Look what I saw flying today!
 

Near Southampton, Hampshire, England.

:cool:

A majestic sight indeed.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/RAFconingsby/n...A12F5A3D359F12

Saw her last year at Cosford. It was a real shame they didn't get her fit in time for this year's Cosford show.
I used to watch Vulcans regularly at Woodford in the 60's and 70's, and seeing one fly again was a real tear jerker.
My Dad would've loved it.
And that intake howl!!! OMGG!!

Beautiful.

I showed a Vulcan and a (being reconstructed) Victor to my nephews at Duxford (during the BOB memorial airshow). They literally could not believe that this little country (the UK) could have engineered and built such a majestic aircraft (let alone 3 completely different aircraft, all designed for the same strategic purpose!).

Great video. So much has been lost!

Sad that the only reason it still flies is that some hobbyists put it back in the air. Not sad that that they did it, just sad that your MoD has let your country's defense fall to the sad state it is in.

Now it looks like your new aircraft carriers are going to get the axe, which of course means the end of the Royal Navy in a real sense, and the cancellation of the F 35 program for the RN, leaving you with no real naval single seater capable of competing on the world stage.

An island nation that is still a major player in the world economy, and in world politics, without their own viable naval air component, and hence, no ability to project power and defend your island in an increasingly troubled world.

Your politicians are as daft as ours are.

Glad that a great person had some spare Pounds in a sock...

I've seen and heard her at the Volkel airforce airshow. Sad that a lot of other vintage is already lost. Hope to meet up again soon.

Thanks for your concern for our great nation, but we also hope to cut back on invading countries illegally and getting involved with right wing foreign policy such as Israel and USA (bush administration). This means we can save some cash and rather than spending it on misery making machines of destruction we can hopefully try and do something creative that will benefit mankind. If we do achieve this who's going to want to attack us?

Someone sure hates the USA.

Me?, I dont hate anyone brother.

+1

I'm English and proud of past histories, (well, some of them) but the word 'Great' in 'Great Britain' should be replaced with the word 'Bland'.
I couldn't believe us retiring the Sea Harriers before any replacement was available so that the fleet has no airborne defence bar surface to air missiles.
However, we do have the Typhoon to counter a threat that no longer exists.
What would we do if Argentina decided it wanted the Falklands after all?
That little excursion to the South Atlantic simply wouldn't be viable.
Black Buck anyone?

The world is not the same as before
 

I’m with Tree on this one.

The Vulcan is an impressing piece of machinery but the overall conclusion should be: Thank heaven that we don’t live in a world that needs these weapons anymore!

Happy to say

Viking

We were lucky enough to see the Vulcan in company with the Red Arrows at our local airshow a couple of years ago. Although the weather was less than ideal, the RAF managed to put on an excellent low level display. The sight and sound of the big V banking around at 2,000 feet, with the scarlet Hawks echeloned either side in a perfect arrow head, was a sublime, not-to-be forgotten experience.

Airshows generate good revenue down here on the holiday coast of south-west England. I enjoy my annual fix of Merlin sound when the Memorial Flight comes to town! But I'm with Tree and Viking here, in that I would regret to return to the age when the V-bombers were on perpetual stand-by with their nuclear payloads.

B

nice plane, thx for posting it

it looks huge, never knew they were that big :) for some reason i had expected it to be more in the ballpark of an f-111

the modern day fighter standing between the the 2 old long range bombers looks tiny in comparison

The F111 is huge for an aircract with an 'F' designation, it can actually carry more weight of bombs than a Lancaster, and is almost as long if not longer (back in the 1970s I had models of both, the wingspan of the Lancaster was wider, but then it's wings weren't swept). The Vulcan was an earlier design than the F111, and it's bomb load was also lighter, though probably heavier than the Lancaster's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...F-111_Aardvark

Ah Tree, showing his usual naivete.

It's not about invading anyone, it's about the safety, security and well being of your own people.

You know, every time one of our nations drops it's guard like this, in an effort to show that they mean no ill will towards the world, a cold slap in the face usually follows.

Not every nation on this beautiful blue sphere is as good natured as either of our countries are Tree. There are those that will take advantage of any weakness shown.

Peace is not secured by laying down and letting the bad guys trample you. It is gained by making sure that the conditions for peace exist, that is by keeping the bad dogs at bay, so the good people can flourish.

I hope that you, and those in the rest of the Western civilized democratic nations come to understand this before it is too late, and our way of life is gone.

Peace.

You are crazy, disarmament always works. Countries are never attacked when they allow themselves to get weak militarily. The UN will take care of everything.

Now I am off to frolic in a field of flowers :).

Splitter

Hug a Tree for me whilst you're there!

The wooden kind that is!:grin:

The usual pathetic “we keep the world clean and free” speech from one of our brothers on the other side. Sorry but we don’t need it and we don’t want it and we most of all don’t buy it anymore!
Viking

How so?

Our president will not intervene.
Our military is spread too thin already.
We've told the Taliban and Al Qeada how long they have to hang on until we are gone from Afghanistan.
Our president just gave a victory speech for Iraq without using the word "victory".
We can't even secure our own borders.
We are about $13 Trillion USD in debt which is several degrees beyond broke.

We are one step behind Britain (heck, we just mimicked their healthcare system...). Ya'll are on your own anyway, just the way you wanted it. If something big happens we'll try to sit it out.

Splitter

I guess thats the way the Iranian people see it, they know that if they dont arm up soon then israel will probably try to have a piece of them as well. So i guess you have a point.

Saw a Vulcan many years ago at a local airshow. Very impressive. The pilot brought it down to just touch wheels on the runway, then hit full power and took her up again.

Think my ears have still to recover!

I remember Bush (#2) making a speech round about the time of the Iraq war (#2) when he said that we had to go to war in order to maintain (the) peace.

I thought that was BS then too.

edit: What a depressing way to hit the magic 100 mark
d165w3ll: apologies for the hijacking of your thread!

That's half the story. Peace comes by making yourself a bad choice of a target to attack, sure. Peace also comes by doing your best to not piss people off half way around the globe ;)

So, i agree with defence but disagree with the concept of power projection on a global scale no matter where it comes from. Power projection is just a politically correct term for "telling others how to run their countries".
Countries have borders and they are there for a reason, as long as people stay on their side of the fence or at least don't intervene without an explicit invitation by the landlord in question, things will be quieter and better for everyone.

It's not a "one or the other" deal, that's just a fake and forced dilemma presented to polarize discussions and make sweeping arguments possible. If someone criticizes application of military force, does that automatically make him a tree-hugging Taliban lover? If someone accepts the need for a strong military deterrent, does that automatically make him a fascist power-mongering world dictator? The answer is no on both, but unfortunately that's how humans discuss such matters, by polarizing everything so that they can suck in the critical bystanders who prefer to have a more balanced opinion :-P

There's a short joke story that illustrates this. Two friends, Jake and Mike, meet for a few beers and a chat one evening, after Mike has returned from the far east, where he studied various philosophies under an Asian master of the oriental culture.
"So Mike, what did you learn there?" asks Jake.
"First of all, i learned the application of reason and deductive thought by asking questions and evaluating the answers given" says Mike.

Jake: "What is this?"

Mike: "I'll give you an example to illustrate. You have an aquarium at your house right?"

J: "Yes i do"

M: "So you like fish and are fascinated by marine life in general?"

J: "Why of course."

M: "Then it's a safe bet to assume that you also like going on vacation to places with sunny beaches during summer, so that you can enjoy the sea, the sun and have a good swim."

J: "Definitely so."

M: " And when you go there, there are women in bathing suits or less that you can't help but check out, right?"

J: "Yes, of course, i'm scoping the ladies big time there."

M: "Then i can conclude that you are heterosexual"

Jake takes this newfound knowledge and goes off to impress anothe one of their buddies, Alex.

J: "Say Alex, Mike taught me the application of reason just as he was taught by a master of Asian philosophy, wanna see?"

A: "Sure, go ahead."

J: "You happen to have an aquarium at your place?"

A: "As a matter of fact i don't Jake."

J: "Too bad for you then, cause that makes you gay" :-P

(no offense to people of different sexual preferences by the way)

I bet Eries dosn't have an aquarium either. :grin::grin:



P.S Nice post Blackdog, but i couldn't resist an attack on Eries for once.

Last time I checked, the landmass that contains England, Wales and Scotland was still the largest island in the British Isles, so its geographically descriptive name 'Great Britain' still stands :-)

Agree. This is why Gulf 1 was justified (invasion of Kuwait).
Gulf 2 and Afghanistan are highly debatable. Having a military presence on both sides of Iran whilst removing Saddam with his 'weapons of mass destruction' and the Taliban as supporters of global fundamentalist terrorism? Or 'we don't like your religion, your politics, your customs, your monetary system or the fact that you have control of lots of oil and heroin, so have this!'?
Or all of the above?

It's also why I highlighted the defence of the Falklands as an example, which is incidentally the only time and place the Vulcan was used in anger, using conventional iron bombs and Shrike missiles to help liberate some British sheep farmers living on sovereign British territory, who'd been subjected to an aggressive military invasion by a right wing dictatorship.
Britain would be incapable of defending them now, with no long range bombers, not enough long range tankers that can refuel eachother, and no airborne defence of the fleet. We couldn't land any size of army without serious losses, if at all.
I don't wish for a return to the cold war stand-off either, but I do wish the country was capable of defending it's overseas posessions. As things are, we'd struggle to defend Bland Britain itself.:evil:

Yes yes I know, however it's called a play on words. If you're British you should understand this.:grin:

Study history, wars begin only because one side thinks they can prevail in the use of violence.

Peace is maintained through power.

Bravo! You get it. Nations get attacked when the other side, whoever it is, perceives a weakness....whatever that might be, That weakness can be lack of military strength, lack of economic strength, lack of security, lack of "will", etc..

Small nations can attack large nations in some way if they think the larger nation is unwilling to respond. Or if they can commit the attack without getting caught.

There were changes in US policy on terrorism since the Reagan years.

Reagan would send planes to blow you up, if some of your family got killed, eh. He was perceived as a "warmonger" and liable to do anything when provoked...it worked.

Bush I basically carried on the same mindset, but he wasn't seen as being as "crazy" as Reagan. He decided to not kill all the soldiers on the Highway of Death and not to continue on to Baghdad to take out the real cause of the first Gulf War. Reason? He didn't want to turn world opinion against the US. So, we had to go back and finish the job about a decade later.

Clinton decided that terrorism and attacks on US interests were going to be treated as a "legal issue". He passed on the opportunity to take out Osama. He failed to respond to the USS Cole bombing. You hit us, we might respond with a very measured response...if we feel like it. Our military was gutted and our troops under supplied. Human intel was cut back (expensive) in favor of electronic intel (cheaper). We were relaxed. This mind set lead to 9/11.

After 9/11, our stance changed. Terrorism was longer viewed as a legal matter, it was now viewed as an act of war. We would go after any organization that supported terrorists. We would go after any nation that gave them money or comfort. They didn't have to be directly tied to the act itself. It put the world on notice....if you poke the lion it might attack.

Now, with Barack Husein Obama (notice the name, race, and lineage of our current president when you accuse us of hate), we are back to the Clinton doctrine. We are trying to make nice with the world, even those who despise us. Any act of terrorism or attack on US assets (or threat) is seen as a legal matter. We are pulling troops out of Iraq and turning that country's security over to the Iraqi government...whether or not they remain free depends on how willing they are to fight for freedom because it doesn't come without a fight. We have set the date of July 2011 to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. All the terrorists have to do is wait it out and walk back in.

Yeah, I know, America is the Great Satan. I wonder how the women in Afghanistan are going to feel about going back to being property when we leave. But, after all, it's their country and they can run it how they see fit, right? That's just one example of course. I'm glad our critics think there is nothing wrong with stoning or denying women a vote (or driving a car or being seen in public).

I submit that there is evil in the world. And there is good. And there is gray....but not everything is gray. I say the radicals are evil.

One thing you all can be sure of: don't count on the US right now. If you are an ally...and I use that term loosely because we understand your dislike for us....you cannot count on our assistance if you need it and request it. We don't have it to give really and our leadership is trying to be seen as more "friendly" in the eyes of the world. So presently we have neither the means nor the will.

However, I am equally sure that we can't count on any other countries to come to our aid either, so it all works out. You all have neither the means nor the will either.

What could change our current mindset? Another 9/11. The anniversary is tomorrow, btw. Those that hate us can sit back, give a little laugh, and revel in their firm knowledge that "they brought it on themselves". Those that don't completely hate us should dig up some videos of people flinging themselves out of the World Trade Center for the express ride to the bottom floor rather than burn.

On this side of the Atlantic, many have forgotten that day and what led to it. Not all as you can tell, but many.

Splitter

Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. I wish I could believe you don't need to protect yourselves, but I don't. And if your country as a whole doesn't believe it, and you do have something sinister brought upon you, know that this brother on the other side of the pond will come to your aid regardless.

Peace, through eternal vigilence.

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery...

Woah, Splitter, we might be bland but we're still there.
The Brits might criticize some aspects of some Presidents' foreign policies but blanket 'dislike' is too much.
The expression '9/11' has entered into the British vocabulary and consciousness too, and I'm sure you're aware we usually date things day/month/year.
It ain't just the US me ole mate!
The reports of multiple British deaths from either Iraq or Afghanistan are weekly, and whether a continued occupation would reduce the likelihood of a repetition of that event or similar is unknowable.
But we do know that the pullout from both places is obviously down to economics rather than moral, political or defence obligations. Neither the UK nor the US can afford it anymore.
Whether events of terrorism escalate when we pull out only time will tell.
Respect,
Dutch

Obama already stated publicly he thinks Argentina deserves the Falklands......

He's entitled to his opinion, but it's none of his fizzing business.
The Falklands remain British sovereign territory.

Has he? Frankly, I'd be surprised if he gave an opinion one war or another.

Or is this something invented by the 'Obama is a Moslem' crowd?

And can anyone explain how a thread about Vulcans ended up being hijacked yet again by the NeoCon 'we can save the world from tyranny' bunch? Are they so insecure that they can't look at an internet forum without spouting their revisionist gloop? Tiresome...

“We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality,” a State Department spokesman told The Times. “The US recognizes de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.”

Hilary Clinton, our secretary of state, has said Argentina and Britain should sit down and negotiate the fate of the Falklands. And the Obama administration refused to back Britain at the UN regarding the Falklands. An assistant Secretary of State prefers to call the islands the "Malvinas".

So...ya'll might just lose the islands through a UN resolution. No fighting required unless you buck the UN.

This stance by the administration is probably an attempt to curry favor with Central and South American countries. Throwing an ally with whom we are supposed to have a 'special relationship" under the bus? Sure, but we want the world to like us now.

You can't count on the US unless things change over here. Our enemies know this and our allies are figuring it out.

Dutch: I know it's not everyone. There are still realistic people scattered throughout the world lol. But then again, there are a bunch of people in the world who like seeing the US get a black eye. Many quietly snickered after 9/11 and believe that this nation brought those attacks on itself. Heck, there is even a group of people here that believe the attacks were perpetrated by the US government (cause Bush was so evil).

While we as a nation are sometimes misguided, we are not an evil people....so those attitudes are frustrating. Really, all we hear about is how unpopular the US is around the world.

BTW, I have no doubt about the "fight" that lays beneath the British facades. That same resilience that brought you all through the Battle of Britain is still there, just lying dormant ;).

Splitter

I would agree if you had said "through responsible use of power". Because otherwise, the peace that's good for me might be humiliating to you and when that happens and you have nothing to lose, you'll probably take up arms against me in ways that might be detrimental to you, but also hard for me to comprehend, analyze and counter. That's the main reason why the people in black PJs and flip-flops won in Vietnam, they didn't really have much to fear they would lose if they wouldn't back down, so they didn't.

The guy living the better life is the guy who has the most to fear. ;)

As for counting on allies or disappointing them, my country has been on the allied camp through WWI, the Crimean landings against the Soviet revolution, WWII, a civil war, Korea (these last three as so close together in history that you can see we had some people fighting pretty much from 1940 until 1953) and all through the cold war.

As a reward for our loyalty we've been dealt a bad hand by allies as early as the 1920s and kept being dealt so up until today. I realize what you say about weakness provoking attack, because it's this weakness that has been brought upon my country by "allied" nations urging us to exercise caution and "coolness", back down from sovereign rights that are granted to all countries under international law, loaning us money that will supposedly save our economy but in essence making them profit and so on, while at the same time having to buy their weapons as a detterent to the problems they are co-responsible for creating, going in debt as a result and getting tossed to the international loan-sharks piecemeal.

We are expected to tow the party line and bleed for the cause, but neither the cause nor the reaping of rewards is ours. In fact it has gone so far that even what is ours by law is not ours anymore or will not be soon enough, all at the instigation of "friends" and "allies" and as the saying goes, with friends like that who needs enemies.

You don't have Iraqi or Afghani aircraft overflying inhabitted areas of your country daily while carrying a full combat load, nor do you have an "allied" but stronger nation telling you how to go about dealing with it. Well, we do have exactly that, it's just not Iraqi/Afghan aircraft but "allied" ones and the threat is daily, immediate and at a bomb's gliding distance from many people's homes. So, excuse me if i see the reaction of such a huge country as disproportionate to the threat, when the last time their mainland was ravaged by war was probably during the time of Abraham Lincoln and yet they spend all their time telling us how its best for us not to defend ourselves. :-P

I don't know about Europe at large, but where i come from people don't just "hate the US" out of dogma. They just don't trust the US to tell us the truth anymore since the 70s, that's all. In a sense, we don't dread the time the US will abandon us but rather long for the time they will stop telling us how to do stuff, because the mild mannered would say they have already abandoned us 40 years ago and the not-so-polite would bluntly declare they are just using us or being downright hostile, even if covertly so.

EDIT: I think i should stay away from topics discussing politics from now on, i get sucked in way too easily and end up posting more in them than in the update threads :-P

So why are you then interested in a game (SOW) that depicts "misery making machines of destruction"? Wouldn't a game like Farmville be more to your liking? :-P

Yeah thats right LukeFF, hey u should go into comedy, you are a really funny guy, all your posts are so laughable!! :grin::grin::grin::grin:

The neutrality issue is no different to the attitude in the 80's so fair enough, although we did get some badly needed sidewinders from the US.

As to resilience, I'm not so sure.
Maybe its dormancy is what I find so bloody frustrating.

Well, if I recall correctly, Reagan provided logistical and transport support during the Falklands war and the US has ALWAYS backed Britain's stance that they hold sovereignty over the Falklands. There has been no question where the US stood on the issue until the Obama administration.

I could see such a change in public position if the administration wanted to send a hard message to Britain for Britain not backing the US on something. Even allies throw diplomatic shots across each other's bows once in a while. Doesn't seem to be the case here though. Of course, we have no idea what is going on between the two countries in diplomatic back channels.

Yeah, Dutch, you all will still fight....we see your soccer games :).

Splitter

EDIT: If I recall correctly, the Falklands had the West's last bayonet charge until British troops did it AGAIN in Iraq. That's guts. I think I would rather be in a firefight than square off in a bayonet fight.

And did you see the one where Germany beat us 4-1 and we played like a bunch of whining schoolgirls? Disallowed goal or not?
Hmmph.
Bunch of overpaid popstar wimps. With an Italian manager who doesn't speak English.
Hmmph.
And Hmmph again.:-x

Ended with football. Alls well that ends well!
 

To me this pretty much concludes this discussion.
Today we exchange information and ideas over the internet and it is virtually impossible to fool us once more to let the V-bombers fly in anger again .
We have different views on many things but never forget that there is a lot more that unites us than divides us.

Viking

Still very happy to see the relics of former war mongers flying only on the internet or in air-shows.

Well, I meant the fights in the stands :). You all should send some of the soccer fans to enforce your foreign policies. My number one gripe about soccer is the diving. Guys falling down, writhing on the ground, holding their ankle just to get a penalty kick. Once the referee makes the call they miraculously recover and pop right back up. I actually like watching a good soccer game though...too bad we don't have that over here lol.

Today is a HUGE day in the US as it is opening Sunday for professional American football...where large men wear pads and helmets and try to hurt one another while adhering to the largest rule book for a field sport. Oh yeah, baby!

The heart of any American football team are the men on the "lines" fighting in the "trenches". Quarterbacks, otherwise known as the "field general", penetrate the opposing defense with bullet passes and deep bombs. Every good team also needs a running attack to bludgeon the defense. The worst penalty a player can commit is a "personal foul". No metric crap either, it's a game of inches where players strive to gain just one more yard. If the game is tied at the end of regulation, we go into "sudden death".

So American, yes? lol. (tip of the cap to the great George Carlin)

That's why we have to call what you all play "soccer" and what we play "football". Calling them both football just gets too confusing for our colonial minds :).

Splitter

I would dare to say RAF is getting every day more like the USAF.
I believe there aren´t more than 2 british made aircrraft types being used by RAF.

Back on message
 

Hi Kendo, that's ok, at least you referred to the Vulcan, so back on topic. ;)

We have been doubly lucky. The Battle of Britain flight (Spitfire and Hurricane) flew directly over our garden last weekend at I would guess 300 feet.

D165w3ll

LOL I'm sure someone said something close to that just before Hitler came to power. But we will never know for sure because they all died shortly after.

LMAO!!!!!!!!:grin::grin::grin:

I think Farmville is probably gonna upset tree.. I mean there's mass genocide of all sorts of plants, it'd be like watching all his close relatives getting butchered everytime he played it. All that pointy sharp edged farm machinery designed to mutilate his fellow plant-bretheren.. Shocking. Don't even get me started on the cabbage extraction machine, it's inhumane.

lol, you guys.....:grin::grin:

Football / Vulcan
 

Ah yes, but we also have Rugby football of course, where men are men and mud is thick. A gumshield and jockstrap only. Very physical.
We also invented this sport, then taught it to various nations who now kick our collective arses on a regular basis. See a pattern here?
Then there's cricket.....

Anyway, back to topic - I have the Vulcan add-on for 'another flight sim' - ok FSX, and the thing is horrible to fly.
I'm continually either overspeeding or stalling out of the sky. It's impossible to trim out straight and level. The view out is appallingly restrictive, even with TrackIR and 6DOF. Landing it is a nightmare.
If the modelling is reasonably accurate, the blokes who flew these things in the dirt during the 'Red Flag' excercises were superhuman.
Does anyone else have any experience of this?
Or any tips?
Cheers

*he-hem* I saw this aircraft (or certainly a Vulcan, anyway) fly over in my parents' house in Teesside a few days ago. :)

What is the message here?
 

On wiki I read this regarding the last airworthy Vulcan the XH558 :

“Being the sole airworthy Vulcan, the aircraft's airworthiness status was in peril as maintenance funding was in need before the end of February, 2010. At the last moment an anonymous benefactor presented £458,000 to the foundation, ensuring its airworthiness for both its 50th birthday and the prospect of a flight performance for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games Opening Ceremony in London."

I find it astonishing not to say in bad taste to fly this ancient weapon of mass destruction over the crowd of people from all parts of the world who have come together to compete and celebrate in peace.


Viking

Some weapons have a beauty that completely transcends any destructive nature they once had.
The Vulcan certainly falls into this category.

If you can't see it's beauty beyond it's former destructive capacity; open your eyes wider.

It would have to be that one, it's the only one flying!:grin:

That's what I thought! Incredible sound! Couldn't really grasp how big it was in flight though, you'd have to stand next to it, I think.

If you go down to RAF Cosford Museum, they have a new 'Cold War' hangar.
You can stand under the bombbay and watch a video of a 1960's scramble.
The video screen is mounted on the Bombbay bulkhead.
Awesome. I'd upload a photo but I don't know how!:confused::(
Here's a link;
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford/

Is this how it's done?:confused:

Eureka!!

Hahah!
Obviously you are young and it will pass or you are ignorant and it is a lot worse!

See you

Viking

I would differ on you here.

World conflicts are ever increasing since the fear of global nuclear war is gone.

Sure armed UAV's can pick off small groups of enemy, but when it comes to taking out armies, you cannot beat a large aircraft.

Unfortunately, the world is full of fanatics, and every once in a while a fanatic becomes too powerful and we all suffer.

'Weapon of Mass Destruction'.
1.7 million to 2 million Axis and Soviet casualties occured at Stalingrad, and it didn't end the War.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki totalled 200,000 casualties and ended the war.
No global conflict since.
Which is more of a 'weapon of mass destruction'?
The bullets and artillery shells of Stalingrad, or the nuclear weapons encumbent since?
The only real 'weapon of mass destruction' is the human being, not the hardware.
However some of the most aesthetically appealing and record achieving feats of mechanical engineering were designed for warfare, such as the Spitfire and in my view the Vulcan.
They can be appreciated for this without considering what they were designed for.
Just my opinion.

Full of lunatics? You bett!
 

Honestly, I would rather refrain from answering but since Im here now: How have you “suffered” in the last deccade? Say in the last Iraque War that have killed aprox 1 million Iraques? Or how mutch did you "suffer" in the Vietnam War that killed aprox 3 million? We can go back or forward in time, or south and east, north and south to add to the total by millions but I will rest my case here.

Viking

Angels advocate? ;)

What is your opinion of people in the armor of knights with lance on a horse of King Arthur legend paraded though the stadium?

What about HMS Victory, or a model of, was also showcased?

what about the Lancaster of BBMF fly over?

Ah, I understand. The nightmare to those who survived, and yes, I agree that it is mean to open old wounds...

Unfortunately it is the nature of man to do incredibly cruel things to each other for all manner of reasons (and not just intentional! We build houses in the path of destruction). Evil will happen, people will be hurt (physically and emotionally), but we have to move on and live. The only hope we have is to tell the future to avoid their mistakes.

The Vulcan is the perfect messenger. It is a beautiful and awesome aircraft, but that angel also trumpets a message of destruction to those who dare to hurt peaceful people, and is a VISUAL reminder not to allow the mistakes of the past repeats themselves.

Just a side note:
Did the Vulcan ever directly kill someone? Best I recall it was only a tanker during the Falklands war.

I see that you, very conveniently, have put yourself on the “peaceful” side. A view not necessary shared by all.

But now back on topic: During the Malvinas conflict the Vulcan's bombed the Argentinian airfield, if anyone died I don't know but I guess that was the intention. The tankers you refer to where the Victor bombers/tankers.

Viking

Wasn't it the airfield in Falkland?

World Factbook; 'Although first sighted by an English navigator in 1592, the first landing (English) did not occur until almost a century later in 1690, and the first settlement (French) was not established until 1764. The colony was turned over to Spain two years later and the islands have since been the subject of a territorial dispute, first between Britain and Spain, then between Britain and Argentina. The UK asserted its claim to the islands by establishing a naval garrison there in 1833. Argentina invaded the islands on 2 April 1982. The British responded with an expeditionary force that landed seven weeks later and after fierce fighting forced an Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982.'

Except for the weeks Falkland was occupied, Argentinia has never held Falklands, Argentinia got their independence from Spain in 1816.

Yes, held and claimed by the Argentinians at that time.

Viking

During the Falklands conflict, the Vulcans bombed the runway at Stanley Airport in order that Argentinian fast jets could not use it. Then they used Shrike missiles to take out radar facilities.
The Victor's sole purpose was as a tanker by this time.

Ah, thats right. The Victor's where used to refuel the Vulcan's, who took off from UK.

Reading up on the situation regarding the five attacks on Port Stanley during “Thatchers War” I find that the Argentinians state that two where killed and two injured. And one hole in the runway, easily patched up the next day.

So that is the final score for this war-bird. Not sure whether that is a success or a failure for the UK taxpayers money.

Viking

Long Mission
 

The Vulcans and Victors first flew from RAF stations in the UK (Marham and Waddington I think) to Ascension Island's Wideawake Airfield, midway between Brazil and Congo in the Mid Atlantic.
The 'Black Buck' missions were launched from there.
It took eleven Victor Tankers to get one Vulcan from Ascension Island to the Falklands.
In the first mission, only one 500kg bomb hit the runway, but it was enough to prevent it being used by Argentina's fast jets.
That's a lot of fuel and aircraft to get one bomb on a runway!
Thankfully, the US helped in providing the UK with fuel and other logistics.
The book 'Vulcan 607' by Rowland White, published by Corgi, is excellent.

Viking, you lack a long term global perspective.

You cherry pick your facts to suit your personal agenda.

Would you be happier in a Russian Communist dominated Europe?

Would you even be able to post on a site like this.

Think man.

Ah yes, but the fact that Argentina realised that the bombers could get there had a huge psychological impact on the occupying forces.
Also, Argentina realised that their Homeland was within range, and redeployed their air defence fighters to Northern Argentina, to defend against an attack which never took place.
This meant that the UK's carrier based air defence fighters could take on the Argentinian strike aircraft without worrying too much about enemy fighters.
You have to see the bigger picture in this respect.
The damage by the bomb itself did prevent use by fast jets, the repair was inadequate and one transport aircraft almost crashed on take-off as the repair kept subsiding.
It's a fascinating story, whichever side of the fence you're inclined to sit on.;)

Happier?
 

1 No! I dont!
2 No! The facts sutch as.....? Please explain.
3 Yes! Over a US dominated EU. Sure!
4 Yes! Whitout doubt.
5 I am! I dont think you are!

No regards

Viking

Here we goo!
 

”Also, Argentina realised that their Homeland was within range, and redeployed their air defence fighters to Northern Argentina, to defend against an attack which never took place.”


This is contradicted in the official text easily found in Wikipedia that states “

Argentine sources were originally the source of claims that the Vulcan raids influenced Argentina to withdraw some of its Mirage IIIs from Southern Argentina to the Buenos Aires Defence Zone.[26][27][28] This dissuasive effect was however watered down when British officials made clear that there would be no strikes on air bases in Argentina.[29”

I wasn't there so I don't know!

There is no doubt in my mind that the whole war was a sideshow from the junta to keep going for a few years more. But....what the h@ck is GB doing with an island this far far from the home land? Smacks of imperialism if you ask me! But off course you wont do that! ;)

Viking

That doesn't contradict what I said at all!!:grin:
If you check the statistics of how many Argentinian aircraft were downed, and how many Sea Harriers were lost, it's fairly obvious that Argentina's Air Defence fighters weren't there much!

I agree with the 'sideshow' issue though. Galtieri needed to up his popularity at home, and as it happens so did our then Prime Miinister, who's name I like to forget.
As to imperialism, well we did have the largest empire in the history of the world in the dim and distant past, so we're not immune from imperialist thought, but the population of the Falklands consider themselves British, and the British tend to defend themselves.;)

True Dutch!
 

True!
true and true!

The Falkland (Malvinas) nut will be a hard one for the future gens to crack.
They have allways been and will presumable alwas be Brits there ( who else will even consider living there? ;)) I think the whole situation will be defused and regulated by trade agrements regarding oil etc.

Hopfully yours

Viking

All's well that ends well!;)
And enjoy the rest of your holiday. Have a drink for me.
Cheers!

And this is the same person a while back who wanted to see Americans die tragically:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...11&postcount=2

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...24&postcount=4

:rolleyes:

Viking must be all of 16 and not fully aware.

Grow up son.

Ohhh Please!
 

This is your wake up call!

ElAurens wrote ”Would you even be able to post on a site like this.”.

Well, this is a Russian site, isn't it?

You are stuck in the wrong century! Seems to me that the world is changing but the Americans are not.

Btw I was born in 1951.

Viking

Well, there you go again, cherry picking my words, quite the sin of omission Viking.

You convieniently omitted the word "Communist" from your description of this site. I said "Russian Communist" site, which this clearly is not.

I run rings around you logically.

Don't bother posting a reply, as I'm no longer going to bother with you or this thread.

It's just too easy to trip you up. Not near enough of a challenge.

Peace.

Liberals are like sheep with really bad attitudes. Even while they are being led to slaughter by those they see as friends. They will blame the ones that are trying to warn them. Wars will always be a fact, they will not go away just because you know they are wrong. There will always be someone in power somewhere who wants more. Because there will always be sheep to say lets just try to understand them, we should not offend them. :confused: What is that saying? Men are from Mars , Woman are from Venus and liberals are from Uranus.

War, in the sense that the term is currently used (fighting against people you've never even met), is a relatively recent phenomenon. For most of our existence, we've managed well enough without, and even now there are may people, perhaps the majority, who have never experienced war, and never will. The claim that it is inevitable (or even a good thing) has historically been made by many on the right, to justify their own greed for power. This is a lie.

EDIT ---
And denying the humanity of your opponents is typical far-right tactics. Stick your war-mongering garbage where the sun doesn't shine, Hunden.

The problem is its hard to tell the difference between the good guy and the bad guy sometimes. So what are you suppose to do? I say arm yourself just in case.

LMAO You will always be a sheep and thats ok you just don't relize the Dogs of War are needed agaisnt the wolfs that will feed on you and your lilly white ass.

Hunden, if and when I'm threatened by wolves, I'd expect you to be somewhere in the pack. I'm no sheep (or liberal for that matter). I'm quite capable of defending myself from Fascists (and illiterates). And kindly keep your homoerotic fantasies for a more appropriate forum.

I'm pretty sure the wolfs came knocking 70 years ago and my Grand Father came to your Grand Daddys aid just like I would even tho you would spit in my face afterwards. Its just who you are.

This is the sort of moronic response I'd expect from you, Hunden. Seeing as this is the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain, can you please enlighten us as to what your Grand Father was doing at the time?

I see from your personal details that you claim to be a US Marine. Perhaps you should ask a few marines who served in WW II what they think of your warmongering rhetoric. I doubt you'd find many who would have much sympathy with it.

I never once said that I like War . All I have ever said is that you need to be prepared to defend youself. I notice that you hover in here, you log off but you still stay on the forum, then you log back on to respond. NO MARINE likes war, are you really that stupid, to think that anyone likes to go to WAR. Would you suggest that we have no standing army? Or would you rather we have a standing army with limited weapons so as to feel better about yourself? I'm done responding to you scumbag. You don't rate knowing anything about my family. or what we lost.

No you didn't. You suggested that those who disagreed with you were either 'sheep' or 'from Uranus'. I am prepared to defend myself. Sadly, it's people like you who are the threat.

I know nothing about what your family lost. You know nothing about my family. Neither of us have any right to wrap ourselves in flags dragged from the coffins of dead soldiers to push our personal political agendas. I don't. You do.

...

This thread should be changed to:” Look what I saw flying today, the past!”
 

I never tough that I would one day say that I agree with Herman Göring.

A good one Galway! Should be printed on the first page in every schoolbook on earth.

Regards
Viking

As far as I can recall, the US became actively involved in WW2 only after Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and Hitler declared war on the US.
This was in December 1941 and so was quite a significant length of time after the Battle of Britain.
There was a bit more to it than simply 'coming to our Grand Daddy's aid'.
After all, we'd been fighting since Sept 1939. The USAAF were involved from 1942.
Britain couldn't have mounted the D-Day invasion and subsequent Second Front in 1944 without the involvement of the US. Also the Materiel provided by lend-lease, and the loan of cash to fund the necessary war machine mostly came from the US.
Had the US not become involved, either financially or in actual participation, the prospect then was either that Germany would beat Russia, and all Europe would be Nazi, or Russia would beat Germany, and all Europe would be Communist. Stalin would have then been knocking at our door.
Horrible prospects either way.

BTW, can we please not get involved in such mud-slinging matches and personal attacks? Everyone's entitled to their views. Both Hunden and Andy I mean. Thanks.

Excuse me for using the first number that came to mind (70) but if you want to knit pick be my guest.

Hey Hunden, thank you for being a sheepdog, we need them.

I find it interesting that people in the military, or who have been in the military, tend to be more conservative. I am sure others would argue that "right wing warmongers" are drawn to military service. I am also sure that some would suggest that those in the military are brainwashed. My personal view is that they have just seen more and been made to grow up a bit more quickly. Churchill was right.

I recently helped out at a "wounded warriors shoot". One common thing that was said by the guys was that it was the first time in a long while that they could shoot without having someone shoot back at them :). I get all gooey when I start thinking about the sacrifices some have made so that many can live freely. So thank you.

But seriously my friend, don't get upset with the people on the far left. They have their own little view of the world whatever it might be. No cause that doesn't threaten them directly is good enough to go to war over. Peace through disarmament, etc..

Just keep using logic and avoid calling them the names that run through your head lol. Usually, the logic drives them to start calling you names...then you have won. .

Sheepdogs do their job and get fed for it. They rarely get s scritch behind the ears and the flock will seldom show any gratitude.

Splitter

Yep, Dutch, we were late for the first one, late for the second one, and will probably be late for the third one. I say third one because, if you will recall, the first one was to be the war that ended all wars :).

Americans often think that they won WWI and WWII. Especially WWII. We mainly see depictions of our own soldiers in movies and books so our view can get skewed. It's not arrogance, it's a lack of knowledge of history (our education system is the pits, especially in terms of history).

In looking back, it's apparent to me that either WW would not have been won without the US, but the US could not have won either war single handedly by a long shot. Both times we abandoned Europe to their own devices. Both times we were far from being "armed" enough to go to war in a serious way. Both times our troops and weapons were too few at the beginning but we were able to spool up our manufacturing (which we can't do anymore, btw).

It's important for Americans to realize that while they were absolutely needed, they were only a cog in the wheel of victory.

Splitter

The problem here is that no one wants to admit that us human beings are a murderous lot. War will always be the outcome of interactions between groups of murderous folks. If there are groups that would prefer to stick their heads in the sand, it's OK, there are plenty of us who are sworn to save your upturned asses.

Australia's F111s will soon be decomissioned! :( A trusty old workhorse with a long service life but never saw action.

He111.

:)

Always been fond of that A/C, there's a beautiful example at RAF Cosford Museum.
Always thought the UK should have bought some of them as well as Phantoms, when the TSR2 was cancelled.

Well, it is the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain, so maybe I'm a bit oversensitive!:)
No worries.

Splitter - Nicely balanced posts mate, cheers.