No, it’s simple physics. You cannot predict wind gusts in advance. A small gust at high altitude can lead to major impact point variance. Also, the weight of each bomb, slight differences in the bombs center of gravity from the explosive filler, the shape and angle of the stabilizing fins, even slight variances of the…

It can also carry Royal Marines or Army troops, CH-47 Chinooks, Apaches, and medium lift helicopters at the same time. The idea is to have an intervention force with troop lift and strike/air defense aircraft on one ship.

There was an Ark Royal with catapults decommissioned in the ‘79. This was one of the later Invincible class ski jump carrier. The Brits sorely missed the old Ark in the Falklands in ‘82 where her F-4 Phantoms and AEW aircraft could have save a lot of lives and ships.

And that’s just what’s on the outside!

We used to have a bunch of Belgian cammies to wear for OPFOR duties. OPFOR is loads of fun! Catch their security force sleeping and put a lipstick streak across the throat without waking them up. They all wake up in the morning and realize their throats were “slashed” in the middle of the night. One time my guys came…

It’s a big ocean and as they say, that’s only the top of it.

It could have been turbulence. If you notice the KC-135 relative to the ground, he’s moving around a good bit too.

6 on each wing for a total of 20. Cruise missiles are kind of bulky for their weight, but the AGM-86 weighs over 3,000 pounds with a large warhead in the conventional version. So that’s a 60,000 pound load. They were big demand in the Iraq war because the warhead is larger than the Tomahawk, so they were better for…

Maybe even detect heat plumes from ships and planes at sea, far from radar coverage?

I think the big problem with the 4 engine setup is that the outboard pylons are so far out on the wing that the loss of an outboard engine would create an asymmetrical thrust problem making control difficult.

You mean Fred Thompson, who died the other day?

Yeah, on the deck right down the center line of the runway.

It’s a cruise missile rotary launcher. They drop the one on the bottom and rotate the next missile into place. The missiles were shaped to fit on launcher this way to get the most in a bomb bay.

What should be worrisome about this picture is the “AF 84” on the tail. It means this jet was built with funds from the 1984 fiscal year. So it’s an 84 or 85 model. It’s at least 30 years old. It was built before most of the pilots flying it were born.

Here’s scenario for you. Russian minorities in border areas near Russia in Baltic states and/or Poland try to secede a-la Ukraine. Those countries are in NATO. U.S. is obligated to help under treaty requirements. Russian “volunteers” with top shelf anti-aircraft missile technology operate in area (also a-la Ukraine).…

Nope, in production for awhile now. F-22’s are dropping them in Syria. About 250 pounds with high quality explosive give a lot of bang for its weight. GPS guidance, 40+ mile glide range. Boeing has even stuck them on the Army’s MLRS ground launched rockets where they can hit targets up to 90 miles away or 40 miles…

Great Grumman tradition. Maybe they can convince the Northrop suits to do that. I vote for “Lion”. Don’t think it’s been used yet on a US plane.

Agreed. B-2 flew over Yugoslavia with the best Russian stuff trying to nail it. They did get an F-117. Also flew over Libya where F-111’s had been shot down before.

Already taken by one of the AC-130 models.

The Maverick, being a missile not a bomb, probably got pulverized with a fair chance that it burned. It uses shaped charge warheads for hard target busting, so it doesn’t have a thick skin like a 500 pounder. The copper liner inside the hollow charge gets converted to a molten copper blow torch. They could scoop out…