jump to navigation

Flightline Friday – Dyess C-130J defeats F-16 in air-to-air combat August 1, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Flightline Friday, fun, non squitur, silliness, Society, Victory.
comments closed

It is a little known fact that in some regimes, and especially when lightly loaded, very large aircraft can be more maneuverable than small, sprightly fighters. This is typically true at high altitudes, where the large wings especially of certain kinds of bombers like the B-36 or B-47 made them quite a1280px-C-130J_135th_AS_Maryland_ANG_in_flight bit more maneuverable than the fighters of their eras.  Now, we’re talking extreme altitudes – one of the reasons why the large aircraft had an advantage is because they in general had a higher ceiling than competing fighter aircraft of the day.  This was due to the huge amount of lift they got from their wings.  Large wings also mean large drag, but in the very thin air of very high altitude (above 50,000 ft), the drag penalty decreases but the excess lift remains.  So there were many stories of B-36s whipping F-86s in dogfights above 45,000 ft.  It sounds incredible, but it could and did happen.

However, as fighter aircraft became much more powerful, especially when they received afterburners, the advantage the USAF_C-130J_Super_Hercules_at_RIAT_2010_arplarge aircraft enjoyed swiftly diminished. A B-36 that could give an F-86A a very hard time would be mincemeat for an F-100.  The B-52 and the British Vulcan and Victor bombers, being much faster than the -36, restored a bit of balance, but not for long.  Which is part of the reason why bomber fleets switched from high-altitude tactics to low-altitude regimes in the late 50s/early 60s.

Even with today’s technology, with look-down shoot-down doppler radars, elaborate electronic support measures and even IR seekers, tracking and engaging a maneuvering target at low altitude and high speed is still pretty challenging.

And that is apparently how an Air Force C-130J from Dyess AFB near Abilene was able to evade (the lede exaggerated a bit) an F-16 of the 457th FS while flying to Carswell in Fort Worth:

Two 317th Airlift Group C-130J Super Hercules successfully employed air-to-air tactics against an F-16 Fighting Falcon during a training exercise July 23, 2014, en route to Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, Texas.

This exercise demonstrated the C-130J capabilities that will be used during Red Flag-Alaska, where more than 100 aircraft will participate in multiple exercises.

“We replicated a realistic air threat C-130J aircrews can expect to face at Red Flag-Alaska,” said Lt. Col. Brian Storck, 457th Fighter Squadron F-16 pilot and aggressor to the C-130Js. “This operation showed the C-130J can survive against an advanced air threat.”

The crew of each C-130J consisted of two to three pilots and a loadmaster. The loadmasters sat high in the flight decks of their aircraft, looking through a bubbled window in the ceiling. They communicated to the pilots who reacted and maneuvered to ensure the safety of their aircraft. The goal was to delay the fighter pilot’s ability to locate the C-130Js…….

…….”The average person doesn’t expect a 130,000-pound cargo plane to be able to maneuver as nimbly as the J-model does,” said Maj. Aaron Webb, 39th AS assistant director of operations for tactics. “It may seem like we were reacting slowly, but our counter tactics against an area of engagement are pretty effective.”

Now I am certain there were rules of engagement that favored the C-130, like having to make a visual sighting and maybe even limitation to gun-only engagement.  Otherwise, it is a bit hard to believe a C-130, chugging along at maybe 250 kts, could evade an F-16, low altitude or no.  Now, an F-15E or B-1B at 600 kts, that’s a different story.  But, the maneuverability advantage I mentioned above does apply at low speed and low altitude, too.  With a huge wing and a light load, a C-130 can probably turn pretty tight.

But overall I have to say this was probably gamed in the -130’s favor.


Non Sequitur but happy/poignant – kids around the world pose with favorite toys August 1, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Art and Architecture, Ecumenism, family, fun, General Catholic, non squitur, Our Lady, silliness, Society.
comments closed

I guess this has been around for over a year, but I had not seen it before.  The contrast between an African child with one dirty stuffed animal in a mud hut and a Swedish or Australian kid with a room stuffed full of toys is kind of poignant. There are a lot of people in the world who do not have very much.  And probably some with far too much. Not that I am anything but a strong opponent of any kind of involuntary, government-forced wealth transfer, but I am a huge proponent of voluntary wealth transfer in the form of charity as St. John Crysostom preached so well. A few of the pics:











And my favorite, by far, the only one with any Christian imagery that I saw:



What a great icon of Our Lady!  I pray that is significant to that adorable little girl.

What could he be thinking? Pope Apologizes to evangelicals for the Church not collapsing enough August 1, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, the return.
comments closed

I have avoided over the past week or more the incredibly damaging and scandalous actions and statements by Pope Francis with regard to his evangelical buddies in the hopes these scandals might go away. But eventually it  became too much to avoid. Apparently, TFG has been meeting and cavorting with these hucksters all summer.  Scandal has piled on scandal. This is not a matter of translations, or spin. The statements are too cohesive, too similar, and repetitious to be mere accidents of one kind or another.  And the worst of all just occurred.

In a truly incredible statement reported by Sandro Magister in La Repubblica and picked up by Rorate, TFG has apologized for the Church blocking the growth of pentecostal sects:

For example, Bergoglio has spent weeks behind the scenes cultivating relationships with the heads of the powerful “Evangelical” communities of the United States. He has spent hour after hour in their company at his residence in Santa Marta. He has invited them for lunch. He immortalized one of these convivial moments by giving a high five, amid raucous laughter, to Pastor James Robinson, one of the most successful American televangelists.

When no one knew anything about it yet, it was Francis who alerted them about his intention to go visit their Italian colleague in Caserta, and explained the reason: “To extend the apologies of the Catholic Church for the damage that has been done to them by obstructing the growth of their communities.

Bear in mind, these are the very sects that are absolutely GUTTING the Church in Central and South America!  These are the sects that have seen explosive growth in exclusively Catholic areas over the past several decades of liberal heresy.  And we are to apologize to them?  How about they apologize for all the false lies they spread about the Church and what She believes, for all the souls they have lured away under false pretenses, for all the immense damage they have done to the Body of Christ?

One must ask how any Catholic could even think to apologize for these aggressively hostile and even rapacious sects?  But the Pope?  How mammoth the indifference to say such………

At some point one has to ask in dismayed wonder, what could he possibly be thinking?  He seems to have such an ideologically indifferentist understanding of Christianity and all the horribly erroneous sects that he feels they are fully equivalent to the Church – or maybe quite a bit better.  This is, of course, the highly erroneous and incredibly damaging view the radical progressive wing of the Church (if they can be called part of the Church) has been advancing for the past several decades.  But it also raises so many stark question as to beggar the imagination:

  • What is the Holy Father’s view regarding the Blessed Sacrament?  These sects don’t have it, Christ said it was necessary for salvation.  Does the Holy Father believe such?
  • Pope Francis claims to be very Marian.  But the sects hate, attack, besmirch, and revile Our Blessed Mother.  How Marian can you be if you so adore these false sects?
  • What about Authority?  These sects don’t have it, they are beyond the nice TV veneer a nest of frequently vicious squabbling and mutual loathing.  They divide against each other daily into endlessly multiplying and exclusive groups. They are the entire opposite of the Church Christ founded.  How can anyone pretend otherwise?
  • What about virtue?  Are all these millionaire evangelists like Copeland and Robinson virtuous, selling false “prosperity gospels” to desperate people in exchange for their donations, donations often wrangled from poor lost souls after extensive manipulation?
  • What on earth does the Church have to gain from pretending these shysters are anything but what they are, enemies of the Faith growing rich by stealing deluded souls from the One True Church?
  • How far divorced from reality does a South American prelate have to be to believe the Church has done anything but provide the richest feeding ground for the sects imaginable with all the liberal indifferentism and the trashing of our Ancient Rite and moral code?  What opposition?  My God, what does TFG want? Nothing left?

What can one say at this point?  This is simply a period in the Church’s history that will have to be endured, praying and fasting as best we can to ameliorate this catastrophe.  God must be sorely displeased with us to inflict us with TFG.  I do not know what will be left in 4 or 5 years, but millions of souls will fall away absent one of the greatest miracles in Church history.

Let us forego, however, judgments of the Holy Father’s soul or claims of heresy. That is not for us to make. We can look at objective prudential and semi-official acts and express disagreement and dismay, but not go into formal claims.  That is not for us to do.