L4key

Why did the Su-27 cross the road? :lol:

:thumbup:

That outfit (and pose) looks like it's missing the business end of the strap on.

Hit me!

Yep, good old Pprune... As someone already said on there - brave fire crews with all that ammo knocking about! Glad pilot ok, though I believe he was injured in the ejection - do you know how bad Eddie? Not being ghoulish I just hope he can/has return to flying ops. :thumbup:

This harrier pilot managed a belly landing even with gear. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvtoAlAqrAk Sorry if has been posted before! 4/6/10 - Boo - vid removed! Why do they do that...

http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=22677 Came across this - love the pilot closeups

Definitely a grower in the looks dept, even with the tractor wheels. Ps - would 'Duct tape' make the toes curl less?

How about that manual hey... what a work of literature. Only Flight of the Intruder came close for me. I've never felt so tense as running up at under 100ft using the TFR to a well defended base at night in the Tornado sim. Dual seat was a doddle too in terms of single player workload, they got the balance just right.

How difficult was a JP233 attack on a runway... I used to get my ass handed to me more times than not. Turned out to be a bit tricky in real life of course when employed in 1991!

That was my favourite ever sim. Not just because I'm a Tonka fan.

The pilot looks like he has a hooooge arm FFS! - I reiterate it was a genuine question! And he's not even looking.... Anyway - now Flanker reliably informs me he is giving the finger at a camera on an anniversary of a WW2 victory where countless people no doubt died. :music_whistling:

Is it Photo shopped?

Correct. The only reason it took so long is that even the mighty TopolM has to sleep sometime, huh... :thumbup:

:doh:

Thats when the forums are at there most entertaining! Have you seen the factions warring in PAK-FA v F22 thread?? Seriously though I'm not on a big free speech crusade so I'll bow completely if the feeling is against it and do understand your reasoning.

Ok, so just read rule 1.1 and still don't follow, but I'm not a mod and they can obviously interpret for themselves. There are clearly two schools of thought on the topic and it's interesting to see what people think. No one has been offensive in doing that I don't think. Look at it this way, it beats another 'what aircraft do you want to see next/where's my A10 at' thread! :lol:

159th Respect your opinion but this is a discussion thread and is in the wider media so why not? If it needs to be moved or merged to a 'technically' more apt destination then no problem but I can't see the harm otherwise. To clarify that is not my opinion - god I wish I had enough time to write that - I had italliced after copying to show that, sorry I don't want to pass it off as my own. IMHO I do agree with the main slant of the defence, but I would add that the gung-ho rhetoric you hear is not going to help the coalition, fair enough these guys are in a war and may have lost buddies but a certain amount of professionalism wouldn't go amiss. I'm going to be a bugger now and suggest that I would hope that UK forces would have maintained a more apt discipline in their communications. Save the verbal high fives for the mess room. [ducks under a table] :smilewink:

The defence: For those unaware of my background, I have spent quite a lot of time (a conservative estimate would be around 4500 hours) viewing aerial footage of Iraq (note: this time was not in viewing TADS video, but footage from Raven, Shadow, and Predator feeds). I am certain my voice can be heard on several transmissions with several different Crazyhorse aircraft, as I have called them to assist troops on the ground more times in my 24-months in Iraq than I could even attempt to guess. I need no reassurances to determine the presence of an RPG7 or an AK-variant rifle, especially not from a craft flying as low as Apache (even after the video has been reduced in dimensions to a point at which it is nearly useless). Several commenters on Twitter and You Tube have expressed a great deal of anger towards the United States and members of its military. Many of them, unsurprisingly, have wished death on us all. Part of the problem, which is far more complex than I have the time or desire to fully discuss, lies in the presentation of above video. What could have been the case is identified for the viewer quite readily. What certainly is true, in several key moments, is not. When presenting source media as the core of your argument, it is grossly irresponsible to fail to make known variables not shown within that media. If you are going to take the time to highlight certain things in said media, you should make certain all key elements are brought to the attention of your viewer. WikiLeaks failed to do these things in this video, happily highlighting the positions and movements of the slain reporter and photographer while ignoring those of their company. It is also, until their arrival on scene, never clear where exactly the ground forces are in reference to Crazyhorse 18 and flight. I can make a pretty good guess, given my background. I would guess the same cannot be said by the vast majority of WikiLeaks’ target audience. Between 3:13 and 3:30 it is quite clear to me, as both a former infantry sergeant and a photographer, that the two men central to the gun-camera’s frame are carrying photographic equipment. This much is noted by WikiLeaks, and misidentified by the crew of Crazyhorse 18. At 3:39, the men central to the frame are armed, the one on the far left with some AK variant, and the one in the center with an RPG. The RPG is crystal clear even in the downsized, very low-resolution, video between 3:40 and 3:45 when the man carrying it turns counter-clockwise and then back to the direction of the Apache. This all goes by without any mention whatsoever from WikiLeaks, and that is unacceptable. At 4:08 to 4:18 another misidentification is made by Crazyhorse 18, where what appears to clearly be a man with a telephoto lens (edit to add: one of the Canon EF 70-200mm offerings) on an SLR is identified as wielding an RPG. The actual case is not threatening at all, though the misidentified case presents a major perceived threat to the aircraft and any coalition forces in the direction of its orientation. This moment is when the decision to engage is made, in error. (note: It has to be taken into consideration that there is no way that the Crazyhorse crew had the knowledge, as everyone who has viewed this had, that the man on the corner of that wall was a photographer. The actions of shouldering an RPG (bringing a long cylindrical object in line with one’s face) and framing a photo with a long telephoto lens quite probably look identical to an aircrew in those conditions.) I have made the call to engage targets from the sky several times, and know (especially during the surge) that such calls are not taken lightly. Had I been personally involved with this mission, and had access to real-time footage, I would have recommended against granting permission. Any of the officers with whom I served are well aware that I would continue voicing that recommendation until ordered to do otherwise. A few of them threatened me with action under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for doing so. Better officers than they, fortunately, were always ready to go to bat for me and keep that from happening. That said, if either of the clearly visible weapons been oriented towards aircraft, vehicles, troops, or civilians I would have cleared Crazyhorse 18 hot in a heartbeat and defended my actions to the battle staff if needed. (nte: The above is based on the number of times footage from a UAV under my unit’s control produced visual evidence that showed a lesser threat level than that reported as possible by either attack aviation or troops on the ground. Such footage may not have been available during this incident, and as such if the camera was thought to be an RPG the engagement of the personnel was well within any ROE I have ever seen. By making the call, I mean that I have quite literally been the voice heard over the radio clearing an engagement. It is important to note that while I was a position to influence the decision, the actual decision was not mine to make – that falls to the officer-in-charge, not the non-commissioned officer-in-charge.) The point at which I cannot support the actions of Crazyhorse 18, at all, comes when the van arrives somewhere around 9:45 and is engaged. Unless someone had jumped out with an RPG ready to fire on the aircraft, there was no threat warranting a hail of 30mm from above. Might it have been prudent to follow the vehicle (perhaps with a UAV), or at least put out a BOLO (Be On the Look Out) for the vehicle? Absolutely without question. Was this portion of the engagement even remotely understandable, to me? No, it was not. All in all, the engagement clearly went bad. I would have objected when I was a private first-class pulling triple duty as an RTO, driver, and vehicle gunner. I would have objected when I was a sergeant working well above my pay-grade as the Brigade Battle NCO. My assessment is based on my experiences in that very theater of operations. I did not see a threat that warranted an engagement at any point. I did, however, see the elements indicating such a threat could develop at any moment. (note: As I did, in fact, already know several things about the situation when I viewed this footage I cannot say with any certainty that had I viewed the exact same footage at the time of the incident that I would not have concluded the camera was an RPG as well.) People can make their judgements however they wish, but what is clearly visible is not the entire picture. I’ll also say that I’ve seen Crazyhorse elements do some pretty drastic maneuvers to protect troops and civilians alike. Those pilots have saved the lives of my friends many times, and a bad shoot is not going to ruin them as far as I’m concerned. Not the poster's words, copied from somewhere else - I'm not sure of who it is though! Sorry that isn't clearer!!

OK, simple, name the a/c

Vulcan B2?

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=51870

Thanks - cross driving from engines makes sense. I suppose similar to the BS, one engine doesn't power just one rotor.

Quick one - presumably an engine failure on one means it's screwed? Anyone know? Can't presumably glide very well like a fixed wing nor could it autorotate like a 'copter?

We've (the West) has done it for ever, over international waters it's no 'threat'. It's just cold war style posturing and excercises, they probably wanted a peak at a shiny new Typhoon, saw it was a boring F3 and went home. Eddie, send em some of your pics!