>>In no particular order....
>>*They want their own design, not someone else's
>>*They don't want to go to the expense of adapting the ships to RN
>> standards (in terms of combat systems, logistic, living accomodations,
>> etc.)

>That is, they can't work out which combat systems to take out to make
>room for the bars.

>Meanwhile, the UK's partners in Project Horizon would be happy with a
>single-shot(at a time) system. After the Falklands reminder, the RN is
>quite keen on shooting down all attacking aircraft or missiles, not just
>the first in the queue. So, the UK wants the best of both worlds. Why
>not?

>Chris Manteuffel <foxba...@aol.com> wrote:
>[Loads of snip]
>>Two reasons: one, Horizon probably won't reach the level of AEGIS, let
>>alone the standards the RN brass established, and two, what is this about
>>only shooting down the first in the queue? AFAIK, AEGIS uses its computer
>>systme to prioritze targets as threats,

>[snip of advertising puff for Aegis]

>Read the words. The single-shot comments by me were a criticism NOT of
>AEGIS but of the European requirements. I REPEAT:

>AEGIS is excellent in open waters - particularly because it can deal with
>multiple threats. The European nations are far more concerned about
>confined waters, which AEGIS is not so hot on. The only navy to have
>fought a naval campaign in this generation, the RN, knows that it needs
>both multiple threat capability, like AEGIS, and littoral/enclosed
>waters capability.

>Because the last message was a little short and it may not have sounded a
>little convincing I'm going to give out a little more information. About
>this what I'm about to say only the Astronauts would know this and before I
>go on I want you to know,I came up with this but I could be wrong. About

> Its main advantage against the sea harrier is that it will have real air
> to sea capability. I think the rafale will be in term of performance wery
> close to the f18e/f (same generation of electronics motors and weapon).

> In article <5tskb2$...@gcsin3.geccs.gecm.com>,
>         martin.sincl...@gecm.com (Martin Sinclair) writes:

> > No, it's so you can draw pictures of planes with turrets _all_ over
> > it, and shout dagga-dagga-dagga, while drawing lines out from the guns.

> ROTFL!!

> This reminds me when I was a young boy and used to draw pictures
> like that. Only I couldn't draw (I still can't) very well and those
> pictures didn't look so nice...

> > No ! Your enemy will build his radial engined superfighters with
> > wing mounted radar guided M61 Vulcans and 30mm Avenger cannon, and they
> > will fire lots of HARMs at your planes (cue more exciting drawings)

> Or perhaps they could build a radar controlled 16 inch AA gun that
> would fire proximity fused shells? And make them rocket assisted too for
> longer range.

> > By this argument, why do AC-130s get shot down ?

> Because they do not have enough armor?

> >>If, despite all this, the enemy hits one of your bombers, it can take
> >>the hit and keep on going towards the target. This is why the Stuka
> >>and Japanese planes fell from the sky in great numbers once the enemy
> >>had aquired decent fighters, since they couldn't take much battle
> >>damage before it was Pancake City time.

> > Someone else can debunk this bit.

> The problem with the Stuka was that it was very slow. The later models
> did have more armor, especially the Ju-87G "Kanonenvogel", which was a
> specialized anti-tank aircraft. But despite more powerful engines in
> the later models the Stuka was always too slow.

> The Zero (and the Ki-43) was also too slow. The lack of armor WAS a
> problem, but lack of speed, especially diving speed, was the biggest
> problem with the early Japanese fighters. Light armament was also a problem
> for the Army fighters.

> Tero P. Mustalahti

>On 30 Aug 1997 23:43:42 GMT, termu...@strangelove.yok.utu.fi (Tero P.
>Mustalahti) wrote:

>>In article <5tskb2$...@gcsin3.geccs.gecm.com>,
>>       martin.sincl...@gecm.com (Martin Sinclair) writes:

>>> By this argument, why do AC-130s get shot down ?

>>Because they do not have enough armor?

>NO BECAUSE THEIR GUNS ARE TOO SMALL!

>>On 30 Aug 1997 23:43:42 GMT, termu...@strangelove.yok.utu.fi (Tero P.
>>Mustalahti) wrote:

>>>In article <5tskb2$...@gcsin3.geccs.gecm.com>,
>>>       martin.sincl...@gecm.com (Martin Sinclair) writes:

>>>> By this argument, why do AC-130s get shot down ?

>>>Because they do not have enough armor?

>>NO BECAUSE THEIR GUNS ARE TOO SMALL!

:-)

>You're right - the 40mm guns (note the plural)

>..and the 105mm low-recoil gun....

>are _way_ too small. Then again, we _could_ move up to 120mm.
>With autoloader.

>As many Brits will smile at, it would

>  "..go like a belt-fed WOMBAT...

>Martin

>First of Foot, Right of the Line

> Paul J. Adam wrote:

> > Dave, whenever you escape from your cage we have to beat you back from
> > the torpedoes, you US Army types seem to think OTTO fuel is a palatable
> > beverage if you add enough powdered Kool-Aid ;)

> Paul:
> Having seen BritGrunts drink in Willie's at Bragg, I am a rank amateur.
> *G*  I presume the Course of Study at Sandhurst goes all the way to
> Boozing 602 (postgrad) for the swilling gifted.  I had never before seen
> people play to lose at quarters before...

> > Think we're wasting whiskey on tastebuds _that_ eroded?

> Yes, but that was the fault of the hot sauce on the MREs

> *really going to refill my glass with Lagavulin*

> Dave

> Hi there,
> I have a simple question to you.
> Is there anybody who can tell me the NATO-alphabet, you know alpha, bravo
> charlie and so on?
> Thank you