search results matching tag: jet

» channel: weather

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (820)     Sift Talk (7)     Blogs (80)     Comments (1000)   

ant (Member Profile)

Peregrine Falcons are Feathered Fighter Jets, Basically

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

Top Gun: Maverick (2020) Trailer ... SDCC 2019

BSR says...

The military gives young men the chance to be an active duty fighter pilot.

Fifty seven y.o. civilian, Tom Cruise, was able to get the military to train him to fly a fighter jet by himself in the cockpit.

You can't blame a guy that can create dreams for others while showing how to make them come true. One step a time.

Mystic95Z said:

Only in the movies would an old man be an active duty fighter pilot...

Jim Says Christian Leaders Will Be Murdered If Trump Loses

newtboy says...

What drivel.

Baker made his point, you just recognize the idiocy of it so claim he must mean something else, but he means to have you believe exactly what he said....and he means to be instructing people from the pulpet on how to vote, something that until recently was considered illegal, but today it's fine so long as he's saying "vote Trump".

Churches aren't non profits, they simply claim that status because they are protected from having that status removed because "religion". There is NO scrutiny, not higher scrutiny. Name one recognized religion that's lost it's non profit status.
Edit: BTW, From the IRS-Churches that meet the requirements of IRC Section 501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS. (Hardly more scrutiny, since there is no scrutiny at all)

Non profits don't pay their leaders millions, buy them multiple jet planes, build hundred million dollar buildings, or keep billions in assets while claiming to not be able to fulfill their mission statement for lack of funding. Preachers beg directly from the pulpit for money for their 5th jet plane God said they need... they don't get the money from side hustles, although they get money that way too, but that's their personal income (although it's often laundered through the church to avoid taxes).

Religions are non prophets....meaning they have, and follow no prophets as practiced.

Jesusismypilot said:

Bakker is a loon but the video cuts off before he makes his point. I can only assume RWW shortened it to meet some agenda point.

However, don't let this get in the way of some good'ol'fashioned Christian bashing.

BTW, Churches are tax-exempt because they are nonprofits. However, they receive higher scrutiny from the IRS than other nonprofits and must provide more detail than other nonprofits to keep the status. Most rich preachers leverage their nonprofit fame to generate income in for-profit taxed ventures (books, videos, etc.). It's deplorable and immoral (IMHO) but not illegal.

C-note (Member Profile)

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your video, Surprise Fighter Jet Fly-by, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 45 Badge!

C-note (Member Profile)

Landing at La Guardia Airport

newtboy says...

Those poor people who live in those new buildings. Unless they are only for deaf people, it must drive them nuts to have every inbound jet plane fly literally only a few hundred ft overhead day and night. Worse than living on the train tracks.

Also....*wings

C-note (Member Profile)

'Was that disruptive?': congressman "blasts" Trump official

Plane Ran Out of Fuel at 41,000 Feet. Here's What Happened.

ulysses1904 says...

While we're on the subject, does anyone remember the news reports from around 1989 I think, of a private plane flying along the east coast of the U.S. near Florida and it was assumed the pilot was incapacitated. He wasn't responding to the radio but the jet pilots saw that the sun visor position had changed while they were tracking him so obviously someone was flying the plane.

I think he eventually landed but it was never clear what the explanation was for the lack of communication. It was a big deal at the time but I can't find any reference to it with Google.

F-18 Criticisms in the 80's mirror those of the F-35 today

transmorpher says...

The reason why we still have human pilots in fighters is because you can't jam or hijack a pilots brain. Any machine that is remotely controlled can be jammed at the very least. Leaving it unresponsive to commands. The exception here is that it could be pre programmed to perform a specific bunch of tasks, perhaps even something as advanced as air to air combat but, it loses a lot of flexibility. And it can be easily exploited.

E. G. you know a robot fighter jet is on it's way. Jam it so it cannot be called to cancel it's mission. Put some children into the target area.... That can happen and does with real pilots too, but they are able check and recheck as many times as they feel necessary either their JTACs or the amazing optics on modern jets giving a clear picture from over 10 miles away.

And that if course is with the ethical concerns of having an automatic killing machine fly around, which people like Stephen hawking warn us about. Perhaps in the immediate future the danger is quite low with only collateral incidents, but can you imagine say Trump with this kind of power. A trained soldier regardless of being broken in during training and even with all of the testosterone and adrenaline flowing through his body is still a compassionate and thinking human being. The likelihood of ordering a military wide atrocity is very low compared to an army of machineswhich will carry out any tasks no matter how gruesome. Can you imagine what Trump would do if people were no longer in the loop to share the responsibilities and burden of war? And by extention, that technology would likely be used to control the populace. You think the police in the US have there fair share of power tripping jackasses slipping into the service, well imagine if every officer was basically a silicon version of Trump. That's the worst ki d of robocop movie ever lol

Mordhaus said:

Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon say the F-35’s superiority over its rivals lies in its ability to remain undetected, giving it “first look, first shot, first kill.”

Hugh Harkins, a highly respected author on military combat aircraft, called that claim “a marketing and publicity gimmick” in his book on Russia’s Sukhoi Su-35S, a potential opponent of the F-35. He also wrote, “In real terms an aircraft in the class of the F-35 cannot compete with the Su-35S for out and out performance such as speed, climb, altitude, and maneuverability.”

Other critics have been even harsher. Pierre Sprey, a cofounding member of the so-called “fighter mafia” at the Pentagon and a co-designer of the F-16, calls the F-35 an “inherently a terrible airplane” that is the product of “an exceptionally dumb piece of Air Force PR spin.” He has said the F-35 would likely lose a close-in combat encounter to a well-flown MiG-21, a 1950s Soviet fighter design.

Robert Dorr, an Air Force veteran, career diplomat and military air combat historian, wrote in his book “Air Power Abandoned,” “The F-35 demonstrates repeatedly that it can’t live up to promises made for it. … It’s that bad.”

The development of the F-35 has been a mess by any measurement. There are numerous reasons, but they all come back to what F-35 critics would call the jet's original sin: the Pentagon's attempt to make a one-size-fits-all warplane, a Joint Strike Fighter.

History is littered with illustrations of multi-mission aircraft that never quite measured up. Take Germany's WWII Junkers Ju-88, or the 1970s Panavia Tornado, or even the original F/A-18. Today the Hornet is a mainstay of the American military, but when it debuted it lacked the range and payload of the A-7 Corsair and acceleration and climb performance of the F-4 Phantom it was meant to replace.

Yeah, the F/A-18 was trash when it first came out and it took YEARS and multiple changes/fixes to allow it to fully outperform the decades old aircraft it was designed to beat when it was released.

The F35 is not the best at anything it does, it is designed to fully be mediocre at all roles in order to allow it to be a single solution aircraft. That may change with more money, time, and data retrieved from hours spent in actual combat, but as it stands it is what it was designed to be. A jack of all trades and master of none, not something I would want to be flying in a role where I could encounter a master of that role.

As @ChaosEngine says, it is far beyond time that we move to a design where the pilot is not in the plane. There is no reason at this time that we cannot field a plane that could successfully perform it's role with the pilot in a secure location nearby. Such planes could be built cheaper, could perform in g-forces that humans cannot withstand, and would be expendable in a way that current planes are not. However, this would mean that our corporate welfare system for huge defense contractors would take a massive hit. We can't have that, can we?

F-18 Criticisms in the 80's mirror those of the F-35 today

Mordhaus says...

Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon say the F-35’s superiority over its rivals lies in its ability to remain undetected, giving it “first look, first shot, first kill.”

Hugh Harkins, a highly respected author on military combat aircraft, called that claim “a marketing and publicity gimmick” in his book on Russia’s Sukhoi Su-35S, a potential opponent of the F-35. He also wrote, “In real terms an aircraft in the class of the F-35 cannot compete with the Su-35S for out and out performance such as speed, climb, altitude, and maneuverability.”

Other critics have been even harsher. Pierre Sprey, a cofounding member of the so-called “fighter mafia” at the Pentagon and a co-designer of the F-16, calls the F-35 an “inherently a terrible airplane” that is the product of “an exceptionally dumb piece of Air Force PR spin.” He has said the F-35 would likely lose a close-in combat encounter to a well-flown MiG-21, a 1950s Soviet fighter design.

Robert Dorr, an Air Force veteran, career diplomat and military air combat historian, wrote in his book “Air Power Abandoned,” “The F-35 demonstrates repeatedly that it can’t live up to promises made for it. … It’s that bad.”

The development of the F-35 has been a mess by any measurement. There are numerous reasons, but they all come back to what F-35 critics would call the jet's original sin: the Pentagon's attempt to make a one-size-fits-all warplane, a Joint Strike Fighter.

History is littered with illustrations of multi-mission aircraft that never quite measured up. Take Germany's WWII Junkers Ju-88, or the 1970s Panavia Tornado, or even the original F/A-18. Today the Hornet is a mainstay of the American military, but when it debuted it lacked the range and payload of the A-7 Corsair and acceleration and climb performance of the F-4 Phantom it was meant to replace.

Yeah, the F/A-18 was trash when it first came out and it took YEARS and multiple changes/fixes to allow it to fully outperform the decades old aircraft it was designed to beat when it was released.

The F35 is not the best at anything it does, it is designed to fully be mediocre at all roles in order to allow it to be a single solution aircraft. That may change with more money, time, and data retrieved from hours spent in actual combat, but as it stands it is what it was designed to be. A jack of all trades and master of none, not something I would want to be flying in a role where I could encounter a master of that role.

As @ChaosEngine says, it is far beyond time that we move to a design where the pilot is not in the plane. There is no reason at this time that we cannot field a plane that could successfully perform it's role with the pilot in a secure location nearby. Such planes could be built cheaper, could perform in g-forces that humans cannot withstand, and would be expendable in a way that current planes are not. However, this would mean that our corporate welfare system for huge defense contractors would take a massive hit. We can't have that, can we?

F-18 Criticisms in the 80's mirror those of the F-35 today

ChaosEngine says...

The problem with the F35 is the squishy organic component in the cockpit.

The concept of a jet fighter is pointless these days and the idea of a "dogfight" doubly so.

F-18 Criticisms in the 80's mirror those of the F-35 today

KrazyKat42 says...

The F-35 was doomed from the start when different branches wanted different things. Vertical takeoff, stealth shielding, etc.

Recent dogfight tests have shown it loses to earlier jets. Too many compromises hurt it's ability to be a great fighter.



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