Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Lamborghini Reventon vs Tornado Jet Fighter
Dieselstation
post Nov 26 2007, 09:03 AM
Post #1


Race Driver
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4,080
Joined: 31-October 05
Member No.: 2,036



QUOTE
Lamborghini Reventon, one of the world's most exotic spots car, was raced against the Tornado Jet Fighter [A200-A] in Brescia, Italy on a 3 kilometer long runway.

While the Lamborghini Reventon took the lead in the first leg of the race, from zero to around 250km/h, the Tornado managed to catch up in the last few feet, "taking off and flying over the Reventon that was going at a speed of over 340 km/h" says Lamborghini. The race finished in under a minute, and for majority of the runway, Lamborghini Reventon was leading.

Lamborghini says the Ghedi military base was chosen as the venue at which to present the Lamborghini super car to international TV networks as it was an "ideal environment in which to emphasise the Reventons aeronautic styling".


Spyker F1 and the Bugatti Veyron had a take on a jet-fighter and now its about Lamborghinis new Reventon challenging the Jet.

The pics and description leave you wanting to see it in action. I couldn't find a video for the race yet.

Lamborghini Reventon vs Tornado jet Fighter
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
goota
post Nov 26 2007, 10:56 AM
Post #2


Race Driver
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4,631
Joined: 6-March 05
From: So Cal
Member No.: 1,528
Car: 1991 Toyota 4Runner (22RE, 4WD)



It would have been more suiting to have an F22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
midnightdorifto
post Nov 26 2007, 11:26 AM
Post #3


Race Driver
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,510
Joined: 10-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 1,037



QUOTE(goota @ Nov 26 2007, 10:56 AM) *
It would have been more suiting to have an F22

As a company representative, I'll be the first to say "Ain't gonna happen, not any time soon."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
911xx
post Nov 26 2007, 11:48 AM
Post #4


Banana
***

Group: Members
Posts: 534
Joined: 14-November 07
From: Montreal
Member No.: 4,139
Car: '12 STI (blue)



Add wings to the Reventon and it would fly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mitlov
post Nov 26 2007, 12:10 PM
Post #5


Halfabusa lover
*****

Group: Banned
Posts: 5,339
Joined: 4-March 05
From: Ashland, OR
Member No.: 1,525



QUOTE(911xx @ Nov 26 2007, 11:48 AM) *
Add wings to the Reventon and it would fly.


...because spinning tires do a really good job of powering flying objects wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
911xx
post Nov 26 2007, 12:15 PM
Post #6


Banana
***

Group: Members
Posts: 534
Joined: 14-November 07
From: Montreal
Member No.: 4,139
Car: '12 STI (blue)



It would glide then! X.gif Add a propeller or two if you want it to fly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
McKhaos
post Nov 26 2007, 12:27 PM
Post #7


The Devil's Cabbana Boy
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 5,283
Joined: 11-June 04
From: The People's Democratic Republic of McKhaosylvania
Member No.: 831
Car: Outlander knock-off



QUOTE(midnightdorifto @ Nov 26 2007, 09:26 PM) *
As a company representative, I'll be the first to say "Ain't gonna happen, not any time soon."


Too scared the plane will lose ? Raspberry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
goota
post Nov 26 2007, 03:07 PM
Post #8


Race Driver
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4,631
Joined: 6-March 05
From: So Cal
Member No.: 1,528
Car: 1991 Toyota 4Runner (22RE, 4WD)



no, lockheed just always has a stick up their butt. tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dukenukem
post Nov 26 2007, 03:11 PM
Post #9


**Snuggles**
******

Group: Moderators
Posts: 14,251
Joined: 13-November 03
From: Dallas, TX
Member No.: 166
Car: 2006 Subaru WRX STI



The plane was designed to win our war of terror .. not to race some fancy schmancy car tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ozi
post Nov 26 2007, 04:02 PM
Post #10


Grease Monkey
**

Group: Members
Posts: 491
Joined: 2-September 06
Member No.: 2,767
Car: 2002 VW GTI 1.8T



We really need to see a video of this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mitlov
post Nov 26 2007, 05:19 PM
Post #11


Halfabusa lover
*****

Group: Banned
Posts: 5,339
Joined: 4-March 05
From: Ashland, OR
Member No.: 1,525



QUOTE(dukenukem @ Nov 26 2007, 03:11 PM) *
The plane was designed to win our war of terror .. not to race some fancy schmancy car tongue.gif


Typo or tongue in cheek? Just curious.

Anyway, the F-22 Raptor should help us wrest control of the skies back from the elite fighter squadrons of al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Insurgency, whose high-tech stealth aircraft are superior to the boatloads of F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s we already had in our arsenal. I, for one, am glad that we didn't squander that R&D money on, say, a Humvee replacement that can survive an impact from a $50 Soviet-surplus RPG.

To get back on-track (somewhat), Reventon > F-22. Why? Both are totally badass, but the Reventon wasn't developed with taxpayer money that otherwise might have been spent on little details like schools and health care.

[/rant]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Razor
post Nov 26 2007, 06:47 PM
Post #12


IT SLIDES!
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,345
Joined: 5-February 07
From: Maine
Member No.: 3,670
Car: Volkswagen R32 Mk V



QUOTE(Mitlov @ Nov 26 2007, 08:19 PM) *
Anyway, the F-22 Raptor should help us wrest control of the skies back from the elite fighter squadrons of al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Insurgency, whose high-tech stealth aircraft are superior to the boatloads of F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s we already had in our arsenal. I, for one, am glad that we didn't squander that R&D money on, say, a Humvee replacement that can survive an impact from a $50 Soviet-surplus RPG.

To get back on-track (somewhat), Reventon > F-22. Why? Both are totally badass, but the Reventon wasn't developed with taxpayer money that otherwise might have been spent on little details like schools and health care.
[/rant]


QFT. Especially the Humvee line.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dukenukem
post Nov 26 2007, 11:42 PM
Post #13


**Snuggles**
******

Group: Moderators
Posts: 14,251
Joined: 13-November 03
From: Dallas, TX
Member No.: 166
Car: 2006 Subaru WRX STI



QUOTE(Mitlov @ Nov 26 2007, 07:19 PM) *
Typo or tongue in cheek? Just curious.



[/rant]

Blatant ripoff of Borat. ohdear.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
White RSX
post Nov 27 2007, 08:31 AM
Post #14


Super Great Guitar Player!
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 9,006
Joined: 20-October 03
From: Moon, PA
Member No.: 132



QUOTE(Mitlov @ Nov 26 2007, 05:19 PM) *
To get back on-track (somewhat), Reventon > F-22. Why? Both are totally badass, but the Reventon wasn't developed with taxpayer money that otherwise might have been spent on little details like schools and health care.

Both of these should be done by the state, if you ask me. Besides, development finished in 1991 when it was declared the winner over the YF-23.

I just think this argument is painfully flawed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mitlov
post Nov 27 2007, 08:53 AM
Post #15


Halfabusa lover
*****

Group: Banned
Posts: 5,339
Joined: 4-March 05
From: Ashland, OR
Member No.: 1,525



QUOTE(dukenukem @ Nov 26 2007, 11:42 PM) *
Blatant ripoff of Borat. ohdear.gif


That's right. I blocked that movie out of my memory. Ick.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mitlov
post Nov 27 2007, 08:55 AM
Post #16


Halfabusa lover
*****

Group: Banned
Posts: 5,339
Joined: 4-March 05
From: Ashland, OR
Member No.: 1,525



QUOTE(White RSX @ Nov 27 2007, 08:31 AM) *
Both of these should be done by the state, if you ask me. Besides, development finished in 1991 when it was declared the winner over the YF-23.

I just think this argument is painfully flawed.


Of course military R&D should be done by the state, but I didn't see any need at all for a new jet fighter, in 1991 or in 2007. I'm not against having an Air Force. I am against continuing to develop new and better fighters when we're not fighting air-to-air battles with anyone now, or in the near future, and we already have the best fighters on the planet. Fixing something that isn't broken is a terrible way to allocate limited resources.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
midnightdorifto
post Nov 27 2007, 01:59 PM
Post #17


Race Driver
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,510
Joined: 10-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 1,037



QUOTE(McKhaos @ Nov 26 2007, 12:27 PM) *
Too scared the plane will lose ? Raspberry.gif

It will supercruise at Mach 1.72 without the afterburner. Pastaburners do not concern me.
QUOTE(goota @ Nov 26 2007, 03:07 PM) *
no, the U.S. government just always has a stick up their butt. tongue.gif

Fixed, they're our customer, you'd have to talk to them about a race and it'd take a bit of talking to for them to let our premiere fighter out in the open.
QUOTE(Mitlov @ Nov 26 2007, 05:19 PM) *
Typo or tongue in cheek? Just curious.

Anyway, the F-22 Raptor should help us wrest control of the skies back from the elite fighter squadrons of al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Insurgency, whose high-tech stealth aircraft are superior to the boatloads of F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s we already had in our arsenal. I, for one, am glad that we didn't squander that R&D money on, say, a Humvee replacement that can survive an impact from a $50 Soviet-surplus RPG.

To get back on-track (somewhat), Reventon > F-22. Why? Both are totally badass, but the Reventon wasn't developed with taxpayer money that otherwise might have been spent on little details like schools and health care.

[/rant]

Allow me to educate you on why this plane is necessary:

1) It's new. Now that may not sound like a big deal for someone not familiar with the current state of the USAF, but everyday in our morning brief we get an update as to the state of our industry and our customers. The F-14 has been decomissioned early in 2007, the F-15 was grounded after an airframe literally fell apart mid-flight three weeks ago (the -D, -E, and -K models are back up in the air, but the -A, -B, and -C are still undergoing inspection to see if they're stilll flightworthy.) The F/A-18 Hornet is a good aircraft, but we really need the Superhornet's avionics to stay up to date with other military electronics. And finally, the F-16 is 32 years old - and about to reach the age of retirement. Mitlov, every morning I get to work to find Michael Wynne (secretary of the AF) screaming for new airplanes. This is our contribution - they need planes.

2) It's stealth. 5th generation aircraft (for now, the F/A-22 and F-35 are the only ones in this category) are all stealth with other capabilities that allow them to be at the top of their game world-wide (supercruise, and some other stuff I'm not allowed to talk about). This has helped save the lives of our pilots as well as let them run the skies to give our troops cover. And before you get up in arms about this playing solely an air-interdictory role, they have successfully tested and fitted a SDB (small-diameter-bomb) to fulfill the 'A' designation it has in its name that will let it be an attack aircraft as well.

3) Timing. Now, we're not the only ones developing 5th generation aircraft, and seeing as though it takes a decade or more to design, test, and produce a 5th generation aircraft. 16 years ago, the Air Force was presented some options - do we go ahead and develop the next air dominance fighter or do we let someone else develop it and then play catch-up for a decade? The decison was made, and now we have an aircraft that *literally* dominates the sky.

Addressing your comments about the MRAPs that have been delayed as supplements (NOT replacements for the Humvee, the soldiers have indicated that in some areas they need the speed and agility that the Humvee has over the current MRAPs. Wikipedia is wrong in this aspect.) First, the AF and Army recieve two different sources of funding. This is how the Air Force chose to spend its portion, and, at this point, its useless to argue. Second, the need for MRAPs is a relatively new one - IEDs have not been a serious enough need over the more heavliy armored versions of the Humvee in MAJOR engagements in the past (I recognize that this isn't the very first time we've needed an MRAP, but developing a new vehicle for a situation that would most likely be resolved before a test version could be produced just isn't feasible.) Fortunately, production for these vehicles is ramping up now.

QUOTE(White RSX @ Nov 27 2007, 08:31 AM) *
Both of these should be done by the state, if you ask me. Besides, development finished in 1991 when it was declared the winner over the YF-23.

I just think this argument is painfully flawed.

Not flawed, just not fully informed. Whenever the US Gov't goes around spending billions, I'm glad someone is willing to ask questions.

QUOTE(Mitlov @ Nov 27 2007, 08:55 AM) *
Of course military R&D should be done by the state, but I didn't see any need at all for a new jet fighter, in 1991 or in 2007. I'm not against having an Air Force. I am against continuing to develop new and better fighters when we're not fighting air-to-air battles with anyone now, or in the near future, and we already have the best fighters on the planet. Fixing something that isn't broken is a terrible way to allocate limited resources.

The RFP (request for proposal) for the F/A-22 went out in the late '80s, when the need for a 5th generation fighter was FAR more obvious. Now, the Chinese are a major concern for the State department, especially in their uncanny ability to arm up their forces. We ARE still having air-to-air battles, but it isn't like WWII or Vietnam where you saw them take place much more often. We simply dominate this aspect. As for Military R&D being done by the state? That's blatantly wrong, and I think anyone who has worked in the defense industry will tell you the exact same thing. DARPA and the armed services outsource for a reason.

The problem is that we're not fixing something that IS broken, and as long as folks don't understand the needs of the actual servicemen and branches, it will continue to stay that way...

Cliffs: I respectfully disagree with Mitlov.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mitlov
post Nov 27 2007, 04:19 PM
Post #18


Halfabusa lover
*****

Group: Banned
Posts: 5,339
Joined: 4-March 05
From: Ashland, OR
Member No.: 1,525



The question is not, "in an ideal world, should we spend money on this"? The question is, "given that we don't have enough money to do everything we want and need to do, should this project be given priority over others?" While a long-in-the-tooth fighter coming apart is a concern, the thousands of US servicepeople who have died in Humvees is a much, much bigger concern. Where should our limited resources go first?

I think that placing new jet fighters as a higher priority than (1) body armor for all infantry and existing vehicles, and (2) improving personnel vehicles, is like not feeding an elementary school kid so that you can put money into his college fund. Ideally you should do both, but given that you can't afford to do both, the college fund should be the lower priority. And no lengthy-and-detailed post about the benefits of college education changes the relative priorities of those two things.

EDIT:

QUOTE
First, the AF and Army recieve two different sources of funding. This is how the Air Force chose to spend its portion, and, at this point, its useless to argue.


And my response would be, "well maybe then some of the Air Force's funding should be shifted to the Army and Marines, because it seems to me they have a far, far more pressing need for the funding at the moment." Just because things are currently that way, doesn't mean they should be. Likewise, just because the Air Force chose to decommission a model and ask for a new shiny one, doesn't mean they should have.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OSUCherokee
post Nov 27 2007, 05:09 PM
Post #19


Grease Monkey
**

Group: Members
Posts: 106
Joined: 13-March 07
From: Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Member No.: 3,743
Car: Chevrolet S-10 LS



QUOTE(midnightdorifto @ Nov 27 2007, 03:59 PM) *


This guy pretty much owned everyone with insider knowledge. nelson.gif

Seriously though, it is a problem. My guard unit has been using M-16A1 rifles for the last 20+ years (the rifle that was first used in Vietnam) We didn't get new M-4's until our governer demanded new equipment before our deployment. The military is being vastly underfunded across the board right now. An E-3 private in the Army isnt earning a wage above the poverty level, yet many have been deployed to Iraq at least 3 times. That should give you an idea.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
midnightdorifto
post Nov 27 2007, 08:30 PM
Post #20


Race Driver
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,510
Joined: 10-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 1,037



QUOTE(Mitlov @ Nov 27 2007, 04:19 PM) *
The question is not, "in an ideal world, should we spend money on this"? The question is, "given that we don't have enough money to do everything we want and need to do, should this project be given priority over others?" While a long-in-the-tooth fighter coming apart is a concern, the thousands of US servicepeople who have died in Humvees is a much, much bigger concern. Where should our limited resources go first?

I think that placing new jet fighters as a higher priority than (1) body armor for all infantry and existing vehicles, and (2) improving personnel vehicles, is like not feeding an elementary school kid so that you can put money into his college fund. Ideally you should do both, but given that you can't afford to do both, the college fund should be the lower priority. And no lengthy-and-detailed post about the benefits of college education changes the relative priorities of those two things.

EDIT:
And my response would be, "well maybe then some of the Air Force's funding should be shifted to the Army and Marines, because it seems to me they have a far, far more pressing need for the funding at the moment." Just because things are currently that way, doesn't mean they should be. Likewise, just because the Air Force chose to decommission a model and ask for a new shiny one, doesn't mean they should have.

At the time, the military decided that funding should go to developing the next generation fighter. Mitlov, you're talking about a 20+ year old decision here - this predates ANY need that you're talking about as far as R&D is concerned. The F/A-22 is a finished aircraft - we've built 100+ of the production version already. Nothing long-in-the-tooth about it, its a production aircraft.

As far as current purchases go, an independent study found that the Air Force needs 381 planes to be operating safely. Congress has authorized 183. So we're operating at half of what the Air Force should have. While I'm sure this might make you feel a bit relieved, I can assure you our airmen do not feel the same way. Let me reiterate what I said in my last post - planes are falling apart. This isn't about not feeding a kindergarten kid to put money away for his college fund, this is about keeping his brother alive. Airframes have long lives, no doubt, but we're running up against them and they need to be replaced quickly. That was supposed to happen years ago, and Congress has yet to do so. This isn't a shiny new fighter, this is a necessary replacement that is long overdue. Talk to the pilot who had a plane disintegrate on him. This is why we're decommissioning aircraft now - with the exception of the F-14. The reason why we decommissioned that aircraft is, lo and behold, the maintenance costs are too high and it would be cheaper to buy a new aircraft than keep the old one flying.

I'm not going to argue with you that our servicemen on the ground need help - that merely goes without saying. But you're beating a dead horse here and using the wrong argument to get it. Our servicemen in the air and on the ground need more funding - not one or the other. I think we're on the same page as far as keeping our servicemen safe goes, its just that our airmen have been in just as desperate a need as well. I can personally assure you we've gone through EXTENSIVE cost cutting measures for the F/A-22 (and even more so for the JSF) - that's part of my job.

As far as the MRAPs are concerned, again, funds have already been approved, its just a matter of producing and shipping the damn things out.
QUOTE(OSUCherokee @ Nov 27 2007, 05:09 PM) *
This guy pretty much owned everyone with insider knowledge. nelson.gif

Seriously though, it is a problem. My guard unit has been using M-16A1 rifles for the last 20+ years (the rifle that was first used in Vietnam) We didn't get new M-4's until our governer demanded new equipment before our deployment. The military is being vastly underfunded across the board right now. An E-3 private in the Army isnt earning a wage above the poverty level, yet many have been deployed to Iraq at least 3 times. That should give you an idea.

Haha, whoa, this isn't insider knowledge. I checked these all with external sources to verify that this is public information. I just pay attention when the morning industry brief comes out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th August 2018 - 10:54 AM