Manly Fucking Weapons

Since the dawn of time, one genre of music has dominated and ruled with an iron fist

Moderators: Apollyon, BFenix

Postby Dr. X » Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:48 am

Although somewhat secondary to the power of the GAU-8, the F-22 is still fucking awesome. Just look at it, and tell me it's not beautiful.

Image

I still can't believe Obama is in favor of cutting the funding to produce more of these babies to add to our current 187 (already greatly reduced from the original 550 projected to be necessary to replace our current F/A-18's and F-16's), slashing thousands of jobs (not to mention sheer amounts of badass) in the process just to save three-tenths of one percent of the amount of money spent on the stimulus. I've always agreed with him on nearly every other issue so far, but this is one area where I just can't see where he's coming from.
I think those stats only apply to non-Mexicans.
User avatar
Dr. X
Galidor
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Ventura, CA

Postby Bluehawk2000 » Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:22 am

The R.P.O.T.C(Rocket Propelled Orange Transparent Chainsaw), does it really need explaining?

Image
NatalyaAF wrote:I declare you God of LDD.


Image
User avatar
Bluehawk2000
Officer
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:32 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Postby IVhorseman » Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:30 am

Dr. X wrote:I still can't believe Obama is in favor of cutting the funding to produce more of these babies to add to our current 187 (already greatly reduced from the original 550 projected to be necessary to replace our current F/A-18's and F-16's), slashing thousands of jobs (not to mention sheer amounts of badass) in the process just to save three-tenths of one percent of the amount of money spent on the stimulus. I've always agreed with him on nearly every other issue so far, but this is one area where I just can't see where he's coming from.


My friend did a calculation, and with the amount of money it takes to even OPERATE the current number of F-22s we have for one year is equivalent to the amount of money earned yearly by the average american household three hundred and fifty thousand times over. There's nothing wrong with F/A-18s or F-16s, and they're both cheaper and more reliable.

In fact, the FA-22 is sortof a crappy plane. It was designed in the early ninties to be "THE PLANE OF THE FUTURE!!!", with tons of holes in the technology where they decided "we don't have this yet, but by 2004 we'll have invented that". The technology is now here, but it's still a plane designed in the early ninties, and is therefore outdated. If we want new planes, we have to start from the ground up, not just arbitrarily guess what we'll have invented by 2020.

EDIT: Normally, I try to stay out of the political conversations, because I recognize the fact that I know nothing about politics and neither do any of you. In this particular case however, my friend JUST RECENTLY spent the better part of an hour explaining this to me. However he also thinks that Aircraft carriers are useless since everyone important has nukes, which I disagree on like Bonn-o-Tron.
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6306
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Postby Zahru II » Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:47 am

Image
User avatar
Zahru II
balls just have this nasty tendency to wear out over time
 
Posts: 4161
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:22 am
Location: Hüngäry

Postby Dr. X » Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:50 am

My post was actually almost sarcastic in a kind of half-assed way, as I'm completely biased being a huge military aircraft nerd. Whatever other people say, I think the F-22 is awesome as shit, and even the most logical arguments against producing more of them bounce off of me. I went through the same thing when I was a kid and read that the A-10 might be retired from service.

If my views weren't so extreme I would probably agree that the Hornet and F-16 are more than sufficient and that the F-35 has nearly the same performance compared to the F-22 while being somewhat cheaper and more modern (although it is slower and less suited for air-to-air combat, and is also less awesome).
I think those stats only apply to non-Mexicans.
User avatar
Dr. X
Galidor
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Ventura, CA

Postby IVhorseman » Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:35 am

There's also no reason to get rid of the A-10 either.

See, all of these arguments of "air-to-air superiority" would be fine and dandy if any of the countries we go to war with had airforces. Sure maybe in the future that'd be an issue, but the 18s and 16s are still the best fighter planes in the world.
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6306
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Postby Almighty Benny » Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:08 pm

I agree that F-22s are the shit, but how badass is an airplane that can't fly in the fucking rain?
Image
I said "no" to drugs, but they just wouldn't listen...
User avatar
Almighty Benny
Galidor
 
Posts: 1144
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:40 pm
Location: Connecticut

Postby muffinman42 » Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:13 pm

you want a manly plane, the Hercules is what you want!, no more sissy flieing in and firing your missiles then running away in your fighter jets!
they are the largest airplane able to land on a aircraft carrier!

they are badarse, anyone whos had one fly right over them low enought that they could see the RAF logo clearly knows it.
User avatar
muffinman42
Mega Blok
 
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Gale Crator

Postby Dr. X » Sat Jul 25, 2009 11:23 pm

This helicopter is so manly it even has it's own penis.

Image
I think those stats only apply to non-Mexicans.
User avatar
Dr. X
Galidor
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Ventura, CA

Postby Leprechaun » Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:46 am

The Apache. The ugliest helicopter, and the deadliest. Its ugly, Its deadly, Its manly. No more to be said.
http://www.minihelicopter.net/AH64Apach ... Apache.jpg
Damnit! Where's my camera?
User avatar
Leprechaun
Minifig
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 12:57 pm
Location: Barrow

Postby Tuefish » Sun Jul 26, 2009 4:48 pm

dcl32 wrote:Image

Image
"If someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back." -Malcolm Reynolds
Image
TROLOLO
Tuefish
Dimmy
 
Posts: 709
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:26 am
Location: The Emerald city

Postby Dr. X » Sun Jul 26, 2009 5:16 pm

We need a new thread for Manly Vehicles.
I think those stats only apply to non-Mexicans.
User avatar
Dr. X
Galidor
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Ventura, CA

Postby Nitewatchman » Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:03 pm

Dr. X wrote:I still can't believe Obama is in favor of cutting the funding to produce more of these babies to add to our current 187 (already greatly reduced from the original 550 projected to be necessary to replace our current F/A-18's and F-16's), slashing thousands of jobs (not to mention sheer amounts of badass) in the process just to save three-tenths of one percent of the amount of money spent on the stimulus. I've always agreed with him on nearly every other issue so far, but this is one area where I just can't see where he's coming from.


It's because he's from Illinois. Nothing good comes from Illinois.



IVhorseman wrote:
In fact, the FA-22 is sortof a crappy plane. It was designed in the early ninties to be "THE PLANE OF THE FUTURE!!!", with tons of holes* in the technology where they decided "we don't have this yet, but by 2004 we'll have invented that". The technology is now here, but it's still a plane designed in the early ninties, and is therefore outdated. If we want new planes, we have to start from the ground up, not just arbitrarily guess what we'll have invented by 2020.

EDIT: Normally, I try to stay out of the political conversations, because I recognize the fact that I know nothing about politics and neither do any of you. In this particular case however, my friend JUST RECENTLY spent the better part of an hour explaining this to me. However he also thinks that Aircraft carriers are useless since everyone important has nukes, which I disagree on like Bonn-o-Tron.*



*Point #1

Image
Rly, tho, Obama is making a bunch of cuts to military spending. I semi-agree that the F-22 is an inefficient fighting machine, but you need to remember; most of the new options people are presenting cost loads and loads more. The F-22 can get the job done and keep us looking manly in the sky, so I like it and have no problem paying tax dollars to watch it blow crap up on foreign soil.



*Point #2

Pffft. Getting rid of aircraft carriers would DECREASE our MANLINESS.

*Personally, I'm an all-American boy. I believe in the simple equation of Military_Spending=National_Manliness_Increase=Superiority. The fact that Obama wants to cut military spending and take away our personal assault rifles means that he's making us less manly, which means Obama=Less_Manly=Un-American.

Regardless of what I believe(or even know) about President Obama's policies, the fact that he is decreasing our manliness is a concern to me, and should be a concern to all other men.

What happens when FRANCE surpasses our MANLINESS!? What then!?

I would also like to display a pie chart that I found in a very serious news article, which I find incredibly hilarious.
Image
That, there, is some REAL American Pie!





*The star'd paragraph was written without any serious political talkitivness, and is intended to speak only of MANLINESS and TESTOSTERONE. Don't turn this thread into a political discussion over it( Please. ;_; ). That is not manly, and would counteract the manly effects of this forum.
Silverdream wrote:MOST UNLIKED BY SILVERDREAM
Nominees
-Nitewatchman
-Blitzen
-muffinman42
-Vami IV

WINNER: Nitewatchman
User avatar
Nitewatchman
Galidor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 2:00 pm
Location: Pants.

Postby IVhorseman » Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:12 pm

Hey, I have no problem with our military being clearly the best. I in fact support that a lot! I just also think our military shouldn't piss money away on crap that we don't need and doesn't work.

nitewatchman wrote:most of the new options people are presenting cost loads and loads more.


You didn't base this information on any reasearch at all and completely pulled that out of your asshole. However, I didn't research anything to disprove that, so I'm not going to try to. Instead, I'm going to prove me right by proving you right: the new options are horrible. But what about our old options? Our technology is leaps and bounds ahead of the competition as is. You can keep things simple and cheap and still be retardedly effective militarily, which we are. As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I personally agree with this lowering of military spending, because instead of making planes that can't fly in the rain, we can do the simple effective crap, like actually putting armor on our armored vehicles, or using reliable weapons instead of "look at this gun that shoots a million grenades in just the right conditions". And as an added bonus, there's more money to spend on manly things like motorcycles, highways, and piles of meat.


EDIT: Abe Lincoln was from Illinois. Image
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6306
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Postby Tiny Tank Rannon » Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:24 pm

Zahru II wrote:Image


for $500, it's worth every penny for a game based off a nerdy game to improve your manliness.
User avatar
Tiny Tank Rannon
Cannon Fodder
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:17 pm
Location: Near Windsor, Ontario, Canada

PreviousNext

Return to The Metal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests