ADVERTISEMENT

Very random question for my Tallahassee residents...

Could it be a hurricane hunter hercules? NOAA and the AF have planes dedicated to weather. Hercules sounds like it fits the bill.

33160_1196980019.jpg
 
Could it be a hurricane hunter hercules? NOAA and the AF have planes dedicated to weather. Hercules sounds like it fits the bill.

33160_1196980019.jpg
Nevermind. Reread the thread and he said 2 engine, non military. Where the one I posted is a modified c130.

Maybe a State Dept plane or NOAA/NWS plane? I'm friends with a guy that's a contracted mechanic here at PAFB and he does work solely on State Dept helos. Says the feds (state/commerce/etc) have all sorts of planes in their arsenal you wouldn't expect.

g2l4lxoufsybndcxq1hb.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: noleone99
Nevermind. Reread the thread and he said 2 engine, non military. Where the one I posted is a modified c130.

Maybe a State Dept plane or NOAA/NWS plane? I'm friends with a guy that's a contracted mechanic here at PAFB and he does work solely on State Dept helos. Says the feds (state/commerce/etc) have all sorts of planes in their arsenal you wouldn't expect.

g2l4lxoufsybndcxq1hb.jpg
No sir not like that either, it’s like a grayed out Airbus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: squiffynole
Could potentially be that top one but I swear the one that flies over has windows like a commercial airliner but no other markings.
I'm guessing the plane has been doing practice runs at the AP. Touch and go/takeoff to the south or east, take a sweeping turn over town at 2,000 or 3,000 feet then back to the AP. But why TLH?
 
  • Like
Reactions: noleone99
I'm guessing the plane has been doing practice runs at the AP. Touch and go/takeoff to the south or east, take a sweeping turn over town at 2,000 or 3,000 feet then back to the AP. But why TLH?
I’ve never seen it on the “normal path” commercial jets use on landing approaches. And most of the time it’s flying low and headed east sorta hugging I-10. We’re gonna get to the bottom of this lol....
 
  • Like
Reactions: squiffynole
Unfortunately it is not military from the looks of it. In general I know my planes/jets and this appears commercial, but not lol. It’s strange to me.

The one flying low over Tally earlier today was a Navy plane. I only know that because it flew right over me and it said "Navy" on the belly. I'm guessing it was a training exercise as it was flying very low and banking near the Capitol and Turlington buildings. It definitely got peoples attention.
 
The one flying low over Tally earlier today was a Navy plane. I only know that because it flew right over me and it said "Navy" on the belly. I'm guessing it was a training exercise as it was flying very low and banking near the Capitol and Turlington buildings. It definitely got peoples attention.
Interesting. Thanks for the info.
 
  • Like
Reactions: squiffynole
I don't know and my info may be useless. However you have a MAC terminal, several ANG and AF units nearby that need to train pilots. With several interstates that are useful it would make sense that getting pilots to learn how to navigate without technology makes sense. If things go wrong you still have plenty of places to put down. I don't know and will refer to F4 Gary
 
The one flying low over Tally earlier today was a Navy plane. I only know that because it flew right over me and it said "Navy" on the belly. I'm guessing it was a training exercise as it was flying very low and banking near the Capitol and Turlington buildings. It definitely got peoples attention.
This was a “plane” though right? I’m talking a LARGE, wide body jet.
 
Just did a search and couldn't find anything current on it. I would imagine it's for many varied missions.

Alright then different question, what is the point of having 100+ B-21s?

Supposedly the B-21 will have roughly half the payload of the B-2 but other than that is supposedly about the same (same slow 600 or thereabouts topspeed, but ultralong range and low radar visibility). So it’s a slow but sneaky bomber with long range but a relatively small payload. We obviously need a few of those for first strike type of options but I’m not sure of their value in taking on low grade third world targets.

The reason I say why do we need them is around the same time, no more than 2-5 years after the B-21s are in large numbers, we’re supposed to officially have large numbers of SR-72s/Auroras. Unlike the SR-71s which they denied as having a nuclear component for most of its life, the Pentagon is blatantly saying the SR-72 isn’t just a spy plane but a nuclear bomber. And the SR-72s conservatively will go Mach 6 (4,603 mph) with their scramjets, maybe even up to Mach 11 (8,439 mph) if the tinfoiler scientists are correct.

So if we’re going to publicly have a bunch of ultrafast, incredibly high (basically space), bombers that are essentially unstoppable until very long range and powerful lasers are deployed by the Russians and/or Chinese to perform the “first strike” nuclear deterrence, what’s the point of having a ton of low and slow stealthy ones? Some I get, you don’t want to assume the scramjet bomber is unstoppable because at some point chemical lasers will be viable of a strength to MAYBE knock down something they can see (Btw I don’t think we’re anywhere near that, probably 30-40 years, the US barely has lasers that can hit stationary targets from upclose currently in the public sphere). So I get the not all eggs in one basket, but it seems to me that 20-40 of them would be sufficient as a supplement to the SR-72s. (Plus this ignores the other spaceplanes we will/currently have probably that capable of deploying mass driver weapons that would have the destructiveness of a small nuke but no fallout).

So I still see a role for the B-52s, we need a platform that’s cheap and can drop tons of bombs on low tech opponents. I see the need for the hypersonic scramjet bombers with low payload but able to deliver one or two nukes in a currently unstoppable format for first strike. I see the continuing role for a FEW B-2s and B-21s for the alternative backup plan IF the enemy develops a way to counter the hypersonic craft. But I don’t see the need for 120+ of the B-21s.

(Sidenote, I am aware that the Pentagon is claiming the B-21s will also be useful as a kind of quasi AWACS station directing a huge swarm of drones around it, but they also claim that’s what the F-35 is going to do as a secondary role as well. And even if you believe that the future will be swarms of small drones using short distance lasers for defense and armed with bombs (even nukes) as suicidal offensive weapons, do we need 120+ of them?)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: noleone99
Don't know what this is about, but me likely.

Colonel Angus joke about a woman named Fiona Apple.

But that Apple is now rotten, she did NOT hold up like a lot of celebrity women.

GettyImages-630249644-1517767292-640x583.jpg


rs-7608-20121022-fiona-apple-624x420-1350995215.jpg




images


Those are 2018 pics.

If you prefer the fantasy, she was quite a looker when she was 18-21 she just didn’t hold up well (see heroin).

4bcb0f4bc6ce0438ae5a4bc5f6f556b0--body-inspiration-famous-faces.jpg



fiona-apple-sexy-04.jpg


fiona-apple-years16-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT