It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK Armed Forces

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
They're hilarious and utterly shameless is the answer I suppose stu.

They seem to think everyone is either just plain ignorant of the truth or will simply be gullible and accept what they spoon feed them.

That business about the RAF maintenance for instance.
That was thanks to John Major's gov privatising the maintenance on the planes.
It was not a course of action the 'public sector' MOD wanted to take and purely all about the political ideology of the tory party in it's dying years (which the Torygraph supported to the hilt).
Usually the Telegraph was telling everyone how wonderful privatising is.

It ended up costing the tax-payer more than the so-called 'efficiency savings' made.

It was nothing to do with the Labour gov, the civil servants or the MOD deciding this course of action, it was all about a loopy tory gov that had long before lost touch with reality and which was insisting - against all advice - that the 'public sector' contract out to the cheapest bidder no matter how inappropriate that course of action might be.

I note too that the Typhoon story is couched in the worst possible light (and the most simplistic possible manner).
No mention that costs have risen and the plane has been delayed because the European govs (inc the British gov) have actually deliberately delayed the plane!

Naaaa, same old same old.

It's so obviously just another dreary anti-European, pro-US right wing rant against their favourite targets; heavily reliant on an ignorant and/or gullible readership.


[edit on 25-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]




posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Heres another link proving my point www.telegraph.co.uk...



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Where to begin? That article was bandied about on here, and thoroughly exposed, many months ago;

A few examples - " Late, over-budget and out of date" er, compared to what? the F-22 that it will never fight and we cannot afford even if it was for sale?

"....will be outdated by the time it enters military service in 2006."

It has been in service over a year so thats bollocks for a start.

" It means that the number of aircraft the RAF will receive, originally set at 232,will by reduced by a third to 143.
"


There has been NO reduction in the number to be bought, at least not yet, it remains at 232 and that article is now almost two years old, another lie then.

In fact the whole article is a tissue of lies, half truths and misrepresentaions and anyone with a working brain cell can see right through it, so why do you believe it then?

"proving my point" indeed

But of course you must be right, Britain and Europe are rubbish at technology, lord knows how come we are the only nation and continent to make the worlds only successful V/STOL fighters and supersonic airliners, and a thousand other things too, eh




[edit on 25-6-2005 by waynos]

[edit on 25-6-2005 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Right, shall we deal with this crap......




The decision to cut the Eurofighter programme, which is already £5.4 billion over budget, follows heavy pressure from the Treasury and will be made public in a defence White Paper to be published next month. It means that the number of aircraft the RAF will receive, originally set at 232, will by reduced by a third to 143.


The Treasury is always winging about money and given the choice would cut everything (but keep taxes the same). They don't like spending money full stop and would prefer the Government just saved all it's money and sat on it...In the end, and especially now, the MOD tends to get what it wants.



The government is to abandon plans to buy more Eurofighter warplanes in an attempt to control Britain's spiralling defence budget.


Spiralling? Defence spending has remained constant (if not fallen) for years......



Defence chiefs have accepted that the aircraft, which was intended to be the cornerstone of the country's air defence strategy, will be outdated by the time it enters military service in 2006


Thats just crap, as they were delivered in Dec 2003 and are operational (as stated later in the very same article, so they contradict themselves!!)




As well as easing the financial pressure on the Ministry of Defence's annual £31 billion budget, the cuts have also been prompted by the emergence of new, unmanned aircraft, which are seen as the future of aerial warfare. One such warplane, the Predator, was used by the US Air Force to considerable effect in both Iraq and Afghanistan.


Er.....We already have a UAV and are well developed in more advance ones, so "diverting" funds is a non-winner, as we have already spent the cash.



All three service chiefs are said to have agreed to the cuts in the Eurofighter - which is now known as the Typhoon - after being assured that the savings will be used to develop future weapon systems. These include unmanned aircraft and "smart missiles", which can be directed by computer on to targets hundreds of miles away with pinpoint accuracy.


Thats hearsay and speculation.

"All three service chiefs are said to have agreed to the cuts in the Eurofighter"

Said? By whom?

Besides, Britain has UCAV/UAV's and the new Storm Shadow missile....already... And Storm Shadow is to be launched from the Typhoon...



Mick McGinty, the editor of World Defence Systems, and a researcher at the Royal United Services Institute, said that the Eurofighter was a "legacy" aircraft that was already obsolete. "It will be operational 10 years behind schedule and therefore will be 10 years out of date," he said.


Thats flawed logic. just beacuse it is delayed, does not mean it is out of date. Do you think they are still using electronis/avionics from the mid 90's in it? Don't be so stupid.....



It was originally conceived in the 1970s, although it did not go into production until the mid-1980s


Thats a lie. It was conceived in 1986 (Waynos correct me if I am wrong, you are the plane buff). It did not go into "production" until a few years ago.
If it went into production in 1986, your honestly telling me that it takes 20 years to actually build a Typhoon? Bugger off......



France broke away in the belief that a ground attack aircraft rather than a fighter was more suited to its needs.


The Typhoon is far different to the original Eurofighter plan. It isn't a "fighter" and no modern aircraft is.



The British government, by contrast, backed the Eurofighter rather than opting to buy an alternative from the US, as some advocated.


American? Overpriced, with their own problems anyway, outsourcing the entire industry and support to the US, and we would probably get a plane that wouldn't suit our needs anyway.



During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan there was no enemy air force to fight and the only British and US aircraft that saw any action were the ground attack jets used to support troops, not to fight aerial battles.


Thats a misunderstanding by the reporter. As stated above, most modern aircraft are multi=role. The F-15 for example is multi role, so is the F-16...



Embarrassingly for the Government, however, the first tranche of 55 Eurofighters, which were delivered earlier this year, six years late, are equipped for an air defence role. Only the second tranche of 89 will be capable of undertaking a ground attack role.


Thats bollocks. Check out what the RAF has to say:



The Typhoon is an agile, single seat, multi-role aircraft optimised for high altitude supersonic air combat but also capable of operating at much lower levels in the air-to-ground roles.



One major advantage of the aircraft over current types is its ability to undertake 'swing role' missions. For these, Typhoon can be equipped to undertake both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions in a single sortie, switching between the two separate attack modes in flight, something not possible with a Tornado GR4 for example. And with nine underwing weapon-mounting points, Typhoon will be equipped with 2 x Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (ASRAAMs), 4 x Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs) whilst simultaneously carrying air-to-surface ordnance which could include Laser Guided Bombs (Paveway 2 and 3 or Enhanced Paveway), Brimstone anti-armour weapon, Storm Shadow cruise missiles and Air Launched Anti-Radiation Missiles (ALARMs), the aircraft packs a mighty punch. Ultimately, Meteor, a combination of rocket and air-breathing technology, will replace AMRAAM as Typhoon's primary long range air-to-air missile.


RAF link

Anyway, back to the #tygraph article...



There have also been further problems with engine failures. All Eurofighters are currently grounded because of faults in the braking system.


Thats crap....



It is now generally accepted by the air industry that unmanned combat jets will begin to replace manned aircraft within 20 years, only a few years after the final batch of Eurofighters are due to enter service.


Generally accepted? Then why is the US building the F-22 and F-35? Unmanned combat aircraft (that could stand up to a manned modern fighter)are at least half a century away, nowhere near the 2020 mark quoted here. And how is 2020 only a few years after 2007 (the year of final delivery)? #ty maths there mate....



New warships, aircraft carriers and the joint strike fighter programme will be scaled back to direct funding towards new equipment programmes and to help pay for the war in Iraq.


More crap. The two new carriers are going to built and probably bigger with the potential of a joint venture with France. The JSF (if the Americans will share properly their new toy with us, seeing as we have invested £2billion already) is also still definately on the cards.

So Bulldog, care to try and prove your point again, or is your head hurting?



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
The last post was up to date June 2005, the Goverment is still cutting the defense budget so be prepared for UK forces to rely on America if we have a war.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Up to date?




RAF's new Eurofighter force to be slashed by a third in defence cuts
(Filed: 09/11/2003)


Filed 2003.....hmmmm....



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Theres nothing i can do to convince you that the UK forces are underfunded, i think you must someone who is blind to the truth and cannot accept the fact .You seem to know more than the Government and the MOD on what we are spending on defense, perhaps you ought to look at the facts .



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   
On my first Google search, here is HM Treasury giving a breakdown on planned spending over the next couple of years:




deliver the largest planned increase in defence spending in twenty years, with defence spending plans set to increase by £3.5 billion between this year and 2005-06. This includes more than £1 billion in capital investment and £0.5 billion of other resources for new capabilities to enable the UK to continue its leading role in the campaign against international terrorism;


HM Treasury

We currentl spend £28 billion on defense

How they spend the cash



And if you really are concerned about spending and readiness, here is the NOA report (its PDF). In all, it is a rather good report of UK readiness/spending and only highlights some concerns due to the sheer amount of operations undertaken. But, as usual, these parts where overhyped by the media.

NOA Report on Uk Readiness



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   
£28 billion that about how much the Americans spend on a dozen stealth aircraft.Thinks that Uk will still have to use rubbish equipment. Your pie chart was nice to look at.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   
It may be so, but they always think more money=better.

I asked you earlier in the thread if you knew of HALO.

Obviously you don't.

The B-2 Spirit is a big waste of cash. Why do you need a plane that costs upwards of $1billion? It is rarely deployed (when compared to the amount of "conventional" aircraft sorties in GW2). It's a top notch plane but at what cost? You forget that America's Economy is far bigger than our own (plus they just print money when they need it) so can afford to waste cash on things like that.

Us smaller types need to be more economical. The Typhoon will nicely do, thankyou very much and the RAF are more than happy.

Can I ask, where are you basing your opinions from? Are you in any way connected to the military? Have you spoken to anyone that is? Cos I sure am and I have spoken to military types my whole life. My entire family, including my father and older brother, plus 5 uncles and 2 aunts and my Grandparents all either served or still serve. In fact, one of my uncles is a Wing Commander at the Joint Command place, so he knows his stuff.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   
You may not think the B-2 is necessary but for what the US does it is, you have the capability to launch from your country go anywhere in the world drop your payload and not be detected and not really have to worry about getting shot down, 1-2Billion is money well spent.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   
That is true Westy, but you highlighted a simple truth there.

"For what the US does"

The US may like travelling all round the world, blowing stuff up. The UK doesn't.

Spending 1-2billion on a plane is not money well spent for us.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:44 AM
link   
wow, this thread took off after I went to bed


Stumason, You did a great demolition job there on the Typhoon article, I'm afraid I just didn't have the patience at 2am so mine was rather more brief!

No need to correct you on your Typhoon history either, what was 'conceived in the '70's' was a replacement for the Jaguar, in the broadest and vaguest sense, called AST 403, this process of evolution continued until, in the end, the actual Eurofighter design was conceived towards the end of the '80's, as you said.

One more thought on that, for Bulldog and his lovely link, if the Typhoon was out of date how do you reconcile that with the fact that the ONLY American alternative to it was the F-18L (decided after a lengthy RAF evaluation of several types), a land based version of the fighter that FLEW in 1979, never mind being conceived back then


Its a funny thing that Bulldog thought the article was up to date, I actually saw that it had todays date at the top of the page when I opened the link and thought "I bet he thinks that is brand new", I must be clairvoyant!



[edit on 26-6-2005 by waynos]


M6D

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:48 AM
link   
bulldog, i come here, and i see all this arguing, and the evidence going against your stupid newspaper articles, and i have to tell you...your a moron, stop embaressing yourself and conceded defeat, your arguments are total trash, using qoutes from out of date newspaper articles, that are clearly misinformed is just making you look like more of a idiot, besides the fact that you cannot see your own ignorance, stop been like blair and get rid of that brown nose you got



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by M6D
bulldog, i come here, and i see all this arguing, and the evidence going against your stupid newspaper articles, and i have to tell you...your a moron, stop embarrassing yourself and conceded defeat, your arguments are total trash, using quotes from out of date newspaper articles, that are clearly misinformed is just making you look like more of a idiot, besides the fact that you cannot see your own ignorance, stop been like blair and get rid of that brown nose you got

Thanks M6D my brown nose is due to the sunshine we have had recently. I know how the Government works in this country, in the MOD and the people who are responsible for procuring arms for this country are the Upper class twits that are a cancer on British society. They know ****all about what the UK forces need and want removing from their jobs. Ask any squaddie in the Brit army if he thinks hes well catered for. RAF are the same they fly around in stuff made by the Wright brothers but being British don't complain. The Typoon belongs to 1980 , is that 25 years in the past?



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Thanks M6D my brown nose is due to the sunshine we have had recently. I know how the Government works in this country, in the MOD and the people who are responsible for procuring arms for this country are the Upper class twits that are a cancer on British society. They know ****all about what the UK forces need and want removing from their jobs. Ask any squaddie in the Brit army if he thinks hes well catered for. RAF are the same they fly around in stuff made by the Wright brothers but being British don't complain. The Typoon belongs to 1980 , is that 25 years in the past?

You obviosly dont know how it works or how your own armed forces works.
Your calling the MOD upper class twits?
The entire armed forces and the MOD is now "upper class twists" who now know nothing about the jobs they do....
Riiiiiiiiight then...
Oh about kit , ask any squaddie and the very important stuff like ammo is well catered for , atleast in the RM anyway.

The typhoon can beat any aircraft out there....at the moment, why?
Because its designed to.
Once the JSF and F-22 that might change...

Oh and underspending?
www.mod.uk...
37.1 billion dollars is now not a lot...

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Thanks for your reply , but how do you know that the Typhoon can beat anything out there , its only just come into service and never fought a thing. You get carried away with making ever thing British a world beater , the facts are ever thing we have is average, we don't have anything special in weaponry, the only thing we have first class is the men who have to use the crap equipment.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Come on then Bulldog, WHY does the Typhoon belong in 1980? How do you know that it is rubbish? WHAT is it specifically that is rubbish about it?

is it the Meteor high velocity BVRAAM that will arm it, that is so advanced that the USA is now beginning a programme to develop a rival ramjet missile?

Is it the HMCS system that allows the pilot to aim and fire a missile by turning his head rahter than turning the plane?

Is it the PIRATE passive targetting system that can track a target simply by detecting the airflow generated heat on its outer skin without giving away the Typhoons presence and position at all?

Is it the carbonfibre structure and quadruplex FBW system that is so out of date?

Is it the phenomenal manoeverability or the 145mile BVR detection, 100 mile BVR shot capability that is so useless?

Come on give specifics because to me you sound like you are on a Sun fuelled soap box.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 04:30 AM
link   
I saw the typhoon at an airshow over the weekend - didn`t look very grounded to me.... and boy can it fly!!



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Thanks for your reply , but how do you know that the Typhoon can beat anything out there ,

Because its gone up against varios aircraft, I believe the SU-22 as well.


its only just come into service and never fought a thing.

Its faught simulated battles.


You get carried away with making ever thing British a world beater , the facts are ever thing we have is average,

Almost everything we do is etheir world beating or above average.
Want proof?
Best armoured tank.
Most accurate rifle.
Fastest torpedo.

we don't have anything special in weaponry,

Really?
So those subs of ours are pretty standard kit are they?


the only thing we have first class is the men who have to use the crap equipment.

Uh yeah, now the minimi is a crap weapon?
Or the lynx is a crap helicopter?
Or the apache is now crap?
Get some facts mate, not opinions.




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join