Keyboard excavations can be quite instructive I’ve found – in a previous job as accolyte to a very large IBM mainframe I, during a fit of unaccustomed boredom, started cleaning the crud out of the keyboard controlling the diagnostics terminal in the main equipment suite. By the time I’d finished I’d produced a ball of carpet tile fibres 2 inches across – no word of a lie!.

Amidst my disbelief that the keyboard could still function in such a state a dawning realisation struck that, if the keyboard could be so affected, so could a lot of other things!. Hard drive units, tape units, fan trays etc, etc – sure enough all showed signs, when we stripped ’em down, of fibre ingestion and several were close to fail point with drive motors heating through shaft resistance. Smiles all round that we’d dodged the bullet.

Moral of the story. Keep an eye on your keyboard!

Despite their “apparent” strength they are about as safe to have an accident in as a 1980’s Jaguar !!! Try checking out the crash tests carried out on for example some Opel /Vauxhall jeeps (the Frontera was very very scary!)and compare them to a car capable of carrying the same number of people.

Concur absolutely and the Frontera was at least a decent lump of metal!. Look at the stats for the Suzuki SJ’s or Vitara’s, Toyota RAV4’s and those types of ’boutique’ 4×4’s and they are even worse. Yet you claim there are all these affluent and educated people who buy such vehicles for no more reason than being a bit flash?. Do you not see the non-sequitor there?.

Fine if you need such a vehicle for your business buy one but why do you need 4 wheel drive to drive to the shops , take the kids to school etc??

How about if you, or your family, have a hobby that requires a vehicle with more rough field ability than a Micra or 3-series? Boating, camping, rambling, equestrianism etc, etc. Just because those people do not require a 4×4 for business they should be denied a vehicle that makes the pursuit of their favoured pastimes easier?. How about if you regularly commute into or through rural areas that are known to flood or get snowbound? There are plenty of reasons, other than ‘ego’, for people who live in an urban context to want a vehicle with at least a modicum of rough field capability.

Sitting outside a coffee shop in a gaggle of their similar shiny never been near mud brethren.

sitting taking up three parking spaces in a shopping centre car park.

parked on a street approx 2 ft from the kerb as the driver was unable to judge where the kerb was.

In the first case I’ve never seen half a dozen or more 4×4’s parked outside a coffee shop whilst the school run club congregate inside and I’ve covered most of the major towns and cities of this country, through work, between Coventry and Carlisle. Perhaps a behavioural pattern unique to where you live?.

The car park and kerb parking are simply examples of bad driving, nothing to do with the vehicle, you see just the same from idiots in Volvo estates or Transits. In one example I saw someone who’d managed to park a Suzuki motorbike in such a fashion to block off a disabled access ramp in a multistorey – should motorbikes be condemned for being bulky and unnecessary?. Your logic would seem to suggest so?!.

Still I’ve made the same points again and again now so I’ll leave this alone and allow those who’re happy with their contrived and unshakeable views to continue in the hopes that their ignorance and myopia doesnt do any further damage to the rights of the individual in this country:rolleyes:

Your reference to the anti 4X4 sentiment being expressed here is that in this area that is exactly what 90% of them are used for. They do the school run then mum goes shopping until its time to collect the ankl;e biters from school.

Hence my comment ‘contrived and unshakeable’. Perhaps you have observed plenty of 4×4 mummys etc but, in no way, could it be substantiated that these are the only people to have them – you may simply not see the vast majority as they are busy….in use!. On the other hand I have observed a great many 4×4’s being used in conditions rougher than the average family hatchback would appreciate.

Note, unlike a recurring view here typefied by…

The other 10% are doing what they were built for, slugging across muddy fields, forsest track and building sites.

…I am not of the opinion that you have to, regularly, have a pressing requirement to cross the Alps offroad in order the see the benefit of a 4×4 capable vehicle!. I know a great many people where I live considering a more robust vehicle than their current ‘ordinary’ family cars following the weather conditions that have been thrown up, in the part of the world, this year.

Whilst this is more likely to see additional Volvo XC90’s or Subaru Forresters being bought than full-up Landcruisers the concept that only farmers and the Army need 4×4’s is obvious tosh!

Tongue planted in cheek….unfortunately!.

Brazil should definitely resurrect its interest in the Yak-141. 😉

They want a networked series of camouflaged austere forward operating bases, dotted strategically around the Amazon, that can take a no-notice deployment of, say, a fourship detachment tied into the AWACS net and with enough stores for four or five days of operations. None of this necessity for big heavy fighters spending hours swanning around over rainforest.

A distributed defence capable of appearing out of ‘nowhere’ and engaging an enemy force from almost any threat axis. A defence that would demand significant resources from an opponent to try and counter before any deep incursion into Brazillian territory could be attempted!.

Plus they could even undertake a kind of ‘Joint Force Freestyle’ and detach numbers to operate with the Sao Paulo to augment the Fleet Air Defence potential of that ships airgroup!.

If the targets are near Aegis ship (inside low altitude radio-horizon), SPY-1D can guide till impact the missiles (SM-2MR BLockIIIA/B) without need of the SPG-62 CWI…the guidance error of the MCGU would not be that great to not avoid the missile’s warhead to do its job (big blast!)…

Further is the target, bigger is the tracking error, you need the CWI further to enhance the pK.

Where on earth did you hear that Pit?.

First off I dont understand the point about the target needing to be “inside low altitude radio-horizon”?. Altitude, provided its within SPY coverage, should not make any difference whatsoever. SPY-1 will hand-off any track to Aegis automatically and update that track as per its programming. Thinking about this further if your track is close aboard at low altitude its probably not even the SPY-1 that holds the contact…AN/SPQ-9B was installed on most Aegis vessels to cover that sector after SPY-1’s performance was found to be marginal within those parameters. As a 30rpm rotator AN/SPQ-9B most definitely does not have sufficient update rate to MCG a missile straight to prox with target.

As to whether MCG from SPY-1 can provide sufficient resolution to actually put the missile inside proximity fuse range of a target would depend, I would imagine, more on the nature of the target and the update rate of the MCGU than anything to do with range and angular resolution. Simply put, if your target is manoevering, forget it, there is a reason why Continuous Wave Illumination is continuous, and that is to provide flowing updates for the missile to generate its computed impact point (CCIP). If the target is plugging along fat, dumb and stupid and the datarate from the SPY-1 can be set incredibly high, near-ICWI rates, then perhaps SPY-1 may be able to simulate some kind of RCLOS system and ‘talk’ the missile onto target. Its going to tie-up the SPY-1 panel performing the ‘RCLOS guidance’ fairly heavily though!.

With a large qualifier. Back in the day four directors on a Leahy meant four missile could be in flight at a time- at best. With Aegis the rounds are intertially guided (with updates) for most of the flight, only requiring illumination for the final seconds of flight, the result being Aegis can keep MANY more rounds in the air at once than the older system (I’ve seen the figure “24” mentioned on several occasions).

Granted. More rounds can be in the air and the directors can service rounds much more rapidly than before, BUT, the number of targets simultaneously engaged is still limited by terminal phase director availability…which was the point!.

Thing that gets me is why did they drop the number of directors on the Burkes to two effectively cutting the number of missiles they can guide in HALF? They can’t be THAT expensive. Seems like jumping over a dollar to pick up a dime.

Exactly. If you ever find the answer to that one I’d be obliged if you’d share. Fantastic example of a false economy if a Burke ever has to face a saturation attack and is lost for the want of the extra director.

Ok an argument that could do loops forever, my final view on this subject, 4 x 4 vehicles have a place. 1. Farms 2. Fields 3. Racing 4. Rescue. Not central London .

Sooo Central London is the only place in the country that matters is it?.

I’d point out that almost any estate car, big exec saloon or supercar has equally little place in Central London yet (and I used to date a girl who lived just off Kensington High St so this is first hand) I’ve never seen a greater concentration of Bentley’s and DB9’s anywhere than in that part of town. In fact the only vehicle that really makes sense around there would be SMART’s or those little Japanese microcars. Good luck proposing that swap to the good lords and ladies of Kenny and Chelsea!.

Which is the main problem with the anti-4×4 diatribe. Those who leap on the bandwagon have this contrived, and unshakeable, view that they are used predominantly by school run mums and for the odd spot of shopping. This is an absolute and utter myth for over 99% of the country. The other 1% are people only they seem to care about!.

Hmmm.

That’s not a bad point, actually.

So how many city dwellers really need a 4×4, then?

Because that’s where most 4x4s seem to be found these days…… in the UK, anyway.

Most!. Lots of people who own 4×4’s in cities dont restrict themselves to just driving them in those cities!

Hmmm flight deck on 03 deck is novel!. Very high freeboard too – you can see why they’ve added bow and stern thrusters!. Bringing that thing alongside in gusty conditions would be entertaining to say the least.

One question might also be how the deck officer in Flyco is going to be able to see a chopper landing on the aft, maindeck, spot?. By the look of it the thru-deck obscures the view!!!.

Other than that – interesting design!