dark light

Bomberboy

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 586 through 600 (of 784 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • Bomberboy
    Participant

    Please forgive me here, but has not these speculative scenarios, or variations of them and other elements relating to these two ships that will be but have not yet been built, been discussed, printed in the press, sound byted on the news posted on this forum et al etc etc etc, time & time & time & time & time & time & time again!!!! :confused:

    And have we actually got anything different from was was likely to happen anyway, but which is in any way different to anything that fell into the categories above?

    I wished I had recieved a crisp crackly for every time someone suggested a ‘new’ scenario, WRT the carriers because i’m sure I could buy a big boat myself then and retire with a big hypothetical fat cigar.

    The way it is panning out everybody is both right and wrong about the speculation they have provide both before and now.
    what will be, will be!!

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: Duxford Ten out of ten out of ten #532964
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Question – were you one of those chaps in the background to my Trucktop landing picture?
    John

    Good thinking there John and I read the answer.
    “further over” still means exactly the same as I see it.
    That is, if the piccy was taken over the other side with the sun behind they were still on the wrong side (not on it) of the paying fence (excuse the pun):dev2:
    Look at the piccys on the blog! the one you quote at the top shows as good as exactly the same but in the reverse….but “further over” was the quotation.
    Piffle!!!!!!
    Clearly further over 6″, 6′ or 6yds, for what it is worth was not enough….it should have been Royston!!!!

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: Duxford Oct 10 – what a glorious end to the season #533021
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Did anybody get a decent shot of the Trucktop Landing?
    I grabbed this one between the heads of spectators and missed the touchdown

    http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj29/John_C_R/Duxford%20Oct%2010/Trucktoplanding800.jpg

    John

    Nice photos John.

    Thanks for posting.

    Shame Brendan didn’t land on the heads of what look like ‘freeloaders’ in the distance.:diablo:
    Freeloaders :dev2: of course I have a particular loathing for, as they contribute diddly to the upkeep and operation of most of these lovely aircraft and the museums they reside at.

    Worse than that though are those ‘freeloaders’ that even manage to proffer from their days actions.

    I do hope none of the photos that find their way onto this forum were taken by ‘non entities’ that I consider them to be nothing better than.
    This is of course only my considered opinion:D

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world -III #2025273
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    The usual top quality press scribing.

    going through the forces stats I find a few holes maybe?
    Please correct or add where appropriate?

    It only shows one assault ship, only two Bay (but wait a mo theses are RFA’s)
    No RN Merlins.
    No RN Lynx’s
    1 Swiftsure now out of service
    No Army Apache’s
    No Army Lynx’s
    No RAF Regiment
    2 RAF Nimrods??? are these the R1’s

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2025278
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    You assume that Fort Victoria is there instead of the usual frigate deployments rather than in addition to them. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

    What sort of a poxy question is that.
    My comment was not based on fact in the first place.
    It was a response to somebody else’s posting.
    If you want to play that number, where is your evidence that it isn’t?
    in fact the link to the RN website you have given clearly is aimed at the type of ‘unusual’ (my terminology) deployment that they have tasked her to do as her ‘PRIMARY ROLE’.

    If it’s there instead of, then it’s likely (not factual and with no evidence to support my assumption, only my personal speculation which i hope will satisfy you) that there’s not enough appropriate vessels available.
    If it’s there as well as, then it’s likely (not factual and with no evidence to support my assumption, only my personal speculation which i hope will satisfy you) there’s not enough appropriate vessels available.
    Either way, if as I have suggested earlier in the thread that youare one of those that know everything and have the evidence to prove either of the above is incorrect or what the correct reason for her being deployed like this, then please share it with everybody.

    On the other hand why would it be unreasonable for me to ASSUME that there are not enough appropriate vessels to do the work in the first place with all that is currently going on in the navy……which was the point of my reply.

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: Fred Bateman 'Sally B' Pilot. #1116160
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    I seem to remember this chap if it’s the right one.
    I think he flew for KLM as he used to turn up a duxford in his car which had the registration of KLM1.
    Not much I know, but at least it’s something!

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2025434
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Yeap Swerve is right, the replemishment mission will actually be the primary task, but whilst there she will also double up to maintain a watch for pirates.

    See my previous posting ref the reported primary role as originally posted by flanker 30 and his simple conclusion about what ships the navy should and should not now be aquiring.

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2025437
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    It would, unless it can be spread across thousands of square km of sea simultaneously. Apart from close escort of convoys through the most dangerous zones, everyone does anti-pirate ops by helicopter. Ships without them aren’t thought very useful for the job.

    I didn’t say they are not useful, I did’nt say that helos are not an integral part of the job.
    I merely stated that anti piracy can be conducted without them whether on a limited basis or not and you give an example of where they can be deployed without them.
    Even a helo can cover only a certain amount of square miles at any one time and sometimes the conditions will prevail them from being used at all.
    The ship on the other hand does not.

    Oh, & she’ll be replenishing warships while she’s out there. Supply ships help the anti-piracy flotilla operate more effectively (less time wasted sailing back & forth to Mombasa or wherever), & doubling up on roles makes sense. If she’s going to be there anyway, for refuelling & resupply of patrolling ships, why not use her for anti-piracy ops directly, at the same time?

    I am aware and had already considered what you say, but where she is so engaged in keeping everybody fuelled up and resupplying, etc etc, then she is not conducting the role that she has necessarily been reported as being sent for which was the reason for flanker 30’s posting!
    She’s actually spending the time doing what her primary role is, is she not?

    The emphasis of the posting as I see it by flanker 30 was to intimate that this was the way to go and what I percieved he was suggesting was forget with sharpend warships (“not greyhounds of the sea”).
    It does show though that those that make the decisions about what ship goes where are still finding it more and more difficult to cover their obligations or whatever with fewer and fewer hard fast warships and I don’t necessarily believe that some kind of slow cumbersome ‘mothership’ with a few small fast boats and a helo or even two is any kind of absolute/appropriate replacement for what we really need.
    They have their uses, but they are no substitute.

    I’m sure that the vaguries of ‘one-size fits all’ vessels has been well and truly debated here before and not to a sucessful conclusion and I see this as another of those.

    But hey in the end perhaps I know nothing as there are many on here that know it all!

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2025447
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    The main point is that this shows that the main vessel is primarily a platform, for helicopters and small fast boats, and remotely operated, UAVs, USVs and UUVs. Motherships, not greyhounds of the seas.

    What this really shows is that there aint enough appropriate RN vessels to conduct the job that they need to do in the first place.
    Nothing to do with it having to be a platform for helos.
    The fact they’ve got to employ a ruddy great RFA and mish mash ensemble to carry out these tasks speaks volumes and as the RFA is no ‘warship’ the only way to ensure that they can carry out the task is to have to use a helo, which surprisingly means that a platform is an absolute must.

    A warship would not necessarily be reliant on the helo in order to conduct the task sucessfully.

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2025541
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    As to being able to postpone PoW and build frigates earlier, i have to express my greatest doubts for such a scenario. I don’t think it is really feasible, sincerely.

    The above is in relation that It actually reports that a staggering of the carriers is to be considered, but hey didn’t they already do that and as a result cost an extra billion or so. :confused:

    One way they could save money is so obvious, but nobody appears to have picked up on it.
    build them both to the originally intended programme and save a billion or so. 😀

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2026026
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    So, with all that has gone before, that’s no further news to report on CVF construction then!!!!!

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: BF-109E Restoration #1133753
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    I am sorry you see it that way, Bomberboy, but I think Mark12 has adequately and appropriately summed things up.

    I had not meant to portray it that way, even if that is how it came across and would only add that “anonymity” was a pre-requisite of the owner/restorer on the production company who made the film for the BBC.

    I understand what you and Mark 12 say and thanks for clearing the reasoning up a little better.
    The owner is worried about security, a matter which should be the same for anyone, but as you have acknowledged and the way which it may have been portrayed meant that I just didn’t see it quite come over like that, especially with the fact that the owner had allowed the cameras in in the first place.

    It just seemed a little hypocritical, but all is now good.

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: BF-109E Restoration #1134099
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    The owner/restorer wishes to keep its location private and secure. His prerogative, and rightly so. Very often, too, the client for whom the aircraft is being restored requires confidentiality within the restoration contract. Nothing strange about what you percieve as “hush-hush”, I’d suggest!

    If I were restoring a Me109 (or anything, for that matter!) I’d probably not want it generally or widely discussed.

    So why even include it in a BBC programme?
    That’s a classic ‘I want everbody to know of it and here it is….but yet I don’t want you to know’.
    Unfortunately it seems nothing more to me than a pure contradiction on its own.
    So my view is what doesn’t exist I won’t miss!
    I have long gone past the ‘I must see it I must see it’ phase to the ‘If I never see it it will not bother me!’

    There is plenty of variety out there that is willing to be seen!

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: Haynes Hurricane Manual #1145104
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    And there is I believe, another (heavy) due for release in the new year:D

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: The Star Of The Show – Farnborough 19/07 #545577
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    What a beauty of an aircraft!
    Paul

    Oh dear, perhaps he mixed up his messages??

    I’m glad to say that I find no beauty in a structure such as this!!

    Bomberboy

Viewing 15 posts - 586 through 600 (of 784 total)