What probably is the best aircraft ever

[Syco21]

I'd also like to say this: I'd be expecting the two halves to split pretty damn far if they want the jet to work. America's military isn't stupid.

Yup, that's why the F-4 always and didn't get it's ass kicked. Oh wait.... :P

 

I still want a citation

[CommanderCrazy]

As a pilot myself, i can state through knowledge of the physics involved that the plane simply could NOT simply 'split in half'. It would lose all stability, and tumble to the ground in a stupid, money wasting heap of garbage.

The US military R&D really needs to stop going for the expensive, flashy, big ideas that take a long time to actually nail down. Sometimes its the easier solutions that come out best.

 

Take the Russian T-90. The tank crews need to do all the calculations for shell drop and the like themselves, they have no fancy computer as seen in the M1 that does it all for them, and it works just as well for the Russians, does it not?

 

EDIT: Just had a thought after posting that.

Unless it resembles something like the P-38 Lightning, yet instead with 2 central engines and 2 control units on the sides with separate pilots (oh, of course. They have spent extra time and money to make a computer do it.), then it might still hold some semblance of stability.

(P38 seen here)

 

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Chino2004/Sampler/P38.jpg

 

 

 

I still think that the whole concept is stupid.

Edited April 15, 2012 by CommanderCrazy

[Vindekarr]

Q-5 Fantan:

 

It's a Chinese combat aircraft. They cost about as much as good cigar, but they can also drop a considerable payload, hit supersonic speeds, manuever every bit as well as an F-35, and pack the added advantage of twin vulcans for when the going gets close. A Fantan is a cheap, low-tech, expendable solution, and because of that it can be deploy in numbers that really make a difference.

 

Let me pose this to you: America has a few hundred Raptors. China has a few THOUSAND Fantans. And a Fantan simply needs to get close to swarm a Raptor. Now, six thousand Fantans VS 538 Raptors, who's gunna win? It's Protoss VS Zerg, the Protoss may have brilliant single units, but 500 Zealots won't beat 10,000 Zerglings.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_k9wU7lkM4&feature=player_detailpage

Edited April 16, 2012 by Vindekarr

[SubjectProphet]

I'm very happy with the way this thread turned out.

 

Thank you, but I wasn't expecting this kind of feedback for a plane that only has one detail released, and yet everyone claims it's a piece of junk and won't work when you don't even have an idea of how the parts work, how many people there are on the aircraft, whether it has missiles and fires flares while splitting, etc.

 

I was expecting more about ideas of how it might work, how useful it would be if it DID work. Clearly, I didn't get those results.

[Vindekarr]

I'm very happy with the way this thread turned out.

 

Thank you, but I wasn't expecting this kind of feedback for a plane that only has one detail released, and yet everyone claims it's a piece of junk and won't work when you don't even have an idea of how the parts work, how many people there are on the aircraft, whether it has missiles and fires flares while splitting, etc.

 

I was expecting more about ideas of how it might work, how useful it would be if it DID work. Clearly, I didn't get those results.

 

That's because it's a waste of money, doesn't work, and even if it did, it's the stupendously expensive answer to a question that nobody asked.

 

I mean, it's gimmick is that it splits in half mid-flight? Cubana's planes have been doing that since 1958. For a whole lot less money. The DARPRA needs to get real, it spends too much of it's time and budget designing "HEY! wouldn't it be cool-" stuff, when it actualy needs to be designing effective stuff. There are reasons America keeps losing armed conflicts, and one of them is an obsession with military bling, like the abysmal Tactical Chemical Laser(a weaponised floodlight, more Bugzapper than Phaser), horrendus (and self-humiliating) Dynasoar, abhorrent Montana-Class ICBM battleship, downright idiotic X-44, and perhaps the most moronic of the lot, an idea so stupid it literaly killed somebody, the X-6.

 

The US has far, far more than it's fair share of truly terrible ideas. To stay viable as a military power, it's going to need to spend less money trying to make neuclear reactors fly, and more money making sure it's underequiped troops actualy have competitive wargear for the modern battlefield. What benefits a soldier more: a failed 2 billion $ project to make a flying neuclear reactor, or humvee that's IED-proof.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Vindekarr

[HeyYou]

P-51 Mustang.

P-38 Lightning...

[SubjectProphet]

I'm very happy with the way this thread turned out.

 

Thank you, but I wasn't expecting this kind of feedback for a plane that only has one detail released, and yet everyone claims it's a piece of junk and won't work when you don't even have an idea of how the parts work, how many people there are on the aircraft, whether it has missiles and fires flares while splitting, etc.

 

I was expecting more about ideas of how it might work, how useful it would be if it DID work. Clearly, I didn't get those results.

 

That's because it's a waste of money, doesn't work, and even if it did, it's the stupendously expensive answer to a question that nobody asked.

 

I mean, it's gimmick is that it splits in half mid-flight? Cubana's planes have been doing that since 1958. For a whole lot less money. The DARPRA needs to get real, it spends too much of it's time and budget designing "HEY! wouldn't it be cool-" stuff, when it actualy needs to be designing effective stuff. There are reasons America keeps losing armed conflicts, and one of them is an obsession with military bling, like the abysmal Tactical Chemical Laser(a weaponised floodlight, more Bugzapper than Phaser), horrendus (and self-humiliating) Dynasoar, abhorrent Montana-Class ICBM battleship, downright idiotic X-44, and perhaps the most moronic of the lot, an idea so stupid it literaly killed somebody, the X-6.

 

The US has far, far more than it's fair share of truly terrible ideas. To stay viable as a military power, it's going to need to spend less money trying to make neuclear reactors fly, and more money making sure it's underequiped troops actualy have competitive wargear for the modern battlefield. What benefits a soldier more: a failed 2 billion $ project to make a flying neuclear reactor, or humvee that's IED-proof.

 

You're opinion is off the bat when you only have one detail to the aircraft. All we know is it's supposed to split in half, but NOTHING else.

 

And America is the only country with terrible ideas? Last I checked, we aren't the ONLY COUNTRY who has spent millions on something but it failed to work.

 

I agree we're underequipped over here, I have more mag failures than the amount of sand that's on my boots, but everything we use isn't completly useless.

 

*sigh* The Nexus really isn't the place to talk about military items and inventions.

[Vagrant0]

nor can it rebel against you for moral reasons.

Except drones and the like do go rogue, or start behaving on their own. Computer systems can also be hacked far easier than a person can be swayed to defect. A human pilot cannot easily be used to shoot down commercial aircraft or to target friendly forces on the ground, but a drone can. The US military has lost control of drones and robots several times already, same with the AI systems of other countries. A computer is not more reliable than a soldier. They may be cheaper, but are far from being entirely reliable.

 

Sure, the human element may not be perfect either, but the reliability is generally much higher. On the other end of things... Despite some connotations... War without the cost of lives on both sides stops being a war and just becomes a mechanical process by which one country can bring ruin to another. People would not care much about a war on the other side of the world if it did not have that personal impact locally. Essentially, war loses whatever emotional or moral cost it might have, and can continue endlessly until there are no more opponents. While a unified world is a great goal... it cannot be done through conquest or intimidation. Additionally, once you start dehumanizing those opponents (by just being blips on a radar or outlines on the horizon), the psychological impact of killing those opponents diminishes, which can lead to even greater atrocities than war.

[Flintlockecole]

Supermarine Spitfire, why? Because the thing is easy to fly.

[Vindekarr]

 

 

All we know is it's supposed to split in half, but NOTHING else.

 

Well, if ALL it can do is split in half then it's am pretty lousy plane, yes? :biggrin: