The commenter’s theory was that the cant put heavy stress on the already compromised section thereby ripping it off. Makes sense.

Like I said, the Lockerbie incident taught us otherwise. As another commenter noted, it was likely a tail deformation (canting the tail up) that would cause that rapid of a climb.

So based on the pics and your observations we’re saying upside down tail (or what’s left of it) striking first. I could see that. I could also see the tail causing the rapid ascent. I hadn’t thought of what would happen if it was initially a deformation and not a complete loss of the tail. I also think that the pics…

Planes might nose up, but it definitely doesn’t zoom climb at that rate. The Lockerbie bombing incident taught us that.

You seem to have misread the story. The ice wasn’t for her, it was for her MALE friend that was fighting the other guy.

Sorry, but security folks are MORE prone to get sued for breaking up a fight. They go after the company they work for. It’s a REALLY big liability issue for security companies. That’s why they don’t step into stuff like this.

You may be correct about the autopilot portion, the boxes should shed some light there.

“as you just stated a weaker nation wouldn’t be able to do such things.”

Tom Clancy booking printing now.

This CSV graphing (source) of the Altitude and Ground Speed (left and right axis respectively) of Flight 9268 tells interesting story.

“they stay too high to interact effectively with the battlefield, they have less time to hang around and their loadout is weaker.”

Can someone explain to me what Israel’s going to do with a bunker buster that they can’t deliver? They’d be dropped off at some airbase and from their the best they could do is cart them around.

“explaining to my Wing how the F-35 was going to take up missions currently served by the A-10”

Here’s the problem with your request, an enemy state that’s only 25% as powerful as the US doesn’t have the “reach” that a superpower does. If it’s aircraft, they don’t have air-to-air refueling tankers (or even the capability on their bombers/fighters). If it’s ships, they don’t have forward basing, tanker ships, or…

That doesn’t mean it wasn’t inadvertently turned off after weapons check. The claim by RADM Gillcrist in his book Tomcat!: Grumman F-14 Story is that it was turned off and once CDR Connelly recognized it he turned it back on.

Yes they do. Why do you think Russian aircraft are allowed in Cuba (90 miles from US shores)? In fact Russian strategic bombers have been known to come within 50 miles of the California coast.

I was reading that apparently they didn’t have tone because the volume was accidentally turned down prior to the engagement.

It was a Freedom of Navigation exercise. Not unlike what’s starting to happen in the South China Sea.

I don’t have an answer, but I would assume that it has something to do with the fact that your sight can be compromised during high-G maneuvers. So if the pilot is pulling a high-G turn and needs to get a shot off, he can always rely on his hearing to detect a lock vice hoping to see the visual cue while beginning to…

Apparently this release included a full end-to-end of the engagement. Previous releases (including the ones that came out right after the incident occurred) only amounted to about 4 mins of audio.