When Zig Forums finally does go to war, we're going to need air support.
Problem is that we're poorfags and this isn't going to change anytime soon, so lets explore the viability of CAS, Aircav, and medivac on a budget so we can live out our Rhodesian Fireforce fantasies IRL.
As actual helicopters look mad complex to build and maintain, and fixed wing aircraft come with the need for infrastructure, I propose heavy autogyros.
They're far simpler to maintain and there's less to break than helos, they can autorotate allowing for safer engine-out capability than most aircraft, and depending on the design they are only slightly harder to fly than regular fixed wing craft.
The downside is that they are not high-performance in any respect, which is why they are never chosen by organised militaries given the choice between them and conventional aircraft.
The first reason why helicopters are scary is that they could be anywhere. An airplane has fixed landing fields that a guerilla can ignore, or at least knows the direction of the attack. Second reason why theyre scary is that they can hang around, their ordnance is multidirectional, have tight turn radiuses, and can apply pressure to troops continuously. Airplanes simply go too fast, they have to take "runs" at infantry, which can displace and move during each attack run. Plus if its a bad angle of attack the airplane is fucked, whereas the helicopter just changes position.
I think gyrodynes are the future, theyre less complex than helicopters and offer all the benefits plus extended range. Cheyenne was ahead of its time…
Do you mean firing it from the plane? That would fuck up the plane man.
Jayden King
I've been looking into building a cheap gyrocopter for myself. This is the way to go. For those who are interested, check out the Bensen B-8.
Jeremiah Morris
The design is from the 60's and there are other, more modern tube frame gyrocopter designs out there; the Hornet just off the top of my head. What motor were you planning on using? The go-to used to be Dr. Porche's Flat Four, but those are getting hard to come by.
Aiden James
Not really.
Jonathan Thomas
...
Carson White
Rhodies already did that alongside a bunch of mercs in Biafra
planes are made of soft aluminum and bolts which can only take stress in a few specific directions. recoil force of that cannon can break granite rock into pieces, if it goes off in the airplane it will yank itself out of any kind of restraint and probably take half the airplane with it.
What rhodies and mercenary airforces did was modify civilian aircraft with low recoil weapons, like 513 said it is mostly rockets and gravity bombs. Even so they often caught modern jet fighters on the airfield and managed to inflict ridiculous casualties. For example in the raid in nigeria, the biafran rebels hired canuck mercenary bush pilots that hooked cessnas to trucks and drove them to within a few dozen miles of a massive airport under camo nets and the cover of darkness. Then loaded them down with rockets and bombs, flew them toward the airfield, and destroyed eleven modern fighter jets - each of which was worth fifty cessnas.
This is how most fighters die, on the airfield.
That's why investing 100+ mil in a stealth plane is retarded, some soviet milkman (picrel) on a bicycle will deliver a dozen bottles, likely shreking a couple of your jets.
How long does it take to bolt the wings back on a Cessna 152? Or does anyone make a sport aircraft with folding wings like a carrier aircraft? You could load the whole thing, fully armed, into a box trailer and go all Fresh Fruits on their asses.
Nathaniel Fisher
Cessna already manufactures the cessna 208 attack caravan with hardpoints and flares. its the pic in the post you replied to, you can see the hardpoints. it even says 'air force' on the side.
I'm sure the frame could be beefed up enough to support firing a (lower power, shorter brass) 105mm shell. If not, then you can mount any 20 or 30mm autocannon/chaingun you can get your hands on. Targeting systems would be easier than people realize, precise electric motors are cheap on ebay/alibaba/amazon and FLIR sells the same IR camera turrets that police helicopters use to civilians too.
the finest italian engineering
hangar space aint free my dude. tons of planes are designed to be easily trailer-portable either by folding or detaching wings.
Jace Flores
FRESH FRUITS
Charles Clark
A low power 30mm autocannon has about 15kN of force, that's still quite a lot. I think you could reinforce it but what's the point?
Afghanis do the same thing, bomb bases with rockets all the time, the problem is that they're retarded and don't know how to aim or hit valuable targets. Why do you think our bases there have thick concrete or massive sand bags.
it also has two fuckhuge engines to go with it. for basic shitting on things below oneself with a cessna, basic HEFI rockets or a set of 50. MGs with API would chew through everything you find, just be sure to have tracers on the belt so you can see where your aiming
Nathaniel Reyes
Use carbon steel fasteners and ribs to strengthen it enough to where it won't self destruct
Carson Bell
So you just need to add several solid rocket boosters to the Cessna that trigger a second before the canon fires and jettison after burning their fuel.
Aaron Bennett
Just mount an rmk30 on it. Slightly more muzzle energy than the shell from the A10, none of the recoil.
Nathaniel Martinez
A fucking WWII airplane is made of steel with steel ribbing. Cessnas aren't.
Now quit posting CIA tracker images you giant fucking faggot.
Isaiah Hughes
It would just need a soft recoil system with loads of travel to absorb it. It's how things like the Koksan and 2S7 Pion are possible.
it could be dual purpose. like a volley of rockets + HEAT shell rockets with extended fuel compartments attached to the plane activate and can only be shot off via activation from trigger pull of the cannon. kinda like most modern missiles, turn them on to spool it up then launch, with the main difference being the spooling up bit is them boosting the plane and then launching them as the cannon is fired.
Isaac Kelly
ITT we take cessnas and turn them into warmachines
Easton Howard
...
William Sanders
...
Lucas Bell
Muh. Dik.
Luis Lee
Its not your uncles rental cessna, this is a turbine powered commercial short-haul cargo transport plane. it has a much tougher structure and much more powerful engine than a standard general aviation aircraft. Though not up to military standards, these larger cessnas are tougher than they look and could (and do) easily fly cointel missions. Also most non-direct-combat ww2 aircraft were made of aluminum.
the idea was to shoot a 105mm shell out of the side of the plane, ac-130 style. The plane can carry the weight easily, its a question of beefing up the recoil dampening system enough for the structure to take it. I'm sure it could be done, not sure if it would be cheaper than sticking rocket pods under the wing. The tactical advantage a side gun gives is big imo(orbiting and watching a spot with guns trained, rather than having to line up for a strafing run or use expensive guided missiles)
In the event of a civil war, how hard do you guys think it would be for an organized rebellion to get away with stealing/commandeering planes from airlines? Probably by the point they are capturing airports, foreign support(no rebellions are grassroots) should be giving them enough funds to operate the commandeered aircraft as they are.
How would you militarize an a320, or any large civilian aircraft? be more creative than 'long-range strategic bomber' pls. load up with explosives and fly it(remotely, we're not sandniggers/japs) into the enemy? That would turn it into a stupidly expensive intercontinental cruise missile. But hey, you didn't buy the jet.
Jaxson Kelly
Allow me to propose the use of the CZAW Mermaid. It is a light sport aircraft, but one I feel could be of some use. It is amphibious, capable of utilizing both waterways and land strips. Listed takeoff distance is 680 feet from water and a scant 450 feet on land. It's engine is mounted above the aircraft, largely protected from fire below unless it's already penetrated the aircraft. With max fuel (26 gal) it has an endurance of 4.5 hours or 800km. Of course, the payload is where things get a bit dicey
Why take the risk? Simply pack the "recoil space" with more rockets. Rockets are cheap and simple, even Zig Forumsinder can make it.
This is the recipe for rocket fuel: - 2x Saltpeter - 1x Sugar
And this is a recipe for warhead mass: - 2x Saltpeter - 1x Diesel fuel
Get a 2 inch diameter PVC pipe, two yards long, with screw caps for both sides. Pack 9/10ths of the pipe with the fuel, and the upper 1/10th with the warhead mass. Screw caps on both sides. Drill a hole in both caps. Put a nail gun blank on one side as a detonator, and two wires leading to your launch switch in the other. A single store bought bag of fertilizer can make about 40 rockets. Granted this is a shitty rocket and you can get better results by putting pottassium perchlorate in the fuel mass and aluminum dust in the warhead mass, or other such performance improvements. But the basic one isn't even hard.
Now imagine how fucking difficult for a rebel it is to make a cannon, repair it if it gets broke, cast the shells so they're perfect and have no flaws, etc….
Jaxson Hernandez
Its a 1:1 with the first. t.guy who has an uxo zone.
Cameron Carter
1. If sand niggers can do it we can not only do it better but also put it in the air like the Germans and Italians did 75-80 years ago. 2. Rockets are xbawx hueg, in the same space and weight you could carry 100 shells you'd be lucky to have 5 rockets of the same yield. 3. Rockets by default have shit accuracy and cost a hell of a lot more to have them be able to land in the same areacode. 4. You can't reload rocket launchers in the air. Yeah "muh no recoil" and "muh lightweight, cheap launcher" are cute memes but the rockets themselves are at least 6 gorillionX the time, material, and manufacture cost per shot than a comparable shot fired out of a cannon.
The only things rockets got going for them is you can fire a bunch at once and ICBMs, but those kind of launchers have shit aerodynamics that have only gotten worse since WW2.
Only having 200 rounds is a pretty low load, with the AN/M2s rof you have about 12.5 total seconds of fire before you’re out. Being .50 cals and not machine canons, means you’ll only really be effective against unarmoured trucks, shooting at infantry seems like a waste of time as the vast majority if not all of your shots will go to waste and sending out cas just to suppress infantry for maybe two minutes total and likely get 0 kills seems like a waste of the plane. Restricting it just to convey raids also would be a waste as that’s an entire plane you need to supply and maintain for such a specific role whereas a more versatile nigger-rigged vehicle would be more useful. I really can’t think of any use that would benefit a small force, even dogfighting with other makeshift combat planes would be tough as those 200 shots will be gone fast. Most WWII fighters carried a few hundred if not over a thousand of rounds for MGs, and if they had canons usually a few hindered rounds for those too.
Jason Campbell
Governments don’t have the budget of a Zig Forumsommando force fighting niggers in Africa, and smart missiles are much more efficient.
Kayden Campbell
Oh, right, it's the distinction between "rockets" and "smart rockets" I was missing.
I think we'd be best served starting with a home build kit plane and converting from there rather than trying to convert an already existing aircraft like a 172 or the like (152s suck dick at everything except moving 2 people from point a to point b) Starting from a kit would give much better access to the frame as the aircraft is constructed rather than trying to cut your way into the skin to weld a couple of rocket tubes on. To that end, something like the Murphy Moose pic related would do the job if you wanted something to do a pylon turn over a low intensity fight on account of already having a cargo door in the frame, this would allow easy mounting of a 30 cal. The main reason that I would not want to mount anything larger is for 2 reasons: A.) weight and balance concerns, not just overall weight being an issue with a 105mm which would probably exceed the useful load anyway, but also the worry of making the plane tail heavy or dip to one side. With a 30 cal GPMG like a PKP or MG3 you could even mount 2 of them for under 100lbs on top of which you would have to add ammo, but that can be moved in the aircraft to feed from boxed more towards the Center of Lift to minimize effects of weight. B.) Recoil, no matter how much dampening you put on a 105, you're still going to push the airplane, the AC-130 gets away with it because it's a tactical airlift airframe and thus already heavy to begin with. You might be able to use a 20mm autocannon like the Rhodesian did out of their Alouette IIIs but anything more and you risk making the gunship pilot's job harder than it needs to be. The other way to go about a gunship is to make it more of a direct attack deal. By taking a smaller aircraft (pic 2 related) and mounting a couple of recoilless rifles under the wings and maybe a small bomb mounting point to drop dumb bombs, this would be a better setup for a quick hit and run like hell. Of course neither of these would be ideal for a situation where you don't have air superiority, the hit and run might be a little better since, if built properly it can still have STOL to deploy takeoff hit the target, land and be hidden before the enemy force has time to react, an F-15 is great but it can't be everywhere at once and as we saw in the Nigerian civil war with the Biafria Baby raids, a small cheap strike aircraft can destroy many times its value if it can catch the enemy with their pants down. IDK about how well this might work in the modern day, but the levels of incompetence displayed at times by carious militarizes around the world would give me hope.
That just creates more reaction mass, most of it is unburned. But you're right you can play with those values pretty safely.
First of all that's not true, it's about a 3:1 ratio not 20:1. Second of all you aren't counting the weight of the cannon and reloading system, which counterbalances that completely.
That problem was solved a long time ago by spin stabilization.
I think its a better idea to just stick a flir IR cam/sensor pod on it and use it for recon. You can actually buy those things as a civilian, but they're extremely expensive(10k+) and apparently power hungry, but that just means a larger alternator or maybe even an APU.
The pilots job wouldn't be made *that* much harder, assuming the gun is positioned properly. You should be able to position it so the recoil mostly pushes the plane sideways instead of inducing yaw. I think that's why the 120 is the furthest forward on the c-130, so its closer to the center of lift and sideways cross-section(total sideways drag from the push). From my experience flying ga planes, its generally below the flaps and behind the center of lift. Maybe the cessna 208 isnt the right plane, you kinda need a strutless wing for a gun to go under it.
The main advantage imo for side-mounting the 105 is standoff range. You can stay just outside your enemies effective range (or just inside your own) and 'supress' the enemy with shelling. Using a .30cal or even a .50 makes this advantage pretty slim against standard infantry and make the plane rely on rockets/bombs to suppress harder targets. A cannon in the air is still necessary for CAS, the question is what caliber. If you ask me, bigger is better.
You may be right about kit-builds, especially stol planes w/ folding wings. A trailer-able plane that can takeoff/land on basically any flat and open quarter mile of road with could be effective(if vulnerable to small arms) air support.
biggest advantage is price and ammunition onboard. 3:1 ratio of ammo(is this measured in firepower as in explosives/mass sent downrange?) will still better than rockets as long the gun doesnt weigh any more than 2/3s the useful load. And the cannon will be far cheaper per lb of boom sent to remove the enemy.
Elijah Moore
This is very rare, especially for air to ground cannon. Also an airplane has only time to do one or two runs, there's no point in carrying more ammunition than it takes to do that.
Leo Watson
Wat?
Jose Price
Can it be operated for more then 100 rounds without needing a mandatory gunsmith inspection?
How can every single aspect of this plane (I know that word implies a vessel capable of flight but I don’t know what other word to use) be so god damn awful? You’d think by accident they would have made a single good or even acceptable part, but it never ends.
Better make the inspection quick, the fuel truck is waiting on the runway to refuel, and it’s only got a few more minutes before it explodes.
Asher Williams
Well on the bright side, lockheeb has utterly succeeded in the art of failure.
Colton Hernandez
No it has a 35mm grenade launcher to aid in braking while landing.
By the way if having a fucking pod meant you could say an airplane "has a gun", by that logic a 747 has a 100mm naval cannon because theoretically it could fly with the cannon bolted to the airframe.
Also lol Like they're venturing into an unknown continent, instead of something with billions of engineering hours before it even got off the paper.
Jeremiah Harris
the Philippines I think that would overheat the plane, remember, you cannot leave the weapons bays closed for more then 10 minutes. I don’t see how that’s erroneous. Unless you’d say pic related variant of the Stuka didn’t have guns, just because they were pods.
It had to be intentional, there is no way they could do this poorly without trying to do that poorly.
Nobody is going to end the program, so the more broken shit they have, the more money gets thrown at lockheeb.
Austin Ward
I lied/typoed it's a 25mm gatling, and only on the f35a and c, not the vtol. Carries 180rds.
Landon Stewart
The trouble with adding a cannon near the center of lift is that there's kind of a lot of structure there. Namely the wing strut and that's just about where the control station is. It might work to be possible is you setup the cannon in the right seat in stead of the copilot station. I still don't see anything larger than a maybe 37mm autocannon and even that might be too large and make the weight and balance too far starboard giving a small control difficulty. This is of course null if you can just get a source of larger aircraft that could carry something bigger.
Also, I'm going to disagree that you need anything larger than a .30 cal since the grand daddy of all gunships just used 3 GAU-2s so you make up for the smaller projectile with a higher volume of fire. .30 cal should be good enough for most tasks since an aircraft doing a turn around a point can still be outside effective range for rifle fire, not great for anywhere with proper air defense but if they had proper air defense you would want to use hit and run anyway. .30 cal won't destroy heavy armor, but it should be fine if you're mostly looking to hit infantry and unarmored vehicles. If you're fighting heavy armor, you might need something more in the direct attack rocket category anyway. That or just hit their supply lines, because heavy armor is a bitch to punch through.
Something like a Twin-Otter derivative with a gun mount between the wing strut and front of the propeller. It would have to be mounted about with the floor to minimize deadzones but I think it could be done especially if it is configured with multiple guns. I think 20mm cannons would be a good compromise of weight and destructive potential if you went that route.
1. "Muh rawkets r duh futur" retardation. 2. (((They))) want you to buy a $500,000 smartlaserthermoquided rocket to blow up a turbanhead's house, rather than a shell or bomb that costs maybe $100. 3. They still have cannons on airplanes because despite "G-d's chosen" wanting countries to waste money on their shit, the military still wants at least one effective weapon per vehicle.
I see the blatantly obvious implication goes right over your autistic head. "Budget" rockets only work enmasse because their accuracy is worse than a shotgun in a vidya gaem.
Jaxson Cruz
Could you make a flying wing gyrocopter with pusher engine configuartion? Would it have anything over a more conventional gyro (other than weirdness)?
Easiest, most effective air support will be Cessna 172 or Caravan loaded with a crew of AR-10 streloks. Brass catchers mandatory. You have rounds with a decent chance to do damage, you can fire off axis, no modifications to the airframe, no recoil concerns, and eliminates the danger of "homemade" explosives/materials associated with rockets or bombs. Thermal sights on the AR's, NVG trained pilots, stick to night missions and there's a decent little gunship. If you need a helicopter, R-22 or 44 with 3 AR-10 streloks. Taking any actual weapons/munitions delivery functions away from the pilot/s allows for safer operation in almost every mission profile. Simplicity is key.
Jonathan Perry
Okay but what about the casualties form friendly fire? Surely those will outweigh the positives, plus the weight of even 6 fat ass streloks plus ~10 kilograms of unnecessary gear and butplugs/dragon dildos will alone account for more weight then might be handled.
The primary problem I see is that recoilless rifles have pretty poor muzzle velocity and range. That'll make hitting a distant target much more difficult, since you've got to remain out of small arms fire since you plan on orbiting the target. Secondly, you're going to be moving at high speed laterally to the target, a motion that will carry over to your projectile. So unless you've got a co-axially mounted spotting rifle with identical ballistics to your main projectile, your chances of landing direct hits on a target are basically nil. It might work if you plan on just firing HE/fragmentation rounds at enemy infantry, but at that point you could probably just use a ground-based mortar and use the plane to spot and correct.
Ayden Flores
I like the idea of an autogyro-based ground support force, but there are some drawbacks when compared to helicopters. One of the major drawbacks of an autogyro is their inability to take off truly vertically or to hover in place.
One solution to this problem is to use temporarily power the main rotor mechanically and use the rudder to deflect the wash from the pushing rotor to balance the torque.
Another, perhaps better system for temporary hover would be a tip jet system. These are not as fuel efficient as a direct mechanical connection, but if it's only being used for brief periods during take off, landing, and hovering, it shouldn't significantly impact the overall flight time of the aircraft.
Ryder Jackson
One alternative to using an air compressor is to use small engines or motors mounted on the rotor tips. While there have been a number of experimental helicopters that used some sort of jet engine, such as a pulse-jet or micro-turbine, these seem like overkill for intermittent use and may not start immediately, especially in adverse conditions.
Rocket motors can be made quite small while maintaining an excellent power to weight ratio. The one downside to rockets it their abysmal fuel efficiency. This would make them unsuitable for long duration flights, but if it's only being used in a temporary hover or during take off it shouldn't be a problem.
A more conventional powerplant will still be needed for the push rotor, and a second tank containing a liquid oxidizer would be needed for the tip rockets, but it could work and give an autogyro the abilities of a helicopter when needed without extra mechanical complexity.
Luis Cox
A non-propellant countermass can be used to reduce the amount of propellant wasted in the backblast. This setup would also work with a tube-based rocket launcher.
Your other points are spot on.
Cooper Peterson
Pure retarded speculation, but could a similar system be made with electrical differences and insulators rather than compressed air, à la electrostatic induction method?
Carter Cooper
The stuka aircraft itself didn't have cannon, a stuka with cannon duct taped to it had cannon.
Leo Lopez
AND CAN YOU STOP POSTING CIA FILENAME IMAGES
Andrew Harris
You are confusing the term "rocket" with the term "missile".
Gyros can take off vertically. The main rotor blades are pre-spun by a machine on the ground (or often an apu that can't be used in flight) and they have weighted tips to save the momentum of the spin. The pilot then just angles the blades and the entire vehicle lurches upward. This is known as the "jump" system. They can also land on a dot.
Hovering in place isn't really useful, it was mainly an idea in the Fulda Gap where Apaches were supposed to hide under the tree line safe from enemy eyes and weapons, then pop up to fire a few missiles, and pop down to hide again from counterfire. The germans invented a crane system that does the same thing for 1000x less cost, the crane raises a weapons platform above the treeline, takes a shot, then winches it down to safety.
It has no real use in regular combat.
Mason Clark
Stukas didn't have retractable landing gear, ergo stukas didn't actually have landing gear, they just had landing gear mounted to them. An AK doesn't have a magazine, it just has a magazine held in place by a clip. Cars don't have wheels, they just have wheels held in place by nuts.
No, not when mobile posting, that's just 'ow it 'as to be, innit?
Fast roping. Though for a Zig Forumsommando force fighting to save Rhodesia that's probably not a top priority. I think train Autist kraut should be responsible for logistics.
Modern air-to-air combat takes place at ranges so great the human eye cannot see the enemy. If an instrument guided missile can make a hit minutes before the combatants close to gun range then the man with the guided missile will win against the man with the gun.
Guns are really only useful in either a ground attack role or as a weapon of last resort when you've run out of guided missiles and guided bombs. Insisting on guns as a primary armament in modern combat birds is like giving front-line infantry pistols instead of rifles.
Landon Rogers
If cheap rockets are so hard to hit with then how have there been recorded incidents of air to air kills with Zunis in vietnam? Why are they still widely used every day in the ground attack and COIN role by all nations? Could it be that spin stabilized spring loaded folding fins deliver equal accuracy to precision crafted auto-cannon? Its almost like a projectile shaped exactly like an arrow can fly as straight as an arrow.
remove all internals (except avionics, navigation ,etc) down to the bones, use existing rear hatches for paratroops (after possibly rigging up a static line?) and that's about it. a big difference between a c-130 and any select passenger jet is that the c-130 is designed to move bulk stuff anywhere and carry all the things. and compared to a passenger jet it just has more overall torque and power. the wings are also much more general purpose, airliner wings are made for long hauls.
airliner would do best in its slated role (in military terms) of troop transport + their shit, as well as general supply transport (that may be limited depending on max take off weight.)
it would be better suited to an autocannon, if thats the weight of the armament, then you may aswell go with something that is a little more forgiving in the marksmanship department, use any extra payload to armor up, although I can't see it doing much good. give the pilot a flak jacket and a steel pot helmet, pre-install a tourniquet on both arms and legs and at varying points (if you care about the difference of a half or whole leg). also don't forget probability, most rounds coming at him (with the exception of mounted/dedicated AA) will be tyrone and friends taking pot shots at him, 90% of which are guaranteed to miss, of the few (if any) that score a hit, they will already be slowed down due to gravity + mechanics or whatever of the plane moving, unless it was a solid hit without a large difference in angle (between 60 and 90 degrees) it would likely deflect. This also brings up air doctrine, if he flies high then small arms fire effectiveness will be reduced greatly, but it also opens him up to dedicated AA and other aircraft/missiles (this also has the problem of it being a dedicated CAS aircraft, not a high altitude bomber/fighter) If he flys low then there will be a small window of fire against him, it will however be more likely to penetrate. overall assuming the enemy doesnt have everyone unload on him then he should be OK
Juan Hughes
hey thats nice what song is this?
Owen Perez
I can't believe I'm explaining basic logic, but there's a difference between saying "an apple has a worm" and "apples have worms".
You can rename it, so why don't you?
Obvious fuck.
It's bullshit, their CEP was comparable to aircraft fired cannon even in WWII, so much so they used the same sights.
The problem is that rockets are fired at ~1km on approach, of course at those ranges they aren't going to be headshot noscope. Even a good sniper rifle would stretch its performance at those ranges.
Skyknight pilots are just used to shooting at 50km not 1km, so they think rockets are inaccurate. It's like a rich person not knowing the value of money. I've never heard a US Marine pilot complain about rockets.
Blake Thompson
[citation needed]
Zachary Bailey
Purportedly a guy in an A-4 smacked a MiG 17 with one, incidentally it was the only Air to Air kill of a Skyhawk during the whole war.
Lincoln Myers
Couldn't A-4s hold sidewinders back then?
Jack Miller
I guess the pilot was blasting ground gooks when air gook showed up.
Ayden Morris
On fucking mobile? Not that I'm aware of, the final solution would be to only post from my pc, but that's not really doable unless I just stop posting 90% of the time (probably not a bad idea.) Not even close to the same analogy, if you fucking mount guns onto a plane that plane has guns, it doesn't matter if those guns are mounted on the inside of the frame or not, which is the only difference. Guns are not an intrinsic property of planes, all planes with guns have them added at some point, and are not necessary for the plane to retain it's "plane-ness". But yet if you fucking mount guns to the outside or mount them in a special panel in the wing, that specific plane now has the property of having guns, regardless of their location. It doesn't stop becoming a plane or become less of a plane for possessing guns. But a plane with gunpods, or internally mounted guns is still a fucking plane with guns. The stuka itself also didn't have paint, but you're not going to argue that stukas weren't painted because it the paint is not intrinsic to the plane. Now stop reddit-spacing all your posts, you colossal faggot.
It actually does today. External gun pods dramatically increase drag, tend to misalign by their own recoil, even at smaller calibers, and in the case of the F-35B they cancel stealth.
Jayden Perez
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and not assume you're a glow in the dark nigger. Those image names are designed to be tracked online, it's not a coincidence your phone forces them. The phone remembers where it was uploaded, sends the address with the image code to NSA servers. NSA then knows you're connected to this website. They don't log all traffic because it doesn't matter if someone accidentally presses a link and ends up on a "right wing" website, or if someone just browses it. But if you care enough to post it's enough to make the list Then five days later when someone here downloads it and posts it on facebook or some gun forum, google crawlers log the image name and send the same metadata to NSA. The NSA then knows there's at least 1 connection between here and whoever it was that posted it, and the website where it ended up. That's just basic social connections, they also track the spread of "memes" to figure out how to influence culture in general by controlling the "letters" a culture uses to form ideas.
