dark light

Nicolas10

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,801 through 1,815 (of 4,147 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Israel and Iran… #2294712
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    mack8, please answer this; should the USofA be forced to hand back the land to the native Indians, should Russia hand back Konigsberg, release Cheneya (spelling?), should China release Tibet and India and Pakistan allow a free Kashmir?
    Where do you stop with all this “fairness?”
    Should we all hold hands and sing together? I’ve got some flowers in my garden that will be coming through shortly. 😀

    The corollary is true too: are we (US, UK, France…) supposed to do the dirty job of the israelis? Because that’s sure as hell what we do most of the time. And we don’t mind when the israelis come to assassinate or kidnap someone on our very own soil. WTF is wrong with that?

    Nic

    in reply to: ROK F-X III Competition #2295049
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    boeing still will make loads of money on the tanker deal. airbus only spent money… there’s no comparison

    in the end, it’s always the same: the winners makes money, the looser looses. running in a competition where it’s been clear you won’t be allowed to win the final contract is just wasting money. if a country has already decided who it will buy from: let them pay the price

    Boeing was milking the USAF so they could be much more competitive on other markets where it was competing directly with Airbus. Their profit on the tanker deal, which is huge, have been cut dramatically. The price of their aircraft have been near cut in half.

    Nic

    in reply to: ROK F-X III Competition #2295117
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    now one can wonder if it’s worth the investment to go there just to try to get that. Dassault already answered to that question in Japan: they didn’t even bother participating (why spend time and money just to get the japanese a better deal from a US firm?)

    It helps slash the profits of your direct competitors. Thanks to airbus going for the US tanker competition, they managed to force Boeing to make massive cuts on their profits. In the long run it will cost Boeing much more than it cost airbus I think.

    Nic

    in reply to: Military Aviation News-2012 #2295232
    Nicolas10
    Participant
    in reply to: MMRCA news XI #2295298
    Nicolas10
    Participant
    in reply to: MMRCA news XI #2295303
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    http://www.deccanherald.com/content/232395/mod-raises-objections-over-rafales.html
    Rafales lifecycle costs questioned in india

    Old news, and denied by an MoD spokesman. You have probably seen the link in another thread already…

    Nic

    in reply to: Rafale news XII #2295636
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    Wow. 25% have you a link?

    I think that Raf’ offered different things that better suited India than Tiffie* if they genuinely got that at 3/4 price then India have done well.

    * despite that and my misgivings about BAe I still wanted Tiffy to win though.

    Click on the picture for the link.

    Nic

    in reply to: MMRCA – has Rafale been illegally subsidised? #2295670
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    Maybe there is a difference in culture, but here in France (yes i’m french), when an official figure makes a public statement, it engages the government’s credibility and actions.

    But not of the french people, hopefully 😡

    in reply to: MMRCA – has Rafale been illegally subsidised? #2295672
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    I find very interesting that mrmalaya and Lindermyer ask me to calm down on this thread. My tone is perfectly appropriate and has nothing vindicitive in it.Did I insult any of you? I don’t think so. Did I try to reply to your claims with facts, verified sources? Yes. Did I open a thread and tried to imply things that were untrue ? No, someone else did. I could have opened a new thread with a catching title like “MMRCA – Has the British government tried to bribe the Indians?”, but I didn’t. Even when you guys face a clear evidence, an official statement, you’d rather try to discredit the source than accept it as trustworthy. I can’t fight your blindlessness! 🙂 I have not shown any anti british feelings in my words, so I do not see why you would imply that I am anglophobic, mrmalaya. Mr Lake/jackonico, apart from being a liar, is one hell of a flamebaiter. Problem this thread brilliantly backfired in his face.:diablo:

    +1

    in reply to: MMRCA – has Rafale been illegally subsidised? #2295693
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    For the record I don’t think the UK’s aid to India was some way to secure the MMRCA deal.

    Nic

    in reply to: MMRCA – has Rafale been illegally subsidised? #2295855
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    😀

    in reply to: Military Aviation News-2012 #2297777
    Nicolas10
    Participant
    in reply to: Quantity overwhelmed quality – any example? #2298210
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    Not in general for the East. All that came along with a good radio-set and the P-39 was on par at the typical lower level combat in the East. A2G was done by fighter-bombers/Stuka/light-bombers which were operated below 15000 feet for best performance. Unlike in the West no good bombing-sight or loader-technology for the engines at hand to do combat at levels around 30000 feet as in the West.
    The Russians built excellent fighters for their kind of warfare from 1943 and started to surpath the ageing German fighters there.

    La5FN got out in 43/44, before that german fighters were generally better than the soviet ones, and P39 was good because of the radio but still no match for the FW190 particularly. It was very good because its gun made a good fighter bomber and that’s it. Besides the radio made it easier to use tactically. Still in flight performace it was outclassed.

    I never dissed the soviet fighters, and I believe that the late La7 and Yak3 were just as good as the western or german fighters, if not even better. IIRC some soviet ace in his La7 who was attacked by P51s who mistook him for a FW190 made short work of both of them.

    Nic

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon News & Discussions VI #2298269
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    That would make sense (a lot) if there were not two 65000ton flat tops being built right now…
    The way things are going, the RAF will end with 160 Typhoons and a handfull of DAVE´s barely enough to equip one carrier, a six fast jet sqn airforce. 🙁

    Buy SH if they really can’t buy Rafales. It will be complemented by a stealth UCAV too, just like the USN.

    Nic

    in reply to: UK considers Rafale and F-18 as 'interim aircraft' #2298294
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    Indeed E2D looks very nice. I’ve always suported CATOBAR for the UK because whatever fighter you put on it, it enabled the RN to operate the E2D (or at least the Hawkeye 2000 that the Aéronavale operates).

    Nic

Viewing 15 posts - 1,801 through 1,815 (of 4,147 total)