MiG-29K from the Kuznetsov has crashed in the Med...
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Russian Kamikaze attacks on Walmington-on-Sea? 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Times - "Putin cocks snook at May"
The Torygraph - "Retired rear Admiral blasts MoD"
Daily Express "Reds sail past White Cliffs!"
Daily Mail " Our Brave Lads are watching Reds - from the dockside at Portsmouth"
Evening Standard "Tube Strike..."
The Torygraph - "Retired rear Admiral blasts MoD"
Daily Express "Reds sail past White Cliffs!"
Daily Mail " Our Brave Lads are watching Reds - from the dockside at Portsmouth"
Evening Standard "Tube Strike..."
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
haha ... very good, HH
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its still a peculiar British thing to laugh at other nations militaries but I think we should be careful what we laugh at. Certainly nobody is going to be laughing at our carriers flying upsets any time soon.Is it now 12 years since 899 NAS was broken up, the last of the FAAs proper Harrier squadrons so to speak?
If the QE ever is manned properly and works properly, and if we ever get the aircraft....we will see where we all are.
Its going to take years to get our carrier worked up and going properly with a credible TAG. If we can find and retain the engineers and technicians (which I currently doubt we can looking at the Ts and Cs of being in the RN.
Also, limited ship that the Russian ship possibly is, it looks to me that it actually helped win Russia's new little war.Sorry.
If the QE ever is manned properly and works properly, and if we ever get the aircraft....we will see where we all are.
Its going to take years to get our carrier worked up and going properly with a credible TAG. If we can find and retain the engineers and technicians (which I currently doubt we can looking at the Ts and Cs of being in the RN.
Also, limited ship that the Russian ship possibly is, it looks to me that it actually helped win Russia's new little war.Sorry.
Last edited by Hangarshuffle; 9th Jan 2017 at 15:52. Reason: Capital I.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A question, if i may please?
What say the Kuz gets abeam Dover and the Admiral decides to launch some MiGs? Given the busy air traffic situation in this part of the world, do they have to NOTAM, flight plan, get permission, etc or can they just lob cabs into the wide grey yonder and give the Typhoons and Rafales the run around?
What say the Kuz gets abeam Dover and the Admiral decides to launch some MiGs? Given the busy air traffic situation in this part of the world, do they have to NOTAM, flight plan, get permission, etc or can they just lob cabs into the wide grey yonder and give the Typhoons and Rafales the run around?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
In International waters, they would be advised to NOTAM. Coming up The Channel, there is so much Controlled and Restricted airspace that even Ivan wouldn't try anything so silly.
Admiral Kuznetsov now going through the Strait of Dover. Russian Navy Tug Nikolay Chiker position from AIS.
2017-01-25 11:36 (UTC)
51.07716° 1.641812°
https://goo.gl/maps/2n8u5Q1Cbjp
Vessel details for: NIKOLAY CHIKER (Tug) - IMO 8613334, MMSI 273531629, Call Sign RAL 48 Registered in Russia | AIS Marine Traffic
Russian Navy Tanker Sergei Osipov has passed through and is heading into the North Sea.
MarineTraffic: Global Ship Tracking Intelligence | AIS Marine Traffic
2017-01-25 11:36 (UTC)
51.07716° 1.641812°
https://goo.gl/maps/2n8u5Q1Cbjp
Vessel details for: NIKOLAY CHIKER (Tug) - IMO 8613334, MMSI 273531629, Call Sign RAL 48 Registered in Russia | AIS Marine Traffic
Russian Navy Tanker Sergei Osipov has passed through and is heading into the North Sea.
MarineTraffic: Global Ship Tracking Intelligence | AIS Marine Traffic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF to tha rescue from nasty Russians
4 RAF Typhoons escort the Russian carrier back through the channel... wow😜
Minus any weapons they must have frightened the Russians, not to mention a lowly frigate...
The best we can do after all the defence cuts to willy wave.😂
4 RAF Typhoons escort the Russian carrier back through the channel
I know, I know - hat, coat, door
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would we want to frighten them?
We're not at war and they are going about their lawful business on the High Seas
Now, if they start building up the Goodwin Sands into a permanent island.........
We're not at war and they are going about their lawful business on the High Seas
Now, if they start building up the Goodwin Sands into a permanent island.........
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3BIaYsWgAAgzx0.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3BD6liW8AE1gnA.jpg:large
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frighten the Russians with these 4 jets, are you kidding? :-)
It is rather a contribution to the UK defence money cut:
The media found out how much Britain has spent on surveillance of the «Admiral Kuznetsov» | Latest world news
"The operation to support Russian warships cost the UK almost 1.4 million pounds, according to British newspaper the News."
It is rather a contribution to the UK defence money cut:
The media found out how much Britain has spent on surveillance of the «Admiral Kuznetsov» | Latest world news
"The operation to support Russian warships cost the UK almost 1.4 million pounds, according to British newspaper the News."
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Russians should have waited three weeks; they could have claimed they were re-enacting the Channel Dash to mark its 75th anniversary...
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly, Heathrow Harry...why piss about at all, wasting taxpayers money. We aren't at war, they are going about their lawful business.
TEEEJ..not even suggesting the crabs should be let loose with weapons!
More the fact we are engaged in a pointless, farcical display.
TEEEJ..not even suggesting the crabs should be let loose with weapons!
More the fact we are engaged in a pointless, farcical display.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it looked a little pointless. Did the French or Belgians do similar from their side of the channel? I bet not.
Who thought up this stunt and why?>that would be a good question to the SoS for Defence. I can half understand the warship....not the aircraft as such.
Purely for show and for the camera. It only encourages the Daily Mail, whose blurb was frankly embarrassing.
But with only 16 years since 9/11, perhaps RAF should be routinely armed for an immediate response, and shown to the public to be thus even in these ****ty photos - as someone once said, our aircraft generally perform better with bullets than without. Live threat could appear at any time in these crazy days. Recent use of suicide trucks in Europe proves the capability to improvise ad hoc.
Are they up to it? We have a very limited number of combat aircraft- they may as well fly armed - and be seen as such*.
Incidentally the RAF have nothing to attack a warship with. Stand to be corrected but the Sea Eagle has long gone up the Suwannee.
If God forbid action was required by anybody our side would it be bombs> Brimstone? dedicated anti ship missile? Komorant?
* and I make these comments because the public are probably ill informed, or if more knowledgeable then they are ill at ease with the UK mil. The performance of the military in recent times raises many questions about ability and more.
Who thought up this stunt and why?>that would be a good question to the SoS for Defence. I can half understand the warship....not the aircraft as such.
Purely for show and for the camera. It only encourages the Daily Mail, whose blurb was frankly embarrassing.
But with only 16 years since 9/11, perhaps RAF should be routinely armed for an immediate response, and shown to the public to be thus even in these ****ty photos - as someone once said, our aircraft generally perform better with bullets than without. Live threat could appear at any time in these crazy days. Recent use of suicide trucks in Europe proves the capability to improvise ad hoc.
Are they up to it? We have a very limited number of combat aircraft- they may as well fly armed - and be seen as such*.
Incidentally the RAF have nothing to attack a warship with. Stand to be corrected but the Sea Eagle has long gone up the Suwannee.
If God forbid action was required by anybody our side would it be bombs> Brimstone? dedicated anti ship missile? Komorant?
* and I make these comments because the public are probably ill informed, or if more knowledgeable then they are ill at ease with the UK mil. The performance of the military in recent times raises many questions about ability and more.