Your completely wrong there. Most of these missiles fired are with dummy warheads. The object of the firing is to get it within lethal range to simulate a kill. The desired event is to have the missile miss by a small margin so they can use the target again. Direct hits, though, are inevitable and destruction occurs.

I actually count 5 that are all packaged up and look in good shape here:

“..then task the satellite to stay over the center...” . No. Satellites orbit the earth; other wise they’ll return to earth (fall). Geostationary satellites appear to be stationary, however they can only orbit above the equator and at 26,000 miles up there, produce low resolution optical imagery. Lower altitude…

This video was recorded from a fighter targeting pod that has both contrast and IR tracking. You can watch a French fighter droping LGBs using this almost identical pod here:

As one who participated in many combat exercises with our Asian allies, I can say that the press realeases of ‘who won what’ or ’ kill ratios’ or ‘who was better’ will never be released. Asian nations do not want to be embarrassed and our Generals are kind sorts when the State Department is monitoring the exercises.

While not ‘store bought’, some F-4Es were equipped with telescopic cameras on the leading edge of the left wing. These were gimbled and slaved to the radar, where the WSO could switch from a radar picture to a visual picture on his display to ID a target. These F-4s were called TISEO birds.

Your partly right although the actuators are called 'Electro-hydrostatic actuators' which do incorporate hydraulics but eliminate the need for a central hydraulic system.

"F-15.......and instead relies on traditional hydraulics to power its control surfaces." Well so does the F-16. All F-16 flight controls are powered/moved by hydraulic actuators. FBW in this aircraft means the signals are sent over electrical wires to command the hydraulic actuators to move appropriately. There…

You are exactly right OznogSF. But since your post is a little late and questions Tyler's accuracy, then you have been relagated to the 'Pending Approval' bin probably forever as most of my posts are also.

I hate to be kind of anal on the matter of B-52 models, but H's didn't fly combat in Vietnam. In that era, they were configured to drop nukes.

The primary reason a lot of videographers are going to 4K is not to watch on a 4K monitor (as you pointed out very few have one)..But because during the post edit process you can zoom, stretch, pan, crop the video with out hardly any degradation in quality or resolution since the final product will be down-converted…

The F-16 weapons delivery computer was leaps and bounds more accurate than the F-4s and better than the A-7 which also had a CCIP (continuously computing impact point depicted on the HUD).

Maybe my tone was a little harsh, but hey I retired flying 747-400s and if you parked a C-5 and and 744 a 100ft apart, you would not notice the difference in size..so like I said go ahead and exaggerate. It's allowed.

"The plane was so gargantuan, it made a 747 look like a Piper Cub by comparison."

The military limits non-pressurized aircraft to 25,000 ft. It's not because of O2, it's because prolonged unpressurized flight above that altitude has been known to cause decompression sickness (the bends). I personally know of two fighter pilots that got the bends (minor symptoms) that decided to fly for a couple…

Not likely since the models that dropped bombs in Vietnam were all D, F, G models and only H models are flying today. The H models were configured for nukes during the Vietnam era. And for DJMi390, I also doubt your uncle serviced them in Vietnam, but maybe in Thailand or Guam. There were no BUFFS stationed in…

Actually a G-suit and almost exact copy of the G-suit our guys wear:

Coctostan is right. The low altitude speed record is still held by a modified F-104 and is barely over mach 1.3. It's extremely difficult to over come the 'Q' factor in dense air not to mention the engine limitations with dense air above mach 1.

The first commercial 747 flight was in Jan 1970. So any photo of a 747 economy class with passengers labeled '1960s' would most certainly be faked.

Mostly true, although there are a few countries that have modified KC-10s/135s, 707s or 747 that utilize a boom to refuel their old F-4s, F-16's or F-15s (for example: Israel)