Phil FosterGarryB or Vympel will know I think.:)
Phil FosterPhil, that is a very interesting idea, but, unfortunately, MiG-29 NEVER had a three-piece windshield
Yes chap you are right I just had another look and noticed that but you posted a reply before I could edit my post.:)
Phil FosterJudging by the helmet and the colour of the facia it is definitely Russian/Soviet. It looks a bit too analogue for the really modern stuff but could it be a Mig29 prototype? It doesn’t have a single peice front canopy either. I suppose it could be a Mig23/27 or even a highly upgraded Mig21 judging by the HOTAS style sticktop.
Phil FosterPhil, the Argentinians that have died at Malvinas might have not voted for their military junta, as well, but the SAS men surely did not ask ’em prior to shooting.
I agree to a point but do you not think that the SAS, the Paras, the Guards and all the others might have found it a little bit difficult to do their jobs if they had huddled up with the Argentine troops first and asked their opinion about what they were going to do? Its strange that the Argentines did not ask the crew of HMS Sheffield how they felt about being punctured by an Exocet, or the crew of HMS Ardent before it was blown in two by the bombs of a Skyhawk?
Did the Argentine Marines ask the Royal Marines about how they might feel if they burst into the British barracks in the middle of the night and tried to slaughter them whilst they slept? Allegedley.
No they did not, if they had they might have lost some element of suprise. The talking should have been done by the governments and the Argentinian government of the day would not talk. The British position was simple, if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be a part of Argentina then the British government would not stand in their way. That policy still stands today and the only way you can realistically argue against it is if you are intrinsically opposed to democracy which the UK isn’t. They followed the letter of international law and this position was not acceptable to General Galtieri.
Phil FosterWhat a irony! A Briton accuses Argentina of breaking int’l law by invading Malvinas! What the f*ck are YOU doing in Iraq, then?
Well being reasonable I did not accuse Argentina of breaking international law the UN did in 1982 with Resolution 502. Here you go, read all about it:
http://www.naval-history.net/F16diplomacy.htm
The British tabled it and the UN endorsed it, I simply brought attention to it, I did not have anything to do with it.
What are the British doing in Iraq? I draw your attention to what I said to Garry:
The US led invasion of Iraq is still under discussion as to the legality of it but since I am no legal expert we will have to wait for a difinitive answer to that question. Rather than offering half hearted, badly understood opinions as political and legal reality. I do know that international law under the auspices of the UN was being flouted by the Iraqi leadership of the day, on a day to day basis. For one example I know that Britain could not keep a close watch on Saddam Hussein’s intentions indefinitely. Also nobody else was willing to carry out the UNs mandate, if that was what it was. Many countries were quite happy to see Britain and the USA keep Iraq in check but I find it hypocritical that they were not prepared to a) Contribute and b) Allow the British or the Americans an exit plan to the status quo which was draining defence budgets with no end in site. Yet had we pulled out and left him to it I assume though I know you will disagree ‘now’ that you would have had something rather pig headed to say about that as well
So you can take it or leave it. I was opposed to it but its done now so how am I supposed to answer your question with any great conviction in my argument? And no I did not vote for Tony Blair either and I wouldn’t vote for the Tories or the Lib Dems. I certainly would not vote for any of the Nationalist Parties so perhaps you can regard me as relatively unrepresented. Monster Raving Loonies would do me, or the Greens, or UK Independance so don’t ask me what they are doing there.
I will say this though, if British troops are committed to action I WILL support them even if I don’t support the governments actions. The military doesn’t have unions you see, they cannot go on strike and they cannot disobey orders so don’t take it out on them either.:)
Phil FosterNote the word Just? That changes the meaning of what you seem to think I said to:
Rightho. No I don’t JUST want to disagree with you you clever chap you. What I’d dearly love to do is jump up an down on your head. Failing that I’d love to explain my point of view in a way that you can understand. Best case scenario would be for you to simply understand my point of view and stop being so damned bloody minded. None of the above is however possible so the best I can do is argue every point that I have issues with.
Point one. I did not mention aspects of the Mig or Hornet other than the aircraft themselves. You did. At which point I am led to understand that it is now safe to talk about such issues as the pilot and the weapons. At which point you then decide that it is not about the pilot or the weapons at which point I charge you with ‘moving the goalposts’ of the debate. At which point you stop making sense altogether. You carry on talking about weapons, pilots, tanks, mercenaries and Uncle Tom Cobbly n all!Then you claim that they are not relevant to anybody’s point………….except yours. Hence my strong desire to jump up and down on your head. Sorry about that.
Point two.
I think I have made it quite clear what the answer is. If you can’t work it out then perhaps you need to work on your communication skills. I will give you a hint however:
No you haven’t you make your point less clear everytime you post. The only thing that is clear is your refusal to see any reason if the ‘offending’ capitalist pig ‘just disagrees’ with you. No I’m not going to elaborate on this anymore, not that old chestnut again.
Point three. Yes. I said this:
“We can both run the risk of putting too much faith in the equipment and too little faith in the bloke in the cockpit or in this case, give him too little time in the cockpit. With anywhere between 280hrs flying time (NATO minimum) and perhaps 400 or 500 hrs flying time the F18 pilot will also likely get more time to develop tactics against known systems like an HMS for example. I don’t know how many hours Russian aircrew get for training but I’m reasonably sure they don’t get as much time as NATO pilots do.”
Yes I did and then you replied to it which made me think it was safe to talk about such matters. I was wrong, sorry. I shall try to keep up with your ever changing edicts in future comrade.
Point four.
If I said I thought such things were irrelevant do I think we should be talking about such things?
No I don’t so why do you insist on talking about them?
Point five.
And I have told you over and over that you aren’t allowed to disagree with me… it is not allowed.
I like it.:D
The treaty required the Americans help the Argentinians and actively oppose the British… they didn’t and therefore violated that treaty. (What is the point of signing if you are not going to honour it)
……….and the treaty with the British cancelled out the treaty requiring them to help the Argentinians actively oppose the British. They could do neither so did neither. They supplied the British with AIM9Ls at vastly inflated prices and, allegedely, American technicians actively assisted the Argentine Air Force and Navy with the repair and turn around of some of their Skyhawks. Really quite a balanced response in my opinion if it is true.
How, by invading a country? Like Britain and the US and a few other countries just did this year?
Yes by invading a country contrary to international law. The US led invasion of Iraq is still under discussion as to the legality of it but since I am no legal expert we will have to wait for a difinitive answer to that question. Rather than offering half hearted, badly understood opinions as political and legal reality. I do know that international law under the auspices of the UN was being flouted by the Iraqi leadership of the day, on a day to day basis. For one example I know that Britain could not keep a close watch on Saddam Hussein’s intentions indefinitely. Also nobody else was willing to carry out the UNs mandate, if that was what it was. Many countries were quite happy to see Britain and the USA keep Iraq in check but I find it hypocritical that they were not prepared to a) Contribute and b) Allow the British or the Americans an exit plan to the status quo which was draining defence budgets with no end in site. Yet had we pulled out and left him to it I assume though I know you will disagree ‘now’ that you would have had something rather pig headed to say about that as well.
If it was only my assumption why would the US be scrambling to get AIM-9X and a HMS in service on Hornets. And it wasn’t just my assumption… if you actually read the previous posts you will read about an exercise between German Fulcrums and Hornets where the score was 1:1 in BVR and WVR combat. As I explained at the time I thought quite clearly that the Fulcrum probably lost the BVR so I assumed it won the WVR. Logic dictates that as long as my reasoning is correct then my assumption is logical and therefore fair. What has that to do with my ego?
They don’t seem to be ‘scrambling’ to me. I mean the ASRAAM has already been fielded by the Australians let alone the British. If the USA were that desperate they would at least have procured something off the shelf to tide them over. Its not like they do not have the overwhelming finacial clout to simply throw at a project and get it into service ASAP. As it happens it looks like the IRIS-T will enter service before the AIM9X so no, I don’t think they are that desperate at all. Afterall an AIM9 is unlikely to take out bin Laden is it? Its gonna happen after I have said that isn’t it? I can see the headlines now……..
“Osama bin Laden, shot down whilst trying to escape in a Piper Navajo, heat seeking missiles used”.
Phil FosterThe Pogues and Kirsty McCall, Fairytale of New York. Sorry chaps it is THE ONLY Christmas nomber one, all else are pale immitations and Cliff Richard ought to be shot.:D
Phil FosterThe Pogues and Kirsty McCall, Fairytale of New York. Sorry chaps it is THE ONLY Christmas nomber one, all else are pale immitations and Cliff Richard ought to be shot.:D
Phil FosterDo you remember when it was still called “EFA” or “Jaeger 90”? Back then they said the Eurofighter could as well use the F404 engine, if it wasn’t for the extra weight of the gun plus ammo. Therefore they needed a new engine. And now, after all the extra development and extra money spent, they decide to leave the gun out? Or even worse, fly around with the dead weight and not maintain it? It’s unbelieveable. How much can it possible cost to train some groundcrews in gun maintainance and buy a truckload of ammo?
In truth you will probably find that ammo will be ordered and the guns will be maintained. You have to remember this is an MoD decision despite the sick and cynical ploy of the government to order the cheifs of staff to say things like “this was our idea, this is what we wanted all along”. Then the government can point the finger of blame elsewhere. Same old story, use and abuse the poor bloody military. The British government is more cynical than most in this respect.
Oh and you can still fit an F404 engine into a Typhoon and although the power to weight ratio won’t be as good and the dry power of the 404 is a bit on the low side (similar in operation to the RB199 except better at higher altitudes and don’t forget that the RB199 was used in the first flying EF prototypes) nor the fuel burn rate they would be perfectly operable. In the same way you can fit an EJ200 into the engine bay of a SAAB Gripen or and F/A18. I don’t know if any mods would be required to the engine mounts but there would be no need to modify the airframe in fact I suspect that even the engine mounts are the same.
Now the way I see it is simple, if the MoD are going to cut the Typhoon buy, then the least they can do is ensure the aircraft come fully equipped. There are lots of reasons not to vote for the Labour government and this is just one of them. On the other hand none of the other parties would be much better, remember the Conservatives and ‘Options for Change’?
Phil FosterThat´s the main problem. Putting national interests first. I suppose common interest is what is important, and what is fair should be a priority for a solidarious Europe, or at least for all who are interested in making something common.
Only if you feel that way in the first place, if you don’t want the Federal United States of Europe that France and to a lesser extent Germany wants, then national interests are going to come first. Even our politicians don’t want an FEU, we never signed up for it and we don’t want it. At least not yet. We simply are not ready for this and possibly won’t be in any of our lifetimes.
They say Britain either wants in or out, I want out but not before we have exhausted all the options to get the Europe that ‘we’ want which is a free trade area, not a USE.
Phil FosterThat´s the main problem. Putting national interests first. I suppose common interest is what is important, and what is fair should be a priority for a solidarious Europe, or at least for all who are interested in making something common.
Only if you feel that way in the first place, if you don’t want the Federal United States of Europe that France and to a lesser extent Germany wants, then national interests are going to come first. Even our politicians don’t want an FEU, we never signed up for it and we don’t want it. At least not yet. We simply are not ready for this and possibly won’t be in any of our lifetimes.
They say Britain either wants in or out, I want out but not before we have exhausted all the options to get the Europe that ‘we’ want which is a free trade area, not a USE.
Phil FosterSome years ago at a hearing at the German Parliament the EF2000 fly-away price was stated as EUR32.5mio which is absolutely hilarious. It is really hard to tell what the actual fly-away price of a jet is. Usually those stated acquisistion costs are system plus spares/training package and nobody really knows what’s exactly included.
Why is it hilarious? Perhaps because it doesn’t sit well with your stilted view of the world and your place in it? You see I personally think that your claim of $70m is also hilarious. The figures I have seen are for around $50m but who am I to argue with you Dis’?
In any case who are you trying to kid? Shouldn’t you (LM) be lobbying the “lousy good for nothing British polital representatives” and shoving them back handers like you (LM) did with the F104 all those years ago. You are not cutting any ice with anybody here because the decision is not ours.
Still $50m is what I heard and I am more inclined to beleive that than you. Do you want to swap sources?
Phil FosterOkay bear in mind it is monday and I am not at my best on monday.
but it seems you just want to disagree.
Yes I do want to disagree, do you have a problem with that?
The only way to fairly compare two aircraft is to remove the capabilities of the pilot from the equation…
Okay so are you going to talk about the pilot or arn’t you? Just answer the question. You talk about the pilot, I talk about the pilot, if you don’t, I won’t. But don’t talk about the pilot and then tell me its not about the pilot you Stalinist wannabe.
The weapons an aircraft has and can use is relevant. One of the failings of the Hornet in taking on its projected role of fighter interceptor on US carriers is lack of long range reach with no Phoenix compatibility.
So am I allowed to talk about weapons now or will I be dispatched to Siberia if I disagree with you one more time?
If you would like to debate who has the best pilots in the world go ahead.
Oi! Joseph, I couldn’t give a flying fart about the pilots, I wasn’t talking about the pilots, you were.
Of course, how the aircraft will be used, its support aircraft, what type of radar it is fitted with, its history, who is likely to buy it, and if they do who might fly it… all irrelevant.
Fair enough so are we talking about support equipment or are we taliking about the aircraft? Is this your clever way of diverting attention away from what an intransigent little prat you are?
Anything else that is irrelevant. If you want to talk about pilot quality WTF does that have to do with the Mig-29 or F-18? It is a seperate topic. Weapons can be a seperate topic too but it is also relevant here.
Fine. So talk about the aircraft, I’m not expecting to hear an idiot like you agree to anything but I’ll have a go. If all you want to talk about is the aircraft then ‘just’ talk about the aircraft. If you intend to debate other relevant aspects of said aircraft then don’t insult my intelligence by suggesting you did not, just because I might be about to disagree with you.
The US had a defence agreement with central and south american countries. They broke that agreement in 1982 by not assisting the Argentines in defending the Malvinas. After that a lot of centra and south american countries started looking more to Castro as an ally due to the perceived unreliability of the US as a partner. (Not my opinion… published in a british book about the Falklands war.)
Funny they also had a defence agreement with the UK. I can’t remember what it is called now. Oh yes I remember NATO. ‘You attack one of us you attack all of us’ yes its all coming back to me now. No such agreement existed between the USA and Argentina and like I said Argentina broke international law. Yet even then the Americans did not help (unless you insist on a number of over priced Sidewinders that it is debatable we needed at all) the Americans did not join the British or even get involved so don’t talk to me about international treaty’s. This could have been a New Zealand book for all I know, exactly no relevance can be placed on the nationality of the writer.
Yes, I am always losing my temper and calling you names… I must work on that.
Being as churlish as I can possibly be and as your American friends say. “Bite me”.
Oh and just as an aside I agree with you, I also ‘assume’ that the Mig29 is better WVR than the F18 but this isn’t about assumtions is it? Its about your ego.
Phil FosterAn oldie but a goodie. Yanks tell the same one about American soldiers and I’ve heard the same one about British soldiers too.
Merry Christmas.
Phil Foster-Typhoon and F-35 are in a different class. First Typhoon is a primarily Air superiority plane with secondary A2G role, more on the multirole side while the F-35 is more of a strike aircraft with secondary A2A role.
The Typhoon IS NOT primarily an air superiority aircraft, It was when it was first designed it has evolved since into a swing role aircraft every bit as capable as an F/A18E/F, Rafale, et al. This is the same lame argument people like Sue Willets and all the others who want to see it scrapped for (from what I can see) purely personal reasons. I can’t think what those reasons are but these are the intransigents, the idiots who simply love a good whinge. Damn its monday. Rant off.
Sign In
