Omega Owners Forum

Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: STEMO on 02 December 2015, 13:11:48

Title: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: STEMO on 02 December 2015, 13:11:48
.......if it could be shown that member was directly/indirectly supporting terrorists? Just been watching RT and the evidence that Turkey is allowing ISIL's oil tankers across it's border is pretty compelling. Hmmmmm......
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 02 December 2015, 13:16:53
I think you should keep that pinch of salt handy when watching RT.  ::)
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: STEMO on 02 December 2015, 13:20:05
I think you should keep that pinch of salt handy when watching RT.  ::)
It's just like watching any news channel, you get 90% shite and a bit of truth. It's up to the individual what they take from it.

For instance, all the crap on the BBC at the moment about what we're gonna do with our eight planes  ;D
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: STEMO on 02 December 2015, 13:21:34
Oh....and, of course, I do realise that Erdogan and his cronies are beyond reproach. Apart from shooting down a Russian bomber over Syria that is.  ::)
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 02 December 2015, 16:33:22
I think that the BBC has been more preoccupied about Camoron calling people 'Terrorist Sympathisers' than the actual issues in hand today.  ::)

Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: STEMO on 02 December 2015, 17:31:16
I think that the BBC has been more preoccupied about Camoron calling people 'Terrorist Sympathisers' than the actual issues in hand today.  ::)
That's liebore and Erdogan then  ;D
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 02 December 2015, 18:35:22
I think you should keep that pinch of salt handy when watching RT.  ::)
It's just like watching any news channel, you get 90% shite and a bit of truth. It's up to the individual what they take from it.

For instance, all the crap on the BBC at the moment about what we're gonna do with our eight planes ;D

Nine with the Vulcan. :D :D ;)
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 02 December 2015, 18:41:46
I think you should keep that pinch of salt handy when watching RT.  ::)
It's just like watching any news channel, you get 90% shite and a bit of truth. It's up to the individual what they take from it.

For instance, all the crap on the BBC at the moment about what we're gonna do with our eight planes ;D

Nine with the Vulcan. :D :D ;)

Not anymore, Guy Martin saw to that!  ;)
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: Varche on 02 December 2015, 20:36:07
The whole thing is a mess. Satanic State have been selling oil to Assad in return for mains electricity.

I don't believe that Turkey will fulfil the requirements (in our lifetime) that they set out ages ago to meet in order to progress to join the EU. Yet we fete them, are handing potentially 28 million folks work visas for Europe and showering them with money.

I never ever thought I would agree with Alex Salmond but he made three good points today.

Why are we not fighting back in the propaganda war?

Why are we not taking down their vile barbaric websites?

Why are we not stopping the countries that are supporting them from showering them with cash.

On the question of can you believe RT, BBC etc. I think it is very foolish to only rely on one news source.

Where is Rods2 for his inciteful comment.?
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: biggriffin on 02 December 2015, 20:43:57
I think you should keep that pinch of salt handy when watching RT.  ::)
It's just like watching any news channel, you get 90% shite and a bit of truth. It's up to the individual what they take from it.

For instance, all the crap on the BBC at the moment about what we're gonna do with our eight planes ;D

Nine with the Vulcan. :D :D ;)
Plus a couple of spitfires, and the un-airworthy Lancaster.
 Chirst I'd be scared of that squadron.
 and we've also got monsure guffer on his bike :D
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 02 December 2015, 20:49:10
I think you should keep that pinch of salt handy when watching RT.  ::)
It's just like watching any news channel, you get 90% shite and a bit of truth. It's up to the individual what they take from it.

For instance, all the crap on the BBC at the moment about what we're gonna do with our eight planes ;D

Nine with the Vulcan. :D :D ;)
Plus a couple of spitfires, and the un-airworthy Lancaster.
 Chirst I'd be scared of that squadron.
and we've also got monsure guffer on his bike :D

Yeah when he gets his after burners going watch out!!  :o  He'd soon send those God fearing Jihadis running!  ;D
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: STEMO on 02 December 2015, 20:57:58
I think you should keep that pinch of salt handy when watching RT.  ::)
It's just like watching any news channel, you get 90% shite and a bit of truth. It's up to the individual what they take from it.

For instance, all the crap on the BBC at the moment about what we're gonna do with our eight planes ;D

Nine with the Vulcan. :D :D ;)
Plus a couple of spitfires, and the un-airworthy Lancaster.
 Chirst I'd be scared of that squadron.
and we've also got monsure guffer on his bike :D

Yeah when he gets his after burners going watch out!!  :o  He'd soon send those God fearing Jihadis running!  ;D
Yeah. He'd give 'em the shi'ites.
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: aaronjb on 02 December 2015, 22:54:38
I think you should keep that pinch of salt handy when watching RT.  ::)
It's just like watching any news channel, you get 90% shite and a bit of truth. It's up to the individual what they take from it.

For instance, all the crap on the BBC at the moment about what we're gonna do with our eight planes ;D

Nine with the Vulcan. :D :D ;)
Plus a couple of spitfires, and the un-airworthy Lancaster.
 Chirst I'd be scared of that squadron.
 and we've also got monsure guffer on his bike :D

There's a couple of Lightning's that we might be able to borrow back from South Africa, too..
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: Nick W on 02 December 2015, 23:07:09
I think you should keep that pinch of salt handy when watching RT.  ::)
It's just like watching any news channel, you get 90% shite and a bit of truth. It's up to the individual what they take from it.

For instance, all the crap on the BBC at the moment about what we're gonna do with our eight planes ;D

Nine with the Vulcan. :D :D ;)
Plus a couple of spitfires, and the un-airworthy Lancaster.
 Christ I'd be scared of that squadron.
 and we've also got monsure guffer on his bike :D

There's a couple of Lightnings that we might be able to borrow back from South Africa, too..


There's still plenty of Tiger Moths about; machine guns haven't changed much - the tricky bit is synchronising it with the propeller - add a bag of grenades and you have a bomber ;D
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: Kevin Wood on 02 December 2015, 23:08:38
Propeller? For girls. ;D
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: tigers_gonads on 03 December 2015, 07:04:35
I think you should keep that pinch of salt handy when watching RT.  ::)
It's just like watching any news channel, you get 90% shite and a bit of truth. It's up to the individual what they take from it.

For instance, all the crap on the BBC at the moment about what we're gonna do with our eight planes ;D

Nine with the Vulcan. :D :D ;)
Plus a couple of spitfires, and the un-airworthy Lancaster.
 Chirst I'd be scared of that squadron.
 and we've also got monsure guffer on his bike :D

There's a couple of Lightning's that we might be able to borrow back from South Africa, too..



 :D :D :D

Best I start practicing my liney dance  :D :D :D
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: LC0112G on 03 December 2015, 09:44:29
As I type, there are 3 tankers dragging 8 Typhoons and 4 Tornadoes over Dorset heading south. Some of these may be air-spares, but within a few hours the aircraft available in theatre will have more than doubled to around 20 aircraft. There are a further 2 tankers up, but not sure what these are up to yet.
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: aaronjb on 03 December 2015, 10:06:24
I watched the stats last night on .. some news channel (while I sat in my Bratislavan hotel room), it went something like this:

The UK: 20 aircraft (once we ship some more there, ignoring the fact that the Typhoons aren't really air-ground tasked) - pretty much everything we have, right?
France: 20 aircraft
The USA: 70 aircraft...

I say we leave it to the US, they've clearly got more money than us...

Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: tigers_gonads on 03 December 2015, 10:06:46
As I type, there are 3 tankers dragging 8 Typhoons and 4 Tornadoes over Dorset heading south. Some of these may be air-spares, but within a few hours the aircraft available in theatre will have more than doubled to around 20 aircraft. There are a further 2 tankers up, but not sure what these are up to yet.



Money tip of the week for you all ...............

If you have some spare cash, go buy some shares in Air Tanker Services  ;)
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 03 December 2015, 10:08:14
As I type, there are 3 tankers dragging 8 Typhoons and 4 Tornadoes over Dorset heading south. Some of these may be air-spares, but within a few hours the aircraft available in theatre will have more than doubled to around 20 aircraft. There are a further 2 tankers up, but not sure what these are up to yet.

Why have they come out of Brize Norton and headed north doing a loop around the Isle of Man before heading south presumably to Cyprus?  :-\
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: tigers_gonads on 03 December 2015, 10:11:51
As I type, there are 3 tankers dragging 8 Typhoons and 4 Tornadoes over Dorset heading south. Some of these may be air-spares, but within a few hours the aircraft available in theatre will have more than doubled to around 20 aircraft. There are a further 2 tankers up, but not sure what these are up to yet.

Why have they come out of Brize Norton and headed north doing a loop around the Isle of Man before heading south presumably to Cyprus?  :-\



Yup  :y

The price of snide Ray ban sunglasses on Nissi Beach will be creeping up by the weekend  ;D
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 03 December 2015, 10:28:58
As I type, there are 3 tankers dragging 8 Typhoons and 4 Tornadoes over Dorset heading south. Some of these may be air-spares, but within a few hours the aircraft available in theatre will have more than doubled to around 20 aircraft. There are a further 2 tankers up, but not sure what these are up to yet.

Why have they come out of Brize Norton and headed north doing a loop around the Isle of Man before heading south presumably to Cyprus?  :-\

I'll answer my own question.  I think it's because the Typhoons and Tornadoes have come from RAF Lossiemouth, so the tankers headed north to rendezvous before turning south for Cyprus....  :-\

So the next question for the Flyboys here is, what can we send to say hello to the next lot of bombers that Ivan sends to have a look at us?  ::)  ;D
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: aaronjb on 03 December 2015, 10:31:19
We'll send Kevin up in his glider.  That'll scare 'em ;)
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: LC0112G on 03 December 2015, 10:36:21
As I type, there are 3 tankers dragging 8 Typhoons and 4 Tornadoes over Dorset heading south. Some of these may be air-spares, but within a few hours the aircraft available in theatre will have more than doubled to around 20 aircraft. There are a further 2 tankers up, but not sure what these are up to yet.

Why have they come out of Brize Norton and headed north doing a loop around the Isle of Man before heading south presumably to Cyprus?  :-\

The Typhoons have come out of Lossiemouth, which is up near Inverness in Scotland. It is standard practice for the first air-to air refuelling to occur before leaving the UK to make sure everything is working. The AR tracks are limited to a few areas over the UK. They appear to have chosen to do this first refuelling in AR13, which is just to the east of the Isle of Man.

The Tornados came out of Marham, and Met up with the tanker over Yeovilton, before heading south.

http://www.mantma.co.uk/pdf/eg_enr_6_5_1_1_en.pdf
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 03 December 2015, 10:38:09
We'll send Kevin up in his glider.  That'll scare 'em ;)

With Monsieur Guffer strapped to the back for a bit of extra thrust!  :D  ;D
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: Kevin Wood on 03 December 2015, 10:43:51
We'll send Kevin up in his glider.  That'll scare 'em ;)

With Monsieur Guffer strapped to the back for a bit of extra thrust!  :D  ;D

He'll have to be somewhere near the middle, to avoid upsetting the C of G... ::)
.. and strapped to the underside of the fuselage so I don't have the clean the pebble-dash off the tailplane. :-X
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: aaronjb on 03 December 2015, 10:45:38
We'll send Kevin up in his glider.  That'll scare 'em ;)

With Monsieur Guffer strapped to the back for a bit of extra thrust!  :D  ;D

He'll have to be somewhere near the middle, to avoid upsetting the C of G... ::)
.. and strapped to the underside of the fuselage so I don't have the clean the pebble-dash off the tailplane. :-X

Thanks. Now I'm sitting in a hotel lobby laughing to myself like some kind of nutter.. ;D
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: STEMO on 03 December 2015, 10:45:49
We'll send Kevin up in his glider.  That'll scare 'em ;)

With Monsieur Guffer strapped to the back for a bit of extra thrust!  :D  ;D

He'll have to be somewhere near the middle, to avoid upsetting the C of G... ::)
.. and strapped to the underside of the fuselage so I don't have the clean the pebble-dash off the tailplane. :-X
You don't actually think you'd get airborne with Matt strapped to your glider  ;D
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: LC0112G on 03 December 2015, 10:46:42
So the next question for the Flyboys here is, what can we send to say hello to the next lot of bombers that Ivan sends to have a look at us?  ::)  ;D

The UK has 108 Typhoons of which roughly 80 or so are in squadron service at any one time. There a 4 in the Falklands, and 8 went to the USA last week, and it appears that 8 are on their way to Cyprus today. There are 20 twin sticks that aren't normally used for combat - but could be if push came to shove. That leaves around 40 single sticks in the UK as of today. Even allowing for the most pessimistic serviceability estimates, that's plenty of aircraft to stand the QRA duty, which is normally 4 aircraft on 5 minute standby, and another 4 on 30 minute standby IIRC.   
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: Kevin Wood on 03 December 2015, 10:51:39
We'll send Kevin up in his glider.  That'll scare 'em ;)

With Monsieur Guffer strapped to the back for a bit of extra thrust!  :D  ;D

He'll have to be somewhere near the middle, to avoid upsetting the C of G... ::)
.. and strapped to the underside of the fuselage so I don't have the clean the pebble-dash off the tailplane. :-X
You don't actually think you'd get airborne with Matt strapped to your glider  ;D
Well, MTOM is 472Kg, empty weight about 245. I'm about 105 with a 'chute on...

Not sure how many kilo's of Naga chicken he'd need onboard to complete the mission...
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: Nick W on 03 December 2015, 11:01:13
We'll send Kevin up in his glider.  That'll scare 'em ;)

With Monsieur Guffer strapped to the back for a bit of extra thrust!  :D ;D

He'll have to be somewhere near the middle, to avoid upsetting the C of G... ::)
.. and strapped to the underside of the fuselage so I don't have the clean the pebble-dash off the tailplane. :-X
You don't actually think you'd get airborne with Matt strapped to your glider  ;D
Well, MTOM is 472Kg, empty weight about 245. I'm about 105 with a 'chute on...

Not sure how many kilo's of Naga chicken he'd need onboard to complete the mission...


Can't you balance the aftermath of the Naga chicken as both munitions and as a CATO pack* ??






* Curry Assisted Take Off
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: Gaffers on 03 December 2015, 11:02:38
I am pretty sure that chemical weapons are banned under the Geneva convention, international law and the LOAC ::)


And given the MTOM of Kev's glider and the weight already used up I would definitely fit yer cheeky bastids >:( ;D
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: LC0112G on 03 December 2015, 11:03:05
The UK: 20 aircraft (once we ship some more there, ignoring the fact that the Typhoons aren't really air-ground tasked) - pretty much everything we have, right?

Typhoon cannot currently launch Brimstone or Storm shadow (scheduled for 2018-19 introduction), but it can (and has in Libya) dropped laser guided Paveway bombs. It can also defend itself against a hostile opponent - which the Tornado cannot. No-one is really sure how the Russians are going to react.

If you're going to take out fixed installations like Oil Refineries or command and control bunkers, then Paveway is probably the munition of choice anyway so Typhoon is every bit as capable as Tornado for this. Brimstone is more use against small mobile targets of opportunity like tanks or SUV's. Storm Shadow is basically an air launched cruise missile so not really relevant in Syria.
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: 05omegav6 on 03 December 2015, 11:17:39
Not sure that MG would actually need to be armed...

The sight of a semi naked mamil strapped to the underside of anything would render all but the blindest of foe speechless. The four Tornados could then sneak up behind and flatten them, rendering them dead.

Perfect diversion tactics ;D
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: Gaffers on 03 December 2015, 12:04:27
Not sure that MG would actually need to be armed...

The sight of a semi naked mamil strapped to the underside of anything would render all but the blindest of foe speechless. The four Tornados could then sneak up behind and flatten them, rendering them dead.

Perfect diversion tactics ;D

thanks......


I never liked you anyway :P ;D
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: STEMO on 03 December 2015, 12:13:42
Not sure that MG would actually need to be armed...

The sight of a semi naked mamil strapped to the underside of anything would render all but the blindest of foe speechless. The four Tornados could then sneak up behind and flatten them, rendering them dead.

Perfect diversion tactics ;D
For anyone who doesn't know, mamil = Middle aged Matt in Lycra.  :)
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 03 December 2015, 12:20:40
Not sure that MG would actually need to be armed...

The sight of a semi naked mamil strapped to the underside of anything would render all but the blindest of foe speechless. The four Tornados could then sneak up behind and flatten them, rendering them dead.

Perfect diversion tactics ;D
For anyone who doesn't know, mamil = Middle aged Matt in Lycra.  :)

That sounds decidedly camp.........but I'm sure it isn't. :) ::) ::)
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: 05omegav6 on 03 December 2015, 12:21:58
Not sure that MG would actually need to be armed...

The sight of a semi naked mamil strapped to the underside of anything would render all but the blindest of foe speechless. The four Tornados could then sneak up behind and flatten them, rendering them dead.

Perfect diversion tactics ;D

thanks......


I never liked you anyway :P ;D
:-*
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: Gaffers on 03 December 2015, 12:26:21
Firkin 'ell it's my party today.

Now where's that button......? ::)
Title: Re: Could NATO justify defending one of it's members......
Post by: STEMO on 03 December 2015, 12:37:25
Firkin 'ell it's my party today.

Now where's that button......? ::)
You get used to it. I had to.  ;D