[Bobboau]

f-22 is stealth...ish,
or something like that,
I haven't looked into the ole f-22 for a few years,
I seem to remember that it will be the first stealth fighter that is actualy able to fight

I love the Apache, the thing is just so freck'n overkill, I mean do you realy need 16 hellfire missles

hey sandwich, I've always wondered, how the hell are you guys able to hide such massive military into such a small contry?

[Nico]

Originally posted by StratComm
And it'd probably be the F16 that Austria can't use; that thing is massive.

? The F16 is tiny as hell.

and for the harrier, as a strike plane, most air superiority planes owns it, heh

and yeah, the Hind used to be my favourite helo, but now I'm for the werewolf ( russians helos all the way )

[J.F.K.]

Originally posted by Turnsky

Peace through superior firepower?

[Turnsky]

yeah i know i want one too

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by CP5670
I am more into long-range rocket launchers; currently working on an M270A1 out of lego technic stuff.

Cool - make sure to post pics when it's done. Heck, make a dev thread out of it!

Oh, and:



Since when are there beam weapons??!?!?

Originally posted by Bobboau
hey sandwich, I've always wondered, how the hell are you guys able to hide such massive military into such a small contry?

Well, over 50% of Israel is ddesert - that's where the majority of the live-fire excercises goes on. Besides, who's hiding a military? We actually use ours - constantly.

Originally posted by venom2506


? The F16 is tiny as hell.

and for the harrier, as a strike plane, most air superiority planes owns it, heh

He probably meant the F14 or F15 - those are the big suckas.

And we were talking about copters when I brought up the Harrier - using it as a modern-day fighter is dumb. However, with it's unique  capabilities, special utilizations should be made just for it, I think. Urban warfare in tight situations, where choppers can't go due to their wide rotor span is one example.

Go Harrier!

[Bobboau]

by hide I meant, more like store it when you're not useing it, but as you said you do seem to be useing it constantly, all the pictures of Israel I see are of the super dense uban environments, so it just looks like one of the biggest military machines in the world is crammed into and unbeleveably small space,
like super-nova in a can.

[J.F.K.]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Oh, and:



Since when are there beam weapons??!?!?

Looks like someone made a treaty with the Shivans...

[Nico]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Venom: If you want a tank that can go under the water, you can settle for a M1A1, a Sherman, or even one of those little WWI boxes. This baby can move on the water, and it can come back out.

yes, and the Leclerc can move under water. you do that with a M1A1, you're drown. If it couldn't survive to it, I wouldn't mention it, don't you think ?

[Turnsky]

Originally posted by Sandwich
And we were talking about copters when I brought up the Harrier - using it as a modern-day fighter is dumb. However, with it's unique  capabilities, special utilizations should be made just for it, I think. Urban warfare in tight situations, where choppers can't go due to their wide rotor span is one example.

Go Harrier!

Indeed, it's a wonder that they didn't take the VTOL system even further..

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Bobboau
...all the pictures of Israel I see are of the super dense uban environments...

Yeeeaaahhh....

Originally posted by Turnsky


Indeed, it's a wonder that they didn't take the VTOL system even further..

I guess/hope they're leaving that for the future.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Sandwich

And we were talking about copters when I brought up the Harrier - using it as a modern-day fighter is dumb. However, with it's unique  capabilities, special utilizations should be made just for it, I think. Urban warfare in tight situations, where choppers can't go due to their wide rotor span is one example.
 

oh, I was answering to I don't remember who who was telling the F22 was owning it ( which is kindda obvious, and, should I dare to add, I would hope it's the case or the F22 would be the most expensive worthless PoS ever ).

Anyway, stop watching true lie, you don't use harriers I tight urban situations, where it can be downed by a lone MG .
VTOL is for Take Off and Landing, not for Attack and Destruction

[Turnsky]

*looks up, sees all that military hardware -:eek2: - and continues photoshopping foxfire bios*

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by venom2506
Anyway, stop watching true lie, you don't use harriers I tight urban situations, where it can be downed by a lone MG .
VTOL is for Take Off and Landing, not for Attack and Destruction

Agh! I've come to detest that movie, simply on account of having seen it and forgotten, watching it again, remembering, forgetting, watching again, etc....

And I have a book all about Harriers - had it way before True Lies came out.

*looks up publication date*

Heh - 1984.

[Turnsky]

wasn't that around the time of the harrier's debut?

when was the falklands war anyway?

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Turnsky
wasn't that around the time of the harrier's debut?

when was the falklands war anyway?

[q]Intro text to the book
The story of the Harrier is without parallel. It began with a rather unwieldy scheme conceived by a Frenchman for vectoring thrust not only backwards, to achieve high forward speed, but also downwards, to make the aircraft rise vertically off the ground. Engine designers at Bristol translated the concept into a more elegant solution: a new type of aircraft engine able in one neat package to provide lift, thrust and even inflight braking. But the British, into whose lap the concept fell in 1957, had just been shortsighted enough to predict that the RAF was never going to need any more fighters or bombers. Future wars were going to be fought exclusively with missiles, which seemed a more attractive option because they were cheaper.

Despite these extraordinary circumstances, the completely new idea of a single-engined "jump-jet" managed to survive. This was because American money paid for three-quarters of the engine, and one man - Sir Reginald Verdon Smith - said his company would pay for the remainder. A little later Sir Sydney Camm at Hawker Aircraft managed to persuade his board to pay for two prototypes of the novel P.1127 aircraft his team had designed. And in June 1960, four years from the start, British officials actually thawed enough to sponsor the P.1127 itself, provided that it was understood it was purely for research, and had nothing to do with such a taboo subject as a future combat aircraft!

With the passage of a complete decade, reason returned. The P.1127 was permitted to be turned into the Harrier, which gave the RAF the only kind of airpower that can survive in a future war, by being dispersed away from known airfields. It was also obvious that similar aircraft could completely transform airpower at sea, but, true to form, Britain put its foot in it a second time. Having, without actually announcing the fact, come round to recognizing that fighters and bombers were going to continue to exist, the government then pronounced that fixed-wing airpower in the Royal Navy was henceforth terminated, and that no more carriers would be built.

So we went through the charade a second time, permitting the development of the Sea Harrier provided that the ship to carry it was known by the strange title of "through-deck cruiser" (because to call it by the forbidden name "carrier" would have caused frightful ructions). Thus, by a second lot of back-door methods the Sea Harrier entered service, and so by the merest chance Britain was able to recover the Falkland Islands. Without the little jump jets the only response in April 1982 would have been to fume and bluster, and for the first time in modern history naked aggression would have paid off.

Where do we go from the Harrier and Sea Harrier? Why, on to the next generation, the AV-8B. This time the British government excelled itself. By announcing in 1975 that there was "not enough common ground" for a joint programme with the USA, Britain handed its birthright over to McDonnel Douglas. Now, freed from Whitehall at last, it will really go places.[/q]

[Turnsky]

thanks, i forgot i had a complete encyclopedia of fighter aircraft..

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Turnsky
thanks, i forgot i had a complete encyclopedia of fighter aircraft..

Who, me?

[Turnsky]

i'd scan the cover but i'd crack the glass

[Nico]

damn english, they stole one of our ideas again
I remember the plane, it was a white mirage, don't remember the name tho. never went into production and actually wasn't even planed to, it was "just for fun" it seems, like the ramjet griffon or  many other strange things we've made ( ever seen the Nord 500? looks like C&C orca, somehow ).

[Fetty]

maby you stole it from c&c ?


absolute coolest fighter is thison




and when i think we have been offered the latest mig29's alongside with eurofighter, f16 , and grippen

and what do we take ? eurofighter
the most costly flying brick gnah
the mig 29s wouldnt even have cost much since they would have been more a trade you forget some of what russia ows yopu we give you the most sate of the art mig29

makes me cry
the main reason why we didnt get em ?
cuz that fekin politician wants to get us into the NATO
(wich we arnt allowed anyway or america france gb and russia bomb us back to some age or another )