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.

 

France and UK prepare for co-operation over aircraft carriers

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Delta,


Originally posted by deltaboy
comon Brits !!! dont work with the Frenchies they aint to be trusted on developing the aircraft carriers, work with the U.S. of A. instead
. work with the French and the project will just come down.


Every time we do that we end up getting shafted or killed so please forgive us if we do not jump for joy at your offer.

Cheers

BHR




posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Every time we do that we end up getting shafted or killed


Ok I’ll give you shafted, but killed?



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   
WestPoint,

Have you no knowledge of the number of friendly fire incidents which have resulted in UK troops/sailors/pilots being killed by trigger-happy US service personnel?

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
You know exactly why friendly fire incidents happen so frequently with the U.S. military and why it happens against the British sometimes and it has nothing to do with trigger happy U.S. soldiers.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
You know exactly why friendly fire incidents happen so frequently with the U.S. military and why it happens against the British sometimes and it has nothing to do with trigger happy U.S. soldiers.


I dont know Westpoint but i would be happy to listen to hear your take on why.
This isnt a bait im really interested in the whys and where fores of it.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Surely its a good thing that us Brits and the French are co-operating over such a project, but surely the questions that should be answered r

1. What does the U.S think of this?

2. Is there really any need ?

3. If the U.k can agree with france on this why not agree on other matters i.e Eu constitrution etc!



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
You know exactly why friendly fire incidents happen so frequently with the U.S. military and why it happens against the British sometimes and it has nothing to do with trigger happy U.S. soldiers.

Then tell me how warrior armoured vehicles with british flags on top look like iraqi armour?
Tell me how america's top specialists cant move equipment into the correct positions so it doesnt create a ghost signature and cause a tornado to get shot down?
In every war and I mean in EVERY war , we have had you by our sides we always get hit by friendly fire...I havent seen a report of it going the other way before....we can only wonder and make opinions about our "allies"



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I can only imagine that it comes down to two things DevilWasp.
1) A lack of training in fire dicipline.
2) Combat fatigue.

I really don't think the FF incidents were intentional, and prob a combination of the 2 above. The FF incidents are horrific but not new in any war past of present. Perhaps more training is needed and commanders need to make sure their troops are rested, but in a combat zone that is not always possible.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
In every war and I mean in EVERY war , we have had you by our sides we always get hit by friendly fire...I havent seen a report of it going the other way before....we can only wonder and make opinions about our "allies"



u sure remember that during the siege of Basra British Challenger tank destroy another British Challenger tank. so dont say that we Yanks aint just trigger happy. if its blue on blue by Brits themselves does that automatically mean yall are trigger happy as well
.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
u sure remember that during the siege of Basra British Challenger tank destroy another British Challenger tank. so dont say that we Yanks aint just trigger happy.

Yes that is the ONLY tank on tank blue on blue kill in the challangers service, its also the only challanger to be lost.
We can call you trigger happy, the numbers show it.



if its blue on blue by Brits themselves does that automatically mean yall are trigger happy as well
.

No because I havent heard of a single brit on yank blue on blue.
I have heard of the odd blue on blue by british troops but not to the same extent as the US.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Greetings to all,
Just wanted to comment briefly about how tragic the "fratricide" incidents are, how much respect I have for our allies and the British military in general. However, I also respect the US military-I served, and would never label them as "trigger happy". I believe that the US military in all branches strive to be professional.
Had another question/comment on UK/FR CV's. UK/FR national interests dictate different requirements than USN. I would expect the CV's to be different. US carriers perform extended steaming and nukes make more sense. Frees them from having to refuel every several days. I don't know this but I'm not aware of existing UK or French CV's doing comparable deployments to US carriers.
How capable would a navalized "Tiffie II" be at the strike role? I haven't kept up with all it's developements but would consider it a logical choice for the Royal Navy to try.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Then tell me how warrior armoured vehicles with british flags on top look like iraqi armour?
Tell me how america's top specialists cant move equipment into the correct positions so it doesnt create a ghost signature and cause a tornado to get shot down?
In every war and I mean in EVERY war , we have had you by our sides we always get hit by friendly fire...I havent seen a report of it going the other way before....we can only wonder and make opinions about our "allies"



its called an accident, your paranoia is obsurd, we never do it on purpose like you imply, we have this problem against our own forces too, most of our friendly fire is by aircraft, we use air power far more than anyone so of course it happens much more often.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I have heard of analysis that said that blue on blue account for 30% of casulties in many battles in WWII

This was reduced to around 15% by time of Vietnam

The gulf war rate was I heard 3-5%

You have to put this in to proportion the reason it seems so bad is that it is now a publicly raised issue whereas before it was just hidden in the casulty rates.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
DW look at the number of sorties run by the U.S. military. And look at the number of operations we run on the ground with close air support. You do the math and Murphy's law will come to bite you in the A, the larger the scale the higher the % that FF incidents will occur.
I do not know if British vehicles and planes have a transponder like U.S forces do that tell each other they are friendly.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 02:11 AM
link   
WP23,


Originally posted by WestPoint23
DW look at the number of sorties run by the U.S. military. And look at the number of operations we run on the ground with close air support. You do the math and Murphy's law will come to bite you in the A, the larger the scale the higher the % that FF incidents will occur.
I do not know if British vehicles and planes have a transponder like U.S forces do that tell each other they are friendly.


Try researching some of these incidents and then tell me if you still think it is simply Murphy's Law in action.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
its called an accident, your paranoia is obsurd, we never do it on purpose like you imply, we have this problem against our own forces too, most of our friendly fire is by aircraft, we use air power far more than anyone so of course it happens much more often.

Your aircraft are supposed to be the best in the world, whats the point in all the advanced tech if you still cant tell friend from foe?



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 05:21 AM
link   
DW,

I friend of mine was severely injured in GW1 in the attack by A-10s on a column of British AFVs.

He said that he could ID the aircraft type as they had orbited their column for over 10 mins.

The column had all the correct markings and IDs to prevent such misidentification.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Generally the only way to ID a vehicle from a fastmover is by a large orange square flag put on top. Ground attack pilots are told to go to a certain area, because there are enemy vehicles in that area, and attack them, in MANY cases they get there, see a vehicle and attack as ordered. I'm not saying this explains away ALL blue on blue incidents but many of them. J-8 is a great platform, but all it sees is vehicles on a road not who they belong to, so they'll order an attack if they know there are enemy vehicles in the area. When a fastmover rolls over the convoy they may see a flash of light reflecting off something and mistake it for ground fire directed at them so they defend themselves.

Ground vehicles have the IVIS system which is like a transponder for vehicles to prevent blue on blue. However the equipment for this is too big and heavy to put in either a fastmover or a helo.

One reason for the US being responsible for more blue on blue is that the US is responsible for most of the CAS missions for both forces, and the UK ground attack birds cover the deeper attacks with other US birds. The A-10 and Marine AV-8B are both almost dedicated CAS birds.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Zaphod,

To someone who has more than a passing knowledge of the operation of mudmovers the incident in question raises more than a few issues.

Should you wish to discuss this further I am sure we can move this to either a new thread or to u2u so as not to pollute this thread anymore.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 08:12 AM
link   
The new UK CVF Royal Navy aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, are expected to enter service in 2012 and 2015.

The design continues to evolve but CVF is expected to displace 55,000t to 65,000t, a size between the USA's 100,000t Nimitz class and France's 43,000t Charles de Gaulle class aircraft carriers, and three times larger than the 20,000t UK Invincible class carriers.

The carrier will have a maximum speed of 25 knots. At 15 knots the range is 10,000 nautical miles and the ship carries food, fuel and stores for an endurance of seven days between replenishments.

www.naval-technology.com...


It would be cheaper for France and Great Britain to build 3 Carriers to the new CVF specifications.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join