Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks WE Branch Fanatic for highlighting the “A tale of two Harriers: How Italy held on to carrier strike” that was recently published in www.DefenceManagement.com
That type of excellent article usually brings out the typical Pro-RAF - Get rid of the Fleet Air Arm fixed-wing’ gang who do not want the public and press to read such things due to the embarrassing truths contained within it.
As for those who keep on demanding that the thread be killed, if you do not like it then simply do yourself and everyone else a favour and do not visit it anymore.
That type of excellent article usually brings out the typical Pro-RAF - Get rid of the Fleet Air Arm fixed-wing’ gang who do not want the public and press to read such things due to the embarrassing truths contained within it.
As for those who keep on demanding that the thread be killed, if you do not like it then simply do yourself and everyone else a favour and do not visit it anymore.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, Congratulations to the RAF leadership for helping to damage the RN/FAA capability far more effectively than any enemy could have done. They must be very proud of themselves. 
However what a pity that it was also at such a detriment to our island nations worldwide maritime defence capability. With both the Sea Harriers and Nimrods now gone, thank goodness there are not likely to be any long range conflicts/wars anymore and our Navy will no longer need to depend on its own aircraft for quick reaction Fighter/Strike/Reconnaissance operations (particularly when a long way from any meaningful land based airfield support).
Churchill must be turning in his grave as to how the MoD could have allowed such rediculous decisions to be made!!
However what a pity that it was also at such a detriment to our island nations worldwide maritime defence capability. With both the Sea Harriers and Nimrods now gone, thank goodness there are not likely to be any long range conflicts/wars anymore and our Navy will no longer need to depend on its own aircraft for quick reaction Fighter/Strike/Reconnaissance operations (particularly when a long way from any meaningful land based airfield support).
Churchill must be turning in his grave as to how the MoD could have allowed such rediculous decisions to be made!!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Halfway up a Scottish mountain
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, got to ask, why as an island nation do we need a worldwide maritime defence capability.
BTW, in case you were unsure Gullwings, the Nimrod was definitely RAF.....
BTW, in case you were unsure Gullwings, the Nimrod was definitely RAF.....
Last edited by The Stimulator; 30th Sep 2012 at 05:43.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Sorry, got to ask, why as an island nation do we need a worldwide maritime defence capability"
Because we are utterly dependent on seaborne trade with the entire world. Cut off the trade links across the Channel and that would be a minorr inonveniencs, the bulk of our supplies (ie food fuel and everything you buy) comes from farther afield, all the way out to the Pacific. Go to Southampton or Felixstowe docks (the two largest container terminals in the UK) and take in the scale of goods being imported. Churchill was only afraid of one battle in WW2, the Battle of the Atlantic, because he knew if our supply lines were cut we would have to capitulate in a few months at best. The situation hasn't changed, indeed it is much worse now. Every now and then I hear people bady about the phrase 'Fortress UK' as an allternative defence posture. Madness. If you don't secure our Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC) then you have already surrendered. Fortresses. Great idea. Why did we stop building them? Because they were easy to defeat. Lay siege. Defenders run out of food. Surrender.
Because we are utterly dependent on seaborne trade with the entire world. Cut off the trade links across the Channel and that would be a minorr inonveniencs, the bulk of our supplies (ie food fuel and everything you buy) comes from farther afield, all the way out to the Pacific. Go to Southampton or Felixstowe docks (the two largest container terminals in the UK) and take in the scale of goods being imported. Churchill was only afraid of one battle in WW2, the Battle of the Atlantic, because he knew if our supply lines were cut we would have to capitulate in a few months at best. The situation hasn't changed, indeed it is much worse now. Every now and then I hear people bady about the phrase 'Fortress UK' as an allternative defence posture. Madness. If you don't secure our Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC) then you have already surrendered. Fortresses. Great idea. Why did we stop building them? Because they were easy to defeat. Lay siege. Defenders run out of food. Surrender.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In addition to the points well made by others, since World War 2 the Fleet Air Arm have had to continually operate a long way from the UK (worldwide) on many occasions and more countries are appreciating the value of carriers to support such things. Importantly they can even help to prevent wars merely by their existence. For example, how much has this country had to spend defending the Falklands since Argentina invaded them in 1982? If we still had two proper catapult equipped aircraft carriers back then in 1982 the Falklands War would almost certainly not have even taken place! Prevention can be more effective than cure in terms of both money and lives!
As some wise people say - "If you think that Safety is too expensive to invest in, then try having an accident and see just how much that eventually ends up costing!
With regards to your Nimrod comment, of course I realise the Nimrod was RAF and I am sure that even the RAF realise what an unbelievable and incredible loss it is to this nation that it no longer has such a long range maritime anti-submarine capability. Particularly when also considering just how much money was also wasted rebuilding a limited quantity of ancient Comet based airframes rather than investing in building a new patrol aircraft type that could have actually also had a potential worldwide export market!
However, the point that I was originally trying to make was that again it is Navy lives (and those who they help defend abroad) who will be most at risk as a result of the lack of such long range maritime support for the foreseeable future. Whoever within the RAF/MoD wasted so much tax payer’s money on the wrong Harrier and Nimrod related decisions should hang their heads in shame!
As some wise people say - "If you think that Safety is too expensive to invest in, then try having an accident and see just how much that eventually ends up costing!
With regards to your Nimrod comment, of course I realise the Nimrod was RAF and I am sure that even the RAF realise what an unbelievable and incredible loss it is to this nation that it no longer has such a long range maritime anti-submarine capability. Particularly when also considering just how much money was also wasted rebuilding a limited quantity of ancient Comet based airframes rather than investing in building a new patrol aircraft type that could have actually also had a potential worldwide export market!
However, the point that I was originally trying to make was that again it is Navy lives (and those who they help defend abroad) who will be most at risk as a result of the lack of such long range maritime support for the foreseeable future. Whoever within the RAF/MoD wasted so much tax payer’s money on the wrong Harrier and Nimrod related decisions should hang their heads in shame!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has ALL been said, it has even been suggested that the Harrier has departed these shores and will never be an operational aircraft again. It is over but as a bit of light relief,
first shown in 2007.
Many a true word but this script was wrote when we still had the harrier.
Many a true word but this script was wrote when we still had the harrier.
Excellent, glojo. Someone should do a comedy spoof of that interview for television; it would be a riot.
See, with the tiniest bit of bait, there's life in the old thread yet!
See, with the tiniest bit of bait, there's life in the old thread yet!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
"Sorry, got to ask, why as an island nation do we need a worldwide maritime defence capability"
Because we are utterly dependent on seaborne trade with the entire world.
Churchill was only afraid of one battle in WW2, the Battle of the Atlantic, because he knew if our supply lines were cut we would have to capitulate in a few months at best.
The situation hasn't changed, indeed it is much worse now.
If you don't secure our Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC) then you have already surrendered.
Because we are utterly dependent on seaborne trade with the entire world.
Churchill was only afraid of one battle in WW2, the Battle of the Atlantic, because he knew if our supply lines were cut we would have to capitulate in a few months at best.
The situation hasn't changed, indeed it is much worse now.
If you don't secure our Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC) then you have already surrendered.
We had countless escort vessels to escort, not entirely successfully, convoys of merships.
We shall have exactly how many ships now or in the foreseeable future? By your reckoning we have indeed surrendered, we just don't admit it.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Blighty
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harriers?
Many, many years ago one was detached wid' the Feelthy French.
A Harrier came noisely past, trying to look fast and harmful.
A Gallic Mirage hero turned to his compatriots and said something.
They then, pissed themselves laughing.
On further enquiry, the literal translation was "Only time I've seen a turkey with drop tanks".
Near bust me gusset so I did.
A Harrier came noisely past, trying to look fast and harmful.
A Gallic Mirage hero turned to his compatriots and said something.
They then, pissed themselves laughing.
On further enquiry, the literal translation was "Only time I've seen a turkey with drop tanks".
Near bust me gusset so I did.
Mirages shot down/damaged by Harriers
Originally Posted by TT"
Many, many years ago one was detached wid' the Feelthy French.
A Harrier came noisely past, trying to look fast and harmful.
A Gallic Mirage hero turned to his compatriots and said something.
They then, pissed themselves laughing.
On further enquiry, the literal translation was "Only time I've seen a turkey with drop tanks".
Near bust me gusset so I did.
A Harrier came noisely past, trying to look fast and harmful.
A Gallic Mirage hero turned to his compatriots and said something.
They then, pissed themselves laughing.
On further enquiry, the literal translation was "Only time I've seen a turkey with drop tanks".
Near bust me gusset so I did.
These are the only two I know of:
Originally Posted by naval-history.net
Saturday 1st May
[a5] - Mirage IIIEA of FAA Grupo 8 shot down north of West Falkland by Flt Lt Barton RAF in No.801 Sea Harrier using Sidewinder (4.10 pm). Lt Perona ejected safely.
[a6] - Mirage IIIEA of FAA Grupo 8 damaged in same incident north of West Falkland by Lt Thomas RN in No.801 Sea Harrier using Sidewinder. Then shot down over Stanley by own AA defences (4.15 pm). and Capt Cuerva killed.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Blighty
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really?
Look Guv' - the Argentinian drivers were working on zero return fuel.
They didn't have the luxury of avoiding Sharky (hero) Ward's snaffle missiles.
Could not even rush it through the gate. Bit cold in the 'oggin down them parts with no-one to pick you up.
I actually like the Feelthy French ability to take the piss.
They didn't have the luxury of avoiding Sharky (hero) Ward's snaffle missiles.
Could not even rush it through the gate. Bit cold in the 'oggin down them parts with no-one to pick you up.
I actually like the Feelthy French ability to take the piss.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the thread has thankfully taken a more light hearted approach, dare I say that it comes as little surprise that the RAF enjoy the same types of other jokes as their French Air Force colleagues. Have either of them actually shot down many meaningful aircraft types using their own aircraft since the end of World War 2? Particularly the RAF who may have only achieved one kill and that was against one of their own Jaguars! (Oopps!!)
By the way, what other aircraft types have some RAF crews at least been able shoot down any other aircraft down with since World War 2?
Tin helmet and flak jacket now going on as I prepare for incoming!!
By the way, what other aircraft types have some RAF crews at least been able shoot down any other aircraft down with since World War 2?
Tin helmet and flak jacket now going on as I prepare for incoming!!
I seem to remember that in the late fifties and early sixties a considerable part of the Royal Air Force's effort was to ensure that they did not have to shoot down anybody else in anger.
We do, we do! Can't wait to get in there and give those frenchies a good licking.
Re Jag. A kill's a kill, fella! Even if he was on recovery to base.
You're conveniently forgetting about all the UFOs we shot down. I know it's highly classified, but it's high time they were acknowledged.
The only reason we didn't shoot down any actual aircraft was because, well, you know. It was all abit awkward at the time. The hotel staff were meant to wake us up at 5 in time for the dawn patrol, but old Stiffy was in bed with the receptionist and she rather fogot. And we couldn't be there the following day because we were busing moving into a better hotel. Can't remember much after that.
Far more important to spend our time dismantling the Fleet Air Arm, you know. It was us that did that. Not just a PPRuNe rumour. It used to be in Officers' Confidential Orders, you know.
Re Jag. A kill's a kill, fella! Even if he was on recovery to base.
You're conveniently forgetting about all the UFOs we shot down. I know it's highly classified, but it's high time they were acknowledged.
The only reason we didn't shoot down any actual aircraft was because, well, you know. It was all abit awkward at the time. The hotel staff were meant to wake us up at 5 in time for the dawn patrol, but old Stiffy was in bed with the receptionist and she rather fogot. And we couldn't be there the following day because we were busing moving into a better hotel. Can't remember much after that.
Far more important to spend our time dismantling the Fleet Air Arm, you know. It was us that did that. Not just a PPRuNe rumour. It used to be in Officers' Confidential Orders, you know.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say something funny 'round 'ere, Mate, and you'll always touch a raw nerve somewhere!
Gullwing... Why???
I love banter
I love inter service rivalry but why go looking for arguments.