The Trolls Of Freeones Talk

[PirateKing]

I've never met one Juggalo I didn't despise.

 

[ThatRedWing]

Who knew that there were so many Yoopers on the board? Well screw you guys, eh. Go eat some pasties and shut the hell up.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Yooper

 

[DR. B]

the F-35 is higher quality than the F-22. The F-35 is even immune to EMP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

 

[CobraCom]

the F-35 is higher quality than the F-22. The F-35 is even immune to EMP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

And the per-unit cost would be more comparable if people calculated things right. Contractors frontload R&D costs on the first orders so the profits roll in later, we've produced far more Raptors than Lightnings, so the cost of the 22 came down, while the 35 got kept high as a result of the purchasing moratorium.

That said, USAF and USN have all but confirmed this is the last piloted plane they'll purchase, so I'm ready to see the next UAV prototypes.

 

[Red XXX]

But why would you want to?

120 Amazons are great for classic rallying :spin:

 

[Red XXX]

What's wrong with yours?
I thought they were reliable cars.

I've got a BMW mini and a 64 Sunbeam Alpine, but we've always had 240 Estates they do things other cars can't, tough as old boots and great for towing my Sunbeam Alpine about! Just one word of advice ... don't ever touch a modern Volvo, not really the same car as a 240!

 

[DR. B]

LOL!! I just finished watching Trollhunter on netflix!! I couldn't stop laughing

 

[larss]

Red XXX[/URL][/B], post: 6581075, member: 55251"]120 Amazons are great for classic rallying :spin:

Now it makes sense!

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

I feel like the proverbial chopped liver for not getting a mention. Pricks.

 

[CobraCom]

I feel like the proverbial chopped liver for not getting a mention. Pricks.

All in time. Just start a pro-abortion thread or disagree with Joilover elsewhere, it'll happen.

 

[Elwood70]

For what it's worth, I think you're a worthless sack of shit.

Is that better?

:nanner:

Aww; you always know how to make a guy a guy feel special..

What's this about? The guy always seemed to be level headed. Why did he feel as though he was being dissed? Sorry to see him go.

Thanks..

Bad day.

Motherfuckas can't get rid of me that easy...

Elwood didn't go, or he should not have. One of the few cats on here who doesn't get a butt sore over the petty shit that is slung 'round these parts. Good man.

Thanks.

Elwood isn't going anywhere.

Throw him a pack of cigarettes or post some scenes from GoodFellas, and he'll come running back. He's a good member. He just wasn't mentioned in this thread because he's not a troll.

But if I chose to; I'd be the biggest and best troll the board has ever seen..

Let me try out your hypothesis.....

:bowdown: I summon thee, I summon thee, I summon thee :bowdown:

I thought I heard something.....

Go home and get your fucking shinebox!

Too busy disposing of a body...oh yeah, we stopped and ate,too..

 

[joilover]

Non-trolls know how to disagree without resorting to ad hominem personal attacks and death threats.

 

[BCT]

I just finished sneaking in those steaks and lobsters, I have the hookup!

 

[vodkazvictim]

That clip about the F-22 is hilarious. It's supposed to be a stealth fighter. Why would you ever put it within reach of a 50 cal? Most modern fighters would go down if hit with a 50 cal. It's semantics. You wouldn't launch the damn things from within range of the enemy. That's what A-10s are for. Citation needed? I used to work on the F-22.

Well, given that radar can see an F22 you may want to terrain mask. When terrain masking you invariably fly low, where .50s may well await.
Most modern fighters would NOT go down if hit with a .50, unless it was a GREAT many hits. That's why the rest of the world is using 27MM-30MM autocannons and the yanks are just now playing catch up with the F35s 25MM autocannon. As for the (c)raptor, it uses the Vulcan, 20mm and insufficient.

By an F-22 or an A-10?

An A10. Those things have actually fired in anger.

the F-35 is higher quality than the F-22. The F-35 is even immune to EMP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

I have some magic beans I'd like to sell you.
I've heard that once you run the figures, the F35 now costs more than the F22. Haven't calculated it myself though.
The only advantage the F35 has over the F16 is sensors and (possibly) a slight (but unimportant) stealth advantage.
Below I have copied and pasted a section of talk between me and a fellow hater of military budget waste:

The JSF Debacle just keeps getting worse and worse --- it's a case study in Overengineering; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overengineering

The main ailment that the JSF and many similar disasters are symptomatic of is the US military's fetish for Complexity, which is far more effectively explained by Franklin "Chuck" Spinney than by an amateur like myself;
http://snuffysmithsblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/domestic-roots-of-perpetual-war.html



Also, even assuming that there are no developmental problems with the F-35 whatsoever, it's STILL a massively-inferior design. Look no further than a comparison between the stats of the F-35A, and the F-16C it "replaces";

===== F-35A Lightning II Vs F-16C Fighting Falcon =====

(F-35A on the right --- F-16C on the left)
Role: Tactical Fighter --- Tactical Fighter
Unit Price: $400 Million --- $20 Million
Crew: 1 --- 1
Size(LxWxH): 51.3x35x14.2ft --- 49.33x31x16.33ft
Wing Area: 460ft2 --- 300ft2
Empty Weight: 29300lbs --- 18800lbs
Internal Fuel: 18500lbs --- 7100lbs
Payload: 13000lbs --- 17000lbs
Max. T/O Weight: 50000lbs --- 42300lbs
Wing Loading: 63.69lb/ft2 --- 59lb/ft2
T/W Ratio: 1.19 --- 1.51
T/W Ratio, Full Internal Fuel: 0.95 --- 1.16
Fuel Fraction: 41% --- 27%
Range: 850 miles --- 500 miles
Ceiling: 60000ft --- 50000ft
Cruise Speed: Mach 1.1 --- Mach 1
Top Speed: Mach 1.6 --- Mach 2
Climb Rate: 50000ft/min --- 50000ft/min
Initial Turn Rate: 30 degrees/sec --- 30 degrees/sec
Continuous Turn Rate: 20 degrees/sec --- 20 degrees/sec
Max. G-Load: +9/-3 --- +9/-3
Sensors: AN/APG-81 AESA Radar, IRST, RWR --- AN/APG-68 Pulse Doppler Radar, RWR
Scan Range (F-35A): 150 miles @ 35 Degrees (15 miles @ 45 dergrees for IRST)
Scan Range (F-16C): 35 miles @ 30 degrees
Look Down: Yes --- Yes
Shoot Down: Yes --- Yes
Propulsion (F-35A): 1× P&W F135 Low-Bypass Turbofan w/28000lbs Military Thrust, 35000lbs/AB
Propulsion (F-16C): 1x GE F100 Low-Bypass Turbofan w/17800lbs Military Thrust, 29100lbs/AB
Thrust Vectoring: No --- No
Weapon Stations (F-35A): 1x GAU-22 Equalizer 25mm cannon w/180rds, 1x Internal Bay w/4000lb Capacity, 2x Auxillary Bay w/400lb Capacity, 2x Underwing Hardpoint w/3000lb Capacity, 2x Underwing Hardpoint w/1000lb Capacity, 2x Underwing Hardpoint w/400lb Capacity
Weapon Stations (F-16C): 1x M61A1 Vulcan 20mm cannon w/500rds, 1x Centerline Hardpoint w/3000lb Capacity, 2x Underwing Hardpoint w/3000lb Capacity, 2x Underwing Hardpoint w/2000lb Capacity, 2x Underwing Hardpoint w/1000lb Capacity, 2x Wingtip Missile Rail w/400lb Capacity
ECMs: Chaff/Flares (30/30rds), ASPJ --- Chaff/Flares (30/30rds), ASPJ
FBW: Yes --- Yes
RCS: 7ft3(?) --- 20ft3
Stealth: Yes --- No
Tailhook: No --- No
Catapult Hitch: No --- No
Drag Chute: No --- Yes
AAR: Yes --- Yes
Other (F-35A): Polyuerothane Clamshell Canopy, HOTAS, Zero-Zero Ejection Seat, Contoured Seat, LCD 3-screen MFD, Oxygen Generator, HMD, VCI, Laser Altimeter, LRF
Other (F-16C): Bubble Canopy, HOTAS, Zero-Zero Ejection Seat, Contoured Seat, LCD 3-screen MFD

There's a few things that should be noted about these stats...
- The featured F-35A price-tag is my own prediction of what it's unit cost will be when (if) it enters service. This fear is not unfounded; behold the FGR-17 Viper rocket launcher promised to cost just $87, that upon it's cancellation, was offered for $1100. For the cost of one F-35A, you can buy twenty F-16Cs.
- Despite having a 30% smaller Wing Area, the F-16C has a slightly-lower Wing Loading (which determines an airframes maximum possible potential for Maneuverability --- the lower the Wing Loading, the higher the overall Maneuverability).
- The F-35A is only slightly larger, but weighs 2x as much --- this, with an even percentage of low-weight composites in it's construction than the F-16C.
- With less than 50% of the Internal Fuel, the F-16C has a range 60% of the F-35A's. Smaller loads of Internal Fuel also mean faster refueling --- and by extension, a faster turn-around time.
- Because the F-35A has a less-than-40% increase in range, it's 100%+ increase in Internal Fuel is not a bonus --- it's a crutch.
- Despite weighing half as much, the F-16C carries 5000lbs more payload.
- The larger Max. T/O Weight of the F-35A is useless, because it doesn't have the payload to exploit it.
- With Full Internal Fuel, the F-16C has nearly the same T/W Ratio as an empty F-35A.
- The much-larger Fuel Fraction of the F-35A is not actually an advantage, in context with the fact that it's weight and drag require an enourmous amount of fuel to be expended to reach supersonic speeds, before throttling-back to Superbcruise --- which defeats the WHOLE POINT of Supercruise (to save fuel).
- The F-35A's higher Service Ceiling is not as much of an advantage as it's advocates would suggest, because flying that high and fast is extraneous for a Tactical Fighter. Though nice to have, there's no use for it in the F-35A's missions, so it was a waste of time and effort to add it.
- The F-16C's cruise speed is nearly as fast, and it's full speed is considerably faster. Though this feature is extraneous as well, there was no extra money charged for it (unlike the F-35A's higher service ceiling).
- The turn rates and G-loads of both aircraft are about the same; the only difference is the price charged for a virtually identical capability.
- The F-35A's engine is much more powerful, but also more fuel-hungry --- and because it has vastly-greater weight and drag, and advantages the F135 may have had are instantly canceled-out.
- The F-35A's sensors are indisputably better than those on the F-16C, but they could probably be back-fitted to the latter aircraft as well. This is, after all, how the AN/APG-68 used in the F-16 got there in the first place.
- The F-16's gun has enough ammo for nearly 2x as many kills, and more weapon stations.
- Though the F-35 *is* stealthier than the F-16C, this is yet ANOTHER advantage without meaning. I say that because advances in radar that immediately follow the development each generation of Stealth Technology render said stealth features obsolete, and the F-35's stealth tech is far in excess of 15 years old --- by the time the F-35A is fully in-service, it's stealth will be more than 30-years-too-old to protect it.
- The ECMs of both aircraft are basically the same; the only difference is the price.
- Though the F-16C's Drag Chute is a necessity, due to it's long aft fuselage overhang (which will scrape the runway if the pilot flares too much), it also provides a shorter landing run than the heavier F-35A.
- The F-35A's many additional Bells & Whistles may all be back-fitted to an F-16C --- some of which HAVE been, in foreign air forces.
- The F-16's Bubble Canopy offers rear visibility; the F-35A's Clamshell Canopy does not. This is a truly spectacular display of bald-faced ignorance toward the priorities of fighter design on the F-35 Development Team's part, because combat lessons in World War 2 dictated the elimination of Clamshell Canopies in favor of Bubble Canopies --- compare a pre-war P-47A (Clamshell Canopy) to a mid-war P-47D (Bubble Canopy), and accounts of the advantages offered by the F-86's Bubble Canopy in battle during the Korean War. These experiences were rejected in the 1950s and 60s, when the US military decided (based upon single-factor numbers without context) that speed was more important, and dogfights were gone forever --- the Vietnam War proved them wrong, and the Bubble Canopy returned on the F-16. Now they're dismissing combat experience in favor of unfounded fantasy AGAIN.

Here's a presentation on the F-22 that describes many similar problems to those stated above;
http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/stevenson f-22 brief.pdf



So there you have it. The F-35 is a waste of space. There's no reason for it to exist, and if the whole program were canceled and de-funded tomorrow, it would be no loss for US National Security.

If you'd like to see how it's stats compare to any other warplane, let me know --- I've done several comparisons already (the F-35 loses BRUTALLY ever single time, without fail).

Remember, YOUR TAX MONEY pays for that.

And the per-unit cost would be more comparable if people calculated things right. Contractors frontload R&D costs on the first orders so the profits roll in later, we've produced far more Raptors than Lightnings, so the cost of the 22 came down, while the 35 got kept high as a result of the purchasing moratorium.

That said, USAF and USN have all but confirmed this is the last piloted plane they'll purchase, so I'm ready to see the next UAV prototypes.

Buy land. If you're *lucky* the prototypes will crash into your land and you'll get a real close view.

 

[joilover]

Well, given that radar can see an F22 you may want to terrain mask. When terrain masking you invariably fly low, where .50s may well await.
Most modern fighters would NOT go down if hit with a .50, unless it was a GREAT many hits. That's why the rest of the world is using 27MM-30MM autocannons and the yanks are just now playing catch up with the F35s 25MM autocannon. As for the (c)raptor, it uses the Vulcan, 20mm and insufficient.

An A10. Those things have actually fired in anger.

I have some magic beans I'd like to sell you.
I've heard that once you run the figures, the F35 now costs more than the F22. Haven't calculated it myself though.
The only advantage the F35 has over the F16 is sensors and (possibly) a slight (but unimportant) stealth advantage.
Below I have copied and pasted a section of talk between me and a fellow hater of military budget waste:


Remember, YOUR TAX MONEY pays for that.

Buy land. If you're *lucky* the prototypes will crash into your land and you'll get a real close view.

The F-35 was supposed to be a low-cost replacement for legacy fighters. Of course model bloat happened just like it does with everything else. But to say the F-16 is better would be wrong. The F-16 is an aged POS. I had to work on them. They break all the time, they can't fly in weather, and they're not really good at any role in their "multi-role" assignment.

TL;DR The F-35 sucks, but the F-16 sucks more.

 

[joilover]

Also, no, radar cannot see an F-22. At least not well enough to target it. It looks like a tiny bird to radar. Stealth doesn't mean invisibility, it means low-observability. Also, guns on fighter aircraft are nearly obsolete. They "dogfight" from beyond visual range. The only reason they still have guns is A: for the pilot's peace of mind and B: for air-to-ground roles.

 

[vodkazvictim]

Also, no, radar cannot see an F-22. At least not well enough to target it. It looks like a tiny bird to radar. Stealth doesn't mean invisibility, it means low-observability.

I know that, and given your collossal trolling, I doubt you worked on anything.
Radar CAN see an F22 and MAY be able to target it. Lets not forget that the claimed level of stealth for an F22 was supposed to be equivelant to an F117 and we all know what one SAM brigade from half of a 3rd world country in the middle of a civil war did to one of them.
Frankly, you're nobody, the only bit of yourself that you've shown to us is shit and you're claiming the great Pierre Sprey is wrong. I'm sure I don't have to tell you how little we value or trust our opinion.

 

[joilover]

I know that, and given your collossal trolling, I doubt you worked on anything.
Radar CAN see an F22 and MAY be able to target it. Lets not forget that the claimed level of stealth for an F22 was supposed to be equivelant to an F117 and we all know what one SAM brigade from half of a 3rd world country in the middle of a civil war did to one of them.
Frankly, you're nobody, the only bit of yourself that you've shown to us is shit and you're claiming the great Pierre Sprey is wrong. I'm sure I don't have to tell you how little we value or trust our opinion.

I am no troll, but you are a liar. You make unfounded accusations about me, and my service. I could scan my DD-214 some some turd on the internet could steal my identity, but you'd rather pretend I'm a liar because that's easier than admitting you're wrong. The "great Pierre Sprey" took facts out of context to make a point. Yes, ONE F-117 got shot down. It's also the oldest low-observable aircraft (formerly) in the fleet.

 

[Shifty]

Vodka, joilover ... if you guys tried to get along you'd likely have some good conversations. :2 cents:

 

[bahodeme]

Also, no, radar cannot see an F-22. At least not well enough to target it. It looks like a tiny bird to radar. Stealth doesn't mean invisibility, it means low-observability. Also, guns on fighter aircraft are nearly obsolete. They "dogfight" from beyond visual range. The only reason they still have guns is A: for the pilot's peace of mind and B: for air-to-ground roles.

The reason for the gun on fighters is because the military went with your philosophy on not having a gun and learned from their mistake (F-4). While technology has greatly advanced, it is not 100%. Until that happens, the vulcan will still be attached.