• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Military equipment and their design

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can't believe someone posted a F-35 as something that looks good... yuck, it's a slow, fat and stubby aircraft.

For me, I've always had a love/hate relationship with the design of the F-35. I mean on one hand it looks like something that literally flew out of the future.

f-35-taxiing-12.jpg


the-design-of-the-f-35-was-based-partially-on-lockheed-martins-f-22-a-fifth-generation-stealth-supersonic-supermaneuverable-fighter-aircraft-the-f-35-has-more-advanced-stealth-as-well-as-a-broader-range-of-capabilities.jpg


us_f-35a__main.jpg


Yet you take a different angle and it looks a bit like an abomination

F-35_AAR.png
 
For me, I've always had a love/hate relationship with the design of the F-35. I mean on one hand it looks like something that literally flew out of the future.

the wings looks stubby because its got a big 'waist'. its girth makes everything behind the cockpit look a little fat. the f-22 has the perfect lean-and-mean proportions but its actually quite large overall.
 
the wings looks stubby because its got a big 'waist'. its girth makes everything behind the cockpit look a little fat. the f-22 has the perfect lean-and-mean proportions but its actually quite large overall.
Another thing people have to keep in mind is that the F-35 has to store fuel, munitions, and avionics internally.

Another big reason it looks so fat is because the internal weapon bays are much deeper than the F-22, a necessary design decision for a strike fighter.

But in all actuality, the F-35's wings are quite stubby. The plane does make up for this by having roughly 45% of its lift provided by the body. It was a necessary trade off in the end to fit it on a carrier.

Yet regardless of ones opinion on the F-35, we can all agree it looks better than the X-32
 
The Lockheed's design won after rounds of testing, but you have to wonder if the aesthetics for the next generation fighter plane for the US was secretly (perhaps unconsciously) a factor in the deciding committee's mind.
The fact that it ingested its own exhaust when landing was a factor too
 
The military buys the cheapest weapons that function reliably. That's it. It really irritates me when somebody brings up the phrase "military-grade weapons" when trying to defend "assault weapons" laws when there are a lot of firearms on the market that are better than military-grade and nobody makes a fuss about it, and a ton of "assault weapons" that are worse than military-grade. </rant>
 
Haha, modern military equipment.

Sure.

Compared to the designs of yesteryear the modern day has nothing.

I present to you the French Cavalry of 1914, that's the first world war....

cufrmarne14.jpg


How about the Gordon Highlanders

Wollen,_Battle_of_Quatre_Bras.jpg


Armenian Cataphract anyone?

302075_10151578589723856_894731487_n.jpg


Or even your bog standard Roman infantry:

75538.jpg


Pieces of hardware in the modern day can do cool stuff....but for threat and looks they will never match the armies of the world pre-WW1
 
SR-71 had early radar absorbing paint that supposedly only came in black. The B-2 operates mostly at night, but regardless I don't think the sun's a big problem at altitude you're flying through super cold air (and not fast enough to make friction a problem). Engine heat is a much bigger issue.


The SR-71 and A-12 were painted black so they could use a lower grade titanium. The black paint radiated enough heat it allowed them to get away with using Ti that had lower heat tolerances than they would normally need.
 
air power evolving so much faster then ground vehicles like tanks n stuff.
Tanks and such are becoming outdated so thats why the don't evolve much anymore.
Once it was the king of the battlefield but now you have an abundance of anti-tank launchers, helicopters(Apache) specifically designed to take out wave after wave of mass tank groups, and to top helicopters off planes like the A-10.
Heck a UAV these days can take out a tank.
 
"Highway to the Danger Zone" has been playing in my head since opening this thread. If I could restart on life I'd join the Air Force in a heart beat.

RIP in peace A-10 Warthog, most badass plane there ever was:


Also shoutout to the Eurofighter Typhoon which I've always thought was cool looking.

 
Haha, modern military equipment.

Sure.

Compared to the designs of yesteryear the modern day has nothing.

I present to you the French Cavalry of 1914, that's the first world war....

cufrmarne14.jpg

?

The German machine gunners were everything other than afraid when the French Cavalry of 1914 showed up. Probably a lot of high fives before the shooting gallery commenced. Likely the cavalry was disbanded 1 day after this photo was taken.
 
Haha, modern military equipment.

Sure.

Compared to the designs of yesteryear the modern day has nothing.

I present to you the French Cavalry of 1914, that's the first world war....

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/4641/cufrmarne14.jpg

How about the Gordon Highlanders

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Wollen,_Battle_of_Quatre_Bras.jpg

Armenian Cataphract anyone?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/302075_10151578589723856_894731487_n.jpg

Or even your bog standard Roman infantry:

http://www.propstore.com/product-images/65/75538.jpg

Pieces of hardware in the modern day can do cool stuff....but for threat and looks they will never match the armies of the world pre-WW1

My favorite historical uniform
US_Army_Cavalry_Sergeant_1866_%28Bis%29.jpg

1860's cavalry saber my favorite historical weapon as well.
 
The SR-71 and A-12 were painted black so they could use a lower grade titanium. The black paint radiated enough heat it allowed them to get away with using Ti that had lower heat tolerances than they would normally need.
Hm, looked it up again and it might be both. The paint is definitely Iron Ball signature reduction but I'm not sure if that affects the color: http://www.aero.com/museums/us_space_and_rocket/wmuusr04.htm

Does anyone know why the F-14 had that thin red stripe painted around the fuselage toward the rear of the plane? I believe I've seen it on other military planes as well.

I believe that's where the first stage fan of the engine is. That's where the blades will fly out and murder you if you're standing near it and the fan fails.
 
If we are going real old school, I have always found the uniforms of the Caroleans to be awesome.
karoliner%202.bmp-for-web.jpg

One of the first uniforms of the early modern history.
 
I think "tactical" and modular is an aesthetic trend popular now because of movie, videogames, and media portrayal. In the 70's one might ask "why are earth tones so good looking" or "why does long hair look so good on men." Additionally, you are supplying a whole load of values to military wear, it's impossible to remove the idea that these are items of destruction, meant to kill, and used by badasses.

kruger.jpg


0a-4.jpg


People like that complicated look with gadgets and gizmos and straps and junk hanging off. Unlike 80's action stars we want some sort of over equipped ninja.


Not enough gear.



You are asking the question the wrong way around. Ask, why do (this era's) military designs appeal to me. They designed the tank first, then over time you and I associated it with being cool.


Mac I noticed your 1/6 Figure there.DO you collect as well (: ?
 
This weekend was the airshow in my hometown. Was watching it from my brothers backyards.

Watched a F-22 do a fly by and a ton of ww2 fighters and bombers flying around

Crazy seeing a b-17 do a fly by. They are huge

boeing_b_17_flying_fortress_2.jpg
 
William Gibson has an opinion on the matter; in a nutshell, designer's men's clothing is designed to look like military uniforms because deep inside we all want to look tough/cool like soldiers.

http://io9.com/5632053/in-zero-history-william-gibson-gets-inside-the-military-fashion-pr-complex
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2010-10/11/gq-books-william-gibsons-dress-codes
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-10/13/william-gibson-interview

Volunteer armies, the French girl had said, the one who&#8217;d worn the plaid kilt at yesterday&#8217;s meeting, in an earlier PowerPoint presentation that Milgrim had found quite interesting, required volunteers, the bulk of them young men. Who might otherwise be, for instance, skateboarding, or at least wearing clothing suggestive of skateboarding. And male streetwear generally, over the past fifty years or so, she said, had been more heavily influenced by the design of military clothing than by anything else. The bulk of the underlying design code of the twenty-first-century male street was the code of the previous midcentury&#8217;s military wear, most of it American. The rest of it was work wear, most of that American as well, whose manufacture had coevolved with the manufacture of military clothing, sharing elements of the same design code, and team sportswear.

But now, according to the French girl, that had reversed itself. The military needed clothing that would appeal to those it needed to recruit. Every American service branch, she said, illustrating each with a PowerPoint slide, had its own distinctive pattern of camouflage. The Marine Corps, she said, had made quite a point of patenting theirs (up close, Milgrim had found it too jazzy).
 
I really think this just needs to be turned into the Military Porn OT Thread. Let's be honest, we're basically there anyways.
 
F-117, B2 are my consistent favorites.

but F-14... god damn! those things are cool with the retractable wings


f-14-tomcat.jpg


military_background_002.jpg
This is the reason right here that made Top Gun my favourite film as a kid. Could never decide if it was sexier with wings swept or not but it could be varied to anything in between.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom