Mon Dieu
-
Liam Fox rejects sharing aircraft carriers with France[^] For starters the French will be taking off on the wrong side of the carrier and can you imagine the standard of taxiing around the flight deck.
He took it all too far, but boy could he play guitar!
-
Liam Fox rejects sharing aircraft carriers with France[^] For starters the French will be taking off on the wrong side of the carrier and can you imagine the standard of taxiing around the flight deck.
He took it all too far, but boy could he play guitar!
-
Liam Fox rejects sharing aircraft carriers with France[^] For starters the French will be taking off on the wrong side of the carrier and can you imagine the standard of taxiing around the flight deck.
He took it all too far, but boy could he play guitar!
On the other hand, the food and wine would be fantastic, the lunchbreaks would be 2 hours, the uniform would be stylish and the ladies would look sensational.
I have CDO, it's OCD with the letters in the right order; just as they ruddy well should be
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
-
Liam Fox rejects sharing aircraft carriers with France[^] For starters the French will be taking off on the wrong side of the carrier and can you imagine the standard of taxiing around the flight deck.
He took it all too far, but boy could he play guitar!
-
On the other hand, the food and wine would be fantastic, the lunchbreaks would be 2 hours, the uniform would be stylish and the ladies would look sensational.
I have CDO, it's OCD with the letters in the right order; just as they ruddy well should be
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
There would be no problem with queues for the showers either.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
-
Liam Fox rejects sharing aircraft carriers with France[^] For starters the French will be taking off on the wrong side of the carrier and can you imagine the standard of taxiing around the flight deck.
He took it all too far, but boy could he play guitar!
Baconbutty wrote:
For starters the French will be taking off on the wrong side of the carrier and can you imagine the standard of taxiing around the flight deck.
joke aside, Don't all NATO type system (planes, boats, carriers ) kind of compatible ? ie. a plane from the US could land on a UK carrier and vice-versa ?
Watched code never compiles.
-
Baconbutty wrote:
For starters the French will be taking off on the wrong side of the carrier and can you imagine the standard of taxiing around the flight deck.
joke aside, Don't all NATO type system (planes, boats, carriers ) kind of compatible ? ie. a plane from the US could land on a UK carrier and vice-versa ?
Watched code never compiles.
Old story, but worth reminding you all again... French Aircraft Carrier[^] Always worth ensuring that when you build an Aircraft Carrier, you make sure it is long enough to land the planes on it. Oh, and don't get lost at sea. Oh, and don't hit any thing. Oh, and...Well, you read it!
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
Old story, but worth reminding you all again... French Aircraft Carrier[^] Always worth ensuring that when you build an Aircraft Carrier, you make sure it is long enough to land the planes on it. Oh, and don't get lost at sea. Oh, and don't hit any thing. Oh, and...Well, you read it!
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
sniggeur Rule 1 - Never rename a ship, it brings bad luck. Rule 2 - See Rule 1
He took it all too far, but boy could he play guitar!
-
Old story, but worth reminding you all again... French Aircraft Carrier[^] Always worth ensuring that when you build an Aircraft Carrier, you make sure it is long enough to land the planes on it. Oh, and don't get lost at sea. Oh, and don't hit any thing. Oh, and...Well, you read it!
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
25 years to build something that almost works? These guys should team up with British Aerospace. After all their delivery of the Eurofighter / Typhoon has been an equal success and also started in 1986. While contracts are awarded based on the jobs they prop up in politicians' constituencies rather than buying the best tools for the job we'll always have this kind of BS going on. Even worse, the guys and gals who put themselves in harms way at the request of the government will have shoddy unreliable kit so that some leech can feast in Westminster for another 5 years. I've lost track of the number of times I've seen £X billion contract safegueards Y jobs in and in most cases dividing X by Y would give me an amount of money I'd probably retire on. /rant over
-
sniggeur Rule 1 - Never rename a ship, it brings bad luck. Rule 2 - See Rule 1
He took it all too far, but boy could he play guitar!
The USS Phoenix was the only ship to escape from Pearl Harbour with no damage. She went on to earn 9 Battle Victories in WW2. She was sold off in 1951 to Argentina who renamed her The General Belgrano. Glug Glug Glug.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
25 years to build something that almost works? These guys should team up with British Aerospace. After all their delivery of the Eurofighter / Typhoon has been an equal success and also started in 1986. While contracts are awarded based on the jobs they prop up in politicians' constituencies rather than buying the best tools for the job we'll always have this kind of BS going on. Even worse, the guys and gals who put themselves in harms way at the request of the government will have shoddy unreliable kit so that some leech can feast in Westminster for another 5 years. I've lost track of the number of times I've seen £X billion contract safegueards Y jobs in and in most cases dividing X by Y would give me an amount of money I'd probably retire on. /rant over
You know the Germans hate the Eurofighter being called the Typhoon. Here is why.[^] Personally I think we should have called it the Spitfire and been done with it.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
Baconbutty wrote:
For starters the French will be taking off on the wrong side of the carrier and can you imagine the standard of taxiing around the flight deck.
joke aside, Don't all NATO type system (planes, boats, carriers ) kind of compatible ? ie. a plane from the US could land on a UK carrier and vice-versa ?
Watched code never compiles.
Within limits yes, but national pride and varying requirements mean that there're multiple systems in most roles. As for the carriers fixed wing aircraft, UK harriers could land on a US deck but only US harriers are capable of landing on a UK deck. The rest of our fixed wing aircraft need a catapult/arrester wire system to launch/land while the UK carriers are currently STOVL capable only (like the similar sized ships US marines fly harriers from). IIRC the next generation UK carriers will be equipped the same way but are designed so that catapult/arrester wire systems can be added in the future if needed. IIRC the frog's carrier has a catapult/arrester wire system. The Spanish/Italian carriers are STOVL capable only as well.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
25 years to build something that almost works? These guys should team up with British Aerospace. After all their delivery of the Eurofighter / Typhoon has been an equal success and also started in 1986. While contracts are awarded based on the jobs they prop up in politicians' constituencies rather than buying the best tools for the job we'll always have this kind of BS going on. Even worse, the guys and gals who put themselves in harms way at the request of the government will have shoddy unreliable kit so that some leech can feast in Westminster for another 5 years. I've lost track of the number of times I've seen £X billion contract safegueards Y jobs in and in most cases dividing X by Y would give me an amount of money I'd probably retire on. /rant over
It's worse. They spend E7.5bn on a 40,000 ton carrier. A ~100,000 ton Nimitz only costs $4.5bn to build. The successor Ford class is running about $8bn to build + $5bn (r&d), but design improvements are expected to counterbalance that by cutting lifetime operating costs by $5bn. Lest you laugh too hard the UK's running into the same economies of scale/fixed design cost problems with their ships. Edit: this isn't to say that Nimitz/Fords would have been better buys for you and the Frogs because the operating costs of a ship that's twice as big as has twice as large of an air wing are probably a lot higher.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
You know the Germans hate the Eurofighter being called the Typhoon. Here is why.[^] Personally I think we should have called it the Spitfire and been done with it.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
Why not E262 :)
A while ago he asked me what he should have printed on my business cards. I said 'Wizard'. I read books which nobody else understand. Then I do something which nobody understands. After that the computer does something which nobody understands. When asked, I say things about the results which nobody understand. But everybody expects miracles from me on a regular basis. Looks to me like the classical definition of a wizard.
-
Liam Fox rejects sharing aircraft carriers with France[^] For starters the French will be taking off on the wrong side of the carrier and can you imagine the standard of taxiing around the flight deck.
He took it all too far, but boy could he play guitar!
-
You know the Germans hate the Eurofighter being called the Typhoon. Here is why.[^] Personally I think we should have called it the Spitfire and been done with it.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
It's worse. They spend E7.5bn on a 40,000 ton carrier. A ~100,000 ton Nimitz only costs $4.5bn to build. The successor Ford class is running about $8bn to build + $5bn (r&d), but design improvements are expected to counterbalance that by cutting lifetime operating costs by $5bn. Lest you laugh too hard the UK's running into the same economies of scale/fixed design cost problems with their ships. Edit: this isn't to say that Nimitz/Fords would have been better buys for you and the Frogs because the operating costs of a ship that's twice as big as has twice as large of an air wing are probably a lot higher.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
Within limits yes, but national pride and varying requirements mean that there're multiple systems in most roles. As for the carriers fixed wing aircraft, UK harriers could land on a US deck but only US harriers are capable of landing on a UK deck. The rest of our fixed wing aircraft need a catapult/arrester wire system to launch/land while the UK carriers are currently STOVL capable only (like the similar sized ships US marines fly harriers from). IIRC the next generation UK carriers will be equipped the same way but are designed so that catapult/arrester wire systems can be added in the future if needed. IIRC the frog's carrier has a catapult/arrester wire system. The Spanish/Italian carriers are STOVL capable only as well.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
Dan Neely wrote:
IIRC the frog's carrier has a catapult/arrester wire system
Yep. STOVL is for sissies.
Rage wrote:
Yep. STOVL is for sissies.
More like madmen. The more complicated flight profile means significantly higher accident ratios, while the design limitations imposed on the airframe have resulted in both the Harrier and Yak-38 (afaik the only ones to go be deployed) being far less capable than the conventional fighters they'd have had to go against. The F35B will largely remove that penalty but will still be carrying a few extra tons of STOVL hardware that the other variants will be able to use on fuel and munitions.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18