What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How to Make Your PC as Fast as the Day You Bought It view!
howlifeworks.com - What's the fastest way to restore a computer to its original blazing glory
106 Comments
- vroom101, on 10/10/2007, -1/+32#1 U.S. Air Force F-22A Raptor
(a) http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=217.0;attach=158546;image ( via http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php?topic=217.msg134367#msg134367 )
(b) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrBx6G2O6A4
(c) http://planeplaces.com/gallery2/v/osh06_001/f22/transonic.avi.html
(d) http://www.dosomethingamazing.com/?s=71&v=609 ( via http://digg.com/videos_educational/Dude_Can_Your_Fighter_Jet_Do_This_I_Don_t_Think_So )
#2 U.S. Navy F/A-18 Hornet, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
(a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBuIidllusc
(b) http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-20061112.htm -- stack of pictures
(c) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5705445292492435253
#3 U.S. Air Force F-15 Eagle, F-15E Strike Eagle
(a) http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-200701b-UnitedStatesAirForce-DFST9005774-USAF-F-15-Eagle-fighters-escort-two-MiG-29-fighters-to-Elmendorf-AFB-Alaska-for-refueling-large.jpg ( via http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-200701.htm )
(b) http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-20051129-UnitedStatesAirForce-060707-F-3961R-001-B-2-Stealth-F-15E-Strike-Eagle-July-2005-Andersen-AFB-Guam-large.jpg ( via http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-20051129.htm )
#4 U.S. Navy F-14 Tomcat (retired)
(a) http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2007/Navy/DN-SD-07-00507.JPEG ( via http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DNSD0700507&JPGPath=/Assets/Still/2007/Navy/DN-SD-07-00507.JPG )
(b) http://www.eng.vt.edu/fluids/msc/gallery/conden/f14.mpeg ( via http://www.eng.vt.edu/fluids/msc/gallery/conden/mpegf14.htm )
(c) http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-20061106e-DefenseVisualCenter-DNST9102741-desert-dust-sand-storm-F-14A-Tomcat-19900901-Red-Sea-region-large.jpg ( via http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-20061106.htm )
(d) http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Oceana2005/Tomcats/index.html
(e) http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-The-Spectacular-Clouds-of-the-Transonic-Flight-Regime.htm - vroom101, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Bring back the F-14 Tomcat!
- DeskFlyer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Could also be titled '*All* Active United States Military Fighter Jets' too (with the exception of the F-14 of course).
- whatsgoodike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Where did it say #6? it was a section labeled "The Future of Jet Fighting"
Like, bonus info. Get over it. - enforcerpsu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12You are confusing occupation/policing with a WAR against another country. In the initial stages of the invasion of Iraq there are multiple stories of American Tank columns outmanned by the enemy and rolled over them with 0 casualties. The US military is a military designed to wage war, not police a country. That is where the problems lie. Get your facts straight...kid.
- airiox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Man what I would give to be a fighter pilot.
- tomz17, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Which countries are these? If you are thinking about Iraq, then you are very wrong. That is not a war, that is a baby-sitting job, and a poor one at that. We were really good at breaking their *****, and defeated their military decisively within only a few days. In fact, it was probably the most one-sided fight in the history of military engagements. Right now, the primary goal is to try and re-establish stability in the region. The only way to do that without mass casualties, is to stand against the insurgency.
What most people fail to realize is that if we truly wanted conquest, we would have used our "useless *****", as you so call it, to pound the Iraqi populace into the ground. We would have laid waste to their cities, and killed off an absurd amount of their population until we squashed their will to fight or the last one of them hit the ground. Unlike many lesser countries before us, "victory", at that cost is not something that America is willing to accept. Instead we send our best and bravest to babysit these asshats until they can get their act together enough to govern themselves. That is not a loss in my book. - DeskFlyer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I concur!
- vroom101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6More awesome U.S. Navy F-14 Tomcat photographs:
1. http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2000/Navy/DN-SD-00-03280.JPEG
via http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DNSD0003280&JPGPath=/Assets/Still/2000/Navy/DN-SD-00-03280.JPG
2. http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060728-N-9362D-140.jpg
via http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=37552
3. http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060115-N-7571S-002.jpg
via http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=31253 - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Seriously, listen to tehpwnrate, airiox. If you want to be a fighter pilot and you can qualify, DO IT. Just trust me on this one. If you don't, you WILL regret it. I spend an inordinate ammount of my time asking myself why I didn't. Instead, I fly little ancient Cessna 150's and 172's at a whopping 90KIAS or so - not quite the same as "MACH 2 with your hair on fire."! We only live once and for an extremely short time.
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Well, if you're a college-graduate male between the ages of 22-27, you could always apply.. :)
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6sorry Ghostrider the F-14 is retired
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Do you honestly think they're replacing all the F/A-18Cs, Es, and Fs by 2015? Dude, there's no chance. And the Growler, which is basically an EW Hornet, isn't even deployed yet!
- Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Me, too. That's my all-time favorite plane. I'm not sure why, but I just love it. (And it has nothing to do with Top Gun, I assure you.)
- PerfektXj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Sites laggin bad and has popups http://pic.bestpicever.com/piles/?s=militaryjets for anyone who needs it
- wapp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5They just copied the text from wikipedia...
- Pilot85, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5There is nothing quite as sexy/dangerous lookin as a Tomcat. Even on the ground it looks lethal.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1255733&WxsIERv=Tehzzna%20S-14Q%20Gbzpng&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=HFN%20-%20Anil&QtODMg=Ivetvavn%20Ornpu%20-%20Bprnan%20ANF%20%2F%20Ncbyyb%20Fbhprx%20Svryq%20%28AGH%20%2F%20XAGH%29&ERDLTkt=HFN%20-%20Ivetvavn&ktODMp=Frcgrzore%2024%2C%202004&BP=0&WNEb25u=Tyraa%20Ornfyrl&xsIERvdWdsY=164602&MgTUQtODMgKE=Whfg%20njrfbzr.&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=2030&NEb25uZWxs=2007-08-29%2019%3A21%3A38&ODJ9dvCE=NW-213&O89Dcjdg=598%2FQ-3&static=yes&width=1200&height=812&sok=JURER%20%20%28%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%271261602%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%271261090%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%271260272%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%271258961%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%271258299%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%271256098%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%271255733%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%271254911%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%271252169%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%271251742%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%271251663%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%271250937%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%271250440%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%271248334%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%271247835%27%29%20%20beqre%20ol%20&photo_nr=7&prev_id=1256098&next_id=1254911 - nubi78, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4How many of you saw the F-14 pictures and immediately cued up in your mind the first few notes of the Top Gun intro song?
- sovereign3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You're joking, right?
- TheRealPod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Seeing as how it took over 30 years to develop and they cut the units again and again it's not a surprise. Did you know a B2 costs 2 Billion dollars? SR-71's cost 34 million a long long time ago. I wish I could find a good picture, but the F22 is a large fighter, trust me.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The refusal of the American government to sell spares for the IAF, is they were purchased BEFORE the government was overthrown in 79. Just before the
Grumman contractors left, they "somehow" rendered the firing mechanisms for the weapons useless. They probably have been worked around, but, with
no spare parts, no maintenance, as labor heavy as those are, the IAF tomcats are grounded. The 14's require a LOT of maintenance for every flight hour.
Plus, the toms the IAF has, are the ones with the early model engines, which had problems. - tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Words to live by, vSuperLuminal.
For anyone who reads this and goes, "Maybe I would like to do that!" Bear in mind that you should contact an OFFICER recruiter, NOT an enlisted recruiter. Officers fly, and you don't need to enlist to become an officer, you just need a college degree. - Acidictadpole, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Same, unfortunately I have eye problems so I wouldn't qualify.. Ruined my dream ...
- duniyadnd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Digg up on that one.. Yeah, I wasn't thinking of the other variants.. purely A/B. Don't know much about the Growler - will have to do some reading on that one.
Cheers - kaptanbo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The F-22 is the PREMIER aircraft of our time. Paired with a good pilot, there is no defense.
It recently notched a 108-0 kill ratio in wargames over Alaska.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20060807.aspx
$137,000,000 will buy a lot of plane! - moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The Tomcat is the most maintenance-heavy US plane in history. On average, they spent many more hours in carrier maintenance decks than in the air, which is why Iran is having such a hard time with them now.
- RogaDanar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Thanks vroom101. As much as digg needs a pic section, that article needed pics!
- SushiCW, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5I hate to bury anything featuring fighter jets, but this truly is a lame article.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Here's a good one....the "original" Hornet, before it was a hornet, was the Northrup YF-17 Cobra, which was in a fly off with the F-16 when the 16 was introduced. Northrup had a good basic design, which McDonnell Douglas ran with, changed a few things, and turned it into the F/A-18 Hornet.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Not at all - I knew what you were saying. What you said was factual and I had no problem with it all. I just hate to see it go...and I never even sat in one of the things. Just imagine how the guys who committed their life to it must feel. Even the ground crew loved that plane like family.
- moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Agreed, the thing's just naturally badass. Didn't mean to give the wrong impression.
- allan17, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I see your A-10 and raise you an F-15.
- CarzorStelatis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Fighter jets may be fast, but there is no plane which is more impressive than the A-10 Thunderbolt.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Same here - all-time favorite. Although, I must admit that I fell in love with aviation, in general, while watching Top Gun as a kid. That movie is directly responsible for the large sums of money that I have spent while chasing my own aviation dreams. Nothing better on earth than boring holes in the sky on a Saturday afternoon! Well, actually, BURNING holes in the sky would be more fun, but is waaaaaaaaaay more than I will ever be able to afford.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2NONE of the IAF tomcats are flying. They are in desert storage. One reason why the F-14's parts, when scrapped have been CAREFULLY inventoried.
They want to make sure ALL parts that are not chewed up by the shredder are accounted for. - allan17, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Eurofighter isn't even 5th gen.
- tubalcane, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Title is wrong, the F-14 Tomcat was a great plane but it is no longer in active service at least not by the US Navy. The Iranians still have a few that are flying despite our efforts to cripple them.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2True and good point. But, The F-14 had a particular "mojo" that many others didn't and that many won't. Not to mention that it was absolutely capable. My favorite plane, by far.
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think they meant the Super Hornet. It's ambiguous.
- enforcerpsu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2We haven't sold them parts for years. Most if not all are on the ground and unable to fly.
- ToadLeg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Oh, I see you read the article?
- dadood, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I was going to say the same thing but the title does say "fighter jets". The Warthog is more of a ground support assault plane.
- idc5, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2F-14 TOMCAT
Primary users United States Navy, Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force
ironic? - robjohnston, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Cost Per Unit? is that each? F22 = $137 each? would someone mind explaining.
- Acidictadpole, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I agree with the f-14 one, but as someone pointed out earlier the F-35 is in a "bonus" section with a title including "The Future"... It wasn't meant to be viewed as one of the active ones..
Again I do agree with the F-14, although you could run logic around saying that it's still an active US Military plane, just not in use by the US military. - TheRealPod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Super Hornet is a totally different plane except to congressmen looking at scaled pictures "wink"
- Arramol, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The A-10 depends on a lack of enemy aircraft for its success. It was so effective in the wars in Iraq because our fighters had already smoked the Iraqi air force. It's not all that well equipped for air-to-air combat, so it's dependent on other planes to keep the skies clear.
And as dadood pointed out, this is an article on fighters, which is why you don't see aircraft like the venerable B-52. - MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2P-38 Lightning. Cool ass plane. Didn't get into the WW2 soon enough to make much of a difference unfortunately, but was vastly superior to almost every other plane out there at the time.
- glasnostic, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5The last thing we need is more crazy scientologists and their smirking brain-dead baby makers.
- moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That thing's basically a ***** gigantic machine gun with an airplane built around it! :)
Agreed though, nothing scarier than seeing one of those flying 30mm cannons flying toward you at three hundred miles an hour! -
Show 51 - 100 of 106 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
