dark light

kev 99

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 916 through 930 (of 1,460 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Type 45 launch website #2014221
    kev 99
    Participant

    Reel in the melodrama, have a look at the threa don the issue on warships1…. Lewis Page has a history of sticking the boot into any surface combatant that isn’t an aircraft carrier, like Max Hastings he believes the whole concept of destroyers and frigates to be outmoded.

    This article is a gleeful take on a single test failure. The fact that the PAAMs system has suceeded in every test up until this one says that the system is fine, test schedules make room for possible problems… this changes nothing.

    This is after all the reason why weapons get tested. Problems occur in new weapons and old, fixes get worked on, etc, etc. This isn’t a huge deal but Lewis Page who has been openly critical of the PAAMS programme (and any thing else the MOD does) for years has seized upon this with gleeful abandon and spun it out as total failure.

    in reply to: US To Withhold F-35 Fighter Software Codes #2410123
    kev 99
    Participant

    If you cannot legally enforce it or get your money back then those sorta things are not good are they ?

    This is not like a defense treaty or anything it deals with a product…..

    There is no such thing as a legally enforceable intergovernmental agreement. This is not a contract, a contract has to be legally binding and there is no court that can force the US Government to pass technology/source code/whatever should it decide that it doesn’t want to, so therefore no contract can cover this sort of agreement.

    in reply to: US To Withhold F-35 Fighter Software Codes #2410164
    kev 99
    Participant

    No i do not and I will tell you why.

    If you go back a few pages Swerve among others said that written agreements on this matter are probably unlikely, ie. you will not have a case in any court because of that. He said that to counter sferrins argument to go to court if they feel the terms are violated.

    This is what Swerve Wrote ” You don’t get it, do you?

    This is an intergovernmental agreement. It isn’t a contract. Lawyers are irrelevant. “

    If there are no written agreements it shows you were wrong and naive in blindly trusting Americans thats all.

    Swerve did not say there was no written agreement, he said there was no contract.

    in reply to: US To Withhold F-35 Fighter Software Codes #2410730
    kev 99
    Participant

    I agree with Sens, that statement sounds like an exercise in face saving to me.

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world -II #2014394
    kev 99
    Participant

    does any one else thing that for 30mill its a ffing steal?

    Yes.

    in reply to: US To Withhold F-35 Fighter Software Codes #2412405
    kev 99
    Participant

    More fuel for the fire 😀

    I read that at the weekend, quite amusing how they’ve managed to substitute in the headline a component of the warheads bought from the US on cost grounds for the entire ‘bomb’.

    in reply to: A400m DATE SET ? #2413161
    kev 99
    Participant

    To be honest I think it would be sensible to buy more A400M to replace C130J as a second order, as long as the the aircraft works out of course.

    in reply to: Sea Viper & SAMP/T #1809339
    kev 99
    Participant

    This forum does feature an ignore function.

    in reply to: Nuclear Propulsion in Large Carriers? #2014640
    kev 99
    Participant

    Just want to make it clear, 90inFIRST posted that not me. I am not confused as to what LHA-6 is & is not.

    Calm down dude its only a forum. Post edited.

    in reply to: A400m DATE SET ? #2414991
    kev 99
    Participant

    +1

    in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion, Part III #2014714
    kev 99
    Participant

    That can’t be right? 10 years to build a frigate? I would of thought that these slow build programmes were behind the Russians by now?

    :confused:

    in reply to: Nuclear Propulsion in Large Carriers? #2014797
    kev 99
    Participant

    45,000 tons, 38 aircraft, 2 gas turbines, electric drive. USS America. Guess I’m confused.

    I would assume that they just don’t want Nuclear amphibs.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News from around the world -IV #2416909
    kev 99
    Participant

    ^Complete non story, I believe all of those ‘stunts’ were all training exercises, plus its fabulous PR for the armed forces.

    in reply to: Possible Typhoon For Canada?… #2433136
    kev 99
    Participant

    Well, thats a surprise!
    I always thought that GB Plc had got what it wanted, but it seems that it didnt!
    What a mighty f… u…

    Stolen from Shaun non Warships1:

    “SEC. 233. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON TECHNOLOGY SHARING OF JOINT STRIKE
    FIGHTER TECHNOLOGY.
    It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should share technology with regard to the
    Joint Strike Fighter between the United States Government and the Government of the United
    Kingdom consistent with the national security interests of both nations.”

    Text from FY2007 defense authorization act H.R. 5122/P.L. 109-364 of October 17, 2006.

    Only states the US should transfer technology not will.

    in reply to: RAF plans huge cuts in planes and bases #2434438
    kev 99
    Participant

    You want forego purchase of F35 and navalise Typhoon as a means of saving money? BAE have already looked at ways of navalising Typhoon, the common belief is that this would be a more expensive option.

    RN going for CATOBAR on its carriers would probably mean standing up additional FAA squadrons.

    F35 useless aircraft? Whatever gave you that idea?

Viewing 15 posts - 916 through 930 (of 1,460 total)