Originally Posted by
ASRAAMTOO
Perhaps English is not your first language. I was attempting to discuss how the aircraft ended up in the position it started from. This was BEFORE information was available as to the nature of the take off. There were therefore a couple of possibilities:
Firstly, the aircraft had departed earlier and then joined up to fly through as a formation.
Secondly, that they had just become airbourne as part of a formation take off.
What I ACTUALLY said was "To my eye the aircraft looked way too low energy to have got airbourne then joined up to fly through. Had that been the case then a zoom climb to force landing or at least a higher ejection would probably have ensued."
So I was essentially implying that it was most likely to have been a formation take off!
I am well aware of the performace capabilities of military aircraft!
Thanks for the lesson on the English language. I sincerely apologies as I was unaware that the clip in the first post of the incident, must have been added later. From the clip it can be seen that the aircraft is in formation (if my English is correct that means with other aircraft). You comment on "To my eye the aircraft looked way too low energy to have got airbourne" seems to imply lifted off too early. Given that it was in formation (means with other aircraft I think) then that would also imply that the other's in formation (other aircraft) also had way too low energy. The question on whether it was a formation take off or not is somewhat resolved in the low speed of the formation and climbing attitude (and now confirmed by another clip showing the takeoff). Which also nullifies a join up possibility at such low speeds and low altitude.
Simply put I was confused by your comment on "too low energy to have got airborne"., but I will go back to Dr Suess and expand my English.