Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on May 22, 2003, 09:12:56 PM
-
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030522/D7R6AH800.html
Is this typical of how the EU will operate?
I wonder why they want to build a EU commercial version of the free US GPS system, especially since the US system is being upgraded soon and they would be only further behind.
Not that I mind if they launch a EU GPS system, just wondering who would pay to use it, since the US GPS is free , been up for many years, and is a world standard.
Seems like a waste of money to me.
-
It's not that hard to see why. Really. ;)
-
Next thing we hear is that the US invented the GPS system :rolleyes:
Djust like Al Gore invented internet :D
-
Galileo will be funded by the European Union, and the principle of actually launching it is the same as when it was decided that Europe needed an independent access to space in order to launch into orbit commercial and scientific satellites.
Now Ariane is one of the top launchers in the world and it wouldn't surprise me that Galileo evolved into the most popular navigation systems because, mostly, it would be completely civilian. No degrading of the resolution in times of war.
Also, Galileo will mean a SERIOUS boost for europe's hi-tech industry. It is truly a huge project and, IMHO, a good use of government (in this case pan-european) spending.
I have some good friends working for the Galileo project and it's looking real good. If only politicians would leave engineers and scientists to work... the world would be a better place :)
Daniel
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Next thing we hear is that the US invented the GPS system :rolleyes:
Good point, with all those Russian GPS satelites up there thak kind of american lying BS will never fly with people! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Actually the name is GLONASS :D
Daniel
-
Good point, with all those Russian GPS satelites up there thak kind of american lying BS will never fly with people!
What does Russia have to do with this?
-
Russia is part of the great EU-eurotrash conspiracy of course!!!! It is also a part of the EU!!!! Limburgh told me so!!!!
"Infamy, infamy! They've all got it in for me!"
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
Galileo will be funded by the European Union, and the principle of actually launching it is the same as when it was decided that Europe needed an independent access to space in order to launch into orbit commercial and scientific satellites.
Now Ariane is one of the top launchers in the world and it wouldn't surprise me that Galileo evolved into the most popular navigation systems because, mostly, it would be completely civilian. No degrading of the resolution in times of war.
Also, Galileo will mean a SERIOUS boost for europe's hi-tech industry. It is truly a huge project and, IMHO, a good use of government (in this case pan-european) spending.
I have some good friends working for the Galileo project and it's looking real good. If only politicians would leave engineers and scientists to work... the world would be a better place :)
Daniel
If the EU ever stops bickering over the "profit" rights, the system may be built. But do you seriously think it will evolve into the most popular navigation system? Who's going to pay to use it?
And I don't remember the GPS system being degraded during times of war.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
If the EU ever stops bickering over the "profit" rights, the system may be built. But do you seriously think it will evolve into the most popular navigation system? Who's going to pay to use it?
And I don't remember the GPS system being degraded during times of war.
[AFAIK]
It is, Nuke, channel C (I guess) is artificially degraded in a random way, and this changes in dependance of the military/political situation, while channel A (i guess again, dont remember exactly), is the high precision channel, accessible only by US military and/or authorized (by US forces) entities.
It's one of the reasons many Euro Air Authorities refuse to certificate planes with ONLY GPS as navigation system.
There have been rumors of the opening of channel A for worldwide use (while mantaining the property and the "right of denial" by US forces), guess the reason is Galileo project.
[/AFAIK]
Free market :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by NUKE
If the EU ever stops bickering over the "profit" rights, the system may be built. But do you seriously think it will evolve into the most popular navigation system? Who's going to pay to use it?
And I don't remember the GPS system being degraded during times of war.
I think it was in 91 or I was coding like a dork :)
I'm perhaps mistaken as I was using the civilian GPS (precision was something like 400/1000 meter)
After reading your first post ,do you serioulsly GPS as free ?
-
Originally posted by Naso
[AFAIK]
It is, Nuke, channel C (I guess) is artificially degraded in a random way, and this changes in dependance of the military/political situation, while channel A (i guess again, dont remember exactly), is the high precision channel, accessible only by US military and/or authorized (by US forces) entities.
It's one of the reasons many Euro Air Authorities refuse to certificate planes with ONLY GPS as navigation system.
There have been rumors of the opening of channel A for worldwide use (while mantaining the property and the "right of denial" by US forces), guess the reason is Galileo project.
[/AFAIK]
Free market :rolleyes:
Naso, I know that civilain GPS access has always have a few meters resolution, but I didn't think that has ever changed in war or not. I have never heard of complaints from any source that the GPS system was degraded.
Millions of people around the world use the GPS system. Airlines, ships etc.... and I never heard of the system being impared or interfered with.
I can see one reason for the EU system, and that's possibly so their militaries could have a GPS system that wouldn't depend on outside sources. That's the best reason I could see.....and it's a very good reason, but for civilian use, I don't see who would pay to use it.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I think it was in 91 or I was coding like a dork :)
I'm perhaps mistaken as I was using the civilian GPS (precision was something like 400/1000 meter)
After reading your first post ,do you serioulsly GPS as free ?
Straffo what do you mean by free. You don't have to pay for the use of the GPS system, all you have to do is buy a receiver...... or am I wrong?
-
You have to pay a subscription. I'm 99% sure of that. Someone has to pay the running costs.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You have to pay a subscription. I'm 99% sure of that. Someone has to pay the running costs.
Dowding, not here you don't just by a receiver. I'm nearly positive it's free world-wide.
I just put one on my notebook.....
-
Maybe I'm thinking of SatNav programs with updated roadmaps.
But the GPS systems you buy are not military grade as Naso says. It sounds like the European project will allow civilians to purchase such accuracy. This won't be useful to you or I, but to companies that need that kind of accuracy (I'm thinking heavy engineering) it probably would be highly useful.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Naso, I know that civilain GPS access has always have a few meters resolution, but I didn't think that has ever changed in war or not. I have never heard of complaints from any source that the GPS system was degraded.
Millions of people around the world use the GPS system. Airlines, ships etc.... and I never heard of the system being impared or interfered with.
I can see one reason for the EU system, and that's possibly so their militaries could have a GPS system that wouldn't depend on outside sources. That's the best reason I could see.....and it's a very good reason, but for civilian use, I don't see who would pay to use it.
It can be few meters when you are lucky, usually is in the range of 200-300 meters average induced error, in vertical, too.
No complains, is a known fact, how can you complain of a thing that is advertized on each GPS apparat manual (the error I mean).
The few meters error is the "natural" error that have the class-A, there are rumors it is UNDER 1 meter :eek:
The last sentence is already a sufficient reason to develope the system, infact the major future customers are the Euro military.
For civilian use?
Dunno, someone may need to have max precision, like for auto-landing systems or other high precision activities, without leaving that in the hands of a friendly, but foreign, military force.
It's not difficult to grasp.
As an example, what did you asked NASA in case your GPS was "made in France" ? ;)
To develop one "made in USA", or not?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Maybe I'm thinking of SatNav programs with updated roadmaps.
But the GPS systems you buy are not military grade as Naso says. It sounds like the European project will allow civilians to purchase such accuracy. This won't be useful to you or I, but to companies that need that kind of accuracy (I'm thinking heavy engineering) it probably would be highly useful.
Yeah, big companies would benifit from a highly accurate system.
The one on my notebook seems to be pretty darn accurate though..... within a few yards.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Dowding, not here you don't just by a receiver. I'm nearly positive it's free world-wide.
I just put one on my notebook.....
AFAIK, there is'nt a subscription, just a royalty for each receiver produced (similar to Microsoft's when a new PC is built), and only some factory is allowed to built it.
-
http://www.beyonddiscovery.org/content/view.page.asp?I=468
GPS satellites now broadcast two signals: a civilian signal that is accurate to within 100 feet and a second signal that only the military can decode that is accurate to within 60 feet. The Pentagon has also reserved the ability to introduce errors at any time into the civilian signal to reduce its accuracy to about 300 feet.
In March 1996, the White House announced that a higher level of GPS accuracy will be made available to everyone, and the practice of degrading civil GPS signals will be phased out within a decade
Using my notebook GPS, I can say ( so far) that it has been within a few yards.
-
Originally posted by Naso
It can be few meters when you are lucky, usually is in the range of 200-300 meters average induced error, in vertical, too.
That usually depends on the kind of civilian receiver you use. I've got a hand held GPS that I use when I go fishing and it's accurate within a few meters.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Naso, I know that civilain GPS access has always have a few meters resolution, but I didn't think that has ever changed in war or not. I have never heard of complaints from any source that the GPS system was degraded.
The U.S. government didn't 'degrade' it, they just don't allow access to the GPS system the military uses. Civilian use of the GPS system wasn't curtailed in anyway during the war. Accuracy of the GPS (at least in with civilian use) is pretty much dependent on the receiver. Some are excellent and are accurate within a few meters, while some are not so good and are accurate within a few dozen meters but there is a hard limit on how accurate a civilian GPS receiver can be. You're not going to find a civilian GPS receiver with the accuracy of a military one since the GPS signals the civilians use won't allow it.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
The U.S. government didn't 'degrade' it, they just don't allow access to the GPS system the military uses. Civilian use of the GPS system wasn't curtailed in anyway during the war. Accuracy of the GPS (at least in with civilian use) is pretty much dependent on the receiver. Some are excellent and are accurate within a few meters, while some are not so good and are accurate within a few dozen meters but there is a hard limit on how accurate a civilian GPS receiver can be. You're not going to find a civilian GPS receiver with the accuracy of a military one since the GPS signals the civilians use won't allow it.
Ack-Ack
There are actually 2 signals (or channels), one is crypted and only for US military, the other open and for civvies.
The government DID degrade it, but apparently, since '96, decided to reduce the degradation to few yards.
It retain, anyway, the ability to modifiy the error or even negate the channel, if needed by national interests.
Check the quote by Nuke.
P.S.
I am curious, when Galileo started?
Official link:
http://www.esa.int/export/esaSA/GGG0H750NDC_navigation_0.html
-
Build and launch your own then. Plenty of room up there and apparently the needed frequency already allocated. Just don't expect the US to subsidize or pay for use.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Build and launch your own then. Plenty of room up there and apparently the needed frequency already allocated. Just don't expect the US to subsidize or pay for use.
Infact US is already paying for it, since decided to reduce the artificial error to oppose the development, I guess this is not for good will, but to mantain the edge and the control.
-
Originally posted by Naso
Infact US is already paying for it, since decided to reduce the artificial error to oppose the development, I guess this is not for good will, but to mantain the edge and the control.
Nothing I read in that article indicated that the US is funding "Galileo". Towards the end of the article it mentions how the cost is to be divided among European countries. Where do you get info that the US is paying?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Nothing I read in that article indicated that the US is funding "Galileo". Towards the end of the article it mentions how the cost is to be divided among European countries. Where do you get info that the US is paying?
Eh eh eh, my young friend, not everything that happens in the world can be read in an article, something the use of braincells helps. ;)
There are many ways to pay something, the more direct is to commit funds, one of the others, as to the case of GPS, is to pay the maintenance of your own system and improving the service, to reduce the market demand of another system controlled by a third party. :)
Got it? ;)
-
Originally posted by Naso
Eh eh eh, my young friend, not everything that happens in the world can be read in an article, something the use of braincells helps. ;)
There are many ways to pay something, the more direct is to commit funds, one of the others, as to the case of GPS, is to pay the maintenance of your own system and improving the service, to reduce the market demand of another system controlled by a third party. :)
Got it? ;)
Young? I wish.
The US built, launched, and has operated the ONLY GPS system in the world long before the EU started making noise about their own. Of course we're going to maintain and upgrade.
-
Originally posted by Naso
Infact US is already paying for it, since decided to reduce the artificial error to oppose the development, I guess this is not for good will, but to mantain the edge and the control.
Naso, who ever said the GPS system was built for "good will"? It's a miltary system and the US decided to let civilians use it after the companies that built the system complained about it.
Now how does the US giving increased accuracy matter to the EU system? If the EU system is economically viable and offers a better system, then it will succed, if not it will fail.
Are you saying the the US shouldn't increase the availible accuracy just so the EU system will have a better chance?
It seems the EU bickering has done more to stop the system than the US GPS system.
The EU disputes regarding profits is one small example of why I said before that the EU is a powder keg waiting to explode in europe one day. Think of what will happen when the EU has a real dispute between it's members.
-
Amendment to my last post.
Forgot about the Russian system GLONASS, but who uses it besides the Russians?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Only? GLONASS (http://samadhi.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/QuickLooks/glonassQL.html) was launced in 1982. It's available to the public free of cost, just like GPS.
There ya have it. So why claim US domination.
BTW - see my post before yours.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Only? GLONASS (http://samadhi.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/QuickLooks/glonassQL.html) was launced in 1982. It's available to the public free of cost, just like GPS.
I don't know. Maybe it's just me but that picture of GLONASS sure looks a very lot like the Russian Space Based Nuclear Missle Platform posing as a communication satellite in Space Cowboys!
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Europe just want to be more militarily independent now. That includes an independent GPS system.
Then they should spend some money on a military before they spend money on a system so that "military" can find it's way out of a dark closet!
Ahhh hahahahahahahahaha
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Europe just want to be more militarily independent now. That includes an independent GPS system.
Damn good idea and I'm all for Europe being militarily independent..... then we wouldn't have to spend so much on it's defence
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Naso, who ever said the GPS system was built for "good will"? It's a miltary system and the US decided to let civilians use it after the companies that built the system complained about it.
Almost what I said, nor I was implying someone stated the contrary.
Now how does the US giving increased accuracy matter to the EU system? If the EU system is economically viable and offers a better system, then it will succed, if not it will fail.
It matters, because will attract a part of the customers to stay in the GPS system and not invest/buy the new one.
Are you saying the the US shouldn't increase the availible accuracy just so the EU system will have a better chance?
Not at all!!
Just suggesting that the choise can be a direct move to try to delay/disrupts the efforts of the EU.
As I already stated in many posts (maybe I need to put it in the signature ;) ), generally, there's no moral judgement in my opinions or in my posts.
Wrong or good is for the humans, the states and huge companies dont have a morale or ethics (scary, uh? ;) ).
It seems the EU bickering has done more to stop the system than the US GPS system.
Eh, as usual. :(
The EU disputes regarding profits is one small example of why I said before that the EU is a powder keg waiting to explode in europe one day. Think of what will happen when the EU has a real dispute between it's members.
Only future can tell us.
Anyway, listen this one:
Finally, after the confirmation that the Eurofighter would've been delayed some other year, Italian AF decided to acquire a better interim fighter than the Tornado ADV (!) to help the surviving F104 Starfighters (!!) we have as our first line fighters (ROFL).
We were considering the Mig-29 dismissed by Russia and East Germany, mounting a brand new West avionics, or the Mirage 2000 offered by Dassault with help of France government.
France made an incredible low cost offer for the Mirage, while the Mig29 could have been a low cost choise too.
Then the US entered the game, with the objective to avoid 2 things:
Keeping alive Russian Hi-tech aerodynamic industry.
Almost the same with France's one.
The offer is for re-activated F16 (national guard version), an amaizing machine indeed, at an incredible low cost, with the condition to leave the manteinance in the hands of US personnel.
(In this way you have no leak of know-how ;) )
Winner!!!
How do you read it?
-
Then the US entered the game, with the objective to avoid 2 things:
Keeping alive Russian Hi-tech aerodynamic industry.
Almost the same with France's one.
The offer is for re-activated F16 (national guard version), an amaizing machine indeed, at an incredible low cost, with the condition to leave the manteinance in the hands of US personnel.
(In this way you have no leak of know-how )
Winner!!!
How do you read it?
Naso the way I read it that Italy didn't want to spend the money required to build it's own plane, so they bought one. Nobody forced them to buy the f-16.
-
Originally posted by Naso
Anyway, listen this one:
Finally, after the confirmation that the Eurofighter would've been delayed some other year, Italian AF decided to acquire a better interim fighter than the Tornado ADV (!) to help the surviving F104 Starfighters (!!) we have as our first line fighters (ROFL).
We were considering the Mig-29 dismissed by Russia and East Germany, mounting a brand new West avionics, or the Mirage 2000 offered by Dassault with help of France government.
France made an incredible low cost offer for the Mirage, while the Mig29 could have been a low cost choise too.
Then the US entered the game, with the objective to avoid 2 things:
Keeping alive Russian Hi-tech aerodynamic industry.
Almost the same with France's one.
The offer is for re-activated F16 (national guard version), an amaizing machine indeed, at an incredible low cost, with the condition to leave the manteinance in the hands of US personnel.
(In this way you have no leak of know-how ;) )
Winner!!!
Uh.... oh...... lets see now, a choice between combat proven fully operational F-16's at a cheap cost or cast off Migs and Mirages. Hmmmm, now which would I choose?
I think Naso, maybe them Eyetalians is smarter than you give em credit fer!
:D :D :D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Oh they are. Plans are being drawn for a European military force including, among other things, four carriers (two of which will be operated by Germany, and two by France). [/QUOTE
Well, the EU-world will really be safe now, eh?
This is NOT a parody or a spoof---this is TRUE. This French aircraft carrier broke its port propeller on its first long-distance trials. The French Navy announced that a blade on one of the aircraft carrier's two propellers broke off when the 40,000-ton vessel was making its way from Guadeloupe in the French West Indies to the US naval base at Norfolk, Virginia at 25kts. The break occurred in the vessel's port propeller, which weighs 19 tons and measures 5.8m in diameter. Divers were unable to recover the missing blade.
The breakdown, which is the latest in a long line of complications that have beset the Charles de Gaulle since it began sea trials in February 1999, is expected to greatly increase the overall cost of Charles de Gaulle, Europe's only nuclear-powered carrier. The bill currently stands at around Ffr20 billion ($2.7 billion), including Ffr500 million for modifications and repairs to resolve problems that occurred during earlier trials this year.
Among the modifications was a 4.5m extension of the carrier's angled flight deck because the initial design was found to be too short to accommodate the Northrop Grumman E-2C Hawkeye early warning aircraft deployed aboard Charles de Gaulle in certain combat situations. That's right-- they built the deck too short to take-off and land the planes! Vive La France
And I am sure Germany will fare much better as they have such a grand Naval history and all!
-
The "forcing" nowadays means giving something for free, under the price or pure cash.
Forcing in itself has became an oldish thing...
Ie. Afganistan & Iraq - the bribes
Also could use Poland and Spain as an example - the reason why the goverment supported Iraq war more than the people (waste majority of people in spain were against, but goverment on the other hand...)
Polish is westernizing its military forces and rather coincidentally they're going to buy US military equiptment for rather cheap, after siding with US in Iraq war.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well Syzygyone, shedding a propellerblade is a rather common thing on new ships. There's a lot of adjustments and modifications nessesary on modern warships aswell, or perhaps you believe all US warships have worked as advertised during sea trials?
Btw. the German operated carriers will be made with the help of the French. And yes they do actually have a pretty good naval history (nothing like the British of course).
First, I didn't compare anything to US warships, now did I?
Second, you missed the point of the article I think. I don't know any horror stories of air craft carriers being buiilt too short for use by the very aircraft which, at the time of construction, were intended to be deployed on that ship. But, if you do, please enlighten the rest of us.
Third, as for Germany's navy, well, IIRC the German Navy was pretty much flat out wiped out early in WWII, by them plucky Brits as I recall. And yes, Germany had a pretty mean sub force, but that didn't last especially long either, especially against military targets, as opposed to freighters and passenger liners.
-
Syzygyone,
You forget that the german 1935-1945 kriegsmarine was pretty small from the very begining and ship engineering wasnt as good due to restrictions after the first world war.
So not a big surprise if the german navy was wiped out early in the war, considering there was no navy to wipeout :>
ops.. forgot the begining year in a hurry
-
Is it just me or is Syzygyone going out of his way to be offensive about anything European in this thread?
First, I didn't compare anything to US warships, now did I?
And you accuse me of trolling. What exactly is your point? You know what a sea trial is? It's a shakedown of systems to expose weaknesses. I'm sure the prop issue was fixed. Same goes for the flight deck. It's how engineering works - not everything goes to plan and you make modifications to meet specification.
That article is overtly anti-French. Which is apt, given the overtly anti-European, ultra-sensitive nature of your posts.
Third, as for Germany's navy, well, IIRC the German Navy was pretty much flat out wiped out early in WWII, by them plucky Brits as I recall. And yes, Germany had a pretty mean sub force, but that didn't last especially long either, especially against military targets, as opposed to freighters and passenger liners.
Those plucky Brits who you were just insulting a minute ago with comments like "Then they should spend some money on a military before they spend money on a system so that "military" can find it's way out of a dark closet! " You witty, witty bar steward.
Back to your latest inanity - let's examine your lack of historical knowledge. Every heard of Jutland? Go look it up. The Royal Navy had a monumental battle with the German Navy in WW1 and only just won with heavy losses. And the submarines? They are designedp to take out freighters. What 'military targets' are you talking about? They almost strangled the UK early in the war. Get yourself an education about submarine warfare. Please. You really are making an ignorant fool of yourself.
-
Get up on the wrong side of the bed did ya? A little hypersensitive today are ya?
I'd respectfully suggest, Sir Dowdie boy, that you read the whole thread before you spout!
I wasn't bashing the Brits, you dolt! (although bashing you probably doesn't count as bashing Brits!:D ) The post I was responding to didn't mention England, did it? It was about the idiotic concept of France and Germany becoming military or naval powers again.
GSsholz's post insinuated that I meant no US warships had ever lost a prop on sea trials. I never suggested that US warships were better or worse at all. That wasn't the point, anyway. It was about the gawddammed length of the gawdammed ship. You gotta admit, don't ya, that it's pretty funny to build a ship too short! You gotta admit that such an event causes one to question the wisdom of those that built it, don't ya?
Oh, and about the subs, of course the wolf packs weren't meant to fight military targets, just defensless civilian targets. Dowd, you are getting ever better at stating the obvious but missing the point of what you post. Your point proves the moden day laughability of WWII german naval thought of building military machines that can't protect themselves against other military machines and how ill suited such a mind set will be to become a Euopean naval power.
Take a chill pill Mr. Dowd! Quit trying to defend the French and Germans. It's just redikulus!
:D :D :D
Say, are you doin' the Squad Ops tonight?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Royal Navy WARSHIP losses to the KM during WWII:
Seriously, never seen a list like that and not that I doubt anything in your post, but could we see that source please? Is it internet accessible?
Is there one for all of allied shipping and vice versa. Interesting!
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You really are an ................
And your point is?
I'm not really but I play one on this BBS. You fish are so very easy to bait! But, it's hell waiting for AH2 to come out.
:D
-
now compare merchant ships lost to that list.
its amazing to me that anyone in europe would be happy to see germany strong militarily again. Getting asshumped twice in a 100 years, and still didnt learn.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
LOL! :D
Here: http://www.naval-history.net
Wery cool site. Thanks dude!
Now, go back to bashing, All this niceness is boring!
-
Originally posted by Dnil
its amazing to me that anyone in europe would be happy to see germany strong militarily again.
...weren't there, a short time ago, some people who were kind of angry that Germany didn't want to go to war?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Naso the way I read it that Italy didn't want to spend the money required to build it's own plane, so they bought one. Nobody forced them to buy the f-16.
Italy does'nt HAVE the money to spent in his own plane, but is having a huge (for her) effort to cooperate with others to build one (Eurofighter).
Will is not enough.
And I did'nt say someone forced it, dont get defensive, i am not accusing someone, just pointing facts and some perceived (by me) weaknesses.
:)
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
Uh.... oh...... lets see now, a choice between combat proven fully operational F-16's at a cheap cost or cast off Migs and Mirages. Hmmmm, now which would I choose?
I think Naso, maybe them Eyetalians is smarter than you give em credit fer!
:D :D :D
Syz, are you deliberately ignoring this part of my sentence:
re-activated F16 (national guard version), an amaizing machine indeed,
Or just missed it ?
:p
-
Oh, and syz, I know very well that we are smarter.
:D
-
My apologies, Syz. Fridays mean at the office for 6am until 4pm for me. And there weren't any damned scrambled eggs in the canteen this morning. ;)
-
Originally posted by Naso
Syz, are you deliberately ignoring this part of my sentence:
Or just missed it ?
:p
Neither. I was just curious at the tenor of your previoius post. Seemed you were insinuating that there was something negative in that deal for Italy or how the U.S. went about it. Better aircraft, better price! What more could you want!
As for knowing you are smart, my paternal grandparents were smart enough to immigrate to U.S. in the 1920's. But then, they insist that they wre Siciliano, not merely Italiano!
Bythe way, I once worked with a man with the last name of
Pouzzouli!. Anyone named the town notied in your avatar?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
My pleasure ... you Euro-hating bastidge!
Ahhhhhh, that's better! :D
Actually, if you study my posts, you will find that I only despise France, as a whole, and then Germany's government!
I lived many years in Germany when young. Liked it very much.
Liked Luxembourg, Holland too. Generally don't mind old Europe, just some of them new leaders.
By the way, never been to Norwegia but my favorite Beatle tune in Norwegian Wood.
So how does all that add up in terms of anti-euro-hatred currency, you pathetically jealous American hating bastige you!
There I feel like were back into the swing of things.:cool:
-
Originally posted by Dowding
My apologies, Syz. Fridays mean at the office for 6am until 4pm for me. And there weren't any damned scrambled eggs in the canteen this morning. ;)
No offense, you know I love you Brits!
Oh, and speaking of food, can you PUHLEEEEZE clarify what the attaction of blood sausage is?
;)
-
My grandfather took part in the battle of the atlantic aswell as escorting convoys to russia, he took part in the biggest u-boat/convoy engagement of the war (in the film the longest day?) HX-229 (http://www.uboat.net/ops/convoys/battles.htm?convoy=HX-229) and SC-122 (http://www.uboat.net/ops/convoys/battles.htm?convoy=SC-122)
He has always told me lots of stories from when he was in the navy, not once has he mentioned u-boats attacking the warships, they always attempted to sneak inbetween the escort's and into the middle of the convoy where it was hard to pick them out from the merchant vessels.
They never fought with the escorts as it would mean certain death.
264 u-boats were lost to ships during the war btw. from
here (http://www.uboat.net/fates/losses/cause.htm)
-
wasnt me griping about germany. I said go it alone from the beginning. Lead, follow or get out of the way. Germany chose to get in the way.
-
God knows Syz, I think it's an older generation thing. My grandad used to eat it - along with dripping sandwiches and cold tea - but he was a coal miner so they used to eat that stuff underground. I won't touch the stuff.
Speaking of grandfather, he was a merchant seaman during in the war and sailed on the Russian convoys, Furball. He never talked about it, and died when I was 11 years old. I guess he had his stories, but didn't really want to share them.
-
I hope you don't mind if I add something to original topic...
You can always use DGPS (Differential GPS) if accuracy of the GPS is not enough for your use.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
If the EU ever stops bickering over the "profit" rights, the system may be built. But do you seriously think it will evolve into the most popular navigation system? Who's going to pay to use it?
And I don't remember the GPS system being degraded during times of war.
Quite the opposite. It seems during Gulf War Part 1 the US military were issued with civilian GPS because not enough Mil Spec GPS were available at the time.
Lots of Yachty friends noticed that in January 2001 their GPS resolution had gone from 10m to 1m as the US switched Civilian GPS signals onto military GPS signals.
Or so I was told by my yachty friends, who it must be said are not miltary experts.
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
No offense, you know I love you Brits!
Oh, and speaking of food, can you PUHLEEEEZE clarify what the attaction of blood sausage is?
;)
Do you mean black pudding?
Delicious at breakfast with a spoonful of lingonberry preserve. High in available Iron good for you etc. (its a bit high in saturated fats tho).
-
far more easy merchant targets were sunk then warships.
wouldnt claim that as an awesome military.
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
Neither. I was just curious at the tenor of your previoius post. Seemed you were insinuating that there was something negative in that deal for Italy or how the U.S. went about it. Better aircraft, better price! What more could you want!
As for knowing you are smart, my paternal grandparents were smart enough to immigrate to U.S. in the 1920's. But then, they insist that they wre Siciliano, not merely Italiano!
Bythe way, I once worked with a man with the last name of
Pouzzouli!. Anyone named the town notied in your avatar?
There's nothing bad in the deal, nor I want to imply a judgement, business is business.
But there's a fact usually ignored:
giving the maintenance to US personnel means that there will be no know-how transfer, and in the improbable case of a disagreement between the governments, one of the retaliation cut be to deprivate my nation of a good part of the air defence.
It's not a "strategic" perfect choise made by my government, dont you think?
A good deal cut have been the Mig29s, the plan was to let our industry to work on the "refreshment" of the avionic, and in the successive Hardware maintenance.
The Mirage affair was a no, with the little advantage of a partecipation in the Airbus Industries.
For the Siciliano part, my family comes from Sicily, and, since i am born in Naples, I am Napoletano.
There's still a strong feel the old Southern Kingdom, in fact the northern military forces conquered southern Italy no long time ago (end of 19 century). :)
A lot of immigrants in the beginning of the century were named after their birth city, 'cause was easier for the custom officers.
Remember "Don Vito Corleone"?
Corleone is near Palermo, in the interior.
:)
-
But there's a fact usually ignored:
giving the maintenance to US personnel means that there will be no know-how transfer, and in the improbable case of a disagreement between the governments, one of the retaliation cut be to deprivate my nation of a good part of the air defence.
It's not a "strategic" perfect choise made by my government, dont you think?
It doesn't matter if we would have offered the deal, but insisted that Elvis be painted on the tails. The point is that Italy took the deal based on the package, so you really can't single out any one part of the deal say it's not fair or right.
If Itally didn't like the US maintaining the planes and was worried that a future rift between the governments would impair them, they should have taken another deal.
What if you and I made a deal that I was going to sell you a car, but part of the deal was that I get to sleep with your wife. You gonna take the deal and complain it was unfair or are to gonna tell me to f-off???
-
Nuke, instead of jumping in defence of a supposed attack on your mighty and sacred Nation....
Why dont you stop a bit and realize that I am criticizing (sp?) MY frigging government decision?
eh?
;)
You seem to see US bashing everywhere, even when ther'isnt.
:)
-
Originally posted by Naso
Nuke, instead of jumping in defence of a supposed attack on your mighty and sacred Nation....
Why dont you stop a bit and realize that I am criticizing (sp?) MY frigging government decision?
eh?
;)
You seem to see US bashing everywhere, even when ther'isnt.
:)
When did I say or imply that I was defending a supposed attack on my "mighty and sacred nation"?
Nasa, I wasn't seeing it as an attack on the US, just a complaint about the deal Italy took. Why do you have to become sarcastic? I wasn't becoming defensive but you seem to be .
From your posts, I didn't see were you complained about Italy's decision but rather seemed more to be complaining about the US terms of the deal. And from that understanding ( the way I saw it) I was just pointing out that you can't complain about a deal that you agree too.
Nothing nationalistic in my argument.
-
Well, Galileo just got approved.
Go figure :)
Daniel
-
Originally posted by NUKE
When did I say or imply that I was defending a supposed attack on my "mighty and sacred nation"?
Nasa, I wasn't seeing it as an attack on the US, just a complaint about the deal Italy took. Why do you have to become sarcastic? I wasn't becoming defensive but you seem to be .
From your posts, I didn't see were you complained about Italy's decision but rather seemed more to be complaining about the US terms of the deal. And from that understanding ( the way I saw it) I was just pointing out that you can't complain about a deal that you agree too.
Nothing nationalistic in my argument.
My nickname is Naso :mad:
;)
You are too serious :p
P.S.
I will never buy a car from you (with those conditions). :D
-
a new EU-GPS system ? why not, competition is good.
Whats new for me, is germany really building with france a carrier fleet ?
never heard about. Not that i didnt trust in german engineers ;) but this
sounds sci-fi to me.