Posted on 10/29/2015 7:37:20 PM PDT by Candor7
They misquoted him. He said leaking from behind.
Nope.
Basic inorganic chemistry.
Fuels oxidize (rapidly) to create heat and sometimes visible flame to make fire ... By combining the fuel with an oxygen atom.
Oxygen NEVER “burns” in a chemical reaction.
Actually the TOS-1A Burantinos fire 220mm thermobaric weapons. These are fuel air rockets similar to our daisy cutter bombs, just smaller.
In about 10 seconds, it can turn 40 acres into smoking gravel. Very interesting and scary weapon. Look up its info and videos.
I wonder if they are gonna surround Raqqa with them?
While we were asleep, the Russians, with a ton of Chinese help, have been closing the tech gap. Just imagine what the Chinese could have up their sleeves, given ONLY what we know about their electronic espionage successes.
What seems to be most surprising is how often the Russians are surging their newer aircraft, like the SU-34M’s, without having to stop for major maintenance breaks. They are flying 3-4 times a day, every day. (That’s a hell of a surge rate.)
As the article noted, none of our NATO allies can do that.
“Oxygen NEVER âburnsâ in a chemical reaction.”
Sounds like you are suggesting that the oxygen is just a catalyst. It isn’t so... As in the simplest case of hydrogen and oxygen, both elements are consumed to produce h2o. After the reaction, we neither have oxygen or hydrogen, just water.
The next video on yutube was
“NATO vs RUSSIA - Nato Shows its Teeth to Russia with Huge Baltic Drills” posted June 18, 2015
I bet we showed them, eh?
Vladimir Putin ramps up attacks on terrorists while Obama fingers his own incompetent butt.
It once made me proud to be an American, but that’s gone these seven years.
.....just read an article that in 2027 100% of Federal Revenue will be consumed by entitlements.
Our Navy will be reduced to rowboats!
Almost none of our NATO allies can match the Russians? Did anybody think they could? And when they say “almost none”, who are the ones who could?
Given the MSM proclivities, and in honor of the GOP nomination race, maybe someone on CNBC will call this weapon “The Trump”...
Correct, it supports combustion.
Reminds me of the old days with the oxy-acetylene torch on the other end of a lit cigarette. Also the Apollo 1 disaster.
The technology is a lot older than that. The Red Army was using MLRS in 1941.
The thermobaric warheads on a MLRS are new to me.
Vlad is assisting ISIS animals access virgins easier than we thought.
Three cheers for the Crusaders!
Is it:
a) They have inferior precision and intel, or
b) this is done with the purpose to create larger flow of refuges to other countries.
or both?
It might be that the standard hide weapons in schools, hospitals, and mosques gambit is in play and the Russians will accept inflicting the collateral damage necessary to get at the weapons.
So what are the Putinists going to say now: Russia first ar,y is going to kick a$$, or this is just something to bolster defense spending in the US because Russia is rusty?
Or is it false reporting?
Hmmmmm
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.