(February 16, 2014 at 4:32 pm)Insanity Wrote: I wouldn't bother putting a head on robots. It just seems pointless. Just another weak point. Then again its probably for dramatic effect..

* Insanity ends this pointless post.

Come now, look at those little roboty eyes! They're sooooo cuuute~ I just want to gouge them out

Someone here said that they are needed in order to keep our air superiority. What air superiority is to be gained that we don't already have? When was the last time our air force lost the advantage of air superiority? We won the air war in WWII not necessarily because we had superior weapons, but because we had superior numbers. I believe that the notion that we should build ever capable aircraft that brings our pilots home every time is laudable, but not economically viable. The ones we already have in our inventory do a superb job. Why not just buy more, and train more pilots, if air superiority is really the issue? In other words, why not just stick with what we already know works well?

(February 16, 2014 at 4:41 pm)Alice Wrote: Come now, look at those little roboty eyes! They're sooooo cuuute~ I just want to gouge them out

I suppose it could be worth adding them as a kind of bluff. A completely useless head so the puny humans are detracted.

Even better have a spare head inside the top so when you gouge its eyes out the first head flies off. Then the 2nd head pops up just to laugh at you.

(February 16, 2014 at 4:43 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Someone here said that they are needed in order to keep our air superiority. What air superiority is to be gained that we don't already have? When was the last time our air force lost the advantage of air superiority? We won the air war in WWII not necessarily because we had superior weapons, but because we had superior numbers. I believe that the notion that we should build ever capable aircraft that brings our pilots home every time is laudable, but not economically viable. The ones we already have in our inventory do a superb job. Why not just buy more, and train more pilots, if air superiority is really the issue? In other words, why not just stick with what we already know works well?

America has superior numbers against China?

I somehow... do not think so.

---

(February 16, 2014 at 4:44 pm)Insanity Wrote: I suppose it could be worth adding them as a kind of bluff. A completely useless head so the puny humans are detracted.

Even better have a spare head inside the top so when you gouge its eyes out the first head flies off. Then the 2nd head pops up just to laugh at you.

So... a Jack in a Robot? I've got an old friend who would be just *trilled* with this idea.



It's certainly a good way to frighten the living.

(February 16, 2014 at 4:54 pm)Alice Wrote: So... a Jack in a Robot? I've got an old friend who would be just *trilled* with this idea.

---

---

It's certainly a good way to frighten the living.

Kinda, with more explosions and death. I think the head would also have to spin around while it laughs too for full effect. Perhaps with another face on the back. Maybe if it spins fast enough you would just see a blur with a glowing red face. That would be unnerving to say the least.

I have no idea why frightening them would be needed. Then again should a reason ever be needed for bringing more terror into the world?

(February 16, 2014 at 4:43 pm)orogenicman Wrote: In other words, why not just stick with what we already know works well?

Air superiority as a whole only works if you maintain it. And the reason we can't keep the old planes is because like any hardware, it stops being economically viable to maintain after a time. If you get only get 100 flight hours out of an airframe before it need minor overhaul, you are just throwing money into it.

Also, the reason McDonnell-Douglas, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, and Lockheed keep getting government contracts is because they are smart. They don't just keep making the same airframe forever. They make it more difficult to maintain these aircraft long term by stopping support after a time. They'll stop making a critical part, stop supporting a certain avionics package, or even make a new avionics package or part that requires a platform upgrade. In other words, they slowly make it easier and more cost effective long term to put a contract out for the next generation aircraft.

Bottom line is you are never going to get the bureaucracy out of this process. It is always going to waste time, money, and probably lives in the test phase. Check out the MV-22 fiasco as a perfect example.

(February 16, 2014 at 5:07 pm)Insanity Wrote: I have no idea why frightening them would be needed. Then again should a reason ever be needed for bringing more terror into the world?

When is anything 'needed'? It's fun, and that's really all that matters

(February 16, 2014 at 5:12 pm)Alice Wrote: When is anything 'needed'? It's fun, and that's really all that matters

Not so much for the unfortunate human. I'd certainly have a lot of fun watching though.

(February 16, 2014 at 5:07 pm)Insanity Wrote: I think the head would also have to spin around while it laughs too for full effect. Perhaps with another face on the back.

Syd Barrett would have been proud of that one.