Russian Fighter Book

Guy Alcala wrote in message ...
The same is true of Russian warships - with their rakish bows and squat
silhouettes they just look so menacing - and they bristle with weaponry.

Same here. Back when I was first getting interested in ships. . .well
compared to a Kara the Belknap class looked pretty sorry.

OTOH, when you compare actual capability the scales tilt the other way, thus
showing that the old adage that an a/c (or ship) that looks right most likely
_is_ right, hasn't applied for some time, if ever.

You don't find yourself subconsciously changing what "looks right"?
After playing Harpoon a lot and reading various naval magazines and
such, I am definitely coming around to the "sleek and understated =
very dangerous" mindset.

Take the masts on the LPD-17, for example. There's definitely
something *right* about them, and while I can't quite enunciate my
reaction, it's something like "Uh oh. There's someting going on here
tthat I don't quite understand, and coming from the Americans that's
probably very, very bad news."

The Visby has the same sort of effect, as does the conning tower (but
not the entire hull, in drydock say) of a submarine. The DD(X) seems
to be taking the aesthetic trend a bit too far - that tumblehome looks
*weird*.

-jake