Page 43 – Key Publishing

SteveO

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 631 through 645 (of 1,444 total)

← 1 2 3 … 42 43 44 … 95 96 97 →

Author

Posts
November 3, 2005 at 9:52 am in reply to: HOW WOULD YOU RUN YOUR COUNTRY? #1932786

SteveO
Participant

TRANSPORT (Roads)

scrap road tax for private car users increase fuel prices….private hauliers get discount cards for diesel fuel.

Nice idea, this way you would only get taxed when using your car rather than for owning one 🙂

I’d also get traffic cameras that catch people for bad driving rather than just speeding. I’d have fines for driving too slow, not indicating and staying in the middle lanes on motorways when not overtaking.

I’d also increase the speed limits on motorways to 70mph for the inside lane, 80mph for the middle and 90mph for the outside lanes.

I’d also try to change all the junctions, sliproads, roadabouts, etc that cause bottlenecks to free up the flow of traffic.

November 2, 2005 at 7:03 pm in reply to: General Discussion #351608

SteveO
Participant

EMPLOYMENT

Rather than having a Jobcentre that only gives you benefits if you can’t get work, I’d rather have a Jobcentre that is run as an employment agency and gets you work.

I’m currently unemployed and have found the Jobcentre to be a total waste of space, they only appear interested in if you are entitled to benefits rather than getting you back to work so you don’t need them!

November 2, 2005 at 7:03 pm in reply to: HOW WOULD YOU RUN YOUR COUNTRY? #1932867

SteveO
Participant

EMPLOYMENT

Rather than having a Jobcentre that only gives you benefits if you can’t get work, I’d rather have a Jobcentre that is run as an employment agency and gets you work.

I’m currently unemployed and have found the Jobcentre to be a total waste of space, they only appear interested in if you are entitled to benefits rather than getting you back to work so you don’t need them!

October 27, 2005 at 10:04 am in reply to: MOST COST EFFECTIVE MULTI-ROLE JET AIRCRAFT #1338176

SteveO
Participant

Look at the pictures of the NASA Canberra operating in the U.K and it pretty much says it all! Cost effective means how much you paid for it and the return on that investment – when your talking aircraft that are in some cases fifty years old your going to struggle to find anything to get even close to English Electric’s design.

The Canberra is a great aircraft, but is it really that cost effective to keep small numbers of old, non-front line aircraft in service doing the odd jobs?

Maintenance and training must be a problem to some degree.

October 26, 2005 at 9:59 pm in reply to: MOST COST EFFECTIVE MULTI-ROLE JET AIRCRAFT #1338340

SteveO
Participant

Doe’s she really belong HERE now, funny question yes, but as there IS a overlap from one forum to the other a LOT of the time, and it’s getting weirder.

I suppose it is a little soon to count the SHAR as a historic aircraft, but in early 2006 the FAA retires the last examples 🙁 so I’m only a few months out as far as the UK is concerned. I hope India gets a few more years out of the SHAR though.

I’d say that the F-4 Phantom deserves a mention, it roles included fighter, bomber, SEAD, recon, target drone and it operated from both carriers and land.

Thinking about it, the Phantom is probably front runner for the title of most cost effective multi-role historical jet aircraft.

I still prefer the Sea Harrier though 🙂

October 25, 2005 at 7:33 pm in reply to: MOST COST EFFECTIVE MULTI-ROLE JET AIRCRAFT #1338905

SteveO
Participant

Top stuff Steve-o mate!

That one fantastic shot of the old bedstead jump jet, that why I hinted at the Harrier, as I know it doe’s have a lot of different role’s, then the early day’s, but I had not the ball’s to sugest it straight out like yourself mate, GOODONE!

🙂 here’s some more.

October 25, 2005 at 6:27 pm in reply to: General Discussion #354629

SteveO
Participant

BLOOD!!!!

Uncontrolled bleeding, squirting arterial spray, rapid dripping, spreading pools, major surgery…….

October 25, 2005 at 6:27 pm in reply to: What really frightens you? #1934017

SteveO
Participant

BLOOD!!!!

Uncontrolled bleeding, squirting arterial spray, rapid dripping, spreading pools, major surgery…….

October 25, 2005 at 4:57 pm in reply to: MOST COST EFFECTIVE MULTI-ROLE JET AIRCRAFT #1339098

SteveO
Participant

Steve – In fairness the Sea Harrier ‘made the difference’ in the Falklands War because the fleet didn’t have anything else they could send ! Ask any FAA guys and I am sure they would have loved to have had the kit of the old Ark! For instance with the AEW Gannet ,Phantom and Buccaneer I feel that the odds would have been decidedly in our favour!

That’s true, but the old Ark and it’s airgroup wasn’t an option.

The RN brought the Sea Harrier because it was a choice between something or nothing, that something turned out to be a very useful and cost effective capability.

Certainly the Sea Harrier did a good job but it isn’t truelly multi role – it was designed for fighter reconnaisance and largely did that. It didn’t have a capability for LGB designating and was therefore fairly limited from that point of view.

The Sea Harrier is truly multi-role!

Lack of laser designation capability doesn’t mean an aircraft isn’t multi-role. The SHAR can launch missiles at aircraft and ships, drop bombs and fire rockets at ground targets and fire it’s cannon at all of them, or take photos, that’s multi-role in my book 🙂

October 23, 2005 at 9:01 pm in reply to: MOST COST EFFECTIVE MULTI-ROLE JET AIRCRAFT #1340392

SteveO
Participant

MOST COST EFFECTIVE MULTI-ROLE JET AIRCRAFT

It has to be the Sea Harrier 🙂

Although it’s performance was limited, the SHAR provided defensive and offensive airpower from small carriers and made the difference in the Falklands war.

October 20, 2005 at 8:43 pm in reply to: New german technology for submarines #2073615

SteveO
Participant

I wonder if deck mounted guns will ever make a come back on submarines?

A 155mm gun in a streamline mount might work, maybe it could even fire with just the muzzle above water?

October 20, 2005 at 4:14 pm in reply to: Virginia Class SSN Propulsor #2073633

SteveO
Participant

I can’t help with the Virginia but this recent thread on pumpjet propulsors might be of interest http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=47978&highlight=Propulsor

October 18, 2005 at 10:02 am in reply to: World-Wide Aircraft Carriers #2073779

SteveO
Participant

Great site, keep up the good work 🙂

October 17, 2005 at 6:23 pm in reply to: New german technology for submarines #2073818

SteveO
Participant

I think that the gun is a very good idea, the sub could be used as an invisible picket for surface ships and carry out stealthy patrols against the like of smugglers and illegal fishing aswell as pirates. Not the roles a sub is desighned for but none the less interesting ideas and an added capability.

My thoughts exactly, it would be one hell of a shock to get a cannon suddenly appear out of the water and point at you 🙂

An improved mast mounted gun system, surface to air missile capability and a system like the Lockheed Martin Surveilling Miniature Attack Cruise Missile will make Submarines much more usable. http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/strikeweapons/SMACM/product-SMACM.html

October 17, 2005 at 5:59 pm in reply to: General Discussion #357013

SteveO
Participant

Here’s my current desktop…..

🙂 Jozef Gatial’s TSR2’s make great desktops, more here http://www.planespictures.com/
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 631 through 645 (of 1,444 total)

← 1 2 3 … 42 43 44 … 95 96 97 →