dark light

Arthur

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 4,561 through 4,575 (of 6,424 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: RAF reserve planes #2692482
    Arthur
    Participant

    The RAF does not keep withdrawn aircraft in some sort of ‘operational storage’. and the person who told you that about the Vulcans was talking crap. The same is true for the Buccaneers – only a handful remain, and (like with the Vulcans) not a single one in RAF hands is even close to airworthiness.

    Also, there is a difference between an operational storage (aircraft of an operational type, like the Harrier, rotating through storage to keep the hours per airframe low – the Brits have their storage fleets at St. Athan [aircraft] and Fleetlands [helos]) and disposal storage. If you want a European equivalent of AMARC, you should visit Chateaudun. Although the heydays with well over 150 Mirage III/IV/5, CM170s and other aircraft stored there are over, it still is a huge storage base with both disposal aircraft and ‘operational’ storage.

    Here is an overview of the Old German runway at Chateaudun, summer 2002. Not quite operational.

    in reply to: Underground airfields in Serbia #2692505
    Arthur
    Participant

    Originally posted by Srbin
    You cannot possibly and exactly know every serial number of every plane that participated in the bombings and which ones came back and which ones didn’t.

    The best logged war ever, by hundreds or thousands of planespotters. Sure, we’ve all been decieved. When an RAF Tornado went down, the Brits hurridly repainted another one with the same serial and markings, so it wouldn’t look like one had crashed? Sure, believe what you want. I know what i saw, and what other nutters like me saw.

    Besides, the burden of proof is with those claiming there were more aircraft shot down than the ones we all know and acknowledge. Where is the debris of those B-52s and German Phantoms? Where are the ejection seats? The grieving widows? Where is the ‘official admittance from France and Germany that they lost Mirages and Tornados during Operation Allied Force?

    Back it up or back down, you’re not doing your credibility a whole lotta good with such wishful thinking.

    in reply to: Underground airfields in Serbia #2692570
    Arthur
    Participant

    Originally posted by Billy Bishop
    But there were hundreds of planes. If a country sends fifty planes of one type, and one or two less come back, are people who are watching their return going to notice?

    Yes. No question about it – and i’m only talking about amateurs, but then you also have national governments and accounting institutions, family members, thousands of personell who will of course keep everything secret…

    How gullible can you get?

    in reply to: Strange JH-7 phenomina (Open at own peril): #2692600
    Arthur
    Participant

    There was an official model of the JH-7 displayed as early as 1989.

    in reply to: Underground airfields in Serbia #2692613
    Arthur
    Participant

    Yes, it is totally inconcievable.

    Why aren’t there any aircraft missing since the spring of 1999? These claims keep popping up every time some new naive yokel stumbles across Venik’s fairytales, and they are tiring as hell.

    No German Tornados ‘missing’ since April 1999. No RAF Tornadoes which didn’t show up anymore after that time. The Canadian Hornets which were deployed to Europe for Allied Force were seen arriving, and departing. And obviously, the dozens of planespotters at the fence at Fairford never noticed that one B-52 didn’t come back.

    What did escape the binoculairs? Well, one more F-117 arrived in the European theatre than there left from Spang in May 1999, and Aviano got a replacement airframe pretty soon. But apart from those? Nope…

    So please, share those German and French admissions of aircraft lost during NATO’s 1999 Spring Offensive… I don’t care what political or national preference you have, just don’t post bullpoo.

    in reply to: Indiana Jones:) #1819216
    Arthur
    Participant

    It was roughly based on the one of Focke Wulf’s proposals for the 1000x1000x1000 bomber, one of those lovely what-if’s from Luft46.

    http://www.luft46.com/fw/fw1000b.html

    There were more similar designs around, but this one matches the Indy fantasy plane closest.

    in reply to: Underground airfields in Serbia #2692859
    Arthur
    Participant

    Then back up your claim, will you? Besides, posting rubbish has nothing to do with nationality.

    in reply to: Chinese Tu-4 AWACS #2692874
    Arthur
    Participant

    It’s an old picture, the KJ-1 has been moved to the field North of the mountain years ago.

    The hangar itself is some 800 metres long, and about 50 metres wide. It’s a curved tunnel, with entrances on both sides. The entrance on the pic is the main museum entrance and has quite a large apron in front, the other one is shrouded more by mountain walls.

    I don’t think the Tu-4 ever was displayed inside the mountain though. The largest aircraft inside are an Y-5 and several H-5/Il-28s, plus a lot of smaller aircraft.

    in reply to: PAF's A-5s #2692878
    Arthur
    Participant

    Ah, you mean the belly tank? That was a Pakistani mod for the F-6, which was later adopted by the Chinese as well. It’s not permanent, but it’s quite a job to put it in place or remove it, so it isn’t done on a daily basis.

    in reply to: US nuclear bombs #2693019
    Arthur
    Participant

    Pantex now disassembles warheads… and not always with the caution you’d hope for.

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm…ear_weapon_tape

    Nuke Workers Taped Explosive Components

    By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON – Workers dismantling an aging nuclear weapon improperly secured broken pieces of a highly explosive component by taping them together, federal investigators found. An explosion could have occurred, they said.

    The incident was among several recent safety lapses at the Energy Department’s Pantex plant near Amarillo, Texas, noted by the independent Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. Last fall, workers taking apart another old warhead accidentally drilled into the warhead’s radioactive core, forcing evacuation of the facility.

    This month’s unorthodox handling of the unstable explosive increased the risk that the technicians would drop it and set off a “violent reaction,” the safety board said Tuesday in a letter to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham (news – web sites).

    Such a reaction could have “potentially unacceptable consequences,” board chairman John T. Conway said in the letter, which raised disquieting questions about safety at the Pantex plant.

    About 250,000 people live within 50 miles of the Pantex plant, where the motto on its Web site is “Maintaining the safety, security and reliability of America’s nuclear weapons stockpile.”

    Nothing exploded, and no one was hurt.

    The National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the Energy Department’s nuclear weapons programs, is investigating, spokesman Bryan Wilkes said Friday.

    “Safety remains a priority for us,” Wilkes said. “We are working to address the issues in the letter.”

    Safety board chairman Conway’s letter did not make clear whether the explosive had been separated at the time from the softball-sized chunk of plutonium that forms the pit, or trigger, of a thermonuclear warhead. To prevent a thermonuclear blast, the pit would have to have been separated from the larger warhead.

    If the explosive were still connected to the trigger, an explosion could have injured or killed workers and could have spread plutonium or other radioactive materials around the facility.

    The taping and removal of the explosive did not go as planned, and only quick thinking by the technicians prevented them from dropping the explosive, Conway wrote.

    Conway said taping the explosives together was one of several mistakes made by Pantex officials that risked an explosion. Pantex officials also played down the risk, Conway said, calling the cracks in the explosive and the fact that workers taped it together a trivial change in procedures.

    Jud Simmons, a spokesman for Pantex plant operator BWX Technologies Inc., did not return telephone messages on Friday.

    The pit’s plutonium is surrounded by an explosive shell. When the explosives detonate, the plutonium is compressed and causes a nuclear explosion. In a thermonuclear weapon, that explosion sets off an even stronger nuclear blast.

    Workers dismantling the pit in question found the explosive was cracked, which made it more unstable and easier to detonate, Conway wrote. Their solution was to tape together the cracked explosives and move them to another location.

    In his letter, Conway said other problems included:

    _Failing to consult the explosives’ manufacturer to determine how unstable the cracked explosives might be;

    _Performing an incomplete and inadequate safety review before going ahead;

    _Allowing workers to perform the taping and removal without practicing on a mock-up;

    _Failing to have experts who had developed the procedure watch the taping and removal to try to spot any problems.

    Conway’s letter does not elaborate on what might have happened had the explosive detonated.

    The Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has an inspector stationed at the Pantex plant and at the nation’s other nuclear weapons sites. Weekly reports by the Pantex inspector, William White, show several problems with safety at the plant, including flaws in the software designed to control the movement of nuclear and explosive materials around the site.

    White reported in October that Pantex technicians had made a mistake while dismantling a W62 warhead from a Minuteman missile. A drill damaged part of the warhead’s nuclear core, prompting officials to evacuate the facility until experts determined that no radiation had leaked, White wrote.

    I guess you can’t fix anything the BA Baracus way with a bit of ducttape.

    in reply to: Underground airfields in Serbia #2693042
    Arthur
    Participant

    Originally posted by SerbPVO
    Actually, guys, here’s a hard fact for you – both the Germans and the French acknowledged losing a few Mirage and Tornado aircraft during the war.

    Source please :rolleyes:
    Preferably with serial numbers and the lot.

    in reply to: General Discussion #399172
    Arthur
    Participant

    Together we have beauty AND brains.

    (and my respects to Baby Rebecca, BTW).

    in reply to: A new low in beginning a new thread #1977437
    Arthur
    Participant

    Together we have beauty AND brains.

    (and my respects to Baby Rebecca, BTW).

    in reply to: General Discussion #399205
    Arthur
    Participant

    Then we must be brothers. Siamese twins, actually.

    I am the pretty one on the left.
    http://www.omroep.nl/nos/nieuws/images/buitenland/228/ap_rebeca_0702.jpg

    in reply to: A new low in beginning a new thread #1977461
    Arthur
    Participant

    Then we must be brothers. Siamese twins, actually.

    I am the pretty one on the left.
    http://www.omroep.nl/nos/nieuws/images/buitenland/228/ap_rebeca_0702.jpg

Viewing 15 posts - 4,561 through 4,575 (of 6,424 total)