True.
Anyone would think that future air combat will be 95+% post-stall manoeuvring reading this lengthy debate. Let me suggest that it’s far more likely that none of it will be. This seems like more of a debate about air show capabilities.
The SR-71 also had an adaptive cycle engine and that’s early ’60s/late ’50s design and engineering. I don’t think we’re talking about a 21st century cutting-edge invention here. Many engine projects have just avoided adaptive cycles for reliability and cost reasons historically, most notably the selection of the F119 over the YF120.
No, sorry but you are muddle headed over this, as are most anti-EU people over this figure which has been entirely discredited. The real problem is the word SEND that you used and was on the side of the bus.
Your £40k salary analogy is ar@se about T@t. A much better analogy is the one in the lnk set out above, if you had read it you might have understood.
the cost to the UK and the rebate is actually more closely analogous to going into a car dealer and buying a car in a showroom. The list price is £35000, but you negotiate a £9000 discount. You then owe £26000 and pay it. You don’t send them £35000 and they then give you back the £9000.You never contracted to send the car company £35000 so at no point have you actually owed £35000, nor could you say by NOT buying the car that you have SAVED £35000 or have taken back control of your £35000.
nobody assumes a cars list price is the price actually paid do they?
The £40k salary analogy is exactly right. A person will say they get paid £40k per year, however they only actually physically get paid maybe £28k into their bank account. But it’s still not a lie because everyone with half a brain cell understands that income tax and NI get deducted prior to receipt in your bank. I mean do civil servants not pay any tax? The same is true for this £350m, except income tax and NI are replaced by rebate and public sector receipts. That the pro-EU brigade is seizing on an administrative simplification to suggest it’s a some kind of sinister lie is ridiculous.
I mean, let’s be honest here, did anyone in this thread not understand that the £350m was pre-rebate and public sector receipts? As the German comedian says in Bradburger’s post, anyone who didn’t understand that is simply stupid.
The reason why your car dealership analogy fails is because a discount is not a rebate.
rebate
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic…english/rebate
“an amount of money that is returned to you, especially by the government, for example when you have paid too much tax:”
discount
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic…glish/discount
“a reduction in the usual price:”
I am afraid St.John it is not a fact we SEND 350m GROSS. This is a contradiction in terms. We have never sent that much because the rebate was taken off so NET the UK’s contribution was closer to £240 million. So for Boris or anyone to say that we would take back control of £350m , or make £350m saving is just simply untrue.
https://fullfact.org/europe/350-mill…hority-misuse/
the head of the UK statistics authority sent Boris a letter to that effect
https://www.statisticsauthority.gov….-Secretary.pdf
That’s semantics though. The gross figure is still £350m, the rebate is taken out of that. But even the rebate plus public sector receipts still amounts to less than what France receives in public sector receipts alone. So I still don’t see that it’s misleading as a gross figure I’m afraid.
The debate your making here is along the lines of someone saying they get paid £40k per year because their annual salary is £40,000, but in reality income tax and NI is taken out of that before they ever receive it, so is it a lie to say they get paid £40k per year? I don’t think most people would see that as a lie, since tax and NI is a given, as is the rebate and public sector receipts. And bear in mind that that £350m figure doesn’t include remittances, overseas child benefit payments, subsidisation of students at UK universities, EU prisoners in UK jails and others costs like burdening of infrastructure and cost of regulations to business.
Firstly what are they preparing for? It’s not like we know what it will look like yet?!
My point being this lie of £350M savings etc etc failed to point out to the intellectually challenged the reality of it.
Show me the sign that said there’d be £350m of savings. The sign said that we send £350m per year to the EU. It’s a gross figure but it’s a fact.
Really, I didn’t know RR had a Adaptive Cycle Engine (ACE) / Variable Cycle Engine currently in development??? You have a source??? 😀
What’s revolutionary about diverting a bit more air around the core under certain flight conditions? It’s just plumbing.
incredible
I wonder what the gulf war would have been like if US/NATO did not intervene
lets say it was Iraq vs KSA/egypt/UAE and gulf arab states
do you think the air war would still have been so one-sided
the saudis and egyptians did have a lot of great aircarft ( 42 f-15c , 90 f-16a/c , 16 mirage 2000 , 50 F-4E , 20 tornado ADV , UAE had further 20+ mirage 2000)
I’m going to say that KSA would still have won the air war due to having US supplied AWACS and F-15Cs. I know one KSA pilot got 2 kills. The ground war would have been more interesting though. Iraq had the world’s 4th largest military and army at the time, they also had longer range howitzers than the allies believe it or not. Would KSA have had enough air power to overwhelm the Iraqi armoured units fast enough? Difficult to say, because the A-10s, F-111s and F-15Es did nearly all the work in that department dubbed ‘tank plinking’, and KSA did not have those. Another question would be KSA SEAD/DEAD capability, which would have lacked many US assets, although I think they had ALARM-equipped Tornados. Would the Iraqis have stormed the Saudi on the ground and taken their airbases were in not for allied help? Who knows?
Yes just reading Tom coopers book on mig23 seems like Soviets deliberately gave their Arab allies not just inferior planes but also not integrated radar GC systems or EW platforms ground or air based
I think aim7m pk was like 25 % atleast the ones fired from f-15
In Desert Storm the AIM-7M Pk was 34%. The Iraqis had some MiG-29s and MiG-25s. The Iraqi ground control assets were neutralised very early on by a combination of cruise missiles, F-117s and SEAD/DEAD, along with the use of BQM-74s and TALD decoys. There were more targets hit during the first 24 hours than the allied air offensive hit in Europe during the whole of 1942 and 1943.
at this current stage, which of the 5th/6th gen European fighters is likely to be developed all the way? the British effort or the German/French one?
Difficult answer. When you look at the state of availability in the German AF it certainly isn’t a good omen though.
Why would you need to turn you head anyways? There is no need to use the helmet to line up a shot since the F-35 has already ID’d the target and maintains a weapon’s grade lock via EODAS.
I was replying to halloweene. He said the helmet can’t see directly behind you because the head doesn’t turn 180deg. Or something along those lines.
You could just turn your body as well, or the plane.
Ah 1990, when there were 17 supercarriers.
Patent violations for a helmet that Rafale doesn’t have?
Yep, the longest kill in Desert Storm was 28km, with 16 kills beyond 10nm (18.5km) and only 5 requiring dogfighting for F-15s. But ROEs were very strict in Desert Storm, that’s why the Phoenix wasn’t used, and the F-15 was the only aircraft with NCTR, so it got the longest kills. That said, Iraqi EW was not cutting edge.