dark light

Fedaykin

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,851 through 2,865 (of 5,046 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: What a find!!! #2016752
    Fedaykin
    Participant
    in reply to: What a find!!! #2016753
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    I wonder if Sparky runs this Youtube channel:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/BlacktailDefense

    He calls the M113 a Gavin and it has many videos about how bad the Stryker is.

    There are actually some interesting videos on the channel for example his ones about the M247 Sergent York if you can get pass the spelling.

    He also hates the Abrams tank as well…

    in reply to: Military Aviation News From Around The World – VI #2344632
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    I’m not squabbling haavarla, just asking politely for clarification. That is fair and benefits us all, as I said I don’t want to be seen as a trouble maker but I do dislike being told off for something that isn’t prohibited. There is no rule prohibiting general comments or debate in a thread that has been set up for news.

    If this is now an official rule it is only fair that the moderators or webmaster clarify that and amend the rules rather then tell us off for something which hasn’t been declared unacceptable.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News From Around The World – VI #2344712
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Hello Grey Area, I dislike disagreeing with a moderator but there is no stated rule within the rules of the Key Publishing Forum that people can’t debate a point within a thread that has been set up as a news thread. Whilst I agree that if it is a subject worthy of more debate then a new thread should be started a quick comment or clarification is not prohibited under the rules, the only rule that I can see that might apply is 3) The moderators have the final say.

    If Key Publishing wishes to amend the rules of this forum and state that only news MUST be posted in a thread set up as a news thread then fine but may I suggest that telling us off for something that isn’t against the rules of the forum is rather unfair Grey Area.

    I don’t wish to be seen as a trouble maker and I did consider doing this as a PM but I feel it is fair that you need to clarify this for all of us.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News From Around The World – VI #2344739
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Interesting PC-7, PC-9, T6 and Tucano can all be armed. Whilst it wouldn’t be anything in comparison to the Skyhawk it would like the Republic of Ireland return a moderate close support capability to the NewZealand army.

    in reply to: Any new pic's of the WZ-10 #2344809
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    this picture has been out for a long time, which is why there shouldn’t be too many doubts about it being cg.

    unlike the J-20 pictures where certain members swallow every cg as real.

    It has none of the strange shadowing and blurring that a photoshop cg would have. The perspective is also correct, the most you could say is it might be a mock up but th detail is too good for that.

    The in flight pictures also look real with none of the tale tells of a cg.

    The WZ-10 is real…nuff said!

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2016917
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    But as I said to place blame entirely on the RAF or say they are particularly worse is unfair when the other services are more then cabable of being just as underhanded as well as political and historical considerations are taken into the picture.

    I don’t like people trying to lay particular blame on one service or the other when it is oh so much more complicated!

    in reply to: Air Sea Rescue goes private? #2345381
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    I have been surprised by how active duty heavy the UK is and how much reluctance there is to change it. The British Army could shift a lot of capability to the TA saving money and the RAF has no reserve squadrons at all while the USAF is almost half National Guard and Reserve. You guys could save a ton of money by having your pilots work for BA during the week.

    I agree, I think the army should mothball most of its heavy armour and artillery (armoured vehicles can be easily mothballed) and transfer much of the capability to the TA. The TA would only need a small number of tanks active to keep crew trained. In that way the UK maintains a nascant capability that can be ramped up quickly (by pulling vehicles out of storage and activating TA reservists) in the event of a crisis!

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2016964
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Changing the location of Australia on a map whilst underhand is not the main cause for CVA01, TSR2, F111 cancellation and the destruction of the British aircraft industry. To say so is frankly silly!

    All of those things happened for a great many different political and historic reasons! CVA01 was probably overly ambitious. TSR2 was killed by a combination of politics, poor management and cost overruns. F111 was at the time it was cancelled for the RAF it was also a costly white elephant. You could write a whole book about the rundown and destruction of the British aircraft industry but lack of government support and starvation of funding as well as orders didn’t help.

    To blame the RAF for the woes of British aviation shows poor research.

    On another note supporters of other services can also play underhand tricks for example Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten had became famous within the industry for slapping ten photographs of a Buccaneer on a desk followed by a single picture of a TSR.2, and then stating that he could buy that many Buccaneers for the price of a single TSR.2. Then when an Australian delegation visited the UK, Mountbatten joined them to discuss the TSR.2. Afterwards the Australians had lost interest in the TSR.2; we shall never know what Mountbatten actually said, but it had obviously had a big effect, and the TSR.2’s export prospects had suddenly disappeared.

    As for the army I will be counting the days until the “Army or nothing” Richard Dannatt finishes his time as chief of the defence staff!

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2016973
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    I swear, i’m starting to totally hate the RAF top brass. They make the RAF look like not just the Junior service, but the CHILDISH service.

    Well my opinion has firmly been that the senior brass of all three services can be pretty childish. Remember that the RAF has spent a significant part of its life with the other two services trying to kill it off. That does promote a degree of paranoia amongst RAF senior brass.

    in reply to: China's upcoming 5th G fighter–J-20 prototype is ready #2345405
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    In the end the history of the J-10 is murky and we will never get the full picture.

    Question: Is the J-10 just a copy of the Lavi?

    Answer: No.

    Question: Did Israeli designers who had worked on the Lavi program advise, help refine and productionise the J-10 design.

    Answer: Yes.

    Question: Is Israel helping with current design and development of the J-10 for example J-10B.

    Answer: No.

    in reply to: Replacing Melbourne- What should have happened back in 82! #2017007
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Or go for the cheap and chearful solution of Seaking AEW, it would effectively of been a new and welcome capability for the RAN. They already operated the Seaking so it wouldn’t of been a significant logistic pressure to introduce the type.

    in reply to: Replacing Melbourne- What should have happened back in 82! #2017038
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    I really feel part of the problem that the Australian and other navies faced in the seventies and eighties when it comes to carrier replacement is the fact that they were able to get those effectively new surplus Royal navy carriers in the late forties and early fifties.

    A number of navies were able to join the carrier club who probably wouldn’t of under different circumstances. Later when these carriers started to wear out they either got out of the carrier game or attempted to find a replacement.

    I do feel that Australia if it had wanted could of planned for a realistic carrier replacement program, as has been pointed out they could of ordered a fourth Invincible class if they really wanted or if they wanted to stay with CATOBAR operations started a realistic replacement program in the seventies. Buying secondhand American Essex class to my mind was an unrealistic choice and was rightly rejected by Australia and other countries. Lets face they were hardly new and would require major rework!

    For Australia if they wanted to stay in CATOBAR operations we are talking about something that could operate the Trackers and Skyhawks with growth potential to operate something like Hawkeye and Hornet. An economy design similar in size to CdG without the reactor, possibly with Diesels to support the steam plant.

    Of course the problem with newbuild STOVL or CATOBAR is its expensive especially for a navy who got its last carrier secondhand.

    in reply to: Pakistan Air Force III #2345589
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Actually looking carefully at the footage I would say two of the escorting fighters were JF-17 and the other two Mirage 3.

    in reply to: Air Sea Rescue goes private? #2345701
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    PFI is a waste BUT it avoids the upfront costs of a direct purchase! It makes the yearly balance sheet look nicer!

Viewing 15 posts - 2,851 through 2,865 (of 5,046 total)