Aggression by Russia/uk?
Discussion
Red 4 said:
Yes. He worked on aircraft for decades and is extremely knowledgeable. Not sure why you have a problem with that.
I'll leave you to try some more mental gymnastics. Bye for now.
Because he's the one who's knowledgable, not you, so you stating what he believes is worthless. You are literally bigging up your own view based on who you live next door to.I'll leave you to try some more mental gymnastics. Bye for now.
Did your dad used to drink with Lance Armstrong by any chance?
Northernboy said:
Red 4 said:
Yes. He worked on aircraft for decades and is extremely knowledgeable. Not sure why you have a problem with that.
I'll leave you to try some more mental gymnastics. Bye for now.
Because he's the one who's knowledgable, not you, so you stating what he believes is worthless. You are literally bigging up your own view based on who you live next door to.I'll leave you to try some more mental gymnastics. Bye for now.
Did your dad used to drink with Lance Armstrong by any chance?
I've said we're on the same page concerning the F35. That's it !
You've tried a double back flip and landed squarely on your face there.
You'll never make the team but you're worth watching for the comedy value. Thanks.
@ Red 4 criticising the Queen Elizabeth class and F35 Lightning ll, saying we should have bought f-18's etc. If that were the case then buying a second hand Nimitz Class might have been the better proposition.
In the first Gulf War an f-18 was shot down by a Mig-29 because it was switching from air to ground mode. The f-15's were picking off the mig-29 and mig-25 using it's beyond visual range weapon and radar, mainly AIM-7 Sparrow air to air missles and some sidewinders were used too.
The British f-35 uses a Meteor missle which is far more advanced than the AIM-7 Sparrow. The f-35 also uses the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-81 active electronically scanned array (AESA), the most advanced in the world. The only thing Russia could contest any of this with is their S-400 sam system. Even in the first Gulf war drones were used to confuse the Iraq's sam sites and reveal their location and it worked, it was the weapons that counted, not the delivery ship, AGM-88 HARM. The F-35 also might eventually have the ability to control and launch drones, such as the XQ-58 Valkyrie.
So unless you've been watching too much Top Gun, those turn and burn dog fights are not really a thing, its who can acquire a target first and fire their boomy things, who wins the day.
Russia, the UK is a part of Nato, there is no way that Russia would sink a British war ship, it's all just posturing to make Putin look like the big dog, did you know the British lent Russia a battleship in WW2, HMS Royal Sovereign!
The Queen Elizabeth class isn't a bad package for a country with our needs and size, I just wished they'd made a dozen Daring class, having only 6 isn't enough.
In the first Gulf War an f-18 was shot down by a Mig-29 because it was switching from air to ground mode. The f-15's were picking off the mig-29 and mig-25 using it's beyond visual range weapon and radar, mainly AIM-7 Sparrow air to air missles and some sidewinders were used too.
The British f-35 uses a Meteor missle which is far more advanced than the AIM-7 Sparrow. The f-35 also uses the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-81 active electronically scanned array (AESA), the most advanced in the world. The only thing Russia could contest any of this with is their S-400 sam system. Even in the first Gulf war drones were used to confuse the Iraq's sam sites and reveal their location and it worked, it was the weapons that counted, not the delivery ship, AGM-88 HARM. The F-35 also might eventually have the ability to control and launch drones, such as the XQ-58 Valkyrie.
So unless you've been watching too much Top Gun, those turn and burn dog fights are not really a thing, its who can acquire a target first and fire their boomy things, who wins the day.
Russia, the UK is a part of Nato, there is no way that Russia would sink a British war ship, it's all just posturing to make Putin look like the big dog, did you know the British lent Russia a battleship in WW2, HMS Royal Sovereign!
The Queen Elizabeth class isn't a bad package for a country with our needs and size, I just wished they'd made a dozen Daring class, having only 6 isn't enough.
Red 4 said:
Evanivitch asked a question, I answered. Feel free to comment on the post above.
I'm sure your contribution will be wonderful.
No, you're arguing about how many armchair SecDefs can be fitted in the internal weapons bay of a F35B and it's dull enough as it is. You reiterating that you think the F35 is mediocre is not interesting reading. It's a very dull argument, even duller as there's already a huge thread for people who think the F35 is awful and we should have bought X/Y/Z. Spoiler alert; it's dull.I'm sure your contribution will be wonderful.
Red 4 said:
So if I was to quote him (which I haven't) that would be wrong,would it ?
I've said we're on the same page concerning the F35. That's it !
You've tried a double back flip and landed squarely on your face there.
You'll never make the team but you're worth watching for the comedy value. Thanks.
No, I've just made light fun of you because you are trying to bolster your arguments based on living next door to someone who was in the service.I've said we're on the same page concerning the F35. That's it !
You've tried a double back flip and landed squarely on your face there.
You'll never make the team but you're worth watching for the comedy value. Thanks.
Evanivitch said:
Ayahuasca said:
Putin has said they Russia could have sunk the RN warship, and ‘it would not start WWIII’ meaning that NATO would not retaliate.
If they had sunk the destroyer, what could NATO have done?
Destroy the Kuznetsov in dry dock (where it's most often found).If they had sunk the destroyer, what could NATO have done?
Skyrocket21 said:
@ Red 4 criticising the Queen Elizabeth class and F35 Lightning ll, saying we should have bought f-18's etc. If that were the case then buying a second hand Nimitz Class might have been the better proposition.
I wouldn’t be so sure, they’re powered by two nuclear reactors. Expensive and I expect the US wouldn’t be too keen on sharing the operational knowledge. If it had been viable I think it would’ve been worth considering!Earthdweller said:
Northernboy said:
No, I've just made light fun of you because you are trying to bolster your arguments based on living next door to someone who was in the service.
Did he used to live next door to Alice ? eharding said:
Evanivitch said:
Ayahuasca said:
Putin has said they Russia could have sunk the RN warship, and ‘it would not start WWIII’ meaning that NATO would not retaliate.
If they had sunk the destroyer, what could NATO have done?
Destroy the Kuznetsov in dry dock (where it's most often found).If they had sunk the destroyer, what could NATO have done?
Evanivitch said:
Ayahuasca said:
Putin has said they Russia could have sunk the RN warship, and ‘it would not start WWIII’ meaning that NATO would not retaliate.
If they had sunk the destroyer, what could NATO have done?
Destroy the Kuznetsov in dry dock (where it's most often found).If they had sunk the destroyer, what could NATO have done?
Biggy Stardust said:
No, but I believe he lives in Wonderland.
If you say so, Biggles. Any chance of you elaborating on your "credentials". You were keen to post them (whatever they were) and seek a bit of internet kudos after all. Have the Americans got a name for the F35 yet ?
You know how they like to name them after birds and stuff - Eagle, Falcon, Hornet, Tomcat, etc etc
How about the F35 Turkey ? I like the sound of that.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff