OK I’ll wake this thread up again but seeing as there was an attempt at a hi-jack it may be necessary to start a new thread anyway:

After reading James Bamford’s book ‘Body of Secrets’ and the chapter ‘Blood’ I was convinced of Israeli culpability in the attack on USS Liberty.

It should be noted that Israeli aircraft circled the Liberty, a vessel of unique profile – flying a number of national flags – national markings on the deck – ID in large characters on the side and thus no chance of mistaken identity. Further a broadcast intercepted between Israeli pilot and his controller indicate they knew very well what vessel it was and indeed this was the reason for the attack. The Israeli’s were worried about broadcast evidence of their attrocities in and around El Arish getting world coverage.

Read Bamford’s book and also the book discussed at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair1126.html

A Google search will reveal more and also how a powerful Jewish lobby in the US have tried to muddy the waters through their web site.

Just a thought.

Although all aircraft depicted appear to be making smoke, black smoke at that, I wonder?

There had been occurences of an obscure problem with respect to hydraulic fluid leaking from the transfer pumps, or their connections, in the fuel tanks.

The engines made more smoke with this fault and it was a warning of incipient utility hydraulic system failure which had occurred in an aircraft that had fortunately returned to base to be the subject of a lengthy technical investigation. The knowledge gained was put to good use latterly.

Now based on experience with OM15 used in our Phantoms (and other aircraft and the car engines of some who used OM15 as a Redex substitute for de-coking) I would expect the smoke from this fault to be grey-white rather than black, the result of the hydraulic fluid burning off any carbon deposits.

One problem with this hypothesis is that all aircraft appear to be affected when this snag was rare.

As it is the amount of soot deposited on the runway suggests that a de-coke for the engines of these Phantoms could be in order.

On the otherhand if he stay’s in the Littoral he’s bottled up and made ineffective……..unless of course if you need to operate there!:eek:

That is the scenario I had in mind when I made my first reply to Jonesy.

Has anybody here read Patrick Robinson’s ‘Kilo Class’ which had input from a certain retired RN submariner?

Phixer – Your arguement makes no sense .

Makes no sense to you perhaps but then are your views informed by knowledge of the industry and BAe’s (now BAE) role within it and the legacy on which it was able to be incorporated? Your attitude suggests not.

Because a machine is expensive to insure and operate the former manufacturer should support it?

Why not? After all the bill for insurance is a comparative pittance in the grand scheme of their operations which are unfortunately, and certainly as far as the UK is concerned, moving away from actually making any thing to being a service provider.

It appears that I am not alone in my views for Tim Laming expressed similar ideas when referring to the prospects for the BAE systems own XM603, see pages 106-7 of his book ‘The Vulcan Story 1952-2002’.

The Sea Vixen for example whilst a beautiful design saw no combat – what are you commemorating ?

The Sea Vixen did see combat, you are repeating a misconception that I have already answered elsewhere on the forum.

Also the Sea Vixen had a historical importance by being the first fully integrated British flying weapons system one that served the FAA well for many years. Indeed I suspect that, as old a design as it was, it would have given the Tornado FR3 a good run for its money. However this is off the Vulcan topic as such but the fate of last surviving Vixen is bound up in similar issues to those which this Vulcan is subject.

Similarily the guys out in South Africa could argue that they deserve a few cheques for keeping Buccaneers and Lightnings in the air.

If those who have managed to earn vast amounts of money decide to spend it in this way then good for them and I join with all those who applaud the effort – but here the effort clearly brings its own rewards – only wishing that I could afford to be able to go and actually see these jets in the air.

The fact that BAe has made money over the years is irrelevant – they are a company that employs people – should they lay off a few people so they can fund some old jets instead?

The fact that BAE largely owes the fact that much of its present wealth can be attributed to selling stock at high price after purchasing at below the value paid by the taxpayer is I would suggest good reason for BAE to support projects such as this.

To argue about laying off a ‘few people’ as you have done shows that you have not considered the realities of the modern multinational military-industrial (must not forget the dead hand role of financial institutions and big city bonuses any one of which could probably pay for insurance on both of these aircraft) complex.

Phixer – I would argue that in the early 1970’s the Vulcan was still considered very much a front line aircraft.

Please note that I was not opining that the Vulcan was no longer a front line aircraft but the front line which it had been designed for had now moved in the direction of the Polaris fleet, thus the Vulcan was no longer in its prime which was the assertion I was countering.

Further, it would be in the interests of the US for the UK to operate a CTOL Carrier.

It would be in the interests of the UK to operate a CTOL carrier, or at the very least a mix of STOVL and CTOL as the STOVL looks to have limitations on weapons loads and range but does have its uses.

Now a battle group of carriers with a balanced air-group and subs (mix of diesel and nuc’s) could offset the need for many escorts which TBH can barely look after themselves with their weapon fits alone. See Lewis Page e.g.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lions-Donkeys-Dinosaurs-Lewis-Page/dp/0434013897

for the rationale behind that statement.