FedaykinLook why don’t you post this in the “Historic” section! This is for modern military aviation!
Fedaykinlooking at the other part of the report it will be interesting to see what work the RN does with the USN to mitigate heat damage to the QE class deck.
FedaykinName calling again…
Why should i leave it when it is you that keeps throwing around allegations and inaccurate claims concerning my behaviour?
You stated i had ignored a statement by Dassault, i have asked you to provide the post where i did that.
In response you again offer a post of yours and call em a troll? :confused:I’ll state it once again, somebody disagreeing with your opinion, asking a question or challenging a claim is not whatever you may think sufficient reason to have a tantrum and call somebody names.
You are building the strawmen claiming i have done something that in fact i have not.
Again please show me a post of mine where i have, as you claim, ignored or denied a statement by Dassault.
no will just count to 10 must ignore troll
FedaykinI rest my case. A troll pure and simple. You have your answers, post #41 has a Dassault statement of what the Rafale is for and how it will replace the entire French inventory. But as you don’t like any press statements what is the point of wasting my time. As you have no clue why I am insulted by your behaviour and smug condescending nature please leave it add that.
FedaykinSorry I haven’t the slightest clue what you are blathering about SlowMan?! It doesn’t appear to have any relevance to what I was saying!
Fedaykinchina do not support north korea to attack south korea or any country but we will defend north korea if some one tries to invade them.
north korea is in a bad situation and many times china tried to convince them to change the economic system but they are really stubborn and have too much pride. they think they can do everything by themselves.
but we do not support the idea of north koreas enemy using this weakness to their advantage to take over north korea for their own interest.
also russia has no place in north korea. it does not even have a place in asia.
if anything north korea is traditionally and rightfully china’s sphere. North korea was part of china as far back as the Han dynasty
To be honest that just doesn’t appear to be the case, their NK friend is now a pain to Chinese regional policy. A war where thousands of NK refuges swarm over the border and damages trade is not good for China. One of the most interesting Wikileaks to be released was the one which stated China had directly told the US that they would prefer the North to reunify with the South. China wants free trade and the economic destabilisation to the South of reunification is handy for China now. Chinas armed forces no-longer need a NK buffer from America when they are interested in trade and personal stability over anything else.
I have no doubt that Chinese press has plenty of reports about looking after NK but I doubt that your government relishes such an idea. It should be noted more Chinese troops have been moved to the border with NK. They won’t be there to ride to NK rescue in the event of a war! They are to protect the border from refuges and NK army units running from the SK military juggernaut.
In the end the new Great Successor, Brilliant Comrade, Young General, Young master and Outstanding Leader wants to be seen as a strong leader! He needs an enemy to shore up his position with his people and military. Apparently he is desperate to meet Obama no doubt so he can pass himself off on his propaganda channels as a great statesman standing up to America and then negotiating a noble settlement! Problem is SK politically has had enough and is on a hair trigger if NK even take a small pot shot. To quote the Hunt for Red October:
“Somebody messes up, we’ll be in the biggest naval battle since the Jutland. Jesus!”
Transpose “Naval battle” for “battle” and “the Jutland” for “Kursk!”
FedaykinWiki is fine as a source as long as you use it with caution and don’t treat it as gospel, to dismiss it out of hand on the basis that it’s Wiki is silly or an attempt to ignore data that doesn’t fit your opinion.
I’d like you to post the comment where i’ve ignored Dassault statements.
As there isn’t one that will be an interesting exercise. Be careful not to build any more strawmen. 🙂
All i’ve done, twice, is ask you for some data supporting your comments, twice you’ve had a tanturm when i’ve done that.
You introduced the F35 to this discussion not i. The one thing you do have right is i generally won’t accept data provided by a single source with a vested interest in presenting the situation in a particular fashion, i.e. BAE and LM, especially when / if they want my tax money!
Does your Father work for BAE by the way? Just curious as you seem to have a thing for F35 “haters” and Typhoon “bashers.” Very emotive language you choose and thus it seems likely you may have some interest there.
I have given you data that you have ignored, I have not used Strawmen and I am angry! not in tantrum mode. Your condescending attitude has only advanced that.
I’d like you to post the comment where i’ve ignored Dassault statements.
Post #41 If you don’t like it you ignore it then act all innocent surprised and condescending, wonder how many roiling eyes and smiley faces I get this time!
As for F35 it is the figures we have and I have acknowledged it is not set in stone! My ISSUE is you constantly stating there could be NO RETURN. Why are you worried about the tax anyway you are in Luxembourg! F-35 haters and Typhoon bashers … yes emotive words but I am sick and tired reading the same old cr@p by people who have got an axe to grind and as I have said in this thread and many times over the years I have plenty of issues with both programs on the other hand I am not so closed minded to see the positives.
Your continuing condescension is clearly the work of a troll so I will no longer reply, I honestly thought as you hadn’t replied for a while that you might of got the message that you have pressed just a too few many buttons and let it ride. But no you had to get your condescending last word. Must remember not to feed such types.
Fedaykini was thinking shorts sherpa:
Hmmm from that angle it is far less ugly and yes certainly a resemblance to the Sherpa.
FedaykinI am shouting because YOU have personally insulted me with an accusation of straw-manning. You have not backed up anything with solid data apart from Wikipedia. You have decided to disregard cited sources. It is YOU has twisted what I have said. As all we have is the predicted figures for F-35 benefit to the UK I think it is perfectly reasonable to cite them, if it doesn’t suit your opinion frankly I don’t care. If YOU chose to ignore Dassault statements fine but I will not retract what I see as a very fair point.
Accusing me of straw-manning is going to result in a VERY sharp response! As I said don’t like it, set me to ignore but DON’T accuse me of straw-manning. Condescendingly telling me to calm down is only going to make me more angry! Now I shall say no more on this as I wish to maintain my reputation on this forum.
FedaykinI’ll be honest I don’t really get why people get so misty eyed about the name Ark Royale, I’d be happy to see it have any one of the various other RN repeat carrier names: Hermes, Eagle, Illustrious etc.
I think it is the case that Ark Royal is the publicly famous name, I agree that Eagle or Hermes might well be a better choice. Nevertheless if the government does change PoW’s name it would more then certainly be Ark Royal for similar reasons to why R07 was renamed from Indomitable to Ark Royal.
FedaykinExcept I have but you chose to ignore them when it didn’t suit your opinion whilst posting links to Wikipedia! Wikipedia isn’t a good source!
YOU made a personal issue when you accused me of Strawman! I have not presented my own words as fact, I am happy to be corrected so far you haven’t presented anything beyond Wikipedia to do that and got snarky when I didn’t just fold. I have presented information and even cited BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Dassault. I cited British Defence White Papers as they were RELEVENT TO THE TYPHOON BUILD SCHEDULE. I cited Dassault as they probably have a better idea then you of French defence policy! You can say that what BAE Systems or Lockheed Martin has to say about UK PLC benefit sounds like a PR release, at the moment IT IS! BUT it is nevertheless the cited figures of UK benefit IF the program meets its through program targets, something that I acknowledge is not defined yet as we don’t know how many will actually be sold! If it is close to the planned figure there is an UNDENIABLE return to the UK unlike your assertion that somehow there is nothing to be gained. I am not just a mindless F-35 hater like you who calls anybody who has anything positive to say about it “Fanboys”. I have plenty of criticism of that program but I also see the positives, literally as I live down the road from one of the production facilities for F-35.
I was only making a point at first that Typhoon is unfairly bashed in respect of ground to air when the partner nations had different priorities to France. I was not at anypoint making a negative comment about Rafale which I agree has a better overall package in A/A and A/G due to differing French priorities.
You keep shifting the goalposts and then accuse me of straw-manning when I easily correct you. No amount of smiley faces or role eyes will change that, as I said don’t like it set me to ignore but don’t accuse me of trollish behaviour like Straw-manning when you have hardly conducted yourself in a polite way.
FedaykinI give up! No data or that which supports what I am saying and Strawmen from you Snafu, as well as selective reading when I do post facts.
Lets leave it at that because I haven’t got time to correct you anymore. Oh and if you don’t like me debunking your inane inputs then put me on ignore because I am not stopping.
FedaykinDefence white papers from the UK don’t say anything about French defence policy which is the claim you are making :rolleyes: (and those are meant and justified :))
Yes the Rafale is intended to undertake all roles.
The point i have been making is the claim that the Rafale design is more biased towards air to ground in comparison to the Typhoon is not one i think is justified, simply put it appears that way as the Typhoon is heavily biased towards air to air.
Plus you have provided zero evidence that supports your claim of a draw down in French air to ground platforms to support the first.You are building strawmen with the F35 and economic benefits, all i asked for was the numbers that support your claim, you have yet to provide any.
There is a theme developing here, you make a claim, get asked to support it, fail to do so and then accuse me of presenting my opinion, supported by data as gospel :rolleyes:.
This is a forum for debate. Try not to get so upset when you get asked to support your opinion. 🙂
EE, i for one have never claimed the Typhoon lacked in any aspect.
I’d be interested in your thoughts as to where the Typhoon is more balanced than the Rafale however?
But you haven’t supported it with clear data as far as I see it actually what you have posted supports what I am stating…so who is getting upset? Express your opinion but expect it to be disagreed with. Actually I supported the argument that there is clear economic benefit with BAE Systems figures, you chose to ignore that and say I have given no evidence…you are the one making yourself look foolish. For 3000+ airframes, 25,000 jobs are sustained and the project financial return to UK PLc is just under £30 billion, now as that doesn’t fit with your rather negative outlook on that program you have chosen to forget that.
I did not say UK defence policy papers have anything to say about French policy. I pointed that out to show I have put in more effort to back up my opinion. Then as you raised it linked to a Dassault statement which makes it clear.
I am not arguing that the Rafale is more leaned towards A/G, that is absurd! I am debunking the usual Typhoon bashing about where it’s A/G integration is.
The only strawmen is coming from you sir!
FedaykinActually for a long time UK T1 Typhoon in FGR4 form have had the best A/G capability of all tranches due to the UK’s accelerated austere strike capability. It is actually creating a thorny issue for the MOD as they are keen on bringing forward the T1 OSD but it has the best A/G capability and most of the two seater.
FedaykinThe roll eyes were there because you keep writing the same thing but haven’t shown anything that verifies the claim.
Whereas i’ve given you quite a lot of data that supports my thoughts.
It gets a little exasperating. Sorry if you were upset it wasn’t actually my intention.
If there is a doc out there from the late ’80’s early ’90’s (the design timeframe of the Rafale) that clearly states the French intentions to move to a single operational type in the 2000 to 2020 timeframe then clearly your thoughts hold more water.
I still don’t think that the Rafale air to ground bias in the design camp are correct, in comparison to the Typhoon i feel that it is the heavy bias of the Typhoon towards air to air that gives that perception.
Actually you have given no verifying information aside from some wiki pages that actually support my point. I cited a number of defence white papers from the UK. So don’t talk about exasperation… Over the years it has been stated many times by Dassault and the French MINDEF that A/G integration has been a greater priority to France due to them intending to use Rafale as there sole A/A and A/G type. As for evidence, lets try this Dassault promotion site first paragraph! It only took a few seconds of Google-foo!
http://rafalemalaysia.com/the-rafale/
Dassault:
The RAFALE has been designed from the onset of the programme to replace all types of aircraft in service with the French forces and to take over all their roles
Hardly for me to disagree with Dassault is it! This is exactly the same as when you refused to acknowledge that building aft fuselages and significant sub systems for potentially 3000+ F-35 and sustaining 25,000 jobs was to the economic benefit of the UK!? When Snafu doesn’t agree it has to be gospel!
Sign In
