i am your idol, you bring me even for breakfast, seems you never can not see thing beyond your patriotic lenses:cool: cool buddy life goes on
see the US version http://www.nbc6.net/news/11232007/detail.html
A bite! …. hooked! …. screaming reels! Chill out Flogger for crying out loud! ‘Patriotic lenses’ LOL!
You just have to Google Sorcha Faal to see the utter garbage that is spouted. ‘Faal’ popped up a few years ago and is probably a nom de plume for another failed conspiracy loon.
Obviously ‘Flogger’ (MiG-23MLD) will be analysing the details from this ‘Russian source’ and bringing them up time and time again when F-16 shootdowns are mentioned in the forums.
LOL. Who is claiming the F-16 loss in Nevada?
http://media-newswire.com/release_1045547.html
‘(Media-Newswire.com) – 3/13/2007 – NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. ( AFNEWS ) — An F-16 Fighting Falcon assigned to the 16th Weapons Squadron from the U.S. Air Force Weapons School here crashed Feb. 12 at 8:50 p.m. near the end of the runway while on approach to the Tonopah Test Range Airfield, approximately 20 miles southeast of Tonopah, Nev.
The pilot ejected safely and there were no reports of any injuries or damage to property on the ground.
The cause of the accident is under investigation.
The aircraft was flying a night training mission over the restricted Nevada Test and Training Range.
Tonopah Test Range Airfield is approximately 212 miles northwest of Nellis Air Force Base.
The F-16 is a compact, multi-role fighter aircraft. It is highly maneuverable and designed for both air-to-air combat and air-to-surface attack.
The U.S. Air Force Weapons School is the Air Force’s graduate-level pilot training program.
More information will be released as it becomes available.’
I think it’s in ‘Vulcan 607’, though I’m not sure and don’t have my sources to hand, that the crater in the runway from Black Buck 1 was only repaired cosmetically – i.e. thrown full of rubble and hasily concreted over to give the appearance that the runway was functioning again, but actually could not have supported aircraft landing on the ‘repaired’ section. Does anyone have any confirmation or otherwise for this?.
This crater caused problems with UK forces after the Argentine surrender. RAF News, April 26th 2002, has a piece from retired Air Commodore John Davis. Davis was the first commander of the operations wing at RAF Stanley. In relation to the runway crater from the first Black Buck mission Davis wrote “This rogue crater required a succession of repairs amid what soon became high intensity air operations.”
This video should cheer you up?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApM_f-jBlP0&mode=related&search=
Must be this video
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=76a_1173456397
For the people who can´t open the avi.
I just posted a comment about this scene. I was suprised tu see the predator firing a missile at the Mig. I´m not aware of any air-to-air missile carried by an UAV, so it must have been a hellfire anti tank missile, not my faworite weapon against a Mig-25.
But an interesting vision for the future, for the time beeing, 1-0 für manned aircraft.
and some other vids for fans of great dogfights:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1f_1173457262
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d5c_1173456031
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cf1_1173451822
The missile fired by the Predator was a Stinger:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/tech/main551126.shtml
“Even so, military officials and analysts say the $2.5 million Predator’s first dogfight in December heralds a new role.
Lilly said the Air Force was “baiting” the Iraqi air force by flying Predators over southern Iraq and fleeing when Iraqis scrambled their jets.
“Then they put Stinger missiles on a Predator. They took it up and the Predator didn’t run away,” he said.
The Predator and an Iraqi MiG 25 fired air-to-air missiles at each other. Lilly said the Stinger missed when its heat-seeker got diverted by the MiG’s missile. The Iraqi missile downed the Predator.”
I realise that 10/15 years ago about 75%+ of what went on at A&AEE Boscombe Down was top secret, today however it seems to have lost a large part of its role as an ‘Experimental Establishment’.
What would be the general reaction today from any local military if I were to perch myself on nearby hill top and take photos of the aircraft that fly out of there today, mostly Tutors, Tornados, Alpha Jets and helecopters?
Obviously these photos would be for my personal useage only, no selling them on to scrupulous sources although the odd pic might get posted on here on AF.
I thought this best posted here as Photography seems to concentrate more on airshows and tutorials. Thanks for any help in advance.
840
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/spotting/boscombe_down.html
TEEJ , my apologies, i did indeed misread your post.
-Dazza:o
Dazza,
No probs. Apology accepted
🙂
TJ
Not quite sure what this aircraft is. I thought it was the RC-12 Guardrail but I hadn’t seen one with the large hump on top not to mention it isn’t bristling with antennas. Am I wrong and this is just a new version of the RC-12. I figured this was the place to ask. 🙂
They have been around for a while. They were converted from RC-12Ns. That aircraft, 93-0701, is an RC-12Q. The RC-12Qs primary mission is Direct Airborne Satellite Relay – DASR.
Pedant mode on:
TEEJ, only the MR2s have the MAD boom, its abscent on the R.1.
Pedant mode off:
-Dazza;)
Huh? You have misread my post. I know very well that the MR.2s have the MAD boom. Why would I post a link to images of R.1s to highlight the lack of said boom? He believed he saw a Comet with no ‘radome’. I am under the impression that he is referring to the boom.
anyone notice a huge thin aircraft going towards Woodhall Spa/Conningsby yesterday afternoon? Would have sworn it was a comet – no radome on the tail so it couldnt have been a Nimrod. It certainly looked like a comet allthough obviously it wasnt. It was noisy!
Did you mean a MAD boom rather than a radome? What you probably saw was a Nimrod R.1, 51 Squadron, based at Waddington.
Maybe – but probably not.
Why ‘probably not’? My initial statement still stands.
Are they?
If someone invaded your country would you not want them out either?
How do you know that they are Iraqi? They could be foreign fighters.
***edited***
http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/video/aa2mar07/
***edited***
P.S.S I’m not sure what type of aircraft did the attacks…if anyone has any ideas please through them out there. I’m thinking an A-10 or AC-130 did the first part, with a JDAM or SDB doing the second part on the vehicle itself…..anyone have any thoughts?
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=67966
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123043317
‘Also, near Fallujah, a JTAC reported a Bongo truck mounted with anti-aircraft weapons and requested A-10s strike the truck. The JTAC passed corrections on movement of individuals to a tree line just south of Fallujah. The A-10s expended multiple cannon rounds. The JTAC called “good hit” and requested immediate re-attack.’
News coverage of the video stated that it was an F-16 that later took out the truck and the anti-aircraft gun.
Video can be seen at this link:
http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=video/video_show.php&id=21634#
Is this US law or Geneva Convention? Seems to me like low-visibility markings are in the letter, and not the spirit, of this law. Why don’t they just apply a model decal roundel somewhere? That would do just fine. It would meet all stipulations of the law, and cost a lot less. 😉
The Law of Armed Conflict is a treaty obligation of the signatories of the Geneva Conventions. The markings are still visible even if they are low-vis.
So why bother with nationality markings at all, then? If IFF allows ID of threats, visual ID isn’t necessary. And since low-visibiilty is intended to make aircraft less conspicuous “close-up,” I don’s see the need to bother with nationality markings any more on low-visibility schemes.
It is a legal requirement for them to be marked. You can look it up on the Internet.
‘The Law of Armed Conflict
COMBATANT STATUS AND INSIGNIA
All aircraft used in armed conflict should be clearly marked with national insignia indicating that they are military aircraft.
Those markings normally include both national colours and an emblem or roundel indicating the military character of the aircraft.’