search results matching tag: shelling

» channel: nordic

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (339)     Sift Talk (12)     Blogs (41)     Comments (982)   

notarobot (Member Profile)

Offshore corporations - The secret shell game

Offshore corporations - The secret shell game

Offshore corporations - The secret shell game

Offshore corporations - The secret shell game

radx (Member Profile)

oritteropo says...

According to digg,

Notably and surprisingly absent: anyone from the United States.


Perhaps not really surprising though, when Delaware LLC's are both a popular alternative to Panama, and closer to home.

newtboy said:

Thanks for posting, I had not heard about this scandal. There's not been word one on American news about it.
I wonder how many candidates for president are implicated.
Too bad none of our broadcasters is mentioning it, even at 3am. It seems fairly important. It's likely the owners of our media are also involved, so wish to keep it as quiet as possible.
I wish there was a simple list of clients to read.

radx (Member Profile)

Offshore corporations - The secret shell game

Offshore corporations - The secret shell game

The Most Costly Joke in History

newtboy says...

Yes, you did. You said repeatedly that dogfighting capabilities are not needed at all because this fighter won't ever see dogfighting because it never happens since WW1, and all engagement happens at long range and stealth will protect it 100%.
You must have not read, the articles I linked were about air to air engagements, not bombing, and included up to the gulf war.
Again, the F-15 and F-4 as deployed today is not inferior to Russian planes. Only if you compare the original incarnation of the F-15 with the top of the line Russian planes of today, sometimes it comes out on top, sometimes it's specs are worse.
There's no such thing as a real F-35 pilot, only test pilots have ever flown it, and never in real life situations, only pre conceived situations where it still fails the test designed for it to pass.
The F-35 can't dogfight, and it's not even in the US arsenal. Jesus Christ!
The article I listed before cracked was the one with data, the cracked one was simply to show dogfights using guns have happened repeatedly since WW1, in fact at least up through Vietnam including one completely insane example of using the rotor wash of a helicopter and an AK-47 to take out a pair of fighters (which, agreed, sounded made up it was so insane), contrary to your repeated assertion that it hasn't happened at all and never will again. I notice you don't dispute their facts though.


Oh well. Here I thought perhaps reason and facts had finally permeated the fan boy shell. I guess I was wrong. I give up. If you're going to stick with ridiculous positions like 'there's been no dogfights since WW1', and 'the F-35 will out dogfight the F-4' after being proven wrong time and again with real data and test results, there's no logic or fact that will break the shell, so I quit. Don't feel bad, you're in good company with all of congress (but of course, they all got PAID to hold their positions). Enjoy your $2 trillion fleet of useless planes, since no amount of failure or expense can kill the project.

transmorpher said:

I have not agreed that my position is wrong on the performance and capability designs of the F-35 and modern air combat. Please read the rest of my post above.... I'm still saying that dogfights have ended with WW1. I've never said we don't need ANY dog fighting capabilities. I'm saying that it's never the primary design idea of a modern fighter jet. You still have a cannon for back up. Just like soldiers have a side arm and a knife. Just in case you do get caught with your pants down or the main weapon fails at a critical moment.

I have agreed on the waste of money aspect of course. I'll also agree that if test goals are being downsized to accommodate flaws, then that's just terrible. If it's not able to perform to it's design then it's useless.

The F-4 != F-35. I can see why people draw parallels. But that only works if you ignore that absolutely everything on the planes is different, the adversaries are different, and stealth is requirement for survivability. You don't use stealth planes in the way you use an non stealth plane. Have you ever heard of a sniper wearing a ghillie suit run across the open battlefield with a sword or pistol? There were so many tactical mistakes in Vietnam as well. The conditions in which that article talks about are also different. Those planes were flying low and slow for a bombing run. Because they didn't have laser, gps guided bombs, infrared fire and forget air to ground missiles or cruise missiles back in those days. You don't get fog at 40,000 feet. They had to fly that low to get a visual identification of their bombing target. That does not happen anymore either. You scream past at mach 1 above the clouds and the bomb hits where it was programmed to hit. Also the phantoms missiles were unrelaiable. That hasn't been the case since the 80s. And their training was poor. None of that is true these days, and has not been true since the 80s either. That's why every single fighter plane apart from the F-16 (which is made mostly as an export product anyway) has been created to fight at long range primarily. The F-15 which is the main air superiority fighter for the US, is heavy and has a worse maneuverability than any Russian plane. But it's still the most feared plane, with no loses in combat. The article you linked even says that. So it's basically contradicting itself. At the start it says, F-4's lost because they couldn't maneuver, and ends with therefore the US made the F-15 which has worse maneuverability than the Russian planes lol.



Edit: Cracked.com doesn't count as a reputable source for anything, including basic sentences, spelling and punctuation.

Edit2: Here is an article from an actual F-35 pilot that says the F-35 dog fights better than a F-16 since they keep tuning the fly-by-wire parameters. http://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

So even if it came to a dogfighting encounter, the F-35 is still the best plane in the US arsenal for dogfighting.

A Revolver That Fires More Than 25 Cartridge Types

Molten salt + Water = Stand back! (teaser)

Drachen_Jager says...

I wouldn't say the explosion is inexplicable. Pretty easy to explain actually.

A large blob of salt hits the water. Water cools the outside of the salt, and it hardens into a shell. Some water gets in cracks in the shell to hit the molten center of the blob and is instantly converted to steam, the steam is forceful enough it doesn't simply come out through the crack and instead shatters the outside shell of the salt bada-bing, >bang<.
Ahh, I see some people beat me to it.

This is what I get for not reading comments before posting.

Keanu Reeves Gun Practice

AeroMechanical says...

I like that little extra shell-ring thingy he's got on the shotgun you can see him using to reload right before the slow motion bit. I've never seen one of those before and at first I thought he was pushing a mis-fired shell back into the chamber (or whatever you call it in a shotgun, the breach?), which asking about was the reason I started this comment until I watched it a third time.

I've never fired a semi-automatic shotgun (or any kind of shotgun since I was 15 or so) but I do recall a 12-gauge having a not insignificant amount of recoil, and I've heard from a SWAT guy that semi-automatic shotguns are frowned upon because people in panic-firefight-mode tend to pull the trigger too fast and end up shooting the ceiling. He seems to have no problem though.

george carlin-how language is used to mask truth

Babymech says...

I know this is what he and a lot of others want to think, but for most of his examples, just like his example of stupidity vs learning disability, there are actual and reasonable grounds for the name changes. PTSD vs shell-shocked, for example, isn't a case of trying to be 'less offensive' - shell shock was an informal term coined by soldiers to describe a range of experiences and symptoms, and combat stress syndrome, PTSD, etc, were developed by professionals who wanted to make an actual diagnosis (to me, shell shock sounds a lot less harmful than PTSD, because I'm not 80 years old). It's a case of people with more expertise and knowledge than Carlin trying to create concepts that are actually useful. You could call it 'murder crazy' if you want to be 'raw' but that doesn't get us anywhere. This is the problem with Carlin's thesis - he brings in terms that he doesn't understand, describing situations that don't affect him directly, and tries to cram it into some 'old white man post-relevance get off my lawn syndrome' (OWMPGOMLS).

I know that a lot of people agree with what they see as his underlying point. I'm just saying that his examples here don't support that point.

asynchronice said:

I think you're taking a very narrow view on the point he eventually arrives to at the end. Shellshocked/PTSD/Battle Fatigue is the perfect example of the exact same thing being watered down into it's least offensive 'sounding' form. It's not two different things (say stupidity vs dyslexic).

Plane Panels Cracked Mid-Flight

Chairman_woo says...

I could be wrong, but the internal panels are usually just sound and heat insulation.

Unless the outer shell had also ruptured (instant pressure drop & instrument warning), this probably posed little to no risk to anyone.

That said, if I was the captain I'd probably land soon as just in case too.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon