Skip to comments.
USN Photo of the Day: BUFF Intercepted by "Don't Mess With The Navy" Hornets During Rigging Maneuver
ChamorroBible.org ^
| 1st week in May 2008
| United States Navy
Posted on 06/03/2008 5:43:15 AM PDT by EnjoyingLife
![Two U.S. Navy F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets intercept the low-flying U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress heavy bomber as the bomber performs a rigging maneuver to identify the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68), First week in May 2008, Western Pacific Ocean, off the coast of Guam, USA. Image ID: 080500-N-0000X-002](http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-20050822-UnitedStatesNavy-080500-N-0000X-002-two-F-18-Hornet-fighters-intercept-B-52-Stratofortress-rigging-maneuver-USS-Nimitz-Guam-May-2008-other.jpg)
1st week in May 2008, Western Pacific Ocean, off the coast of Guam, USA -- Two USN F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets intercept the low flying USAF B-52 Stratofortress heavy bomber as it performs a rigging maneuver to identify the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68).
Large, medium, and the above smaller photo via http://ChamorroBible.org/gpw/gpw-20050822.htm (photo 5).
The Story
Navy, Air Force train together to showcase capabilities
By Staff Sgt. Stephen Teel, 36th Wing Public Affairs, Andersen AFB, Guam, USA
http://www.GuamPDN.com/guampublishing/pacificedge/data/EkEkEFulppeoOcKtLi.htm
TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aerospace; b52; f18; navair; nimitz; riggingmaneuver
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
To: EnjoyingLife
Only the USAF would be stupid enough to not recognize a USN carrier.
To: EnjoyingLife
To: EnjoyingLife
Kinda looks like a simulated “escort the Bear out of the area” sortie.
63
posted on
06/03/2008 6:03:15 PM PDT
by
DesScorp
To: 2banana
You mean that is easier than the big "68" number painted on the tower...? Back in the day, the Soviets had the habit of repainting their ships with any old number whenever the whim took them
64
posted on
06/03/2008 7:43:21 PM PDT
by
Oztrich Boy
(Society is well governed when the people obey the magistrates, and the magistrates obey the law)
To: EnjoyingLife; SAMWolf; alfa6; Samwise
Negative Ghostrider, the pattern is full.
To: mad_as_he$$
To: lakeman
I can hear that US pilot now Permission to fire! permission to fire! LOL
Back in the late 1940s, during the USN-USAF carrier vs. bomber spat that led to the "Revolt of the Admirals" the USAF was going around claiming that the B-36 flew so high that it couldn't be shot down.
There was some Navy fighter jock (F9F Panther pilot, iirc) who made a VERY public offer to go up and blow one out of the sky, just to prove that it could be done. IIRC the USN did run a couple of intercepts and the USAF generals were decidedly unamused that their precious "magnesium overcast" was getting bounced.
To: Professional Engineer
Thanks for the ping P.E.
Regards
alfa6 ;>}
68
posted on
06/03/2008 8:12:22 PM PDT
by
alfa6
(One mans magic is another mans engineering... L.L.)
To: onedoug
Did you ever serve? Offhand, I would say “Not,” or you’d understand that under peacetime ROE, the Navy CANNOT shoot down ANY aircraft overflying its ships. At BEST they have armed fighters ESCORTING the other craft, who WILL shoot it down if, and ONLY if, the other aircraft shows tangible hostile intent... like it carries missiles externally and one is seen to be ready to launch, or a bomb-bay door opens while on a demonstrable bombing path to the U.S. ship. Your posturing is just that, ignorant posturing.
Further, since we reserve the right to overfly any- and everyone ELSE’S ships, naval or otherwise, we’d be doing nothing but putting our own aircraft and crews at grave risk were we to follow your misguided advice.
69
posted on
06/04/2008 11:05:04 AM PDT
by
dcwusmc
(We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
To: dcwusmc
Yes, I served in the 1/1 Armored Cavalry, Americal Division, Republic of Vietnam, I CORPS, 1968-69.
I would still say: DO NOT COME NEAR OUR SHIPS OR RISK BEING SHOT DOWN.
What part of RISK is unclear to you?
70
posted on
06/04/2008 3:03:15 PM PDT
by
onedoug
To: onedoug; dcwusmc
What part of RISK is unclear to you? Let me repeat. It is in international waters and international airspace. They have every legal right to be there. What part of that do you have problems understanding?
To: Gondring
When the terrain hugging radar and low flight manuveurs were developed back in the 70s they gave some of us driving out in the Flint Hills of Kansas some startled moments.
I was driving a lonely back country highway in that era when a B-52 suddenly appeared with a BOOM right on top of me and was gone in an instant.
I almost drove off the highway from the shock and I know I felt a displacement shockwave from its passing. I felt it wasn’t but 50 feet above me but I know it must have been somewhat higher.
72
posted on
06/04/2008 3:13:16 PM PDT
by
KC Burke
(Men of intemperate minds can never be free...their passions forge their fetters.)
To: onedoug
To shoot down an aircraft NOT engaged in a hostile act IS AN ACT OF WAR. Period, end of discussion. Under the Rules of Engagement our Navy must follow in peace time (and all other times when NOT in an active combat zone), SHIP'S CAPTAINS (OR BATTLE GROUP COMMANDERS) ARE NOT ALLOWED TO START WARS. Sorry to be the one to break that news to you, you being another Vietnam Vet and all. But you do need to study the rules of war before you make statements like that.
73
posted on
06/04/2008 4:21:30 PM PDT
by
dcwusmc
(We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
To: 2banana
You mean that is easier than the big “68” number painted on the tower...?
Careful, that could be a trick.
74
posted on
06/04/2008 4:31:03 PM PDT
by
tet68
( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
To: dcwusmc
Period, end of discussion.Yet, you go on....
75
posted on
06/04/2008 4:40:15 PM PDT
by
onedoug
To: EnjoyingLife
Doolittle Raid redux? Now someone wants to launch B-52s from a carrier flight deck? :^)
Might be a bit hard on the wing that hits the control tower??
76
posted on
06/04/2008 4:45:28 PM PDT
by
Enchante
(Barack Chamberlain: My 1930s Appeasement Policy Goes Well With My 1960s Socialist Policies!)
To: DuncanWaring
Or as we used to say “why not Minot?”
77
posted on
06/04/2008 4:46:37 PM PDT
by
Kozak
(Anti Shahada: There is no god named Allah, and Muhammed is a false prophet)
To: Kozak
I remember that.
Or, after someone had gotten an assignment to Minot, and didn’t want to do something, they could decline, saying “What are they going to do, send me to Minot?”.
78
posted on
06/04/2008 4:55:45 PM PDT
by
DuncanWaring
(The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
To: onedoug
Indeed. That it’s an act of war is the end of THAT discussion, but I thought you might like to know WHY that’s so. Excuse me if I was wrong.
79
posted on
06/04/2008 5:12:49 PM PDT
by
dcwusmc
(We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
To: EnjoyingLife
“Mustang, this is Air Force Broncbuster 01, requesting flyby.”
“Negative, Broncbuster, the pattern is full.”
[BOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM!!!]
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/61/Slim-pickens_riding-the-bomb_enh-lores-720p.jpg/300px-Slim-pickens_riding-the-bomb_enh-lores-720p.jpg)
“YEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAWWWWWWW!!!”
“Damn that guy.”
80
posted on
06/04/2008 5:26:07 PM PDT
by
RichInOC
("Stampeding hogs." "That's not much of a crime." "Through the Grand Mosque?" "Kinky. Sign here.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson