News Today

News, Banter and anything else non football!!
User avatar
Marco Boogers Boots
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:48 am
Location: UK
x 42
x 28

Re: News Today

Post by Marco Boogers Boots » Thu May 09, 2019 9:18 am

Gonzo wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 8:40 am
Neville Bartos wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 7:55 pm
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/u ... 844650.amp

This story seems ridiculous to me. British and US military goals aren't always the same and since the US are always loath to hand over command of their forces to overseas powers how would this work?
We could end up with the US launching air strikes from a British carrier independent of the British chain of command.

The F35-B is a joint venture where development was shared between Lockhead & BAE. Basically it's the new Harrier but stealth and faster although they have some serious software issues (maybe they made my phone too because that can vanish and doesn't work).

Basically once they've sorted the glitches it's the best fighter in the world and we have built two fuck-off aircraft carriers specifically for this US/UK plane. There is no way that we'd have been able to afford or do it on our own and certainly wouldn't have had access to US's stealth technology without the collaboration.

The Euro Fighter is shite, we're still using Jaguars & GR4's (which were around when I was a kid) so our airforce required a massive overhaul. Britain being Britain we can't afford a full fleet so we've put our new planes and the matching US ones on the same carrier as the plane begins it's use in the field.

In other news Russia has just launched an undetectable submarine that can blow aircraft carriers up from 1000 nautical miles away with nuclear torpedoes.
Mostly true, though the Jaguar has been out of service for some time now (upgraded and sold to the Indians) and the Euro Fighter is not shite. Expensive as fuck, but not shite.

We did initially buy too many of the fighter variant for what our actual needs are, but now have upgraded the fleet so they are "swing-role" - so can operate as fighters or Ground Attack FGR4 variants.

The GR4s you speak of are the Tornado, which have gradually dwindled in number and finally went out of service earlier this year.
1 x

User avatar
Neville Bartos
Posts: 4098
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:29 am
Location: Flyyyyyyyyyin'
x 454
x 576

Re: News Today

Post by Neville Bartos » Thu May 09, 2019 4:01 pm

Gonzo wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 8:40 am
Neville Bartos wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 7:55 pm
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/u ... 844650.amp

This story seems ridiculous to me. British and US military goals aren't always the same and since the US are always loath to hand over command of their forces to overseas powers how would this work?
We could end up with the US launching air strikes from a British carrier independent of the British chain of command.

The F35-B is a joint venture where development was shared between Lockhead & BAE. Basically it's the new Harrier but stealth and faster although they have some serious software issues (maybe they made my phone too because that can vanish and doesn't work).

Basically once they've sorted the glitches it's the best fighter in the world and we have built two fuck-off aircraft carriers specifically for this US/UK plane. There is no way that we'd have been able to afford or do it on our own and certainly wouldn't have had access to US's stealth technology without the collaboration.

The Euro Fighter is shite, we're still using Jaguars & GR4's (which were around when I was a kid) so our airforce required a massive overhaul. Britain being Britain we can't afford a full fleet so we've put our new planes and the matching US ones on the same carrier as the plane begins it's use in the field.

In other news Russia has just launched an undetectable submarine that can blow aircraft carriers up from 1000 nautical miles away with nuclear torpedoes.
I'm sure it's about money, but practically and more importantly culpably it makes the UK liable in the military actions of a foreign power.

The F35 is really a replacement for the Tornado. The Typhoon isn't shite so much as unsuited to multirole. And it couldn't operate on a carrier, especially one configured for VSTOL rather than CATOBAR.
The advantage of having F35s on a carrier being they need be your only fixed wing aeroplane.

The UK has ordered well over 100 F35's. More than enough for both carriers -- one of which is still under construction.
Apparently, during peacetime operations, there would only be 12 F35s onboard anyway.

Btw, I'm not trying to sound like an expert, it's just that stories from thenationalinterest.org have been popping up in my articles for you.
And I can't resist any story about aircraft carriers. I think watching The Final Countdown as a kid has something to do with that.
0 x
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

User avatar
Gonzo
Posts: 6954
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 8:13 pm
x 639
x 410

Re: News Today

Post by Gonzo » Fri May 10, 2019 8:58 am

Neville Bartos wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 4:01 pm
Gonzo wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 8:40 am



The F35-B is a joint venture where development was shared between Lockhead & BAE. Basically it's the new Harrier but stealth and faster although they have some serious software issues (maybe they made my phone too because that can vanish and doesn't work).

Basically once they've sorted the glitches it's the best fighter in the world and we have built two fuck-off aircraft carriers specifically for this US/UK plane. There is no way that we'd have been able to afford or do it on our own and certainly wouldn't have had access to US's stealth technology without the collaboration.

The Euro Fighter is shite, we're still using Jaguars & GR4's (which were around when I was a kid) so our airforce required a massive overhaul. Britain being Britain we can't afford a full fleet so we've put our new planes and the matching US ones on the same carrier as the plane begins it's use in the field.

In other news Russia has just launched an undetectable submarine that can blow aircraft carriers up from 1000 nautical miles away with nuclear torpedoes.
I'm sure it's about money, but practically and more importantly culpably it makes the UK liable in the military actions of a foreign power.

The F35 is really a replacement for the Tornado. The Typhoon isn't shite so much as unsuited to multirole. And it couldn't operate on a carrier, especially one configured for VSTOL rather than CATOBAR.
The advantage of having F35s on a carrier being they need be your only fixed wing aeroplane.

The UK has ordered well over 100 F35's. More than enough for both carriers -- one of which is still under construction.
Apparently, during peacetime operations, there would only be 12 F35s onboard anyway.

Btw, I'm not trying to sound like an expert, it's just that stories from thenationalinterest.org have been popping up in my articles for you.
And I can't resist any story about aircraft carriers. I think watching The Final Countdown as a kid has something to do with that.

I'm plane mad which stems from holidays in the Lake District where they used to practice. We've just returned from North Wales at Easter where a bit of plane spotting was undertaken (there is some geek in all of us).

I used to get invited to the air traffic controllers annual event (my friend is one) and they'd say some things that would leave you open mouthed but don't ever reach the press. The compare was a funny bloke and the way they would casually joke about how shit and unsafe Airbus were was quite chilling. I remember very well how it was received when suggested that Airbus would help us make fighters.

A combination of that and the two former RAF pilots pretty scathing opinions of the Euro Fighter maneuverability formed my opinions really because clearly I haven't flown one. I think they (RAF) were hoping for a British built plane or a collaboration with McDonall Douglas or GD rather than what they got. I think the government contracts were obviously dealt with at a high level and it was thought that there had not been enough input from the people who were actually going to fly the things.

Anyway, I digress. I grew up with US air-force bases in this country. I remember going to RAF Northolt as a kid one day and watching through the railings as the USAF were using it for the day. We used to get the newsletter with the joint maneuvers were going on and we'd go to Cambridgeshire to see them and I'd stare in wonder at the fantastic US fighters which always seemed a bit more snazzy than ours.

So sharing an aircraft carrier is just more of the same as far as I'm concerned albeit Navy planes rather than Air-force. The Russians and Chinese are happy enough to play massive war games with each other and flex their muscles in the Pacific. I'm more than happy to remain aligned to the US because militarily it makes sense.
0 x

User avatar
Neville Bartos
Posts: 4098
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:29 am
Location: Flyyyyyyyyyin'
x 454
x 576

Re: News Today

Post by Neville Bartos » Fri May 10, 2019 10:44 am

Gonzo wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 8:58 am
Neville Bartos wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 4:01 pm


I'm sure it's about money, but practically and more importantly culpably it makes the UK liable in the military actions of a foreign power.

The F35 is really a replacement for the Tornado. The Typhoon isn't shite so much as unsuited to multirole. And it couldn't operate on a carrier, especially one configured for VSTOL rather than CATOBAR.
The advantage of having F35s on a carrier being they need be your only fixed wing aeroplane.

The UK has ordered well over 100 F35's. More than enough for both carriers -- one of which is still under construction.
Apparently, during peacetime operations, there would only be 12 F35s onboard anyway.

Btw, I'm not trying to sound like an expert, it's just that stories from thenationalinterest.org have been popping up in my articles for you.
And I can't resist any story about aircraft carriers. I think watching The Final Countdown as a kid has something to do with that.

I'm plane mad which stems from holidays in the Lake District where they used to practice. We've just returned from North Wales at Easter where a bit of plane spotting was undertaken (there is some geek in all of us).

I used to get invited to the air traffic controllers annual event (my friend is one) and they'd say some things that would leave you open mouthed but don't ever reach the press. The compare was a funny bloke and the way they would casually joke about how shit and unsafe Airbus were was quite chilling. I remember very well how it was received when suggested that Airbus would help us make fighters.

A combination of that and the two former RAF pilots pretty scathing opinions of the Euro Fighter maneuverability formed my opinions really because clearly I haven't flown one. I think they (RAF) were hoping for a British built plane or a collaboration with McDonall Douglas or GD rather than what they got. I think the government contracts were obviously dealt with at a high level and it was thought that there had not been enough input from the people who were actually going to fly the things.

Anyway, I digress. I grew up with US air-force bases in this country. I remember going to RAF Northolt as a kid one day and watching through the railings as the USAF were using it for the day. We used to get the newsletter with the joint maneuvers were going on and we'd go to Cambridgeshire to see them and I'd stare in wonder at the fantastic US fighters which always seemed a bit more snazzy than ours.

So sharing an aircraft carrier is just more of the same as far as I'm concerned albeit Navy planes rather than Air-force. The Russians and Chinese are happy enough to play massive war games with each other and flex their muscles in the Pacific. I'm more than happy to remain aligned to the US because militarily it makes sense.
I think most MoD procurements are NOT done on the basis of having the best tool for the job.
Arguably the Challenger 2, Tornado, Typhoon and L85 were all green lit for reasons other than cost and suitability.

I had read the Typhoon was designed to be aerodynamically unstable (corrected by avionics) in order to make it extremely maneuverable? Most articles I've read put it at the tippy top of generation 4/4.5 fighter jets. It's Achilles heel seems to be it's lack of versitility though. Which might account for the relative lack of sales around the world.

We definitely used to have the sexiest planes.
Spitfires, Hurricanes, Tempests, Typhoons, Beaufighters, Mosquitos. Even after the war we had the V bombers, and my all time favourite, the English Electric Lightning.

The 5th generation fighter planes all seem a bit boring. It's all about advanced avionics and low or no radar profile. Air to air combat has stopped being a dog fight and become a range war. Whoever has the best radar, AAMs and stealth package wins. Odd to think that the F35, as an aeroplane, is inferior to its predecessor the F22.

It'll be interesting to see how the much cheaper SU57, J20 and J31 stack up against the F35.
1 x
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

User avatar
BillyDWhizz
Posts: 3049
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 7:34 pm
x 77
x 228

Re: News Today

Post by BillyDWhizz » Fri May 10, 2019 6:57 pm

Gonzo wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 8:40 am
Neville Bartos wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 7:55 pm
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/u ... 844650.amp

This story seems ridiculous to me. British and US military goals aren't always the same and since the US are always loath to hand over command of their forces to overseas powers how would this work?
We could end up with the US launching air strikes from a British carrier independent of the British chain of command.


The Euro Fighter is shite, we're still using Jaguars & GR4's (which were around when I was a kid) so our airforce required a massive overhaul. Britain being Britain we can't afford a full fleet so we've put our new planes and the matching US ones on the same carrier as the plane begins it's use in the field.


You naughty boy! We haven't used Jaguars since 2007 and the Tornado's retired this February.

Now then Mr G, the Typhoon is NOT shite. It's a very, very capable 4th gen fighter and offers air-to-air combat capabilities vastly superior to those of the Tornado ADV, which although was supposed to be good at air-to-air combat..well, it wasn't really. (What the Tonka did turn out to be, was possibly the best air-to-ground attack aircraft in the world.)

The Typhoon does fall down a bit in the air-to-ground arena granted but it's not awful and it's getting better due to upgrades and weapons enhancements. Half of the problems with the Typhoon is/was down to - as usual, budget constraints. As we speak enhancements are being made which will allow the use of MBDA Storm Shadow cruise missiles and the Meteor Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air missile. Once integrated, the Typhoon will be a true multi role combat aircraft.

In straight up air-to-air combat there's nothing 4th gen that over-matches it - and I include the F15's, 16's, 18's, Rafale's, Gripen's, Su30's, 34's and 35's in that list. In the hands of a highly trained RAF pilot, it'd kill 'em all.

In the air-to-ground role ok sure, there are more capable aircraft available, but it's almost impossible to build a combat aircraft that excels at everything. The Americans tried it with the F-22 and whilst arguably they succeed even THEY can't afford it! Hence the reason only 195 were built before congress got the willies and pulled the plug.

Besides, whilst the Typhoon will be a good air-to-ground combat aircraft that's not what it's main remit will be and that moves us on to why we're getting the F35's. (that'll be another post I suspect) Yes, the Typhoon is expensive but you get what you pay for and what we're paying for is a combat aircraft that in an air-to-air role, nothing it's currently likely to come up against will beat it.
1 x
Rounding to the nearest whole numbers makes them pointless.

User avatar
Gonzo
Posts: 6954
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 8:13 pm
x 639
x 410

Re: News Today

Post by Gonzo » Sat May 11, 2019 12:19 am

BillyDWhizz wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 6:57 pm
Gonzo wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 8:40 am



The Euro Fighter is shite, we're still using Jaguars & GR4's (which were around when I was a kid) so our airforce required a massive overhaul. Britain being Britain we can't afford a full fleet so we've put our new planes and the matching US ones on the same carrier as the plane begins it's use in the field.


You naughty boy! We haven't used Jaguars since 2007 and the Tornado's retired this February.

Now then Mr G, the Typhoon is NOT shite. It's a very, very capable 4th gen fighter and offers air-to-air combat capabilities vastly superior to those of the Tornado ADV, which although was supposed to be good at air-to-air combat..well, it wasn't really. (What the Tonka did turn out to be, was possibly the best air-to-ground attack aircraft in the world.)

The Typhoon does fall down a bit in the air-to-ground arena granted but it's not awful and it's getting better due to upgrades and weapons enhancements. Half of the problems with the Typhoon is/was down to - as usual, budget constraints. As we speak enhancements are being made which will allow the use of MBDA Storm Shadow cruise missiles and the Meteor Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air missile. Once integrated, the Typhoon will be a true multi role combat aircraft.

In straight up air-to-air combat there's nothing 4th gen that over-matches it - and I include the F15's, 16's, 18's, Rafale's, Gripen's, Su30's, 34's and 35's in that list. In the hands of a highly trained RAF pilot, it'd kill 'em all.

In the air-to-ground role ok sure, there are more capable aircraft available, but it's almost impossible to build a combat aircraft that excels at everything. The Americans tried it with the F-22 and whilst arguably they succeed even THEY can't afford it! Hence the reason only 195 were built before congress got the willies and pulled the plug.

Besides, whilst the Typhoon will be a good air-to-ground combat aircraft that's not what it's main remit will be and that moves us on to why we're getting the F35's. (that'll be another post I suspect) Yes, the Typhoon is expensive but you get what you pay for and what we're paying for is a combat aircraft that in an air-to-air role, nothing it's currently likely to come up against will beat it.

To be fair I doubt any of them will come up against anything at any time but you have to maintain a military presence.


As for the Typhoon being a deadly weapon in the correct hands . . . I'd fuck em up with a jump-jet and a pea shooter.
0 x

User avatar
Neville Bartos
Posts: 4098
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:29 am
Location: Flyyyyyyyyyin'
x 454
x 576

Re: News Today

Post by Neville Bartos » Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:22 pm

Here we go again with jokes being taken literally and the police getting involved.

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/theresa- ... t-11741134

Never been a fan of Jo Brand, but if a comedian making a joke is deemed incitement to violence where does it all end?
I swear book burning isn't far away at this rate.
0 x
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

User avatar
BlackDiamond
Posts: 4057
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 7:46 pm
x 462
x 299

Re: News Today

Post by BlackDiamond » Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:32 pm

Neville Bartos wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:22 pm
Here we go again with jokes being taken literally and the police getting involved.

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/theresa- ... t-11741134

Never been a fan of Jo Brand, but if a comedian making a joke is deemed incitement to violence where does it all end?
I swear book burning isn't far away at this rate.
Is this about the complaint brought by old pelican face - where Jo Brand is not employed by the BBC but merely a guest on a radio transmission. And the host Victoria Cohen with the broadcasters blessing, explained the comedy programme 'is not meant to be taken seriously'.

...and if the BBC can make a crude joke about Paula Radcliffe having a solid shit while fully dressed, then a minor fucking twat will have to take it on the chin...if found
1 x

User avatar
Neville Bartos
Posts: 4098
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:29 am
Location: Flyyyyyyyyyin'
x 454
x 576

Re: News Today

Post by Neville Bartos » Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:23 am

This is brilliant. Adverts have now been banned from portraying reality.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48628678

'The ban covers scenarios such as a man with his feet up while a woman cleans, or a woman failing to park a car.'
0 x
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

User avatar
BlackDiamond
Posts: 4057
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 7:46 pm
x 462
x 299

Re: News Today

Post by BlackDiamond » Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:06 am

Neville Bartos wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:23 am
This is brilliant. Adverts have now been banned from portraying reality.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48628678

'The ban covers scenarios such as a man with his feet up while a woman cleans, or a woman failing to park a car.'
...and it does not stop there...one is no longer allowed to say something like "...I've just grabbed Pamela and she says we are awaiting delivery..."...nope, BIG trouble and a trip to HR...followed by - desk cleared,security,lift,pavement
0 x

Post Reply

Social Media