Jump to content

MadBurgerMaker

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    674
  • Joined

Posts posted by MadBurgerMaker

  1. 13 minutes ago, Xian said:

    Curious to see if this is an incil or not 

    Reading tweets and shit from him, he appears to be an older nutjob Nazi type dude who thinks the Jews are an "infestation" and were...bringing in immigrants to kill...I dunno he said "our people," thinks Trump is controlled by the Jews and is a "globalist," and figured Hitler was just the best or some such.  There's a lot of crazy in the tweets.

    E: Oh Holocaust denier, although, I mean, that probably doesn't really need to be said.

  2. That's good info, thanks. That pilot went from an F-15 to a B-2? B-2s are super cool, but damn that's a big change.

    Re the British carriers, yeah they're big.  Interesting layout too.  I did see something about how they started talking about changing them back to CATOBAR, which was supposed to be sort of a thing that was available in the design, but surprise! it turned out that the builder (BAe?) hadn't bothered to keep the ability to change configurations relatively easily and cheaply, and the UKs mod hadn't held them to it, etc, so they were sol. 

    They're also going to be having USMC 35Bs flying off of the first one on its first deployment, so that's interesting too.

  3. There are already radars that can "see" them, although iirc they tend to have to be lower frequency types, which is problematic for targeting (depends on the angle and such though). Even those can be used to, say, steer an IRST equipped fighter in that direction though. 

    Against a nation with things like that, it's more of a way for them to get closer to be able to do their thing, rather than be totally invisible.

  4. On 10/22/2018 at 12:26 PM, Bobby_Batronic said:

    Well, that's kinda every fighter we've built since the 70's save the 15 and 22.  Allegedly, I don't know if it's true, the 35 was designed to turn and fight like a 16.

    It's supposed to be more along the lines of the F-18 when it comes to turning/dogfighting/etc, IIRC.  The (original) F-16 and things like the Su-27 and all that, are on a different level.

     

    E:  The F-35A, that is.  The over versions have some limitations in that area, I believe.  The C (Navy model) is less maneuverable for sure, with the B (VTOL) version at least being sorter ranged and probably heavier, although I haven't really bothered to look.  The requirements for that one seem like they fucked up the whole thing, but then again, the Harrier is becoming a deathtrap, so...

  5. 5 hours ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

    Ball

    They sent me an email re: another limited edition (1000 per type, so it isn't super exclusive) watch they've come up with.  The last two have been diver types, so I've been having a hard time laying off.  Interesting thing about this one is they've stuck an in-house COSC certified movement with an 80h power reserve in it:

    https://shop.ballwatch.ch/rc18 

    The temperature scale on it is odd, but a regular three hand one is tempting.  Good price too.  

  6. 2 hours ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

    We have that as part of missiles/bomb systems already. 

    Yeah. 

    And if you start talking about truly autonomous drones, that gets really expensive really fast (and ignoring the...moral issues, I guess you'd call it, with making killbots).  

  7. 15 hours ago, Parliament said:

    I stand corrected.  Thanks for the update.

    Might have been the F-14 you were thinking of.  IIRC they shredded a bunch of them (not all, some went to museums and shit) after they were retired so the Iranians would have a harder time finding parts.  Which they're just fabricating themselves, as far as I know.  They've still got some flying.

  8. Speaking of the shitbird, did they ever figure out if it was an Israeli F-35 that the Syrians were shooting at when they smoked that Russian plane (lol what a clusterfuck)?

    They've been using their brand new ones over there to bomb shit, so there was speculation, but I never saw anything other than "maybe."

  9. On 6/15/2018 at 11:15 AM, Parliament said:

    Tooling (and maybe blueprints?) were destroyed.  It makes sense I guess; destroy that stuff so the Chinese can't steal it.  So restarting would be a huge undertaking.  But sadly, it may be our best option.

    The F-22 tooling wasn't destroyed.  It was saved (along with procedures, etc) specifically so that we could restart the line if necessary....and then some of it was apparently lost or something, at least as of 2016.  https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/raptor-resurrected-what-will-it-take-restart-f-22-fighter-15862

  10. 7 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

    ah got it.  i have a few friends in the naval service, 2 of them were on ships but 2 of them were stationed in FOBs for long periods of time.

    There are actually quite a few jobs where you can end up deployed somewhere that sucks and doesn't involve a ship, depending on the command you end up with, but really for most things odds are you're going to the fleet.

  11. 4 hours ago, gsoda3 said:


    What does this mean?

     

    That you're most likely going to be on a ship eating ship food and sleeping in a (possibly still warm) rack instead of god awful MREs and the ground or whatever.

     

    E:  Unless you're a seal, seabee, corpsman, or one of those rapid response security dudes that's unlucky enough to get deployed for operation bomb useless dirt, etc.  Then you get all the downsides of being in the Navy AND the Army/USMC!  Sweet!

  12. 1 hour ago, rpspeed said:

    I think the 2nd half might have been a tie between his love affair with  Brewer and mentioning how Baylor actually dominated the game except for the last 4 minutes of the 2nd qtr.

    Yeah that became a theme at some point.  "Except for when they got their fucking asses kicked, Baylor has dominated this game!"

×
×
  • Create New...