Russia claims HYPERSONIC fighter

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I really dislike the attitude indicator on their HUDs. Very backwards to me.

They could save money and use Google Cardboard for the HMD.

a reply to: intrptr

Why would the batteries in Turkey shoot down missiles over Syria? The fact that they didn't does prove that every missile hit their target, or that they were hypersonic.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: intrptr

Back on topic. So I heard this new russian hypersonic fighter has a new and improved heads up display. The straw leading to the vodka dispenser is longer allowing more freedom of movement. Also, the targeting systems has been adapted to users with spinning and or double vision. It's very sophisticated I heard.

They can't drink from a straw with a helmet on, dummy. The special cockpit misting system sprays vodka vapor directly into their mask.

Its another trigger on the stick, just below the ejection seat function.

a reply to: intrptr

Nyet, comrade.

The Russians specifically sent the missiles along a longer flight path to ensure that there was absolutely no confusion between US/NATO?Turkey and Russian intent.

The highlight of the launch was the sales pitch that went with it. Damn small ships to be carrying launch systems and missiles like that.

The missiles themselves, although on paper superior to a Tomahawk, aren't anything other than a modern, long range cruise missile.

a reply to: Flipper35

The F15 was just an all around amazing plane. Just a really great design.


Hey Zaph, ever worked around an F15? If so, any cool stories?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

Why would the batteries in Turkey shoot down missiles over Syria? The fact that they didn't does prove that every missile hit their target, or that they were hypersonic.

The point is the US couldn't shoot them down.

Another indicator that jets are obsolete.

Any jets.

Edit: Same with Carriers, for that matter.

LST (Large Slow Targets) bobbing like corks on the ocean.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I think rules of engagement are hard for some people to understand.

a reply to: intrptr

So, because they DIDN'T shoot at them, they CAN'T shoot them down? Again, if they're hitting targets in another country, why would they have even tried to shoot them down? The Patriots were there to protect Turkey, not Syria. The missiles didn't cross Turkish territory, or go near Turkey, so why would they even try to shoot them down?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

It's a lot easier to ask what I haven't worked on. That's for a different thread though.

a reply to: intrptr

I heard russia pioneered the auto pilot systems that take over when the pilot becomes "Incapacitated." From what I heard too many pilots were passing out at the stick. The russian birds aren't that maneuverable because they are good at dogfighting. They are that maneuverable because the plane needs to be to recover after one of those incapacitation incidents. Passing out and suddenly leaning on the stick n all.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well thats where I was going with this. Have you ever thought of doing a Aviation Forum Thread like "Aviation Campfire stories by Zaphod" or "Tails of the Tape." Where you and other members simply post funny aviation memories or cool stories, tales of the tape from your days working on aircraft etc...

a reply to: BASSPLYR

There are a couple of "There I Was" threads that have a number of stories in them from many members. They're old though.

By then LAZORS will be primary Air to Air weapons so...outrun light and will worry.

a reply to: Xeven

LAZORS are as overrated as Lasers in many ways.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So, because they DIDN'T shoot at them, they CAN'T shoot them down?

Sore loser. If they even knew they were coming.

The narrative on these threads is one sided. With all that tech talk I doubt they even knew they were coming.

Proof in pudding is they hit their targets.

a reply to: intrptr

Your logic is circular.

a reply to: intrptr

Wow, that's quite the leap you are making there. Why would you expend ammunition on targets that aren't going anywhere near what you're protecting?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Why would you expend ammunition on targets that aren't going anywhere near what you're protecting?

How do you know that until they get there? If we knew what they are doing from the moment of launch, why wouldn't they try and stop them? Seeing as how NATO shot down a Russian ground attack aircraft…

Next you'll tell me the Russians announced it ahead of time.

Edit: Or launch into the usual good terrs, bad terrs diatribe.

a reply to: intrptr

You watch them on radar, or other tracking systems, and plot their courses. If they're not going near what you're protecting, you don't shoot. That's the entire point of having tracking systems. The Russian plane that Turkey shot down actually crossed into Turkish airspace, unlike any of the cruise missiles that you claim can't be shot down. If they're stealthy, then when you pick them up, if they're near what you're protecting, you shoot. If they're not, you don't pick them up, and you don't shoot.

a reply to: intrptr

Now your just making no sense. Seriously.