Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Agent K

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

147 Excellent

About Agent K

  • Rank
    Established Member
  • Birthday 08/15/1966

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Henlow, Bedfordshire
  • Interests
    Aviation, modelling, Endurance racing and F1, cricket.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not sure if anybody noticed but in a recent photo of the F35's (in formation with the LN F15's and the B2) one was missing the nose roundel, anyone any ideas why?
  2. It's obviously a Type 45 destroyer...……...
  3. Agreed, I'd also add, to the above, that the F35 has, I believe a decent amount of "electronic wizardry" on board and stealthiness and therefore wouldn't need, quite so much, to have a dedicated EW aircraft (which is something the UK has never had anyway).
  4. 25 Squadron are already "stood up" they fly Hawk T2's at Valley.
  5. It's very easy to make these comments but unless you're involved in the strategy and planning within a finite budget, they are actually very logical. Yes I'd like to see more aircraft flying, and a larger air force, it's been trimmed far too much, but blame the government that sets the budget. The rationale, of course, to reduce the 2-seater fleet is that more training is done on simulators (synthetic training I believe they call it) now meaning a decreased requirement for 2-seaters, hence RTP and sustain the combat fleet. Hours will be managed and this is not a problem.
  6. There’s a few flying around in British Forces parachute training contracts and appearing on the display scene a few times.
  7. Wow, just wow, that is simply awesome, well done.
  8. My brother was on the design team, I flew on them a lot. I think it was a good, solid and robust classic British design (like the 1-11 etc.) which has a very good safety record. The engines, I guess were fit for purpose, not highly powered but it had 4 which gave a good safety margin, and are from the same family as the Chinook engines. Enjoyed flying it with uninterrupted views of the land below due to the high wing.
  9. QRA is, I believe still split between the 2 bases, and SHADER aircraft have come from both bases I believe so although yes the security implications are what I've always heard, it doesn't quite make 100% sense if fleets are pooled from both stations?
  10. 207 was always the next planned squadron, it's the OCU, chosen for reasons of having a joint RAF and RNAS/RN heritage. The next operational squadron to stand up will be, of course, and as always planned, 809.
  11. I think 29 still have just a few aircraft in markings, but 3 and 11 don't anymore (I stand to be corrected but I don't think they've been seen in markings for some while).
  12. Share your thoughts and have expressed similar myself over the past couple of years. Whilst, ultimately with squadron and unit markings I guess the operation is paramount and they are the priority to be met, and there's stealth and considerations with the F35, it clearly is possible. For the Typhoon it would be nice to see unit badges and fighter bars back again. It seems Lossie can do this, but not CBY? Wouldn't it be nice to see 3, 11 and and 29 markings back again. The link between the public and the forces is important for the continued support and I think both the markings and engagement and presence goes a long way to achieving that. I've said before that the RAF especially has pulled out of a lot of bases and there are areas of the country no longer with a (significant) permanent base or presence, namely the NW and SW. As you say, I think that is where the link is breaking. I've also, perhaps controversially, noted where the RAF (and I understand the "public display" connotations and implications) do provide a significant amount of support to family days (and the family support is to be appreciated and recognised, I fully support that) where over the past few years as the public RAF display offering has reduced to a Typhoon and sporadic Tutor and Tucano, the family days have seen types not seen on the display circuit, such as the Tornado, Merlin's, Pumas and the large types too. I think this too leads to the disengagement from the masses. My thoughts too.
  13. Sorry, yes, I hear what you are saying!
  14. An interesting discussion here, I too find it surprising/interesting on some of the schemes and designs and colours. The Wildcat mentioned earlier (in Army guise) yes I understand the consistency with the whole Army and Navy fleet, but aesthetically let alone operationally, the previous grey and green scheme is better? (At least part of) the role of camouflage is to break up the shape of the object, and you see that in the F15 (C/D), F16 and F22 with soft blended lines and different shades. It was always strange to see a hard straight line between the upper grey and the underside on the likes of the Tornado F3 which although I guess it blended from a distance I'd have thought a feathered line and greys would have been better. Also it always surprises me that the same aircraft built to do the same role, interpret and have different flavours of camouflage dependent on the operator, for example the Typhoon, where the British, Germans and Saudis all have different schemes and shades of grey, with only the Saudi examples having a scheme and pattern that breaks up the shape of the aircraft to a degree. A fascinating topic!
  15. I'd suspect that it's a shed load cheaper to maintain that consistency rather than having to have your own drawings and stencils and paint shop plans and RAM concerns! etc. etc. etc…...
  • Create New...