"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (1 Viewer)

[vikingBerserker]

A helicopter is an aircraft so it would be covered as well.

 

[SaparotRob]

Darn lawyers.

 

[Admiral Beez]

A helicopter is an aircraft so it would be covered as well.

Rotary aircraft have been around since the 1920s. Here's a C.30 autogyro performing trials on board the Spanish navy seaplane tender Dédalo in 1934, three years before the Montreux Convention was signed.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Take your pick of available mini subs

H I Sutton - Covert Shores

www.hisutton.com

How? I don't think any of those are in service.

 

[Jagdflieger]

Rotary aircraft have been around since the 1920s. Here's a C.30 autogyro performing trials on board the Spanish navy seaplane tender Dédalo in 1934, three years before the Montreux Convention was signed.

View attachment 667895

Great picture thanks. But an aircraft is defined as a flying object with an engine (or engines) with wings. So a helicopter (isn't a gyro either) and isn't an aircraft by definition.
Let the lawyers make (earn) their money

As for the sub, the Chinese have them in service, Even Iran (don't laugh) and the Turks?

 

[GTX]

Great picture thanks. But an aircraft is defined as a flying object with an engine (or engines) with wings. So a helicopter (isn't a gyro either) and isn't an aircraft by definition.
Let the lawyers make (earn) their money

Errr...rotary wing

 

[Dimlee]

What I really wanted to know was, does an amphibious assault ship circumvent the no aircraft carrier rule?

Russian Navy wanted to deploy at least one Mistral-class ship in the Black Sea before the deal was cancelled by French government.
Soviet ships such as Moskva (the older one) and aircraft carriers officially called "aircraft cruisers" crossed the Turkish Straits on regular basis.

 

[Dimlee]

M777A2 at work.

 

[Dimlee]

Probably, the first picture of Bofors in the field.

 

[buffnut453]

Great picture thanks. But an aircraft is defined as a flying object with an engine (or engines) with wings. So a helicopter (isn't a gyro either) and isn't an aircraft by definition.
Let the lawyers make (earn) their money

As for the sub, the Chinese have them in service, Even Iran (don't laugh) and the Turks?

Disagree. An aeroplane/airplane has wings. A glider is still an aeroplane/airplane. An aircraft is any man-made object that can fly, including powered aeroplanes, gliders, balloons, autogyros and helicopters.

Agree about the lawyers, though.

 

[GTX]

Two speeches, one war: What we learnt from Putin and Zelenskyy's rival Victory Day speeches

Russian president Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy both addressed their nations on Victory Day this week. But while Putin's message was widely reported it had far less impact and the reason is simple: Russia's peril is feigned while Ukraine's is not, writes Mick Ryan.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

A couple of observations:

1. Continentals should look after their own bluddy protection and not rely on the UK, US or anyone else.

2. These agreements are not the UK guaranteeing Swedish or Finnish security. They are mutually-supportive agreements whereby all parties agree to support each other if ANY of the signatories is attacked.

3. It seems pretty clear that Putin doesn't like the idea of Sweden and Finland joining NATO...which opens up the possibility that he might do something stupid before either nation joins NATO. Ergo, SOMEBODY needs to do SOMETHING to help dissuade him from that course of action.

4. Entirely agree what we saw today was a bit of political theatre but...

5. What, exactly, have any other nations--including the US, Canada and other European Allies--done to help enhance Finnish and Swedish security in the run up to them potentially joining NATO? AFAIK, nothing.


So...feel free to mock the Brits and please do keep bringing up their many mistakes over the centuries. However, right now they're out there, punching above their weight, in an attempt to contain further Russian aggression and build better, stronger defensive alliances. Maybe we should be applauding instead of criticizing.

Regarding:

Point 1. Absolutly. Hope this war could trigger that, but doubt EU could sustain interest much longer.

Point 2. If Uncle Vlad attack Finland and/or Sweden and UK stand by the agreement and get attack itself, could it trigger NATO article 5?

Point 3. Really could Uncle Vlad be so blind to try such a move? I can't see any scenario in which RF could defeat Finland or Sweden or even make any progress.

BTW, taking some of that freedom that you offer, I attach this photo. In the upper pic, how the americans see the british. In the lower one, how the europeans see the british.

Beside that, =D>=D>=D> to the agreement

 

[vikingBerserker]

As defined by Dictionary.com:

 

[MiTasol]

The Russians need to sort out how to jam these UAF drones.

And the Ukrainians need to learn how to make their drones home in on the jamming

And where are the Russian's attack helicopters

Waiting for their Garmin GPS's?

 

[MiTasol]

As defined by Dictionary.com:

View attachment 667900

Official Industry definitions

Aircraft means any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air otherwise than by the reactions of the air against the surface of the earth: (so that includes gliders and balloons of all sorts and excludes hovercraft and surface skimmers)

Aeroplane/Airplane means a power-driven heavier-than-air aircraft deriving its lift in flight chiefly from aerodynamic reactions on surfaces which remain fixed under given conditions of flight:

Unofficially helicopters do not fly - they beat the air into subission

 

[Snautzer01]

So...feel free to mock the Brits and please do keep bringing up their many mistakes over the centuries. However, right now they're out there, punching above their weight, in an attempt to contain further Russian aggression and build better, stronger defensive alliances. Maybe we should be applauding instead of criticizing.

History is there to view. And learn. There is a clear line to see up to current events. Even in Britain itself. For example ask a lot of the Scots or any other minority ruled by it. You will be surprised how the sentiment goes.

1. Continentals should look after their own bluddy protection and not rely on the UK, US or anyone else.

Agree. To long of free loading on the big guy.. Should build a military not dependent on the US. Not on weapons or whatever. Quite right. Uk is not a protector. Perhaps not even capable protecting its own. Better have a argument on anywhere but ole Blighty.

2. These agreements are not the UK guaranteeing Swedish or Finnish security. They are mutually-supportive agreements whereby all parties agree to support each other if ANY of the signatories is attacked.

My point. It meaningless. Level of support It fits the thought Britain is still a world player like Boris would like to see it. Brexit is not a big success.

It seems pretty clear that Putin doesn't like the idea of Sweden and Finland joining NATO...which opens up the possibility that he might do something stupid before either nation joins NATO. Ergo, SOMEBODY needs to do SOMETHING to help dissuade him from that course of action.

Its pretty clear that Russia is not the soviet union although Putin would still like to think that. IMO he overplayed his hand and showed how not to attack a country with some means to defend itself, let alone take on NATO. Joining od Sweden and others are i think cards on the table to be negotiated if and when the aggression stops more or less.
Yes the a bombs rockets etc. What i find dangerous is that perhaps that arsenal is viewed now like the rest of russias weapons, do able

What, exactly, have any other nations--including the US, Canada and other European Allies--done to help enhance Finnish and Swedish security in the run up to them potentially joining NATO? AFAIK, nothing.

They did not want it. Untill just now. Guess why.

 

[RogerdeLluria]

Two speeches, one war: What we learnt from Putin and Zelenskyy's rival Victory Day speeches

Russian president Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy both addressed their nations on Victory Day this week. But while Putin's message was widely reported it had far less impact and the reason is simple: Russia's peril is feigned while Ukraine's is not, writes Mick Ryan.

www.abc.net.au

Putin's vivid descriptions of an existential threat were more imaginary. He claimed Russia was under threat from a broad coalition of predators which include neo-Nazis, Banderites, international terrorist gangs, NATO, and the biggest of all: the United States.

 

[buffnut453]

History is there to view. And learn. There is a clear line to see up to current events. Even in Britain itself. For example ask a lot of the Scots or any other minority ruled by it. You will be surprised how the sentiment goes.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised at all. What bugs me is that people don't know their own history. The first king of the united Britain was James I who, ironically, was James VI of Scotland. And yet the British monarchy is somehow only "English". Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also voted on devolution and got what they asked for. Can we please stop the crap about "Scotland being ruled by Britain"?

Agree. To long of free loading on the big guy.. Should build a military not dependent on the US. Not on weapons or whatever. Quite right. Uk is not a protector. Perhaps not even capable protecting its own. Better have a argument on anywhere but ole Blighty.

Agree Britain would struggle to defend its own. Britain went through its own version of the "peace dividend" that has seen its front-line forces slashed. This is a political statement with the intent of influencing Putin not to do anything stupid...and to influence other Western Allies to act in a like fashion to help with that deterrent effect.

My point. It meaningless. Level of support It fits the thought Britain is still a world player like Boris would like to see it. Brexit is not a big success.

It may be meaningless in practical terms but this is all about political messaging...and the target is Putin. He needs to understand that the Western Allies are not going to allow a repeat of his shenanigans in Ukraine. People keep saying that Putin only responds to force. Well, the way you prepare to deploy force is by making agreements with Allies so your military can operate in their backyard. That's what NATO's been doing since its formation. Agreements of the sort that Johnson just enacted with Sweden and Finland are key to making Putin think again before he acts. However, Britain can't do it alone...other Western Allies need to stand up to the plate.

Its pretty clear that Russia is not the soviet union although Putin would still like to think that. IMO he overplayed his hand and showed how not to attack a country with some means to defend itself, let alone take on NATO. Joining od Sweden and others are i think cards on the table to be negotiated if and when the aggression stops more or less.
Yes the a bombs rockets etc. What i find dangerous is that perhaps that arsenal is viewed now like the rest of russias weapons, do able

No disagreement here.

They did not want it. Untill just now. Guess why.

Because Putin fundamentally changed the geopolitical landscape. Such a seismic shift requires a response by all nations who oppose Putin's expansionist activities. Finland and Sweden were happy until now...but now they're not so, rightly, they're exploring options that better guarantee their security. They didn't want it in January but they do now. So what?

 

[GrauGeist]

Probably some lawyers might get rich in that process, since when the Montreux Convention was signed, helicopters didn't exist and the text only mentions aircraft's.

There most certainly were rotary wing aircraft in 1936: helicopters and auto-gyros.
One notable helicopter, the Focke-Achgelis Fa61, first flew the year the Montreaux Convention was ratified.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Aircraft means any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air......