Discussion in 'Boston, MA' started by TIEace, Jul 24, 2002.
I don't see why people can't just cut and paste. Thanks Tony.
Give me a good ole Imp Star Deuce!
This is your Fathers Battleship. An elegant weapon for a more civilized age.
Actually, Battleships are quite elegant.
I'm not sure if thats the word I would use...
They have an elegance and beauty to them. It's in their clean lines and angles.
they seem more cold and sterile to me...
how sweet it would be!!
OMG! Thanks so much, Roy! Thats awesome!
Not a problem Dave!!
I thought they were awesome pics to that why I posted em',they seemed to go with the thread to!!
Hey Roy, what program did you use to do that?
I didnt do it,I found those pics in another forum I visit.But I'd have to say that it looks like a Photoshop project.
I think an F-14 could take a TIE fighter. Although TIEs would be able to go about Mach5(just an estimate), the 14 could destroy a it with it's AIM-54s(they have a range of over 100 miles.)
Well considering TIE's have no shields you may be right.
Thats what I was thinking.
Yeah, a modern fighter would probably be able to take a TIE pretty well. Especially as they're not their best in atmospheres.
They would be more manuverable and faster even in atmosphere, but I chose the F-14 because it carries the longest ranged air-air missle on the planet.
"The ability to destroy a target 100 miles away is insignificant next to the power of the Force!"
Well its a good thing most TIE pilots aren't Jedi. And even if they were, they'd be dead before they new it
A TIE would be far slower in an atmosphere. For one, it's got terrible aerodynamics and would have to rely entirely on it's repulsors for lift and motion(ion drives don't work well in atmospheres, and the TIE has no aerofoils to generate lift).
TIEs are probably the best designed space-only fighter ever. No useless wings or aerodynamics. But it'd fare terribly in atmospheric combat.
Not to mention that the pilot has no periphrial vision with both the wing panels blocking LOS AND only a small viewport to see out of. However, when they crash I bet they ROLL real nice.
lol. I guess thats a plus.
What we nned is TIE-Bombers to fly over head of Afganacrap and bomb the poodoo out of em'!!
civilians get hurt in those bombings. I'm not saying it's not necessary to take action but I think bombing the country just creates more animosity, which leads to more enemies. If we're going to do bombing runs we need better intel and better precision. it isn't something to really joke about.
edit: I don't mean to come off as self-righteous and stuff.
Roy was just joking but your right.
But now that you mention it...
the United States miltary does not carpet bomb countries. All bombs that fall off an aircraft are headed for a target that is known to be hostile. We have the most advanced guidance technology in the world and it only gets better by the day while the rest of the world stays where it is.
Yes, sometimes there are accidents and sometimes civilians are roaming around an area that is designated to be hit, but we are in a war(well, the air-strike part of the war is over). IN WWII, bombers would be lucky to hit the right city in a night raid. Now, we can throw a bomb through a window or down a chimney. Things are getting better all the time.
If you want me to say more, please tell me, I love talking about the US military and other militarys.