Just curious (as an uninformed Canadian), what war the US Army (not the Navy, not the USAF, the Army) can really claimed it won in a century? Just leave after wrecking a country into ruins is not winning by definition (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.), looking for a clear "Mission Accomplished"?

Like, I'd call the USAF dropping of the H Bomb won WWII, it got Japan to surrender, treaty signed, etc. That's Mission Accomplished to me.

If you watch this and feel anything but complete terror, you're missing the point. An AI controlled drone swarm is a military nightmare: you can blind radar; shut down comms; interrupt C3 at a crucial moment.

The things that can be done with a thousand cheap drones and some basic AI can render billion-dollar military systems moot in the event of real combat. The US Navy is already shitting themselves over this (there's already been a few incidents, most recently off the coast of San Diego), and the USAF isn't far behind. Serious drones incidents -- from unknown attackers -- have happened in the US. This including an attempted attack on a power station and a bizarre cat-and-mouse game between USBP/HLS and an unidentified "super drone" over Arizona on more than one occasion.

Did you notice what they were displaying? This wasn't meant to be oo-aah cute, this was China telling the US military they fuck around at their own risk. The last time someone sent a message this clearly, Billy Mitchell was flying a biplane over a captured German destroyer.

"Far less chance for severe mishaps, too" -- I know you meant something totally different, but in the case of what I'm talking about, the exact opposite holds true.

This video somewhat glosses over how Dr. Strangelove-level nuts Holland was. His little stunt in Yakima was the least of his batshittery. He almost augured a '52 into his daughter's softball game when he stalled the fucking thing pulling a maneuver similar to the one that caused the Spokane crash. Yes, the crazy bastard used a B-52 to show off -- over a goddamn kid's softball game.

Also not mentioned is how close he came to turning a large part of Spokane into a radioactive wasteland when he missed plowing into a nuclear weapons storage depot by about the length of one of Roger Waters' better spits.

If there's one lesson I hope all members of the USAF take from this incident, it's that B-52s are not toys.

Congratulations! Your comment on USAF Veteran taking a stand against NFL has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment on USAF Veteran taking a stand against NFL has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 11 Badge!

I don't trust your video, not even a little bit.

I know you just dismissed opposing evidence earlier up thread, but here's a link to audio recordings and english transcripts the NSA captured and posted from Israeli helicopters in the area at the time. Again, I know you dismiss it, but they certainly were uncertain of what had just been hit/attacked.

https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/declassified-documents/uss-liberty/recordings.shtml

Friendly fire is a fact of war, Canadians on a training mission in Afghanistan where killed by USAF runs despite their training operation and location being registered with the airforce. Fatal screw ups happen in war so it seems much less of a stretch to call this an accident than a deliberate scheme against an ally.

You go ahead and believe some video referring to the 'mockingbird media' and using literally 4-5 words of audio and leaving out all other communications though, I'm sure they left it out for brevity and not because it contradicts their narrative. That's something only the mockingbird media would do...

Or perhaps more briefly, provide a little better evidence before acting like this is as clear cut as our knowledge that the earth is round...

I've already discussed why helicopters and drones are good in areas of light cover while sucking in areas of high cover. They fulfill a role, but realistically they aren't always the best option.

I also explained what happens in real combat. So called fast movers end up being tasked to do roles that they were not designed for. No plan stays certain in the face of the enemy. There will come a time when the F35 is expected to provide the same type of support as the A-10 and it is going to suck hard at it, planes will be shot down and pilots will die or be captured. I suspect this will happen especially with the forces using the F35 that are not the Air Force, such as the Marines. Here is a link to the laughable failures that the Marines had with the plane, but due to the 'cannot fail' nature of the project, they certified it anyway. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/not-a-big-suprise-the-marines-f-35-operational-test-wa-1730583428

Finally, the A-10 was absolutely not designed initially to be a Soviet tank killer. The initial A-X program was created because of the DISMAL performance of the Air Force and F4 in providing close air support to troops.

The Secretary of the Air Force contacted Pierre Sprey and asked him to come up with a design spec for a close air support plane. After consulting with the pilots we had in Vietnam, mostly the successful ones that were flying the prop driven A-1 Skyraider (which btw, destroyed the F4 JET in CAS operations), it was indicated that the ideal aircraft should have long loiter time, low-speed maneuverability, massive cannon firepower, and extreme survivability. It was only later, after the plane had been mostly designed, that the USAF asked that it be also tasked to counter the Soviets.

As I said, the Air Force has always hated providing CAS to the other branches of the Armed Forces. They constantly forget that you need to make a multi-role fighter actually function in a multi-role environment, preferring to think that they can buzz in and buzz out while the rest of the military does the 'dirty' work. However, they always get burned for it. Just like now, when they were fighting as hard as possible to kill the A-10, they discovered that fighting a force that is mobile and that hides in cover/cities (ISIS) is damn near impossible with fast planes/drones. Which is why they changed paths and rescheduled the A-10 phase out to 2028 (or beyond).

German media reports that the USAF's budget plan for Q3/15 includes funds for the integration of the B61-12 nuclear bomb into German Tornado fighter-bombers.

How Germany can lobby for an abolition of nuclear weapons while our government allows the US to modernise its nuclear arsenal on German soil is beyond me, to be quite honest. Especially since an overwhelming majority of our parliament voted in favour of a resolution to pressure the US to remove its nukes from Germany territory five years ago.

It's probably better to design aeroplanes that are a little less prone to getting into an unrecoverable flat spin situation in the first place, which was the approach taken by the USAF .

From Jet to Jet - Being the USAF Thunderbirds Photographer has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg.

Sort of reminds me of *related=http://videosift.com/video/From-Jet-to-Jet-Being-the-USAF-Thunderbirds-Photographer

From interviews, it seems that they are so close that they hit bumps in the air at the same time and go up or down together.

Given how close they are together already, and going in the same direction, even if they did bump planes it probably wouldn't do much damage.

See here for example, where the USAF Thunderbirds touched wings (and lost a missile rail!):

Your video, USAF Flash Mob - National Air and Space Museum, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^joedirt:
It isn't science or new or even interesting. It's been done and proven. USAF did exactly this in 1960. This just added a few hundred feet to their altitude.


A few hundred feet? Try an extra 30000.

>> ^kymbos:

To me, it's like those hotwheels loop-de-loop videos, except less visually arresting. Even with those you can get some 'Science!' out of it, but it's still a marketing activity.

Less visually interesting? Are you on crack? Look at that view. I would kill for the opportunity to do something like this.

I don't really believe there's an awful lot of science going on, but that's fine, it's not really about science.

Personally, if this is how Red Bull want to spend their marketing dollars, I say good on them. They sponsor a lot of cool and interesting stuff around the globe. I'm still not buying their product, but it's a lot better than being told that red bull gives you wings.