|
|
Thread Tools |
05-21-2011, 02:23 PM | #16281 |
Forever Ronin
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 979
|
Cool as hell Funkystunts!! I always liked Quick Kick too, for the same reason why Budo's my favorite character. They both were alternatives to the elusive-ninja-turned-uhber-front-and-center-soldier contradiction.
|
05-21-2011, 03:02 PM | #16282 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Quote:
Onto the camo itself - it presumably has that pattern so that it's camouflaged from the air, while it's sat on the ground. The F-117 would not be flying low enough that that type of pattern would be effective. I'd expect something more like the F-15/22's all over grey colouring if anything.
Good point about the desert camo scheme being useful for parked aircraft. It didn't occur to me until you pointed it out that it is in the red-brown-green ground camouflage scheme (like the one used for many of the old F-111s) and not the two-toned blue air-to-air camouflage scheme (such as the one used for many of the F-5Es). I keep forgetting that despite the "'F' for fighter" designation, the F-117 was really a light tactical bomber more than anything else, and wasn't expected to perform air-to-air or ground attack missions except in extremis. |
05-21-2011, 04:44 PM | #16283 |
Hog Driver
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 12,235
|
Yeah, despite the "F" designation the performance of the F-117 didn't really allow it to function as a fighter in any sense of the word. That's why it was called the cockroach and always flew missions at night because if a defensive fighter happened to chance upon it, it would've been turned into a scrap pile right quick.
|
05-21-2011, 05:41 PM | #16284 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Quote:
Yeah, despite the "F" designation the performance of the F-117 didn't really allow it to function as a fighter in any sense of the word. That's why it was called the cockroach and always flew missions at night because if a defensive fighter happened to chance upon it, it would've been turned into a scrap pile right quick.
Alternatively, maybe it was one of those inertia things... by the time they realized that the Nighthawk's flight envelope wouldn't allow it to function as a fighter or ground attack aircraft in the traditional sense, people had gotten used to calling it a fighter and didn't want to go through the process of re-labeling everything. |
05-21-2011, 05:53 PM | #16285 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Just going by the final designation though (F-117), I think it was just another case of the Air Force using the "century series" numbering for an aircraft whose purpose doesn't cleanly fall within the fighter/bomber dichotomy.
They did the same thing with the F-105 and F-111... both were aircraft whose initial design requirements called for the ability serve both as air-to-air interceptors and light tactical bombers, but in practice, the F-105 and F-111 almost exclusively served in the light tactical bomber role. The Air Force has some idiosyncrasies with its aircraft designation system. Besides using the "century-series fighter" designation for light tactical bombers, they seem pretty averse to using the "A" designation for ground attack aircraft, partially because of a long-standing inter-service rivalry with the Navy's "little Air Force." Most of the early "A" designated ground attack aircraft were carrier-borne aircraft (the A-1 Skyraider, the A-6 Intruder, the A-7 Corsair II, etc.) used primarily by the Navy. The sole exception, of course, is the Air Force's A-10 Thunderbolt II (I guess calling it a fighter was too much even for the AF brass, although on official documents, USAF A-10 pilots are still given the "fighter pilot" specialty shredout). A perfect example of the Air Force refusing to use the "A" designation, even when it's the most appropriate designator, is for the F-15E Strike Eagle (the SEAD/"Wild Weasel" variant of the F-15). They didn't even bother with a split "F/A" nomenclature like the Navy and the Marine Corps use for the F/A-18 Hornet, to indicate that it's an air-to-air intercept-capable ground attack aircraft. Last edited by zuludelta; 05-21-2011 at 06:05 PM.. |
05-21-2011, 05:58 PM | #16286 |
Hog Driver
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 12,235
|
Plus I think it helps build a false perception that it is a fighter, which gives adversaries another thing to think about.
|
05-21-2011, 06:19 PM | #16287 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Perhaps. But I think (in the case of the USAF) it really is institutional inertia at this point. Fair or not, there's the perception in some quarters that a lot of the decisions being made at the top levels of the Air Force are being made by the "fighter mafia" (brass hats who used to be fighter pilots) which is why you get things like ground attack aircraft being called fighters, redundant fighter acquisition programs (F-22/F-35), and enlisted personnel being restricted from piloting UAVs (Air Force UAV pilots have to be qualified as "real pilots" first... which is why there's a huge personnel backlog for UAV pilots in the USAF... they're all waiting for them to graduate from the Academy and flight school first, and obviously, most pilots would rather fly the real thing than fly-by-proxy via UAVs once they come out of flight school), even though the Army and Marine Corps have shown that with the proper training, enlisted personnel can operate UAVs just as well, or even better than, "real pilots."
|
05-21-2011, 06:26 PM | #16288 |
Hog Driver
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 12,235
|
Yeah, they've also demonstrated that civilian pilots/contractors can fly them just as well too. Sad to say, but given today's technology, the pilot is the most limiting factor.
PS. reminds me about some stuff I read on how the Navy has become obsolete in today's missile warfare world but too many high-ranking officers have careers to protect and downsizing the number of ships is the last thing on their minds. Last edited by Tanksmasher; 05-21-2011 at 06:29 PM.. |
05-21-2011, 06:41 PM | #16289 |
Hog Driver
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 12,235
|
Isn't a certain level of "armor" also a criterion for the Attack designation though?
|
05-21-2011, 06:52 PM | #16290 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Quote:
The bigger problem, I think, isn't so much obsolescence as it is a wasteful reduplication of capabilities and acquisition programs among the services, which results in the impression that obsolescence is on order. Last edited by zuludelta; 05-21-2011 at 06:57 PM.. |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Please Help! Need filecards! | RockinHard | G.I. Joe Buy Sell Trade | 2 | 10-26-2008 06:14 PM |
Need filecards! | RockinHard | G.I. Joe Buy Sell Trade | 18 | 10-24-2008 09:17 PM |
Filecards Wanted!!!! | RockinHard | G.I. Joe Buy Sell Trade | 5 | 10-17-2008 10:25 PM |
Filecards Wanted! | RockinHard | G.I. Joe Buy Sell Trade | 5 | 10-05-2008 04:15 PM |
Quaid Spills Secrets on "G.I. Joe" | HissCommander | G.I. Joe News and Rumors | 108 | 10-01-2008 11:23 AM |
|
|
Recent Off Topic Threads |
1:18 Airwolf kickstarter |
Marvel Universe 3.75" figures |
JazWares 18th Halo |
What song are you listening to? |
Hisstank Late Night thread... |