Results 16 to 29 of 29
08-12-09, 12:22 PM #16
stoping the f-22 production is fine since we have close to 2,000 in service... more than enough to protect us from foriegn aircraft...
08-12-09, 12:26 PM #17
no....we have more like 140 F22s in service.
Might have over 2,000 F16s though.
Can you imagine how much 2,000 F22s would cost?!?! I'd probably be making under 500 bucks a month right now.
08-12-09, 12:33 PM #18
as of may 2009 it's 141... so yeah, I wonder where I got that number from?
could have been a type-o..... dyslexia??? I don't know.
08-12-09, 12:38 PM #19
They wanted to produce a few more to make it 189 but congress knocked it down. Could have used it instead of ****ing money into the ospreys. Worthless **** cans...
08-12-09, 07:50 PM #20
08-12-09, 07:59 PM #21
It broke a bunch of records for the fastest climb...30,000ft from a take off in less than 60 seconds I believe. Or was that the F-16?? I can't remember
08-12-09, 08:02 PM #22
08-12-09, 08:44 PM #23
Cause its because of them that my MOS is going away, I'm a 46 AVI Tech. Right now I work on a bird that isn't too complex, that thing is almost all AVI. Plus its not all that useful. It can't squeeze into small places like we can, and 53's can carry more. Sure its faster, but its payload is barely larger than ours. And it's taken how long to get the things working? So after spending over a year being trained to work on aircraft, they're just going to **** can what they spent money training me on, then send me BACK to school to work on something else, which will be about 5 months of training for the V-22's. Makes alot of sense right? The Osprey is already in Congress's sights anyhow, they're sick of allotting money for them cause it's taken this long to get them operational and they haven't seen anything to justify it. We've been screwing with them for like 20 years now and all we have to show for it is a bunch of crashes, and two, TWO cas-evacs.
Remind me, what's so great about these things again?
Yes, I'm a PFC, but not a retard.
08-12-09, 08:50 PM #24
the MV-22s have their pro/cons just like any other aircraft. They definitely have a higher cruise speed/altitude/range than the frogs, but Stone is right about them having a lower mobility than the frogs. They have a footprint similar to that of a 53, but about half the payload. It's going to take some time before they become as useful as our other aircraft, but all aircraft have their testing time. Stone, should I remind you that the CH-46s were called "Flying Coffins" back in Vietnam?
Safe sex or no sex, and no sex with the same sex!
08-12-09, 09:08 PM #25
08-12-09, 09:39 PM #26
when they first developed the helo they said it was a waste of money... dumped a lot into them for military use.
the reason this has taken 20 years is because the technology wasn't invented to safely have a tilt rotor aeroplane.
it's great really.... it's just new... eventually you'll love it. as for the money issue... well talk to congress about that, they're the ones behind the funding.
08-12-09, 11:27 PM #27
08-13-09, 12:11 AM #28
This story is so old it has dino poop on it. I've heard variations of it since I started playing with traffic radar in 1973. Yeah, yeah, I've got dino poop on me too.
When I was first formally trained on speed radar (1976) we were told not to zap aircraft with the radar for two reasons: #1 - It might cause interference with the aircraft avionics, and #2 - Depending on the aircraft, their electronics might damage the speed radar (i.e., a military aircraft might have automatic electronic scrambling devices that would overload the speed radar).
The last time I attended a police radar school (1980s), the two reasons not to clock aircraft were still exactly the same.
There was never a fear of anti-radiation missiles being fired as speed radar does not have the right signature of anti-aircraft tracking radars (wrong frequencies and power too low), plus HARMs can only be manually launched by their pilots. HARMs are so fast, their rocket motors burn hotter and longer than most air launched missiles, so they can ruin the night vision of pilots. They are rarely launched without a coded radio warning by the shooter (night or day).
From 1973 until 1998, I never heard of a speed radar even being damaged because you know at least ONE cop tried to clock a fighter aircraft at least ONCE.
Well, probably more than one besides me.
08-13-09, 02:57 AM #29
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)