Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NATEDOG on November 02, 2006, 02:03:45 PM
-
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/natedog/image1.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/natedog/image2.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/natedog/image7.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/natedog/image6.jpg)
-
:O
-
The formation flyby w/ the B-2 is amazing, is it real?
BTW, these pictures are hanging up on the wall at the design bureau responsible for continuing development of the Shkval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shkval) in Moscow. :D
-
another powerfull display of why nobody, and everybody, wants to **** with America :D
stunning pics, thanks.
-
these pics are from Exercise Valiant Shield 2006, a joint training op in the westpac. It was the first time in over 20 some odd years three carrier strike groups got together in formation, and one heckuva photo op. :) Apparently RADM Miller, the commander of the Reagan Carrier Strike Force, was my Dad's XO on the Kitty Hawk back in the day. whoda thunk it... Dad thinks Miller's gonna be CNO someday too...
Anyway, there's more pics and some video here... http://www.pacom.mil/exercises/vs2006/imagery060619e.shtml
-
And to think, that's only a fraction of our military power. That group right there could take on anyones elses Navy in the world and kick the living crap out of it.
-
Very cool, thanks for sharing! You probably would have never seen this Pre-1989....(That many carrier formations together)
-
High Resolution:
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060618-N-8492C-276.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060618-N-8492C-066.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060618-N-8591H-383.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060618-N-8492C-221.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060618-N-8492C-299.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060618-N-8492C-212.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060618-N-7782O-146.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060618-N-7597G-031.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060618-N-7130B-606.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060618-N-7130B-298.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060618-N-7130B-572.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060618-N-7130B-124.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060618-N-7130B-157.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060618-N-7130B-052.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060618-N-5961C-003.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060618-N-4166B-036.jpg
-
loooooooots of money swiming in the pool around! :D
-
Isnt the Kitty Hawk older then the USS America was?
My old man spent some time on both the America and the Kitty Hawk, he called the Kitty hawk the ****ty Kitty and though the America was way better.
Amazing pics, thanks.
-
ammeeerrricaaaaa **** YEAH!!!
-
WOW!!:aok
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Very cool, thanks for sharing! You probably would have never seen this Pre-1989....(That many carrier formations together)
You're right:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Task_Force_58.jpg)
(http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/MoreImages4/Truk/TaskForce58Truk.jpg)
I know, this isn't what you were talking about. However, people often forget about Task Force 58/38 during WW2. 15 fast carriers at the Marianas plus multiple escort carriers that were used to cover and support the invasions. I think the high point in carriers attached was 19, but it could have been more. Also, only 2 of the carriers operated with the task force were built prior to the war (Enterprise and Saratoga). The Japanese never had a chance.
Anyways, thanks for sharing the pics Nate.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Isnt the Kitty Hawk older then the USS America was?
My old man spent some time on both the America and the Kitty Hawk, he called the Kitty hawk the ****ty Kitty and though the America was way better.
Amazing pics, thanks.
Yes, the Kitty Hawk is CV-63, America was CV-66. Kitty and JFK(CV-67) are the last two conventional CV's the US has. Also true about the nickname ****ty Kitty but that's somewhat normal...part of a love/hate relationship sailors have with their ships. America was actually retired because it was in much worse shape than the Kitty.
-
Here one reburshed by the U.S Air Force:
(http://tech-rep.org/images/cvn.jpg)
-
And don't forget what you don't see ... the all-important submarines.
-
Originally posted by Ball
ammeeerrricaaaaa **** YEAH!!!
:) http://www.drunkreport.com/media/america.htm
-
And to think that with just one years military budget the US could solve the hunger problem for good. :rolleyes:
Some would think this would create more stability globally than any military can.
-
Solve the problem? Or feed people for a a year? What happens after that year?
-
The first pic reminded me: how many of us had at least one model aircraft carrier as a kid: raise yer hand.
(raises hand...)
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
And to think that with just one years military budget the US could solve the hunger problem for good. :rolleyes:
Some would think this would create more stability globally than any military can.
Jeese....I really, really, really, hope you're being facetious.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
:) http://www.drunkreport.com/media/america.htm
:rofl :rofl
porno! **** YEAH!
-
Here one reburshed by the U.S Air Force:
(Yea baby)
Also note the B-2 leading the Navy
Follow big bird home.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Phaser11
Also note the B-2 leading the Navy
Follow big bird home.
They're just helping it out. Those Airforce pilots get kinda nervous anytime they're under 20,000 feet.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
They're just helping it out. Those Airforce pilots get kinda nervous anytime they're under 20,000 feet.
just like rooks.
-
Not feed for one year, solve it. An irrigation system to cover half Sahara desert for example.. peanuts compared to military budget.
-
lol all that would happen would be lots of african heads of state would get very wealthy very quickly, and the population would just get a few bags of wheat.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
They're just helping it out. Those Airforce pilots get kinda nervous anytime they're under 20,000 feet.
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-111c-a.jpg)
(http://www.defense-update.com/images/b-1Bdumb.jpg)
(http://www.american.edu/TED/images4/A10.jpg)
-
That F-111 might be in the weeds, but it doesnt belong to the USAF.
Great pic though.
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
That F-111 might be in the weeds, but it doesnt belong to the USAF.
Great pic though.
Many were upset when the USAF decided to mothball the F-111s. When it comes to getting down in the dirt though 50ft at 500kts was hard to beat. However, two were lost at Cannon AFB when I was there in the late 70's so maybe canning 'em was a smart thing to do.
-
take them in Persian Gulf, and bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, :)
-
The one in that pic is a RAAF bird. It 'lives' about a 30 min drive down the highway from my place at Amberley AFB.
They are still used as frontline combat aircraft down here, though their age is starting to tell.
BTW, I agree, for high speed ingress/egress at stupidly low altitudes and capability to deliver it's (very large)payload on target every time, you just cant beat a 'Pig'. Nothing comes close except maybe a pair of Tornados.
The big question is, what do you replace an aging fleet of F-111s with, and retain or improve it's strike capabilities and range?
-
Originally posted by Ball
lol all that would happen would be lots of african heads of state would get very wealthy very quickly, and the population would just get a few bags of wheat.
Yeah, better to buy more bombs instead. :aok
-
F-111
Thanks alot for the pic. I worked on those for 12 of my 22 years in the Airforce. Now I'm going to have nightmares about water tanks again.
AHHHHHHHHHHH
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
The big question is, what do you replace an aging fleet of F-111s with, and retain or improve it's strike capabilities and range?
You simply apply the same logic used during the "Hornet/Super Hornet as a replacement for the F-14" acquisition process and lower your expectations until they meet the flavor of the week just coming off the assembly lines.
-
Originally posted by Phaser11
Also note the B-2 leading the Navy
Follow big bird home.
:rofl
That just because USAF pilots don't know how to fly formation.:cool:
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Not feed for one year, solve it. An irrigation system to cover half Sahara desert for example.. peanuts compared to military budget.
Oh God, he's actually serious. Come on, let's hear the "you can't hug your child with nuclear arms" one also... Please, oh, please...I love that one sooooooo much.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Solve the problem? Or feed people for a a year? What happens after that year?
They ask for more silly ;)
-
An irrigation project to make the Sahara desert bloom eh? Where ya gonna get all the fresh water from oh compassionate one?
The people of the United States already donate more, in terms of total currency, to international charity and economic development causes than any other nation on earth.
Personally, I'm perfectly happy that my tax dollars are being spent on the greatest military hardware and personnel in the world.
Deterrence will always be needed....always.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
An irrigation project to make the Sahara desert bloom eh? Where ya gonna get all the fresh water from Nimrod?
Now guys, don't get down on him, it'll damage his self-esteme....plus I just think he is so cute trying to be all grown up and all. :rofl
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
And to think that with just one years military budget the US could solve the hunger problem for good.
the "hunger problem" will solve itself, some will starve, some will die in tribal warfare, the rest will move to europe where the food is.
-
(quote) You simply apply the same logic used during the "Hornet/Super Hornet as a replacement for the F-14" acquisition process and lower your expectations until they meet the flavor of the week just coming off the assembly lines. (unquote)
Yep, Chairboy, it sure seems that way, although I'm hoping it also reflects reduced threat assessment and/or other enhanced defense capability as yet unknown to us outsiders.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Yeah, better to buy more bombs instead. :aok
or, you finns could pitch in some... after your cradle to grave
nanny takes care of your ever litl need of course...
-
Originally posted by RedRadr
or, you finns could pitch in some... after your cradle to grave
nanny takes care of your ever litl need of course...
We've held our own historically speaking, thanks.
-
lol get me some supercavitating Russian missiles and i will have fun sinking those ships. ;)
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
The one in that pic is a RAAF bird. It 'lives' about a 30 min drive down the highway from my place at Amberley AFB.
They are still used as frontline combat aircraft down here, though their age is starting to tell.
BTW, I agree, for high speed ingress/egress at stupidly low altitudes and capability to deliver it's (very large)payload on target every time, you just cant beat a 'Pig'. Nothing comes close except maybe a pair of Tornados.
The big question is, what do you replace an aging fleet of F-111s with, and retain or improve it's strike capabilities and range?
If I was the Air Vice Marshall of the RAAF, or the minister for defence...
Withdraw from the JSF before that lemon sucks in more ca$h, and replace our F-18's/F-111's for leased or new build F-15K's, or westernised Su30MK's which with our A330 Tankers should provide good support and range, and wait until the F-22 is available for export.
But they're not as good a bomb truck as the pig...
Tronsky
-
Shame this never made service: -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2
Would have been an outstanding attack aircraft.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Yeah, better to buy more bombs instead. :aok
I'd rather the Americans buy more bombs than giving the money to some dictator or warlord. Most of the 3rd world choose to stay poor ... out of ignorance to be sure, but they still choose to stay poor through civil wars and arcane social-economic structures.
At least the bombs the Americans buy won't be used to slaughter innocents.
-
Mandindo, that's why I linked to the Shkval in one of the first replies.
-
Originally posted by mandingo
lol get me some supercavitating Russian missiles and i will have fun sinking those ships. ;)
snort, russia have a coupla tanks left sittin on blocks in the front yard?
very intimidating...
-
RadRedr: You might want to read up a little on the Shkval. While the russian military itself might not be too intimidating, they have some weapons that are really deadly. The Shkval torpedo with nuclear warhead is one of these. It travels at about 230mph underwater. There's literally no defense against it, and a single sub could take out a carrier group using it. When he mentioned supercavitating, that's what he was talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
-
Originally posted by Viking
I'd rather the Americans buy more bombs than giving the money to some dictator or warlord. Most of the 3rd world choose to stay poor ... out of ignorance to be sure, but they still choose to stay poor through civil wars and arcane social-economic structures.
At least the bombs the Americans buy won't be used to slaughter innocents.
Well I agree there, in fact the best thing that could happen to Africa is to return the old imperial rule as they can't feed themselves.
But still, if even a quarter of the US military budget would be pumped to nutrition services, the world would not see hunger anymore.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Well I agree there, in fact the best thing that could happen to Africa is to return the old imperial rule as they can't feed themselves.
But still, if even a quarter of the US military budget would be pumped to nutrition services, the world would not see hunger anymore.
The US spends more every year on "human services" than it does on it's military. We still have homeless and jobless and likely always will.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Well I agree there, in fact the best thing that could happen to Africa is to return the old imperial rule as they can't feed themselves.
But still, if even a quarter of the US military budget would be pumped to nutrition services, the world would not see hunger anymore.
I've always found it interesting that foreigners always come up with ways the US can solve all the world's problems. It's almost as many times as foreigners blame the US for supposedly causing all the world's problems.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Well I agree there, in fact the best thing that could happen to Africa is to return the old imperial rule as they can't feed themselves.
But still, if even a quarter of the US military budget would be pumped to nutrition services, the world would not see hunger anymore.
I got a better solution to the hunger problem.
The EU drops its protectionist agriculture policies, thereby allowing the third world to compete on a level trade playing field, the hungry would get fed and the world's policeman would get to keep all its guns to keep the peace.. its a win win solution.
Shame about the the pampered, bloated and ineficient Euro farmers though...tough chit... that's life.