Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ] |
| Subject: You don't honestly belive that, do you? | |
Author: Trixta (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 04:30:51 11/06/04 Sat In reply to: Dave (UK) 's message, "Westland are bidding to build the President's new heloicopter for starters..." on 22:32:39 11/03/04 Wed Do you honestly think that the good ole boy will fly in a Brit-built chopper? Think of the outcry state-side when that hits the news. As for co-operating with Europe before the US - I'd rather know that British soldiers were fighting alongside French or German troops who at least know what our flag looks like and that we are not the enemy. As for the licensed Apache, don't make me laugh. Yes, it is a commendable gunship but just how much per craft do we pay the yanks for building it - and don't tell me that we couldn't do better. I concede that built-by-committee is bad but would argue that in Europe a lot more could be achieved with greater integration and co-operation (not that I'd actually like to see that, but still the point stands). Any multi-national co-operative venture is fraught with politics in Europe. In the end any UK-US co-operation will always end with the US on top and the UK getting screwed blind. With friends like that... Personally I'd be a lot more interested to see what, for example, a UK-Canada-Australia-NZ co-operation could create. At least then we'd know we're all working toward the same goal and not having to keep an eye on our 'partners' to figure out how they intend to take us to the cleaners or twist the venture to meet their own needs at the cost of others. But Bush in a British helicopter? Not even you can seriously think a non-US company is going to win that contract. The thought of it alone makes me want to have a bath. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The fact remains that we are allowed to bid | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:48:11 11/06/04 Sat I agree that it is unlikely that we will get the helicopter order, but at least we were allowed to bid for it, which is progress. The Apache is a battle-tested attack helicopter that is probably the best in the world. We indeed have to pay a licence fee, but the project sustains British jobs, which we would not have were we to buy off-the-shelf. In this context, the actual cost is much lower. What are the alternatives? Eurocopter’s Tiger has never seen combat and probably never will. It is also another example of European design-by-committee. If you have seen any of my older posts, you will know that I have advocated closer Commonwealth defence arrangements/programmes on many occasions. I was merely stating that co-operating with American, rather than European programmes, is preferable in our current reality. It also acts as a barrier against the integration of our armed forces, which are in the sights of our EU master-planners. I’m surprised that you believe we are being screwed all the time by the Pentagon. BAE Systems is the largest foreign contractor to the Pentagon, and has even been allowed to take over smaller US defence firms. Can you imagine French or German companies doing the same? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Alternatives | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:30:45 11/07/04 Sun Would you agree that any US product, regardless of our own involvement, will be subjected to a quality of spin that would make even Blair blush? The Apache is good, yes, great, I wouldn't say so. Just because it's available does not mean it is ideal. We have always managed to design to meet our needs rather than buy an OTT 'panacea'. What use, exactly, have we for a gunship that puts the stress on bucket-loads of armour and anti-tank missiles in this day and age? Who's going to shoot at us? What we need is something that can multi-role: part anti-armour, part troop-transporter, part recce. Step forward the Lynx. Damned effective in Northern Ireland, bloody handy in Kosovo and able to provide for the needs of both the army and the navy. The Apache has one job: blowing up tanks. That's it. Well, whose tanks are we going to shoot at? As for at least being allowed to tender a bid - that's meaningless. It's like you or I lining up in the Olympic 100 metres. What's the point if we know that we'll still be running our knackers off while the winner's had his shower and gone home? I would even argue that it's worse than meaningless, it's insulting. "Yeah, sure, little Brit dude - you knock yourself out putting together a bid and spending a fortune doing so. Rest assured it will get the attention we feel it deserves." AKA straight in the bin. As for BAE systems, much as it pains me to back-stab our own, recent events would seem to show they're as corrupt as their US friends, who they no doubt do their best to emulate. European co-operation may not be perfect but it has come up with some good hardware: the Tornado, the Jaguar, the Gazelle. All of which do their jobs commendably. The Eurofighter, while over-budget and late, is still an incredible piece of kit. And, lest we forget her, it was European co-operation that brought us the most beautiful airliner to ever grace the skies. Not all bad. True, ask me which system works best and I'll proudly shout "British built" (with Land of Hope and Glory ringing in my ears). The Vulcan, the Spitfire, the Lightning, the Hurricane, the Buccaneer - excuse me while I wipe the nostalgic tear from my eye. But, sadly, those days are gone. Let's end on agreement - a coalition of the Commonwealth nations would no doubt create a masterpiece if, as we do both agree, the committee could be left watching from the sideline. Hmm, I wonder if there's a grant for that sort of thing? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:11:10 11/07/04 Sun “What use, exactly, have we for a gunship that puts the stress on bucket-loads of armour and anti-tank missiles in this day and age? Who's going to shoot at us?” The recent conflict in Iraq involved numerous anti-armour missions. “Step forward the Lynx. Damned effective in Northern Ireland, bloody handy in Kosovo and able to provide for the needs of both the army and the navy.” I agree, and I do not believe that the Lynx is being phased out. The Apache will supplement its capability in an intense battlefield scenario. The Apache is a much more survivable helicopter, and has a much larger combat radius than the Lynx. The lynx is a fast and agile aircraft, and makes a good “recce” and light attack platform - different roles, different platforms. “As for at least being allowed to tender a bid - that's meaningless. It's like you or I lining up in the Olympic 100 metres” I’ve already conceded we are unlikely to win the contract. Concorde was indeed Europe’s finest engineering achievement, and I mourn its loss everyday. The Tornado is junk. I’ve heard stories from some RAF friends that you wouldn’t believe. About a third of them are unserviceable at any one time. Compare this aircraft, with its agility analogous to a three-legged rhino, and the radar profile/heat signature of Manhattan (the reason its bombing missions were primarily at 500 feet), with its American contemporaries, the F-15 and F-16. Considering the latter aircraft are still the best air superiority and ground attack planes in NATO service today, it becomes clear which side of the Atlantic has the better technology. I grant you that the Eurofighter will eclipse both of these aircraft, but so it should, as it was conceived 25 years later. “The Vulcan, the Spitfire, the Lightning, the Hurricane, the Buccaneer - excuse me while I wipe the nostalgic tear from my eye. But, sadly, those days are gone.” Yep, it is a sad fact that each generation of aircraft programme is vastly more expensive than the last. It is therefore an inevitable fact that multinational efforts are the reality today. It has been predicted that at the current rate of spendig grown, the USAF will only be able to afford one plane in 75 years. We shall wait and see if the “Anglosphere” JSF project is more successful than Eurofighter. JSF is the nearest we have got to a Commonwealth programme at the moment with the UK, Australia and Canada on board. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Apache and anti-armour | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:32:39 11/10/04 Wed Ah, no - I won't accept that. We are in Iraq because of Dubya. We do not need an anti-armour gunship - we have aircraft that can do that. The helicopter's greatest strength is it's flexibility - the fact that it can land anywhere and get your infantry / special forces in or out quickly. As a troop transporter it's a great machine but to take out tanks? Nah, there are better ways - infantry for one. As regards needing an anti-armour gunship - who precisely would the British engage that would make a new anti-armour platform is a useful piece of kit? Russia? China? Iran? (Oh, hell I hope not). And just how useful is the AH64 in Iraq at present - sure its blowing the crap outta Fallujah but there's something strangely reminiscent of Israeli Apaches hitting Gaza in the footage. Throwing a Hellfire at a building that looks like 'an insurgent stronghold' (how do they know - do they have a billboard outside saying "beware the suicide bomber") is counter-productive especially when you end up slaughtering civilians. What is really needed in Iraq, as even the US agree, is more infantry - more feet on the ground and more faces doing the hearts n minds routine. All in all I remain convinced that, given we are unlikely to engage another nation state in an all-out land war and faced massed tank columns (unless Dubya does Iran) why spend an absolute fortune on a bunch of anti-tank helicopters that duplicate a function of the Lynx but without the flexibility to drop in an SAS unit? Sure, Lynx's aren't as armoured as the AH64 but the armour doesn't make a huge amount of difference when hit by AA fire. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |