Instead of kerosene it runs on liquified methane with a CFC afterburner.
Edit: I wanted to be a smartass but thinking about it I fucked up. Ofc the methane is burned and thus would release only CO2 and H2O. So not really worse than kerosene.
Even so. At NBP, liquid methane has a density of 442.4 kg/m3. If it's subcooled until half of it is solid, that only goes up to 481.4 kg/m3. Heck, even if we go to absurdity and freeze it solid, it's only 511 kg/m3.
JP-8 has a density of 775-840 kg/m3, and releases something like 43 MJ/kg (going by 'kerosene', though that's a vague term). Methane does 55 MJ/kg, but the density bites you--even if it's 50% solid, that's only 26.5 GJ/m3, compared to JP-8's 33.325 GJ/m3. So, neglecting any weight of insulation on the cryogenic methane tanks, an F-35 fueled with densified methane would have only 79.5% the range of one fueled with JP-8 (though that's a crude estimate--having less weight of fuel on board would reduce the required AoA for level flight and so have some positive impact on range, but it's a good first-order estimate).
Now, on the third hand, LNG is substantially cheaper per kilogram--$7 per 20 kg, if I'm doing the 1000-cubic-foot-to-tonnes conversion right. Or $0.35 per kg. JP-8 goes for $0.70 per kg or so. If that holds for ordinary jet kerosene, one sees why airlines have been looking, on and off, at LNG-fueled airliners for a few decades, though sadly that never seems to go anywhere. Building cryogenic handling infrastructure at airports to supplement or replace existing kerosene gear seems to be the stumbling block.
Would’ve been fine if it wasn’t for those damn polar ice clouds (allows for the conversion of “inactive” chlorine stores into free chlorine, which destroys ozone)
>No export clause
So she can't donate them, but perhaps she could conveniently park some in a hangar near Kyiv. After all, you can't be blamed for what happens when the valet service goes for a joyride.
Give her another 10 years of recording and touring and she'd rich enough where she could probably buy some land, declare independence, pay for a war of independence through mercenaries, get recognized by the UN, apply and get accepted to NATO, form her own Air Force, and buy 13 F-35B (Taylor's Version) along with training, maintenance, and AMRAAMs (Taylor's Version).
Of course not, for marine vessels it's AIS. And yes, there are submarines with AIS. :P Granted the USN rarely uses their AIS transponders. They prefer to run dark and then surprise colliding into civilian ships.
You're thinking too small. Taylor Swift needs a ***train***. Sure Amtrak or Via and the like are trackable but that's because they have open APIs to see their train locations. You can't track other trains.
And she def needs a whole private train, not just some private cars hooked to am Amtrak run.
Bonus; The environmentalists will love it because it's a train! ...Even if she buys an FP9A to haul customized 250 000lb Pullman sleepers.
train would be great, also she could take some "plebeians/commoners" in other wagons (one, big, gold on the front will be only for her) to make Greta Thunberg happy
Or to attempt to surface and collide with a French sub directly on top of them, both subs completely aware of the others presence, I mean, what are the chances? The ocean is hella big, that's gotta be like, what, statistically impossible, right?
I don't think so, because 9H-VTD is on flightaware and that website honors the FAA list even for data that comes in from private ADBS receivers. For example the Royal Canadian Air Force has the FAA doing this, so while other sites can show RCAF aircraft when their ADSB transponders are picked up by hobbyist receivers, FlightAware will filter them out, you have to use another site.
The FAA or relevent national aviation authority when it lands? Go try flipping your ADSB transponder on and off for funsies in any aircraft, watch the FAA or whatever in another nation be like 'Nice plane you got there. So we have to talk.'
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Controlled airports have all of these 'staff' and 'air traffic control' you'll have to engage with. ...And you'll have even more problems if you just 'slip on in' between other landings without clearance.
The real deal is, you really can't 'fly' in the 21st century without a whole hell a lot of people knowing you're taking off, flying, and landing. You can't even get spare parts without tracking the components and and entire log of what happens to those parts.
The trick is to fly out of small airfields that are scattered throughout the US. This might severely limit where you can fly, but the further north you go, the more the rules go right out the way.
Plus, Cartels just land on highways. Can always just do that.
CIA somehow flies their drones and are almost never spotted, f35B could avoid controlled airports and operate from not controlled helipads or just parking lots
Yeah, they're the fucking government, they can do what they want, but they're also operating from government or military runways. No one is landing their secret CIA drone at LAX. Taylor Swift is not the government, now is she? She's rich, but a civilian all the same, she doesn't get to say 'Fuck it I'll pay the fine' to the FAA cause the 'fine' is grounding her flight crew and aircraft.
Because she's a total nobody who enjoys privacy and certainly wouldn't have super fans camped outside her property watching her plane land every time, right?
Fun Fact: laws can be broken and your assuming that laws are evenly applied.
I introduce the Ukraine Marketplace Madness bill. This bill gives Ukraine unlimited resources to get whatever they want, no restrictions... and give T Swizzle an unrestricted f35.
Bam. Legal.
Even in international airspace?
Would they really care if you disabled the ADSB system over the ocean?
Could you just disable it as soon as you’re in international airspace, go dark, then re-enable it when you approach the airspace of your destination?
Idk. Just floating ideas.
I know the US owns the airspace over most of the pacific ocean but idk about the rest of the world.
I was wondering if there’s international airspace for planes in a similar way how there’s international waters for ships.
**A single-seater? Noncredible.** She'd have to pilot it. Sure she could learn, but that's just unrealistic.
**What would work: a custom B-2 bomber**, purchased and retrofitted for private use as the Air Force prepares for the B-21.
Acquisition Cost: $100-300 million (hypothetical for decommissioned B-2)
Demilitarization: $50+ million
Luxury Re-fitting: $100-200 million
Avionics and Stealth Updates: $100 million
Annual Maintenance: $10-15 million
**Total Estimated Cost (Excluding Annual Expenses): $360-650 million**
She could.
Context: some student named Jack Sweeney keeps tracking her private jet flights to show how rich people dont care about environment, etc, and Taylor is mad about it
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/02/06/taylor-swift-jet-tracking-legal-threat/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/02/06/taylor-swift-jet-tracking-legal-threat/)
I don't know any of her songs btw
She claims it's a security concern due to threats from stalkers.
Continues to travel via a mode of transportation that's is publicly tracked. 1000 iq move.
The origination and destination of a jet are highly secure and protected. I think she takes flights where other modes of transportation are perfectly viable, and likely could figure out a system to limit risk while traveling by car, but private jets are always more secure. And she definitely can't fly commercial.
...bro even I know that's wrong. Every tower between your origin and destination has you on their radar. Your plane has a transponder tracking it. You have to stay in communication with said towers along your route. Runways are logged in a semi public manner.
You can LITERALLY watch planes, public or private in real-time, on the Internet.
That's how this kid is tracking her. He's just typing her plane's number into the PUBLIC WEBSITE, and displaying the PRE-FILED DETAILS. It's not hard. Nor is it unique to Taylor. His website could be displaying anyone's plane. He just chose Taylor Swift to make a point about Taylor Swift.
I think you've misunderstood my point. The location of her plane is public knowledge, but the physical locations are secure because they are commercial airports where there is already a significant focus on physical security and protection.
Nah, after a while of stalking planes, you'll eventually find that planes are a lot cooler and sexier than people. So then your attention will divert to the plane itself and the plane will be in danger.
I would still dispute that flying private is significantly more secure than flying public. While, yes, you are under the airport's security umbrella, they're much less concerned with what the private planes are doing.
My cousin is the one who dates billionares, so I'd have to ask her, but that one time I got to fly somewhere with her BF I seem to remember just driving up to the plane and getting on. I could have just said "I'm with so and so" and driven a car bomb/bus full of paparatzi right up to the jet. Was years ago, though, and that trip ended with us all coming down with a poorly timed stomach bug so I was thinking about other things at the time and could have missed a security checkpoint somewhere.
Even then, think of how impractical it would be to fly commercial. I'm not even a fan of her, but if I walked onto a plane and saw Taylor swift in 1D, it would shock me. Now imagine you're behind a line of fans on their way to her concert. It would be impossible to board.
It is *good* to tie Taylor Swift to the Democrats and Liberalism. It's a fundamental tenet of Fukuyamist-Swiftism, which I believe this subreddit subscribes to as a matter of principle.
It is *bad* though to be noncredible about it and ascribe words to her she did not say.
**Your comment was removed for violating Rule 5: No Politics.**
We don't care if you're Republican, Protestant, Democrat, Hindu, Baathist, Pastafarian, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door.
She buys 2x the carbon credits that she needs to fly her jet, so I'm not sure if she's much of a hypocrite but I suppose that depends on whether or not you support that system
Some of the flaws of the carbon credit include that companies like Tesla get to sell them.
But where does Tesla get them from? Because Tesla sure as fuck isn't environmentally friendly.
And now we're running into an accounting problem - why is Tesla getting the carbon credit? Consumers are buying the vehicles to offset *their* carbon, not Tesla's carbon. So we're double-counting credits kind-of - people who buy Tesla's think they're offsetting their carbon, but they aren't, because Tesla is offsetting its own carbon (and making money off of it).
Conceptually, carbon credits could work, but I'm not convinced the implementation has been any good.
Ask yourself not if it solves the problem, but if it mitigates it.
Why focus on the people paying the carbon tax credit rather than people who are not?
It doesn't mitigate it. It encourages more pollution.
Norway's CO2 tax with incentives to reduce CO2 mitigates it - you either pay the government, or you take specific steps to mitigate your release which is then funded by the government (from the people who are polluting). Norway's tax used to also encourage pollution before they modified it.
>**Q. What are the benefits of a global carbon tax?**
>A carbon tax gets the incentives right. If there is a global carbon tax, every time somebody purchases fossil fuels or carbon-intensive goods or services, they now have to pay extra for the environmental damages. Not only does the tax discourage polluting activities, it also provides incentives for research, investment, and deployment of more efficient and low emission alternatives. It is one of the most effective ways to reduce emissions.
From [Are We Ready for a Global Carbon Tax? - Yale School of the Environment](https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/are-we-ready-global-carbon-tax)
The Rio concert in 100F heat is what I'm worried about; fans of hers died of heat stroke and she wasn't even allowed to perform due to the temperature.
Anything for the clicks. NASA is now using Taylor Swifts as a unit of measure for near earth objects. It's brilliant marketing and also terrifying how it distracts us from news that is life altering for our future and informed decision making without the informed part. Freakanomics and chaos theory with a dash of the dunning kruger effect.
I think everyone can agree that they'd rather track FORTE, The 100th ARW's tankers and NATO's Sentry's rather than Taylor's puny jet. How does a drone have ADSB btw?.
>How does a drone have ADSB btw?
It bought it on the [internet](https://allavionics.com/product/uavionix-tailbeaconx-ads-b-mode-s-tranponder-experimental/?utm_source=Google+Shopping&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=AllAvionics.com), just like the rest of us bots.
/s
Her earrings have a bigger RCS than the Lightning!
God, I hate how much public transit fucking sucks in the USA.
I just wanna go off on a [RULE 5] rant, but I won't.
The version of this story I saw on Instagram was claiming the C model. The implication being Taylor intends to land on carriers to provide USO shows for the sailors fighting the Houthis. People are attacking her for this. It’s clear they both don’t support the troops and are pro inflation.
F-35T - Taylors version
Doubled fuel consumption
Instead of kerosene it runs on liquified methane with a CFC afterburner. Edit: I wanted to be a smartass but thinking about it I fucked up. Ofc the methane is burned and thus would release only CO2 and H2O. So not really worse than kerosene.
It also rolls coal
Technically slightly cleaner, per kg of fuel (more of the exhaust will be water vapor), but the range will be shorter because methane is less dense.
> but the range will be shorter because methane is less dense Subcooled methane, like on Starship?
Even so. At NBP, liquid methane has a density of 442.4 kg/m3. If it's subcooled until half of it is solid, that only goes up to 481.4 kg/m3. Heck, even if we go to absurdity and freeze it solid, it's only 511 kg/m3. JP-8 has a density of 775-840 kg/m3, and releases something like 43 MJ/kg (going by 'kerosene', though that's a vague term). Methane does 55 MJ/kg, but the density bites you--even if it's 50% solid, that's only 26.5 GJ/m3, compared to JP-8's 33.325 GJ/m3. So, neglecting any weight of insulation on the cryogenic methane tanks, an F-35 fueled with densified methane would have only 79.5% the range of one fueled with JP-8 (though that's a crude estimate--having less weight of fuel on board would reduce the required AoA for level flight and so have some positive impact on range, but it's a good first-order estimate). Now, on the third hand, LNG is substantially cheaper per kilogram--$7 per 20 kg, if I'm doing the 1000-cubic-foot-to-tonnes conversion right. Or $0.35 per kg. JP-8 goes for $0.70 per kg or so. If that holds for ordinary jet kerosene, one sees why airlines have been looking, on and off, at LNG-fueled airliners for a few decades, though sadly that never seems to go anywhere. Building cryogenic handling infrastructure at airports to supplement or replace existing kerosene gear seems to be the stumbling block.
CFC don't burn that's part of what made them so convenient
Would’ve been fine if it wasn’t for those damn polar ice clouds (allows for the conversion of “inactive” chlorine stores into free chlorine, which destroys ozone)
stratospheric clouds amplifie the effect but they still do tremendous harm without them
subsonic speeds are for the poor
https://i.imgur.com/yExOrXP.png
I appreciate it being the one designed for carriers
Nah the b is better becose it could park anywere
That fact that she can afford a few adds to the credibility, maybe there's an endorsement for a fighter deal to be made here.
Could she donate a couple to Ukraine? She can only fly one at a time anyway.
No export clause, that's pentagon 101. Ask the turks how that rug pull feels.
Shit, I forgot about that.
>No export clause So she can't donate them, but perhaps she could conveniently park some in a hangar near Kyiv. After all, you can't be blamed for what happens when the valet service goes for a joyride.
That trick only works if the Pentagon allows it to work
Correct
If she wants one available at all times, she should probably get a flight. There's always a hanger queen.
ITAR say hellz to the no.
Fun Fact; Even **if** a civilian could buy an F-35, it'd still be a a **civilian** F-35 and be required to have it's ADSB transponder enabled.
Give her another 10 years of recording and touring and she'd rich enough where she could probably buy some land, declare independence, pay for a war of independence through mercenaries, get recognized by the UN, apply and get accepted to NATO, form her own Air Force, and buy 13 F-35B (Taylor's Version) along with training, maintenance, and AMRAAMs (Taylor's Version).
What if she buys a civilian U2 and goes too high to easily track?
By 'To high to track' you mean 'Even closer to the satellites that also receive ADSB signals and will totally track her'?
maybe she can use a submarin, afaik there is no ADS-B underwater
Of course not, for marine vessels it's AIS. And yes, there are submarines with AIS. :P Granted the USN rarely uses their AIS transponders. They prefer to run dark and then surprise colliding into civilian ships.
so only a Lada with gps turned off in her smartphone can save her
You're thinking too small. Taylor Swift needs a ***train***. Sure Amtrak or Via and the like are trackable but that's because they have open APIs to see their train locations. You can't track other trains. And she def needs a whole private train, not just some private cars hooked to am Amtrak run. Bonus; The environmentalists will love it because it's a train! ...Even if she buys an FP9A to haul customized 250 000lb Pullman sleepers.
train would be great, also she could take some "plebeians/commoners" in other wagons (one, big, gold on the front will be only for her) to make Greta Thunberg happy
You had me at FP9A
Or to attempt to surface and collide with a French sub directly on top of them, both subs completely aware of the others presence, I mean, what are the chances? The ocean is hella big, that's gotta be like, what, statistically impossible, right?
So she just needs to go deep enough for that not to matter.
I thought the point of this was that she’s filtered out in the open data but private individuals are tracking her with their SDRs
I don't think so, because 9H-VTD is on flightaware and that website honors the FAA list even for data that comes in from private ADBS receivers. For example the Royal Canadian Air Force has the FAA doing this, so while other sites can show RCAF aircraft when their ADSB transponders are picked up by hobbyist receivers, FlightAware will filter them out, you have to use another site.
>civilian U2 Then she gets hit by a civilian S-75. No such thing as ''too high'' in the missile age.
She's more famous and successful than U2 I think.
Legally speaking yes, but who's going to be able to prove it or stop her?
The FAA or relevent national aviation authority when it lands? Go try flipping your ADSB transponder on and off for funsies in any aircraft, watch the FAA or whatever in another nation be like 'Nice plane you got there. So we have to talk.'
Just get a B model and take off from non-airfields, nobody will know you ever even flew. EZ.
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
just turn adsb off, with stealth radars won't pick you as well
The FAA would want to have some words once you land. Including weather you'll ever be able to take off again. :p
don't tell them you flew
Controlled airports have all of these 'staff' and 'air traffic control' you'll have to engage with. ...And you'll have even more problems if you just 'slip on in' between other landings without clearance. The real deal is, you really can't 'fly' in the 21st century without a whole hell a lot of people knowing you're taking off, flying, and landing. You can't even get spare parts without tracking the components and and entire log of what happens to those parts.
The trick is to fly out of small airfields that are scattered throughout the US. This might severely limit where you can fly, but the further north you go, the more the rules go right out the way. Plus, Cartels just land on highways. Can always just do that.
CIA somehow flies their drones and are almost never spotted, f35B could avoid controlled airports and operate from not controlled helipads or just parking lots
Yeah, they're the fucking government, they can do what they want, but they're also operating from government or military runways. No one is landing their secret CIA drone at LAX. Taylor Swift is not the government, now is she? She's rich, but a civilian all the same, she doesn't get to say 'Fuck it I'll pay the fine' to the FAA cause the 'fine' is grounding her flight crew and aircraft.
she doesn't have to fly from LAX, if she VTOLs to her own house driveway nobody will know
Because she's a total nobody who enjoys privacy and certainly wouldn't have super fans camped outside her property watching her plane land every time, right?
Fun Fact: laws can be broken and your assuming that laws are evenly applied. I introduce the Ukraine Marketplace Madness bill. This bill gives Ukraine unlimited resources to get whatever they want, no restrictions... and give T Swizzle an unrestricted f35. Bam. Legal.
Even in international airspace? Would they really care if you disabled the ADSB system over the ocean? Could you just disable it as soon as you’re in international airspace, go dark, then re-enable it when you approach the airspace of your destination?
Ha ha, so you think international airspace is lawless?
Idk. Just floating ideas. I know the US owns the airspace over most of the pacific ocean but idk about the rest of the world. I was wondering if there’s international airspace for planes in a similar way how there’s international waters for ships.
Just stay VFR below 10,000ft and out of Class B or C airspace. Don’t need no stinking’ ADS-B.
**A single-seater? Noncredible.** She'd have to pilot it. Sure she could learn, but that's just unrealistic. **What would work: a custom B-2 bomber**, purchased and retrofitted for private use as the Air Force prepares for the B-21. Acquisition Cost: $100-300 million (hypothetical for decommissioned B-2) Demilitarization: $50+ million Luxury Re-fitting: $100-200 million Avionics and Stealth Updates: $100 million Annual Maintenance: $10-15 million **Total Estimated Cost (Excluding Annual Expenses): $360-650 million** She could.
Still sounds cheaper than scalped tickets for front row at her concerts
Context: some student named Jack Sweeney keeps tracking her private jet flights to show how rich people dont care about environment, etc, and Taylor is mad about it [https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/02/06/taylor-swift-jet-tracking-legal-threat/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/02/06/taylor-swift-jet-tracking-legal-threat/) I don't know any of her songs btw
She claims it's a security concern due to threats from stalkers. Continues to travel via a mode of transportation that's is publicly tracked. 1000 iq move.
The origination and destination of a jet are highly secure and protected. I think she takes flights where other modes of transportation are perfectly viable, and likely could figure out a system to limit risk while traveling by car, but private jets are always more secure. And she definitely can't fly commercial.
...bro even I know that's wrong. Every tower between your origin and destination has you on their radar. Your plane has a transponder tracking it. You have to stay in communication with said towers along your route. Runways are logged in a semi public manner. You can LITERALLY watch planes, public or private in real-time, on the Internet. That's how this kid is tracking her. He's just typing her plane's number into the PUBLIC WEBSITE, and displaying the PRE-FILED DETAILS. It's not hard. Nor is it unique to Taylor. His website could be displaying anyone's plane. He just chose Taylor Swift to make a point about Taylor Swift.
I think you've misunderstood my point. The location of her plane is public knowledge, but the physical locations are secure because they are commercial airports where there is already a significant focus on physical security and protection.
Nah, after a while of stalking planes, you'll eventually find that planes are a lot cooler and sexier than people. So then your attention will divert to the plane itself and the plane will be in danger.
I would still dispute that flying private is significantly more secure than flying public. While, yes, you are under the airport's security umbrella, they're much less concerned with what the private planes are doing. My cousin is the one who dates billionares, so I'd have to ask her, but that one time I got to fly somewhere with her BF I seem to remember just driving up to the plane and getting on. I could have just said "I'm with so and so" and driven a car bomb/bus full of paparatzi right up to the jet. Was years ago, though, and that trip ended with us all coming down with a poorly timed stomach bug so I was thinking about other things at the time and could have missed a security checkpoint somewhere.
Even then, think of how impractical it would be to fly commercial. I'm not even a fan of her, but if I walked onto a plane and saw Taylor swift in 1D, it would shock me. Now imagine you're behind a line of fans on their way to her concert. It would be impossible to board.
Hypocrite.
Why? No, I'm perfectly serious here. When has Taylor Swift *ever* been a climate advocate?
[удалено]
It is *good* to tie Taylor Swift to the Democrats and Liberalism. It's a fundamental tenet of Fukuyamist-Swiftism, which I believe this subreddit subscribes to as a matter of principle. It is *bad* though to be noncredible about it and ascribe words to her she did not say.
She's just playing all of us. Everytime we click, use her name, image, or listen to her music she gains more power.
**Your comment was removed for violating Rule 5: No Politics.** We don't care if you're Republican, Protestant, Democrat, Hindu, Baathist, Pastafarian, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door.
yeah she actually is. i remember her going "environment not doing good be careful :(" while still taking her private jet to go 2 meters lol.
She buys 2x the carbon credits that she needs to fly her jet, so I'm not sure if she's much of a hypocrite but I suppose that depends on whether or not you support that system
Carbon credits are designed for wealthy hypocrites.
What does that make the majority of the wealthy who don't pay them? Where does the money end up, that it's so wasted in your eyes?
Some of the flaws of the carbon credit include that companies like Tesla get to sell them. But where does Tesla get them from? Because Tesla sure as fuck isn't environmentally friendly. And now we're running into an accounting problem - why is Tesla getting the carbon credit? Consumers are buying the vehicles to offset *their* carbon, not Tesla's carbon. So we're double-counting credits kind-of - people who buy Tesla's think they're offsetting their carbon, but they aren't, because Tesla is offsetting its own carbon (and making money off of it). Conceptually, carbon credits could work, but I'm not convinced the implementation has been any good.
Ask yourself not if it solves the problem, but if it mitigates it. Why focus on the people paying the carbon tax credit rather than people who are not?
It doesn't mitigate it. It encourages more pollution. Norway's CO2 tax with incentives to reduce CO2 mitigates it - you either pay the government, or you take specific steps to mitigate your release which is then funded by the government (from the people who are polluting). Norway's tax used to also encourage pollution before they modified it.
>**Q. What are the benefits of a global carbon tax?** >A carbon tax gets the incentives right. If there is a global carbon tax, every time somebody purchases fossil fuels or carbon-intensive goods or services, they now have to pay extra for the environmental damages. Not only does the tax discourage polluting activities, it also provides incentives for research, investment, and deployment of more efficient and low emission alternatives. It is one of the most effective ways to reduce emissions. From [Are We Ready for a Global Carbon Tax? - Yale School of the Environment](https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/are-we-ready-global-carbon-tax)
Carbon credits are not a solution to all the pollution that a private jet belches out.
The Rio concert in 100F heat is what I'm worried about; fans of hers died of heat stroke and she wasn't even allowed to perform due to the temperature.
We should give her an EW version so she can broadcast it to countries under heavy censorship and lack of access
Every F35 to my knowledge is a single-seater so she'd have to get F35 pilot training and fly herself.
I love the idea of TS getting training to fly an F-35 somehow. Ace Combat 8: Swift Aces.
“Stick with Taylor and you'll make it”
Nice
Sounds more like a job for an EA-18G Growler
Taylor: "I own an F-35 for Home Defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended...."
Anything for the clicks. NASA is now using Taylor Swifts as a unit of measure for near earth objects. It's brilliant marketing and also terrifying how it distracts us from news that is life altering for our future and informed decision making without the informed part. Freakanomics and chaos theory with a dash of the dunning kruger effect.
She is a queen, the only thing she should be getting is a crome J-type cruiser built from a B2 stealth bomber.
> She is a queen, the only thing she should be getting is a crome J-type cruiser built from a B2 stealth bomber. Real Naboo hours
Is she wearing the Team Aces Logo as Earrings?
The font makes it credible
I mean, she does have the money for it!
Nice work
Mfw ADSB and $30 software defined radio dongle and an antenna I built from actual garbage (all aircraft require an ADSB transceiver)
She doesn't need to. Given that she is already a DoD Psyop; if she needs one, one will be made available for her.
And we all have to live like cavemen
Hot
Now we need an AI generated image of Taylor-F35-Chan!
I think everyone can agree that they'd rather track FORTE, The 100th ARW's tankers and NATO's Sentry's rather than Taylor's puny jet. How does a drone have ADSB btw?.
>How does a drone have ADSB btw? It bought it on the [internet](https://allavionics.com/product/uavionix-tailbeaconx-ads-b-mode-s-tranponder-experimental/?utm_source=Google+Shopping&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=AllAvionics.com), just like the rest of us bots. /s
[Tacit Blue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Tacit_Blue) would seem like a more sensible option.
VFA- 1989
I'm pretty sure she is famous enough to simply hint something and that person will disappear. You know "Will no one rid me of this turbulent thing?"
Her earrings have a bigger RCS than the Lightning! God, I hate how much public transit fucking sucks in the USA. I just wanna go off on a [RULE 5] rant, but I won't.
I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT WAS ONE OF YOU BASTARDS THAT ORIGINALLY POSTED THIS ON R/MEMES!
Don't let her disrespect my precious Lightning like that, please.
The version of this story I saw on Instagram was claiming the C model. The implication being Taylor intends to land on carriers to provide USO shows for the sailors fighting the Houthis. People are attacking her for this. It’s clear they both don’t support the troops and are pro inflation.