Alan in Yorktown

The cat / mouse cycle has been around for a long time.

Was actually one year ago today was we were at small church cemetery outside Cedar Rapids Iowa burying my Dad's cremains, and what was in the pattern for CR airport - Fifi! Oshkosh was week before so maybe she was en-route back to Texas?

and then there was one...

Some news sources say it caught fire on runway - that makes some sense because the Nav & Radar Nav have down-ward ejection seats. I don't know the minimum safe ejection altitude, but the photos of the burning jet (for example http://worldwarwings.com/breaking-b-52-crashes-in-guam-crew-of-7-onboard?a=mk&var=ww2-b52-crash) suggest to me it was on the ground when something went wrong. The front-end is in far-too-good a shape to have fallen out of the sly.

I recall back in the late 1980's at Randolph AFB (San Antonio) 4 brand-new 2nd LT nurses were arrested (after a late Fri night at the O-club) weaving in & out among the T-37's on the ramp. They were stationed at Willford-Hall (aka Big Willie) across town at Lackland. Supposedly the 2-star hospital commander personally came collect them from the SF hoosegow.

I remember back the when they flew one to Kelly AFB in San Antonio, which ended up on the parade ground at Lackland AFB. I was stationed at Brooks AFB; about 6-9 miles east on Military Highway. It was a rainy day with low overcast. I had a medical appt at Lackland (Big Wille) hospital. As I went through the gate @ Lackland there was the loudest jet noise I have ever heard - I ducked under the dash thinking a TANG F-16 was crashing right in front of me - I was waiting for the fireball to engulf the truck. Turns out the SR did a low altitude high-speed pass. I never saw one fly, but I certa

I think the numbers should contain fractions - Like B-33 & 1/3

Cool photo. Thinking of stealth, maybe we can revive the WW2-era paper external tanks. Probably be a lot cheaper

Back in 07-09 when I was at ACC HQ there was some debate within the staff the usefulness of external tanks on the F-35. It was a trade-off between increased drag w/ tanks vs the extra range with them. IIRC with tanks you only extended range by about 75 miles. Also stealth considerations - If you want to fly in stealth mode, you don't want external tanks & pylons. I suppose they can both be jettisoned, but there is a lot of plumbing & wiring involved.

I lived under the Tweet pattern for Randolph when stationed in San Antonio. We used to say that the Tweet was the most efficient aircraft in the inventory for converting jet fuel to noise.

A few thoughts on nukes - 1. Was at a commander's call once ~2009 or so. CC asked question "How often does the US use nuclear weapons?" Answer was "We use them every day." 2. One thing that WILL trigger a combat use of a nuke is replying to a nuke attack - assuming a appropriate target can be found. I saw a launch facility once where the blast doors had a Dominoes pizza box logo w/ caption "Minuteman III - Guaranteed Delivery Worldwide Within 30 Minutes, or Your Next One is Free". ps - sorry to be late to the party on this but the computer was Tango Uniform for a bit

Correct re Gates. When I first had a 'staff-job' I was told - argue your point until you are blue in the face until a decision is made. And after the decision is made, support it just as hard, even if it is not the decision is not the one you advocated. Good advice still. That said - With the various engine issues (large & small) F-35 has had I wonder if MG Heinz was correct...but IIRC there is another discussion somewhere around there where this topic could be better addressed

They need to mount some more AMRAAMs over the top of the wing like the RAF Jaguars had (albeit those were AIM-9s). Looks cooler, & they could add 4 (or 8) additional rockets.

They need to mount some more AMRAAMs over the top of the wing like the RAF Jaguars had (albeit they used AIM-9s). Looks cooler, & they could add 4 (or 8) additional pockets.