|
|
Post by the light works on May 8, 2014 14:17:04 GMT
We have the right to offer affiliation to NATO. Ok, so, NATO is very much American administrated... but only because the rest of the NATO nations allow it to be so.... mainly because its one bit the Americans can sort of do right?.... and as for some of the smaller nations having America as "Big Bruver", its better for them that way. After all, who would be stupid enough to pick a fight with the whole of America (and the rest of NATO). Its an easy allowance in the name of peace. And to be honest, America, when put in comparison to some other super-powers, at least with America they are open to criticism.... "I may not like what you say but I defend your right to say it".... Unless its grossly offensive. If so, then its open season on your [donkey-cousin], and you deserve what you get.... America may not always be right, but its fair. As in, its not always right to everyone at the same time..... The UK?... we have lost direction in trying to be to politically correct. Its about time someone grew a pair and stood up for our rights as England. Wales has its own parliament, Scotland wants devolution, but if we try to be proud of being English?... Thats "Racist"..... Well Enough. To Nay-sayers, Go boil your head, we have a racial right to be ENGLISH and proud. And part of NATO. And NOT russian. Or American. Or european. English is good enough, isnt it?... shall I name names? Osama Bin Ladin, Moammar Qadaffi, Saddam Hussein, the Kim Jong family... almost forgot Fidel Castro - who we still haven't gotten over. |
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on May 8, 2014 17:00:37 GMT
Also seen a lot of them Wearing these undershirts. Not sure if Ukraine troops wear them, but I know some Russian troops do and have for years, including Spetznaz. Or they could just be standard issue for the Ukrainian forces. Notice their weapons? Yeah, those are either AK74's or AKM's. Also what the Russians use. Plus they use a lot of military vehicles that are also Russian. There's a reason why some people in the region are pro Russian, you know... We also have a lot of people in the Danish forces running around with American chest rigs and we use Colt (Canada) weapons that look like US M16's and M4's. Doesn't mean the US has infiltrated the Danish Army and is trying to bring us down from within. Like I said, I'm not sure if Ukraine troops wear them or not.  |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on May 8, 2014 22:44:59 GMT
Or they could just be standard issue for the Ukrainian forces. Notice their weapons? Yeah, those are either AK74's or AKM's. Also what the Russians use. Plus they use a lot of military vehicles that are also Russian. There's a reason why some people in the region are pro Russian, you know... We also have a lot of people in the Danish forces running around with American chest rigs and we use Colt (Canada) weapons that look like US M16's and M4's. Doesn't mean the US has infiltrated the Danish Army and is trying to bring us down from within. Like I said, I'm not sure if Ukraine troops wear them or not. I would imagine they do. Just like a lot of NATO forces have some kind of infatuation with looking like US or UK troops, I imagine that the Russian forces are the ones to either beat or join in the eastern part of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on May 15, 2014 20:03:06 GMT
The ukraine is far too poor to replace most of their ussr time gear, so they will use that, just like the russians
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 25, 2014 10:47:23 GMT
Uk Army issue has started getting "Sensible".
"Fashion" has gone out da window.
There has been a recent change in the pattern and colour of Camo gear.
On the back of that, the uniform has gone gradually from "Style" to "Comfort" based.
The recent troubles our boys have been through have required a major re-think on kit....
All the way from basic ration packs to vehicles.
Strange, the Hercules (C130) hasnt had an update yet?....
You would have though the Herky- would have been replaced by now.
1954..... its now officially 60 yrs old....
(Minor upgrades, yeah, so what... its still the same bird...?...)
Best guess is something may happen by 2024?....
They started looking for a replacement at the turn of the century.
14 years have passed.... nothing....
Still flying a 60yr old bird....
And this was the jet age?...
How have vehicles changed...
Look at the snatch land rover and the modern equivalent...
Slight difference there....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 25, 2014 14:52:32 GMT
Uk Army issue has started getting "Sensible". "Fashion" has gone out da window. There has been a recent change in the pattern and colour of Camo gear. On the back of that, the uniform has gone gradually from "Style" to "Comfort" based. The recent troubles our boys have been through have required a major re-think on kit.... All the way from basic ration packs to vehicles. Strange, the Hercules (C130) hasnt had an update yet?.... You would have though the Herky- would have been replaced by now. 1954..... its now officially 60 yrs old.... (Minor upgrades, yeah, so what... its still the same bird...?...) Best guess is something may happen by 2024?.... They started looking for a replacement at the turn of the century. 14 years have passed.... nothing.... Still flying a 60yr old bird.... And this was the jet age?... How have vehicles changed... Look at the snatch land rover and the modern equivalent... Slight difference there.... see my remarks elsewhere about obsolete vs. still doing what you need it to do. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 26, 2014 7:04:26 GMT
Ah But, Obsolete and worn out.....?...
If you want to know how long something will last, to get its shortest possible "In regular use" (as in not intentionally abused) life span, give it to a bunch of squaddies....
Intentionally abused is how you find out how else it can be used, and s different test.
"Versatile"... they took it apart and mended an engine with it.
Replacement kit is one of the busiest offices on any army camp...?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 26, 2014 13:49:12 GMT
Ah But, Obsolete and worn out.....?... If you want to know how long something will last, to get its shortest possible "In regular use" (as in not intentionally abused) life span, give it to a bunch of squaddies.... Intentionally abused is how you find out how else it can be used, and s different test. "Versatile"... they took it apart and mended an engine with it. Replacement kit is one of the busiest offices on any army camp...?... true, but I am sure they did not build all the Hercs in the same year and then dismantle the factory. but yes, they did make the point when they retired the space shuttles, that the newest one was over 20 years old and had millions of miles on the clock - and they suspected that contributed to the most recent disaster. |
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on May 26, 2014 16:23:23 GMT
Ah But, Obsolete and worn out.....?... If you want to know how long something will last, to get its shortest possible "In regular use" (as in not intentionally abused) life span, give it to a bunch of squaddies.... Intentionally abused is how you find out how else it can be used, and s different test. "Versatile"... they took it apart and mended an engine with it. Replacement kit is one of the busiest offices on any army camp...?... true, but I am sure they did not build all the Hercs in the same year and then dismantle the factory. but yes, they did make the point when they retired the space shuttles, that the newest one was over 20 years old and had millions of miles on the clock - and they suspected that contributed to the most recent disaster. The C130 series has been in continuous production throughout it career. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 27, 2014 8:23:12 GMT
True, but this thing is older than the design of the ark.....
Sure, they upgraded the engines.
And dont get me wrong, it was my all time favourite ever aircraft of that class.
(the Harrier being the greatest VTOL/STOL ever invented, Lightning being the best one to stand on its tail and go to ceiling from the end of the runway and still be in runway airspace, etc...)
(Yes, they are all "Classic", but then again, I am a classic build myself....)
Its just I wonder how good it must be if they are still relying on it even though other machinery has changed so much.
I thought technology would have replaced it by now....
As in, what happened to the Vulcan. and the Nimrod AWACS....
|
|
|
|
Post by c64 on May 27, 2014 13:43:49 GMT
Since I was a soldier, I was trained in "ABC warfare". Also my dad was in the THW and also trained for civillian support after ABC attacks and all kinds of disasters.
ABC stands for "Atomic Biological Chemical". And they become more and more worse in this order!
The A-bomb is the least nuisance of all weapons of mass destruction. It is powerful enough so everybody want to have it but not bad enough to be scared of owning it.
Even historically using A-bombs had never made a significant difference. Japan didn't surrender because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For them two A-bombs or thousands of conventional ones didn't made any difference. Back then there was no Twitter, instant TV coverage and no satellite surveillance. To comprehend what had happened would have taken many weeks to affect decisions. The real cause of surrender were the Russians about to invade Japan treating to turn Japan into a Russian colony.
The long term effect of A-bombs is very small. Just look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There isn't much evidence left that those cities ever were a "ground zero" at all.
And look at Chernobyl, polluted by the equivalent of the pollution many hundred of A-bombs would leave concentrated in just one spot and not even 20 years later, it's a beautiful, healthy nature reserve. A lot of endangered species had fully recovered there. The only problem is for long living species like humans, those turn sick real fast. But it won't take that long until the area will be safe for humans as well.
The same will happen to the sea around Fukushima. Humans are scared to keep fishing there and like in the pirate infested areas around Somalia, sea-live will recover there as well.
So A-bombs are not that bad in a global sense. Sure, they have a tremendous short term impact and they are real bad for humans. As for the environment, their mid to long therm effect is much less than the presence of humans. Nature will recover just fine there, you could say that A-bombs would even help nature as "instant nature preserve devices". But looking at Hiroshima and Nagasaki reveals that they don't work too well, blown up nuclear power plants do a much better job.
Worse than the A-bomb are "B-weapons". Those leave the environment and infra structure fully intact and just remove the humans. The problem is that those are not anywhere near selective (yet), they can also wipe out the people who used them against others. Good for nature but real bad for any humans.
The worst catastrophe of all are C-weapons. Those make a nuclear warfare look like a children's birthday party!
Those kill all animals and humans in an area, leaving the infra structure fully intact. And because the area of destruction can be controlled relative precise, the inhibition threshold of using them is very low.
When all animals have vanished, most plant life will die out as well. No insects, no earth worms and depending on the kind of C-weapon no bacteria will make nature fully collapse. And when all plants which generate real nutrients have vanished, animal life won't return for a very, very long time even if the poison is long gone. If C-weapons are used on a larger area, it takes a million years until nature has mostly recovered. All effects of an A-bomb or many A-bombs would have fully vanished in a fraction of this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 27, 2014 14:09:24 GMT
not sure if they are still around, but there was a regional airline operating around New York City several years ago that was flying rebuilt DC-3 aircraft, and was very popular, because while it took them 3 times as long to go from point A to point B, they could fly a load of passengers from point A to point B, and come back with the return load in the time it took a jet to wait in line to land at the bigger fields the jets had to use.
the point is that sometimes when you have a niche, you come up with something that fits the niche better than anything else, and it takes a long, long time to come up with something new that fits the niche as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by c64 on May 27, 2014 14:27:26 GMT
not sure if they are still around, but there was a regional airline operating around New York City several years ago that was flying rebuilt DC-3 aircraft, and was very popular, because while it took them 3 times as long to go from point A to point B, they could fly a load of passengers from point A to point B, and come back with the return load in the time it took a jet to wait in line to land at the bigger fields the jets had to use. the point is that sometimes when you have a niche, you come up with something that fits the niche better than anything else, and it takes a long, long time to come up with something new that fits the niche as well. The old DC-3 has many other advantages over modern aircrafts. While modern jets are great to cover vast amounts of miles, they surfer from takeoff and landing. Especially in Hawaii, the perfect "island hoppers" are the classic piston engine airplanes. Large jets have a serious problem with this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243 |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 27, 2014 15:10:29 GMT
not sure if they are still around, but there was a regional airline operating around New York City several years ago that was flying rebuilt DC-3 aircraft, and was very popular, because while it took them 3 times as long to go from point A to point B, they could fly a load of passengers from point A to point B, and come back with the return load in the time it took a jet to wait in line to land at the bigger fields the jets had to use. the point is that sometimes when you have a niche, you come up with something that fits the niche better than anything else, and it takes a long, long time to come up with something new that fits the niche as well. The old DC-3 has many other advantages over modern aircrafts. While modern jets are great to cover vast amounts of miles, they surfer from takeoff and landing. Especially in Hawaii, the perfect "island hoppers" are the classic piston engine airplanes. Large jets have a serious problem with this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243That was not a jet/prop issue, but it is interesting in that is DOES (in the alternate explanation section) illustrate a myth that was busted on Mythbusters. |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on May 27, 2014 16:38:07 GMT
The old DC-3 has many other advantages over modern aircrafts. While modern jets are great to cover vast amounts of miles, they surfer from takeoff and landing. Especially in Hawaii, the perfect "island hoppers" are the classic piston engine airplanes. Large jets have a serious problem with this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243That was not a jet/prop issue, but it is interesting in that is DOES (in the alternate explanation section) illustrate a myth that was busted on Mythbusters. It actually is a problem related to jets. They fly a lot higher to be efficient and this causes more metal fatigue of the cabin. A prop engine is more economic at low altitudes due to the lesser speed. Of course you can also fly a jet at low altitudes but that wastes a tremendous amount of fuel. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 27, 2014 17:02:04 GMT
That was not a jet/prop issue, but it is interesting in that is DOES (in the alternate explanation section) illustrate a myth that was busted on Mythbusters. It actually is a problem related to jets. They fly a lot higher to be efficient and this causes more metal fatigue of the cabin. A prop engine is more economic at low altitudes due to the lesser speed. Of course you can also fly a jet at low altitudes but that wastes a tremendous amount of fuel. older prop planes also fly a lot lower because most don't have pressurized cabins. if you really want to find a correlation you can, but this incident was a failure due to corrosion, and would have happened if they had flown a prop plane at under the same condition - except the slipstream turbulence might have been less due to lower airspeeds. all the short hops I have flown (like I am sure this was) did not involve going to extra effort to get an "economic" altitude. the plane flew "uphill" until about the midpoint and then began its glide to the destination. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 28, 2014 6:08:19 GMT
"Its quicker than walking".
This is my Granddads old line, and it works.
He had an old classic car with running boards spoke wheels and the rest, that was an absolute wonderful car...
People commented on its lack of speed...?...
Who cared?.. on short distance, it was comfortable, and unique.
|
|
|
|
Post by c64 on May 28, 2014 12:57:52 GMT
It actually is a problem related to jets. They fly a lot higher to be efficient and this causes more metal fatigue of the cabin. A prop engine is more economic at low altitudes due to the lesser speed. Of course you can also fly a jet at low altitudes but that wastes a tremendous amount of fuel. older prop planes also fly a lot lower because most don't have pressurized cabins. if you really want to find a correlation you can, but this incident was a failure due to corrosion, and would have happened if they had flown a prop plane at under the same condition - except the slipstream turbulence might have been less due to lower airspeeds. all the short hops I have flown (like I am sure this was) did not involve going to extra effort to get an "economic" altitude. the plane flew "uphill" until about the midpoint and then began its glide to the destination. If the trip is too short, they can't reach an economic altitude. But they cause more stress per mile than on long distance. And this is exactly what caused the Aloha Airlines incident. The plane was totally ruined from the takeoff and landing wear but nobody had noticed because it had not much miles on it and wasn't that old. Well, the airplane industry learns something new every crash or two. That's the only reason why I don't like flying. |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on May 28, 2014 13:04:52 GMT
"Its quicker than walking". This is my Granddads old line, and it works. He had an old classic car with running boards spoke wheels and the rest, that was an absolute wonderful car... People commented on its lack of speed...?... Who cared?.. on short distance, it was comfortable, and unique. I once had talked to a very old man who owns a Lanz Bulldog farming tractor. This thing has one huge horizontal piston which "Wags with the dog". The entire tractor is hopping and swinging back and forth. When those became obsolete, he was visited from a farming machines salesman demonstrating a modern 3-cylinder (vertical) tractor. The salesman had put a cigarette vertically onto the hood to demonstrate how smooth the engine is running. So the farmer took the cigarette, lit it and said "When I smoke, I put it into my mouth where it can't fall out" and drove away with his Lanz. He kept working with his Lanz until he retired. And now almost 90 years old, he still owns it. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 28, 2014 14:07:17 GMT
older prop planes also fly a lot lower because most don't have pressurized cabins. if you really want to find a correlation you can, but this incident was a failure due to corrosion, and would have happened if they had flown a prop plane at under the same condition - except the slipstream turbulence might have been less due to lower airspeeds. all the short hops I have flown (like I am sure this was) did not involve going to extra effort to get an "economic" altitude. the plane flew "uphill" until about the midpoint and then began its glide to the destination. If the trip is too short, they can't reach an economic altitude. But they cause more stress per mile than on long distance. And this is exactly what caused the Aloha Airlines incident. The plane was totally ruined from the takeoff and landing wear but nobody had noticed because it had not much miles on it and wasn't that old. Well, the airplane industry learns something new every crash or two. That's the only reason why I don't like flying. because takeoffs and landings cause engineering failures when assembling aircraft. what caused the failure was spending its whole life in Hawaii, where the salt laden humid air was able to permeate the improperly sealed seams and corrode the rivet holes. since the plane was relying on the rivets for all of its structural strength, when the rivet holes failed, everything came apart. what they learned from that was to bond the skin together in addition to riveting it. |
|
