Author Topic: Afghanistan anecdote; true? false? I don't know. (Read 1898 times)

NUKE · « **Reply #15 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:07:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
think of the source hes 0 for 2 on military matters that can be checked.

mach 1.2 at 50k

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-1b-specs.htm

B1B speed/alt

600+ mph (Mach .92) @ 500 feet
825 mph (Mach 1.25) @ 50,000 feet

toads r/c club buddies are full of **** again.

http://www.jetplanes.co.uk/lancer.html

Quote

mach 1.2 sea level

NUKE · « **Reply #16 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:09:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
and yea thanks reagan for the useless gdamed thing. suprised we still have b-52s sigh....

http://coat.ncf.ca/air_show/links/background.htm

with people like you, I'm suprised we have any military.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #17 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:12:20 PM »

Yep, this source says Mach 1.2 at sea level too. But for certain, most of these "published" numbers probably are not in line with what it can really do. They're conservative at best.

http://www.gailvin.com/planes/lancer.htm

Ripsnort · « **Reply #18 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:14:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
and yea thanks reagan for the useless gdamed thing. suprised we still have b-52s sigh....

http://coat.ncf.ca/air_show/links/background.htm

B-1 Lancer
It carries nuclear bombs and cruise missiles in three internal rotary dispensers. The B1A was first conceived in the late 60's as a replacement for the B52. President Carter killed it due to technical problems and huge cost overruns. Reagan brought it back, spending many more millions trying to have it redesigned as a subsonic, low level, penetration bomber. This created massive design problems because it was originally designed as a supersonic, high altitude, penetration bomber. Despite costing over $100 million each, the B1B was virtually obsolete when its first run was completed. Despite costing tremendous amounts of money, no one in the White House today is quite sure what to do with it. It is very popular at air shows.

LOL, yeah, like I'm going to use the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT) website as the truth, like you. LMAO! You are great entertainment, LDF, keep it up!

NUKE · « **Reply #19 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:17:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
and yea thanks reagan for the useless gdamed thing. suprised we still have b-52s sigh....

So you want no b1 and no b-52's huh? Tell us what bombers you would like us to have then?? I bet you like the B2 then right? ( probably not )

Toad · « **Reply #20 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:17:20 PM »

LOL! I'm 2/2 in military matters you obviously don't know anything about!

Best get over it, bile. The Mirages were passed on to the Saudis, not due to "racism" but for pure politics. Someday you'll read about it... or maybe you won't.

As for this letter, look carefully at the third sentence in my initial post. Just count two periods and then that next ones's the one. Or you could just read the entire thread title if your train of thought can stay on the tracks that long.

Oh, btw.. how high are mountains in Afghanistan? You ever check? You know Mach is altitude dependant, right?

What happens if you exceed redline by a tiny bit in an airplane? Do the wings just fall right off or what?

Keep talking, bile. You do entertain.

NUKE · « **Reply #21 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:18:20 PM »

He's a complete idiot. He thinks the B1 only carries nukes? what a moron.

He wants no B-52 and no B-1.

I guess he wants the UN to protect us too.

"it is very popular at airshows" LOL!

Ripsnort · « **Reply #22 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:19:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
So you want no b1 and no b-52's huh? Tell us what bombers you would like us to have then?? I bet you like the B2 then right? ( probably not )

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #23 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:27:52 PM »

all three morons for the price of one

toad first lol you say you weren't shure then you claim to be right careful quibbling is still lieing so piss off.

also toad you still havent made you mind up about your last made up crap so was it confidential? ( as you claimed ) or not (as you claimed)? remember i was there and your "r/c club buddy apperently was not"

its the 500 plus post a while back your look your lie up.

next

nuke/boeing employee on company time

the b1 was designed to replace the b52. it didnt and is basicly useless thats why it was canceled twice. regan broght it back as a pork project. thats why we still have b52s.

it was sarcasm have somone else explain that to you.

yea both can carry nukes lol you didnt know that?

Boroda · « **Reply #24 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:30:53 PM »

blasts the sound barrier

This is the common myth about "breaking the sound barrier". It just flew supersonic over them. Any object moving faster then the speed of sound produces impact waves as it moves, this is what you hear/feel (hehe) as a "sonic boom".

My strange childhood experience: we had a country house on a beach of Finnish Gulf in mid-70s, it was a military college summer quarters and test ground, in Privetnenskoye near Zelenogorsk (Terioki), on the ruins of fort Ino blown up in 1918. I remember MiG-23s coming low from the sea right over our house, I could even see the pilot. Maybe no more then 30m high. It was horrible sound

I am happy they didn't go supersonic over groung that low, or we should have changed window glasses every week

NUKE · « **Reply #25 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:33:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader

nuke/boeing employee on company time

wrong, nice desperate guess though. Im just an American that has a little logic......what do you claim to have?

I think you are a moron on Uncle Sam's dime, you probably are a bumb or just an ignorant kid.

Tell us what bomber system you would like us to have ? Any ideas military genius?

NUKE · « **Reply #26 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:38:19 PM »

How many countries have a bomber that can do what the B-52 can do LDV ? Are you saying the B-52 is obsolete?

Toad · « **Reply #27 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:40:00 PM »

So far it looks like there's just one moron that's joined the thread.

Try reading again for comprehension; I haven't ever said it was true or false. I just pointed out a few things your... incisive..... mind may have overlooked. Like the relationship between Mach and altitude, the height of mountains in Afghanistan, the fact that all published specifications of military machinery may in fact understate capability and lastly the fact that a redline is just a line on an airspeed indicator; it's not a self-destruct mechanism.

I explained the Mirage intercept to you far more than necessary for a normal intellect to grasp. Go back and read them a few more times and the classified/unclassified aspect could possibly become clear to you.

Have a nice day.

Dinger · « **Reply #28 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:46:52 PM »

.92 is gonna be level cruising speed, not maximum airframe speed. The darn thing lights the burners at 20k and dives to the deck. Heck even a Me262 can break the sound barrier in a dive.

Pongo · « **Reply #29 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:47:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
B-2 is subsonic.

Ah. I thought that was what they removed from the thing between the B1 and the B1b, smaller engines or no afterburners or something. Anyway cool story.