OT - Patrick Moore RIP
 

On 22/12/2012 20:40, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Phil Cook
writes




Saddle Our Horses,
Canter Away Happily,
To Other Adventures.

Uh? I don't get those.

It's only soh cah toa again.

OT - Patrick Moore RIP
 

In article , Steve Terry
scribeth thus
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:10:14 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

Like also what if the RAF was knocked out in early Sept. 1940 would
the RN have been able to have stopped an invasion like many have
said?...

Nobody in any position to know all the relevant facts at the time,
thought so.

Air superiority is everything, the Germans invaded Norway after they
crushed their airforce, but failed to crush Sweden's


Yeabut at that time prolly before then and after didn't we have the
worlds largest Navy?..

Steve Terry

--
Tony Sayer

OT - Patrick Moore RIP
 

On 22/12/2012 21:08, Andy Champ wrote:
On 22/12/2012 20:40, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Phil Cook
writes




Saddle Our Horses,
Canter Away Happily,
To Other Adventures.

Uh? I don't get those.

It's only soh cah toa again.

Yes, sine is opposite over hyp,
cosine adjacent over hyp,
tangent opposite over adjacent.
--
Phil Cook

OT - Patrick Moore RIP
 

In message , Phil Cook
writes
On 22/12/2012 21:08, Andy Champ wrote:
On 22/12/2012 20:40, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Phil Cook
writes




Saddle Our Horses,
Canter Away Happily,
To Other Adventures.

Uh? I don't get those.

It's only soh cah toa again.

Yes, sine is opposite over hyp,
cosine adjacent over hyp,
tangent opposite over adjacent.

Ah! All clear now. I just didn't get the 'opposite'. But I sill think
mine is best!
--
Ian

OT - Patrick Moore RIP
 

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Steve Terry
writes
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:10:14 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

Like also what if the RAF was knocked out in early Sept. 1940 would
the RN have been able to have stopped an invasion like many have
said?...

Nobody in any position to know all the relevant facts at the time,
thought so.

Air superiority is everything, the Germans invaded Norway after they
crushed their airforce, but failed to crush Sweden's

Sweden wasn't in the war. They were neutral. But like some other
neutral countries, were occasionally more neutral to one side than
the other.

The Luftwaffe did test Sweden's air defences but came to the conclusion
equipped with mostly Hurricanes and ME109s they were too powerful
to risk an invasion and Hitler kept the neutrality

Steve Terry
--
Get a free GiffGaff PAYG Sim and £5 bonus after activation at:
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/gfourwwk

OT - Patrick Moore RIP
 

In article , Tim
Streater wrote:

Unfortunately the RAF has recently made the same mistake and was
successful in getting the Harrier scrapped instead of the Tornado.

I've not really been watching this, so may be wrong. But I thought that
we'd sold off the Harrier (to the Americans) because our political-military
complex have sunk too much into Eurofighter to admit it is a costly
mistake. As with Trident, etc, all other policy must be bent to shape
around it.

i.e. as usual, the makers of the 'next big weapon system' lead us into
being so *politically* committed to the next big project that we can't back
out without a huge waste of money having to be admitted by the government.
Who sleep-walk whilst the arms makers run rings around them. All the while
the old 'revolving door' whirrs as ex-politicians and ex-Sir Humpfreys take
cushy jobs 'advising' arms makers....

Compared with the need of politicians not to lose face, and arms makers to
keep raking in cash, the actual requirements of a defence forces come a
poor third.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

OT - Patrick Moore RIP
 

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:00:32 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Tim
Streater wrote:

Unfortunately the RAF has recently made the same mistake and was
successful in getting the Harrier scrapped instead of the Tornado.

I've not really been watching this, so may be wrong. But I thought that
we'd sold off the Harrier (to the Americans) because our political-military
complex have sunk too much into Eurofighter to admit it is a costly
mistake. As with Trident, etc, all other policy must be bent to shape
around it.

The American involvement in the Harrier goes back nearly 40 years. The
McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) AV-8B Harrier II was a redesign of the
Hawker Siddeley Harrier for US use. It is used by the US Marine Corp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonne...-8B_Harrier_II

It is so much part of the US military arsenal that an American poster in
another newsgroup said something based on the assumption that the
British Harriers were copies of an American original.

i.e. as usual, the makers of the 'next big weapon system' lead us into
being so *politically* committed to the next big project that we can't back
out without a huge waste of money having to be admitted by the government.
Who sleep-walk whilst the arms makers run rings around them. All the while
the old 'revolving door' whirrs as ex-politicians and ex-Sir Humpfreys take
cushy jobs 'advising' arms makers....

Compared with the need of politicians not to lose face, and arms makers to
keep raking in cash, the actual requirements of a defence forces come a
poor third.

Agreed.


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

OT - Patrick Moore RIP
 

In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:00:32 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Tim
Streater wrote:

Unfortunately the RAF has recently made the same mistake and was
successful in getting the Harrier scrapped instead of the Tornado.

I've not really been watching this, so may be wrong. But I thought that
we'd sold off the Harrier (to the Americans) because [snip]

The American involvement in the Harrier goes back nearly 40 years. The
McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) AV-8B Harrier II was a redesign of the
Hawker Siddeley Harrier for US use. It is used by the US Marine Corp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonne...-8B_Harrier_II

Yes. However what I think has changed more recently is that we have now
sold essentially all the kit, rights, jigs, etc. So will no longer have any
independent ability to build or repair aircraft to the design. If we change
our mind we can now only buy them from the USA who now 'own' the design,
etc.

It is so much part of the US military arsenal that an American poster in
another newsgroup said something based on the assumption that the
British Harriers were copies of an American original.

Yes, I've come across that as well. :-)

The irony is that UK government did nothing to produce the Harrier in the
first place. One of the last private venture 'punts' by a UK company which
was only bought *after* it was shown to work and be useful. But as per
usual, the government had no idea how to assess its value in defence terms.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

OT - Patrick Moore RIP
 

In article , Tim
Streater wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:

Unfortunately the RAF has recently made the same mistake and was
successful in getting the Harrier scrapped instead of the Tornado.

I've not really been watching this, so may be wrong. But I thought
that we'd sold off the Harrier (to the Americans) because our
political-military complex have sunk too much into Eurofighter to
admit it is a costly mistake. As with Trident, etc, all other policy
must be bent to shape around it.

Our local MP gives me the impression that the RAF has been trying to get
the Navy out of carrier-based fixed-wing planes for a long time.

Their has always tended to be 'elbowing for position' like that. It can
certainly be a pest, clouding making sensible decisions.

It's true that the Navy was, during the war, unable to deal with the
Tirpitz and the RAF had to do the job (Lancs + tallboys). But they seem
to overlook that without the Harriers, we'd have been unable to regain
the Falklands 30 years ago.

Personally I'm not interested in what the Services think they need. I'd
pay more attention to some military historians who should be able to
take a wider view.

Personally, I'd include the service people as a part of any 'wider view'.
They are the ones who put themselves in harm's way for our sake. Telling
pilots or captains they can't have kit they have confidence in from
experience strikes me as questionable. As is paring down on diversity and
flexibility of kit.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

OT - Patrick Moore RIP
 

In article ,
Phil Cook wrote:

We used SOHCAHTOA and I can still remember it though I haven't used it in
decades.

(Sin = Opposite over Hypotenuse &c.)

Saddle Our Horses,
Canter Away Happily,
To Other Adventures.

Silly Old Harry
Caught A Herring
Trawling Off Afghanistan

.... always stuck with me :)
--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[-at-]signal11.org.uk | http://www.signal11.org.uk

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---