Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What attacking the Russians might look like

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What attacking the Russians might look like

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ7ni...layer_embedded
    Signatures are overrated

  • #2
    Really nice and impressive video... Would be great to see one with TU-95s scrambling down the runway now !!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Omar Alex Saffe View Post
      Really nice and impressive video... Would be great to see one with TU-95s scrambling down the runway now !!!!
      Here you go.

      Cheers,
      Les sanglots longs des violons de l'automne blessent mon coeur d'une langueur monotone.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks Kjell !! I had save that video on my hd long time ago, so impressive... But always very glad to see it again and again.

        Cheers
        Alex

        Comment


        • #5
          I used to live/work in a small town adjacent to Vandenberg AFB, CA. Occasionally a missle launch time would "leak" to us engineers... with just enough lead-time, so we could go on "break" outdoors. We got to watch several ballistic missile and sattelite launches in the +20-months I was there.

          On one occasion, SAC launched two [2] Minuteman III's simultaneously. The sight of the silent missiles riding huge exhaust plumes rising above the low hills was really eriely beauutiful. Then the ground rumble and searing noise finally "hit-us in the gut"... then we all seemed to realize how serious a real nuclear-war missle salvo ["exhange"] would get... with [3] 75-Kt war-heads riding the heads of each plume... on a one-way-trip-to-hell.

          Comment


          • #6
            ok so maybe this is a stupid question, but what about wake turbulence?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
              ok so maybe this is a stupid question, but what about wake turbulence?
              I'd say the larger safety issue in the case of a two way nuclear exchange would be the Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM's) with a flight time of 7 - 10 minutes catching you on the ground and reducing your carcass to ash. One thermonuclear device detonationg nearby can ruin your entire day (and the next and the next after that etc).

              I'd say that this drill would only be practised every so often to minimise the risks involved in wake turbulence.

              Also, correct me if I'm wrong here pilots (I'm sure you will) but the real risk is if you are in a much smaller lighter aircraft behind a 'heavy'. Also, the nastiest wake turbulence would be behind an aircraft configured for landing (full flaps etc) whereas on takeoff a lower flap setting would probably see a smaller amount of turbulence generated?

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi,

                I'm curious to know during the Cold War what the B52 crews were instructed regarding returning to base having released nuclear weaponry. In all probability, there'd be little hope of finding a serviceable runway on home soil surely ? So in effect the only option would be to bail/ditch and hope for the best ?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Interesting question. I kinda think that not ALL airfields would have been hit after a first strike... And USA wasn't the only option... I would have been more afraid about survey over enemy territory, as both US and USSR had all the defence capacity to counter any heavy bomber attack... even if it's destroying the bombers after they had released their bombs/missiles.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X