lionnoisy bad ideas,
they are pretty funny:
Crashing a 100K SGD FANTAIL UAV into targets:
Originally posted by
lionnoisy:
Fantail ‘……can be scaled to
accommodate alternative payloads and
missions. ‘’
Can we arm it(1) with missiles or (2) to reduce
the payload ,just attach explosives and Fantail just crash into the
targets.?
I think it will be quite accurate fro it to hit GPMG
site,APC,tanks etc
2.Ok lah.Just crash Extender to a enemy fighter.Few thousand $$
can save SG soldiers life.It worth every single dollar!!
And look at how he gets pwned:
Originally posted by
lionnoisy:
Is there any similiar UAV with the size so small?I dunt think
so!!
And the rebuttal:
Originally posted by
SingaporeTyrannosaur:
If you want to avoid the issue at the very least don't try
to post meaningless posts... it just shows that you lack
intellectual intergity, or basic comprehension skills.
The question is do you think it's a good idea for the SAF to
crash such things into people and equipment, something
that you have been pushing for since this whole sorry thread
started, a thread that no doubt exposed you lack of understanding
on most things even most basic book camp.
Is there any lionnoisy with the english skill that can finish
this book? I dunt think so!!
As to answer your question on if there's any other UAV with
the size so small:
All smaller then Fantail.... and made by many other
countries.
So please tooting our horn about Fantail, you are disgracing our
country with your lack of understanding of even our OWN
equipment.
Following that post, lionnoisy quietly slipped out of the thread
and left it entirely.
Unfortunately he learnt nothing from his experience only to
start another thread that was just as disasterous:
Australia are buying helicopter landing ships to launch F-18Es,
which anybody with some basic knowledge of military stuff will know
that is a very stupid idea.
Amazingly, despite his ability to dig up all the "dirt" about
Australia's military and comment as if he knows a lot about
military stuff, this blatant fact is somewhat missed out on
him:
Originally posted by
lionnoisy:
1.Why nobody tell us that Oz already ordered 2 LHD--mini
CV?
Forumers here too busy?
2.Why Oz dare not admit that procurement of Super
Hornet
is mainly for mini CV?
Despite everyone in the forum telling him that LHDs are not for
launching F-18s, he insisted and kept on trying, coming up with
crazier ideas:
Originally posted by
lionnoisy:
oh my God!!
Why no one can see in the first image that there is a
ski-jumping board?This is not for R & R for the sailors to
play skate boards lah.
Enlarged for you:
ski--jumping board NOT for the sailors to play lah.
see again:
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/jp2048/jp2048ph4A_4B.cfm
1.I must admit i have not get confirmation that the
ski--jumping board is for Super Hornet only.
But i can sure the board must be for CV aircraft.
Can JSF take off and land in this mini CV??
2.Then,can Super Hornets take off and land in this mini
CV?
The rebuttal:
Originally posted by
SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Everybody can see the ski ramp on board, but they are smart
enough to know it's not for Superbug use.
Man you really are that ignorant are you not?
You enlarge also no use, you simply do not understand
how things work at all.
Ski jump or not, there is no way for the Superbug, or most non
STOL combat planes for that matter, to reach their takeoff speed in
that short a distance on an LHD. The Ski jump is to enable a better
AOA when you clear the ship, but it had no effect on your takeoff
speed... if you are too slow you'll simply stall the moment you
leave the Ski jump and crash into the sea. Unfortunately the LHD
(or any ship for that matter) lacks the required length for the
Superbug (or any non STOL for that matter) to reach a viable speed
to take off, Ski jump or not.
What is required is a catapult, which of course this ship does
not have.
And of course landing is another issue without an angled deck,
it means that it cannot retrieve aircraft without having to do a
full deck turnover because to do an aborted landing would mean
having the plane smack straight into whatever's parked in the
way on the deck. So much for tactical flexibility.
All this of course, is no surprise because the LHD was
NEVER intended to launch non STOL aircraft.
LOL, lionnoisy's notion of launching Superbugs from LHDs is
prehaps akin to us launching recon bikes from within our
Bionixes... or having Abrams tanks airdropped from
C-130s 
Fixed wing aircraft that would operate from the LHD would
be STOL/VTOL examples such as the Harrier, or the JSF,
but NOT the Superbug.
What's next? lionnoisy is going to say the aussies are going to
retrofit their superbugs to be VTOL aircraft?
Seriously lionnoisy, if we had people like you giving
advice to our military, the SAF is totally doomed.
And a very funny reply about why lionnoisy just can't seem to
get it right:
show
Originally posted by
arball:
p.s. how old is lionnoissy?
Originally posted by
Gedaken:
Intellectually, about three and a half. In human years,
your guess is as good as mine.
The DUH factor here is astounding. Australia's waiting for
the JSF, and ski ramps a la HMS Invincible have long been
established for STOL aircraft. Noisy Pussy's fucked it up
once again - as if that's any surprise.
And finally with the weight of the forumers and evidence stacked
up against him, lionnoisy finally submits and runs away, never even
speaking about the topic again:
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
the third LHD for vertical
take-off jet.No news for 1st and 2 nd LHD.ok?
Ok
lionnoisy we get it, this is your way of saying that you are wrong,
as Gedaken puts it:
Originally posted
by Gedaken:
Not
OK. You admit to having no information linking Superbugs to ski
ramps but you carry on like a two-bob watch about this numbskulled
idea. Then you turn around and demand news about the first
two LHDs being for V/STOLs. I said it before, I'll say it again -
HYPOCRITE.
Do you see the USMC building a ski ramp and launching their Bugs
off the Tarawa?
Moron.
