Sea Jet
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye,
Don't get me wrong, I was simply trying to illustrate the point that I don't believe that a Shar with 2 AMRAAM would take down a Bear-D over the North Sea. I'd be surprised if 2 Shars with 2 slammers each could either and if they had to close for a 'guns kill' on the occupants (like Sharkey ended up resorting to) then they'd probably be fiercely opposed by the rear turret gun on the Bear.
I speculate me-old, and these were my only thoughts considering Ade (who I've worked with quite a bit BTW) mentioned Shar vs F3 in his book. My point is, when it comes to something like a Bear, don't underestimate what you need to take it down. Is my jist a little clearer now, sorry to have confused you earlier.
Don't get me wrong, I was simply trying to illustrate the point that I don't believe that a Shar with 2 AMRAAM would take down a Bear-D over the North Sea. I'd be surprised if 2 Shars with 2 slammers each could either and if they had to close for a 'guns kill' on the occupants (like Sharkey ended up resorting to) then they'd probably be fiercely opposed by the rear turret gun on the Bear.
I speculate me-old, and these were my only thoughts considering Ade (who I've worked with quite a bit BTW) mentioned Shar vs F3 in his book. My point is, when it comes to something like a Bear, don't underestimate what you need to take it down. Is my jist a little clearer now, sorry to have confused you earlier.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just woah there fella!!
The RAF did take over the AIM120B stocks procured for the FA2.
Perhaps the want of all knowledge could provide readers with the TRUTH so they may come upon a reasoned and balanced conclusion AS TO WHY??
Suspicion breeds confidence
I'd be surprised if anything could still fly after taking two Slammers they have a pretty big warhead. The FRS1 was designed to hack the shad and that only had two sidewinders.
I remember taking part in JMOTS exercise off the west coast of Scotland around about 1995 (albeit I was in Frigate at the time). The SHAR was used repeatedly as a "local AEW" a/c with two x F3 in company to provide the shots, as the SHAR radar was far better a seeing the "enemy" at long range than that in the F3.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Somerset
Age: 60
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"as the SHAR radar was far better a seeing the "enemy" at long range than that in the F3."
Then the F3s must have had radar snags - not an unusual occurance. HPRF clear region detection space and all that. The BV had some great features but long range detection was not it's strong suit- anyone with any knowledge of HPRF/FMICW and MPRF will tell you that. And yes, I have flown both.
Then the F3s must have had radar snags - not an unusual occurance. HPRF clear region detection space and all that. The BV had some great features but long range detection was not it's strong suit- anyone with any knowledge of HPRF/FMICW and MPRF will tell you that. And yes, I have flown both.
Last edited by Spon Clayton; 10th Mar 2009 at 07:15.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Interesting that 45 years later the Bear is still a formidable target.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be surprised if anything could still fly after taking two Slammers they have a pretty big warhead
Interesting that 45 years later the Bear is still a formidable target
Suspicion breeds confidence
ICBM, You are right it rather hypothetical. What I can say is that AMRAAM and Sea Dart have the same sized warhead and the latter was considered proof against any airborne target. I've seen it in action and it really does make a big bang and I certainly wouldn't want to be near one.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Not a very good anti surface capability to be fair. Unlike Exocet, SD do not follow a sea skimming profile or it would end up ingesting sea water into the motor. The normal profile is a semi ballistic trajectory. The only one I got to see that hit went straight through the target hulk at M3.5 without detonating. Most of the others missed. A 10ft exit wound was still substantial however. In the sufrace to air mode it was and still is an awesome weapon.
Last edited by Navaleye; 10th Mar 2009 at 00:11.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Firmly grounded, thankfully
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errrr??????
Two things. Firstly, nice to see Lord Clayton of Somerset on Pprune. The terror of the River Yeo........ And Spon is right - the mighty SHAR was good at some things but long-range pick-ups were not it. Compare it to an F-15 C with AN/APG-63 V(3) and its just laughable - I suspect the F3 Foxhunter had vastly better ranges - if only they could make up their mind who was supposed to use the radar and fire the missile/fly the plane etc. But as Timmy used to say - it was the Shiny Grey Fanny Magnet.
Secondly - NavalEye. Sea Dart is an in-service weapon. Lets keep the banter about it to a minimum before people start to dit on more than they should hey? Once its been decommissioned then we can tell everyone how good it was..............
Secondly - NavalEye. Sea Dart is an in-service weapon. Lets keep the banter about it to a minimum before people start to dit on more than they should hey? Once its been decommissioned then we can tell everyone how good it was..............
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Reading
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squirrel41,
not only the UK & USMC want the F-35B. The Italians have stated that they intend to buy 57 of them. The Spanish haven't signed up, but building a new ship designed to carry it is a bit of a clue.
not only the UK & USMC want the F-35B. The Italians have stated that they intend to buy 57 of them. The Spanish haven't signed up, but building a new ship designed to carry it is a bit of a clue.
It is surprising what you can find on YouTube. In a previous post, buried deep in this thread, I made reference to an old BBC documentary that was made for the Horizon series that looked at the lessons of the ship/air engagements during the Falklands campaign.
In The Wake of HMS Sheffield - first part.
The following five parts are linked in the normal YouTube way. Parts 2 and 4 are of particular interest with respect to the Sea Harrier, although all six parts cover related topics. In part 2 Sharkey Ward mentions the limitations of the Blue Fox radar and the issue of looking down onto small targets over the sea, I believe it was this problem that led to the development of Blue Vixen for what would become the Sea Harrier FA2. According to Nozzles in one of his posts, after 1982 the Navy wanted a more radical upgrade to the Sea Harrier than it got, including a new wing. I think he used the term "mini Tomcat".
The Sea Harrier gets mentioned again in part 4, in particular the Argentine tactic of avoiding enagagements with it. I suspect this is the reason a USAF study credited the Sea Harrier with stopping over 450 Argentine sorties. On the subject of evading Sea Harriers, the Argentine Super Étendards were able to use the technique of lobe pecking to avoid detection by ships' radars, which meant they must have had a radar warning receiver. If the RWR could detect ships' radar, it could have detected Sea Harrier radar. The Argentines were keen not to waste their few Super Étendards and Exocets, so if one detected a Blue Fox transmission abandoning the sortie would have been a wise option. Even if it jettisoned the Exocet the Super Étendard was no fighter, since carrying Exocet meant carrying no AAMs and the aircraft lacked agility or an air to air radar. It would have been easy meat for the Sea Harrier - and a prized kill.
On the subject of deterrence, I think people often focus too much on actual engagements and ignore the deterrent and other effects - some might describe that as a ludic fallacy.
In April 06, nearly a fortnight after the retirement of the Shars of 801 NAS, during which time a few loose ends were tied up, I started the Future Carrier thread as I felt a new thread was needed to discuss CVF and related issues, looking to the future. I think the decision was right. At the time the Sea Jet thread had achieved over 133 000 views. This week it exceeded 203 000 views, 70 000 more (give or take a few hundred) since the new thread was started and took over as a place for discussing naval aviation issues. Of course, this thread has been bumped many times since then, but many thousands of views have occurred whilst the thread has been off the PPRuNe radar. Many of these views have come from guests to PPRuNe, following links from other forums or sites, or had posted directly to them, and some may have found this site and this thread via Google or another search engine.
It is good to see that so much interest is still being taken.
In The Wake of HMS Sheffield - first part.
The following five parts are linked in the normal YouTube way. Parts 2 and 4 are of particular interest with respect to the Sea Harrier, although all six parts cover related topics. In part 2 Sharkey Ward mentions the limitations of the Blue Fox radar and the issue of looking down onto small targets over the sea, I believe it was this problem that led to the development of Blue Vixen for what would become the Sea Harrier FA2. According to Nozzles in one of his posts, after 1982 the Navy wanted a more radical upgrade to the Sea Harrier than it got, including a new wing. I think he used the term "mini Tomcat".
The Sea Harrier gets mentioned again in part 4, in particular the Argentine tactic of avoiding enagagements with it. I suspect this is the reason a USAF study credited the Sea Harrier with stopping over 450 Argentine sorties. On the subject of evading Sea Harriers, the Argentine Super Étendards were able to use the technique of lobe pecking to avoid detection by ships' radars, which meant they must have had a radar warning receiver. If the RWR could detect ships' radar, it could have detected Sea Harrier radar. The Argentines were keen not to waste their few Super Étendards and Exocets, so if one detected a Blue Fox transmission abandoning the sortie would have been a wise option. Even if it jettisoned the Exocet the Super Étendard was no fighter, since carrying Exocet meant carrying no AAMs and the aircraft lacked agility or an air to air radar. It would have been easy meat for the Sea Harrier - and a prized kill.
On the subject of deterrence, I think people often focus too much on actual engagements and ignore the deterrent and other effects - some might describe that as a ludic fallacy.
In April 06, nearly a fortnight after the retirement of the Shars of 801 NAS, during which time a few loose ends were tied up, I started the Future Carrier thread as I felt a new thread was needed to discuss CVF and related issues, looking to the future. I think the decision was right. At the time the Sea Jet thread had achieved over 133 000 views. This week it exceeded 203 000 views, 70 000 more (give or take a few hundred) since the new thread was started and took over as a place for discussing naval aviation issues. Of course, this thread has been bumped many times since then, but many thousands of views have occurred whilst the thread has been off the PPRuNe radar. Many of these views have come from guests to PPRuNe, following links from other forums or sites, or had posted directly to them, and some may have found this site and this thread via Google or another search engine.
It is good to see that so much interest is still being taken.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 22nd May 2009 at 17:41.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Interesting comment on the SuE. According to his very interesting book, Jerry Pook did some well hidden exercises with both Mirages and SuEs prior to embarking on Atlantic Conveyor. In simulated air combat, he described the SuE as a "very fast Hunter". Comments welcome.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
"On the subject of deterrence, I think people often focus too much on actual engagements and ignore the deterrent and other effects - some might describe that as a ludic fallacy."
Only those who do not understand what a ludic fallacy is.
Cheers
BHR
"On the subject of deterrence, I think people often focus too much on actual engagements and ignore the deterrent and other effects - some might describe that as a ludic fallacy."
Only those who do not understand what a ludic fallacy is.
Cheers
BHR
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mini-Tomcat
As far as the mid-life update from FRS1 to 2, then smartly to FA2 label, the following improvements were planned / hoped for;
A Bubble canopy, without the old style flat windscreen,
Improved head-down instruments
JTIDS
Blue Vixen
Infra Red Seeker Tracker
And most importantly, a larger wing, carrying AMRAAMS on outboard pylons ( as well as the 2 underfuselage in place of the gunpods if desired ) and wingtip mounted Sidewinders / ASRAAMS.
The senior Naval Test Pilot was really keen on a Lithium Alloy wing, rather than carbon fibre.
From what I've seen, I have to agree ! Carbon fibre is a bit lighter, and convenient in peacetime, but doesn't like knocks & scrapes, and doesn't show any internal damage without time and expense consuming procedures, while a 'tin wing' would have been a lot more suitable to fighting a war from a carrier.
I have photo's of the artists' impression of the whole thing with this wing, and the ( real ) proposed cockpit display on a rig - if anyone's interested I'll put them on here or PM them as soon as I get my proper PC back from repair.
I think the 'mini-tomcat' is a fair description, if you've got a big but relatively stealthy radar & AMRAAMS, and eventually ASRAAM with helmet mounted sight you don't need to go around corners like an F-16 !
The 'deterrent' effect mentioned would be increased by rather a large factor ?
In the Falklands, it's been stated that the Mirages had no radar warning receiver - while the Brit's had that ( mostly ) but no decoy countermeasures fitted, some resorting to bunches of tin foil stowed above the airbrake.
It seems now that the much vaunted AIM9L didn't really get a chance to shine, as most if not all engagements were against retreating aircraft; but no doubt it's presence was well known to the Argentinians, which must have played a large part in deterrence.
A Bubble canopy, without the old style flat windscreen,
Improved head-down instruments
JTIDS
Blue Vixen
Infra Red Seeker Tracker
And most importantly, a larger wing, carrying AMRAAMS on outboard pylons ( as well as the 2 underfuselage in place of the gunpods if desired ) and wingtip mounted Sidewinders / ASRAAMS.
The senior Naval Test Pilot was really keen on a Lithium Alloy wing, rather than carbon fibre.
From what I've seen, I have to agree ! Carbon fibre is a bit lighter, and convenient in peacetime, but doesn't like knocks & scrapes, and doesn't show any internal damage without time and expense consuming procedures, while a 'tin wing' would have been a lot more suitable to fighting a war from a carrier.
I have photo's of the artists' impression of the whole thing with this wing, and the ( real ) proposed cockpit display on a rig - if anyone's interested I'll put them on here or PM them as soon as I get my proper PC back from repair.
I think the 'mini-tomcat' is a fair description, if you've got a big but relatively stealthy radar & AMRAAMS, and eventually ASRAAM with helmet mounted sight you don't need to go around corners like an F-16 !
The 'deterrent' effect mentioned would be increased by rather a large factor ?
In the Falklands, it's been stated that the Mirages had no radar warning receiver - while the Brit's had that ( mostly ) but no decoy countermeasures fitted, some resorting to bunches of tin foil stowed above the airbrake.
It seems now that the much vaunted AIM9L didn't really get a chance to shine, as most if not all engagements were against retreating aircraft; but no doubt it's presence was well known to the Argentinians, which must have played a large part in deterrence.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking more rosey?
DATE:23/04/09
SOURCE:Flightglobal.com
STOVL F-35 beats vertical thrust target
By Stephen Trimble
The Pratt& Whitney F135 engine powering the Lockheed Martin F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant has exceeded the thrust requirement during hover pit tests leading up to airborne testing.
Lockheed's first STOVL prototype - dubbed BF-1 - has demonstrated 41,100 pounds of thrust in vertical mode. The new benchmark represents a 1.3% improvement over the rebaselined thrust requirement, and a nearly 5.4% increase over the programme's original requirement.
©Lockheed Martin
That extra margin still provides an "excellent" buffer in case the F-35B's customers need an additional boost of vertical thrust above the current requirement, which is 40,550 pounds.
In 2004, Pratt & Whitney demonstrated an engine that could meet the original requirement of 39,000 pounds of vertical thrust. That requirement became outdated after the F-35B experience a major redesign to offset about 5,000 pounds of extra weight accumulated during the design phase.
A shaft-driven lift fan manufactured by Rolls-Royce powers the F135 engine in vertical mode.
The hover pit tests are among the last steps before BF-1 can attempt to return to flight after a nearly year-long hiatus and transition from conventional flight to vertical landing mode.
Lockheed says it has also demonstrated several key test points before the hover pit tests, including inlet pressure recovery, pitching moment, rolling and yawing moment, effective vector angles of the exhaust and control-input response time.
http://www.flightglobal.c...tical-thrust-target.html
Now if the F136 can do even better.. and the rolling landings are perfected...
SOURCE:Flightglobal.com
STOVL F-35 beats vertical thrust target
By Stephen Trimble
The Pratt& Whitney F135 engine powering the Lockheed Martin F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant has exceeded the thrust requirement during hover pit tests leading up to airborne testing.
Lockheed's first STOVL prototype - dubbed BF-1 - has demonstrated 41,100 pounds of thrust in vertical mode. The new benchmark represents a 1.3% improvement over the rebaselined thrust requirement, and a nearly 5.4% increase over the programme's original requirement.
That extra margin still provides an "excellent" buffer in case the F-35B's customers need an additional boost of vertical thrust above the current requirement, which is 40,550 pounds.
In 2004, Pratt & Whitney demonstrated an engine that could meet the original requirement of 39,000 pounds of vertical thrust. That requirement became outdated after the F-35B experience a major redesign to offset about 5,000 pounds of extra weight accumulated during the design phase.
A shaft-driven lift fan manufactured by Rolls-Royce powers the F135 engine in vertical mode.
The hover pit tests are among the last steps before BF-1 can attempt to return to flight after a nearly year-long hiatus and transition from conventional flight to vertical landing mode.
Lockheed says it has also demonstrated several key test points before the hover pit tests, including inlet pressure recovery, pitching moment, rolling and yawing moment, effective vector angles of the exhaust and control-input response time.
http://www.flightglobal.c...tical-thrust-target.html
Now if the F136 can do even better.. and the rolling landings are perfected...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is really quite good news. The guys at Fort Worth have been deliberately conservative on their VL thrust predictions, given the challenges faced by the lift fan and the entire propulsion system. If true, a 1.3% improvement on predicted is quite significant and will ease a number of concerns.
Well one to everyone over there - especially the really talented Brit team who are playing a central role in the STOVL programme.
Next event to watch for is BF-1 going over to Pax River to continue the STOVL work.
Best Regards
Engines
Well one to everyone over there - especially the really talented Brit team who are playing a central role in the STOVL programme.
Next event to watch for is BF-1 going over to Pax River to continue the STOVL work.
Best Regards
Engines
If it had not been retired, the mighty Sea Harrier (hopefully with the upgrade it was meant to get in 2002 onwards - new engine, Link 16, improved avionics and so on) would undoubtedly have been the star of the current FLY NAVY 100 events. Although a Sea Harrier will be featured in a ground display of static aircraft, the fact that flypasts are being conducted by non carrier capable aircraft (RN Hawks) is really a reminder of how the Royal Navy has been emasculated in the last decade (not just by losing the Sea Harrier). There is currently a one off publication on sale, from the stable of Air Forces Monthly, that features the major aircraft flown by major air forces and air arms. In the absence of the Sea Harrier the RN is represented by Lynx HMA8 and Merlin HM1.
However, Art Nalls and his team in the US are now happily flying their Sea Harrier, see Nalls Aviation for more details. Even in retirement, in private hands, it is still serving the UK, advertising our aerospace industry.
When it was reported on this thread and elsewhere that India had expressed an interest in purchasing surplus Sea Harriers it must have meant that India thought that those stored aircraft were still in a decent condition. Hopefully that suggests the aircraft at the dummy deck at Culdrose are also in a good condition. I recently had a chat with a couple of friends who had returned from operations at sea in the Middle East. They both commented on how sea spray effects weapons - in that it makes them rust, so extra cleaning and lubrication is needed.
When equipment is intended for shipboard use it is modified for that environment, particularly with things exposed to the elements. When the Harrier airframe was modified to become Sea Harrier, the materials used in both the airframe and engine were adjusted to improve their corrosion resistance. Presumably other measures were taken to prevent water/salt ingress. Since they were designed to spend very long periods at sea, much of it up on deck, I would imagine that the Cornish weather will be less of a problem for the jets moving around the dummy deck than it would be to land based aircraft used for similar purposes at other places.
Lastly, my comments about the SuE came from three facts: firstly that when armed with Exocet it could carry no air to air missiles, secondly that the Argentine Navy pilots were under orders not to risk their aircraft and not to waste their missiles unless they had a target they could hit (several pilots took part in a Channel Four documentary a few years ago), and thirdly that the French Navy felt the need to have fighters in addition to the SuE, and continued to operated the F8 Crusader until the late 90s. As far as I know they didn't get any kills, however the French carriers took part in various operations, and the F8 (FN) was a deterrent.
Postscript (22 May 09): Although Rolls Royce and Martin Baker have unfortunately not been involved in supporting Art Nalls' efforts (probably due to the influence of lawyers and beancounters), other UK companies have supplied parts. Additionally, as mentioned several pages ago, Sea Harrier parts are being produced (under licence) for export to India. This month's edition of Air Forces Monthly notes that an Indian Navy Sea Harrier FRS51, damaged during a carrier landing in 2006, has been rebuilt by BAE Systems, and was redelivered in February this year. Presumably, in addition to BAE Systems themselves, a number of components (airframe and other) would have had to have been manufactured specially. Build to print is alive and well!
However, Art Nalls and his team in the US are now happily flying their Sea Harrier, see Nalls Aviation for more details. Even in retirement, in private hands, it is still serving the UK, advertising our aerospace industry.
When it was reported on this thread and elsewhere that India had expressed an interest in purchasing surplus Sea Harriers it must have meant that India thought that those stored aircraft were still in a decent condition. Hopefully that suggests the aircraft at the dummy deck at Culdrose are also in a good condition. I recently had a chat with a couple of friends who had returned from operations at sea in the Middle East. They both commented on how sea spray effects weapons - in that it makes them rust, so extra cleaning and lubrication is needed.
When equipment is intended for shipboard use it is modified for that environment, particularly with things exposed to the elements. When the Harrier airframe was modified to become Sea Harrier, the materials used in both the airframe and engine were adjusted to improve their corrosion resistance. Presumably other measures were taken to prevent water/salt ingress. Since they were designed to spend very long periods at sea, much of it up on deck, I would imagine that the Cornish weather will be less of a problem for the jets moving around the dummy deck than it would be to land based aircraft used for similar purposes at other places.
Lastly, my comments about the SuE came from three facts: firstly that when armed with Exocet it could carry no air to air missiles, secondly that the Argentine Navy pilots were under orders not to risk their aircraft and not to waste their missiles unless they had a target they could hit (several pilots took part in a Channel Four documentary a few years ago), and thirdly that the French Navy felt the need to have fighters in addition to the SuE, and continued to operated the F8 Crusader until the late 90s. As far as I know they didn't get any kills, however the French carriers took part in various operations, and the F8 (FN) was a deterrent.
Postscript (22 May 09): Although Rolls Royce and Martin Baker have unfortunately not been involved in supporting Art Nalls' efforts (probably due to the influence of lawyers and beancounters), other UK companies have supplied parts. Additionally, as mentioned several pages ago, Sea Harrier parts are being produced (under licence) for export to India. This month's edition of Air Forces Monthly notes that an Indian Navy Sea Harrier FRS51, damaged during a carrier landing in 2006, has been rebuilt by BAE Systems, and was redelivered in February this year. Presumably, in addition to BAE Systems themselves, a number of components (airframe and other) would have had to have been manufactured specially. Build to print is alive and well!
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 22nd May 2009 at 17:45.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XZ439
Art Nalls is doing very well, and hats off to him; shame the RN Historic Flight couldn't manage it, and last I heard even the 'FRS1' at Yeovilton Museum is a cobbled up composite of GR3 bits etc.
I presume no current / influential Admirals flew Sea Jets then.
As for showing off British Industry, sorry We Branch but it's not quite like that...
Rolls Royce refused to assist Art with his RR Pegasus engine so he's using P & W support, and Martin Baker refused to support the seat, as they were worried about lawyers ( I thought M.B's motto was " we've never had any complaints " ) ?!
So, Art has had to fit an American Stencel seat which he has been warned is a killer in certain - likely - parts of the flight envelope.
Though an ex-Marines Test Pilot, he had never been told this; " now I know why my buddies died ".
So much for UK Ltd.
As for the pitiful 'flypast', that was poor planning either by accident or design, as Harriers are not allowed over London ( single engine & poor glide ratio ); if the Illustrious had been somewhere else, off Porstmouth for instance, at least the Navy pilots in GR7 / 9's could have been involved, not so handy for the cliche cocktail parties though.
I presume no current / influential Admirals flew Sea Jets then.
As for showing off British Industry, sorry We Branch but it's not quite like that...
Rolls Royce refused to assist Art with his RR Pegasus engine so he's using P & W support, and Martin Baker refused to support the seat, as they were worried about lawyers ( I thought M.B's motto was " we've never had any complaints " ) ?!
So, Art has had to fit an American Stencel seat which he has been warned is a killer in certain - likely - parts of the flight envelope.
Though an ex-Marines Test Pilot, he had never been told this; " now I know why my buddies died ".
So much for UK Ltd.
As for the pitiful 'flypast', that was poor planning either by accident or design, as Harriers are not allowed over London ( single engine & poor glide ratio ); if the Illustrious had been somewhere else, off Porstmouth for instance, at least the Navy pilots in GR7 / 9's could have been involved, not so handy for the cliche cocktail parties though.