|
All this space exploration/cold war record breaking makes me so sad. I feel like we're not pushing physical boundaries like that anymore, even though tech is much better.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:59 |
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:All this space exploration/cold war record breaking makes me so sad. I feel like we're not pushing physical boundaries like that anymore, even though tech is much better. Manned Mars mission, dude. We'll be old men when it happens, but space will be awesome again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
I got to have lunch with this guy: http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=4472 last year. He's a loving blast to listen to, talking about how things were back when he set a record with the SR-71.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
EBB posted:Manned Mars mission, dude. We'll be old men when it happens, but space will be awesome again. I'd just be happy if we were pushing for deep sea exploration. We don't know poo poo about the ocean, in the big scheme of things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:I'd just be happy if we were pushing for deep sea exploration. We don't know poo poo about the ocean, in the big scheme of things. I agree w/ this 100%. Space is cool and all but lets find out what's in the oceans first.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
There's monsters in the ocean 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
Not military but....
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:I'd just be happy if we were pushing for deep sea exploration. We don't know poo poo about the ocean, in the big scheme of things. If Sealab existed, I'd retire there. Except I'd never go to Pod 6. Pod 6 is jerks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
EBB posted:If Sealab existed, I'd retire there. Except I'd never go to Pod 6. Pod 6 is jerks. It did exist. And, it was nearly as tragic as the 2021 version.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
grover posted:You're all wrong. There are many aesthetically pleasing aircraft, but only one is the hotness. The F-22 looks like a fat toad when it's sitting on the ground. Also whoever posted those Crusader pics without this fails. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:I'd just be happy if we were pushing for deep sea exploration. We don't know poo poo about the ocean, in the big scheme of things. The first season of SeaQuest is on Netflix. Don't watch the second season, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
McNally posted:The first season of SeaQuest is on Netflix. I can't get NetFlix in Afg, and you're implying I didn't watch that as a kid religiously. vv Excellent point, would not want to see what kind of abortion early/mid-90's CGI on syndicated TV would look like again. vv Wasabi the J fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Aug 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
McNally posted:The first season of SeaQuest is on Netflix. Might be worth a try. Netflix kind of killed my nostalgia boner when they dropped Farscape.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
shyduck posted:Hail to the king, baby. Seconding. I was there for Atlantis' (and the STS program's) final launch, and there's seriously just awesome stuff EVERYWHERE. I'd go back in a heartbeat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ2RwYX0Xxs Edit: Space > the ocean, what the gently caress is wrong with you people?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
Remember we had this discussion in the civ thread like 6 months ago. Space owns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
e: woops thought this was a different thread
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:I'd just be happy if we were pushing for deep sea exploration. We don't know poo poo about the ocean, in the big scheme of things. Space > deep sea, because we already know what they'll find down there. It's loving water
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
I would be ok with the f-35 if it could go to space and dogfight north korean satellites. Of course neither of these things will ever happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Space does own, but it's exponentially more expensive than oceanography. In this economy, it's easy to discount all forms of exploration. The ocean is out there and it's loving scary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
Account_Username posted:Space > deep sea, because we already know what they'll find down there. It's loving water also kaiju
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
Rude. posted:I would be ok with the f-35 if it could go to space and dogfight north korean satellites. Of course neither of these things will ever happen. We might be able to laser them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Account_Username posted:Space > deep sea, because we already know what they'll find down there. It's loving water Baloogan posted:We might be able to laser them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
grover posted:OF course, we already know pretty much exactly what we'll find in space, too nothing. Space has a non-zero chance of finding sexy green space women The ocean? You get King Neptune's baby telling you to eat the cherry
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Space has a non-zero chance of finding sexy green space women You never know, mermaids could actually exist. But then you get into that catch 22 issue of human top/fish bottom vs fish top/human bottom.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
grover posted:F-35 with a laser would be a pretty fantastic asat weapon. quotin for later use
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Seconding. I was there for Atlantis' (and the STS program's) final launch, and there's seriously just awesome stuff EVERYWHERE. I'd go back in a heartbeat. It was pretty amazing, although the low cloud layer was a bit of a bummer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
grover posted:Yes. F-35 with a laser would be a pretty fantastic asat weapon. Literally fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Now I hate grover as much as the next goon but goddamn laser weapons on fighter jets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:False it is a scientific fact that the F-15 is the most aesthetically pleasing fighter this side of WWII. Gonna have to reign that one in a little bit, we can all agree that the F-22 is the sexiest of all modern fighters. Even if her procurement was... not so great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 14:18
|
|
|
CISNAZI WEEDHITLER posted:Gonna have to reign that one in a little bit, we can all agree that the F-22 is the sexiest of all modern fighters. Even if her procurement was... not so great. I am going to respectfully disagree. Any beauty the F-22 has while airborne is counteracted by the fact that it - again - looks like a fat toad sitting on the Tarmac. The way the landing gear splay out combined with the short little stubby nose gear and opened bay doors always struck me as making the thing look fat and ugly to me. v/r N4I
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
Pufflekins posted:I agree w/ this 100%. Space is cool and all but lets find out what's in the oceans first. Look at this jerk, being a kaiju collaborator 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I am going to respectfully disagree. Any beauty the F-22 has while airborne is counteracted by the fact that it - again - looks like a fat toad sitting on the Tarmac. The way the landing gear splay out combined with the short little stubby nose gear and opened bay doors always struck me as making the thing look fat and ugly to me. Who judges a fighter by its appearance on the ground? To me, the F-15 reigns as the greatest post-WW2 fighter. The F-22 is its successor, but doesn't have the dominant record to back it up yet. The F-35 is the successor to the F-16. It's the inferior single-engine fighter that was sold to Congress as the cheap alternative to that fancy over-priced two-engine fighter over there but oh wait to get it working right it's actually really expensive now sorry and also for any role you want it to fill there's a better alternative in the inventory already sorry bout that. The difference is we sold the F-15 to allies so we kept the pipeline open for parts and new models so we had something to fall back on when the F-16 was a total joke until after Desert Storm. Oh yeah, and while you can count on losing a few F-16s regularly because engine failure = crater, F-15s come home like this. (Props to A-10s in this department, though.)   Also, Strike Eagles.   tl;dr: The F-22 is the Lebron James to the F-15's Jordan. May end up as the greatest ever, but has to get the wins to prove it. The F-16 and F-35 are Reggie Miller and Blake Griffin, respectively. VVVVVV My uncle, former F-15 pilot (and every non-F-16 pilot I've ever talked to on the subject), told me F-16s are second rate, the F-22 is , and the F-35 $$$ should have been spent on more F-22s.  The F-16 pilots typically make it sound like those chicks who tell you they're beautiful on the inside if you could just get past the extra 100 pounds and hatchet-face.
Sax Offender fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Aug 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
CISNAZI WEEDHITLER posted:Gonna have to reign that one in a little bit, we can all agree that the F-22 is the sexiest of all modern fighters. Even if her procurement was... not so great. My uncle, former F-16 pilot, once told me that the F-22 is a really expensive hooker who's great to look at, but once you get inside she feels just like all the others.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
Derek Dominoe posted:Who judges a fighter by its appearance on the ground? I spent countless hours in close proximity to both as a crew chief so I admit my views are skewed. The F-15 is my first love I guess. I knew just about every square inch of that thing. I knew that there was a spot between the two engine humps where if you lay in the right spot it would be as comfortable as a hammock and it was the perfect place to relax for a few minutes and actually marvel at how beautiful the view from the fighter ramp at Kadena was. I could diagnose the secondary power system just by listening to it and had memorized the leaks on my particular jet and spent an entire weekend with the panels torn off tightening hydro lines. The F-22 on the other hand was an over-engineered train-wreck to me. A lot of diagnosis was handled by a drat computer that didn't work right half the time and just about everything on the thing from changing a tire to servicing oil was twice as inane and tedious. I fully admit I'm biased but the F-22 will never match the F-15 in my eyes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
The F-14 is the best and you all know it deep down. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCNaugXjZMM  Vasudus posted:
My dad lives down the road from that place. Every Thanksgiving we go walk around because it's open yet no one else goes. I also go on my own like twice a year. It's awesome 
Handsome Ralph fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Aug 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
Derek Dominoe posted:Oh yeah, and while you can count on losing a few F-16s regularly because engine failure = crater, F-15s come home like this. (Props to A-10s in this department, though.) Nostalgia4Infinity posted:The F-22 on the other hand was an over-engineered train-wreck to me. A lot of diagnosis was handled by a drat computer that didn't work right half the time and just about everything on the thing from changing a tire to servicing oil was twice as inane and tedious. Nothing would be more than an F-22 shooting down a foe with one wing missing.
grover fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Aug 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
grover posted:Yes, but you just know that an engineer somewhere, some point, just because he could, added code into the avionics enough so the pilot could just kinda fly it without heroic superhuman action, even with one wing completely missing. In the meantime (and god I hope this has changed since 2010, we filed a report on it) what should have been a simple service job necessitated an engine pull because while there was an obvious panel that could be removed to gain access to the part, there was no mention of it in the TO so let's pull an engine! gently caress the Craptor. Oh and the laptops where all of the tech data were store had the best bugs including my personal favorite where if you tried to open two commonly used TO's at the same time the thing would hard lock!
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
So there's no love here for the F-18 even though there's more in service than any other individual platform and almost as many as all AF fighters combined?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:So there's no love here for the F-18 even though there's more in service than any other individual platform and almost as many as all AF fighters combined? Super Hornets own. They're a bad rear end jet that doesn't get a lot of love for some reason. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:59 |
|
|
This article was pretty cool, imo http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-warfare/169261-f-16-vs-f-18-navy-test-pilots-perspective.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 16:39
|
|