sealordlawrenceI can say it. Consider this: a number of B-52s were lost over Vietnam. A good part of them were due to SA-2s. Now, the A-12 and SR-71 flew over Vietnam and Korea at speeds and altitudes roughly the same as the B-70 would have flown. Lots of SA-2s were fired at them, and nobody ever managed to bring one down. Had those BUFF crews been in Valkyries, they wouldn’t have been shot down.
There were a lot of plans for making the aircraft far more survivable as well, so it would have been a legitimate part of the nuclear triad as well had it been placed into service.
Here’s my list:
B-70
F-12B
F-23A
Yak-141
Tu-144D
Ok SOC now you have my attention, you gotta tell how they planned to make the B-70 MORE survivable???:confused:
sealordlawrenceTo suggest that gun owners of the time should carry on regardless as another “hungerford” or “dunblane” may never happen is really quite a bit wide of the mark , that standpoint is as irresponsible today as it was then.
The vast majority of the affected gun owners were just having fun , it was a hobby – a bit of fun no more no less and in every gun club up and down the country there would have been members who owned powerful guns that had easily identifiable mental heatlth issues , people you would have been afraid to think owned a pair of nail clippers let alone a gun, everyone knew it and that one of the reasons most owners didnt create a fuss and simply handed in their guns and took the govts cash.
The act of preventing another masssacre far far outweighed the desires of a few minority hobbyists/sports enthusiasts.
Yawn, you can not prove that you have prevented another massacre, the fact is that it almost certainly has not. Hand guns are readily available today and anyone sufficiently determined to carry out another Dunblane would have no problem getting hold of one.
sealordlawrenceTo suggest that gun owners of the time should carry on regardless as another “hungerford” or “dunblane” may never happen is really quite a bit wide of the mark , that standpoint is as irresponsible today as it was then.
The vast majority of the affected gun owners were just having fun , it was a hobby – a bit of fun no more no less and in every gun club up and down the country there would have been members who owned powerful guns that had easily identifiable mental heatlth issues , people you would have been afraid to think owned a pair of nail clippers let alone a gun, everyone knew it and that one of the reasons most owners didnt create a fuss and simply handed in their guns and took the govts cash.
The act of preventing another masssacre far far outweighed the desires of a few minority hobbyists/sports enthusiasts.
Yawn, you can not prove that you have prevented another massacre, the fact is that it almost certainly has not. Hand guns are readily available today and anyone sufficiently determined to carry out another Dunblane would have no problem getting hold of one.
sealordlawrenceThis isnt that new, I first saw this about two years ago I think. Supposedly it comes with its own lamd based radar for targeting but I have never managed to find a picture of it.
sealordlawrenceA modified Meteor or multirole version of the ARMIGER is still an option for future ARM for european fighters like Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen. Maybe they decide to join the developement of the AGM-88E AARGM or at least purchase it. That would at least be an option.
But for now Rafale will stick with AASM and maybe Scalp-EG against a really dangerous long range SAM/EWR threat.
Frankly I think it is only a matter of time before we see an ARM version of either the Meteor or the AMRAAM. Both missiles anow have a good range and the advantage of fitting in F-35 weapons bays and standard AMRAAM hardpoints.
sealordlawrenceMiles M.52, intended to break the sound barrier, probably would have achieved it before the Bell X1.
sealordlawrenceAW-683 STOL transport aircraft.
sealordlawrenceAny of the UKs F-155T contenders but especially the Supermarine Type-559.
sealordlawrenceAvro-730 Mach-3 bomber, a prototype was apparently under construction when it was cancelled but there does not seem to be any existing photographs.
http://www.bisbos.com/rocketscience/aircraft/virtraf/avro730.html
sealordlawrenceCapitalism is a conduct of the ills of the human, and socialism is need to whipe it off….despite what you like to say that I have low opinion of people, I (as a marxist) believe in the goodnes of people and that is the main reason why I cannot understand why anyone needs to own military weapons decided to kill people.
You can make up all sort of morale and noble excuses over freedom and ect.. that you have the rigth to onw guns, but it doesent make the gun any less a tool of killing. And people who buys these guns knows this….Or if they dont, they better start thinking of it:mad:
This is just you repeating your own goverment propaganda made to support your nations weird passion to arms. Like wise here in Finland, the ammount of (military) guns in civil people begun to rise after the Independence and the owners of the guns imposed a semi-totalitaritan rigthwing state that used armed ‘death-squad’ type civil militia to terror and indimiate the working class…only when the democracy returned after the WWII and these rigthwing militias were banned and their guns were confisicated.
Well, you stuck your self on 18th century dogma and Im atleast on 19th century so save the “antiqued” at leas a moment.:D 😀 My forefathers focused more on struggeling for social equality and peace and liberty rising from the principle that no one is left on is own….rather than focusing individual stubbournes.
You have to remember, that the US…wich is a mere fraction of the world nations, is the sole one beliveing to this “rigth to be armed to the teath” ideology, You cannot generalise your own national oddity to cover the whole human race at one…And to Sealord:
The proplem between us two to understanding is that do you mean that after the ban some one started to ship more and more guns to britain, and as the guns were illegal, they ended up in statistics as illegal handguns (If it so, we need to then look if it from other angles as well. You have to remember that criminal need for hand guns doesent rise from the fact that civils suddenly looses those. How are the criminal rates in britain devolped …eq lets say five years before the ban and five years after? Are you sure you are keeping your claim in its contest or just throwing it as piecemeal without thinking that much of its nucleous
or…
Are you just saying that after the guns are banned, there are more illegal hand guns where as the total ammount of hand guns in Britain has remained the same?
You do not need to look at ot from other angles. It is very simple, despite the handgun ban, the number of illegal hadguns CONTINUES to rise as does gun crime in general. Thus the ban has failed as handguns are still available and certainly not difficult to get hold of.
sealordlawrenceCapitalism is a conduct of the ills of the human, and socialism is need to whipe it off….despite what you like to say that I have low opinion of people, I (as a marxist) believe in the goodnes of people and that is the main reason why I cannot understand why anyone needs to own military weapons decided to kill people.
You can make up all sort of morale and noble excuses over freedom and ect.. that you have the rigth to onw guns, but it doesent make the gun any less a tool of killing. And people who buys these guns knows this….Or if they dont, they better start thinking of it:mad:
This is just you repeating your own goverment propaganda made to support your nations weird passion to arms. Like wise here in Finland, the ammount of (military) guns in civil people begun to rise after the Independence and the owners of the guns imposed a semi-totalitaritan rigthwing state that used armed ‘death-squad’ type civil militia to terror and indimiate the working class…only when the democracy returned after the WWII and these rigthwing militias were banned and their guns were confisicated.
Well, you stuck your self on 18th century dogma and Im atleast on 19th century so save the “antiqued” at leas a moment.:D 😀 My forefathers focused more on struggeling for social equality and peace and liberty rising from the principle that no one is left on is own….rather than focusing individual stubbournes.
You have to remember, that the US…wich is a mere fraction of the world nations, is the sole one beliveing to this “rigth to be armed to the teath” ideology, You cannot generalise your own national oddity to cover the whole human race at one…And to Sealord:
The proplem between us two to understanding is that do you mean that after the ban some one started to ship more and more guns to britain, and as the guns were illegal, they ended up in statistics as illegal handguns (If it so, we need to then look if it from other angles as well. You have to remember that criminal need for hand guns doesent rise from the fact that civils suddenly looses those. How are the criminal rates in britain devolped …eq lets say five years before the ban and five years after? Are you sure you are keeping your claim in its contest or just throwing it as piecemeal without thinking that much of its nucleous
or…
Are you just saying that after the guns are banned, there are more illegal hand guns where as the total ammount of hand guns in Britain has remained the same?
You do not need to look at ot from other angles. It is very simple, despite the handgun ban, the number of illegal hadguns CONTINUES to rise as does gun crime in general. Thus the ban has failed as handguns are still available and certainly not difficult to get hold of.
sealordlawrenceThe ban was put in place as a preventative measure to ensure a certain type of incident could never be repeated , and the what ifs and maybes are mute points.
No their not.
sealordlawrenceThe ban was put in place as a preventative measure to ensure a certain type of incident could never be repeated , and the what ifs and maybes are mute points.
No their not.
sealordlawrenceYeas logically if you make guns illegal, the ammount of illegal guns naturally increases as all the guns become illegal….has this been behind your logic all the time, sea lord?
well there is no need to be sarcastic as it is quite rigth that those are the ways that the proplems can be solved….And by fighting spirit of the opressed working class we can get there if we only want!!!:D
That is not the case that is what I have been saying and you know it, you just keep twisting my words becouse you know you are wrong. So I will explain again so everyone can see how ridiculous you are.:mad:
Step-1: Gun ban introduced, legal handguns confiscated this creates an instant start point for the number of illegal handguns in the country.
Step-2: This number increases, ie there are more illegal handguns after a number of years than there were following the completion of the ban and confiscation, thus the ban failed.
Get it now?:mad:
sealordlawrenceYeas logically if you make guns illegal, the ammount of illegal guns naturally increases as all the guns become illegal….has this been behind your logic all the time, sea lord?
well there is no need to be sarcastic as it is quite rigth that those are the ways that the proplems can be solved….And by fighting spirit of the opressed working class we can get there if we only want!!!:D
That is not the case that is what I have been saying and you know it, you just keep twisting my words becouse you know you are wrong. So I will explain again so everyone can see how ridiculous you are.:mad:
Step-1: Gun ban introduced, legal handguns confiscated this creates an instant start point for the number of illegal handguns in the country.
Step-2: This number increases, ie there are more illegal handguns after a number of years than there were following the completion of the ban and confiscation, thus the ban failed.
Get it now?:mad:
Sign In
