India inks a deal for supply of 24 Rafale aircrafts

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12409
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: India inks a deal for supply of 24 Rafale aircrafts

Postby Mike » Thu 16 Apr 2015 16:13

Why do we need the electoral college anyways? Just whoever gets the most votes wins.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6605
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

Re: India inks a deal for supply of 24 Rafale aircrafts

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Thu 16 Apr 2015 16:30

What does India buying Europeon games have to do with the USA's elections?
Image

Mad22
Lieutenant
Posts: 1089
Joined: Wed 8 May 2013 14:45
Location: The sulaco
Contact:

Re: India inks a deal for supply of 24 Rafale aircrafts

Postby Mad22 » Thu 16 Apr 2015 17:28

I made a joke about Hilary Clinton easily becoming president then BOOM.
Thread derailed.
Image
HOT SHOTS IS MORE REALISTIC THAN TOP GUN. whats that about?

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12409
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: India inks a deal for supply of 24 Rafale aircrafts

Postby Mike » Thu 16 Apr 2015 20:49

Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:What does India buying Europeon games have to do with the USA's elections?

Batshit crazy US president might nuke India til they have a warm radioactive glow.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6605
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

Re: India inks a deal for supply of 24 Rafale aircrafts

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Thu 16 Apr 2015 20:59

Mike wrote:
Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:What does India buying Europeon games have to do with the USA's elections?

Batshit crazy US president might nuke India til they have a warm radioactive glow.


It's India, they'll reproduce faster than the nuke can kill em'

it's just a joke pls don't kill me
Image

User avatar
D-M
Posts: 8794
Joined: Sat 23 Jul 2011 11:10
Contact:

Re: India inks a deal for supply of 24 Rafale aircrafts

Postby D-M » Thu 16 Apr 2015 21:03

BTW what did that "expert" meant by having a Su-30 that can manage a group of plane ? Is there some kind of C2 node inside ?
Image

User avatar
GBNATO
General
Posts: 5884
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013 12:20
Location: The Republic of Dave
Contact:

Re: India inks a deal for supply of 24 Rafale aircrafts

Postby GBNATO » Thu 16 Apr 2015 21:05

I assumed he just meant data sharing and networking, but that is by no means unique to the Su-30 so who knows :? Although judging by the size of the bloody thing I wouldn't be surprised if there was a command bunker complete with general staff inside the nose!

Image

Makes the Squall look like a damn toy by comparison.
Image

User avatar
D-M
Posts: 8794
Joined: Sat 23 Jul 2011 11:10
Contact:

Re: India inks a deal for supply of 24 Rafale aircrafts

Postby D-M » Thu 16 Apr 2015 21:13

GBNATO wrote:I assumed he just meant data sharing and networking, but that is by no means unique to the Su-30 so who knows :?


It certainly isn't, like a whole bunch of NATO planes, the Rafale is a non-C2 Link 16 capable node so within the current context, I don't think it''d strange for France to remove STANAG-compliant com' system from the plane before selling it to a non-NATO nation.

...And it really wouldn't be strange for Russia to do the same. But then again, I 'm not really sure what he actually meant.
Image

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8659
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: India inks a deal for supply of 24 Rafale aircrafts

Postby Fade2Gray » Thu 16 Apr 2015 22:03

GBNATO wrote:I assumed he just meant data sharing and networking, but that is by no means unique to the Su-30 so who knows :? Although judging by the size of the bloody thing I wouldn't be surprised if there was a command bunker complete with general staff inside the nose!

Image

Makes the Squall look like a damn toy by comparison.


Woah, the Flanker is huge. O_o

Mike wrote:Why do we need the electoral college anyways? Just whoever gets the most votes wins.


Why we don't have a straight popular vote is beyond me. I always roll my eyes at those who think it would have let Romney win in the last election though, and I love poking at them about it that if it had been doing sooner, Dubya would never have become POTUS either.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
Kraxis
Major-General
Posts: 3909
Joined: Wed 10 Jul 2013 11:56
Contact:

Re: India inks a deal for supply of 24 Rafale aircrafts

Postby Kraxis » Fri 17 Apr 2015 17:27

Fade2Gray wrote:
Mike wrote:Why do we need the electoral college anyways? Just whoever gets the most votes wins.


Why we don't have a straight popular vote is beyond me. I always roll my eyes at those who think it would have let Romney win in the last election though, and I love poking at them about it that if it had been doing sooner, Dubya would never have become POTUS either.

Tradition. And as I have noticed, in the US political tradition is an elephant and a donkey combined (pun intended), heavy as an elephant and as stubborn as a donkey. The electoral college made sense back when the poor/wrong/bads couldn't be trusted to vote right. In other countries there were either appointed parliamentarians or 'rotten boroughs' etc. In the US the Electoral College was formed. Of course the technical answer has something to do with travel times or some such. But early modern democracies weren't all that democratic, and that goes for pretty much all of them (I don't know any nice modern democracy before, say 1850).
But the electoral collage actually benefits the runners (it's a lot easier to focus on swing states), hence there is little impetus to trying to change it from the inside. Or at least that is how it is perceived by those making the laws (remember, perception is everything).

Romney winning the popular vote when the official numbers are 5 million in favour of Obama? Have I missed something? Is it the potential voters that decided to not vote because their states were heavily in favour of the other candidate? That swings the other way too ("bah X is going to win easily, why should I bother standing in line for some time to vote for X?").

And no vote = voting, is right in the sense that you go there, do your blank vote and go home. If every disenfranchised voter did that, rather than sit on their behind it would shock the political establishment in most countries, USA probably a bit more than most. If you vote blank you are making a statement, if you don't vote at all, you are simply not partaking and says nothing at all.
Yes, I have voted blank once.

And this should probably be split now.
[EUG]MadMat wrote:MadMat says so many things ... :twisted:

Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 18 guests

cron