Top This One For A Speeding Ticket - Page 2
Create Post
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29
  1. #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...


  2. #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.


  3. #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.


  4. #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...


  5. #20
    Marine Free Member Lupo22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sunrise, Florida
    Posts
    383
    Credits
    10,031
    Savings
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgt Petzold View Post
    if a MIG locked onto an American fighter jet then the pilot sucks balls. our jets have always out performed migs... the only thing migs had was that they can fly straight up without stalling...
    I was talking about a movie SSgt...and wasn't the F-15 such a big hit when it first arrived in the 70s because it could actually accelerate in a vertical climb?


  6. #21
    Marine Free Member Lupo22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sunrise, Florida
    Posts
    383
    Credits
    10,031
    Savings
    0
    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


  7. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneTheWeak View Post
    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...

    says you... those things rock... why don't you like them? and calling them worthless as a PFC just doesn't cut it.


  8. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgt Petzold View Post
    says you... those things rock... why don't you like them? and calling them worthless as a PFC just doesn't cut it.

    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.


  9. #24
    Squad Leader Free Member Sergeant M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    VALLEJO, CA
    Posts
    619
    Credits
    4,350
    Savings
    0
    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!

  10. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Corporal M View Post
    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?
    I'd consider any helo a flying coffin. No real safe way to land them if the engines fail and no way to bail out either. That's why I fix them, not fly them. And if a pilot ever asks "It'll fly sir, but I won't tell you how it got to that point." (A common joke in the wing). Especially for phrogs. We have almost no money and parts are hard to come by. And proper procedure for wire repairs usually takes a sidestep on deployments to "whatever works". The benefit of being the Marine Corps bastard child. The 22's haven't proved much of anything yet. They might, but who knows. If they get rid of the 46's while I'm in and try and send me to work on 22's I'm going to try and get sent to intel or MSG, the last thing I want is more schooling in the wing.


  11. #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.


  12. #27
    Ooh Rah!


  13. #28
    Squad Leader Free Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Crescent City
    Posts
    5,471
    Credits
    14,373
    Savings
    0
    Images
    7
    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.



  14. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by BR34 View Post
    It's not likely at all...everyone knows it didn't happen. It's just funny to read.
    absolutely.

    that would be one hell of a hand held radar gun to pick up an aircraft that is painted with radar absorbent paint


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not Create Posts
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts