www.ditl.org

Captain Seafort wrote:As for the class, as I said above, I first identify the type (in this case "supercarrier"), then look to the first clearly recognisable example of that type. In this case it's the Forrestal, regardless of the improvements that have been made in subsequent models.

That's fine, but you can't expect the people with whom you're debating to be mediums. You said "Forrestal-class." If you meant the supercarrier in general, you maybe should have used an obscure term like "supercarrier."

Deepcrush wrote:Exactly, it wasn't the first Assault Rifle to show it could be done but the most successful one. It wasn't the first Super Carrier but the first mass produced one that extended the abilities of the Carrier's mission to its maximum.

Excellent analogy. Like the Forrestal, the Sturmgewehr didn't change the world - it certainly changed the direction of rifles, but that's not what this list entails.

Mikey wrote:That's fine, but you can't expect the people with whom you're debating to be mediums. You said "Forrestal-class." If you meant the supercarrier in general, you maybe should have used an obscure term like "supercarrier."

Its also a twisted problem as Seafort has been informed several times by several people as to the nature of the list. He simply refused to accept it as such.

Mikey wrote:Excellent analogy.

Thank you.

I would like to add to the list: F-14. Some could argue that it's the first of the complicated, expensive 'superfighters'. Or you could just argue about the cool factor. Top Gun being a F-14-wank film.

McAvoy wrote:I would like to add to the list: F-14. Some could argue that it's the first of the complicated, expensive 'superfighters'. Or you could just argue about the cool factor. Top Gun being a F-14-wank film.

Yes, that would be a wank answer. The F-14 was a great but fairly limited plane as it was designed. It did one thing very well, or would have, and that is knock down long range Soviet bombers at very long range. Really it was one of the last true interceptors designed by the west. But I don't think it would have any place on this list.

Just thought I would add to the discussion. I don't think it would be on the Top 10, perhaps Top 20 or 30.

The fact that it was a pure interceptor is true, but it did other roles rather well. Some would say it did it better than the Super Hornet that replaced it. The Tomcat was just too expensive and the existing airframes too old to continue.

McAvoy wrote:Just thought I would add to the discussion. I don't think it would be on the Top 10, perhaps Top 20 or 30.

The fact that it was a pure interceptor is true, but it did other roles rather well. Some would say it did it better than the Super Hornet that replaced it. The Tomcat was just too expensive and the existing airframes too old to continue.

Possibly better than the original Super Hornet. Not better than the newest versions of that aircraft. It could possibly have been updated again from the D-model but it was just an old airframe. The main reason to have the things, the AIM-54, was quickly becoming obsolete and dangerous to use anyway due to the age of the weapons. For dropping bombs and shooting at other fighters the SH does as well if not better than the F-14 could do.

As nukes didn't change the world after WW2 then it's fairly obvious they wouldn't be included.

The biggest one to me seems fairly obvious: the AK-47. If the Nimitz were the first aircraft carrier, then it may have changed the world. The AK-47 black market and the massive consequences of such a cheap, reliable, and easily available gun have indirectly initiated so many wars. They have changed the world. The Nimitz? Yeah, it made silicon valley a bit richer, it made the oceans rise by a nanometre, it may even launch some planes to bomb a country every now and again. The tomahawk? Yeah, it's powerful, accurate, reliable, and long range. Did it really change the world?

The only one on the lists here that I see as coming close to the AK is the F 117 stealth. All the rest are just bigger, more powerful and generally better versions of previous models, but have they influenced society? Changed national and international politics? Hmm...

No doubt to inlcude a weapon that even appears on a national flag. But the F117? Great idea, but what did it ever do that shook the world? The list is "weapons that changed the world," not "ideas that really impress us nerds."

BigJKU316 wrote:

McAvoy wrote:Just thought I would add to the discussion. I don't think it would be on the Top 10, perhaps Top 20 or 30.

The fact that it was a pure interceptor is true, but it did other roles rather well. Some would say it did it better than the Super Hornet that replaced it. The Tomcat was just too expensive and the existing airframes too old to continue.

Possibly better than the original Super Hornet. Not better than the newest versions of that aircraft. It could possibly have been updated again from the D-model but it was just an old airframe. The main reason to have the things, the AIM-54, was quickly becoming obsolete and dangerous to use anyway due to the age of the weapons. For dropping bombs and shooting at other fighters the SH does as well if not better than the F-14 could do.

How the F-14 drops its bombs vs. how a Super Hornet does is different. Tomcat comes in low at high speeds to drop it's bomb. A Super Hornet comes in at a more steeper angle to do it. In other words, if it's a cloudy day, a Super Hornet cannot drop it's bomb, but a Tomcat can. Simple reason why a Super Hornet cannot do it the way a Tomcat can is pure speed. You need time to get away from the explosion.

Here is the problem. A Super Hornet is new. A Tomcat is not, the newest Tomcat was 15 years old by the time of their retirement. Not alot of money was spent on the Tomcat afterwards in comparison to the Hornet and Super Hornet. In addition, the Super Hornet when originally introduced was not more advanced than the latest Hornet. It took years and money to develop a Super Hornet into what we got today.

In other words, if they wanted to, the Tomcat could have been upgraded to the same standards of the Super Hornet with less money. The fact that the SH can carry more weapons is pure PR. Nor Hornet or SH would be caught without a drop tank or two with it. It still had a shorter range than a Tomcat with equal amount of fuel.

The turning radius is actually larger than the Tomcat at certain speeds, in dogfighting speed. Tomcat with it's wings fully swept back had a harder time turning than a SH at similar speed. Wings fully swept forward it was a different story.

The bullshit that the SH is easier to maintain is laughable. Why? I personally worked on both. SH may be easier to replace parts, but it broke more often. Where as a Tomcat would break less often than a SH but it would take forever to replace a part. It was estimated that a 30 year old Tomcat took 80 manhours for every 1 flight hour. By the time I went on cruise with the SH which were only 2 years old, some of the planes were averaging 50 manhours to 1 flighthour. There is always a bulldog in each squadron and that was 105 in VFA-143 and 202 in VFA-213. Both were averaging less than 5 manhours to 1 flight hour.

So in other words, a plane far newer and credited to be easy to fix is nearing that to a plane 30 years old.

Mikey wrote:No doubt to inlcude a weapon that even appears on a national flag. But the F117? Great idea, but what did it ever do that shook the world? The list is "weapons that changed the world," not "ideas that really impress us nerds."

Well, I would say that to just include the AK is not really my point - to me at least, it is the only weapon that changed the world since WW2. It is on a par with the nuclear bomb, motorised transportation/weaponary (tanks), and gun powder weapons.

With regards to the F117, I meant only that it comes closer than anything else to having changed the world since WW2 with what it offered - stealth technology. Undoubtedly changing radar systems, war scenarios and a couple of other stuff. Nothing major (on the global scale), but something. Everything else is merely improved.

To think outside the box a little, in this technological age it seems like a weapon that could change the world would be a computer virus (chinese, no doubt!) aimed at destroying the virtual infrastructure of major countries.

As far as the F-117 is concerned. It was the first completely stealth plane. But did it really change the world? Maybe on how we view wars in the media. Really all the famous combat footage from the first Gulf War could have been any plane. F-117 just had the coolness factor. Same thing with the recommissioned battleships. They really didn't do anything except fire a few missiles and guns, but they had the coolness factor for the news.

If anything the B-2 changed the world more than the F-117, IMO.

I agree that the F117 did not change the world. I am saying that it introduced stealth technology which, while even now still only feasible by world powers, is considered a class of its own and undoubtedly changed attitudes on warfare among those same powers. And I do not care about this apparant coolness factor. Indeed, even had all the footage of the first Gulf War shown the F-117 doing all the work, that would not be even close, in my opinion, to 'changing the world'.

Only now many nations are starting to use stealth technology in form or another even though it's not exactly a hard thing. The radar absorbant material has been around since the 1960's. The SR-71 had a form of it.

F-117 is a technological deadend anyway.

McAvoy wrote: even though it's not exactly a hard thing.

Which universities did you get your PhDs in material science, sensor systems, and Radar and Lidar operations from?

Where did you get the idea that only the AK47 changed the modern world???