Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"British forces and diplomatic staff safe and several thousand Afghans who worked for the UK. Sadly many left behind too who will hopefully make it out through neighbouring countries. Don't know how good their odds will be. Is there a reason that the Global Britain liveried RAF Voyager was not used for these duties? After all, it can carry out any military duties in its high visibity red, white and blue paint right? Fully interchangeable with any other aircraft in the fleet..." The real question is why would you ask such a question? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-whole-force-effort-on-operation-pitting/ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"British forces and diplomatic staff safe and several thousand Afghans who worked for the UK. Sadly many left behind too who will hopefully make it out through neighbouring countries. Don't know how good their odds will be. Is there a reason that the Global Britain liveried RAF Voyager was not used for these duties? After all, it can carry out any military duties in its high visibity red, white and blue paint right? Fully interchangeable with any other aircraft in the fleet... The real question is why would you ask such a question?" Because some time ago I was lectured at length that the new high visibility £900,000 paint scheme which the Mod had to pay for would not prevent the aircraft from being used in any military operations. Yet here is the highest profile military operation since it returned to service... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There you go. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-whole-force-effort-on-operation-pitting/ "Try harder. You just read a headline. That's a low vis grey Voyager in the photo and the "whole force effort" was referring to all branches of the RAF, not every aircaft. There you go | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There you go. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-whole-force-effort-on-operation-pitting/
Try harder. You just read a headline.
That's a low vis grey Voyager in the photo and the "whole force effort" was referring to all branches of the RAF, not every aircaft.
There you go "Imagine telling someone to read harder and then not reading it properly yourself
The article states:
The full fleet of RAF transport aircraft from RAF Brize Norton have been flying around the clock to support the evacuation and will continue to do so over the coming days. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont think it matters about the amount of planes we did or didnt send,more to do with the amount of aircraft they could get into the airport,you know to many aircraft means gets more dangerous taking off and landing,u could ask seems as this is crazy joes fuck up why wasnt airforce one airlifting people out? But as usual another blatant boris bashing thread,but welcome back easy good to see nothing much has changed" It is Boris-bashing. Well identified. That is the point of the thread. It deserves highlighting. The aircraft cannot, actually, fulfil its full military role anymore due to its high visibility paint scheme and what it represents politically. It has not even been used for its "Global Britain" job despite our Trade Secretary travelling to the USA. It will be BoJo who "grand stands" in its first trip. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There you go. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-whole-force-effort-on-operation-pitting/
Try harder. You just read a headline.
That's a low vis grey Voyager in the photo and the "whole force effort" was referring to all branches of the RAF, not every aircaft.
There you go
Imagine telling someone to read harder and then not reading it properly yourself
The article states:
The full fleet of RAF transport aircraft from RAF Brize Norton have been flying around the clock to support the evacuation and will continue to do so over the coming days.""Support the evacuation" clearly includes flying to the North Sea and back. ZZ336 has not spent any time anywhere near Afghanistan. Easy enough to look up. Its transponder hasn't been turned off. However, of you know better... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is there a reason that the Global Britain liveried RAF Voyager was not used for these duties? After all, it can carry out any military duties in its high visibity red, white and blue paint right? Fully interchangeable with any other aircraft in the fleet..." When it's needed for a Military purpose it will be used for a Military purpose. No other conspiracy theory applies until then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There you go. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-whole-force-effort-on-operation-pitting/
Try harder. You just read a headline.
That's a low vis grey Voyager in the photo and the "whole force effort" was referring to all branches of the RAF, not every aircaft.
There you go
Imagine telling someone to read harder and then not reading it properly yourself
The article states:
The full fleet of RAF transport aircraft from RAF Brize Norton have been flying around the clock to support the evacuation and will continue to do so over the coming days.
"Support the evacuation" clearly includes flying to the North Sea and back.
ZZ336 has not spent any time anywhere near Afghanistan. Easy enough to look up. Its transponder hasn't been turned off.
However, of you know better..."I didn't say I know better. I was clearly pointing out the article you linked. You obviously didnt read it the same as I did | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont think it matters about the amount of planes we did or didnt send,more to do with the amount of aircraft they could get into the airport,you know to many aircraft means gets more dangerous taking off and landing,u could ask seems as this is crazy joes fuck up why wasnt airforce one airlifting people out? But as usual another blatant boris bashing thread,but welcome back easy good to see nothing much has changed It is Boris-bashing. Well identified. That is the point of the thread. It deserves highlighting. The aircraft cannot, actually, fulfil its full military role anymore due to its high visibility paint scheme and what it represents politically. It has not even been used for its "Global Britain" job despite our Trade Secretary travelling to the USA. It will be BoJo who "grand stands" in its first trip." It took Prince Charles to Athens, and has also been in Europe on a NATO exercise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It has not even been used for its "Global Britain" job despite our Trade Secretary travelling to the USA. It will be BoJo who "grand stands" in its first trip. It took Prince Charles to Athens, and has also been in Europe on a NATO exercise. " So. Clearly being used for its 'Global Britain' job then.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont think it matters about the amount of planes we did or didnt send,more to do with the amount of aircraft they could get into the airport,you know to many aircraft means gets more dangerous taking off and landing,u could ask seems as this is crazy joes fuck up why wasnt airforce one airlifting people out? But as usual another blatant boris bashing thread,but welcome back easy good to see nothing much has changed It is Boris-bashing. Well identified. That is the point of the thread. It deserves highlighting. The aircraft cannot, actually, fulfil its full military role anymore due to its high visibility paint scheme and what it represents politically. It has not even been used for its "Global Britain" job despite our Trade Secretary travelling to the USA. It will be BoJo who "grand stands" in its first trip." how about bashing the yanks then after all this is there mess why wasnt airforce one there?like i said we could of had 1000 extra aircraft to help out but if there no space to land them they wont get used,see ur doing your usual,ask a question it gets answerd and if not answerd how u like ya just keep flogging that dead horse | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"British forces and diplomatic staff safe and several thousand Afghans who worked for the UK. Sadly many left behind too who will hopefully make it out through neighbouring countries. Don't know how good their odds will be. Is there a reason that the Global Britain liveried RAF Voyager was not used for these duties? After all, it can carry out any military duties in its high visibity red, white and blue paint right? Fully interchangeable with any other aircraft in the fleet..." As I understand it there was not a shortage of aircraft but with so many countries evacuating at the same time I assume lack of space. I have not heard anyone say 'if only we had more planes we could get more out'. According to others the plane in question role is a refuel tanker so does not sound an ideal plane to evacuate unless there was a shortage of planes. Sorry but I don't agree with the last sentence where you claim it is supposed to be fully interchangeable with any other aircraft. I can't see anyone claiming it can be interchanged with a small fighter plane for instance | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"British forces and diplomatic staff safe and several thousand Afghans who worked for the UK. Sadly many left behind too who will hopefully make it out through neighbouring countries. Don't know how good their odds will be. Is there a reason that the Global Britain liveried RAF Voyager was not used for these duties? After all, it can carry out any military duties in its high visibity red, white and blue paint right? Fully interchangeable with any other aircraft in the fleet... As I understand it there was not a shortage of aircraft but with so many countries evacuating at the same time I assume lack of space. I have not heard anyone say 'if only we had more planes we could get more out'. According to others the plane in question role is a refuel tanker so does not sound an ideal plane to evacuate unless there was a shortage of planes. Sorry but I don't agree with the last sentence where you claim it is supposed to be fully interchangeable with any other aircraft. I can't see anyone claiming it can be interchanged with a small fighter plane for instance" You do seem to be the only person on here anle to discuss things without outrage
The Voyager is a multirole aircraft. Tanker and transport without conversion
It was claimed that it could carry out the same role that other Voyagers in the fleet could. They were used in this mission.
Actually, more aircraft were chartered for flights from Dubai to the UK, but that is not a military mission. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There you go. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-whole-force-effort-on-operation-pitting/
Try harder. You just read a headline.
That's a low vis grey Voyager in the photo and the "whole force effort" was referring to all branches of the RAF, not every aircaft.
There you go
Imagine telling someone to read harder and then not reading it properly yourself
The article states:
The full fleet of RAF transport aircraft from RAF Brize Norton have been flying around the clock to support the evacuation and will continue to do so over the coming days.
"Support the evacuation" clearly includes flying to the North Sea and back.
ZZ336 has not spent any time anywhere near Afghanistan. Easy enough to look up. Its transponder hasn't been turned off.
However, of you know better...
I didn't say I know better. I was clearly pointing out the article you linked. You obviously didnt read it the same as I did "You are correct. I didn't read it in the same way as you did as Vespina was not deployed,so the entire fleet was not used, unless it is no longer considered as part of the RAF transport fleet... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont think it matters about the amount of planes we did or didnt send,more to do with the amount of aircraft they could get into the airport,you know to many aircraft means gets more dangerous taking off and landing,u could ask seems as this is crazy joes fuck up why wasnt airforce one airlifting people out? But as usual another blatant boris bashing thread,but welcome back easy good to see nothing much has changed It is Boris-bashing. Well identified. That is the point of the thread. It deserves highlighting. The aircraft cannot, actually, fulfil its full military role anymore due to its high visibility paint scheme and what it represents politically. It has not even been used for its "Global Britain" job despite our Trade Secretary travelling to the USA. It will be BoJo who "grand stands" in its first trip. It took Prince Charles to Athens, and has also been in Europe on a NATO exercise. " Then I stand corrected. It has been used once, although I'm a little surprised that The additional, similarly painted charted A321 by the UK government wasn't used for a short trip. Wouldn't a NATO exercise be considered military? Perhaps seeing it anywhere does prompt people in other countries to wish to trade with and feel more positively towards us? Other military are, no doubt, particularly impressed. https://inews.co.uk/news/boris-johnson-brexit-coronavirus-raf-plane-jet-travel-voyager-zz336-1104200 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont think it matters about the amount of planes we did or didnt send,more to do with the amount of aircraft they could get into the airport,you know to many aircraft means gets more dangerous taking off and landing,u could ask seems as this is crazy joes fuck up why wasnt airforce one airlifting people out? But as usual another blatant boris bashing thread,but welcome back easy good to see nothing much has changed It is Boris-bashing. Well identified. That is the point of the thread. It deserves highlighting. The aircraft cannot, actually, fulfil its full military role anymore due to its high visibility paint scheme and what it represents politically. It has not even been used for its "Global Britain" job despite our Trade Secretary travelling to the USA. It will be BoJo who "grand stands" in its first trip.how about bashing the yanks then after all this is there mess why wasnt airforce one there?like i said we could of had 1000 extra aircraft to help out but if there no space to land them they wont get used,see ur doing your usual,ask a question it gets answerd and if not answerd how u like ya just keep flogging that dead horse" This thread is not about bashing the yanks That's why I didn't. The execution of their exit strategy has been terrible though. The question hasn't been answered though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As per usual the OP is looking to score political points. The aircraft is question has a primary role as a refuelling tanker, so not suited for the evacuation role. Rather than criticise the UK military how about praise them for doing a good job?" Not really. I post a out what's of concern. For some time, that has been the I competence and dishonesty of the government. Does that not bother you at all? This is not just a tanker aircraft is it? I have not criticised the UK military at all. Why just lie like that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely when the main objective is to evacuate as many people and as much equipment as you can in restricted time frame you use the planes with the largest capacity you have available to you, not the tanker planes that primarily are used for the transport of fuel not people. The post by the op is sad really, people are dying and are in constant fear etc and you are worried about a planes paint job "Again, look up what the role of the RAF Voyager is and which aircraft were used in the evacuation. The post is to underlie e the fact that the this aircraft cannot ever be used in the same way as other aircraft in the RAF Voyager fleet, in large part due to it's paint job. The RAF is tactically less affective as a consequence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont think it matters about the amount of planes we did or didnt send,more to do with the amount of aircraft they could get into the airport,you know to many aircraft means gets more dangerous taking off and landing,u could ask seems as this is crazy joes fuck up why wasnt airforce one airlifting people out? But as usual another blatant boris bashing thread,but welcome back easy good to see nothing much has changed It is Boris-bashing. Well identified. That is the point of the thread. It deserves highlighting. The aircraft cannot, actually, fulfil its full military role anymore due to its high visibility paint scheme and what it represents politically. It has not even been used for its "Global Britain" job despite our Trade Secretary travelling to the USA. It will be BoJo who "grand stands" in its first trip.how about bashing the yanks then after all this is there mess why wasnt airforce one there?like i said we could of had 1000 extra aircraft to help out but if there no space to land them they wont get used,see ur doing your usual,ask a question it gets answerd and if not answerd how u like ya just keep flogging that dead horse This thread is not about bashing the yanks That's why I didn't. The execution of their exit strategy has been terrible though. The question hasn't been answered though "it has been answerd it wasnt used because it didnt need to be used,the problem wasnt lack of planes it was lack of slots to get the planes on the ground,u might of had a point if we had been short of planes but that wasnt the case,if u wana slag boris of for being shit start a thread named boris is shit instead of using afghan to try and make it an emotional response,but then again this is standard for you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont think it matters about the amount of planes we did or didnt send,more to do with the amount of aircraft they could get into the airport,you know to many aircraft means gets more dangerous taking off and landing,u could ask seems as this is crazy joes fuck up why wasnt airforce one airlifting people out? But as usual another blatant boris bashing thread,but welcome back easy good to see nothing much has changed It is Boris-bashing. Well identified. That is the point of the thread. It deserves highlighting. The aircraft cannot, actually, fulfil its full military role anymore due to its high visibility paint scheme and what it represents politically. It has not even been used for its "Global Britain" job despite our Trade Secretary travelling to the USA. It will be BoJo who "grand stands" in its first trip. It took Prince Charles to Athens, and has also been in Europe on a NATO exercise. Then I stand corrected. It has been used once, although I'm a little surprised that The additional, similarly painted charted A321 by the UK government wasn't used for a short trip. Wouldn't a NATO exercise be considered military? Perhaps seeing it anywhere does prompt people in other countries to wish to trade with and feel more positively towards us? Other military are, no doubt, particularly impressed. https://inews.co.uk/news/boris-johnson-brexit-coronavirus-raf-plane-jet-travel-voyager-zz336-1104200" Slight correction. It did go to Athens, when Prince Charles was there but I don't now believe he flew there in it. Its also been to Canada, but no details of that mission. The chartered A321 is used more on diplomatic flights these days. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont think it matters about the amount of planes we did or didnt send,more to do with the amount of aircraft they could get into the airport,you know to many aircraft means gets more dangerous taking off and landing,u could ask seems as this is crazy joes fuck up why wasnt airforce one airlifting people out? But as usual another blatant boris bashing thread,but welcome back easy good to see nothing much has changed It is Boris-bashing. Well identified. That is the point of the thread. It deserves highlighting. The aircraft cannot, actually, fulfil its full military role anymore due to its high visibility paint scheme and what it represents politically. It has not even been used for its "Global Britain" job despite our Trade Secretary travelling to the USA. It will be BoJo who "grand stands" in its first trip.how about bashing the yanks then after all this is there mess why wasnt airforce one there?like i said we could of had 1000 extra aircraft to help out but if there no space to land them they wont get used,see ur doing your usual,ask a question it gets answerd and if not answerd how u like ya just keep flogging that dead horse This thread is not about bashing the yanks That's why I didn't. The execution of their exit strategy has been terrible though. The question hasn't been answered though it has been answerd it wasnt used because it didnt need to be used,the problem wasnt lack of planes it was lack of slots to get the planes on the ground,u might of had a point if we had been short of planes but that wasnt the case,if u wana slag boris of for being shit start a thread named boris is shit instead of using afghan to try and make it an emotional response,but then again this is standard for you"It's not because painting an aeroplane in bright colours makes it less militarily useful and that the political significance makes it a bigger target? OK 
You do seem emotional.
Interested to know where this claim about there being no shortage of aircraft comes from? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont think it matters about the amount of planes we did or didnt send,more to do with the amount of aircraft they could get into the airport,you know to many aircraft means gets more dangerous taking off and landing,u could ask seems as this is crazy joes fuck up why wasnt airforce one airlifting people out? But as usual another blatant boris bashing thread,but welcome back easy good to see nothing much has changed It is Boris-bashing. Well identified. That is the point of the thread. It deserves highlighting. The aircraft cannot, actually, fulfil its full military role anymore due to its high visibility paint scheme and what it represents politically. It has not even been used for its "Global Britain" job despite our Trade Secretary travelling to the USA. It will be BoJo who "grand stands" in its first trip. It took Prince Charles to Athens, and has also been in Europe on a NATO exercise. Then I stand corrected. It has been used once, although I'm a little surprised that The additional, similarly painted charted A321 by the UK government wasn't used for a short trip. Wouldn't a NATO exercise be considered military? Perhaps seeing it anywhere does prompt people in other countries to wish to trade with and feel more positively towards us? Other military are, no doubt, particularly impressed. https://inews.co.uk/news/boris-johnson-brexit-coronavirus-raf-plane-jet-travel-voyager-zz336-1104200 Slight correction. It did go to Athens, when Prince Charles was there but I don't now believe he flew there in it. Its also been to Canada, but no details of that mission. The chartered A321 is used more on diplomatic flights these days. " Used for a fly-over that they watched it seems. BoJo will have the first "official" flight in it. This is all about him not Britain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont think it matters about the amount of planes we did or didnt send,more to do with the amount of aircraft they could get into the airport,you know to many aircraft means gets more dangerous taking off and landing,u could ask seems as this is crazy joes fuck up why wasnt airforce one airlifting people out? But as usual another blatant boris bashing thread,but welcome back easy good to see nothing much has changed It is Boris-bashing. Well identified. That is the point of the thread. It deserves highlighting. The aircraft cannot, actually, fulfil its full military role anymore due to its high visibility paint scheme and what it represents politically. It has not even been used for its "Global Britain" job despite our Trade Secretary travelling to the USA. It will be BoJo who "grand stands" in its first trip. It took Prince Charles to Athens, and has also been in Europe on a NATO exercise. Then I stand corrected. It has been used once, although I'm a little surprised that The additional, similarly painted charted A321 by the UK government wasn't used for a short trip. Wouldn't a NATO exercise be considered military? Perhaps seeing it anywhere does prompt people in other countries to wish to trade with and feel more positively towards us? Other military are, no doubt, particularly impressed. https://inews.co.uk/news/boris-johnson-brexit-coronavirus-raf-plane-jet-travel-voyager-zz336-1104200 Slight correction. It did go to Athens, when Prince Charles was there but I don't now believe he flew there in it. Its also been to Canada, but no details of that mission. The chartered A321 is used more on diplomatic flights these days. " ...and to be fair you do, also, make a good go at trying to be even handed in your interpretation of information | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont think it matters about the amount of planes we did or didnt send,more to do with the amount of aircraft they could get into the airport,you know to many aircraft means gets more dangerous taking off and landing,u could ask seems as this is crazy joes fuck up why wasnt airforce one airlifting people out? But as usual another blatant boris bashing thread,but welcome back easy good to see nothing much has changed It is Boris-bashing. Well identified. That is the point of the thread. It deserves highlighting. The aircraft cannot, actually, fulfil its full military role anymore due to its high visibility paint scheme and what it represents politically. It has not even been used for its "Global Britain" job despite our Trade Secretary travelling to the USA. It will be BoJo who "grand stands" in its first trip.how about bashing the yanks then after all this is there mess why wasnt airforce one there?like i said we could of had 1000 extra aircraft to help out but if there no space to land them they wont get used,see ur doing your usual,ask a question it gets answerd and if not answerd how u like ya just keep flogging that dead horse This thread is not about bashing the yanks That's why I didn't. The execution of their exit strategy has been terrible though. The question hasn't been answered though it has been answerd it wasnt used because it didnt need to be used,the problem wasnt lack of planes it was lack of slots to get the planes on the ground,u might of had a point if we had been short of planes but that wasnt the case,if u wana slag boris of for being shit start a thread named boris is shit instead of using afghan to try and make it an emotional response,but then again this is standard for you" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There you go. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-whole-force-effort-on-operation-pitting/
Try harder. You just read a headline.
That's a low vis grey Voyager in the photo and the "whole force effort" was referring to all branches of the RAF, not every aircaft.
There you go
Imagine telling someone to read harder and then not reading it properly yourself
The article states:
The full fleet of RAF transport aircraft from RAF Brize Norton have been flying around the clock to support the evacuation and will continue to do so over the coming days.
"Support the evacuation" clearly includes flying to the North Sea and back.
ZZ336 has not spent any time anywhere near Afghanistan. Easy enough to look up. Its transponder hasn't been turned off.
However, of you know better...
I didn't say I know better. I was clearly pointing out the article you linked. You obviously didnt read it the same as I did
You are correct. I didn't read it in the same way as you did as Vespina was not deployed,so the entire fleet was not used, unless it is no longer considered as part of the RAF transport fleet..."Well it is primarily an AAR aircraft. Was it needed in Afghanistan? And BTW, it's not 'high visibility red, white and blue', it's white with the union flag on its tail fin. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"British forces and diplomatic staff safe and several thousand Afghans who worked for the UK. Sadly many left behind too who will hopefully make it out through neighbouring countries. Don't know how good their odds will be. Is there a reason that the Global Britain liveried RAF Voyager was not used for these duties? After all, it can carry out any military duties in its high visibity red, white and blue paint right? Fully interchangeable with any other aircraft in the fleet... As I understand it there was not a shortage of aircraft but with so many countries evacuating at the same time I assume lack of space. I have not heard anyone say 'if only we had more planes we could get more out'. According to others the plane in question role is a refuel tanker so does not sound an ideal plane to evacuate unless there was a shortage of planes. Sorry but I don't agree with the last sentence where you claim it is supposed to be fully interchangeable with any other aircraft. I can't see anyone claiming it can be interchanged with a small fighter plane for instance You do seem to be the only person on here anle to discuss things without outrage
The Voyager is a multirole aircraft. Tanker and transport without conversion
It was claimed that it could carry out the same role that other Voyagers in the fleet could. They were used in this mission.
Actually, more aircraft were chartered for flights from Dubai to the UK, but that is not a military mission."Due to my lack of knowledge on military planes perhaps I need some things confirming by anyone with knowledge of such things Is the aircraft in question identical to other tanker planes in the fleet apart from the painting. Can these tanker planes carry the same amount of people as a standard transport plane Were other tanker planes used in the evacuation Have the air force said that they were short of planes and if more were available then more people could be evacuated. Sorry for the questions but trying to understand if not using the aircraft in question had any negative impact on the whole thing. By the way bloody well done to all those brave men and women who done this. Must have been extremely scary | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"British forces and diplomatic staff safe and several thousand Afghans who worked for the UK. Sadly many left behind too who will hopefully make it out through neighbouring countries. Don't know how good their odds will be. Is there a reason that the Global Britain liveried RAF Voyager was not used for these duties? After all, it can carry out any military duties in its high visibity red, white and blue paint right? Fully interchangeable with any other aircraft in the fleet... As I understand it there was not a shortage of aircraft but with so many countries evacuating at the same time I assume lack of space. I have not heard anyone say 'if only we had more planes we could get more out'. According to others the plane in question role is a refuel tanker so does not sound an ideal plane to evacuate unless there was a shortage of planes. Sorry but I don't agree with the last sentence where you claim it is supposed to be fully interchangeable with any other aircraft. I can't see anyone claiming it can be interchanged with a small fighter plane for instance You do seem to be the only person on here a BPle to discuss things without outrage
The Voyager is a multirole aircraft. Tanker and transport without conversion
It was claimed that it could carry out the same role that other Voyagers in the fleet could. They were used in this mission.
Actually, more aircraft were chartered for flights from Dubai to the UK, but that is not a military mission.
Due to my lack of knowledge on military planes perhaps I need some things confirming by anyone with knowledge of such things
Is the aircraft in question identical to other tanker planes in the fleet apart from the painting.
Can these tanker planes carry the same amount of people as a standard transport plane
Were other tanker planes used in the evacuation
Have the air force said that they were short of planes and if more were available then more people could be evacuated.
Sorry for the questions but trying to understand if not using the aircraft in question had any negative impact on the whole thing. By the way bloody well done to all those brave men and women who done this. Must have been extremely scary
"All of the RAF transport fleet, apart this plane, were used in the evacuation. That includes all of the other Voyagers in RAF colours. They are not "tanker planes". They are multirole aircraft with dual capability. No extra fuel tanks. They carry 291 passengers. The VIP version carries 158 passengers. Standard planes were not used for the Kabul because they do not have any defensive electronic equipment on board. The RAF have not made any comment on if they did or did not have enough aircraft. However,there were 50 flights into Kabul on 10 August before the Taliban arrived and only 56 on 23 August, yet people have been left behind. I don't know who would not agree with your congratulations to the service and civilian personnel involved in the operation. Although, I have been accused of it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There you go. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-whole-force-effort-on-operation-pitting/
Try harder. You just read a headline.
That's a low vis grey Voyager in the photo and the "whole force effort" was referring to all branches of the RAF, not every aircaft.
There you go
Imagine telling someone to read harder and then not reading it properly yourself
The article states:
The full fleet of RAF transport aircraft from RAF Brize Norton have been flying around the clock to support the evacuation and will continue to do so over the coming days.
"Support the evacuation" clearly includes flying to the North Sea and back.
ZZ336 has not spent any time anywhere near Afghanistan. Easy enough to look up. Its transponder hasn't been turned off.
However, of you know better...
I didn't say I know better. I was clearly pointing out the article you linked. You obviously didnt read it the same as I did
You are correct. I didn't read it in the same way as you did as Vespina was not deployed,so the entire fleet was not used, unless it is no longer considered as part of the RAF transport fleet...
Well it is primarily an AAR aircraft.
Was it needed in Afghanistan?
And BTW, it's not 'high visibility red, white and blue', it's white with the union flag on its tail fin."Actually, Vespina is any more or less a tanker than the other Voyager aircraft is it? It is supposed to be multirole, as are they all. It was not used in Afghanistan, but every other RAF transport aircraft was. It's not high visibility? Not much of an advert to draw attention to Global Britain then eh?
Is it supposed to draw attention to itself or not?
Why do you think the other RAF transport aircraft are painted in a drab grey paint scheme? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There you go. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-whole-force-effort-on-operation-pitting/
Try harder. You just read a headline.
That's a low vis grey Voyager in the photo and the "whole force effort" was referring to all branches of the RAF, not every aircaft.
There you go
Imagine telling someone to read harder and then not reading it properly yourself
The article states:
The full fleet of RAF transport aircraft from RAF Brize Norton have been flying around the clock to support the evacuation and will continue to do so over the coming days.
"Support the evacuation" clearly includes flying to the North Sea and back.
ZZ336 has not spent any time anywhere near Afghanistan. Easy enough to look up. Its transponder hasn't been turned off.
However, of you know better...
I didn't say I know better. I was clearly pointing out the article you linked. You obviously didnt read it the same as I did
You are correct. I didn't read it in the same way as you did as Vespina was not deployed,so the entire fleet was not used, unless it is no longer considered as part of the RAF transport fleet...
Well it is primarily an AAR aircraft.
Was it needed in Afghanistan?
And BTW, it's not 'high visibility red, white and blue', it's white with the union flag on its tail fin.
Actually, Vespina is any more or less a tanker than the other Voyager aircraft is it? It is supposed to be multirole, as are they all.
It was not used in Afghanistan, but every other RAF transport aircraft was.
It's not high visibility? Not much of an advert to draw attention to Global Britain then eh?
Is it supposed to draw attention to itself or not?
Why do you think the other RAF transport aircraft are painted in a drab grey paint scheme?"Tbh I dont think anyone else other than you actually cares that much. You are coming across super petty and childish | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There you go. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-whole-force-effort-on-operation-pitting/
Try harder. You just read a headline.
That's a low vis grey Voyager in the photo and the "whole force effort" was referring to all branches of the RAF, not every aircaft.
There you go
Imagine telling someone to read harder and then not reading it properly yourself
The article states:
The full fleet of RAF transport aircraft from RAF Brize Norton have been flying around the clock to support the evacuation and will continue to do so over the coming days.
"Support the evacuation" clearly includes flying to the North Sea and back.
ZZ336 has not spent any time anywhere near Afghanistan. Easy enough to look up. Its transponder hasn't been turned off.
However, of you know better...
I didn't say I know better. I was clearly pointing out the article you linked. You obviously didnt read it the same as I did
You are correct. I didn't read it in the same way as you did as Vespina was not deployed,so the entire fleet was not used, unless it is no longer considered as part of the RAF transport fleet...
Well it is primarily an AAR aircraft.
Was it needed in Afghanistan?
And BTW, it's not 'high visibility red, white and blue', it's white with the union flag on its tail fin.
Actually, Vespina is any more or less a tanker than the other Voyager aircraft is it? It is supposed to be multirole, as are they all.
It was not used in Afghanistan, but every other RAF transport aircraft was.
It's not high visibility? Not much of an advert to draw attention to Global Britain then eh?
Is it supposed to draw attention to itself or not?
Why do you think the other RAF transport aircraft are painted in a drab grey paint scheme?"The use or not of it would of made no difference. What would of made a difference would of been not surrendering Bagram. Which was not our decision | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There you go. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-whole-force-effort-on-operation-pitting/
Try harder. You just read a headline.
That's a low vis grey Voyager in the photo and the "whole force effort" was referring to all branches of the RAF, not every aircaft.
There you go
Imagine telling someone to read harder and then not reading it properly yourself
The article states:
The full fleet of RAF transport aircraft from RAF Brize Norton have been flying around the clock to support the evacuation and will continue to do so over the coming days.
"Support the evacuation" clearly includes flying to the North Sea and back.
ZZ336 has not spent any time anywhere near Afghanistan. Easy enough to look up. Its transponder hasn't been turned off.
However, of you know better...
I didn't say I know better. I was clearly pointing out the article you linked. You obviously didnt read it the same as I did
You are correct. I didn't read it in the same way as you did as Vespina was not deployed,so the entire fleet was not used, unless it is no longer considered as part of the RAF transport fleet...
Well it is primarily an AAR aircraft.
Was it needed in Afghanistan?
And BTW, it's not 'high visibility red, white and blue', it's white with the union flag on its tail fin.
Actually, Vespina is any more or less a tanker than the other Voyager aircraft is it? It is supposed to be multirole, as are they all.
It was not used in Afghanistan, but every other RAF transport aircraft was.
It's not high visibility? Not much of an advert to draw attention to Global Britain then eh?
Is it supposed to draw attention to itself or not?
Why do you think the other RAF transport aircraft are painted in a drab grey paint scheme?"Who really gives a fuck that it isn't grey? Only you seem to care. You've started a thread to whinge about it not being used but you still haven't told us whether it was actually needed or not. It's just another of your petty bash the government threads. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There you go. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-whole-force-effort-on-operation-pitting/
Try harder. You just read a headline.
That's a low vis grey Voyager in the photo and the "whole force effort" was referring to all branches of the RAF, not every aircaft.
There you go
Imagine telling someone to read harder and then not reading it properly yourself
The article states:
The full fleet of RAF transport aircraft from RAF Brize Norton have been flying around the clock to support the evacuation and will continue to do so over the coming days.
"Support the evacuation" clearly includes flying to the North Sea and back.
ZZ336 has not spent any time anywhere near Afghanistan. Easy enough to look up. Its transponder hasn't been turned off.
However, of you know better...
I didn't say I know better. I was clearly pointing out the article you linked. You obviously didnt read it the same as I did
You are correct. I didn't read it in the same way as you did as Vespina was not deployed,so the entire fleet was not used, unless it is no longer considered as part of the RAF transport fleet...
Well it is primarily an AAR aircraft.
Was it needed in Afghanistan?
And BTW, it's not 'high visibility red, white and blue', it's white with the union flag on its tail fin.
Actually, Vespina is any more or less a tanker than the other Voyager aircraft is it? It is supposed to be multirole, as are they all.
It was not used in Afghanistan, but every other RAF transport aircraft was.
It's not high visibility? Not much of an advert to draw attention to Global Britain then eh?
Is it supposed to draw attention to itself or not?
Why do you think the other RAF transport aircraft are painted in a drab grey paint scheme?
Tbh I dont think anyone else other than you actually cares that much.
You are coming across super petty and childish "You say that after three posts on the thread
Why the need to insult me? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"British forces and diplomatic staff safe and several thousand Afghans who worked for the UK. Sadly many left behind too who will hopefully make it out through neighbouring countries. Don't know how good their odds will be. Is there a reason that the Global Britain liveried RAF Voyager was not used for these duties? After all, it can carry out any military duties in its high visibity red, white and blue paint right? Fully interchangeable with any other aircraft in the fleet... As I understand it there was not a shortage of aircraft but with so many countries evacuating at the same time I assume lack of space. I have not heard anyone say 'if only we had more planes we could get more out'. According to others the plane in question role is a refuel tanker so does not sound an ideal plane to evacuate unless there was a shortage of planes. Sorry but I don't agree with the last sentence where you claim it is supposed to be fully interchangeable with any other aircraft. I can't see anyone claiming it can be interchanged with a small fighter plane for instance You do seem to be the only person on here a BPle to discuss things without outrage
The Voyager is a multirole aircraft. Tanker and transport without conversion
It was claimed that it could carry out the same role that other Voyagers in the fleet could. They were used in this mission.
Actually, more aircraft were chartered for flights from Dubai to the UK, but that is not a military mission.
Due to my lack of knowledge on military planes perhaps I need some things confirming by anyone with knowledge of such things
Is the aircraft in question identical to other tanker planes in the fleet apart from the painting.
Can these tanker planes carry the same amount of people as a standard transport plane
Were other tanker planes used in the evacuation
Have the air force said that they were short of planes and if more were available then more people could be evacuated.
Sorry for the questions but trying to understand if not using the aircraft in question had any negative impact on the whole thing. By the way bloody well done to all those brave men and women who done this. Must have been extremely scary
All of the RAF transport fleet, apart this plane, were used in the evacuation. That includes all of the other Voyagers in RAF colours. They are not "tanker planes". They are multirole aircraft with dual capability. No extra fuel tanks. They carry 291 passengers. The VIP version carries 158 passengers.
Standard planes were not used for the Kabul because they do not have any defensive electronic equipment on board.
The RAF have not made any comment on if they did or did not have enough aircraft.
However,there were 50 flights into Kabul on 10 August before the Taliban arrived and only 56 on 23 August, yet people have been left behind.
I don't know who would not agree with your congratulations to the service and civilian personnel involved in the operation. Although, I have been accused of it "Oops sorry not tanker planes but dual role so answers a few of my questions in one go- my bad as the kids say It's good to hear there is no reports on lack of planes causing people to be left behind which in turn means not using this plane did not cause a negative effect on the job, so another question answered - good going I did notice the difference in seat numbers and assume this plane is the VIP one. Why does it carry fewer people? Has it always carried fewer people or is it to do with the recent work on it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"British forces and diplomatic staff safe and several thousand Afghans who worked for the UK. Sadly many left behind too who will hopefully make it out through neighbouring countries. Don't know how good their odds will be. Is there a reason that the Global Britain liveried RAF Voyager was not used for these duties? After all, it can carry out any military duties in its high visibity red, white and blue paint right? Fully interchangeable with any other aircraft in the fleet... As I understand it there was not a shortage of aircraft but with so many countries evacuating at the same time I assume lack of space. I have not heard anyone say 'if only we had more planes we could get more out'. According to others the plane in question role is a refuel tanker so does not sound an ideal plane to evacuate unless there was a shortage of planes. Sorry but I don't agree with the last sentence where you claim it is supposed to be fully interchangeable with any other aircraft. I can't see anyone claiming it can be interchanged with a small fighter plane for instance You do seem to be the only person on here a BPle to discuss things without outrage
The Voyager is a multirole aircraft. Tanker and transport without conversion
It was claimed that it could carry out the same role that other Voyagers in the fleet could. They were used in this mission.
Actually, more aircraft were chartered for flights from Dubai to the UK, but that is not a military mission.
Due to my lack of knowledge on military planes perhaps I need some things confirming by anyone with knowledge of such things
Is the aircraft in question identical to other tanker planes in the fleet apart from the painting.
Can these tanker planes carry the same amount of people as a standard transport plane
Were other tanker planes used in the evacuation
Have the air force said that they were short of planes and if more were available then more people could be evacuated.
Sorry for the questions but trying to understand if not using the aircraft in question had any negative impact on the whole thing. By the way bloody well done to all those brave men and women who done this. Must have been extremely scary
All of the RAF transport fleet, apart this plane, were used in the evacuation. That includes all of the other Voyagers in RAF colours. They are not "tanker planes". They are multirole aircraft with dual capability. No extra fuel tanks. They carry 291 passengers. The VIP version carries 158 passengers.
Standard planes were not used for the Kabul because they do not have any defensive electronic equipment on board.
The RAF have not made any comment on if they did or did not have enough aircraft.
However,there were 50 flights into Kabul on 10 August before the Taliban arrived and only 56 on 23 August, yet people have been left behind.
I don't know who would not agree with your congratulations to the service and civilian personnel involved in the operation. Although, I have been accused of it
Oops sorry not tanker planes but dual role so answers a few of my questions in one go- my bad as the kids say
It's good to hear there is no reports on lack of planes causing people to be left behind which in turn means not using this plane did not cause a negative effect on the job, so another question answered - good going
I did notice the difference in seat numbers and assume this plane is the VIP one. Why does it carry fewer people? Has it always carried fewer people or is it to do with the recent work on it
"That's not what was said. No reports of a problem doesn't mean that there was not what but a military service which generally good at keeping secrets has said nothing. There were 50 flights into Kabul before the Taliban emergency. This fell dramatically, but still only 56 by the 23rd August. One would think that in a life threatening emergency, more than 4 flights an hour would be possible. Especially as all of the flights are military. The VIP seating was added before the £900,000 paint. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There you go. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-whole-force-effort-on-operation-pitting/
Try harder. You just read a headline.
That's a low vis grey Voyager in the photo and the "whole force effort" was referring to all branches of the RAF, not every aircaft.
There you go
Imagine telling someone to read harder and then not reading it properly yourself
The article states:
The full fleet of RAF transport aircraft from RAF Brize Norton have been flying around the clock to support the evacuation and will continue to do so over the coming days.
"Support the evacuation" clearly includes flying to the North Sea and back.
ZZ336 has not spent any time anywhere near Afghanistan. Easy enough to look up. Its transponder hasn't been turned off.
However, of you know better...
I didn't say I know better. I was clearly pointing out the article you linked. You obviously didnt read it the same as I did
You are correct. I didn't read it in the same way as you did as Vespina was not deployed,so the entire fleet was not used, unless it is no longer considered as part of the RAF transport fleet...
Well it is primarily an AAR aircraft.
Was it needed in Afghanistan?
And BTW, it's not 'high visibility red, white and blue', it's white with the union flag on its tail fin.
Actually, Vespina is any more or less a tanker than the other Voyager aircraft is it? It is supposed to be multirole, as are they all.
It was not used in Afghanistan, but every other RAF transport aircraft was.
It's not high visibility? Not much of an advert to draw attention to Global Britain then eh?
Is it supposed to draw attention to itself or not?
Why do you think the other RAF transport aircraft are painted in a drab grey paint scheme?
Who really gives a fuck that it isn't grey? Only you seem to care.
You've started a thread to whinge about it not being used but you still haven't told us whether it was actually needed or not.
It's just another of your petty bash the government threads."Good arguments. Nice anger management
Not sure what is so controversial about acknowledging that no air force in the world would fly a brightly painted aeroplane into a dangerous airfield exposed to both sophisticated and crude enemy weapons.
Smart move, surely? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There you go. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-whole-force-effort-on-operation-pitting/
Try harder. You just read a headline.
That's a low vis grey Voyager in the photo and the "whole force effort" was referring to all branches of the RAF, not every aircaft.
There you go
Imagine telling someone to read harder and then not reading it properly yourself
The article states:
The full fleet of RAF transport aircraft from RAF Brize Norton have been flying around the clock to support the evacuation and will continue to do so over the coming days.
"Support the evacuation" clearly includes flying to the North Sea and back.
ZZ336 has not spent any time anywhere near Afghanistan. Easy enough to look up. Its transponder hasn't been turned off.
However, of you know better...
I didn't say I know better. I was clearly pointing out the article you linked. You obviously didnt read it the same as I did
You are correct. I didn't read it in the same way as you did as Vespina was not deployed,so the entire fleet was not used, unless it is no longer considered as part of the RAF transport fleet...
Well it is primarily an AAR aircraft.
Was it needed in Afghanistan?
And BTW, it's not 'high visibility red, white and blue', it's white with the union flag on its tail fin.
Actually, Vespina is any more or less a tanker than the other Voyager aircraft is it? It is supposed to be multirole, as are they all.
It was not used in Afghanistan, but every other RAF transport aircraft was.
It's not high visibility? Not much of an advert to draw attention to Global Britain then eh?
Is it supposed to draw attention to itself or not?
Why do you think the other RAF transport aircraft are painted in a drab grey paint scheme?
Who really gives a fuck that it isn't grey? Only you seem to care.
You've started a thread to whinge about it not being used but you still haven't told us whether it was actually needed or not.
It's just another of your petty bash the government threads.
Good arguments.
Nice anger management
Not sure what is so controversial about acknowledging that no air force in the world would fly a brightly painted aeroplane into a dangerous airfield exposed to both sophisticated and crude enemy weapons.
Smart move, surely?"You didn't acknowledge anything in your OP. You asked why the aircraft wasn't used? I've subsequently asked was it needed? You can't answer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There you go. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-whole-force-effort-on-operation-pitting/
Try harder. You just read a headline.
That's a low vis grey Voyager in the photo and the "whole force effort" was referring to all branches of the RAF, not every aircaft.
There you go
Imagine telling someone to read harder and then not reading it properly yourself
The article states:
The full fleet of RAF transport aircraft from RAF Brize Norton have been flying around the clock to support the evacuation and will continue to do so over the coming days.
"Support the evacuation" clearly includes flying to the North Sea and back.
ZZ336 has not spent any time anywhere near Afghanistan. Easy enough to look up. Its transponder hasn't been turned off.
However, of you know better...
I didn't say I know better. I was clearly pointing out the article you linked. You obviously didnt read it the same as I did
You are correct. I didn't read it in the same way as you did as Vespina was not deployed,so the entire fleet was not used, unless it is no longer considered as part of the RAF transport fleet...
Well it is primarily an AAR aircraft.
Was it needed in Afghanistan?
And BTW, it's not 'high visibility red, white and blue', it's white with the union flag on its tail fin.
Actually, Vespina is any more or less a tanker than the other Voyager aircraft is it? It is supposed to be multirole, as are they all.
It was not used in Afghanistan, but every other RAF transport aircraft was.
It's not high visibility? Not much of an advert to draw attention to Global Britain then eh?
Is it supposed to draw attention to itself or not?
Why do you think the other RAF transport aircraft are painted in a drab grey paint scheme?
Who really gives a fuck that it isn't grey? Only you seem to care.
You've started a thread to whinge about it not being used but you still haven't told us whether it was actually needed or not.
It's just another of your petty bash the government threads.
Good arguments.
Nice anger management
Not sure what is so controversial about acknowledging that no air force in the world would fly a brightly painted aeroplane into a dangerous airfield exposed to both sophisticated and crude enemy weapons.
Smart move, surely?
You didn't acknowledge anything in your OP. You asked why the aircraft wasn't used?
I've subsequently asked was it needed? You can't answer."You've said that nobody cares, yet this your 4th post? The armed forces tend not to publicly discuss tactical resourcing requirements, for good reason, until some time after any critical scenario. Usually once any pro lem is resolved, if ever. Would it be a good idea to fly a deliberately strikingly painted aircraft into a "hot" airfield? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There you go. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-whole-force-effort-on-operation-pitting/
Try harder. You just read a headline.
That's a low vis grey Voyager in the photo and the "whole force effort" was referring to all branches of the RAF, not every aircaft.
There you go
Imagine telling someone to read harder and then not reading it properly yourself
The article states:
The full fleet of RAF transport aircraft from RAF Brize Norton have been flying around the clock to support the evacuation and will continue to do so over the coming days.
"Support the evacuation" clearly includes flying to the North Sea and back.
ZZ336 has not spent any time anywhere near Afghanistan. Easy enough to look up. Its transponder hasn't been turned off.
However, of you know better...
I didn't say I know better. I was clearly pointing out the article you linked. You obviously didnt read it the same as I did
You are correct. I didn't read it in the same way as you did as Vespina was not deployed,so the entire fleet was not used, unless it is no longer considered as part of the RAF transport fleet...
Well it is primarily an AAR aircraft.
Was it needed in Afghanistan?
And BTW, it's not 'high visibility red, white and blue', it's white with the union flag on its tail fin.
Actually, Vespina is any more or less a tanker than the other Voyager aircraft is it? It is supposed to be multirole, as are they all.
It was not used in Afghanistan, but every other RAF transport aircraft was.
It's not high visibility? Not much of an advert to draw attention to Global Britain then eh?
Is it supposed to draw attention to itself or not?
Why do you think the other RAF transport aircraft are painted in a drab grey paint scheme?
Tbh I dont think anyone else other than you actually cares that much.
You are coming across super petty and childish "Agree, the endless but why....? Couldn't we? Should we? Could they? What if? Pleeeeeze! Having said that why the fuck am I reading it lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There you go. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-whole-force-effort-on-operation-pitting/
Try harder. You just read a headline.
That's a low vis grey Voyager in the photo and the "whole force effort" was referring to all branches of the RAF, not every aircaft.
There you go
Imagine telling someone to read harder and then not reading it properly yourself
The article states:
The full fleet of RAF transport aircraft from RAF Brize Norton have been flying around the clock to support the evacuation and will continue to do so over the coming days.
"Support the evacuation" clearly includes flying to the North Sea and back.
ZZ336 has not spent any time anywhere near Afghanistan. Easy enough to look up. Its transponder hasn't been turned off.
However, of you know better...
I didn't say I know better. I was clearly pointing out the article you linked. You obviously didnt read it the same as I did
You are correct. I didn't read it in the same way as you did as Vespina was not deployed,so the entire fleet was not used, unless it is no longer considered as part of the RAF transport fleet...
Well it is primarily an AAR aircraft.
Was it needed in Afghanistan?
And BTW, it's not 'high visibility red, white and blue', it's white with the union flag on its tail fin.
Actually, Vespina is any more or less a tanker than the other Voyager aircraft is it? It is supposed to be multirole, as are they all.
It was not used in Afghanistan, but every other RAF transport aircraft was.
It's not high visibility? Not much of an advert to draw attention to Global Britain then eh?
Is it supposed to draw attention to itself or not?
Why do you think the other RAF transport aircraft are painted in a drab grey paint scheme?
Who really gives a fuck that it isn't grey? Only you seem to care.
You've started a thread to whinge about it not being used but you still haven't told us whether it was actually needed or not.
It's just another of your petty bash the government threads.
Good arguments.
Nice anger management
Not sure what is so controversial about acknowledging that no air force in the world would fly a brightly painted aeroplane into a dangerous airfield exposed to both sophisticated and crude enemy weapons.
Smart move, surely?
You didn't acknowledge anything in your OP. You asked why the aircraft wasn't used?
I've subsequently asked was it needed? You can't answer.
You've said that nobody cares, yet this your 4th post?
The armed forces tend not to publicly discuss tactical resourcing requirements, for good reason, until some time after any critical scenario. Usually once any pro lem is resolved, if ever.
Would it be a good idea to fly a deliberately strikingly painted aircraft into a "hot" airfield?"I said no one cares that it has been painted. You keep chatting about high visibility and strikingly painted. It's white ffs. Get a grip of yourself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I said no one cares that it has been painted. You keep chatting about high visibility and strikingly painted. It's white ffs. Get a grip of yourself." It's also got a 50,000 kg fuel tank so NOT much room for people lmfao!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It wasn't used because it wasn't needed. Putting people inside a kerosene tank would be a little remiss to say the least. Slots available to fly aircraft into Kabul was the biggest challenge not the number of aircraft available. It has been used for its Global Britain role since commissioning. Being used by Boris officially (when it is) is precisely part of its role as Global Britain. The military will already have a handle on its colour in the event that it is needed for a covert military operation - sorry they are not informing us on Fab about that, but I don't that at all surprising really. So. to sum up. It's a non story. Period. Next conspiracy theory please. "Oh bless. So much wrong in this post
Multirole aircraft. No more a "flying kerosene tank" than any other of the other multirole RAF Voyagers flown in and out of Kabul Airport.
I remain interested where this information about limited slots was the biggest logistics issue. The only source I can find is an ex-Marine trying to evacuate animals, sadly in a highly agitated state.
One "Global Britain" flight in Athens for a flyover apparently. Not a trade mission to the USA though. Strange priorities indeed.
Nobody will be allowed to use before BoJo gets his photo op and ego fed.
That's all that it's for.
There is no "conspiracy theory". A brightly coloured aeroplane is tactically more vulnerable than one painted in muted grey. A brightly coloured aeroplane has less military utility than the others in the fleet.
Full stop  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I said no one cares that it has been painted. You keep chatting about high visibility and strikingly painted. It's white ffs. Get a grip of yourself. It's also got a 50,000 kg fuel tank so NOT much room for people lmfao!!" Multirole. The fuel used is in the normal in-wing tanks. Deck able to be fly utilised for carrying people or equipment, just like the RAF voyagers that did fly into Kabul. Nog sure why you would try to argue otherwise... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Argue yourself silly. But I suppose having to defend a non story is all you have left really. It wasn't used because it wasn't needed. FACT - The VIP Voyager has been used for 25 ministerial trips since April 2016. It has consistently been used for training and fuel delivery missions such as Crimson Ocean Exercise in its military roles. " Painted in its shiny new colour scheme for BoJo when and how many non-mitary flights since then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Argue yourself silly. But I suppose having to defend a non story is all you have left really. It wasn't used because it wasn't needed. FACT - The VIP Voyager has been used for 25 ministerial trips since April 2016. It has consistently been used for training and fuel delivery missions such as Crimson Ocean Exercise in its military roles. Painted in its shiny new colour scheme for BoJo when and how many non-mitary flights since then?" You have just quoted the answer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There you go. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-whole-force-effort-on-operation-pitting/
Try harder. You just read a headline.
That's a low vis grey Voyager in the photo and the "whole force effort" was referring to all branches of the RAF, not every aircaft.
There you go
Imagine telling someone to read harder and then not reading it properly yourself
The article states:
The full fleet of RAF transport aircraft from RAF Brize Norton have been flying around the clock to support the evacuation and will continue to do so over the coming days.
"Support the evacuation" clearly includes flying to the North Sea and back.
ZZ336 has not spent any time anywhere near Afghanistan. Easy enough to look up. Its transponder hasn't been turned off.
However, of you know better...
I didn't say I know better. I was clearly pointing out the article you linked. You obviously didnt read it the same as I did
You are correct. I didn't read it in the same way as you did as Vespina was not deployed,so the entire fleet was not used, unless it is no longer considered as part of the RAF transport fleet...
Well it is primarily an AAR aircraft.
Was it needed in Afghanistan?
And BTW, it's not 'high visibility red, white and blue', it's white with the union flag on its tail fin.
Actually, Vespina is any more or less a tanker than the other Voyager aircraft is it? It is supposed to be multirole, as are they all.
It was not used in Afghanistan, but every other RAF transport aircraft was.
It's not high visibility? Not much of an advert to draw attention to Global Britain then eh?
Is it supposed to draw attention to itself or not?
Why do you think the other RAF transport aircraft are painted in a drab grey paint scheme?
Who really gives a fuck that it isn't grey? Only you seem to care.
You've started a thread to whinge about it not being used but you still haven't told us whether it was actually needed or not.
It's just another of your petty bash the government threads.
Good arguments.
Nice anger management
Not sure what is so controversial about acknowledging that no air force in the world would fly a brightly painted aeroplane into a dangerous airfield exposed to both sophisticated and crude enemy weapons.
Smart move, surely?
You didn't acknowledge anything in your OP. You asked why the aircraft wasn't used?
I've subsequently asked was it needed? You can't answer.
You've said that nobody cares, yet this your 4th post?
The armed forces tend not to publicly discuss tactical resourcing requirements, for good reason, until some time after any critical scenario. Usually once any pro lem is resolved, if ever.
Would it be a good idea to fly a deliberately strikingly painted aircraft into a "hot" airfield?
I said no one cares that it has been painted. You keep chatting about high visibility and strikingly painted.
It's white ffs. Get a grip of yourself."Im6takjng about it being painted purely for BoJo's ego, not for the benefit of the UK. Certain ly not worth £900,000 of MOD spend and certain ly not able to carry out the same tasks as the rest of the Voyager fleet, as this situation demonstrates. Is it supposed to be a striking colour scheme to draw attention and admiration or not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many times . . . FACT - The VIP Voyager has been used for 25 ministerial trips since April 2016. It has consistently been used for training and fuel delivery missions such as Crimson Ocean Exercise in its military roles. Its day job is all military. " Tell me the fact about how many ministerial trips it has been used for since its £900,000 new paint job. Clue,someone else in the thread has already written it down. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"British forces and diplomatic staff safe and several thousand Afghans who worked for the UK. Sadly many left behind too who will hopefully make it out through neighbouring countries. Don't know how good their odds will be. Is there a reason that the Global Britain liveried RAF Voyager was not used for these duties? After all, it can carry out any military duties in its high visibity red, white and blue paint right? Fully interchangeable with any other aircraft in the fleet... As I understand it there was not a shortage of aircraft but with so many countries evacuating at the same time I assume lack of space. I have not heard anyone say 'if only we had more planes we could get more out'. According to others the plane in question role is a refuel tanker so does not sound an ideal plane to evacuate unless there was a shortage of planes. Sorry but I don't agree with the last sentence where you claim it is supposed to be fully interchangeable with any other aircraft. I can't see anyone claiming it can be interchanged with a small fighter plane for instance You do seem to be the only person on here a BPle to discuss things without outrage
The Voyager is a multirole aircraft. Tanker and transport without conversion
It was claimed that it could carry out the same role that other Voyagers in the fleet could. They were used in this mission.
Actually, more aircraft were chartered for flights from Dubai to the UK, but that is not a military mission.
Due to my lack of knowledge on military planes perhaps I need some things confirming by anyone with knowledge of such things
Is the aircraft in question identical to other tanker planes in the fleet apart from the painting.
Can these tanker planes carry the same amount of people as a standard transport plane
Were other tanker planes used in the evacuation
Have the air force said that they were short of planes and if more were available then more people could be evacuated.
Sorry for the questions but trying to understand if not using the aircraft in question had any negative impact on the whole thing. By the way bloody well done to all those brave men and women who done this. Must have been extremely scary
All of the RAF transport fleet, apart this plane, were used in the evacuation. That includes all of the other Voyagers in RAF colours. They are not "tanker planes". They are multirole aircraft with dual capability. No extra fuel tanks. They carry 291 passengers. The VIP version carries 158 passengers.
Standard planes were not used for the Kabul because they do not have any defensive electronic equipment on board.
The RAF have not made any comment on if they did or did not have enough aircraft.
However,there were 50 flights into Kabul on 10 August before the Taliban arrived and only 56 on 23 August, yet people have been left behind.
I don't know who would not agree with your congratulations to the service and civilian personnel involved in the operation. Although, I have been accused of it
Oops sorry not tanker planes but dual role so answers a few of my questions in one go- my bad as the kids say
It's good to hear there is no reports on lack of planes causing people to be left behind which in turn means not using this plane did not cause a negative effect on the job, so another question answered - good going
I did notice the difference in seat numbers and assume this plane is the VIP one. Why does it carry fewer people? Has it always carried fewer people or is it to do with the recent work on it
That's not what was said.
No reports of a problem doesn't mean that there was not what but a military service which generally good at keeping secrets has said nothing.
There were 50 flights into Kabul before the Taliban emergency. This fell dramatically, but still only 56 by the 23rd August.
One would think that in a life threatening emergency, more than 4 flights an hour would be possible. Especially as all of the flights are military.
The VIP seating was added before the £900,000 paint."I suppose you can say no reports of lack of planes does not mean there were lack of planes but you could say that about many things. Has anyone else like the media ect claimed that there was a lack of planes?. Has there been any reports at all that the UK missed any slots?. From the bits I have seen it appears many countries were using this one airport with the Americans doing the control. You say 4 per hour which means 1 every 15 minutes. Now dealing with boarding lots of very frightened people and getting away every 15 minutes seems very impressive to me personally. I thought you were going to say the VIP seating ( which presumably is why the passenger capacity has been reduced by over 100) was part of the paint job upgrade in which case it would indeed have reduced its carrying capability. However you confirm it was like that before the paint job. This means that this plane is not the same as the others. Personally if I was faced with this situation I would want to make the very best of every slot so would use the planes with the greatest seating capability which excludes the VIP one. You have an interesting theory regarding the plane which if proved correct is indeed a mistake. At the moment I can not find any evidence or been supplied with any evidence. Sorry for long post but got to sign off due to early start in morning | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In a World Pandemic? Answer that yourself. How many times in the future is the real answer. If you hate it so much - write to your MP - maybe he or she agrees with you. Start a I hate the brightly coloured plane group, meanwhile . . . It WASN'T used because it WASN'T needed." You found the information then
Has the Bussines Secretary visited the USA during this period specifically for a trade negotiation?
£900,000 for BoJo's ego. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As per usual the OP is looking to score political points. The aircraft is question has a primary role as a refuelling tanker, so not suited for the evacuation role. Rather than criticise the UK military how about praise them for doing a good job?" very true | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As per usual the OP is looking to score political points. The aircraft is question has a primary role as a refuelling tanker, so not suited for the evacuation role. Rather than criticise the UK military how about praise them for doing a good job? very true " I have not criticised the UK military at all. Not one word. Get a grip or just read. I am criticising our Prime Minister and government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As per usual the OP is looking to score political points. The aircraft is question has a primary role as a refuelling tanker, so not suited for the evacuation role. Rather than criticise the UK military how about praise them for doing a good job? very true I have not criticised the UK military at all. Not one word. Get a grip or just read. I am criticising our Prime Minister and government." You are criticising the UK military. The operation was carried out by the Military so therefore any criticism you have made is against the military. The UK military decided how many personal they required and what assets they needed to carry out the task given to them. When extra troops on the ground arrived that would of been on the request of the military running the operation. So stop criticising the UK military and praise them for job well done. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As per usual the OP is looking to score political points. The aircraft is question has a primary role as a refuelling tanker, so not suited for the evacuation role. Rather than criticise the UK military how about praise them for doing a good job? very true I have not criticised the UK military at all. Not one word. Get a grip or just read. I am criticising our Prime Minister and government. You are criticising the UK military. The operation was carried out by the Military so therefore any criticism you have made is against the military. The UK military decided how many personal they required and what assets they needed to carry out the task given to them. When extra troops on the ground arrived that would of been on the request of the military running the operation. So stop criticising the UK military and praise them for job well done. " The RAF had one aircraft less aircraft available for to use in evacuation flights due to the choices made by BoJo. That's not their fault. Why are you pretending that I have criticised them? I'm criticising our vain Prime Minister. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As per usual the OP is looking to score political points. The aircraft is question has a primary role as a refuelling tanker, so not suited for the evacuation role. Rather than criticise the UK military how about praise them for doing a good job? very true I have not criticised the UK military at all. Not one word. Get a grip or just read. I am criticising our Prime Minister and government. You are criticising the UK military. The operation was carried out by the Military so therefore any criticism you have made is against the military. The UK military decided how many personal they required and what assets they needed to carry out the task given to them. When extra troops on the ground arrived that would of been on the request of the military running the operation. So stop criticising the UK military and praise them for job well done. The RAF had one aircraft less aircraft available for to use in evacuation flights due to the choices made by BoJo. That's not their fault. Why are you pretending that I have criticised them? I'm criticising our vain Prime Minister." Post a link that states the UK military have said they were short of aircraft to carry out the evacuation? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As per usual the OP is looking to score political points. The aircraft is question has a primary role as a refuelling tanker, so not suited for the evacuation role. Rather than criticise the UK military how about praise them for doing a good job? very true I have not criticised the UK military at all. Not one word. Get a grip or just read. I am criticising our Prime Minister and government. You are criticising the UK military. The operation was carried out by the Military so therefore any criticism you have made is against the military. The UK military decided how many personal they required and what assets they needed to carry out the task given to them. When extra troops on the ground arrived that would of been on the request of the military running the operation. So stop criticising the UK military and praise them for job well done. " Exactly, people have put their life on the line trying to help others and some just knock knock knock...... But why not do it this way? or that way? or .... as if everyone is stupid but them obviously! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"British forces and diplomatic staff safe and several thousand Afghans who worked for the UK. Sadly many left behind too who will hopefully make it out through neighbouring countries. Don't know how good their odds will be. Is there a reason that the Global Britain liveried RAF Voyager was not used for these duties? After all, it can carry out any military duties in its high visibity red, white and blue paint right? Fully interchangeable with any other aircraft in the fleet... As I understand it there was not a shortage of aircraft but with so many countries evacuating at the same time I assume lack of space. I have not heard anyone say 'if only we had more planes we could get more out'. According to others the plane in question role is a refuel tanker so does not sound an ideal plane to evacuate unless there was a shortage of planes. Sorry but I don't agree with the last sentence where you claim it is supposed to be fully interchangeable with any other aircraft. I can't see anyone claiming it can be interchanged with a small fighter plane for instance You do seem to be the only person on here a BPle to discuss things without outrage
The Voyager is a multirole aircraft. Tanker and transport without conversion
It was claimed that it could carry out the same role that other Voyagers in the fleet could. They were used in this mission.
Actually, more aircraft were chartered for flights from Dubai to the UK, but that is not a military mission.
Due to my lack of knowledge on military planes perhaps I need some things confirming by anyone with knowledge of such things
Is the aircraft in question identical to other tanker planes in the fleet apart from the painting.
Can these tanker planes carry the same amount of people as a standard transport plane
Were other tanker planes used in the evacuation
Have the air force said that they were short of planes and if more were available then more people could be evacuated.
Sorry for the questions but trying to understand if not using the aircraft in question had any negative impact on the whole thing. By the way bloody well done to all those brave men and women who done this. Must have been extremely scary
All of the RAF transport fleet, apart this plane, were used in the evacuation. That includes all of the other Voyagers in RAF colours. They are not "tanker planes". They are multirole aircraft with dual capability. No extra fuel tanks. They carry 291 passengers. The VIP version carries 158 passengers.
Standard planes were not used for the Kabul because they do not have any defensive electronic equipment on board.
The RAF have not made any comment on if they did or did not have enough aircraft.
However,there were 50 flights into Kabul on 10 August before the Taliban arrived and only 56 on 23 August, yet people have been left behind.
I don't know who would not agree with your congratulations to the service and civilian personnel involved in the operation. Although, I have been accused of it
Oops sorry not tanker planes but dual role so answers a few of my questions in one go- my bad as the kids say
It's good to hear there is no reports on lack of planes causing people to be left behind which in turn means not using this plane did not cause a negative effect on the job, so another question answered - good going
I did notice the difference in seat numbers and assume this plane is the VIP one. Why does it carry fewer people? Has it always carried fewer people or is it to do with the recent work on it
That's not what was said.
No reports of a problem doesn't mean that there was not what but a military service which generally good at keeping secrets has said nothing.
There were 50 flights into Kabul before the Taliban emergency. This fell dramatically, but still only 56 by the 23rd August.
One would think that in a life threatening emergency, more than 4 flights an hour would be possible. Especially as all of the flights are military.
The VIP seating was added before the £900,000 paint.
I suppose you can say no reports of lack of planes does not mean there were lack of planes but you could say that about many things. Has anyone else like the media ect claimed that there was a lack of planes?. Has there been any reports at all that the UK missed any slots?. From the bits I have seen it appears many countries were using this one airport with the Americans doing the control. You say 4 per hour which means 1 every 15 minutes. Now dealing with boarding lots of very frightened people and getting away every 15 minutes seems very impressive to me personally.
I thought you were going to say the VIP seating ( which presumably is why the passenger capacity has been reduced by over 100) was part of the paint job upgrade in which case it would indeed have reduced its carrying capability. However you confirm it was like that before the paint job. This means that this plane is not the same as the others. Personally if I was faced with this situation I would want to make the very best of every slot so would use the planes with the greatest seating capability which excludes the VIP one. You have an interesting theory regarding the plane which if proved correct is indeed a mistake. At the moment I can not find any evidence or been supplied with any evidence. Sorry for long post but got to sign off due to early start in morning" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As per usual the OP is looking to score political points. The aircraft is question has a primary role as a refuelling tanker, so not suited for the evacuation role. Rather than criticise the UK military how about praise them for doing a good job? very true I have not criticised the UK military at all. Not one word. Get a grip or just read. I am criticising our Prime Minister and government. You are criticising the UK military. The operation was carried out by the Military so therefore any criticism you have made is against the military. The UK military decided how many personal they required and what assets they needed to carry out the task given to them. When extra troops on the ground arrived that would of been on the request of the military running the operation. So stop criticising the UK military and praise them for job well done. The RAF had one aircraft less aircraft available for to use in evacuation flights due to the choices made by BoJo. That's not their fault. Why are you pretending that I have criticised them? I'm criticising our vain Prime Minister. Post a link that states the UK military have said they were short of aircraft to carry out the evacuation?" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As per usual the OP is looking to score political points. The aircraft is question has a primary role as a refuelling tanker, so not suited for the evacuation role. Rather than criticise the UK military how about praise them for doing a good job? very true I have not criticised the UK military at all. Not one word. Get a grip or just read. I am criticising our Prime Minister and government. You are criticising the UK military. The operation was carried out by the Military so therefore any criticism you have made is against the military. The UK military decided how many personal they required and what assets they needed to carry out the task given to them. When extra troops on the ground arrived that would of been on the request of the military running the operation. So stop criticising the UK military and praise them for job well done. The RAF had one aircraft less aircraft available for to use in evacuation flights due to the choices made by BoJo. That's not their fault. Why are you pretending that I have criticised them? I'm criticising our vain Prime Minister." Do you really think that the RAF would leave the uk vulnerable to attack and send every available aircraft to Afghanistan? the fighters that are defending this country everyday still need in flight refuelling and what you are suggesting is just madness. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As per usual the OP is looking to score political points. The aircraft is question has a primary role as a refuelling tanker, so not suited for the evacuation role. Rather than criticise the UK military how about praise them for doing a good job? very true I have not criticised the UK military at all. Not one word. Get a grip or just read. I am criticising our Prime Minister and government. You are criticising the UK military. The operation was carried out by the Military so therefore any criticism you have made is against the military. The UK military decided how many personal they required and what assets they needed to carry out the task given to them. When extra troops on the ground arrived that would of been on the request of the military running the operation. So stop criticising the UK military and praise them for job well done. The RAF had one aircraft less aircraft available for to use in evacuation flights due to the choices made by BoJo. That's not their fault. Why are you pretending that I have criticised them? I'm criticising our vain Prime Minister. Post a link that states the UK military have said they were short of aircraft to carry out the evacuation?" Once again, the armed forces do not publiy question their resourcing until gaps have been filled. That exposes vulnerabity. I am delighted that you have accepted that I have never made any criticism of the UK military though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There you go. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-whole-force-effort-on-operation-pitting/
Try harder. You just read a headline.
That's a low vis grey Voyager in the photo and the "whole force effort" was referring to all branches of the RAF, not every aircaft.
There you go
Imagine telling someone to read harder and then not reading it properly yourself
The article states:
The full fleet of RAF transport aircraft from RAF Brize Norton have been flying around the clock to support the evacuation and will continue to do so over the coming days.
"Support the evacuation" clearly includes flying to the North Sea and back.
ZZ336 has not spent any time anywhere near Afghanistan. Easy enough to look up. Its transponder hasn't been turned off.
However, of you know better...
I didn't say I know better. I was clearly pointing out the article you linked. You obviously didnt read it the same as I did
You are correct. I didn't read it in the same way as you did as Vespina was not deployed,so the entire fleet was not used, unless it is no longer considered as part of the RAF transport fleet...
Well it is primarily an AAR aircraft.
Was it needed in Afghanistan?
And BTW, it's not 'high visibility red, white and blue', it's white with the union flag on its tail fin.
Actually, Vespina is any more or less a tanker than the other Voyager aircraft is it? It is supposed to be multirole, as are they all.
It was not used in Afghanistan, but every other RAF transport aircraft was.
It's not high visibility? Not much of an advert to draw attention to Global Britain then eh?
Is it supposed to draw attention to itself or not?
Why do you think the other RAF transport aircraft are painted in a drab grey paint scheme?
Tbh I dont think anyone else other than you actually cares that much.
You are coming across super petty and childish " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" “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. Taking part in Exercise Crimson Ocean is a great opportunity to show what Voyager can do.” Wing Commander Alistair Scott Officer Commanding 10 Squadron Go read some MOD pages - they are all very proud of VIP Voyager. Me too and I'm half French. I thought that this board had got past the 'putting people' down stage of discussion based chat - but hey ho. Last time . . . It wasn't used because it wasn't needed. " you may aswell shout into the wind,u wont convince him it wasnt needed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
I am criticising the RAF - based on no criticism of the RAF whatsoever.
Vespina in it's expensive new paint is not intended to be distinctive and highly visible? Why paint it at all then?
There is no reason for other military aircraft being painted grey (as eyes are not used to identify things anymore, ever)
It could not be used to transport people because it is a tanker. Except like all of the Voyager being a multi-role aircraft. Vespina is also specifically configured to carry VIPs,so odd that it couldn't transport people.
There is no political significance in the UK flagship aircraft so it's no likely to be a target than any other aircraft.
The paint makes no difference to how it handles,as if that's not obvious or that serving military staff would openly criticise the government.
The aircraft could be used in any role except in friendly airspace painted as it is, with the significance that it has.
It wasn't needed, based on no information.
Landings slots were limited, based on no information.
Covid means that it has not be used in its VIP role, except that Liz Truss visited the USA on a trade trip and The Foreign Secretary has been flying around the states neighbouring Afghanistan. Lots of irrelevant information on its use before being repainted though.
Neither the MOD nor the country could make better use of £900,000 than painting an aeroplane.
This is for the UK and not for BoJos vanity. He won't be the first VIP passenger and doesn't want the publicity for himself.
The only useful information was provided by one poster who wasn't defending the indefensible. They just looked at the real data. Vespina has fewer seats so is a less efficient transport. The Voyager was retasked from direct flights to Afghanistan to shuttle flights from Dubai,so my starting premise was incorrect.
Yet most people were grasping at irrelevances to justify BoJo's vanity.
Something to consider
The rage has been amusing though  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That was an instructive thread in defending the indefensible, making stuff up, making logical somersaults and just refusing to answer when inconvenient
I am criticising the RAF - based on no criticism of the RAF whatsoever.
Vespina in it's expensive new paint is not intended to be distinctive and highly visible? Why paint it at all then?
There is no reason for other military aircraft being painted grey (as eyes are not used to identify things anymore, ever)
It could not be used to transport people because it is a tanker. Except like all of the Voyager being a multi-role aircraft. Vespina is also specifically configured to carry VIPs,so odd that it couldn't transport people.
There is no political significance in the UK flagship aircraft so it's no likely to be a target than any other aircraft.
The paint makes no difference to how it handles,as if that's not obvious or that serving military staff would openly criticise the government.
The aircraft could be used in any role except in friendly airspace painted as it is, with the significance that it has.
It wasn't needed, based on no information.
Landings slots were limited, based on no information.
Covid means that it has not be used in its VIP role, except that Liz Truss visited the USA on a trade trip and The Foreign Secretary has been flying around the states neighbouring Afghanistan. Lots of irrelevant information on its use before being repainted though.
Neither the MOD nor the country could make better use of £900,000 than painting an aeroplane.
This is for the UK and not for BoJos vanity. He won't be the first VIP passenger and doesn't want the publicity for himself.
The only useful information was provided by one poster who wasn't defending the indefensible. They just looked at the real data. Vespina has fewer seats so is a less efficient transport. The Voyager was retasked from direct flights to Afghanistan to shuttle flights from Dubai,so my starting premise was incorrect.
Yet most people were grasping at irrelevances to justify BoJo's vanity.
Something to consider
The rage has been amusing though "The answers you gave to questions answered your original question | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That was an instructive thread in defending the indefensible, making stuff up, making logical somersaults and just refusing to answer when inconvenient
I am criticising the RAF - based on no criticism of the RAF whatsoever.
Vespina in it's expensive new paint is not intended to be distinctive and highly visible? Why paint it at all then?
There is no reason for other military aircraft being painted grey (as eyes are not used to identify things anymore, ever)
It could not be used to transport people because it is a tanker. Except like all of the Voyager being a multi-role aircraft. Vespina is also specifically configured to carry VIPs,so odd that it couldn't transport people.
There is no political significance in the UK flagship aircraft so it's no likely to be a target than any other aircraft.
The paint makes no difference to how it handles,as if that's not obvious or that serving military staff would openly criticise the government.
The aircraft could be used in any role except in friendly airspace painted as it is, with the significance that it has.
It wasn't needed, based on no information.
Landings slots were limited, based on no information.
Covid means that it has not be used in its VIP role, except that Liz Truss visited the USA on a trade trip and The Foreign Secretary has been flying around the states neighbouring Afghanistan. Lots of irrelevant information on its use before being repainted though.
Neither the MOD nor the country could make better use of £900,000 than painting an aeroplane.
This is for the UK and not for BoJos vanity. He won't be the first VIP passenger and doesn't want the publicity for himself.
The only useful information was provided by one poster who wasn't defending the indefensible. They just looked at the real data. Vespina has fewer seats so is a less efficient transport. The Voyager was retasked from direct flights to Afghanistan to shuttle flights from Dubai,so my starting premise was incorrect.
Yet most people were grasping at irrelevances to justify BoJo's vanity.
Something to consider
The rage has been amusing though
The answers you gave to questions answered your original question"That's my point though. They said that they had one in 2019 and no tax increase needed. Yet no information on the an and a tax increase. Were they telling a bare faced lie? Surely not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That was an instructive thread in defending the indefensible, making stuff up, making logical somersaults and just refusing to answer when inconvenient
I am criticising the RAF - based on no criticism of the RAF whatsoever.
Vespina in it's expensive new paint is not intended to be distinctive and highly visible? Why paint it at all then?
There is no reason for other military aircraft being painted grey (as eyes are not used to identify things anymore, ever)
It could not be used to transport people because it is a tanker. Except like all of the Voyager being a multi-role aircraft. Vespina is also specifically configured to carry VIPs,so odd that it couldn't transport people.
There is no political significance in the UK flagship aircraft so it's no likely to be a target than any other aircraft.
The paint makes no difference to how it handles,as if that's not obvious or that serving military staff would openly criticise the government.
The aircraft could be used in any role except in friendly airspace painted as it is, with the significance that it has.
It wasn't needed, based on no information.
Landings slots were limited, based on no information.
Covid means that it has not be used in its VIP role, except that Liz Truss visited the USA on a trade trip and The Foreign Secretary has been flying around the states neighbouring Afghanistan. Lots of irrelevant information on its use before being repainted though.
Neither the MOD nor the country could make better use of £900,000 than painting an aeroplane.
This is for the UK and not for BoJos vanity. He won't be the first VIP passenger and doesn't want the publicity for himself.
The only useful information was provided by one poster who wasn't defending the indefensible. They just looked at the real data. Vespina has fewer seats so is a less efficient transport. The Voyager was retasked from direct flights to Afghanistan to shuttle flights from Dubai,so my starting premise was incorrect.
Yet most people were grasping at irrelevances to justify BoJo's vanity.
Something to consider
The rage has been amusing though
The answers you gave to questions answered your original question
That's my point though. They said that they had one in 2019 and no tax increase needed. Yet no information on the an and a tax increase.
Were they telling a bare faced lie? Surely not? "Weird. Reied on completely the wrong thread  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An obsession with painted aeroplanes? That has to be a fetish of some kind - does it have a name?" It never surprises me what gives people a hardon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An obsession with painted aeroplanes? That has to be a fetish of some kind - does it have a name?It never surprises me what gives people a hardon. "lol. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An obsession with painted aeroplanes? That has to be a fetish of some kind - does it have a name?It never surprises me what gives people a hardon. "Can't wait for Boris to commandeer an Azuma train and give it a #buildbackbetter paint job
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An obsession with painted aeroplanes? That has to be a fetish of some kind - does it have a name?It never surprises me what gives people a hardon.
Can't wait for Boris to commandeer an Azuma train and give it a #buildbackbetter paint job
"If he did that some on here would have a meltdown. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An obsession with painted aeroplanes? That has to be a fetish of some kind - does it have a name?It never surprises me what gives people a hardon.
Can't wait for Boris to commandeer an Azuma train and give it a #buildbackbetter paint job
"lol. - like a Japanese Bullet Train but with . . . 'AJRock rules Peckham' in graffiti along the carriages. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I saw the plane on the news this morning and i must say it looked very smart landing in the USA."
Fit for purpose and definitely a shining beacon for #globalbritain | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I saw the plane on the news this morning and i must say it looked very smart landing in the USA." So BoJo did get the first flight in "his plane" then? As predicted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I saw the plane on the news this morning and i must say it looked very smart landing in the USA.
Fit for purpose and definitely a shining beacon for #globalbritain"So we should keep this plane in the same scheme? https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-typhoon-flys-the-flag-over-iconic-white-cliffs-ahead-of-battle-of-britain-anniversary/ Perhaps repaint the whole fleet? Fit for purpose and definitely a shining beacon for #globalbritain | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It didn't go to Kabul." Well done. That's what the tread is about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I saw the plane on the news this morning and i must say it looked very smart landing in the USA. So BoJo did get the first flight in "his plane" then? As predicted. "This plane has been flying ops for ages refuelling fighters defending the UK so hardly a maiden flight but dont let facts get in the way of your bias. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It didn't go to Kabul. Well done. That's what the tread is about. "Finally. You get the message. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I saw the plane on the news this morning and i must say it looked very smart landing in the USA. So BoJo did get the first flight in "his plane" then? As predicted. This plane has been flying ops for ages refuelling fighters defending the UK so hardly a maiden flight but dont let facts get in the way of your bias. "Try and read the thread properly. Look at the non-domestic /safe area flights since painting. How many have been for the purpose it was painted for? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I saw the plane on the news this morning and i must say it looked very smart landing in the USA. So BoJo did get the first flight in "his plane" then? As predicted. This plane has been flying ops for ages refuelling fighters defending the UK so hardly a maiden flight but dont let facts get in the way of your bias.
Try and read the thread properly.
Look at the non-domestic /safe area flights since painting. How many have been for the purpose it was painted for? "I did read it properly and its an RAF plane not his as i said dont let facts get in the way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I saw the plane on the news this morning and i must say it looked very smart landing in the USA. So BoJo did get the first flight in "his plane" then? As predicted. This plane has been flying ops for ages refuelling fighters defending the UK so hardly a maiden flight but dont let facts get in the way of your bias.
Try and read the thread properly.
Look at the non-domestic /safe area flights since painting. How many have been for the purpose it was painted for? "Nope, first time bojo was on ot o think. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Gawd. It's an RAF plane whose day job - 7 days a week - is to fly tanker duties. Upon occasion, it flies Trade Envoys and MP and Diplomats AND Boris Johnson. It's painted so that it's a recognisable symbol of global Britain in its Envoy role. There is really nothing more to be said !!! And all that has been said a dozen times or more above! And when Boris Johnson uses it he will use it - it's not 'the how many times' that gives it it's value - it's that it is dual-purposed and works during the day when it isn't needed by State. " Which brings us to the same question, why don't we paint all of our lovely military aeroplanes in high visibility red white and blue if they can do exactly the same job as they would in grey? We would have all of our military aircraft flying the flag carrying out air refuelling in safe airspace and in combat zones with exactly the same level of effectiveness. It had a dual purpose of being able to be used in exactly the same circumstances as all the other aircraft in the Voyager fleet. Is that still the case? Are you able to actually adress any of that directly? My guess is...no...again | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I saw the plane on the news this morning and i must say it looked very smart landing in the USA. So BoJo did get the first flight in "his plane" then? As predicted. This plane has been flying ops for ages refuelling fighters defending the UK so hardly a maiden flight but dont let facts get in the way of your bias.
Try and read the thread properly.
Look at the non-domestic /safe area flights since painting. How many have been for the purpose it was painted for? I did read it properly and its an RAF plane not his as i said dont let facts get in the way. "Then you aren't really reading the thread are you, just one comment in isolation and missing the point. Well done you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Which brings us to the same question, why don't we paint all of our lovely military aeroplanes in high visibility red white and blue if they can do exactly the same job as they would in grey? "Really? After all that has been written. Really? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Which brings us to the same question, why don't we paint all of our lovely military aeroplanes in high visibility red white and blue if they can do exactly the same job as they would in grey?
Really? After all that has been written. Really? "Really, because there has really been no answer. Really. You really believe that an aeroplane painted in these colours: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_transport_of_the_British_royal_family_and_government can serve in exactly the same locations as those painted in these colours? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT So we can leave this Typhoon painted like this, yes? https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-typhoon-flies-the-flag-over-iconic-white-cliffs-ahead-of-battle-of-britain-anniversary/ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Which brings us to the same question, why don't we paint all of our lovely military aeroplanes in high visibility red white and blue if they can do exactly the same job as they would in grey?
Really? After all that has been written. Really?
Really, because there has really been no answer.
Really.
You really believe that an aeroplane painted in these colours: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_transport_of_the_British_royal_family_and_government
can serve in exactly the same locations as those painted in these colours?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT
So we can leave this Typhoon painted like this, yes?
https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-typhoon-flies-the-flag-over-iconic-white-cliffs-ahead-of-battle-of-britain-anniversary/
"You really are showing some ignorance on this subject if you do not know the difference between an attack aircraft and a refuelling one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Which brings us to the same question, why don't we paint all of our lovely military aeroplanes in high visibility red white and blue if they can do exactly the same job as they would in grey?
Really? After all that has been written. Really?
Really, because there has really been no answer.
Really.
You really believe that an aeroplane painted in these colours: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_transport_of_the_British_royal_family_and_government
can serve in exactly the same locations as those painted in these colours?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT
So we can leave this Typhoon painted like this, yes?
https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-typhoon-flies-the-flag-over-iconic-white-cliffs-ahead-of-battle-of-britain-anniversary/
You really are showing some ignorance on this subject if you do not know the difference between an attack aircraft and a refuelling one. "No, I'm really not. Why are other Voyagers painted grey? Why shouldn't the Typhoon remain brightly coloured? Are you saying a brightly coloured aircraft should not operate in unsafe airspace? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many RAF planes have had temporary paint schemes over the years. These range from fighters, transports, trainers and helicopters. They aren't taken out of front line service. However, they tend not to go far, as they are often needed for displays and airshows. " So brightly coloured military aircraft remain in safe airspace? They cannot be used in the same circumstances as other aircraft in the fleet? Their tactical use is limited until repainted? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many RAF planes have had temporary paint schemes over the years. These range from fighters, transports, trainers and helicopters. They aren't taken out of front line service. However, they tend not to go far, as they are often needed for displays and airshows. So brightly coloured military aircraft remain in safe airspace? They cannot be used in the same circumstances as other aircraft in the fleet? Their tactical use is limited until repainted?" Do you actually believe that large slow refuelling planes need to be a certain colour? as i said you really are showing a lack of knowledge on the subject. These planes can be shot down without a single person seeing them by sight the colour is irrelevant they could be florescent yellow with big pink spots and would not make one iota of difference to their vulnerability. A fighter plane could lock onto it from 20 miles away and still shoot it down or a ground to air missile have you not heard of radar? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many RAF planes have had temporary paint schemes over the years. These range from fighters, transports, trainers and helicopters. They aren't taken out of front line service. However, they tend not to go far, as they are often needed for displays and airshows. So brightly coloured military aircraft remain in safe airspace? They cannot be used in the same circumstances as other aircraft in the fleet? Their tactical use is limited until repainted? Do you actually believe that large slow refuelling planes need to be a certain colour? as i said you really are showing a lack of knowledge on the subject. These planes can be shot down without a single person seeing them by sight the colour is irrelevant they could be florescent yellow with big pink spots and would not make one iota of difference to their vulnerability. A fighter plane could lock onto it from 20 miles away and still shoot it down or a ground to air missile have you not heard of radar? " Why are large, slow moving, military aircraf aeroplanes painted grey? Why can't a fighter jet be painted in nice bright colours? It could also be locked on by another fighter jet from 20 miles away and shot down? Why are they painted grey? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many RAF planes have had temporary paint schemes over the years. These range from fighters, transports, trainers and helicopters. They aren't taken out of front line service. However, they tend not to go far, as they are often needed for displays and airshows. So brightly coloured military aircraft remain in safe airspace? They cannot be used in the same circumstances as other aircraft in the fleet? Their tactical use is limited until repainted? Do you actually believe that large slow refuelling planes need to be a certain colour? as i said you really are showing a lack of knowledge on the subject. These planes can be shot down without a single person seeing them by sight the colour is irrelevant they could be florescent yellow with big pink spots and would not make one iota of difference to their vulnerability. A fighter plane could lock onto it from 20 miles away and still shoot it down or a ground to air missile have you not heard of radar? Why are large, slow moving, military aircraf aeroplanes painted grey? Why can't a fighter jet be painted in nice bright colours? It could also be locked on by another fighter jet from 20 miles away and shot down? Why are they painted grey? "The fighters are grey because they fly below the radar at a couple of hundred feet sometimes thus avoiding detection.As i said before you really are showing your ignorance on the subject and by keep asking stupid questions is only making you look worse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many RAF planes have had temporary paint schemes over the years. These range from fighters, transports, trainers and helicopters. They aren't taken out of front line service. However, they tend not to go far, as they are often needed for displays and airshows. So brightly coloured military aircraft remain in safe airspace? They cannot be used in the same circumstances as other aircraft in the fleet? Their tactical use is limited until repainted? Do you actually believe that large slow refuelling planes need to be a certain colour? as i said you really are showing a lack of knowledge on the subject. These planes can be shot down without a single person seeing them by sight the colour is irrelevant they could be florescent yellow with big pink spots and would not make one iota of difference to their vulnerability. A fighter plane could lock onto it from 20 miles away and still shoot it down or a ground to air missile have you not heard of radar? Why are large, slow moving, military aircraf aeroplanes painted grey? Why can't a fighter jet be painted in nice bright colours? It could also be locked on by another fighter jet from 20 miles away and shot down? Why are they painted grey? The fighters are grey because they fly below the radar at a couple of hundred feet sometimes thus avoiding detection.As i said before you really are showing your ignorance on the subject and by keep asking stupid questions is only making you look worse."Ah, right, so larger aircraft don't fly below the radar either? They don't takeoff and land either? Grey is not primarily to avoid visual detection against the sky? Interesting perspective. I do apologise for my ignorance. I didn't realise that there is no reason whatsoever that military transport and logistics aircraft are painted grey. Have you found many painted in other colours unless they are used exclusively for VIP transport or to celebrate an anniversary? Why is it that so many are painted grey? Is it just to save £800k per plane? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many RAF planes have had temporary paint schemes over the years. These range from fighters, transports, trainers and helicopters. They aren't taken out of front line service. However, they tend not to go far, as they are often needed for displays and airshows. So brightly coloured military aircraft remain in safe airspace? They cannot be used in the same circumstances as other aircraft in the fleet? Their tactical use is limited until repainted? Do you actually believe that large slow refuelling planes need to be a certain colour? as i said you really are showing a lack of knowledge on the subject. These planes can be shot down without a single person seeing them by sight the colour is irrelevant they could be florescent yellow with big pink spots and would not make one iota of difference to their vulnerability. A fighter plane could lock onto it from 20 miles away and still shoot it down or a ground to air missile have you not heard of radar? Why are large, slow moving, military aircraf aeroplanes painted grey? Why can't a fighter jet be painted in nice bright colours? It could also be locked on by another fighter jet from 20 miles away and shot down? Why are they painted grey? The fighters are grey because they fly below the radar at a couple of hundred feet sometimes thus avoiding detection.As i said before you really are showing your ignorance on the subject and by keep asking stupid questions is only making you look worse.
Ah, right, so larger aircraft don't fly below the radar either?
They don't takeoff and land either?
Grey is not primarily to avoid visual detection against the sky?
Interesting perspective.
I do apologise for my ignorance. I didn't realise that there is no reason whatsoever that military transport and logistics aircraft are painted grey. Have you found many painted in other colours unless they are used exclusively for VIP transport or to celebrate an anniversary?
Why is it that so many are painted grey? Is it just to save £800k per plane?
"Once again showing your lack of knowledge on the subject and im sure you dont even believe some of which you are posting but have dug yourself in a hole and are still digging. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many RAF planes have had temporary paint schemes over the years. These range from fighters, transports, trainers and helicopters. They aren't taken out of front line service. However, they tend not to go far, as they are often needed for displays and airshows. So brightly coloured military aircraft remain in safe airspace? They cannot be used in the same circumstances as other aircraft in the fleet? Their tactical use is limited until repainted? Do you actually believe that large slow refuelling planes need to be a certain colour? as i said you really are showing a lack of knowledge on the subject. These planes can be shot down without a single person seeing them by sight the colour is irrelevant they could be florescent yellow with big pink spots and would not make one iota of difference to their vulnerability. A fighter plane could lock onto it from 20 miles away and still shoot it down or a ground to air missile have you not heard of radar? Why are large, slow moving, military aircraf aeroplanes painted grey? Why can't a fighter jet be painted in nice bright colours? It could also be locked on by another fighter jet from 20 miles away and shot down? Why are they painted grey? The fighters are grey because they fly below the radar at a couple of hundred feet sometimes thus avoiding detection.As i said before you really are showing your ignorance on the subject and by keep asking stupid questions is only making you look worse.
Ah, right, so larger aircraft don't fly below the radar either?
They don't takeoff and land either?
Grey is not primarily to avoid visual detection against the sky?
Interesting perspective.
I do apologise for my ignorance. I didn't realise that there is no reason whatsoever that military transport and logistics aircraft are painted grey. Have you found many painted in other colours unless they are used exclusively for VIP transport or to celebrate an anniversary?
Why is it that so many are painted grey? Is it just to save £800k per plane?
Once again showing your lack of knowledge on the subject and im sure you dont even believe some of which you are posting but have dug yourself in a hole and are still digging. "Amusing
You have not been able to explain why military logistics and transport aircraft the world over are pai ted grey but are convinced that they can be painted in any colour because they can be hit by a missile from a great distance because they are slow and large.
Yet you are convinced that all combat aircraft fly low to avoid radar and are consequently painted grey, to blend into what and why? If they are moving so fast and cannot be tracked by radar why bother?
Are any combat aircraft used in roles such as air superiority and intercept where they do not spend much time at low level?
What colour are they?
Do aircraft take off and land?
You are telling me that I am displaying a lack of knowledge and digging a hole?
Gotcha | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
