exothermic reaction of considerable amount of explosives and flammable material?
Seems like a large fuel source blew up. I remember a number of other cases where trains or storage tanks carrying volatile fuels like rocket fuel or butane exploding with that kind of size, fireball wise. This seems most likely to me because its inside a city, has a whole lot of fire which most explosives don't leave lingering, and the amount of smoke makes me think its been burning like that for a awhile. Only a guess though.
Now that i think about it, i believe that picture is from a train incident i saw on one of those amazing video shows. I remember them having some close up footage and aerial pictures.
Last edited by manberries; 07-01-2009 at 01:13 AM.
If the Russian AF was going ahead with the SKAT design for its own use it would not have been revealed to the public IMHO.Is there any follow on MIG SKAT?
I remember someone saying the RuAF didn't want it but that they were going with another design, so they will have something like it eventually.
You are confusing cool factor with practical factor. A Mig-31 in AB flying at mach 2.3 with a rather large and powerful radar searching for targets would be easy to detect and track even if its radar cross section was 0.I disagree on the stalthy Mig-31 part... IMHO that wold be awesome! A (relatively) stealthy warplane with 300km+ ranged missiles, a radar to put an AWACS to shame, long flight time and a high cruise and afterburner speed is exactly the type of plane Russia needs in 21st century as an interceptor. Not to mention with modern weapon integration level it wouldn't be hard to make this bird a powerfull bomber/PGM carrier.
If an F-22 pilot was dumb enough to keep his radar on all the time and his radio set for transmit he wouldn't be very stealthy either.
NATO had no ground forces in the region and were under orders not to operate below 20,000 ft.One aircraft shot down after thousands of combat missions is... useless? Russia should only hope to achieve half of this success rate, but unfortunately they are decades behind technologically *and* operationally.
Yes. They are both copying a WWII German flying wing design. A wing is the most efficient shape to use when you don't need a fuselage area for a cockpit.Look alot same both are flying wing Deign
Why go below 20,000, when you can do what you need to do from the safety of higher altitude? The Russians can't, because they're still dropping unguided bombs and rockets as they fly over their targets with conventional aircraft, poor ECM/ECCM support, poor SA and poor communication. And they get shot down for it. Hence my comment about WW-II steam.NATO had no ground forces in the region and were under orders not to operate below 20,000 ft
Gaz, sorry if it seems like I'm being a ****. Got a moderator warning for an earlier post. Actually, I quite respect your work and knowledge. I just think the Russian military is essentially in bad shape and there is little to be happy about, even though I too am an enthusiast of Russian military and history.
Last edited by evb58362; 07-01-2009 at 02:19 AM.
And what did they do from the 'safety of higher altitude'? Run out of military targets (read: infrastructure) while doing minimal damage to the actual, you know, military, and then switch over to economic and civilian targets? Well, congratulations.Why go below 20,000, when you can do what you need to do from the safety of higher altitude?
Very few Serbian tanks, artillery, APCs etc were destroyed by the month long NATO air campain. In fact most of the Serbian army survived to fight another day because.... NATO could not go down low to inflict heavy damage.
There are certain things you can do from high up. For other missions, you need to go lower.
What they did is achieve their objective with minimal losses, but now we're entering the realm of politics.