Gag Pic Addition?

Feh... that thing could be outfitted with more than twice as many guns. Then you would have something.
:twisted:

Port/Left view

Mad Ogre said:

Feh... that thing could be outfitted with more than twice as many guns. Then you would have something.
:twisted:

Click to expand...

From this target angle we're only seeing half. :idea:

Me, I don't want to see it from any side!

Mad Ogre said:

Feh... that thing could be outfitted with more than twice as many guns. Then you would have something.
:twisted:

Click to expand...

I dunno.....12 cruise missles is a LOT of firepower, especially if they are fitted with the anti-personel "bomblet" warheads. Just ONE of those could take out a whole platoon (or more) if they're set to airburst.

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but can a 747 slow down enough to effectively use that ordnance? I thought one of the reasons for using a C-130 was the fact that it is prop driven and can go much slower without stalling.

No... it would be virtually useless other than for the cruise missiles.

Fernando Coelho said:

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but can a 747 slow down enough to effectively use that ordnance? I thought one of the reasons for using a C-130 was the fact that it is prop driven and can go much slower without stalling.

Click to expand...

Fernando:

That's an interesting issue. I recently read that the Navy is going to replace the turboprop P-3 Orions with modified Boeing 737s. Since slow speed would seem to be required for loiter time when hunting submarines, surface ships or patrolling large areas, can a 737 meet the requirement? Evidently the Navy believes.

Harvey