Without to much thought

Weight – a 747 is probably a tad uneconomical with only 100 seats as ejector seats weigh a lot more.

twin deck aircraft – how dou you eject the lower deck 9over head lockers will also be a ******.

structural integrity of the aircraft rather than a metal tube you have either a glass top or lots of blow out panels

maintenance requirements.

Oxygen masks and fixings required per passenger

Training requirements for passengers (getting out over water etc)

locating the dead, survivors – at least if they are all in the aircrfat on impact theyre fairly close together (usually), eject them they could be scattered every where.

Not to cut you off at the knees but its a non starter as is the idea of fitting a parachute to the aircraft (what may work on a Gen av aircraft wont work on a jumbo jet down to the scale involved)

(Quoted posting removed by Moderator)

Bloody sunday was a tragic mistake – the difference between the paras on bloody sunday and the IRA viz a viz the murder of innocent civillians is

1) The Paras actions were not sanctioned, they were the result of poor training (in the type of job they were given)., confusion, nervousness and possibly a small amount of stupidity (from higher up).

The IRA set out to murder innocent Civillians. that was there aim and goal.

2) unarmed civillians murdered by the IRA were just that unarmed and unsuspecting

Among the dead on bloody sunday was a man carrying 4 nail bombs,

incedently despite youre assertions to the contrary you are not unarmed if you are throwing rocks and petrol bombs these things Kill.

You (golervaian) and EGBH appear to have got youre history of NI from the fluffy guide to terrorism.

Oh how glorious it must seem to those who were unborn during the troubles. and how noble are the freedom fighters (despite there odd mistake)

Those of us who lived through it dont recall checking our wheel arches, avoiding strange packages, not stepping on loose paving stones, or just being plain told that the old fella down the road has been machine gunned in his lorry because he delivers coal to the wrong people with quite so much fondness.

who asked how can those so young they werent born have such strong and extreme opinions. sadly the answer is beacause they have no knowledge of the troubles and certain members of various (all) communities are keeping things alive with little more than vile propoganda.

On Topic I allways expected the report to come to the conclusions it has – they were the only politically acceptable conclusions possible. I suspect some truths have been glossed over and avoided as unacceptable to the peace process.

The report has been filed an apology made now let all move on in peace.

[QUOTE=Tango III;1590730]BAP Almirante Grau (CLM-81) still in service ?

I was under the impression she still is, her sisters definatly gone.
mind you I thought the Brazzillian carrier was now defunct, but i keep hearing how brazil will be operating rafale off it (is she big enough)

Yup, I understand the way mobile phones and power work and yes, they output as much power as they need to… But the plane still flies perfectly safely through much higher power microwave transmissions than a phone will ever radiate. Once I hear a technical explanation as to why that’s different I’ll happily agree with your point. Please feel free to provide that technical explanation.

Paul

P.S. A 3310 interferes with a tv so much because it operates on roughly the same UHF carrier frequencies as analogue TV broadcasts. Thank you for proving why my skepticism is valid.

It was a poor example I know, but i was searching for a simple example.

The safety case is not perhaps as some believe and SCi FI writers will portray of fliy by Nintendo.

Audio interferance that distracts the crew or obscures recieved transmissions has safety implications, for that reason turn off.

Emmisions radiated within the airframe will be of far higher intensity than external signals, additionally they can be radiated into the aircraft wiring and potentially amplified by various systems.

External radiation can and does cause interferance. External man made radiation unless you are flying up the **** of HMS Daring will be far less of a problem.

Navy matters is the best source for information about SAMPSON:

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/sampson.htm

I know its meant to be a step on from what SPY/1 can do but it is hindered by having just two rotating faces. On the other hand its mounted far higher then SPY/1.

As a system Sea-Viper also offers some advantages for example unlike AEGIS which requires the AN/SPG-62 to illuminate the target (changing soon with the adoption of the AMRAAM seeker on Standard) and has the support of a long range volumetric search radar in the form of the S1850M. My major criticism with Type 45 and Sea-Viper is it should have more silos for Aster.

If I recall correctly the 2 rotating faces leave a sector uncovered for about a second. wheras the SPY has 4 faces giving continuos coverage. On the other hand those Arrays are heavy and sampson is mounted a lot higher.

I suppose you pay youre money, you takes youre choice. I personally feel the increased radar horizon with sampson is worth more than 1 second.

In my comment about the SAS and Israeli nuclear forces I was not replying to the part of your posting that you declared to be off-topic, but to your claim two lines earlier that “Many organisations refuse to confirm or deny anything…”. I chose the two examples of such organisations that will be most familiar to readers. Was the SAS somehow ‘off -limits’ because you had mentioned it?

Youre response was that we were not talking to the above organisations, and perhaps i misinterperated that as you as deliberatly misconstruing what i had written.
I was distracted and perhaps prickly when i was online yesterday so i am willing to concede I was in error regarding your posts.
I’ve now re-read all my postings in this thread and can see nowhere were I have stated or inferred that people who disagree with me are “wrong, idiots or liars”. All I have done is to give an accurate version of what Bill Sweetman had written, plus a bit of background information on the conventions under which press interviews are conducted in the hopes that it will help other forum users judge for themselves whether Bill Sweetman’s conclusion was justified. Each reader is free to form his or her own opinion on this.

I took youre origional post as passing judgement upon my integrity – as I felt id been clear i had no knowledge regarding the article – and was offering an alternate view point based on what other posters had stated happened-
Of course if i hadnt been clear and you had not been following the thread all that closely – then youre post is of course more justifiable, again distracted and prickly.

Re my line about differing opinions not making other people Idiots liars or wrong, it was a general remark aimed at everyone.
However having re read the remarks as written it does look like i was aiming a broadside at youre good self and for that i do offer my sincere apologies.

regards

Lindermyer

As a sensitive item there will probably never be a clear answer from thales/mbda or the french gov.

That is my point exactly – if nothing else we agree on something.

[QUOTE

As a technical journalist I have some experience of dealing with these companies. It’s not like trying to talk to the SAS or the Israeli nuclear forces; the companies want to talk about what they are doing and want to see stories about what they are doing appearing in print. While a few companies will lie to journalists, they are the exception. If there is a security problem, the vast majority will indicate this, in many cases either by declining to answer a question and citing security issues, or even by declaring a given subject area ‘off limits’ before the interview begins. I’ve never experienced the “Many organisations refuse to confirm or deny anything” syndrome, while the only time I’ve heard someone tell a journalist ‘no comment’ has been in movies.

QUOTE]

You appear to be deliberatly miss reading my posts, In the first implying i was lying. in the second taking my off topic and random example, and answering as though this was my argument after I had CLEARLY stated the SAS quote was AN EXTREME AND OFF TOPIC EXAMPLE.

(one i used simply because I appreciate sometimes language differences can lead to confusion. –

Please feel free to read a bit more of the thread and you will see that I have not said at any point that Thales Dassault are NOT working on active stealth, indeed i have readily accepted the possibility (i have stated that I dont think they will succede)

Now re Mr sweetman I like others feel that the refusal to answer a question is neither a confirmation or denial of the accuracy of the question.

Others believe that failure to issue a denial is confirmation of accuracy.

Arthuro has explained why he believes this to be the case, I have attempted to explain why i believe it is not necasserily the case.

this differring opinion does not make either of us wrong, idiots or liars.