabilities. When the enemy sees a radar screen that looks like snow, you could fly a Piper Cub in and drop a bomb from the window and succeed.
 
2013-09-21 05:55:38 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
Super Tweet
 
2013-09-21 06:05:13 PM  
The military didn't ask for it. They asked for this and it's super neat-o.
img844.imageshack.us
 
2013-09-21 06:09:30 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Ricardo Klement: Even the maker would not say that Iraq had no air defenses. This thing wouldn't have made it out of Iraq in 2003, much less 1991. Nor would it have fared well in Libya nor in a hypothetical Syria scenario.

It would've done perfectly well at what it's meant to do. Once you either take out radar installations or you have them all jammed six ways to Sunday, unless you're up against someone with anything near the latest and greatest stuff, you don't really need much to do well. And part of what the US makes sure to keep in the stockpile is electronics warfare capable planes, for the reason it makes things a lot easier, even when such planes themselves have no defensive let alone offensive capabilities. When the enemy sees a radar screen that looks like snow, you could fly a Piper Cub in and drop a bomb from the window and succeed.


Nah man, you see, we don't actualy have a sort of way to combat radar other than super expensive planes.  This cheap shiat wouldn't never work.  I heard from a relible source that theirs no real way to do it today.  You'd need to be some kind of super top secret genius to no that our militry has that abilities, adn your clearly not.  Game.  Set.  Mach.
 
2013-09-21 06:10:14 PM  
d3gtl9l2a4fn1j.cloudfront.net
 
2013-09-21 06:12:23 PM  

Spaced Cowboy:

Iraq had air defense for all of what? 3 days?  After that, why fly the $25k / hr plane instead of the $3k / hr plane once you've destroyed everything that resembles AA technology of the country you are invading.  I don't think this plane is meant to replace every other option we have.  It's meant to fill in when we have a laughable advantage over some 3rd world piece of shiat country.  The only way we "lose" those wars is by draining billions of dollars fighting against hundred dollar toys.

We have air superiority within hours.  We invade countries for years.  Work it out.


Plus it is a numbers game. What is better, a super advanced F-22 that can only be in one place at a time or ten of these which for ground support will be as effective but there are ten of them so they can cover a much greater area.

If you're on the ground and come under fire which would you prefer? A F-22 that can be there in thirty minutes, because it is the only one in the area, or one of these that is nearby and can be there in two minutes?
 
2013-09-21 06:13:28 PM  

red5ish: The military didn't ask for it. They asked for this and it's super neat-o.
[img844.imageshack.us image 640x480]


The Air Force has been trying to get rid of the A-10 for decades.  The Army wants them if they don't.
 
2013-09-21 06:20:24 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: You do realize we have multiple ways of dealing with enemy radar and detection systems, right?  It's not all about the plane being flown over head.  Again, I don't think you quite understand how our military's combined forces doctrine works or the level of top secret power we have at our disposal.  This plane would have been fine.  We could have sent trainer planes into Iraq and been fine.  Possibly not 100% casualty free, but I don't think we would have been in a panic about losing air superiority, regardless of what we were flying.

This cheap plane would merely be a tool in our toolbelt.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It also happens to be a tool that won't send us another few billion into debt when we decide that syripakiranistan needs some of it's caves blowed the fark up.  Not really sure what's to dislike here, or what exactly you're arguing about.

I'm sure you're some kind of expert on our top secret power. But I suggest if you think this is a great plane, you go talk to some combat aviators and ask them how it'd do. Especially since the builder disagrees with your assessment of it.


Who are you arguing with? You seem to be saying the US should have nothing but F22s and that a more basic plane is worthless. That's like saying the US army should only have Abrams tanks and no Humvees. A Humvee is nowhere near as advanced as a Abrams but do you really think the army should scrap all their Humvees and buy thousands of Abrams to replace them?

This plane is designed to be a Humvee. After the Abrams have destroyed the enemy front line the Humvee is used by soldiers to keep control of the rear. Just as this is designed to let the F-22s gain air superiority and be used in theatres were there is no air threat or it has already been destroyed.
Why is that so hard to understand?
 
2013-09-21 06:27:58 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: WhyteRaven74: Ricardo Klement: Even the maker would not say that Iraq had no air defenses. This thing wouldn't have made it out of Iraq in 2003, much less 1991. Nor would it have fared well in Libya nor in a hypothetical Syria scenario.

It would've done perfectly well at what it's meant to do. Once you either take out radar installations or you have them all jammed six ways to Sunday, unless you're up against someone with anything near the latest and greatest stuff, you don't really need much to do well. And part of what the US makes sure to keep in the stockpile is electronics warfare capable planes, for the reason it makes things a lot easier, even when such planes themselves have no defensive let alone offensive capabilities. When the enemy sees a radar screen that looks like snow, you could fly a Piper Cub in and drop a bomb from the window and succeed.

Nah man, you see, we don't actualy have a sort of way to combat radar other than super expensive planes.  This cheap shiat wouldn't never work.  I heard from a relible source that theirs no real way to do it today.  You'd need to be some kind of super top secret genius to no that our militry has that abilities, adn your clearly not.  Game.  Set.  Mach.


So all that bit about super-secret 1970s stealth was bullshiat?

You're all over the map.
 
2013-09-21 06:32:01 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: WhyteRaven74: Ricardo Klement: Even the maker would not say that Iraq had no air defenses. This thing wouldn't have made it out of Iraq in 2003, much less 1991. Nor would it have fared well in Libya nor in a hypothetical Syria scenario.

It would've done perfectly well at what it's meant to do. Once you either take out radar installations or you have them all jammed six ways to Sunday, unless you're up against someone with anything near the latest and greatest stuff, you don't really need much to do well. And part of what the US makes sure to keep in the stockpile is electronics warfare capable planes, for the reason it makes things a lot easier, even when such planes themselves have no defensive let alone offensive capabilities. When the enemy sees a radar screen that looks like snow, you could fly a Piper Cub in and drop a bomb from the window and succeed.

Nah man, you see, we don't actualy have a sort of way to combat radar other than super expensive planes.  This cheap shiat wouldn't never work.  I heard from a relible source that theirs no real way to do it today.  You'd need to be some kind of super top secret genius to no that our militry has that abilities, adn your clearly not.  Game.  Set.  Mach.

So all that bit about super-secret 1970s stealth was bullshiat?

You're all over the map.


preciouspawprints.com
 
2013-09-21 06:33:42 PM  

WhyteRaven74: ReapTheChaos: , but by the time you add all the systems that are required on military aircraft it's going to cost just as much

I'm sure it has those already. Most of it what it needs is cheap stuff you can get off the shelf. It hardly needs things like advanced radar or other systems.


You obviously know nothing about military weapons systems.
 
2013-09-21 06:34:07 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: You do realize we have multiple ways of dealing with enemy radar and detection systems, right?  It's not all about the plane being flown over head.  Again, I don't think you quite understand how our military's combined forces doctrine works or the level of top secret power we have at our disposal.  This plane would have been fine.  We could have sent trainer planes into Iraq and been fine.  Possibly not 100% casualty free, but I don't think we would have been in a panic about losing air superiority, regardless of what we were flying.

This cheap plane would merely be a tool in our toolbelt.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It also happens to be a tool that won't send us another few billion into debt when we decide that syripakiranistan needs some of it's caves blowed the fark up.  Not really sure what's to dislike here, or what exactly you're arguing about.

I'm sure you're some kind of expert on our top secret power. But I suggest if you think this is a great plane, you go talk to some combat aviators and ask them how it'd do. Especially since the builder disagrees with your assessment of it.

Who are you arguing with? You seem to be saying the US should have nothing but F22s and that a more basic plane is worthless. That's like saying the US army should only have Abrams tanks and no Humvees. A Humvee is nowhere near as advanced as a Abrams but do you really think the army should scrap all their Humvees and buy thousands of Abrams to replace them?

This plane is designed to be a Humvee. After the Abrams have destroyed the enemy front line the Humvee is used by soldiers to keep control of the rear. Just as this is designed to let the F-22s gain air superiority and be used in theatres were there is no air threat or it has already been destroyed.
Why is that so hard to understand?


This was the comment I responded to that triggered the landslide:

King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have


I called BS on it, and said that would be true if the target had no air defenses and no combat aircraft. Then the "expert" chimed in:

Spaced Cowboy: In other words, every country we've gone to war with over the last few decades.


Do either of the bolded statements sound true to you?
 
2013-09-21 06:35:02 PM  
But is it as good as this plane?
www.flightglobal.com
 
2013-09-21 06:51:34 PM  

Fear_and_Loathing: red5ish: The military didn't ask for it. They asked for this and it's super neat-o.
[img844.imageshack.us image 640x480]

The Air Force has been trying to get rid of the A-10 for decades.  The Army wants them if they don't.


I wasn't aware that the AF didn't like 'em. I can understand why the Army wants them.
 
2013-09-21 06:55:45 PM  

ReapTheChaos: You obviously know nothing about military weapons systems.


The plane was designed as a military airplane, I'm sure they've already included everything it needs. And while certain planes get every bell and whistle, some don't. The A-10 has avionics that by and large would be familiar to a pilot in the 50s. It never had a need for stuff like what the F-16 got. Hell even the F-15 wasn't decked out in bells and whistles, just what it needed to do its job. The plane in TFA needs little more than instrumentation so the pilot can fly safely and a basic weapons system.
 
2013-09-21 07:18:40 PM  
All they really need is a small, compact laser, a mounted optical mirror and a tracking system.   They can vaporize anything from space.

Just ask Chris Knight.
 
2013-09-21 07:21:33 PM  

Ricardo Klement: This was the comment I responded to that triggered the landslide:

King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have

I called BS on it, and said that would be true if the target had no air defenses and no combat aircraft. Then the "expert" chimed in:

Spaced Cowboy: In other words, every country we've gone to war with over the last few decades.

Do either of the bolded statements sound true to you?


Spaced Cowboy's full comment was "In other words, every country we've gone to war with over the last few decades. Next time we start feeling we need to go blow up random brown people in some goat farking cave, we can send these instead of tens of billions of dollars of state of the art military technology.

The US got in and out of Pakistan in three helicopters. (Well, three went in and two came back, but nothing to do with enemy action, just vortex ring action) There are plenty of US actions where a plane such as this would be as effective as a far more advanced fighter/ground support aircraft. More so if there are more of them so able to cover far greater area.
 
2013-09-21 07:23:31 PM  

flondrix: But would they be allowed to sell them to tin-pot dictators? The ones who have money tend to be enemies of the US.


They're probably targeting their sales at South America, Israel, and small Sub-Saharan Africa countries, none of which need to worry about being up against modern US attack craft.
 
2013-09-21 07:28:59 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Ricardo Klement: This was the comment I responded to that triggered the landslide:

King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have

I called BS on it, and said that would be true if the target had no air defenses and no combat aircraft. Then the "expert" chimed in:

Spaced Cowboy: In other words, every country we've gone to war with over the last few decades.

Do either of the bolded statements sound true to you?

Spaced Cowboy's full comment was "In other words, every country we've gone to war with over the last few decades. Next time we start feeling we need to go blow up random brown people in some goat farking cave, we can send these instead of tens of billions of dollars of state of the art military technology.

The US got in and out of Pakistan in three helicopters. (Well, three went in and two came back, but nothing to do with enemy action, just vortex ring action) There are plenty of US actions where a plane such as this would be as effective as a far more advanced fighter/ground support aircraft. More so if there are more of them so able to cover far greater area.


Please. I could say, "Spaced Cowboy rape of that young girl for which Glenn Beck was framed. Next time we start feeling we need to go blow up random brown people in some goat farking cave, we can send these instead of tens of billions of dollars of state of the art military technology." That doesn't make the first sentence any smarter.
 
2013-09-21 07:54:25 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Flint Ironstag: Ricardo Klement: This was the comment I responded to that triggered the landslide:

King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have

I called BS on it, and said that would be true if the target had no air defenses and no combat aircraft. Then the "expert" chimed in:

Spaced Cowboy: In other words, every country we've gone to war with over the last few decades.

Do either of the bolded statements sound true to you?

Spaced Cowboy's full comment was "In other words, every country we've gone to war with over the last few decades. Next time we start feeling we need to go blow up random brown people in some goat farking cave, we can send these instead of tens of billions of dollars of state of the art military technology.

The US got in and out of Pakistan in three helicopters. (Well, three went in and two came back, but nothing to do with enemy action, just vortex ring action) There are plenty of US actions where a plane such as this would be as effective as a far more advanced fighter/ground support aircraft. More so if there are more of them so able to cover far greater area.

Please. I could say, "Spaced Cowboy rape of that young girl for which Glenn Beck was framed. Next time we start feeling we need to go blow up random brown people in some goat farking cave, we can send these instead of tens of billions of dollars of state of the art military technology." That doesn't make the first sentence any smarter.


If you plan to dig that hole of yours any deeper, you're going to need some help.  Here, you can borrow my hat:

us.123rf.com
 
2013-09-21 08:02:52 PM  

jpo2269: Do not want-does not look cool.  Plus couldn't a high performance turbo prop plane perform the same missions as this plane at yet a fraction of the cost?


A "high-performance" turboprop generally tops out around 350-400 mph. They can go a fair bit faster (as evidenced by the Russian Tu-95 bomber) but the cost starts to go up considerably. This aircraft is supposed to be capable of 500+ mph (speed is life when someone on the ground might be pointing a shoulder-fired missile at you) and to reach those speeds a turboprop would end up costing just as much as a jet, but with vibration problems, less efficient cruise, a bigger radar signature, and most likely a lot more noise.

The Scorpion's major turboprop competition, the Embraer Super Tucano, tops out at only 367 mph. The Scorpion should be able to cruise at that speed using only half its available power.
 
2013-09-21 08:31:23 PM  
They should stick to their corporate core competencies and make flying golf carts.
 
2013-09-21 08:51:09 PM  

ReapTheChaos: WhyteRaven74: ReapTheChaos: , but by the time you add all the systems that are required on military aircraft it's going to cost just as much

I'm sure it has those already. Most of it what it needs is cheap stuff you can get off the shelf. It hardly needs things like advanced radar or other systems.

You obviously know nothing about military weapons systems.


My guess is that, as a major defence contractor that already builds advanced military aircraft, Textron already have access to the more advanced stuff and have planned for it. Plus, it won't require the most advanced of everything.

I doubt they will sell any to the USAF for a number of reasons, but development cost was minimal for a combat aircraft and if they can sell a few to some third or fourth rate air forces, then they will make their money. And it is also putting their name on the "list of people that can make combat aircraft" the next time the US is thinking about that.
 
2013-09-21 09:34:30 PM  

HempHead: edmo: It's so cute when these small timers think they can just waltz into the Military Industrial Club and order a drink.

Textron purchased Bell Helicopter in 1960.
Bell of course, now makes the V22 tilt rotor, a plane which is pretty much worthless. First plane the Marine Corp ever purchased with no armaments.


Overpriced, unsafe and inadequate.


A) it's a transport.

B) it's not an airplane

C) it has a .50cal or a minigun in the tail
 
2013-09-21 09:50:23 PM  

real_headhoncho: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 544x304]
Did someone say drone?

/obscure?


"State-of-the-art?! MY ASS!"

I loved that movie, it was bad, but still enjoyable and was a good commentary on our military industrial complex.
 
2013-09-21 10:03:59 PM  

eyeq360: But is it as good as this plane?
[www.flightglobal.com image 560x373]


You mean the plane with the Radio Shack avionics stack, and the totally non-functional cowl seal?
aviationintel.com
/snerk
 
2013-09-21 10:08:59 PM  
The taliban destroyed six AV-8B Harriers at 30 million dollars each. The cost per hour for a Harrier is roughly 12,000 dollars per hour.
So for about the same total cost as one Harrier a Scorpion squadron could be bought and fly.
And do the same job that the Harriers were doing in Afghanistan.
Now the Scorpion is not a VTOL but the Harriers were operating from a airfield.
Sometimes quantity is quality.
It might not hurt to try two or three squadrons.
Besides it looks like a fighter and the Air Force seems to be embarrassed to fly the A-10.
 
2013-09-21 10:16:13 PM  
either they keep the bigger defense companies on their toes or embraer and eads come in with better products
 
2013-09-21 10:20:55 PM  

WhyteRaven74: ReapTheChaos: You obviously know nothing about military weapons systems.

The plane was designed as a military airplane, I'm sure they've already included everything it needs. And while certain planes get every bell and whistle, some don't. The A-10 has avionics that by and large would be familiar to a pilot in the 50s. It never had a need for stuff like what the F-16 got. Hell even the F-15 wasn't decked out in bells and whistles, just what it needed to do its job. The plane in TFA needs little more than instrumentation so the pilot can fly safely and a basic weapons system.


The systems on military aircraft are classified secret or above, civilian companies wouldn't have access to them or the technology unless they were contracted by the military to build it. The systems on board military aircraft, while some may perform the same basic function, are far more advanced then whats on civilian aircraft. So no, they wouldn't already have everything they need.
 
2013-09-21 10:26:22 PM  

ReapTheChaos: WhyteRaven74: ReapTheChaos: You obviously know nothing about military weapons systems.

The plane was designed as a military airplane, I'm sure they've already included everything it needs. And while certain planes get every bell and whistle, some don't. The A-10 has avionics that by and large would be familiar to a pilot in the 50s. It never had a need for stuff like what the F-16 got. Hell even the F-15 wasn't decked out in bells and whistles, just what it needed to do its job. The plane in TFA needs little more than instrumentation so the pilot can fly safely and a basic weapons system.

The systems on military aircraft are classified secret or above, civilian companies wouldn't have access to them or the technology unless they were contracted by the military to build it. The systems on board military aircraft, while some may perform the same basic function, are far more advanced then whats on civilian aircraft. So no, they wouldn't already have everything they need.


You do know that Textron and its subsidiaries build a number of other military aircraft, right? They just might have some inkling as to what the operating costs of a mil-spec avionics suite are, seeing as they build them. This is a non-argument.
 
2013-09-21 10:46:53 PM  

edmo: It's so cute when these small timers think they can just waltz into the Military Industrial Club and order a drink.


To me it sounds like they are handing out drinks that they brought with them.  The big question is will anyone catch their buzz?
 
2013-09-21 11:17:38 PM  

FuturePastNow: Market it to bored rich people; they'll have fun and some of them will die in the process, so everyone wins.


We already have the Beechcraft Bonanza for that.
 
2013-09-21 11:25:59 PM  
Burt Rutans says "hello" from about 20 years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG9LlHcX8lg
 
rka
2013-09-21 11:50:34 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: Nah man, you see, we don't actualy have a sort of way to combat radar other than super expensive planes.


The problem with adding another platform is that you have to have the whole infrastructure behind it. Train more pilots for a new plane. Train new mechanics. An entirely new logistics program. Procurement cycles. Testing.

So yes, flying one cheap plane in the place of an expensive plane seems like a good idea. Until you realize that once you ramp up production, training and deployment you could have just flown the expensive plane you already had for about the same money using the already in place infrastructure for it. And the more expensive plane can already handle more missions, in more theatres of action, against a much wider threat spectrum and most likely can take more punishment (ie survive longer) to boot.

Actually buying the plane itself is but a small part of the equation.
 
2013-09-21 11:53:13 PM  
Oh, so they did it the economical way.  It'll never fly.  It doesn't waste enough resources.
 
2013-09-22 12:13:00 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: HempHead: edmo: It's so cute when these small timers think they can just waltz into the Military Industrial Club and order a drink.

Textron purchased Bell Helicopter in 1960.
Bell of course, now makes the V22 tilt rotor, a plane which is pretty much worthless. First plane the Marine Corp ever purchased with no armaments.


Overpriced, unsafe and inadequate.

A) it's a transport.

B) it's not an airplane

C) it has a .50cal or a minigun in the tail


Some are being built from the ground up as gunships to take a role as the C-130H/C-130U's little brother.

There were also plans for a quadrotor version for even heavier transport/gunship support, but it was scrapped after Boeing backed out of development.

Seems humorous that the initial comparison was made with no regard into the individual craft's role.  It's like saying the Apache is a bad replacement for the Huey.  It is, but that's because they have very different roles.

And the fatalities have, by my recollection, been during R&D and working out the instability during the rotor tilting, which was solved by having the nacelles offset their tilting cycle by 5 -10 degrees.

The V22 is one of my favorite aircraft.
 
2013-09-22 12:16:30 AM  
I understand what niche they're going for, but this plane isn't really going to make it in the US military. Certainly not unless the Key West is scrapped. And, also, that Wikipedia is right and that the payload is 6,000lbs as opposed to the CNN article that says 3,000. If it can carry 6,000, and the Army is allowed to operate high-performance fixed-wing aircraft, then maybe it could take the ground-attack role from the Apache.

As it is, though, it doesn't appear to have any multi-role ambitions, which pretty much zeroes out any chance the Air Force is going to consider it for more than a heartbeat. And they probably shouldn't.
 
2013-09-22 12:36:22 AM  

jaytkay: HempHead: the V22 tilt rotor, a plane which is pretty much worthless. First plane the Marine Corp ever purchased with no armaments

It has the same kind of armament as the Sea Knight it's replacing.


Anyone who thinks the Osprey is worthless must have last read about it 20 years ago.
 
2013-09-22 12:41:25 AM  

cretinbob: jaytkay: HempHead: the V22 tilt rotor, a plane which is pretty much worthless. First plane the Marine Corp ever purchased with no armaments

It has the same kind of armament as the Sea Knight it's replacing.

Anyone who thinks the Osprey is worthless must have last read about it 20 years ago.


An awful lot of platforms earn a bad reputation during development but end up experiencing deployment successes.
 
2013-09-22 12:43:00 AM  
i thought 16 year olds with virtual reality helmets flew everything.
 
2013-09-22 12:44:40 AM  

craigzy: i thought 16 year olds with virtual reality helmets flew everything.


Is Ender's Game out already?
 
2013-09-22 01:18:42 AM  

vygramul: cretinbob: jaytkay: HempHead: the V22 tilt rotor, a plane which is pretty much worthless. First plane the Marine Corp ever purchased with no armaments

It has the same kind of armament as the Sea Knight it's replacing.

Anyone who thinks the Osprey is worthless must have last read about it 20 years ago.

An awful lot of platforms earn a bad reputation during development but end up experiencing deployment successes.


yup
 
2013-09-22 04:32:33 AM  
Simply, another thing to spend money on...
 
2013-09-22 04:53:01 AM  
I agree with everyone who says the US military won't give this plane a second glance.  Heck, maybe not even a first glance.  And although operating costs appear low, I haven't seen any indication of per-unit purchase price.  So yeah, the observation / interdiction / ground support role seems likely.  I think there's also some money to be made selling them to allies who want to make their neighbors think twice before invading.  Due to export restrictions, they unfortunately won't be able to cater to where the  real money is - countries that want to make the US think twice before invading.  If I were the "democratically elected" leader of Wadiya or some other country not on great terms with the US, I'd love to have a few hundred cheap attack jets I could throw at anything that crossed the border.
 
2013-09-22 06:59:23 AM  

Nabb1: It's like, well, using a golf cart to get around the golf course instead of a Ferrari.


I've been doing it wrong.
 
2013-09-22 07:36:53 AM  
Why would the military want the golf cart of jet fighters?  That straight wing and under powered engines is why the thing is lazy dog slow for jet fighters.  Sure the A10 is slower, but they call it a flying tank for a reason.  We haven't taken a jet into combat that slow without the armor like the A10's since Vietnam.  Why would the military would want to give the enemy RPG targets?  If they make money on this, it will be to the millionaires who have pilot licenses.
 
2013-09-22 07:40:25 AM  

bingo the psych-o: edmo: It's so cute when these small timers think they can just waltz into the Military Industrial Club and order a drink. To me it sounds like they are handing out drinks that they brought with them.  The big question is will anyone catch their buzz?

The answer is: probably not.




Every now and then someone thinks they're being cute by trying to sell the military something they think it needs.
Sometimes its successful (as in the case of the first predator style drones), more often it just catches a few headlines and disappears into obscurity.

As for the light and cheap fighter, its a concept that's been around many times.
Some try to modify commercial aircraft (Cessna especially), sometimes they'll try to mount rockets on a home build (long ez has been a favorite, even Russia had a version), sometimes they try to built it from scratch (like the afore mentioned Rutan attempt), and then there's jokers like this who turn up at trade shows with something they built in flight simulator and expect piles of cash for it.
dl.dropboxusercontent.com



The basic problem is that the military has enough money to order up exactly what it wants, and it doesn't want an upgunned Cessna.
...But by the time they are done specifying, you get something built in very small lots that is, naturally, going to be expensive as hell to fly.

Cheap air power should have been a hotter seller in foreign markets, but it seems their militaries are just as demanding as ours. So no one wants F-5's or tucanos, they want export versions of the F-35.

These guys can try, but unless they've got some kind of inside connection I doubt it will become more than a rich mans sport jet.
 
2013-09-22 08:02:23 AM  
The Pilatus Porter is still operated by many countries, including the US.   It is a very cool aircraft that can be can land/take off on a runway that is the length of a football field.
richard-seaman.com
 
2013-09-22 09:09:57 AM  

Flint Ironstag: Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: You do realize we have multiple ways of dealing with enemy radar and detection systems, right?  It's not all about the plane being flown over head.  Again, I don't think you quite understand how our military's combined forces doctrine works or the level of top secret power we have at our disposal.  This plane would have been fine.  We could have sent trainer planes into Iraq and been fine.  Possibly not 100% casualty free, but I don't think we would have been in a panic about losing air superiority, regardless of what we were flying.

This cheap plane would merely be a tool in our toolbelt.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It also happens to be a tool that won't send us another few billion into debt when we decide that syripakiranistan needs some of it's caves blowed the fark up.  Not really sure what's to dislike here, or what exactly you're arguing about.

I'm sure you're some kind of expert on our top secret power. But I suggest if you think this is a great plane, you go talk to some combat aviators and ask them how it'd do. Especially since the builder disagrees with your assessment of it.

Who are you arguing with? You seem to be saying the US should have nothing but F22s and that a more basic plane is worthless. That's like saying the US army should only have Abrams tanks and no Humvees. A Humvee is nowhere near as advanced as a Abrams but do you really think the army should scrap all their Humvees and buy thousands of Abrams to replace them?

This plane is designed to be a Humvee. After the Abrams have destroyed the enemy front line the Humvee is used by soldiers to keep control of the rear. Just as this is designed to let the F-22s gain air superiority and be used in theatres were there is no air threat or it has already been destroyed.
Why is that so hard to understand?


We have a less sophisticated plane. It's called the F-16. And if it were any more basic, it would come with a manual transmission and no air conditioning. The F-18 is also a very advanced, simple to a fault aircraft.

They are both the survivors of decades of attempts to replace them. They are paid for, and that's hard to dislodge.

This plane in this article doesn't even meet the specs for the F-20. And that plane *was* made for the cheap export market.
 
2013-09-22 09:42:48 AM  
Textron isn't exactly small time or a newcomer.  They also manufacture armored transports and hovercraft.
 
2013-09-22 12:21:04 PM  

jaytkay: centrifugal bumblepuppy: Short memories?
The F-20 was much more comparable to an F-16.
TFA is about a subsonic plane with 3,000 lb bomb capacity
Tigershark was a Mach 2+ plane with an 8,000 lb bomb capacity.
/ Great aircraft, the Tigershark


Problem was, the Northrop didn't sell a single Tigershark.

The business cases have a little something in common: a manufacturer introducing an affordable product and looking for buyers. It's the opposite of the multi-billion dollar flyoffs or stealth projects that the military typically buys these days. Besides, how many congressional districts will this be built in?
 
2013-09-22 12:22:21 PM  

centrifugal bumblepuppy: jaytkay: centrifugal bumblepuppy: Short memories?
The F-20 was much more comparable to an F-16.
TFA is about a subsonic plane with 3,000 lb bomb capacity
Tigershark was a Mach 2+ plane with an 8,000 lb bomb capacity.
/ Great aircraft, the Tigershark

Problem was, the Northrop didn't sell a single Tigershark.

The business cases have a little something in common: a manufacturer introducing an affordable product and looking for buyers. It's the opposite of the multi-billion dollar flyoffs or stealth projects that the military typically buys these days. Besides, how many congressional districts will this be built in?


Yes, no one in the world was eagerly lining up to buy these planes, which is proof that the American MIC controls everything.
 
2013-09-22 12:26:29 PM  
I see this new jet as a useful trainer for various foreign air forces, but the trainer market  is kind of over-saturated right now.
 
2013-09-22 01:16:34 PM  
Someone designed a manned drone. How.. brilliant.
 
2013-09-22 01:35:38 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: Someone designed a manned drone. How.. brilliant.


Wouldn't be the first time.

airpigz.com
 
2013-09-22 01:49:03 PM  

dbirchall: Phil Moskowitz: Someone designed a manned drone. How.. brilliant.

Wouldn't be the first time.

[airpigz.com image 530x362]


That is pretty cool
 
Displayed 145 of 145 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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