vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
A helicopter is an aircraft so it would be covered as well.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.A helicopter is an aircraft so it would be covered as well.
How? I don't think any of those are in service.
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.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
Errr...rotary wingGreat 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
Russian Navy wanted to deploy at least one Mistral-class ship in the Black Sea before the deal was cancelled by French government.What I really wanted to know was, does an amphibious assault ship circumvent the no aircraft carrier rule?
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?
Regarding: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.
The Russians need to sort out how to jam these UAF drones.
And where are the Russian's attack helicopters
Official Industry definitions
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.
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.1. Continentals should look after their own bluddy protection and not rely on the UK, US or anyone else.
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.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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
They did not want it. Untill just now. Guess why.
There most certainly were rotary wing aircraft in 1936: helicopters and auto-gyros.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.
Aircraft means any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air......