To any Military Personnel

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I'm proud to be my Army Junior ROTC Battalion Commander;cadet Lieutenant Colonel
Click to expand...

Nice, Lt. Colonel, no wonder you know too much, wont 'they' demote you for telling top secret stuff here?
rock.gif


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Conture trails, or white tials, form at about $30,000 ft.
Click to expand...

They cost $30,000 or they fly 30,000 ft?

X-35B Joint Strike Fighter
- supersonic
- undetectable by radar
- take off & land vertically
- fighter costing in the millions X_X
 
mechboy i dont remember and Americans pwn all
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Ok Talon, who is the greatest fighter pilot in the history of air combat?  
Click to expand...
Red baron, WW1, greatest fighter pilot thought of in time.  30 some kills in his biplane.  Shot down by a single bullet from a farmer on the ground.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Nice, Lt. Colonel, no wonder you know too much, wont 'they' demote you for telling top secret stuff here?
rock.gif
Click to expand...
lol, i got all this knowlegde off of TV mostly, some magaznies, I studed profusly for many years everything about the military, airplanes, helicopters etc.

sorry, typo, its not $30,000ft, its 30,000 ft above sea level.  
biggrin.gif
  Most airliners fly at 30,000-35,000ft except the old concord at 50,000ft.  B-52s fly so high SAMs cant reach them, SAMs can only fly to 60,000ft, even today, but travel at mach 3.

The x-35, is a new developmental fighter.  It uses the f-22 design, except it has one main engine.  When in VTOL mode, the main nozzle tilts downward to vertical, perpendicular to the ground.  Then there is 2 nozzels up front, one on each side of the fusalage for stabilization.  Keep in mind, it can only hover for 90-120 seconds.  
Why?  the av-8b harrier jump jet can only hover for 90 seconds, because, it has a 150 gallon water tank onboard, that is injected into the engines to keep them from burning up at over maximum thrust to achieve hover.  Same with x-35.  The engine used on the x-35 is the most powerful single turban we have.  Something like 40000 pounds of thrust.  And yes, cost is in the teen millions.  Just the paint intself costs several million.  RAM-radar absorption material, the f-117 and b-2 use it, and the f-117 cost $53 million a piece in the 1980s.  The x-29, developed by NASA, is the only know fighter to reach hypersonic speeds, that is turban based engine design.  For those who dont know what hypersonic is, thats mach 5+ or about 3000mph at about 60-80000ft.  Speed of sound is less in mph the higher you go.  Sea level speed of sound is 760mph.  The x-35 hasnt been tested yet at those speeds.  The x-29 is has a reversed sweep wing, thats the secret in going hypersonic, O_O, did i just say that?? just kidding, if i know that, then its not top secret.  I mean, i'm in high school and no i'm not undercover for some secret agency.

Probably a little more information than was necessary, but i got carried away.
biggrin.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Red baron, WW1, greatest fighter pilot thought of in time. 30 some kills in his biplane. Shot down by a single bullet from a farmer on the ground.
Click to expand...

The Red Baron??? I don't think so.

Try Erich Hartmann, the Ace of Aces, the Blonde Knight of Germany. He flew for the Luftwaffe in WWII. 352 confirmed kills by the age of 20. Was captured by the Russians and spent 1/3 of his life in Russian captivity.
 
Could be CF-18s. I wouldn't be too suprised to hear that they regularly patrol the BC coast looking for *ahem* boat people.
rock.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Talon @ Oct. 12 2004,4:03)]lol, i got all this knowlegde off of TV mostly, some magaznies, I studed profusly for many years everything about the military, airplanes, helicopters etc.

sorry, typo, its not $30,000ft, its 30,000 ft above sea level.  
biggrin.gif
  Most airliners fly at 30,000-35,000ft except the old concord at 50,000ft.  B-52s fly so high SAMs cant reach them, SAMs can only fly to 60,000ft, even today, but travel at mach 3.

The x-35, is a new developmental fighter.  It uses the f-22 design, except it has one main engine.  When in VTOL mode, the main nozzle tilts downward to vertical, perpendicular to the ground.  Then there is 2 nozzels up front, one on each side of the fusalage for stabilization.  Keep in mind, it can only hover for 90-120 seconds.  
Why?  the av-8b harrier jump jet can only hover for 90 seconds, because, it has a 150 gallon water tank onboard, that is injected into the engines to keep them from burning up at over maximum thrust to achieve hover.  Same with x-35.  The engine used on the x-35 is the most powerful single turban we have.  Something like 40000 pounds of thrust.  And yes, cost is in the teen millions.  Just the paint intself costs several million.  RAM-radar absorption material, the f-117 and b-2 use it, and the f-117 cost $53 million a piece in the 1980s.  The x-29, developed by NASA, is the only know fighter to reach hypersonic speeds, that is turban based engine design.  For those who dont know what hypersonic is, thats mach 5+ or about 3000mph at about 60-80000ft.  Speed of sound is less in mph the higher you go.  Sea level speed of sound is 760mph.  The x-35 hasnt been tested yet at those speeds.  The x-29 is has a reversed sweep wing, thats the secret in going hypersonic, O_O, did i just say that?? just kidding, if i know that, then its not top secret.  I mean, i'm in high school and no i'm not undercover for some secret agency.

Probably a little more information than was necessary, but i got carried away.
biggrin.gif
Click to expand...
yup I also happen to know alot about Modern day fighters...precisely! the technology for the x-35 DOES use the f-22 technology for speed, stealth(probably more stealth on the X-35) and uses the AV-8b Harrier for VTOL....along with that are going to be more high tech missiles,bombs...there are some very interesting things about these JSF fighters..some that seem way far out there.....more to come...

THIS YEAR THE F-22 WILL BE RELEASED AND OPERATIONAL....sad thing is, it is replacing our glorious F-15's
sad.gif
you will be missed F-15's
 
not to put you down or anything talon, but being military and was activaily sought after to be a pilot by the Airforce, plus being trained by a former test pilot for the airforce, your notion US planes flying constantly around the globe is wrong, it may have happened more or less during some of the highthened times of the cold war but no more. most of our nukes can be deployed at any given time, and most are stored unknown to 90% of the world. good theory but has very little real military backing, sorry.
 
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER - Happily ever after?

By Robert Hewson Editor Jane's Air-Launched Weapons

As Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter approaches production, questions still surround the programme, not least for the UK.

The news from Fort Worth is that the design difficulties and performance worries that have been irritating Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) partners have been solved, and official hopes for an October production clearance from the US Department of Defense are high.

Lockheed Martin wants to turn its attention towards JSF production, with work on major aircraft assemblies now well under way in the US and the UK. The first flight date for the first F-35 is set for August 2006 and, after a troublesome 12 months spent grappling with key design issues, the JSF would appear to be facing a brighter future. However, the dust from the crucial weight reduction work has yet to settle. In producing a design that now meets its desired Key Performance Parameters, Lockheed Martin has made some significant changes to the troubled F-35B Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant that may yet fail to deliver everything its customers expect.

At the same time, the greatest JSF customer expectation of all - that of equal partnerships with meaningful industrial co-operation - is still largely unfulfilled. Important partner nations such as Australia, Denmark and Norway have all now expressed very public dissatisfaction at the hand they have been dealt by the JSF Programme Office. Nowhere are these concerns more keenly felt than in the UK.

Lockheed Martin's most important recent achievement has been the apparent elimination of much of the excess weight plaguing the STOVL design. This emerged as a serious concern in 2003 and the scale of the problem was the source of much speculation. When the actual figure of 3,300 lb overweight was made public (via a written answer to the UK House of Commons in May 2004) it drew a sharp intake of breath from most observers. Some of the worst-case guesses had been confirmed.

However, by early September Lockheed Martin was confident enough in the work undertaken by SWAT, its STOVL Weight Attack Team, to announce that 2,700 lb of "unwanted estimated weight" had been removed from the STOVL variant. Programme officials confirm that the 3,300 lb figure was accurate and that the 600 lb that appear to remain unaccounted for are absorbed by the extra margins the design team has set itself.
 
They are near opposite colors, so it's kinda hard to read. Your eyes get confused when trying to focus or something.
 
I read grey on black, especially in my terminals. Pure white on pure black is really hard to read. Try it sometime.
 
Actually black on a low saturation color is the best to use. White is way too bright. A creame color is good.

Black on white is probobly the worst for your eyes.
 
black on white.....................................................................................
........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top