Last Harrier Flight from HMS ARK ROYAL
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: North East England
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Little known Anorak fact.
That Stringbag was the first aircraft to be fixed on board ArkR V. Its tail got damaged by a shipyard crane just after it was lifted onto the deck at Walker Naval Yard in Newcastle.
Going to be a sad day to see the end of this ARKR. Almost 32 years to the day that the previous ship made her final port entrance
That Stringbag was the first aircraft to be fixed on board ArkR V. Its tail got damaged by a shipyard crane just after it was lifted onto the deck at Walker Naval Yard in Newcastle.
Going to be a sad day to see the end of this ARKR. Almost 32 years to the day that the previous ship made her final port entrance
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THS
That is why I put the word if after but - this implies there are other reasons for aircraft to be on the flight other than they flew in the BoB as earlier poster suggested. Sorry too subtle.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BoB criteria?
John,
Not sure of the criteria for BoB aircraft qualification, especially as you mention the other types. Personally, I think that the name is a great ploy to keep the unit running and funded by the RAF, in the same way as the RN have named the carriers QE and PoW rather than the great names of old such as Ark Royal or Invincible etc. Notwithstanding the contracts old one eye set us up with, the names make them more difficult to cut (not impossible) as it will incite quite a bit of public outcry if it did happen. Whereas the RN FAA have the RNHF, they decided not to have a FA2/FRS1 (on disbandment in 2006) on their books owing to the complexity/cost. The BoB may be able to fund a GR, but not being in those circles I can only speculate. But I would imagine that it would be too costly/complex to run and we know the dangers of lack of currency on such a machine...
Regards,
ABTE
Not sure of the criteria for BoB aircraft qualification, especially as you mention the other types. Personally, I think that the name is a great ploy to keep the unit running and funded by the RAF, in the same way as the RN have named the carriers QE and PoW rather than the great names of old such as Ark Royal or Invincible etc. Notwithstanding the contracts old one eye set us up with, the names make them more difficult to cut (not impossible) as it will incite quite a bit of public outcry if it did happen. Whereas the RN FAA have the RNHF, they decided not to have a FA2/FRS1 (on disbandment in 2006) on their books owing to the complexity/cost. The BoB may be able to fund a GR, but not being in those circles I can only speculate. But I would imagine that it would be too costly/complex to run and we know the dangers of lack of currency on such a machine...
Regards,
ABTE
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aim
Sorry - my original post was not meant to be about the Harrier at all, merely a response to another poster who had suggested the reason for not having a type on the BBMF was that it did not fight in the BoB.
As I said, all too subtle sorry!
I see no case to retain a flying version of the Harrier anywhere in the UK.
I do see a case for having eight in the Stan until the UK pull out of there saving refuelling after take off and various other issues with the current type.
But then technical merit never did overcome political expediency.
As I said, all too subtle sorry!
I see no case to retain a flying version of the Harrier anywhere in the UK.
I do see a case for having eight in the Stan until the UK pull out of there saving refuelling after take off and various other issues with the current type.
But then technical merit never did overcome political expediency.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England formerly Great Britain
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see no case to retain a flying version of the Harrier anywhere in the UK.
Hope the Guatamalians have learnt to behave because without a RN Carrier or a Harrier, Belize is a war looking for a moment in time. Though we tend to forget that and concentrate on the Falklands; sorry, scrub that, we tend to concentrate on Afghanistan (full stop or as my son would say: End of).
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
I totally agree. There is no finer aircraft in our current (albeit imminently former) arsenal for CAS in Afghanistan IMHO and before all you GR4 fans descend on me like vultures I am talking about an enhancement to the current regime not a replacement. Personally, I think we should have bought (and negotiated a huge discount) a couple of sqns of A10s when the septics asked us to join in. But as you said, rarely has common sense prevailed...
ABTE
I totally agree. There is no finer aircraft in our current (albeit imminently former) arsenal for CAS in Afghanistan IMHO and before all you GR4 fans descend on me like vultures I am talking about an enhancement to the current regime not a replacement. Personally, I think we should have bought (and negotiated a huge discount) a couple of sqns of A10s when the septics asked us to join in. But as you said, rarely has common sense prevailed...
ABTE
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do wonder what an A10 would have looked like with roundels.
Just a bigger (crying) shame that the brightest minds in the MoD and Nu Labour thought it a cracking wheeze to bin the Jaguar fleet. There was obviously no strategic requirement or foresight for a rough field CAS / Attack bird in the inventory.
Just a bigger (crying) shame that the brightest minds in the MoD and Nu Labour thought it a cracking wheeze to bin the Jaguar fleet. There was obviously no strategic requirement or foresight for a rough field CAS / Attack bird in the inventory.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finnpog,
An A10 with roundels would have been simply awesome. The Jag was an amazing aircraft and if I hadn't flown the other single seater (and been dark blue) I would have loved to have had a go.
Forgive me though, apart from the rough field capability didn't it have a very limited payload and what was the turn radius like? Especially hot and high? It would have been quite important to me if I was trying to do CAS in it. Classy jet though and retired with pride.
ABTE
An A10 with roundels would have been simply awesome. The Jag was an amazing aircraft and if I hadn't flown the other single seater (and been dark blue) I would have loved to have had a go.
Forgive me though, apart from the rough field capability didn't it have a very limited payload and what was the turn radius like? Especially hot and high? It would have been quite important to me if I was trying to do CAS in it. Classy jet though and retired with pride.
ABTE
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABTE,
I am sure that a WagWah veteran will pop in soon to clarify points. It has clearly done well both in hot and in high places in it's time. It certainly didn't have Starfighter turning (I remember seeing The Vikings hooning those about).
Warload? Well not as many pylons as GR7, but intenal cannon and overwing AAM freed up the underside.
I agree wholeheartedly about the classy last touchdown.
I am sure that a WagWah veteran will pop in soon to clarify points. It has clearly done well both in hot and in high places in it's time. It certainly didn't have Starfighter turning (I remember seeing The Vikings hooning those about).
Warload? Well not as many pylons as GR7, but intenal cannon and overwing AAM freed up the underside.
I agree wholeheartedly about the classy last touchdown.
