Peace is our profession. I did not make this comic but I hadn't seen it on here before so I thought I might as well post it. Sources of the two incidents: en.wi Polandball sweden usa
Upload
Login or register

Peace is our profession

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
 
Peace is our profession. I did not make this comic but I hadn't seen it on here before so I thought I might as well post it. Sources of the two incidents: en.wi

I did not make this comic but I hadn't seen it on here before so I thought I might as well post it.
Sources of the two incidents:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#Operational_history
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotland-class_submarine#Secondment_to_United_States_Navy

19305. 30, 000 ft above the Baltic Sea.
an WHAT THE HELL?
rt l" . LE isn' t this aircraft
ll til supposed to be
itkill ll stealthy and "elite
P. 3 I impossible for
it F] 1 l, bandits to lock on
2005. -P, . Ocean outside California.
Commander we have Nona, this just fun,
USS Ronald Reagan in sightings, we take photo of boat
visa give and we soundings it for
training barbed prove we Mist Sweden!
Goddammit, do you care to explain
how the f** k those pa Swedes
q managed to penetrate our
5, hi’ " as defensive screen
J’ y Tifi, stilts
WE NOT KNOWINGS HEW TO WAR,
CALY How Ttl PEACE"
...
+761
Views: 47184 Submitted: 08/05/2014
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (244)
[ 244 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#3 - insaneguy
Reply +310 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
you can lock onto an sr-71 all day, but good luck with getting the missiles to catch up
you can lock onto an sr-71 all day, but good luck with getting the missiles to catch up
#30 to #3 - angryninja
Reply -10 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
#47 to #3 - Horsebait
Reply -9 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
Yeah... missile already exsists for it.
User avatar #36 to #3 - lancasthor
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
According to Wiki, US Patriot SAM missile reaches top speed of 5.0 mach wityh ceiling of 80 thousand feet. Even the infamous Russian BUK system reaches 4.0 mach.

This combined to a sweet approaching vector and time to climb could result in troublesome situation for difficultly maneouverable SR-71.

Do notice that cold war era MIG-25 was recorded hitting mach 3.0 by the allies too. Its not enough to catch the SR-71, but it is enough to maneuver to a position for closer range but way more faster Air to air missile.

Ever wondered why these things do not fly boldly in the hostile airspace anymore?
#39 to #36 - insaneguy
Reply +27 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
The sr-71 was built and operated in the 60's and 70's.
In the 2010s, a half a century later, we're obviously going to have better weapons systems.

For ****** sake, quit trying to pick apart the comment and just appreciate that it's one of the sexiest, most badass aircraft built to date
User avatar #59 to #39 - greyhoundfd
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
They're beginning work on an SR-72, and from what I've seen the cockpit is sealed and uses piped-in visuals.

It's going to be the most beautiful aircraft ever built, and to top it off its speed will be doubled and it's supposed to have a missile compliment.

It kind of gives me a bit of a hard-on.
#67 to #59 - captainrattrap
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
If you had a choice   
You get to choose between a night with this girl or any girl, or a night with the sr-72.   
Where would you fly it first?
If you had a choice
You get to choose between a night with this girl or any girl, or a night with the sr-72.
Where would you fly it first?
User avatar #78 to #67 - thewulfman
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
Berlin probably. I love that city. I'd totally choose the SR-72, because it's a lot more likely you'll find someone else to have sex with than have a chance to fly that thing
inb4 everyone except you that is
#131 to #67 - karrotj
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
Who is that, lol i would prolly choose her
User avatar #236 to #67 - greyhoundfd
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/07/2014) [-]
I think I'll fly it over a couple of Abo's and watch them bow down to worship it as a god.
User avatar #237 to #236 - captainrattrap
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/07/2014) [-]
Fookin mazin
#241 to #39 - anon id: ac8326e7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2014) [-]
And we still don't have anything better. Bear in mind that an SR-71 broke the world speed record...while on the way to a museum.
User avatar #95 to #39 - lancasthor
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
Oh, im sorry for letting unneccessary facts ruin a good legacy. It goes against national pride to notice the reasons why this plane retired from military intelligence use.
And im not talking about some Hollywood-style unbeatable satellite network.

"good luck with getting the missiles to catch up" sounds cool, but is typical thumbed up ********, because there are several in service.
#38 to #36 - randomknife
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
while the top speed of a missile is faster than the sr-71 you have to take into account the tidbit where it does not cruise at its top speed. the propellant of an air to air missile lasts for a couple seconds at most and generally when firing on an sr-71 it will also be trying to climb. This will greatly slow the missile down while the sr71 just goes into a dive to outrun it. but yes. it is better to not be in an area where you are being fired on in the first place though
#15 to #3 - anon id: 5b5930a7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
an modern long range missile can catch up easily.
#17 to #15 - mattdoggy
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
>not knowing top speed of the SR-71
>Not knowing altitude the aircraft flies at
>not knowing ceiling on the missiles
>not knowing missile range
>not knowing about "No Escape Zone"
>not knowing about missiles maneuverability

have you even seen a plane before?
User avatar #20 to #15 - lean
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
No they can't. There are rumors of a brahmos II in development, but the fastest in service missile, brahmos I, tops out at mach 2.8 to 3. The official record of the sr-71 is 2242.5 MPH ground speed or mach 3.3 in those specific conditions (mach is a relative term). Even if you saw the sr-71 coming, by the time you pushed the button to launch a brahmos the plane would be too far ahead and the missile might at best tie it for speed.

Long range missiles don't go faster than cruise missiles. Moving faster requires exponentially more fuel, which means more weight and more size, and ICBMs are designed to go minimum 3,500 miles. There is a golden ratio of speed to distance depending on how the propulsion is engineered.
#27 to #20 - anon id: ff0acad8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
too hold a high speed actually save very much fuel, but it's the accelerating that use more fuel.
so moving faster does not require more fuel it's to get up to that speed that does
#29 to #27 - Elemental
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
Except it isn't like a car where you ease off the pedal once at speed, you need constant Propulsion otherwise you will slow down.
User avatar #34 to #29 - geothermal
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
this^
User avatar #18 to #15 - skypatrol
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
Modern missiles sure, not the **** they had in the Cold War.
And who knows what they have nowadays
#73 to #3 - firesky
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
As far as I read into it the SR-71 reaches topspeed of mach 3,3

The model JA 37 of the Saab 37 Viggen which was involved in this was armed with Skyflash rockets which reach mach 4.

So they could have shot it down.
#240 to #73 - anon id: ac8326e7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2014) [-]
Yeah but the missiles have to catch up to it before they run out of fuel, which won't happen unless they were fired at about the absolute minimum range for the missiles to lock on at.
#94 to #73 - anon id: be92ebd6
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
But missiles don't have an infinite amount of fuel. It would take a long time for the missile to reach the SR-71.
User avatar #145 to #94 - zuflux
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
"Pilots who were trained to fly the SR-71 were not instructed in evasive maneuvers. Instead, they were told to simply out-fly any missiles."
A missile might be faster than the aircraft, but good luck having it catch up to the plane for that long.
User avatar #2 - traelos
Reply +97 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
It's funny though because Sweden's armed forces have arguments to this day whether they'd be capable of defending their own borders for a week in the event of a serious invasion.
User avatar #90 to #2 - skarrer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
Ireland knows that feel.
#96 to #2 - unholytiming
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
As of right now, the swedish armies can defend a small area of our capital for a week total before we run out of forces.
User avatar #6 to #2 - flyingvivo [OP]
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
The disbanding of compulsory military service in 2010 was a pretty bad idea.
We sort of rely on being friends with everyone which has worked out pretty well the past 200 years but in the event of a new world war I think we'd have some serious problems.
We're a large country when compared to other European countries but there are less people living in Sweden than in the state of Ohio so compulsory military service would be a good thing here, it's just really hard to reintroduce.
#7 to #6 - traelos
Reply -18 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
I'm sorry friend, but Sweden is too far gone to be picking on one small thing like ending compulsory service.

You're living in an area where the general cultural belief is that war is impossible and even if it were surrender is preferable to self-defense.

You should leave now while you still can, hang out in Finland and get drunk, or move out of Scandinavia while you still can.
User avatar #14 to #7 - flyingvivo [OP]
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
If Sweden was invaded we would not win on our own but it's a lot harder to take over a country where most people have had proper military training. Sweden's defence plan is to make it as hard for the invading force as possible until help from other nations arrive.

Immigrants are nowhere near as big of a problem here as some idiots like the Swedish democrats claim. Uneducated idiots blame immigrants and say that it's their fault they don't have a job when in fact they don't have a job because they're uneducated idiots who blames everyone else for their shortcomings.
#25 to #14 - cherubium
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
Lefty nuts are far a greater problem to the country and we have a ******** of them but the problem with our immigrants aren't really the job some lefty nuts want employers always to pick the immigrant over the qualified swede thing but the ****** integration that is present in sweden.
User avatar #82 to #25 - flyingvivo [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
I don't mind the lefties but you're right that the problem with immigration in Sweden is the bad integration and not the immigrants themselves.
#132 to #82 - cherubium
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
Bad integration makes bad immigrants since the good immigrants integrate themselves nontheless.
#8 to #7 - siden
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
rolf bullied in school
#26 to #7 - cherubium
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
I find it funny that Sweden is always the Muslim rape victim meanwhile muslim menance is far worse in bongistan england
#31 to #2 - fennoswede
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
"we not knowings how to war, we only knowings how to peace"
User avatar #35 to #2 - mooghens
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
Back in easter 2013, russians thought it was fun to fly a full on strike force consisting of 2 TU-22M strategic bombers complete with fighter escorts into swedish airspace and over key millitary installations near stockholm.

Danish Fighters stationed in ******* Latvia had to get airborne to tell them to **** off because everyone and their mothers in the Swedish Airforce were off duty.

If you allow another country you are not allied with to fly that deep into your airspace with strategic bombers that are capable of launching nuclear cruisemissiles, it's pretty ******* safe to say your entire ******* military is up for one hell of a review.
User avatar #42 to #35 - gatorade
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
Dayum son... That's ******* nuts... The weirdest part is that they're not even a part of NATO. Yet we would gladly take them.

Damn Swedes.
#130 to #42 - cherubium
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
Russian bombers do this reguarly against the baltic states and several baltic states are nato members so the fighters were already preparing to escort the bombers back to russia only differance in this scenario was that swedish airforce had no QRA planes ready which is *****.
User avatar #117 to #42 - joiik
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
were gonna be part of NATO soon though
#127 to #35 - cherubium
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
Russian bombers do this all the time and they never violated swedish airspace only differance was that the airforce didn't have any planes in QRA which is a must.
User avatar #84 to #35 - flyingvivo [OP]
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
Earlier this year an American yet violated Swedish airspace and we didn't do **** about it. Personally I think we should have shot it down because it asked for permission and we denied it but it flew over Sweden anyway.
User avatar #4 - Blargosnarf
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
We had vehicles that could reach mach 3 in 1980?
User avatar #74 to #4 - TwiztidNinja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
umm... apollo dude?
apollo was traveling at somewhere around 11.5 kilometers per second when leaving the earths atmosphere. Roughly 32 times the speed of sound
User avatar #10 to #4 - GeneralLeeInsane
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
The SR-71 first took flight on December 22nd, 1964. It reportedly reached mach 3.4 in its test flight.
#79 to #4 - thewulfman
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
As Ashtaroth said, the X-15 holds the record for the fastest aircraft (7270 KPH). We've had manmade objects travel faster, but they were spacecraft and not aircraft.

It was built in the late 1950's and used throughout the 1960's. It's really god damn cool. The original concept goes back to a German rocket powered sub-orbital bomber that was proposed back in the 1930's by Eugen Sänger and Irene Bredt, but never got past a small wooden model of one. One of the lead engineers behind the X-15 was Walter Dornberger, who was one of the V-2 scientists who defected to the United States along with Von Braun.

I've been studying on it lately for a novel where a similar aircraft will be used to intercept high altitude spyplanes.
User avatar #5 to #4 - Ashtaroth
Reply +39 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
Mach 6+, actually. Called the X-15. But it was impractical. Essentially a rocket with stubby wings. But you could control it to an extent. It was more to prove things could go that fast in the atmosphere and not melt from the friction.
User avatar #19 - iLime
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
An sr-71 would be able to out-fly the missile.
#22 to #19 - trainalf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
Not all of them- that's how the sole one to be shot down got shot down.
User avatar #23 to #22 - iLime
Reply +28 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
the only way to shoot down an sr-71 would be to anticipate where it will be and fire a non guided missile. A blackbird is literally the fastest flying aircraft ever made.
#24 to #23 - trainalf
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
You are correct. Forgive my earlier post; I was confusing the history of the SR-71 and the U-2.
User avatar #76 to #23 - TwiztidNinja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
I hope you are serious when you say was.
America has much faster aircraft in its closed hangers.
User avatar #235 to #76 - iLime
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
The sr-71 is still the fastest jet ever made.
User avatar #238 to #235 - TwiztidNinja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/07/2014) [-]
Sure if you want to think that there are not planes in Americas arsenal today capable of over mach 9 keep believing that, i will not stop you.
User avatar #51 to #23 - icedcarbon
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
There are missiles that are faster than the SR-71... such as AIM-120, newer AIM-7, Aster and more ... what SR-71 could do is be far enough so the missile runs out of fuel before it gets there. Someone using Semi active guidance will be able to pick the Blackbird by predicting where it will pass through and lock later while the missile is already on the way... it's easy... that is if they detect the bird first.
User avatar #53 to #51 - iLime
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
No sr-71 was ever shot down during it's years of service, but you are right, there were missiles in its day faster than it, but i believe they were all owned by the US.
#75 to #53 - firesky
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
Nope, the swedish planes had Skyflash rockets which reached mach 4 whereas the SR-71 reached top speeds of mach 3.3
#50 to #19 - Horsebait
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #9 - mortolife
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
Did this stuff actually happen? That would be funny as hell.
User avatar #16 to #9 - hydraetis
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
My dad was part of the NZ navy in the 60s and during some training exercises like locating subs or whatnot despite having much lower class technology they still very often beat the Americans to it by a noticeable margin.

America ***** on most countries when it comes to tech, but in return most countries **** on America when it comes to skill.
#40 to #16 - crazypat
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
Are you kidding me. The US takes training seriously. We have the best equipped and best trained navy and air force. (not gonna defend our infantry cause all except special forces eat dick compared to most other armed forces). You can try to disagree with me but it is still true that training for the navy and air force in the US is the best in the world. Not my own words I used to think like you too till i got told the facts by many veterans of the navy and air force. (prepared to take red thumbs by those who do not agree with previous statements of fact).
User avatar #57 to #40 - clannadqs
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
What's wrong with our Infantry? I'm in the Army (11B) and I see no problem with out training. Ignorant people tend to compare the branch's and nation's basic/boot as if they actually matter. I've already discussed this but like 99% of your actual training comes from when you get to your unit that you will be stationed at. This is where your training comes in and our Infantry trains every week and goes on FTXs quite often. The thing is, most other nations cannot fund such frequent training and even the US is starting to cut back on it. I honestly don't see how other nation's infantry can compare to ours as I have heard from many of my buddies that cross-trained with other nation's that they joke around about their duty a lot more than the US. That is coming from Canada, South Korea, and the UK. On top of that, we have dozens of schools that foreign soldiers come to for combat training and there is a reason why the most common place for cross-training and exercises to take place is in the US. Please stop believing false information pumped out by kids online that have never even been on a military base, it is decently annoying to be called ****** by kids who have no idea what they are talking about. I have NEVER seen an article on our infantry making themselves look like asses to another nation. Quite on the contrary. The British that were with my unit during deployment apparently held us in high regards.
#66 to #57 - thefantasyfundepot
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
Yeah seriously, I don't think most people really understand the training gap that exists between the US and most other countries because of funding.
User avatar #41 to #40 - hydraetis
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
Of course your own country's veterans are gonna tell you they're the best. But it's simply not true that you're the best trained. Look at the Ghurka. Just one of them can outperform a full squad, despite being only half as well equipped.
User avatar #43 to #41 - gatorade
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
A Gurkha would be very similar to a Commando or a Ranger, something along those lines. Not a line infantry unit.

The US has very well trained units, especially infantry. There is a reason why investigations were started in Iraq sometimes to figure out if the Marines were executing the insurgents or not, because they simply were so accurate that it looked like executions but in fact the engagements took place from 100-200 yards.

Every NATO military force is very well trained and I'm sure the US doesn't have the BEST infantry in the world. I'd give that to the British, but they by far have the best equipment and are certainly up there for the best soldiers in the world (conventional) SF is a different story.

Now if the whole US military infantry force was trained like Rangers than they would be the best trained and among the most skilled forces in the world.

There is a saying out there. The best soldiers consist of British training and American gear and equipment.
User avatar #44 to #41 - crazypat
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
***** did you not hear me state our infantry was not the best trained compared to others. Also we don't focus on great and amazing infantry like I said we focus on having and keeping the best equipped and trained navy and air force. READ MY WHOLE ******* COMMENT NEXT TIME.
User avatar #56 to #44 - hydraetis
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
Lol if you're the best then how come you ask the commonwealth SAS (Special AIR Service) to handle so many operations instead of letting your god-almighty Navy Seals or other forces handle them all?
#65 to #16 - thefantasyfundepot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
I would have agreed with you back in 2000 (Clintons draw down of the military severely cut the US military's capabilities), but nowadays there is no modern military that can stand toe to toe with the US military, infantry included. After 10+ years of war and a ridiculous training budget no other military in this day and age even comes close. Maybe the British military, but they are far two small to actually challenge us. Also you should realize that back in the 60s there was the draft which didn't always produce the best soldiers.

let me give you some examples. A great example that can show a difference is NVGs (Night Vision Goggles). In the American military almost every single soldier that will be near combat will be issued NVGs while most other foreign militaries you would be lucky for just your team leaders to get them or to get them at all in fact. The American Infantry soldier owns the night. This stems from Vietnam where we owned the day but the Vietcong would generally own the night. If a foreign infantry unit would every fight an American infantry unit at night they are going to die. Its a simple fact, using nvgs with infrared lasers on our m4s makes it is so god damn easy to shoot people.

Another example is just how many bullets we fire. One summer I fired over 10,000 rounds from my M4. It was pretty unnecessary, but my unit had the funding so why the hell not. Many other foreign nation soldiers would be lucky to fire that amount over their entire careers.

The last example is schools. I went to Airborne, Air Assault and Mechanized Leaders Course even though I was neither in an airborne, air assault or mechanized unit. In foreign militaries it is almost impossible to get a school that has no benefit to you, but i got 3 and i know guys that have gone to a lot more for no other reason then they could.

Like i said before the last 13 years of combat has greatly helped our military maybe in 5-10 years with the draw down we'll be ****** again.
User avatar #11 to #9 - GeneralLeeInsane
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
"Swedish Air Force fighter pilots, using the predictable patterns of SR-71 routine flights over the Baltic Sea, managed to lock their radar on the SR-71 on numerous occasions. Despite heavy jamming from the SR-71, target illumination was maintained by feeding target location from ground-based radars to the fire-control computer in the JA 37 Viggen interceptor. The most common site for the lock-on to occur was the thin stretch of international airspace between Öland and Gotland that the SR-71 used on the return flight." -Wikipedia

Not that it mattered, none of the missiles could catch up to the SR-71, anyway.
User avatar #12 to #9 - vigorion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
Sources in description, dude.
User avatar #13 to #12 - mortolife
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
Well ****. The one time I didn't read the desc.
User avatar #21 to #9 - mattdoggy
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
The first one i think was a war game exercise where they asked the swedes to use their diesel electric subs to test their new sonar and early detection systems which the swedes found a gap in (i think it was the lack of side scan sonar, so you just had to be really shallow). They got close enough to the carrier to snap a picture effectively acting as a kill.

The second one was due simply to line of sight. When the Aircraft flew back from their targets in the USSR and routine patrols they took the same path every time. As a test on the aircraft's capabilities and a sort of joke they would lock onto it. Most of the time the lock would fail due to the planes countermeasures blocking the aircraft and ground radar out. On one particular stretch however their was a surplus of ground radar. When the pilots and ground radar stations coordinated and very carefully fine tuned their search to a very small area they were able to get a signal on the ground. They bounced the signal back to the aircraft overhead who could then proceed to set his lock on the SR-71 who would then more than likely kick in the afterburners
#109 to #21 - anon id: 4b546474
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
The Australians still beat the Americans in the war games with their diesel subs.
#46 - jimmytwoshoes
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
Do you even read my Christmas list?!
User avatar #70 to #46 - truesmokewolf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird. A long-range advanced reconnaissance aircraft capable of reaching Mach 3 and an altitude of 85,000 feet!
#55 to #46 - norwegianlolz
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#52 - zerpderp
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
so ******* ready
User avatar #69 to #52 - truesmokewolf
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
Holy ****, is that for real? I was so ******* irritated when the Blackbird was decommissioned.
#80 to #69 - thewulfman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
It has the potential to be, but probably won't get funding due to sequestration and the fact that small drones could do the job cheaper.
#245 to #80 - anon id: 9c069cda
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2016) [-]
Mach 6? **** that's fast
#1 - justleaving
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
related
#60 to #1 - HAMMATIMEZ
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
#48 - Horsebait
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
US Submariner. Yeah... carriers arn't exactly all that great. just saying... 2 types of ships. submarines and targets.
User avatar #33 - unoletmehavename
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/06/2014) [-]
Oh man the SR71 is probably one of my favourite planes ever,its so sexy looking.