|
jlf1961 -> RE: McCain's Bizarre Behavior (3/23/2017 9:00:11 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NoirMetal
Also known as "wet start McCcain",who's fucking around with his after burners cooked off a zuni rocket on another jet on the US Forestal ,resulting in one of the worst navy disasters ever.
167 crewmen horribly dead. His daddy the admiral got him out of that one.
There is a few problems with this assertion.
1) The rocket launched from an F4 phantom
and
2) Senator McCain flew an A4 Skyhawk.
A wet start of McCain's aircraft would have caused an electrical surge in HIS aircraft but not the F4 that accidentally launched the Zuni missile, and since his aircraft was insulated from the metal deck by the tires on the aircraft, the charge was kept in is aircraft.
Furthermore, the A4 was not equipped to carry the Zuni, its combat loadout consisted of Sidewinder, Shrike, and Walleye missiles and 1,000 pound bombs, or any combination there of.
The Zuni rocket was an HVAR, costing $400 a copy with no electronics and was basically a hold over technology from WW2, and was known to have quirks.
Now another problem with the story is this, when starting jets on a carrier, the aircraft are staged with the tails facing outboard, in other words, there is no way an F4 would have been in a position for the wet start to have cooked off the missile. If it had, then the deck captain was at fault, since he would be the man in charge of staging aircraft in preparation for a strike.
Another point, for the Zuni to cook off and launch instead of exploding, the two aircraft would have to have been staged tail to tail, meaning one of the aircraft was facing the stern, also not procedure for start up prior to a strike.
Basically, the flame from the tail of Senator McCain's Skyhawk would have cooked off the Zuni warhead, not the propellant charge.
As for the esteemed senator Paul, he has voted against appropriations to fund the Veteran's Administration (HR 5325) among other things, including voting against the amendment to prohibit transfer of weapons and explosives to suspected terrorists, and has spoken out against the civil rights acts (you know the laws that made it illegal to discriminate due to race.)
As for congressman Nunns, who informed the White House about details concerning an on going FBI and Department of Justice investigation, at the very least he may be in violation of ethics laws, and at the very worst, guilty of divulging information about an ongoing investigation since he became aware of the investigation as well as his sources.
Of course this was on of the same congress members who called for the various agencies to get rid of the 'leakers' i.e anonymous sources.
|
|
|
|
