Defending the Harrier - I need ammunition
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hawkdude,
Million miles from you and a mate being good enough for GR1 and those guys who have the ultimate skill set and can master the Harrier............you never made it dude so it's time to move on
Top tip get off the island fella, it's really clouding your judgement
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Million miles from you and a mate being good enough for GR1 and those guys who have the ultimate skill set and can master the Harrier............you never made it dude so it's time to move on
Top tip get off the island fella, it's really clouding your judgement
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Waleshire
Age: 60
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hawkdude,
Million miles from you and a mate being good enough for GR1 and those guys who have the ultimate skill set and can master the Harrier............you never made it dude so it's time to move on
Top tip get off the island fella, it's really clouding your judgement
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Million miles from you and a mate being good enough for GR1 and those guys who have the ultimate skill set and can master the Harrier............you never made it dude so it's time to move on
Top tip get off the island fella, it's really clouding your judgement
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
The dole queue must loom large!
You f*cking prat.
Last edited by QFIhawkman; 22nd Sep 2006 at 23:18. Reason: To say "DUDE" as it's all ABIW understands!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Gee! Almost vertical!
What about lighting the twin fires....rotate on takeoff to vertical and accelerate past mach 1.0 then roll out at the top and go about your business at some ridiculous height and speed?
What about lighting the twin fires....rotate on takeoff to vertical and accelerate past mach 1.0 then roll out at the top and go about your business at some ridiculous height and speed?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You f*cking prat."
Well that was easier than I thought
I know where you are coming from dude as I was lucky enough to get a ride in the Hawk during my ground crew days at Valley which was quite good fun but I was even luckier during my last rotary tour at Laarbruch as my wife was PA to OC 3 Sqn and managed to wangle me a trip in the Harrier which was "fan feckin tastic". So you see I can fully understand the "penis envy" you must be feeling at not making the grade for the ultimate RAF FJ and being farmed out to North Wales
Dole queue I think not dude, I have 6 years to go to age 55 and thanks to PA spine and the new pension scheme will be retiring on a nice "big" earner
.....in fact was down at the Southampton boat show last weekend having a look at potential "retirement homes" for Mrs L and I
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
PS As to your question I left the J OCU earlier this year after 3 years as an instructor and just completed the J TAC Cse and love what I do
Well that was easier than I thought
I know where you are coming from dude as I was lucky enough to get a ride in the Hawk during my ground crew days at Valley which was quite good fun but I was even luckier during my last rotary tour at Laarbruch as my wife was PA to OC 3 Sqn and managed to wangle me a trip in the Harrier which was "fan feckin tastic". So you see I can fully understand the "penis envy" you must be feeling at not making the grade for the ultimate RAF FJ and being farmed out to North Wales
Dole queue I think not dude, I have 6 years to go to age 55 and thanks to PA spine and the new pension scheme will be retiring on a nice "big" earner
.....in fact was down at the Southampton boat show last weekend having a look at potential "retirement homes" for Mrs L and I all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
PS As to your question I left the J OCU earlier this year after 3 years as an instructor and just completed the J TAC Cse and love what I do
Last edited by Always_broken_in_wilts; 23rd Sep 2006 at 06:29.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: on my own planet
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to admit, after my back-seat ride in a T4 a couple of decades ago, the Harrier accelerates foooooooookin' quickly, way way quicker than even a clean fin, but then I suppose the fin doesn't run out of accel around the 480kt mark either...
Aren't we getting a little 'off message'?
Back to Puerteenlard's original post, whilst I have often extracted the Michael regarding the Harrier, it is an excellent aircraft. Shame it took the Yanks to show us how we should have built it in the first place...
Aren't we getting a little 'off message'?
Back to Puerteenlard's original post, whilst I have often extracted the Michael regarding the Harrier, it is an excellent aircraft. Shame it took the Yanks to show us how we should have built it in the first place...
Last edited by Vifferpilot; 23rd Sep 2006 at 07:04. Reason: spelling
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting prejudices coming out on this thread - I cant believe I'm going to defend a GR1 mate (especially one who bit!) but not everyone wants to fly the Harrier. I dont know the current situation but a few years back it was the least popular choice out of Valley.
Also interesting is "Shame it took the Yanks to show us how we should have built it in the first place..." Dont know if you mean the whole GR3 to GR7 thing or the fact that the americans put a radar in theirs. But it is interesting that the US dont do the "bow down the Harrier is mighty" thing - they see it as a short range, CAS aircraft with limited capabilites that they dont send their best pilots to. Why do we think that is?
BTW this should in no way be related to the bollocks being spouted by that Major who has no appreciation or understanding of air power (unusual for an army officer, I know
), or any idea of the excellent job being done by the Harrier guys n gals in Afghanistan. That bit was a rant.
Also interesting is "Shame it took the Yanks to show us how we should have built it in the first place..." Dont know if you mean the whole GR3 to GR7 thing or the fact that the americans put a radar in theirs. But it is interesting that the US dont do the "bow down the Harrier is mighty" thing - they see it as a short range, CAS aircraft with limited capabilites that they dont send their best pilots to. Why do we think that is?
BTW this should in no way be related to the bollocks being spouted by that Major who has no appreciation or understanding of air power (unusual for an army officer, I know
), or any idea of the excellent job being done by the Harrier guys n gals in Afghanistan. That bit was a rant.
Nosegunner,
The reason that the Harrier was the least popular choice from valley was largely down to the student perception that it was a difficult OCU with a higher than average chop rate and so they thought, that looks difficult-think I'll take the easy option and go somewhere else. The perception of the aircraft was also given to the studes by instructors with chips on their shoulders who were never good enough to fly it and had done a GR1 tour some time ago and were now operating in their comfort zone at Valley, with no intention of returning to the horrible, difficult real world outside.
It's true that the USMC didn't always post the best studes to the Harrier but look at the resulting accident rate compared to the other fleet. The USMC also use the aircraft in a subtly different way to us. For them it really is mobile artillery to support the Exped force beachead. We employ the aircraft now as both a CAS and BAI platform.
The reason that the Harrier was the least popular choice from valley was largely down to the student perception that it was a difficult OCU with a higher than average chop rate and so they thought, that looks difficult-think I'll take the easy option and go somewhere else. The perception of the aircraft was also given to the studes by instructors with chips on their shoulders who were never good enough to fly it and had done a GR1 tour some time ago and were now operating in their comfort zone at Valley, with no intention of returning to the horrible, difficult real world outside.
It's true that the USMC didn't always post the best studes to the Harrier but look at the resulting accident rate compared to the other fleet. The USMC also use the aircraft in a subtly different way to us. For them it really is mobile artillery to support the Exped force beachead. We employ the aircraft now as both a CAS and BAI platform.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I can't speak with full authority on this subject, I feel that I have to pipe up here.
As a GR4 mate, I'm more than aware that the guys who did best on 208 & 19 are now flying the GR7.
As a student on the GR1 OCU, I found it to be a very difficult course and found myself very close to capacity on several occasions! With this in mind, I have no doubt that I would no have got through the GR7 OCU at the time, no way.
Now, having had the luxury of a few hours in the T10 with a Harrier mate, I am even more convinced that the powers that be made the right choice when they pushed me onto GR1s.
We love to hate them however, they are the pilots of choice, flying the best CAS platform the RAF has to offer (it's the best in the world IMHO) out in a complete sh*thole, where the vis is often crappy & the calls for CAS require danger close drops.
Fair play to them.
As a GR4 mate, I'm more than aware that the guys who did best on 208 & 19 are now flying the GR7.
As a student on the GR1 OCU, I found it to be a very difficult course and found myself very close to capacity on several occasions! With this in mind, I have no doubt that I would no have got through the GR7 OCU at the time, no way.
Now, having had the luxury of a few hours in the T10 with a Harrier mate, I am even more convinced that the powers that be made the right choice when they pushed me onto GR1s.
We love to hate them however, they are the pilots of choice, flying the best CAS platform the RAF has to offer (it's the best in the world IMHO) out in a complete sh*thole, where the vis is often crappy & the calls for CAS require danger close drops.
Fair play to them.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flap62
Your reply actually made me laugh - very harrier! "Every one wants to go GR7 if only they were good enough and had the balls". Well that might be very good for your ego, but not very factually correct.
At the time there were 2 reasons people didnt want to go GR7. The first was perceived time spent on board/with the navy. The second and by far the more important was that Typhoon was (is?) the new shiny toy on the block. Pilots reckoned that as there were no abos going there, their best chances of getting on it was to go Jag or F3 and shine on their first tour - a technique that has worked for some.
From my own experience, I was the only abo on my valley course not to go single seat. Was that because I was crap and everyone else was great? No, I did pretty well (much better than some) but I only had 1 type on my dreamsheet - I wanted to fly fighters not bombers.
So, get over yourself, even a decade ago not everyone wanted to go harrier and now they certainly dont.
While I'm here "harrier best CAS platform in the world"????? Do you honestly believe that? Really? Certainly noone outside the RAF would ever say that (except maybe some USMC pilots, but even then!).
Your reply actually made me laugh - very harrier! "Every one wants to go GR7 if only they were good enough and had the balls". Well that might be very good for your ego, but not very factually correct.
At the time there were 2 reasons people didnt want to go GR7. The first was perceived time spent on board/with the navy. The second and by far the more important was that Typhoon was (is?) the new shiny toy on the block. Pilots reckoned that as there were no abos going there, their best chances of getting on it was to go Jag or F3 and shine on their first tour - a technique that has worked for some.
From my own experience, I was the only abo on my valley course not to go single seat. Was that because I was crap and everyone else was great? No, I did pretty well (much better than some) but I only had 1 type on my dreamsheet - I wanted to fly fighters not bombers.
So, get over yourself, even a decade ago not everyone wanted to go harrier and now they certainly dont.
While I'm here "harrier best CAS platform in the world"????? Do you honestly believe that? Really? Certainly noone outside the RAF would ever say that (except maybe some USMC pilots, but even then!).
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flap62
From my own experience, I was the only abo on my valley course not to go single seat. Was that because I was crap and everyone else was great? No, I did pretty well (much better than some) but I only had 1 type on my dreamsheet - I wanted to fly fighters not bombers.
So, get over yourself, even a decade ago not everyone wanted to go harrier and now they certainly dont.
From my own experience, I was the only abo on my valley course not to go single seat. Was that because I was crap and everyone else was great? No, I did pretty well (much better than some) but I only had 1 type on my dreamsheet - I wanted to fly fighters not bombers.
So, get over yourself, even a decade ago not everyone wanted to go harrier and now they certainly dont.
As for Flaps62 getting over himself, you should try some of the same medicine my friend. Flaps was selling his a/c, not himself, unlike your last post.
Last edited by Tombstone; 24th Sep 2006 at 09:25.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
If you read Flaps post #29 as selling the aircraft and not himself, you speak a different language to me. If that's being modest, I'd hate to see him boast...
No, wait, maybe he is being modest for a Harrier pilot... 
that looks difficult-think I'll take the easy option and go somewhere else.....instructors with chips on their shoulders who were never good enough to fly it.....It's true that the USMC didn't always post the best studes to the Harrier but look at the resulting accident rate compared to the other fleet
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come Come now, lets all be nice!
I think what's massively evident here is that each person loves their own steed, and thats a great thing! Imagine if we all flew the same aircraft in the same role? There would be far less banter I'm sure.
For a very long time now, Harrier pilots have received much banter (harsh and fair) for various things - most notably is an apparently larger than average ego. This 'may' have been the case in the past, certainly when chaps were rushing around in Hunters and Lightnings, however I would be inclined to say that the modern breed are just as humble as the next man, having met every type-operator in todays RAF. Some of the posts here smack of a little 'green monster' to the outsider, and some contain genuine and amusing banter.
The thread is about 'defending the Harrier' - IMHO, it isn't required! As we sit comfortably at our computers, getting involved in little spats over who or what's better than which, the young men and women who operate them are flying daily, in the face of a real threat. QFI Hawk Man (aka not Front Line anymore), I feel there now appears to be a disconnect between the original thread, which originated quite a while ago by the way(!), and your interesting decision to resurface this subject. I believe its your decision to do so that is 'old hat'.
I certainly hope your attitude doesn't come across to the young people you teach to fly.
ICBM
I think what's massively evident here is that each person loves their own steed, and thats a great thing! Imagine if we all flew the same aircraft in the same role? There would be far less banter I'm sure.
For a very long time now, Harrier pilots have received much banter (harsh and fair) for various things - most notably is an apparently larger than average ego. This 'may' have been the case in the past, certainly when chaps were rushing around in Hunters and Lightnings, however I would be inclined to say that the modern breed are just as humble as the next man, having met every type-operator in todays RAF. Some of the posts here smack of a little 'green monster' to the outsider, and some contain genuine and amusing banter.
The thread is about 'defending the Harrier' - IMHO, it isn't required! As we sit comfortably at our computers, getting involved in little spats over who or what's better than which, the young men and women who operate them are flying daily, in the face of a real threat. QFI Hawk Man (aka not Front Line anymore), I feel there now appears to be a disconnect between the original thread, which originated quite a while ago by the way(!), and your interesting decision to resurface this subject. I believe its your decision to do so that is 'old hat'.
I certainly hope your attitude doesn't come across to the young people you teach to fly.
ICBM
errr..didn't "the business" then start with a call of "Pan, Pan, Pan, due to Fuel shortage.......
I rather assumed that QFIHM was talking about Harrier GR1s!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tombstone
I was using "fighter" the way it has been used for about 90 years - I know thats not long enough in the army to be a tradition but not bad for combat aviation. Ie an aircraft whos job it is to shoot down other aircraft. Or to quote wikipedia "A fighter aircraft is a military aircraft designed primarily for attacking other aircraft, as opposed to a bomber, which is designed to attack ground targets, primarily by dropping bombs" Dunno if youre using a different one. Must admit though that the next sentence is "Fighters are comparatively small, fast, and maneuverable" but 2 out of 3 aint bad (Meatloaf said that so it must be true).
I was in no way trying to sell myself or portray myself as Gods gift to aviation (I cant even convince myself of that!), just trying to use actual facts in an argument. Not traditional on PPRuNe, I know, but worth a try, I thought. Having re-read my post maybe I should have also pointed out that I wasn't the best pilot on my course at Valley, either, by a long way! I thought it was worth mentioning that some people choose paths based on other things than "that will make me look good"
To the original poster I apologise for thread creap, but some things I cant let go!
I was using "fighter" the way it has been used for about 90 years - I know thats not long enough in the army to be a tradition but not bad for combat aviation. Ie an aircraft whos job it is to shoot down other aircraft. Or to quote wikipedia "A fighter aircraft is a military aircraft designed primarily for attacking other aircraft, as opposed to a bomber, which is designed to attack ground targets, primarily by dropping bombs" Dunno if youre using a different one. Must admit though that the next sentence is "Fighters are comparatively small, fast, and maneuverable" but 2 out of 3 aint bad (Meatloaf said that so it must be true).
I was in no way trying to sell myself or portray myself as Gods gift to aviation (I cant even convince myself of that!), just trying to use actual facts in an argument. Not traditional on PPRuNe, I know, but worth a try, I thought. Having re-read my post maybe I should have also pointed out that I wasn't the best pilot on my course at Valley, either, by a long way! I thought it was worth mentioning that some people choose paths based on other things than "that will make me look good"
To the original poster I apologise for thread creap, but some things I cant let go!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoseGunner.
I find your statement about "the utter bollocks being spouted by that Major in Afghanistan who has no appreciation of air power" very revealing and deeply depressing. I do hope that you are not representative of your batch of RAF pilots. In fact I know you are not, thank God.
"That major" is up to his goolies in muck and bullets, commanding a unit that is suffering casualties and is not getting effective CAS from the RAF who are out there to provide it. While I am sure that they have the air threat well under control in your terms of the employment of air power, that ain't much comfort to the infantry involved in a viscious fire fight.
Grow up and learn some humility.
I find your statement about "the utter bollocks being spouted by that Major in Afghanistan who has no appreciation of air power" very revealing and deeply depressing. I do hope that you are not representative of your batch of RAF pilots. In fact I know you are not, thank God.
"That major" is up to his goolies in muck and bullets, commanding a unit that is suffering casualties and is not getting effective CAS from the RAF who are out there to provide it. While I am sure that they have the air threat well under control in your terms of the employment of air power, that ain't much comfort to the infantry involved in a viscious fire fight.
Grow up and learn some humility.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clockwork Mouse
Noone has ever denied that the said major is "up to his goolies in muck and bullets" and doing an extremely difficult and dstressful job with real people really dying. And I have a huge amount of respect for that.
The point at issue though is that the problems with interoperability will never be solved by random mud slinging and name calling. Added to that his comments are completely factually inaccurate - displaying his lack of knowledge of probably the most capable weapons available to him.
Do you disagree with the "spouting utter bollocks" part or the "no appreciation of air power"? Maybe he is a FAC, has done training with CAS regularly - most importantly with an open and honest mutual debrief and if so I apologise, but I suspect not. The way to get more effective CAS is not to tell the people doing it that they are useless.
Harriers doing CAS are an extremely capable and potent platform when used effectively. I personally don't believe they are utterly, utterly useless.
I see, though, that you carry on the tradition of random name calling and insults.
Noone has ever denied that the said major is "up to his goolies in muck and bullets" and doing an extremely difficult and dstressful job with real people really dying. And I have a huge amount of respect for that.
The point at issue though is that the problems with interoperability will never be solved by random mud slinging and name calling. Added to that his comments are completely factually inaccurate - displaying his lack of knowledge of probably the most capable weapons available to him.
Do you disagree with the "spouting utter bollocks" part or the "no appreciation of air power"? Maybe he is a FAC, has done training with CAS regularly - most importantly with an open and honest mutual debrief and if so I apologise, but I suspect not. The way to get more effective CAS is not to tell the people doing it that they are useless.
Harriers doing CAS are an extremely capable and potent platform when used effectively. I personally don't believe they are utterly, utterly useless.
I see, though, that you carry on the tradition of random name calling and insults.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tombstone
I was using "fighter" the way it has been used for about 90 years - I know thats not long enough in the army to be a tradition but not bad for combat aviation. Ie an aircraft whos job it is to shoot down other aircraft. Or to quote wikipedia "A fighter aircraft is a military aircraft designed primarily for attacking other aircraft, as opposed to a bomber, which is designed to attack ground targets, primarily by dropping bombs" Dunno if youre using a different one. Must admit though that the next sentence is "Fighters are comparatively small, fast, and maneuverable" but 2 out of 3 aint bad (Meatloaf said that so it must be true).
I was in no way trying to sell myself or portray myself as Gods gift to aviation (I cant even convince myself of that!), just trying to use actual facts in an argument. Not traditional on PPRuNe, I know, but worth a try, I thought. Having re-read my post maybe I should have also pointed out that I wasn't the best pilot on my course at Valley, either, by a long way! I thought it was worth mentioning that some people choose paths based on other things than "that will make me look good"
To the original poster I apologise for thread creap, but some things I cant let go!
I was using "fighter" the way it has been used for about 90 years - I know thats not long enough in the army to be a tradition but not bad for combat aviation. Ie an aircraft whos job it is to shoot down other aircraft. Or to quote wikipedia "A fighter aircraft is a military aircraft designed primarily for attacking other aircraft, as opposed to a bomber, which is designed to attack ground targets, primarily by dropping bombs" Dunno if youre using a different one. Must admit though that the next sentence is "Fighters are comparatively small, fast, and maneuverable" but 2 out of 3 aint bad (Meatloaf said that so it must be true).
I was in no way trying to sell myself or portray myself as Gods gift to aviation (I cant even convince myself of that!), just trying to use actual facts in an argument. Not traditional on PPRuNe, I know, but worth a try, I thought. Having re-read my post maybe I should have also pointed out that I wasn't the best pilot on my course at Valley, either, by a long way! I thought it was worth mentioning that some people choose paths based on other things than "that will make me look good"
To the original poster I apologise for thread creap, but some things I cant let go!
Fox 3, splash one NoseGunner.
Too easy.