…the open nature of Wikipedia makes it far more error-prone. If I wanted to spend a weekend on my laptop, I could maybe at least try and repair the S-300 article they have, there’s so much wrong with it.

And the very next day, probably, whoever wrote the original BS article would “restore” it. On paper, Wikipedia is a great idea, but its attractiveness (anyone can be an authority on anything) is also it’s biggest weakness.

If any side could press through their land campaign, the air war would become a side show pretty soon.

Reminds me of the old joke about the two Russian tank generals sitting in a cafe in (captured) Paris, and one asks the other, “Who won the air war?” 🙂

Here’s a story:

(snip) Great Raptor story.

And, let’s start the timer…

The Pave Low had a (robotic) pilot in it. Since when did Transformers have any occupants in the vehicles?

Speaking of the Pave Low, did anyone else notice that the military guy challenging it called it an MH-3? You know, it’s understandable when a movie or TV show gets some arcane detail about a military system incorrect, but it’s just annoying to me when the writers/producers don’t even bother to attempt the most basic accuracy with easily available info. The freaking West Wing used to do the same thing all the time. A superbly written show otherwise, but stupid remarks like “Marine C-140 transport” and “F-17 stealth fighter” just drove me up the wall. I also seem to remember the character Leo stating that he flew F-105 “Phantoms” in Vietnam.

Perhaps it’s just me. Is anyone else this picky about details?

However, this site is pretty tame compared to some other military forums ive seen on the net.:rolleyes:

That’s for sure. There’s some sites out there where, when the disagreements get heated, they talk in great detail about the horrible things they hope happen to your nation’s troops, if they’re deployed. I’ve literally seen people post things like, “I hope we do go to war so we can kill as many of you people as possible.”

Thankfully, the people here (on all sides, of all nationalities) never cross certain lines. At least, not that I’ve seen in my time here.

X-32, without doubt.
The others look like they belong on their airframes, while that one looks like either it should go on an aircraft at least 25% larger, or like the nose got shrunk to 1/2 of its designed size!

My God, that’s an ugly jet. I realize that aesthetics aren’t a primary factor in designing an effective aircraft, but they ought to at least pay some attention to making it look reasonably good! 😀

i thought gaping holes gave bad RCS?

Not the hole so much as the turbine blades which were normally exposed in older designs. The X-32’s intake design handled that problem.

Have fun reading that.

Actually, I did. Some of your “sources” are an Islamist site about American “war crimes”, the Socialist Worker site, an AOL user’s homepage, and Pravda.

Wow. Such an impressive compilation of even-handed, rational, nonbiased sources. :rolleyes:

USofA has commited as much warcrimes and atrocities in and out its frontiers then any other 2 or 10 thousend year country (maybe exept China).
Just the lap time is shorter!

That is just patently ridiculous. America is far from perfect, but it doesn’t even belong on the same list as countries like Japan, Germany, Rwanda, China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, and even Iraq, when it comes to atrocities. And then, to actually state that the US has committed as many war crimes/atrocities as countries that have been around for ten thousand years is quite possibly the most ludicrous statement I’ve ever seen in this forum.

For you, Pearl Harbor is an atrocity and Iraqi Freedom is an heroic act.
For me, it is exactly the opposite.

Oops, make that #2 on the list.