Another fun video

a reply to: Woody510

Just a bit of one. There are two B-52s on Guam undergoing inspection now after being chained down through the edges of a Category 2 typhoon. They sent the other 4, a bunch of F-15s from Kadena, and F-16s from Misawa to Alaska. The B-2s that were flying out of Hickam went home early to dodge Olivia, which wound up stalling before getting to Maui and only causing relatively minor damage.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I would imagine the B2s would have more of a chance of being lifted in strong winds wouldn't they?

a reply to: Woody510

Yes and no. It would take a stronger wind, but they'd probably be lifted a little higher.

a reply to: Blackfinger

They always say rubbing is racing.

a reply to: Zaphod58

at 22:30 in this RT video the interview is taking place in a man office and i noticed a model on top of the mans book case.

is it the swan aka TU-160? the wings look to have a different orientation. then again that could just be me seeing something i want to see.

a reply to: penroc3

Looks like a Tu-160 with the wings swept back.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: penroc3

Looks like a Tu-160 with the wings swept back.

I agree

a reply to: Zaphod58

im not sure if you two guys watched the video(in its entirety). At one point it showed a TEL ICBM in the middle of the forest somewhere and the guy said that no one could know where they were(other then the whole TV crew lol) but with the open sky treaty wouldn't russia need to disclose the launcher locations or at least the garage they are stored in?

also with SALT II now default i belive how would Russia or the US confirm the number and type of warheads? clearly they aren't going to allow their perceived enemy know the location of their subs and launchers so other than knowing where they are produced what good was SALT? it seems just like a gentleman's agreement.

if i were in charge of my sides arsenal i would have a few trophy locations or missiles to get inspected and have my real stuff on mobile launchers or subs, both sides SLBM's can carry way more warheads than what is allowed and the only way anyone would ever find out is if there was a nuclear war and at that point who cares.

a reply to: penroc3

Open Skies flights are planned well in advance, so it would be a simple matter to move a TEL somewhere. Satellite passes would be able to see them though.

a reply to: Zaphod58

the question is if they all have to use off the shelf stuff then they clearly don't have any amazing sensors, maybe some scintillation detectors and IR sensors but i would think the tubes on the launchers and even more so in silos you could mask or alter the emissions to what it should be.

i could see if they had advanced sensors they would have higher resolution

but either way if i wanted to hide missiles with a lot more MIRV's and just missiles not officially acknowledged i would put them in a sub

it just seems silly(open skies) as there is no way to really enforce a grievance or violation.

Russia pissed about not getting certified

a reply to: penroc3

ETA:

as far as i know only nuclear warheads arent allowed in orbit but what about more advanced 'nuclear'(for lack of a better word) device.

exotic particle beam weapons and other spooky stuff i think is okay in orbit, maybe thats what some of these LEO stuff is looking for. kind of like open skies for space.

a reply to: penroc3

No nuclear weapons or detonations are allowed in orbit. This is what killed Orion. The US tried to negotiate an exception for Orion, but the Soviets refused.

Other weapons are perfectly allowed.

On the Tin Lizzie, ahem, HMS Queen Elizabeth:



Landing:

Only in Australia



Better video:

v.redd.it...

a reply to: C0bzz
Riverfire is especially apt for an Australian Growler.

Pigs did Riverfire better..

I remembered seeing a f-111 doing that here in the UK once at an airshow, how much fuel would they burn doing that