M777

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:41 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QetJQjh ... re=related

Good to know artillery support hasn't been neglected as much as some other branches of military technology.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:08 pm

It'd be even better if they a) actually showed a Herc when they were talking about it, rather than a C-17, and b) they gave BAE Systems credit where credit was due.

Post by **Mikey** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:36 pm

Surely you're joking? You do know what the "B" in "BAe" is for, right? If we allowed the P-51 to be called, in certain quarters, the plane that won the ETO without giving credit to the British-designed engine that made it useful, you think we're going to give due credit on this?

[/sarcasm]

Not just the engine - the entire aeroplane was built specifically to fullfill an RAF specification.

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:09 pm

Seafort's right - they should give credit to BAE; they designed it, we built it. I assume the Brits will be getting some of these as well?

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:42 pm

It'll probably be standard (or a variation of) for all NATO allies.

Post by **Mikey** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:40 am

Thanks for the edit, Seafort, but I was referring specifically to the fact that the plane was a flop without the Packard-licensed Merlin engine. The fact that it was built to an RAF spec doesn't really change the fact that it was an American design.

And it's a good thing BAe isn't actually producing the M777 - isn't it SOP for British-built materiel to be outstanding in performance, but too expensive to field?

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:08 pm

Mikey wrote:Thanks for the edit, Seafort, but I was referring specifically to the fact that the plane was a flop without the Packard-licensed Merlin engine. The fact that it was built to an RAF spec doesn't really change the fact that it was an American design.

And it's a good thing BAe isn't actually producing the M777 - isn't it SOP for British-built materiel to be outstanding in performance, but too expensive to field?

Sorry about that - it was late, and I was intending quote and reply to your comment before calling it a night. I hit the wrong button, logged off, and I've only just noticed.

Post by **Teaos** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:55 am

Sorry about that - it was late, and I was intending quote and reply to your comment before calling it a night. I hit the wrong button, logged off, and I've only just noticed.

I've done that before. Done a reply and wondered why it didnt show up only to realise latter I had edited the post I was intending to quote.

M777

M777

Re: M777

Re: M777

Re: M777

Re: M777

Re: M777

Re: M777

Re: M777