FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > £900,000 aeroplane painting
£900,000 aeroplane painting
Jump to: Newest in thread
Do you think that other countries feel intimidated by a military grey aircraft and will feel jollier with a pretty one arriving? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. " So it's working well in its original role still then and not lost its capabilities? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. So it's working well in its original role still then and not lost its capabilities? " Yes  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. So it's working well in its original role still then and not lost its capabilities? Yes "Shocking - who would have thought | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'This is literally "Boris bashing" for the sake of it. Would you rather our leader's travelled the world, visiting capital cities etc in a military colour scheme jet?! Would you like them to carry small arms just to show "we mean business"... should we have bought a brand new aircraft for this purpose? A shiny new Boeing? Maybe you'd prefer Boris traveled in a black cab, is that what you want? What do you doom mongers want? Do you want us to throw our arms into the air saying how sorry we are for being British! And we should know our place? Why do you want us to fail? "Oh, Boris turned up at the G8 in a military jet, what sort of message does that send?!" " Oh, Boris turned up at the G8 in a plane built by our old business partners, with our nation's flag on the tail, what sort of message does that send?!" "Oh, Boris turned up at the G8 in a Boeing , what sort of message does that send?!" "Oh, Boris turned up at the G8, why didn't he just a note apologising for us?" "Oh, Boris turned up at the G8 in a plane built in Britain. He's soo jingoistic". "Oh, Boris turned up at the G8 in a taxi, what a ridiculous little man".' Alternatively, after your little rant, we could have just retained the aircraft as it was, not spent money unnecessarily and allowed it to continue its dual use. Why do you object to that? What is the actual benefit of this paint scheme? A reason would be interesting. Changing the topic again would be boring
Do you think that other countries feel intimidated by a military grey aircraft and will feel jollier with a pretty one arriving? "I have a problem when a plane is painted at £900,000 when; 1. People are struggling to feed families, find decent accommodation etc. 2. When airlines can get a plane painted for hundreds of thousands less! THAT is my issue! Especially with all the other bollocks goung on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. " It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell me how giving the plane a paint job has diminished its military roll? Do you actually know what the plane is used for its not a painted fighter jet. "Again, why do you think that military air tankers are painted in grey radar absorbent paint? Hmmm. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You seem very upset by this plane OP? It’s a lovely looking plane by the by. "Nobody has really answered why this is worth spending £900,000 on. Apparently painting it in these colours will not make it any more visible in a military secenario. In which case...why spend so much money on a paint job? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You seem very upset by this plane OP? It’s a lovely looking plane by the by.
Nobody has really answered why this is worth spending £900,000 on.
Apparently painting it in these colours will not make it any more visible in a military secenario. In which case...why spend so much money on a paint job?"I agree it’s a lot of money for a seemingly run of the mill paint job. But I also think our Prime Minister should have access to a plane that befits the world stage. And as it has a dual role I can live with it. If Jeremy Corbyn had done the same I could see similar apoplexy occurring. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think?" Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You seem very upset by this plane OP? It’s a lovely looking plane by the by.
Nobody has really answered why this is worth spending £900,000 on.
Apparently painting it in these colours will not make it any more visible in a military secenario. In which case...why spend so much money on a paint job?
I agree it’s a lot of money for a seemingly run of the mill paint job.
But I also think our Prime Minister should have access to a plane that befits the world stage. And as it has a dual role I can live with it.
If Jeremy Corbyn had done the same I could see similar apoplexy occurring. "Indeed and if Labour sweep to victory at the next election Starmer gets to use it too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away" I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
I | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We still on this
I"Very much so 
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We still on this
I
Very much so
"So what's the crack now, folks still debating what should have happened with the reality of what actually happened. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness." Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away" Yes. Are you saying that it would not be? Really? You've gone down quite an interesting logic path | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others "I’m sure they will do the job in the same professional way, regardless of which aircraft they are assigned to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away Yes. Are you saying that it would not be? Really? You've gone down quite an interesting logic path "I'm saying the paint will not save it from enemy action. It may have some radar absorbing properties but it takes far more than that to make it undetectable,the shape for a start. So as its not undetectable it is at risk regardless of the colour | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others
I’m sure they will do the job in the same professional way, regardless of which aircraft they are assigned to. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others
I’m sure they will do the job in the same professional way, regardless of which aircraft they are assigned to. "I'm sure they will. I didn't question that did I? Are they at more or less risk? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away Yes. Are you saying that it would not be? Really? You've gone down quite an interesting logic path
I'm saying the paint will not save it from enemy action. It may have some radar absorbing properties but it takes far more than that to make it undetectable,the shape for a start. So as its not undetectable it is at risk regardless of the colour"Who said anything about making it "undetectable"? Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint? Will this aircraft be at more or later risk than one that is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away Yes. Are you saying that it would not be? Really? You've gone down quite an interesting logic path
I'm saying the paint will not save it from enemy action. It may have some radar absorbing properties but it takes far more than that to make it undetectable,the shape for a start. So as its not undetectable it is at risk regardless of the colour
Who said anything about making it "undetectable"?
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or later risk than one that is?"What I'm trying to say is these planes are highly vulnerable over a war zone hence why they stay on the outside. If up against a very early radar station they might have an effect but any even half decent station would have no problem detecting and therefore shooting it down. The shape of it alone makes it stand out. Just seen some photos of it- looks good and also apparently is used for the royalist sometimes so 3 roles | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away Yes. Are you saying that it would not be? Really? You've gone down quite an interesting logic path
I'm saying the paint will not save it from enemy action. It may have some radar absorbing properties but it takes far more than that to make it undetectable,the shape for a start. So as its not undetectable it is at risk regardless of the colour
Who said anything about making it "undetectable"?
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or later risk than one that is?
What I'm trying to say is these planes are highly vulnerable over a war zone hence why they stay on the outside. If up against a very early radar station they might have an effect but any even half decent station would have no problem detecting and therefore shooting it down. The shape of it alone makes it stand out. Just seen some photos of it- looks good and also apparently is used for the royalist sometimes so 3 roles"Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint? Will this aircraft be at more or less risk than one that is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away Yes. Are you saying that it would not be? Really? You've gone down quite an interesting logic path
I'm saying the paint will not save it from enemy action. It may have some radar absorbing properties but it takes far more than that to make it undetectable,the shape for a start. So as its not undetectable it is at risk regardless of the colour
Who said anything about making it "undetectable"?
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or later risk than one that is?
What I'm trying to say is these planes are highly vulnerable over a war zone hence why they stay on the outside. If up against a very early radar station they might have an effect but any even half decent station would have no problem detecting and therefore shooting it down. The shape of it alone makes it stand out. Just seen some photos of it- looks good and also apparently is used for the royalist sometimes so 3 roles
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or less risk than one that is?"M ate you are clutching at straws again do you really think that a coat of grey paint is goint to make a transport/refulling plane invisible to radar? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away Yes. Are you saying that it would not be? Really? You've gone down quite an interesting logic path
I'm saying the paint will not save it from enemy action. It may have some radar absorbing properties but it takes far more than that to make it undetectable,the shape for a start. So as its not undetectable it is at risk regardless of the colour
Who said anything about making it "undetectable"?
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or later risk than one that is?
What I'm trying to say is these planes are highly vulnerable over a war zone hence why they stay on the outside. If up against a very early radar station they might have an effect but any even half decent station would have no problem detecting and therefore shooting it down. The shape of it alone makes it stand out. Just seen some photos of it- looks good and also apparently is used for the royalist sometimes so 3 roles
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or less risk than one that is?"In my opinion it would make no difference whatsoever. Is sheer size and shape will make it stand out. RAF Twitter account says the paint only improves stealth nothing more. Unless completely stealth it makes no difference. If it can be detected which everyone admits it can it does not change anything. Being slightly less detectable still means shooting down especially with today's tech | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others
I’m sure they will do the job in the same professional way, regardless of which aircraft they are assigned to.
I'm sure they will.
I didn't question that did I? "Yes. " Are they at more or less risk?" You seem to be asking me to determine if the RAF have correctly certified the airplane fit for purpose in a military capacity, part of which may involve assessing a change in its ability to keep aircrew safe while operating it. Why do you think I, or you for that matter, have the appropriate qualifications to be able to do so. Are you suggesting we might know more than the RAF? I don’t . If you have technology / strategic information - which you think the RAF have missed and are risking the lives of aircrew by putting this airplane back in to service alongside the rest of the fleet - please share it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others
I’m sure they will do the job in the same professional way, regardless of which aircraft they are assigned to.
I'm sure they will.
I didn't question that did I?
Yes.
Are they at more or less risk?
You seem to be asking me to determine if the RAF have correctly certified the airplane fit for purpose in a military capacity, part of which may involve assessing a change in its ability to keep aircrew safe while operating it.
Why do you think I, or you for that matter, have the appropriate qualifications to be able to do so.
Are you suggesting we might know more than the RAF?
I don’t .
If you have technology / strategic information - which you think the RAF have missed and are risking the lives of aircrew by putting this airplane back in to service alongside the rest of the fleet - please share it."I directly quoted a former military transport pilot and defence analyst. How about you show me yours? I am saying that it can still carry out inflight refueling tasks but it is less likely that it will be used than the other aircraft in the fleet. Would you pick the red white and blue one? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away Yes. Are you saying that it would not be? Really? You've gone down quite an interesting logic path
I'm saying the paint will not save it from enemy action. It may have some radar absorbing properties but it takes far more than that to make it undetectable,the shape for a start. So as its not undetectable it is at risk regardless of the colour
Who said anything about making it "undetectable"?
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or later risk than one that is?
What I'm trying to say is these planes are highly vulnerable over a war zone hence why they stay on the outside. If up against a very early radar station they might have an effect but any even half decent station would have no problem detecting and therefore shooting it down. The shape of it alone makes it stand out. Just seen some photos of it- looks good and also apparently is used for the royalist sometimes so 3 roles
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or less risk than one that is?M ate you are clutching at straws again do you really think that a coat of grey paint is goint to make a transport/refulling plane invisible to radar?"You seem to be struggling to answer yet accuse me of "clutching at straws"
Once again, nothing whatsoever mentioned about being "invisible to radar".
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint? Is there a reason do you think?
Will this aircraft be at more or less risk than one that is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away Yes. Are you saying that it would not be? Really? You've gone down quite an interesting logic path
I'm saying the paint will not save it from enemy action. It may have some radar absorbing properties but it takes far more than that to make it undetectable,the shape for a start. So as its not undetectable it is at risk regardless of the colour
Who said anything about making it "undetectable"?
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or later risk than one that is?
What I'm trying to say is these planes are highly vulnerable over a war zone hence why they stay on the outside. If up against a very early radar station they might have an effect but any even half decent station would have no problem detecting and therefore shooting it down. The shape of it alone makes it stand out. Just seen some photos of it- looks good and also apparently is used for the royalist sometimes so 3 roles
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or less risk than one that is?
In my opinion it would make no difference whatsoever. Is sheer size and shape will make it stand out. RAF Twitter account says the paint only improves stealth nothing more. Unless completely stealth it makes no difference. If it can be detected which everyone admits it can it does not change anything. Being slightly less detectable still means shooting down especially with today's tech"Okay. Thank you for answering directly. They are painted as they are for no good reason whatsoever. Understood | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others
I’m sure they will do the job in the same professional way, regardless of which aircraft they are assigned to.
I'm sure they will.
I didn't question that did I?
Yes.
Are they at more or less risk?
You seem to be asking me to determine if the RAF have correctly certified the airplane fit for purpose in a military capacity, part of which may involve assessing a change in its ability to keep aircrew safe while operating it.
Why do you think I, or you for that matter, have the appropriate qualifications to be able to do so.
Are you suggesting we might know more than the RAF?
I don’t .
If you have technology / strategic information - which you think the RAF have missed and are risking the lives of aircrew by putting this airplane back in to service alongside the rest of the fleet - please share it.
I directly quoted a former military transport pilot and defence analyst.
How about you show me yours?
I am saying that it can still carry out inflight refueling tasks but it is less likely that it will be used than the other aircraft in the fleet.
Would you pick the red white and blue one?"So you, like me, don’t have the technological and strategic knowledge. You have found a quote from a former pilot and defence analyst . I have read the statement regarding the airplane and how it will be used from the MoD, RAF and the Air Commodore responsible for the project. Does your former military transport pilot and defence analyst think the RAF are putting the lives of air crew at risk by sending them up in an aircraft not painted grey? Have the RAF said it is less likely to be used than other aircraft in the fleet due to its paint job? These are more pertinent questions than whether I would fly a white painted airplane with a Union Jack painted on the tail . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away Yes. Are you saying that it would not be? Really? You've gone down quite an interesting logic path
I'm saying the paint will not save it from enemy action. It may have some radar absorbing properties but it takes far more than that to make it undetectable,the shape for a start. So as its not undetectable it is at risk regardless of the colour
Who said anything about making it "undetectable"?
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or later risk than one that is?
What I'm trying to say is these planes are highly vulnerable over a war zone hence why they stay on the outside. If up against a very early radar station they might have an effect but any even half decent station would have no problem detecting and therefore shooting it down. The shape of it alone makes it stand out. Just seen some photos of it- looks good and also apparently is used for the royalist sometimes so 3 roles
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or less risk than one that is?
In my opinion it would make no difference whatsoever. Is sheer size and shape will make it stand out. RAF Twitter account says the paint only improves stealth nothing more. Unless completely stealth it makes no difference. If it can be detected which everyone admits it can it does not change anything. Being slightly less detectable still means shooting down especially with today's tech
Okay. Thank you for answering directly.
They are painted as they are for no good reason whatsoever.
Understood "The RAF say themself its only improves a bit. If this was 30 odd years ago then fine but its not and tech has moved on. You can paint it whatever colour you like it won't change the size and shape. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others
I’m sure they will do the job in the same professional way, regardless of which aircraft they are assigned to.
I'm sure they will.
I didn't question that did I?
Yes.
Are they at more or less risk?
You seem to be asking me to determine if the RAF have correctly certified the airplane fit for purpose in a military capacity, part of which may involve assessing a change in its ability to keep aircrew safe while operating it.
Why do you think I, or you for that matter, have the appropriate qualifications to be able to do so.
Are you suggesting we might know more than the RAF?
I don’t .
If you have technology / strategic information - which you think the RAF have missed and are risking the lives of aircrew by putting this airplane back in to service alongside the rest of the fleet - please share it.
I directly quoted a former military transport pilot and defence analyst.
How about you show me yours?
I am saying that it can still carry out inflight refueling tasks but it is less likely that it will be used than the other aircraft in the fleet.
Would you pick the red white and blue one?
So you, like me, don’t have the technological and strategic knowledge. You have found a quote from a former pilot and defence analyst . I have read the statement regarding the airplane and how it will be used from the MoD, RAF and the Air Commodore responsible for the project.
Does your former military transport pilot and defence analyst think the RAF are putting the lives of air crew at risk by sending them up in an aircraft not painted grey?
Have the RAF said it is less likely to be used than other aircraft in the fleet due to its paint job?
These are more pertinent questions than whether I would fly a white painted airplane with a Union Jack painted on the tail ."What do you think "reluctant to use it outside the most benign airspace" means? You have a post from a anti-aircraft missile operator that indicating much the same thing. Write the Air Commodore's quote not yours or a newspaper's interpretation of it. Then we can discuss its meaning more sensibly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, they won't be putting aircrew at risk. The more pertinent question is - could that money have been better spent elsewhere? Yes it could. If they really want to spend that money on the RAF then give the junior ranks a pay rise. Don't waste it on a penis extension. " I assume that they won't be putting the aircraft or aircrew at risk by avoiding placing it anywhere near any location that it could be. That makes it a less useful military asset. What existed before was a military aircraft used for some VIP duties. What exists now is a VIP aircraft capable of being used for military duties bit unlikely to be. I agree, nobody has even attempted to explain why this was a better use of tax payer money than almost everything else. Are we worried that foreign governments might not realise that the British Prime Minister or Queen has arrived? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, they won't be putting aircrew at risk. The more pertinent question is - could that money have been better spent elsewhere? Yes it could. If they really want to spend that money on the RAF then give the junior ranks a pay rise. Don't waste it on a penis extension. I assume that they won't be putting the aircraft or aircrew at risk by avoiding placing it anywhere near any location that it could be. That makes it a less useful military asset. What existed before was a military aircraft used for some VIP duties. What exists now is a VIP aircraft capable of being used for military duties bit unlikely to be. I agree, nobody has even attempted to explain why this was a better use of tax payer money than almost everything else. Are we worried that foreign governments might not realise that the British Prime Minister or Queen has arrived?" Well our 94 year old Queen is unlikely to arrive in many places any more, particularly in light of the global pandemic that might take a couple of years to eradicate. That means it's mostly going to be for Gove once he's replaced Johnson. Meanwhile yes, a viable RAF asset is now a bit less viable in it's primary role. But hey, it gives Rees Mogg a 19th century hardon so all good. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others
I’m sure they will do the job in the same professional way, regardless of which aircraft they are assigned to.
I'm sure they will.
I didn't question that did I?
Yes.
Are they at more or less risk?
You seem to be asking me to determine if the RAF have correctly certified the airplane fit for purpose in a military capacity, part of which may involve assessing a change in its ability to keep aircrew safe while operating it.
Why do you think I, or you for that matter, have the appropriate qualifications to be able to do so.
Are you suggesting we might know more than the RAF?
I don’t .
If you have technology / strategic information - which you think the RAF have missed and are risking the lives of aircrew by putting this airplane back in to service alongside the rest of the fleet - please share it.
I directly quoted a former military transport pilot and defence analyst.
How about you show me yours?
I am saying that it can still carry out inflight refueling tasks but it is less likely that it will be used than the other aircraft in the fleet.
Would you pick the red white and blue one?
So you, like me, don’t have the technological and strategic knowledge. You have found a quote from a former pilot and defence analyst . I have read the statement regarding the airplane and how it will be used from the MoD, RAF and the Air Commodore responsible for the project.
Does your former military transport pilot and defence analyst think the RAF are putting the lives of air crew at risk by sending them up in an aircraft not painted grey?
Have the RAF said it is less likely to be used than other aircraft in the fleet due to its paint job?
These are more pertinent questions than whether I would fly a white painted airplane with a Union Jack painted on the tail .
What do you think "reluctant to use it outside the most benign airspace" means?
You have a post from a anti-aircraft missile operator that indicating much the same thing.
Write the Air Commodore's quote not yours or a newspaper's interpretation of it. Then we can discuss its meaning more sensibly."Take a look at the articles about it in UKDefence Journal. Also this may be of interest: “The new livery looks superb but the reality is that flying this aircraft is no different to any of the other aircraft that make up the Voyager Force. It is capable of conducting the same essential Defence tasks, not least of which is the air-to-air refuelling role that allows us to deploy our Typhoon and Lightning aircraft to every corner of the globe.” Wing Commander Alistair Scott Officer Commanding 10 Squadron | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ive heard it said that the £900,000 includes maintenance and upgrades. Does anyone have any proof one way or the other?" Anyone? Even if it is just for the paint, it's still a damn site cheaper than a dedicated plane for government use. Who remembers the 'blair force one' debacle? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ive heard it said that the £900,000 includes maintenance and upgrades. Does anyone have any proof one way or the other? Anyone? Even if it is just for the paint, it's still a damn site cheaper than a dedicated plane for government use. Who remembers the 'blair force one' debacle?" I've seen it was for the design and the work. It was also a specified the design must in no way compromise its military role. Before this and started being used the government used to charter planes. This saves at least £775,000 per year. So not much over a year it pays for itself then pure savings | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's money that didn't have to be spent. It's no different to buying a 4k TV when your roof needs fixing. Only right now the whole roof is missing. " I suspect its an image thing as several major countries have planes built just for government use like macaron and merkel but their plane's do not have multiple roles. At £775k saving a year it seems ok. Someone mentioned Blair's air force one. Whatever happened to it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away Yes. Are you saying that it would not be? Really? You've gone down quite an interesting logic path
I'm saying the paint will not save it from enemy action. It may have some radar absorbing properties but it takes far more than that to make it undetectable,the shape for a start. So as its not undetectable it is at risk regardless of the colour
Who said anything about making it "undetectable"?
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or later risk than one that is?
What I'm trying to say is these planes are highly vulnerable over a war zone hence why they stay on the outside. If up against a very early radar station they might have an effect but any even half decent station would have no problem detecting and therefore shooting it down. The shape of it alone makes it stand out. Just seen some photos of it- looks good and also apparently is used for the royalist sometimes so 3 roles
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or less risk than one that is?
In my opinion it would make no difference whatsoever. Is sheer size and shape will make it stand out. RAF Twitter account says the paint only improves stealth nothing more. Unless completely stealth it makes no difference. If it can be detected which everyone admits it can it does not change anything. Being slightly less detectable still means shooting down especially with today's tech"By the same token, camouflage battle dress does not make a soldier invisible, just makes him more difficult to see. Funnily enough, i couldn't see many of our soldiers being happy if they were told to go into battle wearing union flag uniforms, on the basis that "well you wouldn't be invisible anyway so what does it matter?". If someone might be pointing missiles at an aircraft it makes an enormous difference if it becomes twice as visible. I have no objection to the prime minister having a government aircraft, but i do object to the pretence that our defence has not been affected by this way of going about it. Our armed forces deserve better than this, deserve better than being put at increased risk just for the sake of vanity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away Yes. Are you saying that it would not be? Really? You've gone down quite an interesting logic path
I'm saying the paint will not save it from enemy action. It may have some radar absorbing properties but it takes far more than that to make it undetectable,the shape for a start. So as its not undetectable it is at risk regardless of the colour
Who said anything about making it "undetectable"?
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or later risk than one that is?
What I'm trying to say is these planes are highly vulnerable over a war zone hence why they stay on the outside. If up against a very early radar station they might have an effect but any even half decent station would have no problem detecting and therefore shooting it down. The shape of it alone makes it stand out. Just seen some photos of it- looks good and also apparently is used for the royalist sometimes so 3 roles
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or less risk than one that is?
In my opinion it would make no difference whatsoever. Is sheer size and shape will make it stand out. RAF Twitter account says the paint only improves stealth nothing more. Unless completely stealth it makes no difference. If it can be detected which everyone admits it can it does not change anything. Being slightly less detectable still means shooting down especially with today's tech
By the same token, camouflage battle dress does not make a soldier invisible, just makes him more difficult to see. Funnily enough, i couldn't see many of our soldiers being happy if they were told to go into battle wearing union flag uniforms, on the basis that "well you wouldn't be invisible anyway so what does it matter?". If someone might be pointing missiles at an aircraft it makes an enormous difference if it becomes twice as visible. I have no objection to the prime minister having a government aircraft, but i do object to the pretence that our defence has not been affected by this way of going about it. Our armed forces deserve better than this, deserve better than being put at increased risk just for the sake of vanity."It's not comparable as soldiers are not attacked by radar guided missiles. If they were they would have the same problems. Changing the paint colour makes virtually no difference as the plane is so large and the shape gives it away. Regardless of the paint colour its an easy target especially with today's anti aircraft systems. The plane does not need to be physically seen to shoot it down these days. Also as someone mentioned it is carrying out its military job. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away Yes. Are you saying that it would not be? Really? You've gone down quite an interesting logic path
I'm saying the paint will not save it from enemy action. It may have some radar absorbing properties but it takes far more than that to make it undetectable,the shape for a start. So as its not undetectable it is at risk regardless of the colour
Who said anything about making it "undetectable"?
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or later risk than one that is?
What I'm trying to say is these planes are highly vulnerable over a war zone hence why they stay on the outside. If up against a very early radar station they might have an effect but any even half decent station would have no problem detecting and therefore shooting it down. The shape of it alone makes it stand out. Just seen some photos of it- looks good and also apparently is used for the royalist sometimes so 3 roles
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or less risk than one that is?
In my opinion it would make no difference whatsoever. Is sheer size and shape will make it stand out. RAF Twitter account says the paint only improves stealth nothing more. Unless completely stealth it makes no difference. If it can be detected which everyone admits it can it does not change anything. Being slightly less detectable still means shooting down especially with today's tech
By the same token, camouflage battle dress does not make a soldier invisible, just makes him more difficult to see. Funnily enough, i couldn't see many of our soldiers being happy if they were told to go into battle wearing union flag uniforms, on the basis that "well you wouldn't be invisible anyway so what does it matter?". If someone might be pointing missiles at an aircraft it makes an enormous difference if it becomes twice as visible. I have no objection to the prime minister having a government aircraft, but i do object to the pretence that our defence has not been affected by this way of going about it. Our armed forces deserve better than this, deserve better than being put at increased risk just for the sake of vanity.
It's not comparable as soldiers are not attacked by radar guided missiles. If they were they would have the same problems. Changing the paint colour makes virtually no difference as the plane is so large and the shape gives it away. Regardless of the paint colour its an easy target especially with today's anti aircraft systems. The plane does not need to be physically seen to shoot it down these days. Also as someone mentioned it is carrying out its military job."Quantum radar is also being developed which means even radar invisible stealth planes could be detected. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's money that didn't have to be spent. It's no different to buying a 4k TV when your roof needs fixing. Only right now the whole roof is missing. I suspect its an image thing as several major countries have planes built just for government use like macaron and merkel but their plane's do not have multiple roles. At £775k saving a year it seems ok. Someone mentioned Blair's air force one. Whatever happened to it?" It never actually got the go ahead. Blair wanted 2 planes, a long haul and a small jet for local travel | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's money that didn't have to be spent. It's no different to buying a 4k TV when your roof needs fixing. Only right now the whole roof is missing. I suspect its an image thing as several major countries have planes built just for government use like macaron and merkel but their plane's do not have multiple roles. At £775k saving a year it seems ok. Someone mentioned Blair's air force one. Whatever happened to it? It never actually got the go ahead. Blair wanted 2 planes, a long haul and a small jet for local travel " Wow 2 planes Blair and 2 jags Prescott. Scary about that radar you mention. Hopefully it does not recognise grey lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away Yes. Are you saying that it would not be? Really? You've gone down quite an interesting logic path
I'm saying the paint will not save it from enemy action. It may have some radar absorbing properties but it takes far more than that to make it undetectable,the shape for a start. So as its not undetectable it is at risk regardless of the colour
Who said anything about making it "undetectable"?
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or later risk than one that is?
What I'm trying to say is these planes are highly vulnerable over a war zone hence why they stay on the outside. If up against a very early radar station they might have an effect but any even half decent station would have no problem detecting and therefore shooting it down. The shape of it alone makes it stand out. Just seen some photos of it- looks good and also apparently is used for the royalist sometimes so 3 roles
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or less risk than one that is?
In my opinion it would make no difference whatsoever. Is sheer size and shape will make it stand out. RAF Twitter account says the paint only improves stealth nothing more. Unless completely stealth it makes no difference. If it can be detected which everyone admits it can it does not change anything. Being slightly less detectable still means shooting down especially with today's tech
By the same token, camouflage battle dress does not make a soldier invisible, just makes him more difficult to see. Funnily enough, i couldn't see many of our soldiers being happy if they were told to go into battle wearing union flag uniforms, on the basis that "well you wouldn't be invisible anyway so what does it matter?". If someone might be pointing missiles at an aircraft it makes an enormous difference if it becomes twice as visible. I have no objection to the prime minister having a government aircraft, but i do object to the pretence that our defence has not been affected by this way of going about it. Our armed forces deserve better than this, deserve better than being put at increased risk just for the sake of vanity.
It's not comparable as soldiers are not attacked by radar guided missiles. If they were they would have the same problems. Changing the paint colour makes virtually no difference as the plane is so large and the shape gives it away. Regardless of the paint colour its an easy target especially with today's anti aircraft systems. The plane does not need to be physically seen to shoot it down these days. Also as someone mentioned it is carrying out its military job."It's nothing to do with colour. Does radar absorbent paint reduce the reflection from a plane, yes or no? (Hint, the clue is in the name "radar absorbent paint"). Does normal paint reflect more or less radar than radar absorbent paint? Is the aircraft now more or less visible to enemy radar? If you were in the armed forces and given a choice between flying on a plane with radar absorbent paint that was 20% less likely to be shot down, or an otherwise identical plane covered in a union flag that was 20% more likely to be shot down, which would you prefer to fly on? As i have said, if the PM wants a plane, and is happy with spending money on a plane when the country is at its greatest economic low for a century or so, then crack on. But don't pretend that somehow it hasn't cost anything, and it hasn't reduced the role that this aircraft could play in any forthcoming conflict. As someone said above, this was a military aircraft that was sometimes used for giving politicians a ride. It is now primarily a taxi for politicians, that will be less useful in a military role. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away Yes. Are you saying that it would not be? Really? You've gone down quite an interesting logic path
I'm saying the paint will not save it from enemy action. It may have some radar absorbing properties but it takes far more than that to make it undetectable,the shape for a start. So as its not undetectable it is at risk regardless of the colour
Who said anything about making it "undetectable"?
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or later risk than one that is?
What I'm trying to say is these planes are highly vulnerable over a war zone hence why they stay on the outside. If up against a very early radar station they might have an effect but any even half decent station would have no problem detecting and therefore shooting it down. The shape of it alone makes it stand out. Just seen some photos of it- looks good and also apparently is used for the royalist sometimes so 3 roles
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or less risk than one that is?
In my opinion it would make no difference whatsoever. Is sheer size and shape will make it stand out. RAF Twitter account says the paint only improves stealth nothing more. Unless completely stealth it makes no difference. If it can be detected which everyone admits it can it does not change anything. Being slightly less detectable still means shooting down especially with today's tech
By the same token, camouflage battle dress does not make a soldier invisible, just makes him more difficult to see. Funnily enough, i couldn't see many of our soldiers being happy if they were told to go into battle wearing union flag uniforms, on the basis that "well you wouldn't be invisible anyway so what does it matter?". If someone might be pointing missiles at an aircraft it makes an enormous difference if it becomes twice as visible. I have no objection to the prime minister having a government aircraft, but i do object to the pretence that our defence has not been affected by this way of going about it. Our armed forces deserve better than this, deserve better than being put at increased risk just for the sake of vanity.
It's not comparable as soldiers are not attacked by radar guided missiles. If they were they would have the same problems. Changing the paint colour makes virtually no difference as the plane is so large and the shape gives it away. Regardless of the paint colour its an easy target especially with today's anti aircraft systems. The plane does not need to be physically seen to shoot it down these days. Also as someone mentioned it is carrying out its military job.
It's nothing to do with colour. Does radar absorbent paint reduce the reflection from a plane, yes or no? (Hint, the clue is in the name "radar absorbent paint"). Does normal paint reflect more or less radar than radar absorbent paint? Is the aircraft now more or less visible to enemy radar? If you were in the armed forces and given a choice between flying on a plane with radar absorbent paint that was 20% less likely to be shot down, or an otherwise identical plane covered in a union flag that was 20% more likely to be shot down, which would you prefer to fly on?
As i have said, if the PM wants a plane, and is happy with spending money on a plane when the country is at its greatest economic low for a century or so, then crack on. But don't pretend that somehow it hasn't cost anything, and it hasn't reduced the role that this aircraft could play in any forthcoming conflict.
As someone said above, this was a military aircraft that was sometimes used for giving politicians a ride. It is now primarily a taxi for politicians, that will be less useful in a military role."Your missing the point which is even with the grey paint it is totally detectable and therefore easy to shoot down.if the tech today was the same as in WW2 you would have a point but its moved on since then. The RAF have used it after the paint job several times for its military purpose. They say this themselves or are you saying you know better than them. The plane is used for the military,the royal family and government. Interesting your posts seem similar to the OP | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few years ago I was a qualified anti-aircraft missile operator and it was a system that was operator controlled, requiring sight of the aircraft. That system is still in use today. If that plane flew within my arcs of fire then I could shoot it down. The RAF are not stupid though, they would not endanger an operational aircraft with a funky paintjob. It's probably not a plane that will be going anywhere like Syria in the near future. That £900,000 would still have fed a lot of kids over the school holidays though and that would have been a much better use of the money. " Then you will be well aware or the costs associated aircraft maintenance and munitions. What did it cost per projectile on your ground to air system? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away Yes. Are you saying that it would not be? Really? You've gone down quite an interesting logic path
I'm saying the paint will not save it from enemy action. It may have some radar absorbing properties but it takes far more than that to make it undetectable,the shape for a start. So as its not undetectable it is at risk regardless of the colour
Who said anything about making it "undetectable"?
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or later risk than one that is?
What I'm trying to say is these planes are highly vulnerable over a war zone hence why they stay on the outside. If up against a very early radar station they might have an effect but any even half decent station would have no problem detecting and therefore shooting it down. The shape of it alone makes it stand out. Just seen some photos of it- looks good and also apparently is used for the royalist sometimes so 3 roles
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or less risk than one that is?
In my opinion it would make no difference whatsoever. Is sheer size and shape will make it stand out. RAF Twitter account says the paint only improves stealth nothing more. Unless completely stealth it makes no difference. If it can be detected which everyone admits it can it does not change anything. Being slightly less detectable still means shooting down especially with today's tech
By the same token, camouflage battle dress does not make a soldier invisible, just makes him more difficult to see. Funnily enough, i couldn't see many of our soldiers being happy if they were told to go into battle wearing union flag uniforms, on the basis that "well you wouldn't be invisible anyway so what does it matter?". If someone might be pointing missiles at an aircraft it makes an enormous difference if it becomes twice as visible. I have no objection to the prime minister having a government aircraft, but i do object to the pretence that our defence has not been affected by this way of going about it. Our armed forces deserve better than this, deserve better than being put at increased risk just for the sake of vanity.
It's not comparable as soldiers are not attacked by radar guided missiles. If they were they would have the same problems. Changing the paint colour makes virtually no difference as the plane is so large and the shape gives it away. Regardless of the paint colour its an easy target especially with today's anti aircraft systems. The plane does not need to be physically seen to shoot it down these days. Also as someone mentioned it is carrying out its military job.
It's nothing to do with colour. Does radar absorbent paint reduce the reflection from a plane, yes or no? (Hint, the clue is in the name "radar absorbent paint"). Does normal paint reflect more or less radar than radar absorbent paint? Is the aircraft now more or less visible to enemy radar? If you were in the armed forces and given a choice between flying on a plane with radar absorbent paint that was 20% less likely to be shot down, or an otherwise identical plane covered in a union flag that was 20% more likely to be shot down, which would you prefer to fly on?
As i have said, if the PM wants a plane, and is happy with spending money on a plane when the country is at its greatest economic low for a century or so, then crack on. But don't pretend that somehow it hasn't cost anything, and it hasn't reduced the role that this aircraft could play in any forthcoming conflict.
As someone said above, this was a military aircraft that was sometimes used for giving politicians a ride. It is now primarily a taxi for politicians, that will be less useful in a military role.
Your missing the point which is even with the grey paint it is totally detectable and therefore easy to shoot down.if the tech today was the same as in WW2 you would have a point but its moved on since then. The RAF have used it after the paint job several times for its military purpose. They say this themselves or are you saying you know better than them. The plane is used for the military,the royal family and government.
Interesting your posts seem similar to the OP"Are you attempting to insinuate that i am just another account of the OP? I think that the 98 people that have verified me as real might disagree. I'm well known in the forum community for my intelligent analysis of social and political issues, and at social gatherings of forum users for my bright hair which can change colour several times during an evening. My background is in physics, mathematics and computing. Funnily enough, on this particular issue I do have some specialist experience. To the best of my knowledge i have never met the OP, and while we do often seem to come down on the same side of the fence in matters of politics and social justice, there is no personal connection between us whatsoever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone have any proof that the plane was originally painted with anti radar paint and not just standard, basic, light aircraft grey? " It won't be anti radar paint. It will be the standard anti glare matt paint that is used on most military aircraft and naval vessels. Im shure there will be a RAL number for it. Any RAF airframe techs willing to pipe in? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone have any proof that the plane was originally painted with anti radar paint and not just standard, basic, light aircraft grey? It won't be anti radar paint. It will be the standard anti glare matt paint that is used on most military aircraft and naval vessels. Im shure there will be a RAL number for it. Any RAF airframe techs willing to pipe in?" The reason i asked is because i have used light aircraft grey (BS831C /627) to paint airplane and helicopter parts for British aerospace. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"reading this lot think I will go and watch paint dry ",,,,,, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone have any proof that the plane was originally painted with anti radar paint and not just standard, basic, light aircraft grey? " Probably not and does not make one bit of difference anyway as it is a stupid way of trying to justify a position.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone have any proof that the plane was originally painted with anti radar paint and not just standard, basic, light aircraft grey? It won't be anti radar paint. It will be the standard anti glare matt paint that is used on most military aircraft and naval vessels. Im shure there will be a RAL number for it. Any RAF airframe techs willing to pipe in? The reason i asked is because i have used light aircraft grey (BS831C /627) to paint airplane and helicopter parts for British aerospace." Boom there you go | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others
I’m sure they will do the job in the same professional way, regardless of which aircraft they are assigned to.
I'm sure they will.
I didn't question that did I?
Yes.
Are they at more or less risk?
You seem to be asking me to determine if the RAF have correctly certified the airplane fit for purpose in a military capacity, part of which may involve assessing a change in its ability to keep aircrew safe while operating it.
Why do you think I, or you for that matter, have the appropriate qualifications to be able to do so.
Are you suggesting we might know more than the RAF?
I don’t .
If you have technology / strategic information - which you think the RAF have missed and are risking the lives of aircrew by putting this airplane back in to service alongside the rest of the fleet - please share it.
I directly quoted a former military transport pilot and defence analyst.
How about you show me yours?
I am saying that it can still carry out inflight refueling tasks but it is less likely that it will be used than the other aircraft in the fleet.
Would you pick the red white and blue one?
So you, like me, don’t have the technological and strategic knowledge. You have found a quote from a former pilot and defence analyst . I have read the statement regarding the airplane and how it will be used from the MoD, RAF and the Air Commodore responsible for the project.
Does your former military transport pilot and defence analyst think the RAF are putting the lives of air crew at risk by sending them up in an aircraft not painted grey?
Have the RAF said it is less likely to be used than other aircraft in the fleet due to its paint job?
These are more pertinent questions than whether I would fly a white painted airplane with a Union Jack painted on the tail .
What do you think "reluctant to use it outside the most benign airspace" means?
You have a post from a anti-aircraft missile operator that indicating much the same thing.
Write the Air Commodore's quote not yours or a newspaper's interpretation of it. Then we can discuss its meaning more sensibly.
Take a look at the articles about it in UKDefence Journal.
Also this may be of interest:
“The new livery looks superb but the reality is that flying this aircraft is no different to any of the other aircraft that make up the Voyager Force. It is capable of conducting the same essential Defence tasks, not least of which is the air-to-air refuelling role that allows us to deploy our Typhoon and Lightning aircraft to every corner of the globe.”
Wing Commander Alistair Scott
Officer Commanding 10 Squadron"It is "capable" of air to air refueling and it's handling qualities are the same. Not in question and that's all this statement says
There is a picture of this thing with the sun reflecting off it in formation as it refuels against the sky and the sea.
You are, as a group, hilarious in your insistence that there is no reason for the RAF painting aircraft the colour that they do.
Your insistence that an aircraft painted in bright colours will be deployed in exactly the same circumstances as one in a standard paint scheme is equally laughable.
This is now primarily a VIP aircraft but is being paid for by the Defence budget. Outright dishonesty for BoJo to get a toy but pretend that it is still a military aircraft.
None of you are able to indicate why this is a good way to spend £900,000 of tax payer money than on schools, hospitals or almost anything else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone have any proof that the plane was originally painted with anti radar paint and not just standard, basic, light aircraft grey? Probably not and does not make one bit of difference anyway as it is a stupid way of trying to justify a position. "Quite. It is amusing to see people think they have more knowledge and insight than the people involved in making the descision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away Yes. Are you saying that it would not be? Really? You've gone down quite an interesting logic path
I'm saying the paint will not save it from enemy action. It may have some radar absorbing properties but it takes far more than that to make it undetectable,the shape for a start. So as its not undetectable it is at risk regardless of the colour
Who said anything about making it "undetectable"?
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or later risk than one that is?
What I'm trying to say is these planes are highly vulnerable over a war zone hence why they stay on the outside. If up against a very early radar station they might have an effect but any even half decent station would have no problem detecting and therefore shooting it down. The shape of it alone makes it stand out. Just seen some photos of it- looks good and also apparently is used for the royalist sometimes so 3 roles
Why are they painted grey with radar absorbing paint?
Will this aircraft be at more or less risk than one that is?
In my opinion it would make no difference whatsoever. Is sheer size and shape will make it stand out. RAF Twitter account says the paint only improves stealth nothing more. Unless completely stealth it makes no difference. If it can be detected which everyone admits it can it does not change anything. Being slightly less detectable still means shooting down especially with today's tech
By the same token, camouflage battle dress does not make a soldier invisible, just makes him more difficult to see. Funnily enough, i couldn't see many of our soldiers being happy if they were told to go into battle wearing union flag uniforms, on the basis that "well you wouldn't be invisible anyway so what does it matter?". If someone might be pointing missiles at an aircraft it makes an enormous difference if it becomes twice as visible. I have no objection to the prime minister having a government aircraft, but i do object to the pretence that our defence has not been affected by this way of going about it. Our armed forces deserve better than this, deserve better than being put at increased risk just for the sake of vanity.
It's not comparable as soldiers are not attacked by radar guided missiles. If they were they would have the same problems. Changing the paint colour makes virtually no difference as the plane is so large and the shape gives it away. Regardless of the paint colour its an easy target especially with today's anti aircraft systems. The plane does not need to be physically seen to shoot it down these days. Also as someone mentioned it is carrying out its military job."Why are RAF aircraft painted the colour that they are using the paint that they do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone have any proof that the plane was originally painted with anti radar paint and not just standard, basic, light aircraft grey? Probably not and does not make one bit of difference anyway as it is a stupid way of trying to justify a position.
Quite. It is amusing to see people think they have more knowledge and insight than the people involved in making the descision. "Why are RAF aircraft painted the colour that they are using the paint that they do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone have any proof that the plane was originally painted with anti radar paint and not just standard, basic, light aircraft grey? It won't be anti radar paint. It will be the standard anti glare matt paint that is used on most military aircraft and naval vessels. Im shure there will be a RAL number for it. Any RAF airframe techs willing to pipe in? The reason i asked is because i have used light aircraft grey (BS831C /627) to paint airplane and helicopter parts for British aerospace. Boom there you go "Why are RAF aircraft painted the colour that they are using the paint that they do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone have any proof that the plane was originally painted with anti radar paint and not just standard, basic, light aircraft grey? Probably not and does not make one bit of difference anyway as it is a stupid way of trying to justify a position.
Quite. It is amusing to see people think they have more knowledge and insight than the people involved in making the descision.
Why are RAF aircraft painted the colour that they are using the paint that they do?"As it is more inconspicuous. If this is such an important point, why have the RAF allowed its colour to be changed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone have any proof that the plane was originally painted with anti radar paint and not just standard, basic, light aircraft grey? Probably not and does not make one bit of difference anyway as it is a stupid way of trying to justify a position.
Quite. It is amusing to see people think they have more knowledge and insight than the people involved in making the descision.
Why are RAF aircraft painted the colour that they are using the paint that they do?
As it is more inconspicuous.
If this is such an important point, why have the RAF allowed its colour to be changed? "Grey blends with both sky and sea. Nothing untoward about that. Not all RAF aircraft are painted grey. Not all airforces use grey. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
too funny.
Well at least I learnt a paint code. Wait till I drop that on my plane geek friend he will be impressed.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Easy is gonna have a heart attack! Lol
#VEXIPHOBIA
"Coming soon... representing the RAF across the world... the WORLD famous... GREY arrows! " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If this is gonna get soo many bed wetters knickers in a twist, i hope they change the colour of more aircraft! Easy is gonna have a heart attack! Lol
#VEXIPHOBIA
"Coming soon... representing the RAF across the world... the WORLD famous... GREY arrows! ""Lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'This is literally "Boris bashing" for the sake of it. Would you rather our leader's travelled the world, visiting capital cities etc in a military colour scheme jet?! Would you like them to carry small arms just to show "we mean business"... should we have bought a brand new aircraft for this purpose? A shiny new Boeing? Maybe you'd prefer Boris traveled in a black cab, is that what you want? What do you doom mongers want? Do you want us to throw our arms into the air saying how sorry we are for being British! And we should know our place? Why do you want us to fail? "Oh, Boris turned up at the G8 in a military jet, what sort of message does that send?!" " Oh, Boris turned up at the G8 in a plane built by our old business partners, with our nation's flag on the tail, what sort of message does that send?!" "Oh, Boris turned up at the G8 in a Boeing , what sort of message does that send?!" "Oh, Boris turned up at the G8, why didn't he just a note apologising for us?" "Oh, Boris turned up at the G8 in a plane built in Britain. He's soo jingoistic". "Oh, Boris turned up at the G8 in a taxi, what a ridiculous little man".' Alternatively, after your little rant, we could have just retained the aircraft as it was, not spent money unnecessarily and allowed it to continue its dual use. Why do you object to that? What is the actual benefit of this paint scheme? A reason would be interesting. Changing the topic again would be boring
Do you think that other countries feel intimidated by a military grey aircraft and will feel jollier with a pretty one arriving? "Love the fact you did this. Easy, i always thought i was living rent free in your head, and this thread is proof for all to see!! Jeez you're good value! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others
I’m sure they will do the job in the same professional way, regardless of which aircraft they are assigned to.
I'm sure they will.
I didn't question that did I?
Yes.
Are they at more or less risk?
You seem to be asking me to determine if the RAF have correctly certified the airplane fit for purpose in a military capacity, part of which may involve assessing a change in its ability to keep aircrew safe while operating it.
Why do you think I, or you for that matter, have the appropriate qualifications to be able to do so.
Are you suggesting we might know more than the RAF?
I don’t .
If you have technology / strategic information - which you think the RAF have missed and are risking the lives of aircrew by putting this airplane back in to service alongside the rest of the fleet - please share it.
I directly quoted a former military transport pilot and defence analyst.
How about you show me yours?
I am saying that it can still carry out inflight refueling tasks but it is less likely that it will be used than the other aircraft in the fleet.
Would you pick the red white and blue one?
So you, like me, don’t have the technological and strategic knowledge. You have found a quote from a former pilot and defence analyst . I have read the statement regarding the airplane and how it will be used from the MoD, RAF and the Air Commodore responsible for the project.
Does your former military transport pilot and defence analyst think the RAF are putting the lives of air crew at risk by sending them up in an aircraft not painted grey?
Have the RAF said it is less likely to be used than other aircraft in the fleet due to its paint job?
These are more pertinent questions than whether I would fly a white painted airplane with a Union Jack painted on the tail .
What do you think "reluctant to use it outside the most benign airspace" means?
You have a post from a anti-aircraft missile operator that indicating much the same thing.
Write the Air Commodore's quote not yours or a newspaper's interpretation of it. Then we can discuss its meaning more sensibly.
Take a look at the articles about it in UKDefence Journal.
Also this may be of interest:
“The new livery looks superb but the reality is that flying this aircraft is no different to any of the other aircraft that make up the Voyager Force. It is capable of conducting the same essential Defence tasks, not least of which is the air-to-air refuelling role that allows us to deploy our Typhoon and Lightning aircraft to every corner of the globe.”
Wing Commander Alistair Scott
Officer Commanding 10 Squadron
It is "capable" of air to air refueling and it's handling qualities are the same. Not in question and that's all this statement says
There is a picture of this thing with the sun reflecting off it in formation as it refuels against the sky and the sea.
You are, as a group, hilarious in your insistence that there is no reason for the RAF painting aircraft the colour that they do.
Your insistence that an aircraft painted in bright colours will be deployed in exactly the same circumstances as one in a standard paint scheme is equally laughable.
This is now primarily a VIP aircraft but is being paid for by the Defence budget. Outright dishonesty for BoJo to get a toy but pretend that it is still a military aircraft.
None of you are able to indicate why this is a good way to spend £900,000 of tax payer money than on schools, hospitals or almost anything else."The plane saves taxpayers almost the cost of this project every year. The £900,000 was not all spent on painting. It has been fitted with a new encripted communion system and i have also heard it said that it includes maintenance. Also, planes being repainted is part of the regular maintenance so would need doing anyway. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11915328/boris-johnson-jet-makeover-britain/ It could easily be argued that the taxpayer is subsidising the RAF budget. It is not a toy, it is doing a job. Its not unreasonable to have the military transporting the PM. The police do it on land, should he just get a taxi instead? To put things into perspective sadiq khan has wasted millions at every opportunity but for some reason boris's plane that pays for itself and serves an important service is treated as the crime of the century. https://youtu.be/LAwj3WMlf2A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'This is literally "Boris bashing" for the sake of it. Would you rather our leader's travelled the world, visiting capital cities etc in a military colour scheme jet?! Would you like them to carry small arms just to show "we mean business"... should we have bought a brand new aircraft for this purpose? A shiny new Boeing? Maybe you'd prefer Boris traveled in a black cab, is that what you want? What do you doom mongers want? Do you want us to throw our arms into the air saying how sorry we are for being British! And we should know our place? Why do you want us to fail? "Oh, Boris turned up at the G8 in a military jet, what sort of message does that send?!" " Oh, Boris turned up at the G8 in a plane built by our old business partners, with our nation's flag on the tail, what sort of message does that send?!" "Oh, Boris turned up at the G8 in a Boeing , what sort of message does that send?!" "Oh, Boris turned up at the G8, why didn't he just a note apologising for us?" "Oh, Boris turned up at the G8 in a plane built in Britain. He's soo jingoistic". "Oh, Boris turned up at the G8 in a taxi, what a ridiculous little man".' Alternatively, after your little rant, we could have just retained the aircraft as it was, not spent money unnecessarily and allowed it to continue its dual use. Why do you object to that? What is the actual benefit of this paint scheme? A reason would be interesting. Changing the topic again would be boring
Do you think that other countries feel intimidated by a military grey aircraft and will feel jollier with a pretty one arriving?
Love the fact you did this. Easy, i always thought i was living rent free in your head, and this thread is proof for all to see!! Jeez you're good value! "I just don't like leaving utter gibberish floating around. Still not provided your customary conspiracy YouTube clip to "prove" your point. Disappointed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone have any proof that the plane was originally painted with anti radar paint and not just standard, basic, light aircraft grey? Probably not and does not make one bit of difference anyway as it is a stupid way of trying to justify a position.
Quite. It is amusing to see people think they have more knowledge and insight than the people involved in making the descision.
Why are RAF aircraft painted the colour that they are using the paint that they do?
As it is more inconspicuous.
If this is such an important point, why have the RAF allowed its colour to be changed?
Grey blends with both sky and sea. Nothing untoward about that.
Not all RAF aircraft are painted grey.
Not all airforces use grey.
"They don't tend to use high gloss red, white and blue though, right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If this is gonna get soo many bed wetters knickers in a twist, i hope they change the colour of more aircraft! Easy is gonna have a heart attack! Lol
#VEXIPHOBIA
"Coming soon... representing the RAF across the world... the WORLD famous... GREY arrows! "" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'This is literally "Boris bashing" for the sake of it. Would you rather our leader's travelled the world, visiting capital cities etc in a military colour scheme jet?! Would you like them to carry small arms just to show "we mean business"... should we have bought a brand new aircraft for this purpose? A shiny new Boeing? Maybe you'd prefer Boris traveled in a black cab, is that what you want? What do you doom mongers want? Do you want us to throw our arms into the air saying how sorry we are for being British! And we should know our place? Why do you want us to fail? "Oh, Boris turned up at the G8 in a military jet, what sort of message does that send?!" " Oh, Boris turned up at the G8 in a plane built by our old business partners, with our nation's flag on the tail, what sort of message does that send?!" "Oh, Boris turned up at the G8 in a Boeing , what sort of message does that send?!" "Oh, Boris turned up at the G8, why didn't he just a note apologising for us?" "Oh, Boris turned up at the G8 in a plane built in Britain. He's soo jingoistic". "Oh, Boris turned up at the G8 in a taxi, what a ridiculous little man".' Alternatively, after your little rant, we could have just retained the aircraft as it was, not spent money unnecessarily and allowed it to continue its dual use. Why do you object to that? What is the actual benefit of this paint scheme? A reason would be interesting. Changing the topic again would be boring
Do you think that other countries feel intimidated by a military grey aircraft and will feel jollier with a pretty one arriving?
Love the fact you did this. Easy, i always thought i was living rent free in your head, and this thread is proof for all to see!! Jeez you're good value!
I just don't like leaving utter gibberish floating around.
Still not provided your customary conspiracy YouTube clip to "prove" your point.
Disappointed "Im glad you can't let that go. . "YouTube" still living in your head!! Priceless! Don't worry mate, hopefully people will be able to start meeting again soon and you'll be able to get your end away again! its sad to see a guy soo sexually frustrated that he has to spend his day on a politics forum on a swinging site of all places! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone have any proof that the plane was originally painted with anti radar paint and not just standard, basic, light aircraft grey? Probably not and does not make one bit of difference anyway as it is a stupid way of trying to justify a position.
Quite. It is amusing to see people think they have more knowledge and insight than the people involved in making the descision.
Why are RAF aircraft painted the colour that they are using the paint that they do?
As it is more inconspicuous.
If this is such an important point, why have the RAF allowed its colour to be changed?
Grey blends with both sky and sea. Nothing untoward about that.
Not all RAF aircraft are painted grey.
Not all airforces use grey.
They don't tend to use high gloss red, white and blue though, right? "Although that is the colour of Macron's of course. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others
I’m sure they will do the job in the same professional way, regardless of which aircraft they are assigned to.
I'm sure they will.
I didn't question that did I?
Yes.
Are they at more or less risk?
You seem to be asking me to determine if the RAF have correctly certified the airplane fit for purpose in a military capacity, part of which may involve assessing a change in its ability to keep aircrew safe while operating it.
Why do you think I, or you for that matter, have the appropriate qualifications to be able to do so.
Are you suggesting we might know more than the RAF?
I don’t .
If you have technology / strategic information - which you think the RAF have missed and are risking the lives of aircrew by putting this airplane back in to service alongside the rest of the fleet - please share it.
I directly quoted a former military transport pilot and defence analyst.
How about you show me yours?
I am saying that it can still carry out inflight refueling tasks but it is less likely that it will be used than the other aircraft in the fleet.
Would you pick the red white and blue one?
So you, like me, don’t have the technological and strategic knowledge. You have found a quote from a former pilot and defence analyst . I have read the statement regarding the airplane and how it will be used from the MoD, RAF and the Air Commodore responsible for the project.
Does your former military transport pilot and defence analyst think the RAF are putting the lives of air crew at risk by sending them up in an aircraft not painted grey?
Have the RAF said it is less likely to be used than other aircraft in the fleet due to its paint job?
These are more pertinent questions than whether I would fly a white painted airplane with a Union Jack painted on the tail .
What do you think "reluctant to use it outside the most benign airspace" means?
You have a post from a anti-aircraft missile operator that indicating much the same thing.
Write the Air Commodore's quote not yours or a newspaper's interpretation of it. Then we can discuss its meaning more sensibly.
Take a look at the articles about it in UKDefence Journal.
Also this may be of interest:
“The new livery looks superb but the reality is that flying this aircraft is no different to any of the other aircraft that make up the Voyager Force. It is capable of conducting the same essential Defence tasks, not least of which is the air-to-air refuelling role that allows us to deploy our Typhoon and Lightning aircraft to every corner of the globe.”
Wing Commander Alistair Scott
Officer Commanding 10 Squadron
It is "capable" of air to air refueling and it's handling qualities are the same. Not in question and that's all this statement says
There is a picture of this thing with the sun reflecting off it in formation as it refuels against the sky and the sea.
You are, as a group, hilarious in your insistence that there is no reason for the RAF painting aircraft the colour that they do.
Your insistence that an aircraft painted in bright colours will be deployed in exactly the same circumstances as one in a standard paint scheme is equally laughable.
This is now primarily a VIP aircraft but is being paid for by the Defence budget. Outright dishonesty for BoJo to get a toy but pretend that it is still a military aircraft.
None of you are able to indicate why this is a good way to spend £900,000 of tax payer money than on schools, hospitals or almost anything else.
The plane saves taxpayers almost the cost of this project every year.
The £900,000 was not all spent on painting. It has been fitted with a new encripted communion system and i have also heard it said that it includes maintenance. Also, planes being repainted is part of the regular maintenance so would need doing anyway. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11915328/boris-johnson-jet-makeover-britain/
It could easily be argued that the taxpayer is subsidising the RAF budget.
It is not a toy, it is doing a job. Its not unreasonable to have the military transporting the PM. The police do it on land, should he just get a taxi instead?
To put things into perspective sadiq khan has wasted millions at every opportunity but for some reason boris's plane that pays for itself and serves an important service is treated as the crime of the century.
https://youtu.be/LAwj3WMlf2A "Yeah, but Boris did a THING!!  Boo Hoo! *Stamps feet, kicks dog... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others
I’m sure they will do the job in the same professional way, regardless of which aircraft they are assigned to.
I'm sure they will.
I didn't question that did I?
Yes.
Are they at more or less risk?
You seem to be asking me to determine if the RAF have correctly certified the airplane fit for purpose in a military capacity, part of which may involve assessing a change in its ability to keep aircrew safe while operating it.
Why do you think I, or you for that matter, have the appropriate qualifications to be able to do so.
Are you suggesting we might know more than the RAF?
I don’t .
If you have technology / strategic information - which you think the RAF have missed and are risking the lives of aircrew by putting this airplane back in to service alongside the rest of the fleet - please share it.
I directly quoted a former military transport pilot and defence analyst.
How about you show me yours?
I am saying that it can still carry out inflight refueling tasks but it is less likely that it will be used than the other aircraft in the fleet.
Would you pick the red white and blue one?
So you, like me, don’t have the technological and strategic knowledge. You have found a quote from a former pilot and defence analyst . I have read the statement regarding the airplane and how it will be used from the MoD, RAF and the Air Commodore responsible for the project.
Does your former military transport pilot and defence analyst think the RAF are putting the lives of air crew at risk by sending them up in an aircraft not painted grey?
Have the RAF said it is less likely to be used than other aircraft in the fleet due to its paint job?
These are more pertinent questions than whether I would fly a white painted airplane with a Union Jack painted on the tail .
What do you think "reluctant to use it outside the most benign airspace" means?
You have a post from a anti-aircraft missile operator that indicating much the same thing.
Write the Air Commodore's quote not yours or a newspaper's interpretation of it. Then we can discuss its meaning more sensibly.
Take a look at the articles about it in UKDefence Journal.
Also this may be of interest:
“The new livery looks superb but the reality is that flying this aircraft is no different to any of the other aircraft that make up the Voyager Force. It is capable of conducting the same essential Defence tasks, not least of which is the air-to-air refuelling role that allows us to deploy our Typhoon and Lightning aircraft to every corner of the globe.”
Wing Commander Alistair Scott
Officer Commanding 10 Squadron
It is "capable" of air to air refueling and it's handling qualities are the same. Not in question and that's all this statement says
There is a picture of this thing with the sun reflecting off it in formation as it refuels against the sky and the sea.
You are, as a group, hilarious in your insistence that there is no reason for the RAF painting aircraft the colour that they do.
Your insistence that an aircraft painted in bright colours will be deployed in exactly the same circumstances as one in a standard paint scheme is equally laughable.
This is now primarily a VIP aircraft but is being paid for by the Defence budget. Outright dishonesty for BoJo to get a toy but pretend that it is still a military aircraft.
None of you are able to indicate why this is a good way to spend £900,000 of tax payer money than on schools, hospitals or almost anything else.
The plane saves taxpayers almost the cost of this project every year.
The £900,000 was not all spent on painting. It has been fitted with a new encripted communion system and i have also heard it said that it includes maintenance. Also, planes being repainted is part of the regular maintenance so would need doing anyway. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11915328/boris-johnson-jet-makeover-britain/
It could easily be argued that the taxpayer is subsidising the RAF budget.
It is not a toy, it is doing a job. Its not unreasonable to have the military transporting the PM. The police do it on land, should he just get a taxi instead?
To put things into perspective sadiq khan has wasted millions at every opportunity but for some reason boris's plane that pays for itself and serves an important service is treated as the crime of the century.
https://youtu.be/LAwj3WMlf2A "So there is a valid tactical reason for military aircraft being painted as they are. Lower visibility, lower infrared and thermal signature. So an plane painted in a military pattern is at less risk than a highly reflective red, white and blue paint scheme. Finally done with that? Pretending that this is going to deployed in the same sort of military operations that it was previously is subsequently laughable. Nothing written about the cost of operating the aircraft. It is no longer a military aircraft being used for some VIP travel. That is clear. The RAF is now paying for a VIP aircraft primarily for BoJoout of the Defence budget. Dishonest and compromising military budgets. If a dedicated VIP jet is better value than leasing then so be it, but don't make that argument. The £900,000 is for the design and paint. Your own article does not say otherwise. The Prime Minister's spokesman and the Air Commodore responsible have said it's for design and paint. You clearly do not think that £900,000 could have been better spent. Understood. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others
I’m sure they will do the job in the same professional way, regardless of which aircraft they are assigned to.
I'm sure they will.
I didn't question that did I?
Yes.
Are they at more or less risk?
You seem to be asking me to determine if the RAF have correctly certified the airplane fit for purpose in a military capacity, part of which may involve assessing a change in its ability to keep aircrew safe while operating it.
Why do you think I, or you for that matter, have the appropriate qualifications to be able to do so.
Are you suggesting we might know more than the RAF?
I don’t .
If you have technology / strategic information - which you think the RAF have missed and are risking the lives of aircrew by putting this airplane back in to service alongside the rest of the fleet - please share it.
I directly quoted a former military transport pilot and defence analyst.
How about you show me yours?
I am saying that it can still carry out inflight refueling tasks but it is less likely that it will be used than the other aircraft in the fleet.
Would you pick the red white and blue one?
So you, like me, don’t have the technological and strategic knowledge. You have found a quote from a former pilot and defence analyst . I have read the statement regarding the airplane and how it will be used from the MoD, RAF and the Air Commodore responsible for the project.
Does your former military transport pilot and defence analyst think the RAF are putting the lives of air crew at risk by sending them up in an aircraft not painted grey?
Have the RAF said it is less likely to be used than other aircraft in the fleet due to its paint job?
These are more pertinent questions than whether I would fly a white painted airplane with a Union Jack painted on the tail .
What do you think "reluctant to use it outside the most benign airspace" means?
You have a post from a anti-aircraft missile operator that indicating much the same thing.
Write the Air Commodore's quote not yours or a newspaper's interpretation of it. Then we can discuss its meaning more sensibly.
Take a look at the articles about it in UKDefence Journal.
Also this may be of interest:
“The new livery looks superb but the reality is that flying this aircraft is no different to any of the other aircraft that make up the Voyager Force. It is capable of conducting the same essential Defence tasks, not least of which is the air-to-air refuelling role that allows us to deploy our Typhoon and Lightning aircraft to every corner of the globe.”
Wing Commander Alistair Scott
Officer Commanding 10 Squadron
It is "capable" of air to air refueling and it's handling qualities are the same. Not in question and that's all this statement says
There is a picture of this thing with the sun reflecting off it in formation as it refuels against the sky and the sea.
You are, as a group, hilarious in your insistence that there is no reason for the RAF painting aircraft the colour that they do.
Your insistence that an aircraft painted in bright colours will be deployed in exactly the same circumstances as one in a standard paint scheme is equally laughable.
This is now primarily a VIP aircraft but is being paid for by the Defence budget. Outright dishonesty for BoJo to get a toy but pretend that it is still a military aircraft.
None of you are able to indicate why this is a good way to spend £900,000 of tax payer money than on schools, hospitals or almost anything else.
The plane saves taxpayers almost the cost of this project every year.
The £900,000 was not all spent on painting. It has been fitted with a new encripted communion system and i have also heard it said that it includes maintenance. Also, planes being repainted is part of the regular maintenance so would need doing anyway. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11915328/boris-johnson-jet-makeover-britain/
It could easily be argued that the taxpayer is subsidising the RAF budget.
It is not a toy, it is doing a job. Its not unreasonable to have the military transporting the PM. The police do it on land, should he just get a taxi instead?
To put things into perspective sadiq khan has wasted millions at every opportunity but for some reason boris's plane that pays for itself and serves an important service is treated as the crime of the century.
https://youtu.be/LAwj3WMlf2A
Yeah, but Boris did a THING!! Boo Hoo! *Stamps feet, kicks dog..." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If this is gonna get soo many bed wetters knickers in a twist, i hope they change the colour of more aircraft! Easy is gonna have a heart attack! Lol
#VEXIPHOBIA
"Coming soon... representing the RAF across the world... the WORLD famous... GREY arrows! ""The Red Arrows fly are not in frontline service and are painted in a high visibility paint scheme so that they can be seen clearly at a distance. Thank you for eloquently proving the point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others
I’m sure they will do the job in the same professional way, regardless of which aircraft they are assigned to.
I'm sure they will.
I didn't question that did I?
Yes.
Are they at more or less risk?
You seem to be asking me to determine if the RAF have correctly certified the airplane fit for purpose in a military capacity, part of which may involve assessing a change in its ability to keep aircrew safe while operating it.
Why do you think I, or you for that matter, have the appropriate qualifications to be able to do so.
Are you suggesting we might know more than the RAF?
I don’t .
If you have technology / strategic information - which you think the RAF have missed and are risking the lives of aircrew by putting this airplane back in to service alongside the rest of the fleet - please share it.
I directly quoted a former military transport pilot and defence analyst.
How about you show me yours?
I am saying that it can still carry out inflight refueling tasks but it is less likely that it will be used than the other aircraft in the fleet.
Would you pick the red white and blue one?
So you, like me, don’t have the technological and strategic knowledge. You have found a quote from a former pilot and defence analyst . I have read the statement regarding the airplane and how it will be used from the MoD, RAF and the Air Commodore responsible for the project.
Does your former military transport pilot and defence analyst think the RAF are putting the lives of air crew at risk by sending them up in an aircraft not painted grey?
Have the RAF said it is less likely to be used than other aircraft in the fleet due to its paint job?
These are more pertinent questions than whether I would fly a white painted airplane with a Union Jack painted on the tail .
What do you think "reluctant to use it outside the most benign airspace" means?
You have a post from a anti-aircraft missile operator that indicating much the same thing.
Write the Air Commodore's quote not yours or a newspaper's interpretation of it. Then we can discuss its meaning more sensibly.
Take a look at the articles about it in UKDefence Journal.
Also this may be of interest:
“The new livery looks superb but the reality is that flying this aircraft is no different to any of the other aircraft that make up the Voyager Force. It is capable of conducting the same essential Defence tasks, not least of which is the air-to-air refuelling role that allows us to deploy our Typhoon and Lightning aircraft to every corner of the globe.”
Wing Commander Alistair Scott
Officer Commanding 10 Squadron
It is "capable" of air to air refueling and it's handling qualities are the same. Not in question and that's all this statement says
There is a picture of this thing with the sun reflecting off it in formation as it refuels against the sky and the sea.
You are, as a group, hilarious in your insistence that there is no reason for the RAF painting aircraft the colour that they do.
Your insistence that an aircraft painted in bright colours will be deployed in exactly the same circumstances as one in a standard paint scheme is equally laughable.
This is now primarily a VIP aircraft but is being paid for by the Defence budget. Outright dishonesty for BoJo to get a toy but pretend that it is still a military aircraft.
None of you are able to indicate why this is a good way to spend £900,000 of tax payer money than on schools, hospitals or almost anything else.
The plane saves taxpayers almost the cost of this project every year.
The £900,000 was not all spent on painting. It has been fitted with a new encripted communion system and i have also heard it said that it includes maintenance. Also, planes being repainted is part of the regular maintenance so would need doing anyway. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11915328/boris-johnson-jet-makeover-britain/
It could easily be argued that the taxpayer is subsidising the RAF budget.
It is not a toy, it is doing a job. Its not unreasonable to have the military transporting the PM. The police do it on land, should he just get a taxi instead?
To put things into perspective sadiq khan has wasted millions at every opportunity but for some reason boris's plane that pays for itself and serves an important service is treated as the crime of the century.
https://youtu.be/LAwj3WMlf2A
Yeah, but Boris did a THING!! Boo Hoo! *Stamps feet, kicks dog..."I don't care who did it. It's foolish. Write about the money wasted by Sadiq Khan or anyone else and I'll agree with you if it is wasteful. Start a thread with some coherent information in it
£900,000
Paint an airplane or pay for teachers, nurses, careworkers or almost anything else.
You go for paint a plane.
Understood | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here's a fact. Easy knows fuck all about the cost of aircraft servicing. "Then neither does the Prime Minister's spokesman or the Air Commodore in charge  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here's a fact. Easy knows fuck all about the cost of aircraft servicing.
Then neither does the Prime Minister's spokesman or the Air Commodore in charge "If you knew anything about the industry, you wouldn't be at all surprised by that either... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others
I’m sure they will do the job in the same professional way, regardless of which aircraft they are assigned to.
I'm sure they will.
I didn't question that did I?
Yes.
Are they at more or less risk?
You seem to be asking me to determine if the RAF have correctly certified the airplane fit for purpose in a military capacity, part of which may involve assessing a change in its ability to keep aircrew safe while operating it.
Why do you think I, or you for that matter, have the appropriate qualifications to be able to do so.
Are you suggesting we might know more than the RAF?
I don’t .
If you have technology / strategic information - which you think the RAF have missed and are risking the lives of aircrew by putting this airplane back in to service alongside the rest of the fleet - please share it.
I directly quoted a former military transport pilot and defence analyst.
How about you show me yours?
I am saying that it can still carry out inflight refueling tasks but it is less likely that it will be used than the other aircraft in the fleet.
Would you pick the red white and blue one?
So you, like me, don’t have the technological and strategic knowledge. You have found a quote from a former pilot and defence analyst . I have read the statement regarding the airplane and how it will be used from the MoD, RAF and the Air Commodore responsible for the project.
Does your former military transport pilot and defence analyst think the RAF are putting the lives of air crew at risk by sending them up in an aircraft not painted grey?
Have the RAF said it is less likely to be used than other aircraft in the fleet due to its paint job?
These are more pertinent questions than whether I would fly a white painted airplane with a Union Jack painted on the tail .
What do you think "reluctant to use it outside the most benign airspace" means?
You have a post from a anti-aircraft missile operator that indicating much the same thing.
Write the Air Commodore's quote not yours or a newspaper's interpretation of it. Then we can discuss its meaning more sensibly.
Take a look at the articles about it in UKDefence Journal.
Also this may be of interest:
“The new livery looks superb but the reality is that flying this aircraft is no different to any of the other aircraft that make up the Voyager Force. It is capable of conducting the same essential Defence tasks, not least of which is the air-to-air refuelling role that allows us to deploy our Typhoon and Lightning aircraft to every corner of the globe.”
Wing Commander Alistair Scott
Officer Commanding 10 Squadron
It is "capable" of air to air refueling and it's handling qualities are the same. Not in question and that's all this statement says
There is a picture of this thing with the sun reflecting off it in formation as it refuels against the sky and the sea.
You are, as a group, hilarious in your insistence that there is no reason for the RAF painting aircraft the colour that they do.
Your insistence that an aircraft painted in bright colours will be deployed in exactly the same circumstances as one in a standard paint scheme is equally laughable.
This is now primarily a VIP aircraft but is being paid for by the Defence budget. Outright dishonesty for BoJo to get a toy but pretend that it is still a military aircraft.
None of you are able to indicate why this is a good way to spend £900,000 of tax payer money than on schools, hospitals or almost anything else.
The plane saves taxpayers almost the cost of this project every year.
The £900,000 was not all spent on painting. It has been fitted with a new encripted communion system and i have also heard it said that it includes maintenance. Also, planes being repainted is part of the regular maintenance so would need doing anyway. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11915328/boris-johnson-jet-makeover-britain/
It could easily be argued that the taxpayer is subsidising the RAF budget.
It is not a toy, it is doing a job. Its not unreasonable to have the military transporting the PM. The police do it on land, should he just get a taxi instead?
To put things into perspective sadiq khan has wasted millions at every opportunity but for some reason boris's plane that pays for itself and serves an important service is treated as the crime of the century.
https://youtu.be/LAwj3WMlf2A
Yeah, but Boris did a THING!! Boo Hoo! *Stamps feet, kicks dog...
I don't care who did it. It's foolish. Write about the money wasted by Sadiq Khan or anyone else and I'll agree with you if it is wasteful.
Start a thread with some coherent information in it
£900,000
Paint an airplane or pay for teachers, nurses, careworkers or almost anything else.
You go for paint a plane.
Understood "Priorities dear boy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Imo, Boris should have spunked the cash on getting the Vulcan flying again. Trucking round the world in that would certainly let people know know he'd "arrived"! I say "boris" but i expect this decision is more based upon the "scrapping" of the Queens flight fleet, rather than boris deciding over breakfast that he wants to paint a plane. " The queen has a 'fleet'? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Even those bending over backwards to defend it must see the contradiction. When asked about money for ppe Hancock said he couldnt just pluck money from nowhere. Yet when they want to paint a plane,or bribe some dup politicians to stay in power or fund another vanity project money isnt an issue. They are taking the piss and the people who voted them in have only themselves to blame " Do you think that plane just popped into Marshall's for the work a couple of weeks ago? Have you ANY idea how the world works?! Again, you don't need to answer that, it's rhetorical... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Imo, Boris should have spunked the cash on getting the Vulcan flying again. Trucking round the world in that would certainly let people know know he'd "arrived"! I say "boris" but i expect this decision is more based upon the "scrapping" of the Queens flight fleet, rather than boris deciding over breakfast that he wants to paint a plane. The queen has a 'fleet'?" Imagine how surprised i am of your ignorance on this subject... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Even those bending over backwards to defend it must see the contradiction. When asked about money for ppe Hancock said he couldnt just pluck money from nowhere. Yet when they want to paint a plane,or bribe some dup politicians to stay in power or fund another vanity project money isnt an issue. They are taking the piss and the people who voted them in have only themselves to blame Do you think that plane just popped into Marshall's for the work a couple of weeks ago? Have you ANY idea how the world works?! Again, you don't need to answer that, it's rhetorical... "As mentioned above it's about priorities. Anyone who things the likes of a nurse is anyone near the top for a tory is deluded. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Imo, Boris should have spunked the cash on getting the Vulcan flying again. Trucking round the world in that would certainly let people know know he'd "arrived"! I say "boris" but i expect this decision is more based upon the "scrapping" of the Queens flight fleet, rather than boris deciding over breakfast that he wants to paint a plane. The queen has a 'fleet'? Imagine how surprised i am of your ignorance on this subject..." I'm not an expert of kissing the arse of some pampered german relic. How many has she got? Are we painting them too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others
I’m sure they will do the job in the same professional way, regardless of which aircraft they are assigned to.
I'm sure they will.
I didn't question that did I?
Yes.
Are they at more or less risk?
You seem to be asking me to determine if the RAF have correctly certified the airplane fit for purpose in a military capacity, part of which may involve assessing a change in its ability to keep aircrew safe while operating it.
Why do you think I, or you for that matter, have the appropriate qualifications to be able to do so.
Are you suggesting we might know more than the RAF?
I don’t .
If you have technology / strategic information - which you think the RAF have missed and are risking the lives of aircrew by putting this airplane back in to service alongside the rest of the fleet - please share it.
I directly quoted a former military transport pilot and defence analyst.
How about you show me yours?
I am saying that it can still carry out inflight refueling tasks but it is less likely that it will be used than the other aircraft in the fleet.
Would you pick the red white and blue one?
So you, like me, don’t have the technological and strategic knowledge. You have found a quote from a former pilot and defence analyst . I have read the statement regarding the airplane and how it will be used from the MoD, RAF and the Air Commodore responsible for the project.
Does your former military transport pilot and defence analyst think the RAF are putting the lives of air crew at risk by sending them up in an aircraft not painted grey?
Have the RAF said it is less likely to be used than other aircraft in the fleet due to its paint job?
These are more pertinent questions than whether I would fly a white painted airplane with a Union Jack painted on the tail .
What do you think "reluctant to use it outside the most benign airspace" means?
You have a post from a anti-aircraft missile operator that indicating much the same thing.
Write the Air Commodore's quote not yours or a newspaper's interpretation of it. Then we can discuss its meaning more sensibly.
Take a look at the articles about it in UKDefence Journal.
Also this may be of interest:
“The new livery looks superb but the reality is that flying this aircraft is no different to any of the other aircraft that make up the Voyager Force. It is capable of conducting the same essential Defence tasks, not least of which is the air-to-air refuelling role that allows us to deploy our Typhoon and Lightning aircraft to every corner of the globe.”
Wing Commander Alistair Scott
Officer Commanding 10 Squadron
It is "capable" of air to air refueling and it's handling qualities are the same. Not in question and that's all this statement says
There is a picture of this thing with the sun reflecting off it in formation as it refuels against the sky and the sea.
You are, as a group, hilarious in your insistence that there is no reason for the RAF painting aircraft the colour that they do.
Your insistence that an aircraft painted in bright colours will be deployed in exactly the same circumstances as one in a standard paint scheme is equally laughable.
This is now primarily a VIP aircraft but is being paid for by the Defence budget. Outright dishonesty for BoJo to get a toy but pretend that it is still a military aircraft.
None of you are able to indicate why this is a good way to spend £900,000 of tax payer money than on schools, hospitals or almost anything else.
The plane saves taxpayers almost the cost of this project every year.
The £900,000 was not all spent on painting. It has been fitted with a new encripted communion system and i have also heard it said that it includes maintenance. Also, planes being repainted is part of the regular maintenance so would need doing anyway. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11915328/boris-johnson-jet-makeover-britain/
It could easily be argued that the taxpayer is subsidising the RAF budget.
It is not a toy, it is doing a job. Its not unreasonable to have the military transporting the PM. The police do it on land, should he just get a taxi instead?
To put things into perspective sadiq khan has wasted millions at every opportunity but for some reason boris's plane that pays for itself and serves an important service is treated as the crime of the century.
https://youtu.be/LAwj3WMlf2A
So there is a valid tactical reason for military aircraft being painted as they are.
Lower visibility, lower infrared and thermal signature.
So an plane painted in a military pattern is at less risk than a highly reflective red, white and blue paint scheme.
Finally done with that?
Pretending that this is going to deployed in the same sort of military operations that it was previously is subsequently laughable.
Nothing written about the cost of operating the aircraft. It is no longer a military aircraft being used for some VIP travel. That is clear.
The RAF is now paying for a VIP aircraft primarily for BoJoout of the Defence budget.
Dishonest and compromising military budgets. If a dedicated VIP jet is better value than leasing then so be it, but don't make that argument.
The £900,000 is for the design and paint. Your own article does not say otherwise.
The Prime Minister's spokesman and the Air Commodore responsible have said it's for design and paint.
You clearly do not think that £900,000 could have been better spent.
Understood."Did you even read the article?
a direct quote -
"They are also fitting a state-of-the-art communications system which will have encryption to enable secret messages to be sent in flight."
Yes, there is a tactical reason for paintings planes grey. The RAF have obviously agreed that this plane does not need it but you think you know better..
Do you also know that it isn't completing the same military operations that it did before? Has this plane ever even seen a war zone? Again, The RAF have agreed that the paint colour is fine, but you think you know better...
Lastly, you posted that the plane has been seen carrying out refuelling so the plane is still doing military duty. It`s not sat idle in a hangar waiting for boris to hop on and off as he pleases. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Even those bending over backwards to defend it must see the contradiction. When asked about money for ppe Hancock said he couldnt just pluck money from nowhere. Yet when they want to paint a plane,or bribe some dup politicians to stay in power or fund another vanity project money isnt an issue. They are taking the piss and the people who voted them in have only themselves to blame Do you think that plane just popped into Marshall's for the work a couple of weeks ago? Have you ANY idea how the world works?! Again, you don't need to answer that, it's rhetorical... "As inept as they are it is possible for them to synchronise the £900,000 paint scheme with the normal maintenance schedule. Nobody said otherwise. Do please indicate where it has so far been stated that the maintenance cost is included in the figure? What have the Prime Minister's spokesman and Air Commodore Edwards actually said?
You like Google. Run along now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ah we only spend £4.6 million on year royal royal air travel. Buttons." Prince Andrew has to get to golf somehow. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others
I’m sure they will do the job in the same professional way, regardless of which aircraft they are assigned to.
I'm sure they will.
I didn't question that did I?
Yes.
Are they at more or less risk?
You seem to be asking me to determine if the RAF have correctly certified the airplane fit for purpose in a military capacity, part of which may involve assessing a change in its ability to keep aircrew safe while operating it.
Why do you think I, or you for that matter, have the appropriate qualifications to be able to do so.
Are you suggesting we might know more than the RAF?
I don’t .
If you have technology / strategic information - which you think the RAF have missed and are risking the lives of aircrew by putting this airplane back in to service alongside the rest of the fleet - please share it.
I directly quoted a former military transport pilot and defence analyst.
How about you show me yours?
I am saying that it can still carry out inflight refueling tasks but it is less likely that it will be used than the other aircraft in the fleet.
Would you pick the red white and blue one?
So you, like me, don’t have the technological and strategic knowledge. You have found a quote from a former pilot and defence analyst . I have read the statement regarding the airplane and how it will be used from the MoD, RAF and the Air Commodore responsible for the project.
Does your former military transport pilot and defence analyst think the RAF are putting the lives of air crew at risk by sending them up in an aircraft not painted grey?
Have the RAF said it is less likely to be used than other aircraft in the fleet due to its paint job?
These are more pertinent questions than whether I would fly a white painted airplane with a Union Jack painted on the tail .
What do you think "reluctant to use it outside the most benign airspace" means?
You have a post from a anti-aircraft missile operator that indicating much the same thing.
Write the Air Commodore's quote not yours or a newspaper's interpretation of it. Then we can discuss its meaning more sensibly.
Take a look at the articles about it in UKDefence Journal.
Also this may be of interest:
“The new livery looks superb but the reality is that flying this aircraft is no different to any of the other aircraft that make up the Voyager Force. It is capable of conducting the same essential Defence tasks, not least of which is the air-to-air refuelling role that allows us to deploy our Typhoon and Lightning aircraft to every corner of the globe.”
Wing Commander Alistair Scott
Officer Commanding 10 Squadron
It is "capable" of air to air refueling and it's handling qualities are the same. Not in question and that's all this statement says
There is a picture of this thing with the sun reflecting off it in formation as it refuels against the sky and the sea.
You are, as a group, hilarious in your insistence that there is no reason for the RAF painting aircraft the colour that they do.
Your insistence that an aircraft painted in bright colours will be deployed in exactly the same circumstances as one in a standard paint scheme is equally laughable.
This is now primarily a VIP aircraft but is being paid for by the Defence budget. Outright dishonesty for BoJo to get a toy but pretend that it is still a military aircraft.
None of you are able to indicate why this is a good way to spend £900,000 of tax payer money than on schools, hospitals or almost anything else.
The plane saves taxpayers almost the cost of this project every year.
The £900,000 was not all spent on painting. It has been fitted with a new encripted communion system and i have also heard it said that it includes maintenance. Also, planes being repainted is part of the regular maintenance so would need doing anyway. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11915328/boris-johnson-jet-makeover-britain/
It could easily be argued that the taxpayer is subsidising the RAF budget.
It is not a toy, it is doing a job. Its not unreasonable to have the military transporting the PM. The police do it on land, should he just get a taxi instead?
To put things into perspective sadiq khan has wasted millions at every opportunity but for some reason boris's plane that pays for itself and serves an important service is treated as the crime of the century.
https://youtu.be/LAwj3WMlf2A
So there is a valid tactical reason for military aircraft being painted as they are.
Lower visibility, lower infrared and thermal signature.
So an plane painted in a military pattern is at less risk than a highly reflective red, white and blue paint scheme.
Finally done with that?
Pretending that this is going to deployed in the same sort of military operations that it was previously is subsequently laughable.
Nothing written about the cost of operating the aircraft. It is no longer a military aircraft being used for some VIP travel. That is clear.
The RAF is now paying for a VIP aircraft primarily for BoJoout of the Defence budget.
Dishonest and compromising military budgets. If a dedicated VIP jet is better value than leasing then so be it, but don't make that argument.
The £900,000 is for the design and paint. Your own article does not say otherwise.
The Prime Minister's spokesman and the Air Commodore responsible have said it's for design and paint.
You clearly do not think that £900,000 could have been better spent.
Understood.
Did you even read the article?
a direct quote -
"They are also fitting a state-of-the-art communications system which will have encryption to enable secret messages to be sent in flight."
Yes, there is a tactical reason for paintings planes grey. The RAF have obviously agreed that this plane does not need it but you think you know better..
Do you also know that it isn't completing the same military operations that it did before? Has this plane ever even seen a war zone? Again, The RAF have agreed that the paint colour is fine, but you think you know better...
Lastly, you posted that the plane has been seen carrying out refuelling so the plane is still doing military duty. It`s not sat idle in a hangar waiting for boris to hop on and off as he pleases."Don't let facts get in the way of a Boris meltdown... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ah we only spend £4.6 million on year royal royal air travel. Buttons. Prince Andrew has to get to golf somehow. " Crazy golf i assume! Kids love that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others
I’m sure they will do the job in the same professional way, regardless of which aircraft they are assigned to.
I'm sure they will.
I didn't question that did I?
Yes.
Are they at more or less risk?
You seem to be asking me to determine if the RAF have correctly certified the airplane fit for purpose in a military capacity, part of which may involve assessing a change in its ability to keep aircrew safe while operating it.
Why do you think I, or you for that matter, have the appropriate qualifications to be able to do so.
Are you suggesting we might know more than the RAF?
I don’t .
If you have technology / strategic information - which you think the RAF have missed and are risking the lives of aircrew by putting this airplane back in to service alongside the rest of the fleet - please share it.
I directly quoted a former military transport pilot and defence analyst.
How about you show me yours?
I am saying that it can still carry out inflight refueling tasks but it is less likely that it will be used than the other aircraft in the fleet.
Would you pick the red white and blue one?
So you, like me, don’t have the technological and strategic knowledge. You have found a quote from a former pilot and defence analyst . I have read the statement regarding the airplane and how it will be used from the MoD, RAF and the Air Commodore responsible for the project.
Does your former military transport pilot and defence analyst think the RAF are putting the lives of air crew at risk by sending them up in an aircraft not painted grey?
Have the RAF said it is less likely to be used than other aircraft in the fleet due to its paint job?
These are more pertinent questions than whether I would fly a white painted airplane with a Union Jack painted on the tail .
What do you think "reluctant to use it outside the most benign airspace" means?
You have a post from a anti-aircraft missile operator that indicating much the same thing.
Write the Air Commodore's quote not yours or a newspaper's interpretation of it. Then we can discuss its meaning more sensibly.
Take a look at the articles about it in UKDefence Journal.
Also this may be of interest:
“The new livery looks superb but the reality is that flying this aircraft is no different to any of the other aircraft that make up the Voyager Force. It is capable of conducting the same essential Defence tasks, not least of which is the air-to-air refuelling role that allows us to deploy our Typhoon and Lightning aircraft to every corner of the globe.”
Wing Commander Alistair Scott
Officer Commanding 10 Squadron
It is "capable" of air to air refueling and it's handling qualities are the same. Not in question and that's all this statement says
There is a picture of this thing with the sun reflecting off it in formation as it refuels against the sky and the sea.
You are, as a group, hilarious in your insistence that there is no reason for the RAF painting aircraft the colour that they do.
Your insistence that an aircraft painted in bright colours will be deployed in exactly the same circumstances as one in a standard paint scheme is equally laughable.
This is now primarily a VIP aircraft but is being paid for by the Defence budget. Outright dishonesty for BoJo to get a toy but pretend that it is still a military aircraft.
None of you are able to indicate why this is a good way to spend £900,000 of tax payer money than on schools, hospitals or almost anything else.
The plane saves taxpayers almost the cost of this project every year.
The £900,000 was not all spent on painting. It has been fitted with a new encripted communion system and i have also heard it said that it includes maintenance. Also, planes being repainted is part of the regular maintenance so would need doing anyway. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11915328/boris-johnson-jet-makeover-britain/
It could easily be argued that the taxpayer is subsidising the RAF budget.
It is not a toy, it is doing a job. Its not unreasonable to have the military transporting the PM. The police do it on land, should he just get a taxi instead?
To put things into perspective sadiq khan has wasted millions at every opportunity but for some reason boris's plane that pays for itself and serves an important service is treated as the crime of the century.
https://youtu.be/LAwj3WMlf2A
So there is a valid tactical reason for military aircraft being painted as they are.
Lower visibility, lower infrared and thermal signature.
So an plane painted in a military pattern is at less risk than a highly reflective red, white and blue paint scheme.
Finally done with that?
Pretending that this is going to deployed in the same sort of military operations that it was previously is subsequently laughable.
Nothing written about the cost of operating the aircraft. It is no longer a military aircraft being used for some VIP travel. That is clear.
The RAF is now paying for a VIP aircraft primarily for BoJoout of the Defence budget.
Dishonest and compromising military budgets. If a dedicated VIP jet is better value than leasing then so be it, but don't make that argument.
The £900,000 is for the design and paint. Your own article does not say otherwise.
The Prime Minister's spokesman and the Air Commodore responsible have said it's for design and paint.
You clearly do not think that £900,000 could have been better spent.
Understood.
Did you even read the article?
a direct quote -
"They are also fitting a state-of-the-art communications system which will have encryption to enable secret messages to be sent in flight."
Yes, there is a tactical reason for paintings planes grey. The RAF have obviously agreed that this plane does not need it but you think you know better..
Do you also know that it isn't completing the same military operations that it did before? Has this plane ever even seen a war zone? Again, The RAF have agreed that the paint colour is fine, but you think you know better...
Lastly, you posted that the plane has been seen carrying out refuelling so the plane is still doing military duty. It`s not sat idle in a hangar waiting for boris to hop on and off as he pleases."I dislike reading The Sun, but in this case I did. Fitting the system at the same time does not mean that it was included in the £900,000 cost does it? You must be surprised at your final bill all the time
Funnily enough, deployment information for specific military aircraft is not readily available
However, the implication is that you do not think that this aircraft has previously been used in a military capacity, so why the pretence that it is dual use rather than purely VIP transport?
All that has been said is that it can carry out in-flight refuelling.
A photo opportunity is not any indication that it can be used in the same circumstances as another aircraft in the fleet and be deployed to the same places under the same circumstances as another aircraft.
Again, why pretend? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a bit of a vanity project. If this gvt didn’t have such a populist and nationalistic agenda, nobody would bother too much about it but it is yet another case of ‘Britain über alles’ that goes well with Bojo’s waffle and bluster. The timing is also pretty disturbing. We’ve just probably 65000 deaths and unemployment is about to go up sharply. In the big scheme of things £900 000 is not that much money for a country like the U.K. but symbolically, at a time when Things are getting difficult for a lot of people and when this gvt has to be forced to provide free school meals in the summer, I find it pretty clumsy or even insulting. However if I look at the shitshow this gvt has served us since September, there are many more things that have shocked more. " Perfect time to cancel a £900,000 project then eh? Make a few more people redundant... maybe they could have stopped the project during Corona, then left the aircraft, half done until you felt it would be "ok" to finish it ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was this paintwork change only decided and done very recently. Was it done before or during lockdown. I thought this all went back a few years " Facts mean nothing to your average bedwetter I'm sorry to say. Just cling on to those headlines... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others
I’m sure they will do the job in the same professional way, regardless of which aircraft they are assigned to.
I'm sure they will.
I didn't question that did I?
Yes.
Are they at more or less risk?
You seem to be asking me to determine if the RAF have correctly certified the airplane fit for purpose in a military capacity, part of which may involve assessing a change in its ability to keep aircrew safe while operating it.
Why do you think I, or you for that matter, have the appropriate qualifications to be able to do so.
Are you suggesting we might know more than the RAF?
I don’t .
If you have technology / strategic information - which you think the RAF have missed and are risking the lives of aircrew by putting this airplane back in to service alongside the rest of the fleet - please share it.
I directly quoted a former military transport pilot and defence analyst.
How about you show me yours?
I am saying that it can still carry out inflight refueling tasks but it is less likely that it will be used than the other aircraft in the fleet.
Would you pick the red white and blue one?
So you, like me, don’t have the technological and strategic knowledge. You have found a quote from a former pilot and defence analyst . I have read the statement regarding the airplane and how it will be used from the MoD, RAF and the Air Commodore responsible for the project.
Does your former military transport pilot and defence analyst think the RAF are putting the lives of air crew at risk by sending them up in an aircraft not painted grey?
Have the RAF said it is less likely to be used than other aircraft in the fleet due to its paint job?
These are more pertinent questions than whether I would fly a white painted airplane with a Union Jack painted on the tail .
What do you think "reluctant to use it outside the most benign airspace" means?
You have a post from a anti-aircraft missile operator that indicating much the same thing.
Write the Air Commodore's quote not yours or a newspaper's interpretation of it. Then we can discuss its meaning more sensibly.
Take a look at the articles about it in UKDefence Journal.
Also this may be of interest:
“The new livery looks superb but the reality is that flying this aircraft is no different to any of the other aircraft that make up the Voyager Force. It is capable of conducting the same essential Defence tasks, not least of which is the air-to-air refuelling role that allows us to deploy our Typhoon and Lightning aircraft to every corner of the globe.”
Wing Commander Alistair Scott
Officer Commanding 10 Squadron
It is "capable" of air to air refueling and it's handling qualities are the same. Not in question and that's all this statement says
There is a picture of this thing with the sun reflecting off it in formation as it refuels against the sky and the sea.
You are, as a group, hilarious in your insistence that there is no reason for the RAF painting aircraft the colour that they do.
Your insistence that an aircraft painted in bright colours will be deployed in exactly the same circumstances as one in a standard paint scheme is equally laughable.
This is now primarily a VIP aircraft but is being paid for by the Defence budget. Outright dishonesty for BoJo to get a toy but pretend that it is still a military aircraft.
None of you are able to indicate why this is a good way to spend £900,000 of tax payer money than on schools, hospitals or almost anything else.
The plane saves taxpayers almost the cost of this project every year.
The £900,000 was not all spent on painting. It has been fitted with a new encripted communion system and i have also heard it said that it includes maintenance. Also, planes being repainted is part of the regular maintenance so would need doing anyway. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11915328/boris-johnson-jet-makeover-britain/
It could easily be argued that the taxpayer is subsidising the RAF budget.
It is not a toy, it is doing a job. Its not unreasonable to have the military transporting the PM. The police do it on land, should he just get a taxi instead?
To put things into perspective sadiq khan has wasted millions at every opportunity but for some reason boris's plane that pays for itself and serves an important service is treated as the crime of the century.
https://youtu.be/LAwj3WMlf2A
So there is a valid tactical reason for military aircraft being painted as they are.
Lower visibility, lower infrared and thermal signature.
So an plane painted in a military pattern is at less risk than a highly reflective red, white and blue paint scheme.
Finally done with that?
Pretending that this is going to deployed in the same sort of military operations that it was previously is subsequently laughable.
Nothing written about the cost of operating the aircraft. It is no longer a military aircraft being used for some VIP travel. That is clear.
The RAF is now paying for a VIP aircraft primarily for BoJoout of the Defence budget.
Dishonest and compromising military budgets. If a dedicated VIP jet is better value than leasing then so be it, but don't make that argument.
The £900,000 is for the design and paint. Your own article does not say otherwise.
The Prime Minister's spokesman and the Air Commodore responsible have said it's for design and paint.
You clearly do not think that £900,000 could have been better spent.
Understood.
Did you even read the article?
a direct quote -
"They are also fitting a state-of-the-art communications system which will have encryption to enable secret messages to be sent in flight."
Yes, there is a tactical reason for paintings planes grey. The RAF have obviously agreed that this plane does not need it but you think you know better..
Do you also know that it isn't completing the same military operations that it did before? Has this plane ever even seen a war zone? Again, The RAF have agreed that the paint colour is fine, but you think you know better...
Lastly, you posted that the plane has been seen carrying out refuelling so the plane is still doing military duty. It`s not sat idle in a hangar waiting for boris to hop on and off as he pleases.
I dislike reading The Sun, but in this case I did.
Fitting the system at the same time does not mean that it was included in the £900,000 cost does it?
You must be surprised at your final bill all the time
Funnily enough, deployment information for specific military aircraft is not readily available
However, the implication is that you do not think that this aircraft has previously been used in a military capacity, so why the pretence that it is dual use rather than purely VIP transport?
All that has been said is that it can carry out in-flight refuelling.
A photo opportunity is not any indication that it can be used in the same circumstances as another aircraft in the fleet and be deployed to the same places under the same circumstances as another aircraft.
Again, why pretend?"The plane was in for a 900k makeover, it is a fair assumption that the work done in this time is included in the cost. As you provide no proof that it wasn`t I wont be paying much heed to you claiming it is not proof it was. There is no implication that I don't think it was carrying out military duties. That is you telling me what I think... or rather what you would like other people to think about me. I asked if it had been to a warzone where it requires grey paint to avoid being seen. There is lots of military work to be done that is not in a warzone such as the refuelling I stated it had been seen doing but you now want to claim is just a photo opportunity. Its worth noting that you provide no proof of this claim.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone have any proof that the plane was originally painted with anti radar paint and not just standard, basic, light aircraft grey? " I understand it does have some absorbing properties but would not help in today's world very much. It's like a soldier wearing body armour and then being blown up by a huge mine. He may have had the armour but the outcome is the same. Same with this paint up against anti air craft systems. Especially given the size and shape of it. The Americans spent a fortune on stealth planes and still not perfect | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a bit of a vanity project. If this gvt didn’t have such a populist and nationalistic agenda, nobody would bother too much about it but it is yet another case of ‘Britain über alles’ that goes well with Bojo’s waffle and bluster. The timing is also pretty disturbing. We’ve just probably 65000 deaths and unemployment is about to go up sharply. In the big scheme of things £900 000 is not that much money for a country like the U.K. but symbolically, at a time when Things are getting difficult for a lot of people and when this gvt has to be forced to provide free school meals in the summer, I find it pretty clumsy or even insulting. However if I look at the shitshow this gvt has served us since September, there are many more things that have shocked more. Perfect time to cancel a £900,000 project then eh? Make a few more people redundant... maybe they could have stopped the project during Corona, then left the aircraft, half done until you felt it would be "ok" to finish it ?" Alright then, let’s get every single car in the country be repainted with the Union Jack with taxpayers’ money then. Why should we stop at one plane? I want mine with the Union Jack and the EU flags on it. That’ll save and create more jobs. Let’s have every public building covered with union jacks paintings paid by our councils.. You’ve got to laugh at people making up fallacious arguments to defend what is clearly morally wrong. What’s next? Provide every household with boxer shorts covered with Union jacks? All this made in the U.K. as well and subsidised with taxpayers’ money. It may also be time to remind you that a year or two ago, Bojo and his mates felt that creating more jobs in schools or giving a tiny pay rise would be a waste of money. Your opinion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The airplane remains certified for its original purpose and will continue to operate within the Voyager fleet. On Friday it was being used to refuel RAF Marham F-35's operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth and a 100 Sqn Hawk flying out of RAF Leeming. It can midair refuel. I'm not debating that it cannot do it mechanically carry out the same task. Is there a reason that military tanker aircraft have a great radar absorbent paint scheme? Would this aircraft be able to carry out ita role in a warzone or would there be a delay whilst it was repainted again? Why not repaint our entire tanker fleet red white and blue if this paint scheme is fine? BoJo was, apparently, annoyed that it was never available when he wanted to use it. I'm sure that it will become far more available now as it might find itself in less demand during military operations. What do you think? Are you saying this plane in its original paint made it safe from being shot down. The paint even if it has radar absorbing properties won't make it invisible. The Americans spent a fortune making stealth planes maybe they just needed to paint them grey. Of course it's not really relevant as this type of plane would not go into the battle zone given how vulnerable it is. They refuel other planes well away I think OP seems to think that with its new paint job it has lost its ability to function as a military aircraft, and is in fact a folly of Mr Johnson Evidence and a statement from the RAF does of course confirm the aircraft remains a part of the Voyager fleet and will continue to function in a military capacity. Given other countries have stand alone, singular purpose (expensive ) aircraft I would say this approach by the MoD and RAF is a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Righto, I'm sure that the aircrew will be jumping to fly this plane in preference to any of the others
I’m sure they will do the job in the same professional way, regardless of which aircraft they are assigned to.
I'm sure they will.
I didn't question that did I?
Yes.
Are they at more or less risk?
You seem to be asking me to determine if the RAF have correctly certified the airplane fit for purpose in a military capacity, part of which may involve assessing a change in its ability to keep aircrew safe while operating it.
Why do you think I, or you for that matter, have the appropriate qualifications to be able to do so.
Are you suggesting we might know more than the RAF?
I don’t .
If you have technology / strategic information - which you think the RAF have missed and are risking the lives of aircrew by putting this airplane back in to service alongside the rest of the fleet - please share it.
I directly quoted a former military transport pilot and defence analyst.
How about you show me yours?
I am saying that it can still carry out inflight refueling tasks but it is less likely that it will be used than the other aircraft in the fleet.
Would you pick the red white and blue one?
So you, like me, don’t have the technological and strategic knowledge. You have found a quote from a former pilot and defence analyst . I have read the statement regarding the airplane and how it will be used from the MoD, RAF and the Air Commodore responsible for the project.
Does your former military transport pilot and defence analyst think the RAF are putting the lives of air crew at risk by sending them up in an aircraft not painted grey?
Have the RAF said it is less likely to be used than other aircraft in the fleet due to its paint job?
These are more pertinent questions than whether I would fly a white painted airplane with a Union Jack painted on the tail .
What do you think "reluctant to use it outside the most benign airspace" means?
You have a post from a anti-aircraft missile operator that indicating much the same thing.
Write the Air Commodore's quote not yours or a newspaper's interpretation of it. Then we can discuss its meaning more sensibly.
Take a look at the articles about it in UKDefence Journal.
Also this may be of interest:
“The new livery looks superb but the reality is that flying this aircraft is no different to any of the other aircraft that make up the Voyager Force. It is capable of conducting the same essential Defence tasks, not least of which is the air-to-air refuelling role that allows us to deploy our Typhoon and Lightning aircraft to every corner of the globe.”
Wing Commander Alistair Scott
Officer Commanding 10 Squadron
It is "capable" of air to air refueling and it's handling qualities are the same. Not in question and that's all this statement says
There is a picture of this thing with the sun reflecting off it in formation as it refuels against the sky and the sea.
You are, as a group, hilarious in your insistence that there is no reason for the RAF painting aircraft the colour that they do.
Your insistence that an aircraft painted in bright colours will be deployed in exactly the same circumstances as one in a standard paint scheme is equally laughable.
This is now primarily a VIP aircraft but is being paid for by the Defence budget. Outright dishonesty for BoJo to get a toy but pretend that it is still a military aircraft.
None of you are able to indicate why this is a good way to spend £900,000 of tax payer money than on schools, hospitals or almost anything else.
The plane saves taxpayers almost the cost of this project every year.
The £900,000 was not all spent on painting. It has been fitted with a new encripted communion system and i have also heard it said that it includes maintenance. Also, planes being repainted is part of the regular maintenance so would need doing anyway. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11915328/boris-johnson-jet-makeover-britain/
It could easily be argued that the taxpayer is subsidising the RAF budget.
It is not a toy, it is doing a job. Its not unreasonable to have the military transporting the PM. The police do it on land, should he just get a taxi instead?
To put things into perspective sadiq khan has wasted millions at every opportunity but for some reason boris's plane that pays for itself and serves an important service is treated as the crime of the century.
https://youtu.be/LAwj3WMlf2A
So there is a valid tactical reason for military aircraft being painted as they are.
Lower visibility, lower infrared and thermal signature.
So an plane painted in a military pattern is at less risk than a highly reflective red, white and blue paint scheme.
Finally done with that?
Pretending that this is going to deployed in the same sort of military operations that it was previously is subsequently laughable.
Nothing written about the cost of operating the aircraft. It is no longer a military aircraft being used for some VIP travel. That is clear.
The RAF is now paying for a VIP aircraft primarily for BoJoout of the Defence budget.
Dishonest and compromising military budgets. If a dedicated VIP jet is better value than leasing then so be it, but don't make that argument.
The £900,000 is for the design and paint. Your own article does not say otherwise.
The Prime Minister's spokesman and the Air Commodore responsible have said it's for design and paint.
You clearly do not think that £900,000 could have been better spent.
Understood.
Did you even read the article?
a direct quote -
"They are also fitting a state-of-the-art communications system which will have encryption to enable secret messages to be sent in flight."
Yes, there is a tactical reason for paintings planes grey. The RAF have obviously agreed that this plane does not need it but you think you know better..
Do you also know that it isn't completing the same military operations that it did before? Has this plane ever even seen a war zone? Again, The RAF have agreed that the paint colour is fine, but you think you know better...
Lastly, you posted that the plane has been seen carrying out refuelling so the plane is still doing military duty. It`s not sat idle in a hangar waiting for boris to hop on and off as he pleases.
I dislike reading The Sun, but in this case I did.
Fitting the system at the same time does not mean that it was included in the £900,000 cost does it?
You must be surprised at your final bill all the time
Funnily enough, deployment information for specific military aircraft is not readily available
However, the implication is that you do not think that this aircraft has previously been used in a military capacity, so why the pretence that it is dual use rather than purely VIP transport?
All that has been said is that it can carry out in-flight refuelling.
A photo opportunity is not any indication that it can be used in the same circumstances as another aircraft in the fleet and be deployed to the same places under the same circumstances as another aircraft.
Again, why pretend?
The plane was in for a 900k makeover, it is a fair assumption that the work done in this time is included in the cost. As you provide no proof that it wasn`t I wont be paying much heed to you claiming it is not proof it was.
There is no implication that I don't think it was carrying out military duties. That is you telling me what I think... or rather what you would like other people to think about me.
I asked if it had been to a warzone where it requires grey paint to avoid being seen. There is lots of military work to be done that is not in a warzone such as the refuelling I stated it had been seen doing but you now want to claim is just a photo opportunity. Its worth noting that you provide no proof of this claim...."Assume all you like. I have posted what the Prime Minister's spokesman and Air Commodore Edwards has written referring to the design and painting. Look them up yourself. If that information changes then fine, otherwise how about accepting the facts as they stand? You asked me to provide some impossible to provide information about aircraft deployment. You have nothing further to add either so what's your point? One of the former foreign secretary's complaints was that the aeroplane was grey and not available enough. No longer denying that a brightly painted aircraft cannot be deployed in the same way as a conventionally coloured one then? I expect it will become more available as the situations under which it will be deployed for military uses will be reduced. I'm sure that air forces around the world will be playing games to identify and get in weapons range of this particular aircraft for years to come. It is a photo opportunity because...the photos and videos have been widely distributed for publicity purposes. It's difficult to provide clearer evidence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone have any proof that the plane was originally painted with anti radar paint and not just standard, basic, light aircraft grey? I understand it does have some absorbing properties but would not help in today's world very much. It's like a soldier wearing body armour and then being blown up by a huge mine. He may have had the armour but the outcome is the same. Same with this paint up against anti air craft systems. Especially given the size and shape of it. The Americans spent a fortune on stealth planes and still not perfect" Go and tell the RAF and the aircrew flying a high visibility, reflective tanker full of aviation fuel that a marginal reduction in their observability to a radar or a man carrying a hand held surface to air missile targeted with his eye and an infrared acquisition system is fine | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone have any proof that the plane was originally painted with anti radar paint and not just standard, basic, light aircraft grey? I understand it does have some absorbing properties but would not help in today's world very much. It's like a soldier wearing body armour and then being blown up by a huge mine. He may have had the armour but the outcome is the same. Same with this paint up against anti air craft systems. Especially given the size and shape of it. The Americans spent a fortune on stealth planes and still not perfect Go and tell the RAF and the aircrew flying a high visibility, reflective tanker full of aviation fuel that a marginal reduction in their observability to a radar or a man carrying a hand held surface to air missile targeted with his eye and an infrared acquisition system is fine "Wow! Your lack of knowledge on this subject is bordering on criminal! But do carry on trying, you're cheering up a dull Sunday. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a bit of a vanity project. If this gvt didn’t have such a populist and nationalistic agenda, nobody would bother too much about it but it is yet another case of ‘Britain über alles’ that goes well with Bojo’s waffle and bluster. The timing is also pretty disturbing. We’ve just probably 65000 deaths and unemployment is about to go up sharply. In the big scheme of things £900 000 is not that much money for a country like the U.K. but symbolically, at a time when Things are getting difficult for a lot of people and when this gvt has to be forced to provide free school meals in the summer, I find it pretty clumsy or even insulting. However if I look at the shitshow this gvt has served us since September, there are many more things that have shocked more. Perfect time to cancel a £900,000 project then eh? Make a few more people redundant... maybe they could have stopped the project during Corona, then left the aircraft, half done until you felt it would be "ok" to finish it ? Alright then, let’s get every single car in the country be repainted with the Union Jack with taxpayers’ money then. Why should we stop at one plane? I want mine with the Union Jack and the EU flags on it. That’ll save and create more jobs. Let’s have every public building covered with union jacks paintings paid by our councils.. You’ve got to laugh at people making up fallacious arguments to defend what is clearly morally wrong. What’s next? Provide every household with boxer shorts covered with Union jacks? All this made in the U.K. as well and subsidised with taxpayers’ money. It may also be time to remind you that a year or two ago, Bojo and his mates felt that creating more jobs in schools or giving a tiny pay rise would be a waste of money. Your opinion? " What the fuck is this drivel? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Loving this thread pure comedy gold "It's easy to laugh, but these people are actually allowed to vote! Terrifying really. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a bit of a vanity project. If this gvt didn’t have such a populist and nationalistic agenda, nobody would bother too much about it but it is yet another case of ‘Britain über alles’ that goes well with Bojo’s waffle and bluster. The timing is also pretty disturbing. We’ve just probably 65000 deaths and unemployment is about to go up sharply. In the big scheme of things £900 000 is not that much money for a country like the U.K. but symbolically, at a time when Things are getting difficult for a lot of people and when this gvt has to be forced to provide free school meals in the summer, I find it pretty clumsy or even insulting. However if I look at the shitshow this gvt has served us since September, there are many more things that have shocked more. Perfect time to cancel a £900,000 project then eh? Make a few more people redundant... maybe they could have stopped the project during Corona, then left the aircraft, half done until you felt it would be "ok" to finish it ? Alright then, let’s get every single car in the country be repainted with the Union Jack with taxpayers’ money then. Why should we stop at one plane? I want mine with the Union Jack and the EU flags on it. That’ll save and create more jobs. Let’s have every public building covered with union jacks paintings paid by our councils.. You’ve got to laugh at people making up fallacious arguments to defend what is clearly morally wrong. What’s next? Provide every household with boxer shorts covered with Union jacks? All this made in the U.K. as well and subsidised with taxpayers’ money. It may also be time to remind you that a year or two ago, Bojo and his mates felt that creating more jobs in schools or giving a tiny pay rise would be a waste of money. Your opinion? What the fuck is this drivel? "Just following your logic or your drivel to be more precise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Did you even read the article?
a direct quote -
"They are also fitting a state-of-the-art communications system which will have encryption to enable secret messages to be sent in flight."
Yes, there is a tactical reason for paintings planes grey. The RAF have obviously agreed that this plane does not need it but you think you know better..
Do you also know that it isn't completing the same military operations that it did before? Has this plane ever even seen a war zone? Again, The RAF have agreed that the paint colour is fine, but you think you know better...
Lastly, you posted that the plane has been seen carrying out refuelling so the plane is still doing military duty. It`s not sat idle in a hangar waiting for boris to hop on and off as he pleases.
I dislike reading The Sun, but in this case I did.
Fitting the system at the same time does not mean that it was included in the £900,000 cost does it?
You must be surprised at your final bill all the time
Funnily enough, deployment information for specific military aircraft is not readily available
However, the implication is that you do not think that this aircraft has previously been used in a military capacity, so why the pretence that it is dual use rather than purely VIP transport?
All that has been said is that it can carry out in-flight refuelling.
A photo opportunity is not any indication that it can be used in the same circumstances as another aircraft in the fleet and be deployed to the same places under the same circumstances as another aircraft.
Again, why pretend?
The plane was in for a 900k makeover, it is a fair assumption that the work done in this time is included in the cost. As you provide no proof that it wasn`t I wont be paying much heed to you claiming it is not proof it was.
There is no implication that I don't think it was carrying out military duties. That is you telling me what I think... or rather what you would like other people to think about me.
I asked if it had been to a warzone where it requires grey paint to avoid being seen. There is lots of military work to be done that is not in a warzone such as the refuelling I stated it had been seen doing but you now want to claim is just a photo opportunity. Its worth noting that you provide no proof of this claim....
Assume all you like.
I have posted what the Prime Minister's spokesman and Air Commodore Edwards has written referring to the design and painting.
Look them up yourself.
If that information changes then fine, otherwise how about accepting the facts as they stand?
You asked me to provide some impossible to provide information about aircraft deployment. You have nothing further to add either so what's your point?
One of the former foreign secretary's complaints was that the aeroplane was grey and not available enough.
No longer denying that a brightly painted aircraft cannot be deployed in the same way as a conventionally coloured one then?
I expect it will become more available as the situations under which it will be deployed for military uses will be reduced. I'm sure that air forces around the world will be playing games to identify and get in weapons range of this particular aircraft for years to come.
It is a photo opportunity because...the photos and videos have been widely distributed for publicity purposes. It's difficult to provide clearer evidence "And you can assume that what someone has said in reference to the painting means that nothing else has been done. The paint job is perfectly fine to be used in the planes normal capacity, if its normal capacity is somewhere its not having missiles pointed at it, thats before taking into account that grey paint wont make it invisible anyway. As for the "photo op", ok its a publicity photo. but its a photo of it carrying out it`s duties. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a bit of a vanity project. If this gvt didn’t have such a populist and nationalistic agenda, nobody would bother too much about it but it is yet another case of ‘Britain über alles’ that goes well with Bojo’s waffle and bluster. The timing is also pretty disturbing. We’ve just probably 65000 deaths and unemployment is about to go up sharply. In the big scheme of things £900 000 is not that much money for a country like the U.K. but symbolically, at a time when Things are getting difficult for a lot of people and when this gvt has to be forced to provide free school meals in the summer, I find it pretty clumsy or even insulting. However if I look at the shitshow this gvt has served us since September, there are many more things that have shocked more. Perfect time to cancel a £900,000 project then eh? Make a few more people redundant... maybe they could have stopped the project during Corona, then left the aircraft, half done until you felt it would be "ok" to finish it ? Alright then, let’s get every single car in the country be repainted with the Union Jack with taxpayers’ money then. Why should we stop at one plane? I want mine with the Union Jack and the EU flags on it. That’ll save and create more jobs. Let’s have every public building covered with union jacks paintings paid by our councils.. You’ve got to laugh at people making up fallacious arguments to defend what is clearly morally wrong. What’s next? Provide every household with boxer shorts covered with Union jacks? All this made in the U.K. as well and subsidised with taxpayers’ money. It may also be time to remind you that a year or two ago, Bojo and his mates felt that creating more jobs in schools or giving a tiny pay rise would be a waste of money. Your opinion? What the fuck is this drivel?
Just following your logic or your drivel to be more precise. "If only. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone have any proof that the plane was originally painted with anti radar paint and not just standard, basic, light aircraft grey? I understand it does have some absorbing properties but would not help in today's world very much. It's like a soldier wearing body armour and then being blown up by a huge mine. He may have had the armour but the outcome is the same. Same with this paint up against anti air craft systems. Especially given the size and shape of it. The Americans spent a fortune on stealth planes and still not perfect Go and tell the RAF and the aircrew flying a high visibility, reflective tanker full of aviation fuel that a marginal reduction in their observability to a radar or a man carrying a hand held surface to air missile targeted with his eye and an infrared acquisition system is fine "Do you think that grey paint will defeat an infra red acquisition system? Its not even going to defeat someone from seeing it with their eyes either. Its grey paint, not an invisibility cloak. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Did you even read the article?
a direct quote -
"They are also fitting a state-of-the-art communications system which will have encryption to enable secret messages to be sent in flight."
Yes, there is a tactical reason for paintings planes grey. The RAF have obviously agreed that this plane does not need it but you think you know better..
Do you also know that it isn't completing the same military operations that it did before? Has this plane ever even seen a war zone? Again, The RAF have agreed that the paint colour is fine, but you think you know better...
Lastly, you posted that the plane has been seen carrying out refuelling so the plane is still doing military duty. It`s not sat idle in a hangar waiting for boris to hop on and off as he pleases.
I dislike reading The Sun, but in this case I did.
Fitting the system at the same time does not mean that it was included in the £900,000 cost does it?
You must be surprised at your final bill all the time
Funnily enough, deployment information for specific military aircraft is not readily available
However, the implication is that you do not think that this aircraft has previously been used in a military capacity, so why the pretence that it is dual use rather than purely VIP transport?
All that has been said is that it can carry out in-flight refuelling.
A photo opportunity is not any indication that it can be used in the same circumstances as another aircraft in the fleet and be deployed to the same places under the same circumstances as another aircraft.
Again, why pretend?
The plane was in for a 900k makeover, it is a fair assumption that the work done in this time is included in the cost. As you provide no proof that it wasn`t I wont be paying much heed to you claiming it is not proof it was.
There is no implication that I don't think it was carrying out military duties. That is you telling me what I think... or rather what you would like other people to think about me.
I asked if it had been to a warzone where it requires grey paint to avoid being seen. There is lots of military work to be done that is not in a warzone such as the refuelling I stated it had been seen doing but you now want to claim is just a photo opportunity. Its worth noting that you provide no proof of this claim....
Assume all you like.
I have posted what the Prime Minister's spokesman and Air Commodore Edwards has written referring to the design and painting.
Look them up yourself.
If that information changes then fine, otherwise how about accepting the facts as they stand?
You asked me to provide some impossible to provide information about aircraft deployment. You have nothing further to add either so what's your point?
One of the former foreign secretary's complaints was that the aeroplane was grey and not available enough.
No longer denying that a brightly painted aircraft cannot be deployed in the same way as a conventionally coloured one then?
I expect it will become more available as the situations under which it will be deployed for military uses will be reduced. I'm sure that air forces around the world will be playing games to identify and get in weapons range of this particular aircraft for years to come.
It is a photo opportunity because...the photos and videos have been widely distributed for publicity purposes. It's difficult to provide clearer evidence
And you can assume that what someone has said in reference to the painting means that nothing else has been done.
The paint job is perfectly fine to be used in the planes normal capacity, if its normal capacity is somewhere its not having missiles pointed at it, thats before taking into account that grey paint wont make it invisible anyway.
As for the "photo op", ok its a publicity photo. but its a photo of it carrying out it`s duties."Maybe these people think that tankers fly along side the attack aircraft, not hundreds of miles away.. bless.
I wish they'd must admit they hate the flag. I could understand that. It's the bullshit lies that i find impossible to respect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Loving this thread pure comedy gold "It really is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone have any proof that the plane was originally painted with anti radar paint and not just standard, basic, light aircraft grey? I understand it does have some absorbing properties but would not help in today's world very much. It's like a soldier wearing body armour and then being blown up by a huge mine. He may have had the armour but the outcome is the same. Same with this paint up against anti air craft systems. Especially given the size and shape of it. The Americans spent a fortune on stealth planes and still not perfect Go and tell the RAF and the aircrew flying a high visibility, reflective tanker full of aviation fuel that a marginal reduction in their observability to a radar or a man carrying a hand held surface to air missile targeted with his eye and an infrared acquisition system is fine
Do you think that grey paint will defeat an infra red acquisition system? Its not even going to defeat someone from seeing it with their eyes either. Its grey paint, not an invisibility cloak. "There's just no point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not if it's been mentioned, but the union flag on the tail seem upside down." It’s not Was covered in previous version of this thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ah we only spend £4.6 million on year royal royal air travel. Buttons. Prince Andrew has to get to golf somehow. " True dat And he is on his arse now with no 'meaningful work' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Loving this thread pure comedy gold
It's easy to laugh, but these people are actually allowed to vote! Terrifying really. "Precisely the reason we have a clueless buffoon at no 10. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone have any proof that the plane was originally painted with anti radar paint and not just standard, basic, light aircraft grey? I understand it does have some absorbing properties but would not help in today's world very much. It's like a soldier wearing body armour and then being blown up by a huge mine. He may have had the armour but the outcome is the same. Same with this paint up against anti air craft systems. Especially given the size and shape of it. The Americans spent a fortune on stealth planes and still not perfect Go and tell the RAF and the aircrew flying a high visibility, reflective tanker full of aviation fuel that a marginal reduction in their observability to a radar or a man carrying a hand held surface to air missile targeted with his eye and an infrared acquisition system is fine
Wow! Your lack of knowledge on this subject is bordering on criminal! But do carry on trying, you're cheering up a dull Sunday. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Did you even read the article?
a direct quote -
"They are also fitting a state-of-the-art communications system which will have encryption to enable secret messages to be sent in flight."
Yes, there is a tactical reason for paintings planes grey. The RAF have obviously agreed that this plane does not need it but you think you know better..
Do you also know that it isn't completing the same military operations that it did before? Has this plane ever even seen a war zone? Again, The RAF have agreed that the paint colour is fine, but you think you know better...
Lastly, you posted that the plane has been seen carrying out refuelling so the plane is still doing military duty. It`s not sat idle in a hangar waiting for boris to hop on and off as he pleases.
I dislike reading The Sun, but in this case I did.
Fitting the system at the same time does not mean that it was included in the £900,000 cost does it?
You must be surprised at your final bill all the time
Funnily enough, deployment information for specific military aircraft is not readily available
However, the implication is that you do not think that this aircraft has previously been used in a military capacity, so why the pretence that it is dual use rather than purely VIP transport?
All that has been said is that it can carry out in-flight refuelling.
A photo opportunity is not any indication that it can be used in the same circumstances as another aircraft in the fleet and be deployed to the same places under the same circumstances as another aircraft.
Again, why pretend?
The plane was in for a 900k makeover, it is a fair assumption that the work done in this time is included in the cost. As you provide no proof that it wasn`t I wont be paying much heed to you claiming it is not proof it was.
There is no implication that I don't think it was carrying out military duties. That is you telling me what I think... or rather what you would like other people to think about me.
I asked if it had been to a warzone where it requires grey paint to avoid being seen. There is lots of military work to be done that is not in a warzone such as the refuelling I stated it had been seen doing but you now want to claim is just a photo opportunity. Its worth noting that you provide no proof of this claim....
Assume all you like.
I have posted what the Prime Minister's spokesman and Air Commodore Edwards has written referring to the design and painting.
Look them up yourself.
If that information changes then fine, otherwise how about accepting the facts as they stand?
You asked me to provide some impossible to provide information about aircraft deployment. You have nothing further to add either so what's your point?
One of the former foreign secretary's complaints was that the aeroplane was grey and not available enough.
No longer denying that a brightly painted aircraft cannot be deployed in the same way as a conventionally coloured one then?
I expect it will become more available as the situations under which it will be deployed for military uses will be reduced. I'm sure that air forces around the world will be playing games to identify and get in weapons range of this particular aircraft for years to come.
It is a photo opportunity because...the photos and videos have been widely distributed for publicity purposes. It's difficult to provide clearer evidence
And you can assume that what someone has said in reference to the painting means that nothing else has been done.
The paint job is perfectly fine to be used in the planes normal capacity, if its normal capacity is somewhere its not having missiles pointed at it, thats before taking into account that grey paint wont make it invisible anyway.
As for the "photo op", ok its a publicity photo. but its a photo of it carrying out it`s duties.
Maybe these people think that tankers fly along side the attack aircraft, not hundreds of miles away.. bless.
I wish they'd must admit they hate the flag. I could understand that. It's the bullshit lies that i find impossible to respect. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone have any proof that the plane was originally painted with anti radar paint and not just standard, basic, light aircraft grey? I understand it does have some absorbing properties but would not help in today's world very much. It's like a soldier wearing body armour and then being blown up by a huge mine. He may have had the armour but the outcome is the same. Same with this paint up against anti air craft systems. Especially given the size and shape of it. The Americans spent a fortune on stealth planes and still not perfect Go and tell the RAF and the aircrew flying a high visibility, reflective tanker full of aviation fuel that a marginal reduction in their observability to a radar or a man carrying a hand held surface to air missile targeted with his eye and an infrared acquisition system is fine
Do you think that grey paint will defeat an infra red acquisition system? Its not even going to defeat someone from seeing it with their eyes either. Its grey paint, not an invisibility cloak. "I think he is getting it mixed up with the klingons in star trek | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I love 'OUR' new paint job. After all it belongs to the UK not Boris or any other past or future PM. Better for all officals on official duty to be flying around in a transport dressed in our Flag, than a Drab Grey Military one. "Yeah but "Boris did it..?"
"Wah! wah! Tories!" etc
"Won't someone think of the children?!" And so on... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You know how the grey raf voyagers are supposed to be invisible and their flight top secret and unnoticed and boris has gone and ruined it... well it turns out that you can track them on the flight radar website https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zz335 "Again, nobody said anything about them being invisible. You also asked specifically where this particular Voyager aircraft has been deployed. Feel free to dig that information up. You know that all military aircraft switch on their transponders in civilian airspace when not on mission right? Funnily enough, they tend to not actively broadcast there location when in action. You're welcome | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone have any proof that the plane was originally painted with anti radar paint and not just standard, basic, light aircraft grey? I understand it does have some absorbing properties but would not help in today's world very much. It's like a soldier wearing body armour and then being blown up by a huge mine. He may have had the armour but the outcome is the same. Same with this paint up against anti air craft systems. Especially given the size and shape of it. The Americans spent a fortune on stealth planes and still not perfect Go and tell the RAF and the aircrew flying a high visibility, reflective tanker full of aviation fuel that a marginal reduction in their observability to a radar or a man carrying a hand held surface to air missile targeted with his eye and an infrared acquisition system is fine
Wow! Your lack of knowledge on this subject is bordering on criminal! But do carry on trying, you're cheering up a dull Sunday. "Ah! Gaslighting
You know nothing either though. You have no secret knowledge or experience but you're criticising me.
You can't even find a conspiracy nutjob as you are directly contradicting both the Prime Minister's spokesman and Air Commodore Edwards on the £900,000 being spent on design and paint.
You also haven't been able to say why all other RAF Voyagers are painted as they are.
No reason? Just for fun?
Any Prime Minister who decides that spending this much money during a global pandemic and a global recession is a priority and more important than almost any other activity would be a numpty regardless of political affiliation.
You are very clearly unable to explain why it's a priority.
You are also the person babbling about Boris all the time. Haven't you noticed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Perhaps this will lead to our entire Voyager fleet being pointed up on high-vis as there is apparently zero benefit in the RAF choosing to paint there aircraft as they do
I'd say that I was surprised, but I'm really not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yeah but "Boris did it..?"
"Wah! wah! Tories!" etc
"Won't someone think of the children?!" And so on..."Paint the children in the same colours lol - Give them some pride in their country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yeah but "Boris did it..?"
"Wah! wah! Tories!" etc
"Won't someone think of the children?!" And so on...
Paint the children in the same colours lol - Give them some pride in their country. "We're not allowed to be proud, that makes us racist, white supremacists who support slavery. We should be apologetic and embarrassed for being who we are. It's like you haven't read the "liberal's guide to self loathing"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do some on here feel the need to be so rude to others just because they happen to have a different opinion. As none here are experts or any decent knowledge of the subject it is just a difference of opinion. " Speak for yourself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A pandemic, a global recession and we are spending £900,000 to paint a bloody plane! None of you can think of a more useful way to spend the money. Why? To impress people who already know that we're coming. However, if your belief is correct that it will continue carrying out the same military duties this mobile advertising hoarding will be glinting in the skies hundreds of miles from anywhere for half the time. At least the fighter pilots will be able to spot it easily to fuel up
Perhaps this will lead to our entire Voyager fleet being pointed up on high-vis as there is apparently zero benefit in the RAF choosing to paint there aircraft as they do
I'd say that I was surprised, but I'm really not "I do hope it keeps you awake at night. X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do some on here feel the need to be so rude to others just because they happen to have a different opinion. As none here are experts or any decent knowledge of the subject it is just a difference of opinion. Speak for yourself "It was not aimed at you just saying in general things on here are just opinions and no need for anyone to be rude. If you have more in depth knowledge of the subject that's worth knowing. I hope I did not cause offense but if I did I apologise | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do some on here feel the need to be so rude to others just because they happen to have a different opinion. As none here are experts or any decent knowledge of the subject it is just a difference of opinion. Speak for yourself
It was not aimed at you just saying in general things on here are just opinions and no need for anyone to be rude. If you have more in depth knowledge of the subject that's worth knowing. I hope I did not cause offense but if I did I apologise" you're alright by me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yeah but "Boris did it..?"
"Wah! wah! Tories!" etc
"Won't someone think of the children?!" And so on...
Paint the children in the same colours lol - Give them some pride in their country.
We're not allowed to be proud, that makes us racist, white supremacists who support slavery. We should be apologetic and embarrassed for being who we are. It's like you haven't read the "liberal's guide to self loathing"?"It’s all fine to load the boat and to caricature but there is difference between self loathing and the populist agenda the current gvt has. That’s what a lot of people can’t really stand with this gvt. It’s all about flexing their muscles, be as loud as possible, proclaiming we’re the centre of the universe etc. And once you’ve scratched the surface, there’s nothing left. A lot of rhetoric but very little action, a lot of u turns, a blatant inability to recognise the mistakes that have been done and to act with a minimum of honesty and integrity ( Cummings and Jendrick for example) People who feel insecure about themselves, who are afraid to have a too small willy will enjoy being told that we are world beating at everything and that the world is at our feet. It will flatter their ego. Those who look beyond this realise it’s a lot of bull, sound bites etc.. We’ll now see how these clowns are going to manage the economy. After having accused the other lot of boom and bust, not fixing the roof when the sun was shining and so on, I can’t wait to see how it’s done. So far 65 000 deaths and no track and trace system is not the best of starts. Let’s see what happens next. Anyone can write lies on the side of a bus or get a plane painted. That’s the easy bit done. The pop corn is ready at my end. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yeah but "Boris did it..?"
"Wah! wah! Tories!" etc
"Won't someone think of the children?!" And so on...
Paint the children in the same colours lol - Give them some pride in their country.
We're not allowed to be proud, that makes us racist, white supremacists who support slavery. We should be apologetic and embarrassed for being who we are. It's like you haven't read the "liberal's guide to self loathing"?
It’s all fine to load the boat and to caricature but there is difference between self loathing and the populist agenda the current gvt has.
That’s what a lot of people can’t really stand with this gvt. It’s all about flexing their muscles, be as loud as possible, proclaiming we’re the centre of the universe etc. And once you’ve scratched the surface, there’s nothing left. A lot of rhetoric but very little action, a lot of u turns, a blatant inability to recognise the mistakes that have been done and to act with a minimum of honesty and integrity ( Cummings and Jendrick for example)
People who feel insecure about themselves, who are afraid to have a too small willy will enjoy being told that we are world beating at everything and that the world is at our feet. It will flatter their ego. Those who look beyond this realise it’s a lot of bull, sound bites etc..
We’ll now see how these clowns are going to manage the economy. After having accused the other lot of boom and bust, not fixing the roof when the sun was shining and so on, I can’t wait to see how it’s done.
So far 65 000 deaths and no track and trace system is not the best of starts. Let’s see what happens next. Anyone can write lies on the side of a bus or get a plane painted. That’s the easy bit done. The pop corn is ready at my end.
"Spot on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We’ll now see how these clowns are going to manage the economy. After having accused the other lot of boom and bust, not fixing the roof when the sun was shining and so on, I can’t wait to see how it’s done. " Imagine if there hadn't been Austerity - there wouldn't have been any money at all to pay for Furlough. Quantative Easing or the whole 9 yards. Think about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We’ll now see how these clowns are going to manage the economy. After having accused the other lot of boom and bust, not fixing the roof when the sun was shining and so on, I can’t wait to see how it’s done. Imagine if there hadn't been Austerity - there wouldn't have been any money at all to pay for Furlough. Quantative Easing or the whole 9 yards. Think about it. "Well that's not true, or at the very least it's nearly impossible to prove. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We’ll now see how these clowns are going to manage the economy. After having accused the other lot of boom and bust, not fixing the roof when the sun was shining and so on, I can’t wait to see how it’s done. Imagine if there hadn't been Austerity - there wouldn't have been any money at all to pay for Furlough. Quantative Easing or the whole 9 yards. Think about it. "Austerity was ideological. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We’ll now see how these clowns are going to manage the economy. After having accused the other lot of boom and bust, not fixing the roof when the sun was shining and so on, I can’t wait to see how it’s done. Imagine if there hadn't been Austerity - there wouldn't have been any money at all to pay for Furlough. Quantative Easing or the whole 9 yards. Think about it.
Well that's not true, or at the very least it's nearly impossible to prove."Well Labour left the tin empty. So where do you think it came from? 10 years of austerity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We’ll now see how these clowns are going to manage the economy. After having accused the other lot of boom and bust, not fixing the roof when the sun was shining and so on, I can’t wait to see how it’s done. Imagine if there hadn't been Austerity - there wouldn't have been any money at all to pay for Furlough. Quantative Easing or the whole 9 yards. Think about it.
Austerity was ideological."Tell that to the thousands and thousand who lost their jobs in cutbacks? Tell that to 20 thousand Police jobs ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We’ll now see how these clowns are going to manage the economy. After having accused the other lot of boom and bust, not fixing the roof when the sun was shining and so on, I can’t wait to see how it’s done. This is not true. Austerity wasn’t a necessity. It was ideological. The savings could have been made on a longer period. If austerity was needed ten years ago to afford the furlough scheme, why are the tories telling us that they won’t go for austerity this time? There’s more than one way to get out of recession. For the tories hammering public services and the poor is part of their DNA but it doesn’t have to be like this. Imagine if there hadn't been Austerity - there wouldn't have been any money at all to pay for Furlough. Quantative Easing or the whole 9 yards. Think about it. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We’ll now see how these clowns are going to manage the economy. After having accused the other lot of boom and bust, not fixing the roof when the sun was shining and so on, I can’t wait to see how it’s done. Imagine if there hadn't been Austerity - there wouldn't have been any money at all to pay for Furlough. Quantative Easing or the whole 9 yards. Think about it.
Well that's not true, or at the very least it's nearly impossible to prove.
Well Labour left the tin empty. So where do you think it came from? 10 years of austerity."Where did what come from? How do you think the furlough scheme is going to be paid for? I'll tell you, it's not from some money which the Tories built up, it's going to come from massive borrowing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You really cannot get proper news from the Socialist Times lol." The problem in this country is that socialism has become an ugly world and right wingers discredit it by saying it is communism. Socialism ( or social democracy) has been the way most european countries have been run since ww2. It hasn’t been that bad. What would you say if I was to say that Johnson is a far right verging on nazism? This would be in the same league as comparing Labour to Marxism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We’ll now see how these clowns are going to manage the economy. After having accused the other lot of boom and bust, not fixing the roof when the sun was shining and so on, I can’t wait to see how it’s done. Imagine if there hadn't been Austerity - there wouldn't have been any money at all to pay for Furlough. Quantative Easing or the whole 9 yards. Think about it.
Well that's not true, or at the very least it's nearly impossible to prove.
Well Labour left the tin empty. So where do you think it came from? 10 years of austerity."Well it wasnt cheap bailing out those Tory bankers I'm fairly sure it was also a world wide economic crash | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We’ll now see how these clowns are going to manage the economy. After having accused the other lot of boom and bust, not fixing the roof when the sun was shining and so on, I can’t wait to see how it’s done. Imagine if there hadn't been Austerity - there wouldn't have been any money at all to pay for Furlough. Quantative Easing or the whole 9 yards. Think about it.
Austerity was ideological.
Tell that to the thousands and thousand who lost their jobs in cutbacks? Tell that to 20 thousand Police jobs ?"Why wouldnt I? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
uk public spending - not hard to find. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The budget deficit skyrocketed to £50 billion in 2009 and £103 billion in 2010. ... Since then the deficit (Austerity) has steadily declined, to less than one percent GDP in 2017. At the end of March 2019 the “current budget deficit” was a surplus of 0.9 percent of GDP.
uk public spending - not hard to find."£500 billion was spent on the bank bailout Presumably the tories would have let them go under? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The budget deficit skyrocketed to £50 billion in 2009 and £103 billion in 2010. ... Since then the deficit (Austerity) has steadily declined, to less than one percent GDP in 2017. At the end of March 2019 the “current budget deficit” was a surplus of 0.9 percent of GDP.
uk public spending - not hard to find.
£500 billion was spent on the bank bailout
Presumably the tories would have let them go under?"If the banks had gone under - the whole UK population would have gone under. Every penny that people ahd saved whould have been lost - mortgages would have defaulted - thousands of businesses would have closed because loans would have been foreclosed - whether you like people like banks making profit or not it is the banks that have a fundemental role in the wealth of a society. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You know how the grey raf voyagers are supposed to be invisible and their flight top secret and unnoticed and boris has gone and ruined it... well it turns out that you can track them on the flight radar website https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zz335
Again, nobody said anything about them being invisible. You also asked specifically where this particular Voyager aircraft has been deployed. Feel free to dig that information up.
You know that all military aircraft switch on their transponders in civilian airspace when not on mission right?
Funnily enough, they tend to not actively broadcast there location when in action.
You're welcome "The fact that civillians can track them from the comfort of their armchair using their mobile phone is just an example to show the futility of your grey paint argument. I mean, there are mobile phones that can zoom in on the moon so seeing it with your own eyes is within the capabilities of the average person and the military tech is infinitely more advanced. They can track kim jong uns private train from space and that doesn't even have a transponder. They where tracking intercontinental ballistic missiles in the gulf war 30 years ago and guess what, they don't have a transponder either. The movements of the royal voyager (zz36)is available online as well, I just used zz335 to as it is the grey you calimed to be so important. https://planefinder.net/data/aircraft/ZZ336 The previous example also showed them not being used near any war zone, all though the fact we are not at war should be enough. As someone said previously, they don't follow the fighter jets into battle, they are refuelled well away from places they are likely to be shot down by a missile. Again rendering your grey paint argument mute. Saying that military planes turn off their transponders if on a secret mission is not exactly a revelation, the commercial planes hijacked in the 9/11 attacks turned of their transponders but they were still tracked. As I have already said, the RAF have allowed it to have its colour changed so they obviously don't think the grey paint to be a major disadvantage however you are tenuously hanging onto the claim to criticise the government. Also, as I have previously stated repainting an airplane is a maintinace event. What this involves is stripping the plane down to bare metal to inspect it for defects, cracks, loose rivets and components etc. This is the costly part of the process and as it has just been completed, painting it with a different colour is a relatively minor and quick jobs should it need to be returned to grey. The benefit of utilising the plane for a dual purpose obviously outweighs this as it was approved by people with more knowledge and insight than you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The budget deficit skyrocketed to £50 billion in 2009 and £103 billion in 2010. ... Since then the deficit (Austerity) has steadily declined, to less than one percent GDP in 2017. At the end of March 2019 the “current budget deficit” was a surplus of 0.9 percent of GDP.
uk public spending - not hard to find.
£500 billion was spent on the bank bailout
Presumably the tories would have let them go under?
If the banks had gone under - the whole UK population would have gone under. Every penny that people ahd saved whould have been lost - mortgages would have defaulted - thousands of businesses would have closed because loans would have been foreclosed - whether you like people like banks making profit or not it is the banks that have a fundemental role in the wealth of a society.
"So the blame cannot be laid at the door of labour then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The budget deficit skyrocketed to £50 billion in 2009 and £103 billion in 2010. ... Since then the deficit (Austerity) has steadily declined, to less than one percent GDP in 2017. At the end of March 2019 the “current budget deficit” was a surplus of 0.9 percent of GDP.
uk public spending - not hard to find.
£500 billion was spent on the bank bailout
Presumably the tories would have let them go under?
If the banks had gone under - the whole UK population would have gone under. Every penny that people ahd saved whould have been lost - mortgages would have defaulted - thousands of businesses would have closed because loans would have been foreclosed - whether you like people like banks making profit or not it is the banks that have a fundemental role in the wealth of a society.
So the blame cannot be laid at the door of labour then."No not for the Financial crash that was the American Sub Prime Market - but when labour was in power at the time there was little or no money in reserve (and I'm not doing a party politics thing here) The amount of money that was spent on rescuing the Banks led to 'balance budget spending policy' that became Auserity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still nice looking plane though. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You know how the grey raf voyagers are supposed to be invisible and their flight top secret and unnoticed and boris has gone and ruined it... well it turns out that you can track them on the flight radar website https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zz335
Again, nobody said anything about them being invisible. You also asked specifically where this particular Voyager aircraft has been deployed. Feel free to dig that information up.
You know that all military aircraft switch on their transponders in civilian airspace when not on mission right?
Funnily enough, they tend to not actively broadcast there location when in action.
You're welcome
The fact that civillians can track them from the comfort of their armchair using their mobile phone is just an example to show the futility of your grey paint argument. I mean, there are mobile phones that can zoom in on the moon so seeing it with your own eyes is within the capabilities of the average person and the military tech is infinitely more advanced. They can track kim jong uns private train from space and that doesn't even have a transponder. They where tracking intercontinental ballistic missiles in the gulf war 30 years ago and guess what, they don't have a transponder either.
The movements of the royal voyager (zz36)is available online as well, I just used zz335 to as it is the grey you calimed to be so important.
https://planefinder.net/data/aircraft/ZZ336
The previous example also showed them not being used near any war zone, all though the fact we are not at war should be enough. As someone said previously, they don't follow the fighter jets into battle, they are refuelled well away from places they are likely to be shot down by a missile. Again rendering your grey paint argument mute.
Saying that military planes turn off their transponders if on a secret mission is not exactly a revelation, the commercial planes hijacked in the 9/11 attacks turned of their transponders but they were still tracked.
As I have already said, the RAF have allowed it to have its colour changed so they obviously don't think the grey paint to be a major disadvantage however you are tenuously hanging onto the claim to criticise the government.
Also, as I have previously stated repainting an airplane is a maintinace event. What this involves is stripping the plane down to bare metal to inspect it for defects, cracks, loose rivets and components etc. This is the costly part of the process and as it has just been completed, painting it with a different colour is a relatively minor and quick jobs should it need to be returned to grey. The benefit of utilising the plane for a dual purpose obviously outweighs this as it was approved by people with more knowledge and insight than you. "Box on = People can track Box off = People cannot track Box on flying steadily at a certain speed = Know where refuelling combat aircraft are so probably best to turn off Once again, you are welcome. I understand that you believe that an aircraft painted specifically for high visibility and to draw attention is no more at risk than one in grey. It can be deployed in exactly the same circumstances as any other aircraft in the fleet. I also understand that the RAF are a bit dim painting their other tankers grey as they clearly don't need to. You know this having painted some unidentified piece of some unidentified plane once. Obvious really. Thank you for telling me about paint stripping. It was really interesting. Is £900,000 good value for designing and painting an aeroplane? Is there anything else that could benefit from that money in a global medical and economic crisis? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
