It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ugliest fighter/bomber

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 11:47 AM
link   
My vote goes for the Mig-21 or J-7 (J-7 was the cheap Chinese copy). Of course I saw this shot of a F-117 painted in camoflague. D@am ugly plane with that paint job. The Boeing competitor in the JSF contest was pretty ugly. But remember ugly doesn't mean ineffective. Not to get off topic but the Russian attack chopper named the Havoc was ugly but still kick ass. As for the A-10 I think it looks cool enough when its busting APCs with its Vulcan gun.




posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
My vote goes for the Mig-21 or J-7 (J-7 was the cheap Chinese copy). Of course I saw this shot of a F-117 painted in camoflague. D@am ugly plane with that paint job. The Boeing competitor in the JSF contest was pretty ugly. But remember ugly doesn't mean ineffective. Not to get off topic but the Russian attack chopper named the Havoc was ugly but still kick ass. As for the A-10 I think it looks cool enough when its busting APCs with its Vulcan gun.


The J-7 is not a pleasing design. But you are right, ugly does not mean ineffective. The Boeing JSF entry was one of the ugliest planes of all time.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
As for the A-10 I think it looks cool enough when its busting APCs with its Vulcan gun.


Wrong gun dude.

The A-10 is armed with the 30mm Avenger cannon. The Vulcan is the M-61A1 20mm cannon. Most American aircraft carry the Vulcan, only the A-10 carries the Avenger.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I was reading somewhere that Vulcans had been carried by A-10s. Probably just an outdated source or something. Non the less its still looks cool seeing an A-10 go on an attack run.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
I was reading somewhere that Vulcans had been carried by A-10s. Probably just an outdated source or something. Non the less its still looks cool seeing an A-10 go on an attack run.


The Avenger was the basis for the A-10 design. She was purpose built around that gun. It is the only gun that she has ever been equipped with, or needed.

That source wasn't outdated, just plain wrong.

I agree about it looking awesome on a gun run. Too bad she is limited to bursts. Otherwise her barrels would melt from the heat generated.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
I agree about it looking awesome on a gun run. Too bad she is limited to bursts. Otherwise her barrels would melt from the heat generated.


No doubt, to keep up with the cyclical rate of fire, you would have to mount the gun in a C-5 just to carry enough ammo



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Its one hell of a gun though. I hear that the rounds can pierce the armor on a light tank. So I guess as long as you hit your target burst fire works just the same.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Its one hell of a gun though. I hear that the rounds can pierce the armor on a light tank. So I guess as long as you hit your target burst fire works just the same.


Heavy tanks are not immune to tis effects either. The DU rounds had no problem punching through the armour of the T-72 tanks in the gulf.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I heard it can go through any armor in the world including our own



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Have any studies been issued on the effects of 'DU' spent rounds and its effects on ground forces?

=-Rich



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Actualy, I liked the look of the JSF Boiing entry. The second model they were going to build(the one with the adjustments for the last minute new specs put forward by the navy).



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealisticPatriot
I heard it can go through any armor in the world including our own


Through DU-enhanced Chobham armour? That's surprising to be honest. From what I've read the ceramic layers in the armour act in a similar way to ERA, the ceramic turns to high-pressure powder, blows out and helps slow the rounds as it gets to the next layer. Mind you no armour is invincible.


Originally posted by rvfried
Have any studies been issued on the effects of 'DU' spent rounds and its effects on ground forces?

=-Rich


I think a few studies have been done here. Basically it's a type of heavy-metal poisoning. (DU is not radioactive, it's an inert heavy metal).

[edit on 23-8-2004 by Cjwinnit]



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 08:49 PM
link   
there are a lot of cool planes and a lot of ugly planes. but the thing is who cares about looks all that matters is getting the job done maybe instead we should be talking about the crapiest planes. EDIT: i would say Depleted Uranium rounds may have been a cause of Gulf War syndrome. But they are a great form of amunition when it comes to piercing tank armor.

[edit on 23-8-2004 by phantompatriot]



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cjwinnit
Through DU-enhanced Chobham armour? That's surprising to be honest. From what I've read the ceramic layers in the armour act in a similar way to ERA, the ceramic turns to high-pressure powder, blows out and helps slow the rounds as it gets to the next layer. Mind you no armour is invincible.


Im sure the Army knows, but no doubt they would not let the world know. The ceramic portion of the CHobam armour's ceramic portion is really for shaped charges like a HEAT round. The random structure of the ceramic breaks the jet action of the rount. But the 30mm shells are more like a Sabot round that is a kinetic energy type weapon. At the very least it may cause alot of spall and get the crew inside? But the army no doubt will not let us know if an A-10 can take out a M1A2SEP.


E_T

posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Too bad she is limited to bursts. Otherwise her barrels would melt from the heat generated.

That's not biggest problem, seven barrels give it pretty low firerate per barrel when compared to conventional cannons so heating definitely isn't biggest problem.

Real problem is it's very high recoil, which would slow down plane/stop it completely.


fas.org...
www.fas.org...

www.military.cz...

Operating at maximum rate of fire (4,200 rounds/min), the GAU-8 can put approx 65 lb (29.5 kg) of Kinetic Energy Projectiles (KEP) on a target every second. DU is pyrophoric as well, throwing off sparks as it penetrates armor and creating secondary incendiary effects.
www.periscope1.com...





posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   



But the army no doubt will not let us know if an A-10 can take out a M1A2SEP.



it probably can already, i mean with all those bombs alongside the cannon, drop a couple of hellfire or cluster bombs to weaken it, finish it off with the cannon, not to stray from my point, fthey dont call it the "warthog" for nothing, form follows function, and Murcielago, the B-52 has an expected service life to 2047, it can keep getting upgraded and upgraded as much as you need it, and they can hold a lot of bombs, there are no better planes to carry a lot of laser guided bombs, or even many cluster bombs, and if you are a soldier on the ground, taking fire, and you see a B-52 orbiting the area, if your on its side, you have a feeling that you are coming home that night, have itdrop some lgbs and you can take out the entire attacking force, also, if it wernt so damn loud, (o well, there is a price for 8 engines) it accually looks very graceful in flight

P.S.is it just me or do the MiG 21 and SA-9 look alike?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join