|
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10164436)
The irony of WEBF scorning others for expressing views which expose their lack of knowledge relating to defence.... |
Originally Posted by downsizer
(Post 10164697)
Ohhh, handbags at dawn!
|
Why? In view of his limited military background, knowledge and e oerience I consider his scorn of others reprehensible and my comment fair. |
"particularly vertically launched missiles with a 360 degree arc of fire. "
are you intimating that qec are to be thus equipped? |
Originally Posted by glad rag
(Post 10165460)
"particularly vertically launched missiles with a 360 degree arc of fire. "
are you intimating that qec are to be thus equipped? Update (10/06/18): Queen Elizabeth put to sea this morning. |
H.M.S. Queen Elizabeth currently moored off Penzance. Isles of Scilly ferry "Scillonian II" passing inbound to Penzance for scale comparison. Circa 18.40 Wednesday 13th.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmf...60288fe61c.jpg |
I never thought the first use of the carriers would be against Parti Kenethlegek Kernow - guess it pays to start small and build up to Zhōngguó Gòngchǎndǎng
|
Saw the 2 Chinooks pass over the Suhaili Golden Globe Race BBQ yesterday afternoon. Thought they were coming from Culdrose. Anyway, Kernow can take anything she throws at us for the while!
|
The Times: Whoops! No planes to show Trump Plans to wow Donald Trump with Britain’s newest bit of military kit when he visits the UK next month have been torn up amid fears that he would be underwhelmed by Britain’s ailing armed forces. Downing Street wanted to show the American president HMS Queen Elizabeth, the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carrier, but the plan has been torpedoed because it has no aircraft yet. Officials feared the sight of Trump’s helicopter landing on an otherwise empty flight deck would provoke ridicule from Trump, who spent the recent G20 summit berating European leaders for their lack of defence spending...... “Trump has 10 major carriers and all of them have a deck full of aircraft,” said one government source. “We can’t take him there. It would be embarrassing.” The possibility of Trump attending the Royal International Air Tattoo at RAF Fairford, which runs from July 13 to 15, is now being discussed as an alternative entertainment........ |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10174891)
The Times: Whoops! No planes to show Trump Plans to wow Donald Trump with Britain’s newest bit of military kit when he visits the UK next month have been torn up amid fears that he would be underwhelmed by Britain’s ailing armed forces...
Originally Posted by Daily Mail 2 Jun 2018
...Details of the display for Mr Trump have not been revealed, but it is likely to be at Portsmouth, where HMS Queen Elizabeth is based.
An MoD source said: ‘Given that it is Trump, we thought that something a bit macho would be appropriate. But they are American planes, so the Red Arrows could come out to add a more patriotic – and independent – touch.’ |
My link is from today’s Sunday Times. Seems to have hit a nerve..... |
Originally Posted by FODPlod
(Post 10174908)
This was only ever Daily Fail speculation (wishful thinking?) based on 'a MOD source'. One of the cleaners?
As most sensible folk said, it was never going to happen anyway (not least because QNLZ would have sailed for trials the previous month) but that didn't stop it becoming yet another mother lode for the expression of opinionated ignorance. I would refer you to post 5066. |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10175016)
My link is from today’s Sunday Times. Seems to have hit a nerve..... |
A spurious story? Having hD it reported from two sources 8 am more than willing to believe that a SPAD or civil servant in either the MOD or Foreign Office proposed the idea - and was duly shot down. Or do you believe that the current reputTion of either make it’s unlikely? |
https://thinpinstripedline.********....hes-story.html - Fairly comprehensive rebuttal of silly story.
|
Having tracked down the article it does not seem to be a rebuttal at all about the truth of the story - merely claiming at one point that it is “not supported by evidence”, as if any such story ever is. The rest seem to be a set of quibbles over whether only the 4 x F-35Bs which have arrived in the UK can count as being “delivered”, the number of US carriers actually currently with air wings embarked etc etc - none of which really impact on the story. The rest being a general bitch and moan about the way the press report such things rather than printing “good news” stories about the forces - as if there was much good news to print. And of course a good sulk about why, If originally proposed, the decision was made to cancel, with 3 paragraphs about why Trump would not find such a visit frustrating and a very positive message about the ship could have been delivered. So so rather thanseeing of a rebuttal of the story as printed, I see it more as a defensive rebuttal of the reason given for cancellation. |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10175205)
Having tracked down the article it does not seem to be a rebuttal at all about the truth of the story - merely claiming at one point that it is “not supported by evidence”, as if any such story ever is. The rest seem to be a set of quibbles over whether only the 4 x F-35Bs which have arrived in the UK can count as being “delivered”, the number of US carriers actually currently with air wings embarked etc etc - none of which really impact on the story. The rest being a general bitch and moan about the way the press report such things rather than printing “good news” stories about the forces - as if there was much good news to print. And of course a good sulk about why, If originally proposed, the decision was made to cancel, with 3 paragraphs about why Trump would not find such a visit frustrating and a very positive message about the ship could have been delivered. So so rather thanseeing of a rebuttal of the story as printed, I see it more as a defensive rebuttal of the reason given for cancellation. Thank god not everyone shares your inflated sense of negativity. |
Originally Posted by Jimlad1
(Post 10175191)
https://thinpinstripedline.********....hes-story.html - Fairly comprehensive rebuttal of silly story.
Too many inconvenient facts, Jim. You’ll overload ORAC’s circuits, not to mention his false preconceptions and sensibilities. Good to see some sensible, well-informed comments, too. |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10175205)
…So so rather thanseeing of a rebuttal of the story as printed, I see it more as a defensive rebuttal of the reason given for cancellation. Cancellation of what? As even you must have hoisted in by now, this fantasy event was only ever a figment of the Daily Fail’s fertile imagination and was never on the cards in the first place. |
Ladies & gentlemen
Can you slug this out by private message please? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:34. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.