David Hingtgen Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 That can't be changed. 99.9% of it is water vapor. Warm, moist air introduced into a dry, cold atmosphere will freeze. It's EXACTLY why you can see your breath on a cold day. Or a car's exhaust is much more visible on a cold morning. Even if planes burned absolutely utterly clean, they'd still produced the exact same amount of contrails. And it's not a jet thing either, high-flying props do it too. And even hydrogen-fueled planes would do it too. Also, modern airliner engines are amazingly clean-running, they're basically all on "California emissions standards". Only it's pretty much worldwide. Of course, there's MASSIVE numbers of people/websites that believe it's a giant government conspiracy, with airplanes full of secret chemical tanks that pump it into the engines to create "chemtrails" in the sky to spread it over the land, "seeding" us. Google "chemtrails" and have fun at the nutty conspiracy sites. PS---A little known fact is that the Concorde fleet actually helped the ozone layer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddhafabio Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 contrails do obscure the sky and block out the sun thus affects the climate(mininscule) but it does affect it. bout the only thing i can think of speaking of ozone. what of it about the space shuttle hurting the ozone layer every times it reaches orbit just by punching through Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VF-19 Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 That would be the exact program I provided a link to. In other news, my Gripen book from SAAB came today. Totally didn't expect a package from Sweden in the mail. It's about 5in by 9in, hardcover, full color, and 130 pages. All about the Gripen, and totally free. Get one here: http://www.saab.se/node4466.asp Seriously, you'd pay at least 20 bucks for this if it was in stores. Be sure to check the English version box (unless you read Swedish). It'll take a few weeks, or months, but it'll come. 351242[/snapback] Thanks for the link! Ordered one right away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 No F-15STMD or YF-23? 351306[/snapback] Not sitting out where I can see them, they are in hangers somewhere, at least the F-15SMTD, I'm not sure about the YF-23, if it is even on site as rumored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted December 10, 2005 Author Share Posted December 10, 2005 Knight I know you probably won't be able to answer this....but any of the unclassified stuff.....any of it fighters? And what is you stance on UAVs? I personally think they can never replace the manned fighter and that the pencil pushers since the 60s have always thought they were right but history proves they weren't( for example.....no guns in fighters, F-111 being brilliant for the Navy...niether of which was true) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 That would be the exact program I provided a link to. Ah, sorry, David - I couldn't find the right video when I clicked on your link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 Whatever happened to Top Gear, anyway? Is it still on Discovery Channel in some ridiculous time slot, or did they do away with it completely? 351314[/snapback] Still being broadcast in the UK - the new series has been running for a few weeks. Pass on in the US, but doesn't the BBC have a channel over that side of the Atlantic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 And what is you stance on UAVs? I personally think they can never replace the manned fighter and that the pencil pushers since the 60s have always thought they were right but history proves they weren't( for example.....no guns in fighters, F-111 being brilliant for the Navy...niether of which was true) 351380[/snapback] Military theorists have been proven wrong before (the no-guns in fighters is an often touted example) but remember that before the technology matured sufficiently, stuff like aircraft that could sink battleships, guided missiles and jet engines were thougt to be 'in the realm of fiction' too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skull Leader Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 UAVs will probably develop a niche, but I don't see them going "mainstream". It's just not as effective as having a brain and a set of eyes and ears "on site" to make the call. Electronics can be jammed or otherwise fooled. When you have eyes and ears to compare that data to, it's a little bit better of a system I think (although pilots can still be fooled). It will still be a long time before our military tries to go the stealth/mac plus route and remove pilots from the picture. In other news, I just picked up a 1/48 Testors/Italeri AC-130 kit... damn this thing is HUGE... (and I thought the 1/72 scale kit I had was uber-large) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted December 11, 2005 Author Share Posted December 11, 2005 Hey fellas, we had to do a drawing for concept drawing class, and here is one of my redoes. Its a plane so I suppose its okay to put here!? We had to illustrate the words "peace force". The idea that they picked me to do was a sketch I had of a bomber with peace signs on the bombs. So here I have a hog...and I know some of you love the hog... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 what do you mean Shin, what about fighters? DO I know anything now that I didn't before? For fighters not so much, I am working on the C-17 right now and I am getting to know it pretty well and come to really like it too, I didn't before but now it has seriosuly grown on me. As for UAVs. I think in terms of battlefield recon and even to a small extent FAC UAVs are a good thing since they can stay on station longer then a manned plane and give more unbiased data. However armed UAVs like the newer predators I have mixed feelings about, some of the things they do are good, but it sets a dangerous precedence in my mind. Personnaly I feel that no UAV or UCAV should ever be allowed to go into combat completely autonomously. Besides a truly autonomous combat bird will never happen, human control must be maintained. The AI necessary to make a plane able to take on a human pilot won't be available for years and even if it is making AI that is programed to kill humans is a bad idea. I know it sounds like sci-fi doom saying but once a machine can think and is allowed to kill the lines get blurred and they can turn on humanity. The best idea for UCAVs in my opinion is how they were used in the original Macross, the ghosts were used as support craft that could stay out and do long duration patrols, but they still had a human watchng over and commanding them. The ghosts were basically used to suppliment the human piloted aircraft and give them extra firepower that they would not otherwise be able to carry. Imagine going into combat with three or four small unmanned fighters alongside that basically attack your target on command. Thing is once you do that so does the enemy sot he UCAVs end up fighting each other letting the humans battle it out, making the UCAVs unnessecary. Also you would need close control ECM on the battlefield would make a long range remote piloting too difficult. Well I have rambled on enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 Hey fellas, we had to do a drawing for concept drawing class, and here is one of my redoes. Its a plane so I suppose its okay to put here!?We had to illustrate the words "peace force". The idea that they picked me to do was a sketch I had of a bomber with peace signs on the bombs. So here I have a hog...and I know some of you love the hog... 351433[/snapback] Man I love that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 Do not count out the idea of unmanned aircraft playing larger, or the majority, of military aviation missions. It all depends on how the technology and doctrines go. This has been pretty much the same with all new weapons. The Tank and Aircraft Carrier had to overcome obstacles to get to where they're at. The end result of whatever anyone cares about is this: If it will win battles and wars, then it will get a shot. If it does very well, expect to see more of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 In a sense. aren't armed UCAVs an extension (by a magnitude but still) of active guided missiles? You launch them in the direction of the enemy and leave the electronics to wipe em out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zentrandude Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 (edited) Yep except they don't blow up on purpose. I wonder if it would be common in the future with uav pilots complaining about the lag when flying them around like internet games today. almost locked. almost... what the.... darn lag got me killed. Edited December 11, 2005 by Zentrandude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mislovrit Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 Zentrandude, right now there barely enough bandwidth for the current UAVs as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skull Leader Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 LOL, I bet there's an "AOL" stamp somewhere on the bottom of those things. "You deserve a better internet...." (you're right, I do... so get the f@#& out of my way while I go find it...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted December 13, 2005 Author Share Posted December 13, 2005 Guys, visit www.jethangar.com There is a FLYING F-14 video there! With an EDF fan. Swing wings AND retractable gear, the size apparently is close to 1/18. They also have a KFir, F-16I and others. AWESOMe video! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Singapore F-15 order confirmed, will be designated F-15SG: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q4/051212c_nr.html Anyone have any stats? What exactly is it? "Based on the E" is all they say--but every F-15 since about 1990 has been "based on the E". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skull Leader Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I don't know much about F-15s, but I'm guessing it will be like the F-15I with the newer GE F-110 fighter-derivative engines in it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 F/A-22A to become just plain old F-22A again. While I'm glad for the time saved by not having to type the/A in the name of my favorite fighter they could have at least been a little less blatant about this being a sales pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skull Leader Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 heh, all they did was moved the A to where it belongs (trust the USAF Chief of Staff to come up with a winning idea like the F/A concept for the raptor) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 This is fun: What military aircraft are you? My Results: F/A-22 Raptor You are an F/A-22. You are technologically inclined, and though you've never been tested in combat, your very name is feared. You like noise, but prefer not to pollute any more than you have to. And you can move with the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostryder Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 (edited) What type of aircraft are you? WTF? Never would have guessed - EA-6B Prowler You are an EA-6B. You are sinister, preferring not to get into confrontations, but extract revenge through mind games and technological interference. You also love to make noise and couldn't care less about pollution. Edited December 13, 2005 by ghostryder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted December 13, 2005 Author Share Posted December 13, 2005 here is mine What military aircraft are you? My Results: F-15 Eagle You are an F-15. Your record in combat is spotless; you've never been defeated. You possess good looks, but are not flashy about it. You prefer to let your reputation do the talking. You are fast, agile, and loud, but reaching the end of your stardom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zentrandude Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 B-52 Stratofortress You're a B-52. You are old and wise, and you absolutely love destruction. You believe in the principle of "peace through deterrence" and aren't afraid to throw your weight around. Carpet bombing for everyone!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coota0 Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 What military aircraft are you? My Results: F-16 Fighting Falcon You are an F-16. You love to flaunt your slick appearance, but aren't afraid to get your hands dirty, either. You can outmaneuver any of your contemporaries, and you possess a technological edge. And above all, you are a true showman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 Singapore F-15 order confirmed, will be designated F-15SG:http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q4/051212c_nr.html Anyone have any stats? What exactly is it? "Based on the E" is all they say--but every F-15 since about 1990 has been "based on the E". 351860[/snapback] The local media has been going on about it being the most advanced F-15 ever. But no hard facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 Give it the ACTIVE nozzles and it'd beat most anything... Even without the canards, 3D vectoring is already superior the F-22's. (See, already typing it without the A) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skull Leader Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 I fail to see why a TV variant of the F-15 hasn't made it to the mass market. The 2D Thrust vectoring on the F-22A is highly successful, and they've been messing with 3D Thrust Vectoring on that F-15ACTIVE for a while now... I'm guessing cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 Nope, ACTIVE nozzles are cheap and easy to install. The real reason is because it would eat into F-22 sales. If you could cheaply make F-15's, F-14B/D's, and F-16's super-manueverable, why buy F-22's? Or any advanced fighter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 Nope, ACTIVE nozzles are cheap and easy to install. The real reason is because it would eat into F-22 sales. If you could cheaply make F-15's, F-14B/D's, and F-16's super-manueverable, why buy F-22's? Or any advanced fighter? 352206[/snapback] Exactly my friend, let's face it the F-15 is the most successful combat jet in history, nothing has a record that can stand against it, which makes it so attractive, a suped up F-15 would own an F-22 any day of the week. Imagine an F-15, not even full active, but with F-22 Engines and Avionics, mmm, now there would be a sweet ride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mislovrit Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 (edited) The local media has been going on about it being the most advanced F-15 ever. But no hard facts.Iirc the F-15SG is an improved F-15K.David has Lockheed Martin figure out how to update the F-22 electronics? Edited December 14, 2005 by Mislovrit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 I haven't heard anything about that issue in a year or two. I'd guess no. It seems everything has finally caught up to the slowness that is military design and procurement---a system's parts are obsolete and out of production before the system itself is ready. Gotta wonder if the F-35 has some essential part that uses Pentium 3's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensei Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 What military aircraft are you? F/A-22 Raptor You are an F/A-22. You are technologically inclined, and though you've never been tested in combat, your very name is feared. You like noise, but prefer not to pollute any more than you have to. And you can move with the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts