We already have drones that survive 30, 40, even 50g's. They go by names like Sidewinder, Sparrow and Meteor.
Hey look, it's exactly the kind of person I was talking about: pseudo-intellectuals who don't know fuck-all but like to pretend they do.
Those "drones" you're talking about are single-use, extremely low-mass, and are powered by a fucking solid-fuel rocket and batteries. Coincidentally they're also unsophisticated, short-ranged, single-purpose designs.
Hey baby-rapist, would you like to explain to us why we don't just fire AIM-9s into combat from hundreds of miles away and let them fly themselves to the AOR to engage targets? Is that another riddle that you've solved, "hey why do you carry these on board this really big aircraft to bring them closer to battle"?
So you're alleging the problems of drone warfare have been solved? Since when, the AIM-7 days? Because an AIM-7 is, in your eyes, a 'drone'? Pack it up boys, Cato The Nobody pointed out we've had "drone warfare" since Vietnam!
You know what they also don't have? Wings that provide lift. These missiles have no use for wings. Aircraft do. Would you like to offer your brilliant engineering insights on how the concept of 'lift' is antiquated? Do you even know why we use wings?
You have, as usual, reversed cause and effect.
aS uSuAl
You don't know the first fucking thing you're talking about. What is the maximum g-load of an F-15E with GBU-31s loaded, and why is it under the standard structural limitation of 9gs? You don't think they thought "hey it'd be nice to maintain the full envelope of performance even with weapons loaded"?
You think they just didn't have the 'willingness' to design a bomb that doesn't physically tear itself off the BRU rack?
Yeah sure, they just didn't have the "willingness". Nobody thought that maybe when your interdictor is g-limited from the fuel and weapons on board, that that could make the aircraft more vulnerable, and they should design it to withstand 50gs.
Good thing you're here to tell them to just design aircraft better. Shucks I guess all those rivets that I've personally seen popped out after an over-g were just because someone somewhere didn't want to design it better.
Which defense company do you work for, again?
We already have drones that survive 30, 40, even 50g's. They go by names like Sidewinder, Sparrow and Meteor.
Hey look, it's exactly the kind of person I was talking about: pseudo-intellectuals who don't know fuck-all but like to pretend they do.
Those "drones" you're talking about are single-use, extremely low-mass, and are powered by a fucking solid-fuel rocket and batteries. Coincidentally they're also unsophisticated, short-ranged, single-purpose designs.
Hey baby-rapist, would you like to explain to us why we don't just fire AIM-9s into combat from hundreds of miles away and let them fly themselves to the AOR to engage targets? Is that another riddle that you've solved, "hey why do you carry these on board this really big aircraft to bring them closer to battle"?
So you're alleging the problems of drone warfare have been solved? Since when, the AIM-7 days? Because an AIM-7 is, in your eyes, a 'drone'? Pack it up boys, Cato The Nobody pointed out we've had "drone warfare" since Vietnam!
You know what they also don't have? Wings that provide lift. These missiles have no use for wings. Aircraft do. Would you like to offer your brilliant engineering insights on how the concept of 'lift' is antiquated? Do you even know why we use wings?
You have, as usual, reversed cause and effect.
aS uSuAl
You don't know the first fucking thing you're talking about. What is the maximum g-load of an F-15E with 2x GBU-31s loaded, and why is it under the standard structural limitation of 9gs? You don't think they thought "hey it'd be nice to maintain the full envelope of performance even with weapons loaded"?
You think they just didn't have the 'willingness' to design a bomb that doesn't physically tear itself off the BRU rack?
Yeah sure, they just didn't have the "willingness". Nobody thought that maybe when your interdictor is g-limited from the fuel and weapons on board, that that could make the aircraft more vulnerable, and they should design it to withstand 50gs.
Good thing you're here to tell them to just design aircraft better. Shucks I guess all those rivets that I've personally seen popped out after an over-g were just because someone somewhere didn't want to design it better.
Which defense company do you work for, again?
We already have drones that survive 30, 40, even 50g's. They go by names like Sidewinder, Sparrow and Meteor.
Hey look, it's exactly the kind of person I was talking about: pseudo-intellectuals who don't know fuck-all but like to pretend they do.
Those "drones" you're talking about are single-use, extremely low-mass, and are powered by a fucking solid-fuel rocket and batteries. Coincidentally they're also unsophisticated, short-ranged, single-purpose designs.
Hey baby-rapist, would you like to explain to us why we don't just fire AIM-9s into combat from hundreds of miles away and let them fly themselves to the AOR to engage targets? Is that another riddle that you've solved, "hey why do you carry these on board this really big aircraft to bring them closer to battle"?
So you're alleging the problems of drone warfare have been solved? Since when, the AIM-7 days? Because an AIM-7 is, in your eyes, a 'drone'? Pack it up boys, Cato The Nobody pointed out we've had "drone warfare" since Vietnam!
You know what they also don't have? Wings that provide lift. Missiles don't use wings. Aircraft do. Would you like to offer your brilliant engineering insights on how the concept of 'lift' is antiquated? Do you even know why we use wings?
You have, as usual, reversed cause and effect.
aS uSuAl
You don't know the first fucking thing you're talking about. What is the maximum g-load of an F-15E with 2x GBU-31s loaded, and why is it under the standard structural limitation of 9gs? You don't think they thought "hey it'd be nice to maintain the full envelope of performance even with weapons loaded"?
You think they just didn't have the 'willingness' to design a bomb that doesn't physically tear itself off the BRU rack?
Yeah sure, they just didn't have the "willingness". Nobody thought that maybe when your interdictor is g-limited from the fuel and weapons on board, that that could make the aircraft more vulnerable, and they should design it to withstand 50gs.
Good thing you're here to tell them to just design aircraft better. Shucks I guess all those rivets that I've personally seen popped out after an over-g were just because someone somewhere didn't want to design it better.
Which defense company do you work for, again?
We already have drones that survive 30, 40, even 50g's. They go by names like Sidewinder, Sparrow and Meteor.
Hey look, it's exactly the kind of person I was talking about: pseudo-intellectuals who don't know fuck-all but like to pretend they do.
Those "drones" you're talking about are single-use, extremely low-mass, and are powered by a fucking solid-fuel rocket and batteries. Coincidentally they're also unsophisticated, short-ranged, single-purpose designs.
So you're alleging the problems of drone warfare have been solved? Since when, the AIM-7 days? Because an AIM-7 is, in your eyes, a 'drone'? Pack it up boys, Cato The Nobody pointed out we've had "drone warfare" since Vietnam!
You know what they also don't have? Wings that provide lift. Missiles don't use wings. Aircraft do. Would you like to offer your brilliant engineering insights on how the concept of 'lift' is antiquated? Do you even know why we use wings?
You have, as usual, reversed cause and effect.
aS uSuAl
You don't know the first fucking thing you're talking about. What is the maximum g-load of an F-15E with 2x GBU-31s loaded, and why is it under the standard structural limitation of 9gs? You don't think they thought "hey it'd be nice to maintain the full envelope of performance even with weapons loaded"?
You think they just didn't have the 'willingness' to design a bomb that doesn't physically tear itself off the BRU rack?
Yeah sure, they just didn't have the "willingness". Nobody thought that maybe when your interdictor is g-limited from the fuel and weapons on board, that that could make the aircraft more vulnerable, and they should design it to withstand 50gs.
Good thing you're here to tell them to just design aircraft better. Shucks I guess all those rivets that I've personally seen popped out after an over-g were just because someone somewhere didn't want to design it better.
Which defense company do you work for, again?
We already have drones that survive 30, 40, even 50g's. They go by names like Sidewinder, Sparrow and Meteor.
Hey look, it's exactly the kind of person I was talking about: pseudo-intellectuals who don't know fuck-all but like to pretend they do.
Those "drones" you're talking about are single-use, extremely low-mass, and are powered by a fucking solid-fuel rocket and batteries. Coincidentally they're also unsophisticated, short-ranged, single-purpose designs.
So you're alleging the problems of drone warfare have been solved? Since when, the AIM-7 days? Because an AIM-7 is, in your eyes, a 'drone'? Pack it up boys, Cato The Nobody pointed out we've had "drone warfare" since Vietnam!
You know what they also don't have? Wings that provide lift. Missiles don't use wings. Aircraft do. Would you like to offer your brilliant engineering insights on how the concept of 'lift' is antiquated? Do you even know why we use wings?
You have, as usual, reversed cause and effect.
aS uSuAl
You don't know the first fucking thing you're talking about. What is the maximum g-load of an F-15E with 2x GBU-31s loaded, and why is it under the standard structural limitation of 9gs? You don't think they thought "hey it'd be nice to maintain the full envelope of performance even with weapons loaded"?
You think they just didn't have the 'willingness' to design a bomb that doesn't physically tear itself off the BRU rack?
Yeah sure, they just didn't have the "willingness". Nobody thought that maybe when your interdictor is g-limited from the fuel and weapons on board, that that could make the aircraft more vulnerable, and they should design it to withstand 50gs.
Which defense company do you work for, again?
We already have drones that survive 30, 40, even 50g's. They go by names like Sidewinder, Sparrow and Meteor.
The intensity of g-forces is a function of mass. Those "drones" you're talking about are single-use, and extremely low-mass, and are powered by a fucking solid-fuel rocket and batteries. Coincidentally they're also unsophisticated, short-ranged, single-purpose designs.
You know what they also don't have? Wings that provide lift. Missiles don't use wings. Aircraft do. Would you like to offer your brilliant engineering insights on how the concept of 'lift' is antiquated? Do you even know why we use wings?
You have, as usual, reversed cause and effect.
aS uSuAl
Kill yourself, you don't know the first fucking thing you're talking about. What is the maximum g-load of an F-15E with 2x GBU-31s loaded, and why is it under the standard structural limitation of 9gs? You don't think they thought "hey it'd be nice to maintain the full envelope of performance even with weapons loaded"?
You think they just didn't have the 'willingness' to design a bomb that doesn't rip off the BRU rack?