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 145
    More: Strange, F-16s, Air National Guard, jet fighters, Aviation Week  
•       •       •

8525 clicks; posted to Business » on 21 Sep 2013 at 10:32 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



145 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 145 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report