dark light

FAR

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 170 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-35A production PICS!! #2525976
    FAR
    Participant

    Wow, I new that there were concerns about the costs of JSF but this downsizing is taking things a little too far surely? 😮 At least it means that future aircraft carriers could get a bit smaller. :p 😀

    Sorry couldn’t resist. What is life if you can’t have a bit of a laugh!

    in reply to: French army nearly fired missiles at IDF Fighter jets #2525983
    FAR
    Participant

    Lets be careful here. This thread is in danger of getting to the point where it accuses Israel of being the cause of the all the Middle East’s problems. I seem to remember someone else accusing the Jews of being the cause of all their problems….

    I agree that some of Israel’s actions do stretch the good will of the rest of the world a bit. Remember that Israel is a small state surrounded by states which at best barely tolerate them (that is probably only due to western influences.) The day the state of Israel was formed the Arabs around them attacked them and every since they have been under almost constant attack.

    Israel would not have needed to strike into Lebanon if the rest of the world had done something to stop Hizbollah. In my view the world including France does owe Israel something. Israel was set up to be a safe haven for the Jewish nation following the murder of 6 000 000 of it’s people. It’s odd that the world forgets this and then complains when Israel has to defend itself.Perhaps Israel doesn’t entirely trust some western states.

    I’m not trying to justify rogue actions but just to put things in perspective. If you lived in a street where all your neighbours were at best only tolerant of your existance, you couldn’t move away and the rest of the world did little or nothing to help how long would it be before your world view became a little different from the norm?

    in reply to: Vulcan 607 today? #2526089
    FAR
    Participant

    How long would it take to do that for 2 squadrons?

    If I said how long it would be a guess! One thing to remember is that while the Brits may make stupid decisions based on £s such as scrapping the Sea Harrier we are very good with turning things around when our backs are against the wall.

    in reply to: CVF News #2079251
    FAR
    Participant

    If, the UK followed the design of the F-CVF more closely the saving would be much greater and they would also operate more efficiently with there French and American counterparts………….. :rolleyes:

    I agree. If the UK ourchased CTOL JSF instead of the VTOL version the cost savings would probably pay for the cat installation on the CVFs. The Royal Navy movie showing the CVF shows a CTOL version. It may be that they have already deided to go down that route. We’ll find out soon.

    in reply to: Vulcan 607 today? #2526417
    FAR
    Participant

    Does anyone know what the air to air capability of a GR7/9 is compared to a Sea Harrier from 1982?

    in reply to: Vulcan 607 today? #2526488
    FAR
    Participant

    How would the British protect their landing force now there are no Sea Harriers?

    Pod the Blue Vixen radars from the Sea Harriers onto a GR7 or GR9. Apparantly a podded Blue Vixen has already been tested.

    in reply to: CVF News #2079386
    FAR
    Participant

    This looks like good news. I can almost see the news reports of JSFs landing on the deck of the Queen Elizabeth for the first time!

    in reply to: Argentina / Russia defence pact #2531235
    FAR
    Participant

    flex, by the time Argentina will have Flankers, the 4 RAF fighters stationed at Mount Pleasant will be Typhoons…

    And the RN will have T45s and CVF with F35s. Bye bye Argentine air force.

    in reply to: CVF News #2080920
    FAR
    Participant

    it will go though! this always happen with big programes under a new labor goverment they will argue a bit then thought it will go and the RN will have two 74.000 thousand ton carriers

    stay positive people

    The deal will be done. Too many jobs in labour constituencies would be lost if it doesn’t happen.

    If the government did pull the plug now they would be signalling an end to the RN as a blue water navy and the UK’s armed forces as anything other than a self defence force. Despite the current public view on Iraq the government is not prepared to stop taking a major part on the world stage.

    Lusty and the Ark won’t go on for ever and the cost of starting the carrier procurement programme again would probably be more than £100m.

    in reply to: CVF News #2081018
    FAR
    Participant

    My cup floweth over!

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/11/01/cncarrier01.xml

    Looks like the carrier alliance have a price they can’t budge from and the Treasury won’t budge from their figure.

    Last minute posturing. I have been involved in negotiating reasonably large contracts with the UK government and know that the gamesmanship goes right up to the last minute. It seems that now that industry has accepted the incentive scheme the difference has come down to just £100M (£3.6 v £3.8 billion) little more than the cost of one Typhoon.

    I really can’t see the MoD or industry letting the whole deal go over what is in reality such a small sum of money.

    With an profit sharing incentive scheem industry will try an talk up the initial cost stimates as much as possible. That leaves as much “saving” as possible for indstry to share as outright profit.

    in reply to: Harrier personnel pods #2543127
    FAR
    Participant

    Yes, the stuff on that site is all clearly spoof (lots of references to April 1st and suchlike) but I’m sure there was a real proposal once for underwing personnel pods for the Harrier. Not sure, but I think they also suggested it could carry low volume priority cargo. Might seem a bit far-fetched, but unlike the “Harrier HAR.12” I think it was a genuine proposal. Just wondered how far they got with it.

    What was the HAR.12?

    in reply to: CVF News #2039337
    FAR
    Participant

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldpvw5bBtGg&mode=related&search=

    Have a look at the last 30 seconds or so of this RN movie. It seems to show CVF with conventional take off F35s.

    in reply to: Feasability of a mothership #2555840
    FAR
    Participant

    It’s already been done, Battlestar Galactica. Oh come on you don’t think it’s just a TV show do you?

    in reply to: CVF News #2039715
    FAR
    Participant

    Here is a question for you. IF the vertical take off JSF is cancelled could the RN just adopt the French varient of the CVF and use the US carrier version of the JSF? What would the cost implecations be say now and half way through the CVF construction phase?

    in reply to: Roll out of HMS Clyde – New Helecopter capable OPV #2041679
    FAR
    Participant

    Well, I have to admit I was saddened to realise the River class OPV’s were delivered without a 96 cell Mk.41 VLS, Goalkeeper CIWS, ASW torpedo tubes, a medium callibre gun and Tomahawk missiles, I’m really worried that these dreadful defficiencies will limit their suitability for fisheries protection and Police duties 😀 :diablo:

    Don’t forget a squadron of F35s and two GATSO cameras to catch speeding ferries! :rolleyes:

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 170 total)