Offset? How cute, you think they’ll try to offset their massive carbon footprint.

…and how will they get all that jet fuel to refuel those (mostly private) jets and to provide power for the resort? By barging it across that reef. No other option. There will be spills, the reef will die, then there’s no reason for it to exist at all.

Unconvinced.
Why would they try to land on an aircraft carrier, breaking the plane every single time by scraping the wingtips off on the deck? In air refueling means it would never be required, and a total lack of stealth makes it just stupid, landing strip width makes it incredibly difficult to land a plane over 3 times the wingspan of an F16, especially one as in precise and hard to fly as a u2….and impossible to store off the deck, making the carrier useless until the U2 was removed.

On land they had chase cars that drove under the wings at landing, installing the wheels and/or keeping the tips off the ground.

Not trusting this internet source…beware unknown sources.
There’s a reason there wasn’t one shot of a successful landing, the best they had was a 3 point landing with the wing as point 3. At best this was a failed test, not a functional program.

Your video, Refuelling A Tesla, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 253 Badge!

Lots of helicopters have that capability. I have some book about helicopters from the 80s that has a publicity shot of a pair Sea Stallions or some such refueling in flight.

The most impressive part of the video to me was that it can refuel in the air.

Yeah, Ireland was neutral in both World Wars. "Neither King not Kaiser" was the slogan. Basically, it was felt that while the Axis weren't the nicest guys, we weren't super keen to join in with the guys who'd occupied our country for the previous 800 years either.

Technically, Ireland is still a neutral country. It doesn't belong to NATO.
In practice, as a member of the EU, it would almost certainly have to help defend the Eu if it were attacked from the outside and in recent years, (in a fantastically Irish way) we have been "neutral on the side of the US/U.K."; allowing US warplanes to refuel for example.

My concern is this : Imagine a global extinction event , lets say a repeat of the event that killed off the dinosaurs : a massive asteroid direct hit , instantly killing everything on roughly the same continent or general planetside , such an impact would punch a hole in the very tectonic plate it lands on and cause massive waves not just in water , but in the ground itself , waves of rock and earth surface taveling around the globe meeting on the far side of the impact and ricocheting back again . We are talking GLOBAL earthquakes off the scales, for YEARS after the impact as the tectonic plates are slowliy settling in, all this is followed by a thick cloud of ash from the impact, refueled by frequent vulcanic eruptions , this will block out most sunlight , so after the initial toasting , the few lucky survives of this pandemonium can look forward to hundreds of years of atomic winter. Sounds pretty fuckin bad.

But guess what : thats still better conditions for life than Mars. And Mars is goddamn paradise compared to the other planets around us. Anything outside our immediate neighbourhood ? Forget it , they are ATLEAST thousands of years travel away, making moving anything of note there unfeasable. We ARE a one planet species. Get used to it , take good care of this one , its all we got.

\

Published on Apr 14, 2016

The aerobatics skills of Russian pilots over the US destroyer Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea left the Pentagon and other US official running for cover in Washington over “aggressive close interactions” with Russian fighters jets.
Trends
Russia-NATO relations
Releasing the footage of Russian jet flybys in the vicinity of the destroyer, the US Navy said that its vessel has encountered multiple “aggressive flight maneuvers ...within close proximity of the ship,” some as close as 30 feet (10 meters) on Monday and Tuesday.

The set of incidents took place as the US ship, which had sailed from the Polish port of Gdynia, was conducting exercises with its NATO ally Poland in the Baltic Sea. The Navy announced that the SU-24 first flew over Donald Cook on Monday as US sailors were rehearsing “deck landing drills with an allied [Polish] military helicopter”. The numerous close-range, low altitude encounters were witnessed at 3:00pm local time, forcing the commander of the ship to suspend helicopter refueling on the deck until the Russian jets departed the area.

The next day, the Navy said, Russia caused concern among US sailors when a Russian KA-27 Helix helicopter flew seven times over the ship at low altitude in international waters at around 5:00pm. Some 40 minutes later, two Russian SU-24 jets allegedly made a further 11 “close-range and low altitude passes”.

“The Russian aircraft flew in a simulated attack profile and failed to respond to repeated safety advisories in both English and Russian. USS Donald Cook’s commanding officer deemed several of these maneuvers as unsafe and unprofessional,” the Navy said.

Judging by the videos released by the US Navy, the sailors were nonplussed by the Russian aerobatic skills. They gathered on the top deck of the destroyer to watch the Russian pilots.

“He is on the deck below the bridge lane...It looks like he’ll be coming in across the flight deck, coming in low, bridge wing level...Over the bow, right turn, over the bow...” the voiceover on the footage states in what looks more like an instructor’s advice on how to maneuver in open waters, rather than the panic that the central command presented it to be. At least on the video no one can be seen running for cover.

According to a US defense official who spoke with Defense News, sailors aboard the Donald Cook claimed that the Russian jets’ low altitude stirred waters and created wake underneath the ship. US personnel on the American vessels, also claimed that Su-24 was “wings clean,” meaning no armaments were present on the Russian jets that could have posed a threat to US operations in the Baltic.

Yet at the same time, the official noted, that this week's incidents are “more aggressive than anything we’ve seen in some time,” as the SU-24 appeared to be flying in a “simulated attack profile.”

The Russian overflights have caused panic over in Washington, with White House spokesman Josh Earnest calling the actions of the Russian pilots “provocative” and “inconsistent with professional norms of militaries.”

“I hear the Russians are up to their old tricks again in the EUCOM [US European Command] AOR [area of responsibility],” Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman Col. Steve Warren said during a briefing on Wednesday, adding that the US is “concerned with this behavior.”

“We have deep concerns about the unsafe and unprofessional Russian flight maneuvers. These actions have the potential to unnecessarily escalate tensions between countries, and could result in a miscalculation or accident that could cause serious injury or death,” the US European Command said in a statement.

In the meantime Adm. John Richardson, the chief of naval operations, thanked the US crew for keeping their cool during the stressful situation.

“Bravo Zulu to the crew of USS Donald Cook for their initiative and toughness in how they handled themselves during this incident,” the admiral said on Facebook.

Russia has yet to comment on the incidents but most likely the Russian air craft flew from the Kaliningrad region, bordering Poland. Kaliningrad is the headquarters of the Russian Baltic Fleet, which also includes the Chernyakhovsk, Donskoye, and Kaliningrad Chkalovsk air bases.

Description Credits: Russia Today

Video Credits: Defense Media Activity - Navy

Hmmm. Well, the old adage is that only a fool in a ship attacks a land fort. A static target, with big, obvious radars and refueling tanks?
Sounds like a missile target to me.
Geez, if a hot war ever breaks out there, it would a screw up of the most massive proportion by both sides.

As I understand it, China's biggest fear in the event of a military conflict with the U.S. is a sea blockade. These islands are meant to allow China's navel forces early warning for potential attacks (they are building long-range radar stations on some of the islands) and quick-strike capability in the event of an attempted blockade since the islands are being equipped with port facilities and will likely serve as refueling/rearming stations. They also are an attempt by China to "control" the traffic (both sea and air) moving through the area. They aren't designed to stop a full-scale invasion of the mainland and would likely just be bypassed if something like that ever came to pass.

EDIT: See here for a more detailed explanation about China's overall military strategy.

X-47B First Autonomous Drone Aerial Refueling has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims on that post.

Well every plane has a takeoff weight restriction... but according to Jimbo's big bag'o'trivia the B1-B was strengthened fairly early in development so it could take off with a full fuel load, and they even managed that change without adding much weight.

The SR-71 on the other hand used to take off with just enough fuel in the tanks to get airborne, and then refuel in the air.

i wonder how much fuel that burned. I think I remember seeing a documentary that after these big birds take off and get to altitude, they almost immediately have to refuel. I wonder if thats because they burn so much fuel on take off or they dont carry that much because they have weight restrictions.

This is a few years old, since refueling has been eliminated the pitstops now get down to only a few seconds... 10 seconds would count as disasterously slow.

See this one from last year for instance *related=http://videosift.com/video/F1-Pit-Stop-Perfection

They don't catch shells because it is just something else to deal with. Military operations cause a lot of waste and contamination (the bullets are lead as an example). It would be superfluous to worry about the casings and just take up more space and crew time.

The reason they take reporters is because it helps the public see and support what is going on. Having public support behind these sort of things is important. Also most western nations have pretty strong freedom of the press rules.

Yes, he took up some space, but it isn't like that is the only helicopter they sent. This isn't a case of "one chopper and then the rest of you are screwed." They are sending more flights. That same chopper probably went back, after refueling and rearming, for that matter.