Every country will claim it is the best… every enemy is denigrated as evil or bad. The west was excellent at demonising communism and nazism, yet clearly evidence in China shows the western democracies can put aside their problems over communism and both can get along.

You really have lost the plot,

1) Only in the most absurd of fantasies is China actually communist.:rolleyes:

2) The Nazis did a pretty good job of ‘demonising’ themselves, I am assuming that you are aware of the Holocaust?:rolleyes:

2) The same applies to the Russian Communists, turns out Stalin wasnt such a great guy after all.:rolleyes:

Looks like the Islamic world is showing its ‘tolerance’ again.:rolleyes:

Yep. From F-16.net

“The second F-16XL (#75-0747), was originally powered by a 29,000 lb.s.t. General Electric F110-GE-100 turbofan. It was converted from the 3rd FSD aircraft (A-3), which was severely damaged in a landing accident (nose tire failure) during the Edwards Open House in August of 1980. The aircraft took-off and blew it’s nose tire in the event. The decision was taken to land with gears up. As soon as the nose gear touched down, it dug into the lake bed and snapped off. This caused the trailing edge of the radome , the leading edge of the forward equipment bay and the intale to carry the load. The intake scooped up tons of dry lake. In the process it was ground off on a line even with the forward bulkhead, (where the radar antenna hangs and the main gear tires). The radome was trashed and the equipment bay was ripped up. When this airframe arrived at Fort Worth for use in the XL program, it was accordingly missing the entire front end, and a new 2-seat front section was constructed for this aircraft. XL no. 2 flew for the first time on October 29th, 1982, piloted by Alex Wolf and Jim McKinney.”

Reason it stuck out in my mind is one of the first good pictures I ever had of an F110-powered aircraft was the two-seater F-16XL in this book: (nearly 25 years ago 😮 )

edit: In fact it is a color version of the black and white photo that appears in the book.

Sferrin, that book is epic, one of my first military aviation books!

My talk for years! What is needed are more carriers. But WITH proper air groups. Meaning long range attack aircraft. 35 ton VA(H) type stealthy attack aircraft. Manned or unmanned, preferably both, and modular. Don’t see any of those on the CVFs. And without them CVF is coming close to a waste of money. Better copy the CdG.

Becouse that worked out so well that the French ended up with the CVF.:rolleyes:

Wasn’t the SA 80 an update of the original (Lee Enfield?) weapon preferred in the 50’s by the U.K. armed forces ?
We got the SLR instead ,which was a b*ggered up F.N. weapon by all accounts.
Incidentally: Could you strip the SLR and move the selector round to ” Fully Automatic” as indicated -or was this a just a legend?

Then of course there was the game of putting Gimpy mags in them to make them look a bit like A.K. 47’s….. The Rocks went into tears of rage at that one.
I’d be interested in the comments of somebody better qualified on all this .

Myth. The SA-80 and the EM-2 (the rifle I assume you are reffering to) have nothing but their basic layout in common.

ahhhh will you come on now…give us a giggle will you ???Go on ..its great for the complexion 😀

By the way on the subject of names ie : Troll..what do you call someone who doesn’t read a complete tread or at least picks bits and pieces and chooses what they want to take umbrage at ?

No no..they arnt 4×4 drivers !!! :diablo:

To answer your question……..Hurrifan.:rolleyes:

Otherwise that post just reinforces the actuality of the accusation.

A week ago, I noticed that there was no section on the wikipedia entry for the Sa-80 rifle listing the considerable faults and controversies surrounding the weapon, which was surprising, because there used to be such a section, so I duly added one. It may of not been perfect, but I did my best.

Anyway, I check the entry today, and it has (rather conveniently for the MoD) disappeared. I think someone may be editing wikipedia to their benefit :rolleyes:

Oh well, I guess its to be expected, but it makes me question whether this is in the spirit of free speech. :confused:

The SA-80 no longer has these problems. They were on the Mark 1, the Mark 2 is a far superior weapon and by some reports has been out performing the M-16 series in current operations. To say that the current SA-80 is a flawed or faulty is wrong.