Notices
Results 1 to 40 of 40
Like Tree6Likes
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By SpeedFreek
  • 1 Post By MacGyver1968
  • 1 Post By MacGyver1968
  • 2 Post By Dywyddyr

Thread: New danger from Iran!

  1. #1 New danger from Iran! 
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,765
    Iran has, with the unveiling of its new stealth fighter, shown that it is rapidly becoming a serious threat - to comedians the world over.
    Unleashing such a joke publicly will threaten the income of many long-established comedians as rational people switch to laughing at the F-313 fighter rather than the less technological jokes offered by the likes of Steve Martin, Bill Bailey etc.

    Should the US and the West take action and fund our comedians from the military budget?





    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Maybe they include stuff from reverse engineered downed CIA UAV.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Why are there two types of wings, one directly in front of the other? Wouldn't that create turbulance as the wind swept over the first set of wings so that the second set of wings would be getting dirty air and not work well at all?
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,765
    The forward "wing" (called a canard) is, essentially, the tailplane in a different position.
    It has advantages with regard to centre of gravity, allowing a greater tolerance of load position.
    It also has potential advantages in that it helps airflow over the wing root area.
    Additionally it helps with take-off characteristics: as Bill Gunston once pointed out, a normal aircraft takes off by pushing downwards (on the tail plane) while a canard aircraft takes off by lifting upwards on the nose.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Be careful Dywyddry, you wouldn't want to awaken the wrath of the Zohal...

    Iran builds world's first flying saucer: Looks like it belongs in 1950s B-movie | Mail Online
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,765
    Oh yeah...
    The reality turned out to be slightly different:


    Presumably the Farsi words for "saucer" and "nothing like a saucer" are the same.

    (Except even that turned out be a ripped-off photo of a Canadian UAV).
    stander-j likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Lmao. Really? All I remembered was a vague story about Iran and their bs claim of having a flying saucer. There being even more to that story is hilarious.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,765
    Yeah, I did a bit of investigating.
    The original story was later amplified, and that photo was declared to be the "real" one.
    But it turned out, like I said, that all they'd done was post a photo -freely available on the 'net - of a Canadian (designed and built) commercial (rescue-services duty) UAV.

    This why I don't take the "stealth fighter" story seriously. Well that and an (admittedly quick) analysis of the photos and videos available of the thing.

    The photo in the OP is, effectively, a mock-up of a mock-up of a concept - probably fibre-glass with no working systems whatsoever.
    The video of it supposedly in flight appears to be an RC model with the jet noise badly dubbed on.
    As shown that "aircarft" would have trouble flying, let alone being a viable combat aircraft, stealth or otherwise.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    @Dywyddyr

    I'm not picking up on the humor aspect of the F313. Could you explain why the plane is a joke?

    From what I see, it does seem more stealthy than fast. Iran didn't say it was fast. I hope the winglets aren't hard mounts. I myself wouldn't want to launch anything from a main wing hard mount with a canard in front of it.

    Canard: A canard also generates positive feedback into the pitch — the more it lifts the nose, the greater its angle of attack, and thus the greater its lift, over and over again. It's unstable. That's why you see them mostly on fly-by-wire aircraft because the computer can manage the pitch better than a pilot can. The traditional tail arrangement provides negative feedback to the pitch (ie, wanting to reduce the pitch) — the greater its angle of attack, the more its lift, the more it wants to return to level flight. So, if the pilot releases the stick, the plane levels out.

    f313-16.jpg

    EDIT: I just saw your latest posts.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,765
    One of the main aspects of the humour is the video that's available showing a "pilot" seating himself in the cockpit.
    Sizing the "aircraft" against the man makes it appear that the "mockup" is far too small - one estimate is that it's only 66% as large as it should be. The guy's head sticks up above the head rest on the ejector seat.
    There's no wiring behind the instrument panel, no cabling to the wheels (brakes), no room in the nose for any sort of radar system.
    As for speed Iran has claimed that it's similar in capability to the F/A-18.
    The intakes are extremely small, suggesting a low mass flow engine (maybe in the J85 class (we know they manufacture modified F-5s which use this engine and can manufacture the engine itself) but the exhaust (or rather the hole for the exhaust - plated over on the mock-up) is far too large for a J85. It's unlikely that Iran has developed a brand new engine at the same time.
    Likewise the intakes are badly placed for smooth inflow in any sort of manoeuvre, yet Iran has claimed that the F-313 is capable of engaging "enemy aircraft".
    Uh, no radar precludes a BVRAAM envelope and masking the intakes (and thereby starving the engine) sort of precludes close-range dogfights.

    Canards are a poor choice for a stealth aircraft (maybe they used Chinese designers!) and the wing (the outer down turned sections) seem at odds with reducing the signature.


    Edit: I've just come across a different photo of the rear end the exhaust does seem to be smaller than I'd orginally supposed (on thinking about it they've altered the fuselage-to-exhaust interface). A single J85 is going to give the aircraft serious problems with power. It's going to have astonishingly poor performance and a miserable warload.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; February 3rd, 2013 at 09:03 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    The forward "wing" (called a canard) is, essentially, the tailplane in a different position.
    It has advantages with regard to centre of gravity, allowing a greater tolerance of load position.
    It also has potential advantages in that it helps airflow over the wing root area.
    Additionally it helps with take-off characteristics: as Bill Gunston once pointed out, a normal aircraft takes off by pushing downwards (on the tail plane) while a canard aircraft takes off by lifting upwards on the nose.
    Yes, I am familiar with them. But this aircraft has them not mounted to the very front of the aircraft but right next to the wing itself making one wing disturb the other one behind it. Wouldn't that create a lift problem unlike the real way canards are designed in the very nose of the aircraft?
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,765
    No, "real canards" can be in a number of positions. Those close to the wing are termed close-coupled canards and are used mainly for improving airflow in high-alpha flight.
    Take another look how "close" they are on F-313 and then compare them those on Viggen or Rafale.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Fixed canards can be among the most stable. Look at Burth Rutan's list of amazingly stall resistant aircraft for example such as the Long-EZ.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    No, "real canards" can be in a number of positions. Those close to the wing are termed close-coupled canards and are used mainly for improving airflow in high-alpha flight.
    Take another look how "close" they are on F-313 and then compare them those on Viggen or Rafale.
    Oh, I see where I made my mistake. I thought they were positioned directly in front of the main wing but actually they are above it a little, thanks for the information to let me view those other aircraft to se the canards better than the Iranian one.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Iran Stealth Fighter Jet Criticised: Qaher F313 Dominant F313: Photos

    one Australian defence analyst said "looks like it might make a noise and vibrate if you put 20 cents in".



    .


    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    What did they make that canopy out of, shrink wrap?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,765
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    What did they make that canopy out of, shrink wrap?
    It's been suggested that the transparency is deliberately bad so that the pilot can't see that his country is a (theocratic) mess and won't be tempted to defect!
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Yeah...it's pretty funny. Here's what a pilot on the JREF forum had to say about the cockpit:



    Interesting decision to go with the budget Dynon D100 as the primary EFIS, atop the AvMap GPS - looks like an EKP IV, which is a curious choice since it only ships with North American map data; although to be fair it likely includes at least a worldwide basemap which should at least be able to tell the pilot whether he's over land or water. The two Dynon D10's are likely for engine data - one for each engine, of course. There's a small detail that the Dynon D-series displays are designed only for light piston GA engines like Rotaxes and Lycomings; but I'm confident that Iran has found a way to make them recognize turbojet engine sensor data.

    Personally I would've gone with a pair of Garmin G3X's for my EFIS/GPS combo, which are much more badass-looking; especially since it could interface with the rest of the jetfighter's avionics which are all Garmin - for instance the SL30 NAV/COM above the EFIS, the GTX 327 transponder below the GPS, and the GMA 340 audio panel over there on the left side beneath the D10. I don't know what a single-pilot aircraft with a single NAV/COM radio could possibly use an audio panel for; but I imagine that's why I don't design aircraft for the Iranian military - it's their job to prep the platform for ANY possible situation, including ones that nobody sane can anticipate.

    By the way, if anybody's looking to create their very own "new fighter jet" ( ), all the avionics mentioned here are available from your local or favorite internet-based GA plane-components provider, such as AircraftSpruce. I think that particular control stick head is also available from them too, but I didn't check.

    Nice shot of the inner surface of the fiberglass shell, too. You'd think they'd sling some more gunmetal gray on that to make it look more military-y, but perhaps they're budgeting.
    Thanks to advanced Iranian technology, it doesn't need a throttle or flap controls, or landing gear lowering switches.

    Here's another image:
    Last edited by MacGyver1968; February 12th, 2013 at 11:34 AM.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Maybe it is using Robotech technology found on alien space craft Macross?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,765
    The threat has increased!
    Iran now knows how to use Photoshop.
    Iran's 'fake' fighter jet spotted in the air (with a little help from Photoshop) | Mail Online
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    The F-313's operational manual has been leaked:

    It is operated as follows:
    1. Firmly grasp the Fake Iranian JetTM in one hand.
    2. Firmly grasp the Imaginary Israeli Animal SpyTM in the other hand.
    3. Run wildly around the room making "Vroom! Vroom! rat-a-tat-a-tat-a!" noises
    4. When you decide the Imaginary Israeli Animal SpyTM is fatally injured shout "Oy!" and drop the Imaginary Israeli Animal SpyTM to the ground
    5. Run around in a circle with the victorious Fake Iranian JetTM held aloft, humming the Iranian national anthem.
    6. Put away Fake Iranian JetTM and Imaginary Israeli Animal SpyTM before mom comes home.

    Caution: Fake Iranian JetTM and Imaginary Israeli Animal SpyTM are trademarks of the Marksman Anti-Zionist Toy CompanyTM. These toys may constitute a choking hazard and should not be used by children under the age of 3 or by Iranian Presidents under 5' 3". Also, Imaginary Israeli Animal SpyTM might be a Real Israeli Toy SpyTM. Do not let Imaginary Israeli Animal SpyTM out of your sights!
    dmwyant likes this.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    If you look at the image of the "plane" with the canopy closed, and look at the image with the pilot seated in the cockpit...I don't think you could actually close the cockpit without hitting the pilot's helmet.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Why does an Iranian plane have english "danger" signage?

    North Korean nukes make you nervous?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,765
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Why does an Iranian plane have english "danger" signage?
    It tends to be an international convention.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    I hope they put it into full production with the same amount of testing that they put into the creation of this... Then we can go shoot them down with a Cesna...
    Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

    I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
    -Jack London
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    dmwyant

    Why is it that you want to go and shoot down iranians?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    57
    Sigh... before you criticize or laugh on Irag and North Korea, i guess you need to do something about the good old debate about US UNETHICAL atomic bombing on Japan during the WW2. OR we do think we are the righteous in the world? Making the heretic, devil, blah blah the ones who oppose US and its allies, like what the Christians did to the witch's image (research if u dont know wats about with the witch).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,765
    Perhaps you missed A) the sub-forum title and B) the thread topic.
    This is a sub-forum discussing military technology, not politics.
    The ethics (or otherwise) of the American use of nuclear weapons is highly debateable (both pro and con) but is completely irrelevant to the actual subject of this thread.
    AND, FYI, were this laughable piece of "technology" presented by any other nation it would have come under just as much ridicule.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Xingha, showing that Iran is no real military threat is subversion. How can the Israelis justify pre-emptive strike when everybody knows Iran hasn't a chance?

    If only people had talked this way when secular Iraq was made out to be a global threat.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    57
    @Dywyddyr are we avoiding? well u may right that my post was off-topic but i would like to state that its not about politics - am talking ETHICS.

    @Pong i never said any about Iran being or not a military threat. I dont care about them. What i care is the laughing you doing here. You are making ridicule of something that you seem to be the righteous in this world. Go fuk kill urselves!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    57
    As far as i know, this forum section is for discussing military tech and not here for some laughter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,765
    Quote Originally Posted by xingha View Post
    @Dywyddyr are we avoiding? well u may right that my post was off-topic but i would like to state that its not about politics - am talking ETHICS.
    Again, this is a military tech sub-forum, not an ethics one. And even if it were, the ethics, or otherwise, of the US use of nuclear weapons ~60 years ago has nothing to do, AT ALL, with the subject of the thread.

    What i care is the laughing you doing here. You are making ridicule of something that you seem to be the righteous in this world.
    See below.

    As far as i know, this forum section is for discussing military tech and not here for some laughter.
    Except that, unfortunately, the military tech under discussion ( notice that? WE ARE discussing military tech) happens to be a complete (albeit unintended) joke.
    Maybe it's a fundamental naivety on the part of Iran's leadership or they severely underestimated the technical knowledge of observers outside of Iran.
    The simple fact is that Iran has presented, in public and to the entire world, a supposed military aircraft and made claims about its capabilities.
    If you'd bother to actually read the thread you'd see WHY it's a joke: the claims do not stand up and the "aircraft" is a farce.

    Like I stated earlier: were this laughable piece of "technology" presented by any other nation it would have come under just as much ridicule.

    Or, maybe, since you object to the "laughter" you have some actual input? Maybe you can explain why the apparent discrepancies exist between the claims and the "technology" presented?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    57
    Unintended laugh you say? Dont make me laugh. We all know what kind of relationship does US have with the middle-east, enough said. We aint baby.

    "US use of nuclear weapons ~60 years ago has nothing to do, AT ALL," - i am pertaining the idea that middle-eastern are nothing but terrorist from the allied eyes and therefore the bad guys. Lets not talk like we aren't horrible as well. ALSO, are we evading? Or you like to sugarcoat AGAIN something that is impossible to make sounds right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by xingha View Post
    Unintended laugh you say? Dont make me laugh. We all know what kind of relationship does US have with the middle-east, enough said. We aint baby.
    And Dywyddyr is not an American apologist. If you check his profile you will see he is from Scunthorpe. (Now that is a joke!) Being anti-Iranian government does not automatically make you pro-American government. Being anti-Iranian government does not make you anti-Iranian people - when I visited Iran I met some fine people and have had the pleasure of working with a number of Iranians over the years, yet I still think the plane is a joke.

    And on a lighter note, so this plane with canards is a plain canard.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Hilarious. That thing looks like a movie prop.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,765
    Quote Originally Posted by xingha View Post
    "US use of nuclear weapons ~60 years ago has nothing to do, AT ALL," - i am pertaining the idea that middle-eastern are nothing but terrorist from the allied eyes and therefore the bad guys. Lets not talk like we aren't horrible as well. ALSO, are we evading? Or you like to sugarcoat AGAIN something that is impossible to make sounds right.
    If you want to discuss that subject start a thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Being anti-Iranian government does not automatically make you pro-American government. Being anti-Iranian government does not make you anti-Iranian people
    I'd also like to point out that making a technical analysis of a supposed new aircraft and concluding that it's a joke doesn't make me anti-Iranian government either!
    My politics are nothing whatsoever to do the claimed abilities (or otherwise) of a piece of technology.
    Unless... not being a fan of Apple Macs means I'm anti-US, not being a fan of the Blackburn Botha makes me anti-British etc etc.
    OMG! I hate everyone!
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    57
    If you are the enemy of Iran, then its really a DANGER. Lets put Country A invented a battle spaceship (like one you see in sci-fi) that has a combat capability exceeding vastly than what we have now. Also, we say that Country A is an enemy of Iran, while Country A isn't an enemy (just neutral) for Country B. Therefore, Iran can also say "NEW DANGER from Country A". BUT for Country B, it rather be conceived that the new creation isn't a danger rather an invention (whether its a failure or watever, dont care).

    Saying its "NEW DANGER" pertains to something.

    UK is in the Allied Power. US is also in the Allied Power. I'll leave you what certain connection you can get from that fact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    57
    This is an off-topic but i would like to drop it. Im from Philippines (a half-chinese and half-pinoy). The country is tied to US like South Korea and Japan. I'm more on being a Chinese. I don't like what China been doing on the disputed isle(s) near the Philippines. China don't like to bring in the UN summit. If i am to point out the determining factor of the disputed isle(s)' acquisition, it should be better based on: (a) where it is nearest; and (b) to which tectonic plate it belongs. If we use A, then its nearest to the Philippines. I dont know yet to which plate does the isles belonged to. I just dont like China using force just to obtain something (it sounding like US style). I certainly dont know the exact impact of Nov. 19 2011 hostage drama here in Ph over China's view over Ph. China hasn't been this cold over Ph this past years. Just only after that Nov. 2011.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,765
    A new photo has been released - this one is more believable:
    RedPanda and Neverfly like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    actually, dywyddyr, i think xingha is correct; you are off topic. this is the military technology forum, and you provided nothing of the sort.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. the danger of reductionism
    By xxx200 in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: August 11th, 2012, 06:53 PM
  2. Why are corporations a present danger?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 18th, 2009, 08:55 AM
  3. Iran
    By B1AZE in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 7th, 2009, 01:32 AM
  4. Danger! High resistance!
    By Cold Fusion in forum Electrical and Electronics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 15th, 2008, 09:29 PM
  5. Replies: 34
    Last Post: July 16th, 2008, 08:03 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •