Sea Jet
Entering "Sea Harrier" into the search facility on the Royal Navy website produces many results, one of which is this: The Sea Harrier
The Sea Harrier was the Royal Navy’s front-line fixed-wing aircraft for more than 25 years, conducting Ground Attack missions and Combat Air Patrols around the globe, and achieving a record in air-to-air combat unmatched by any other aircraft type since the second world war.
I think this page is worded carefully, in that it talks about the contribution made by both Sea Harrier and Fleet Air Arm, whilst avoiding any negativity.
Meanwhile, the RNSFDO Sea Jets got a mention here.
The Sea Harrier was the Royal Navy’s front-line fixed-wing aircraft for more than 25 years, conducting Ground Attack missions and Combat Air Patrols around the globe, and achieving a record in air-to-air combat unmatched by any other aircraft type since the second world war.
I think this page is worded carefully, in that it talks about the contribution made by both Sea Harrier and Fleet Air Arm, whilst avoiding any negativity.
Meanwhile, the RNSFDO Sea Jets got a mention here.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
achieving a record in air-to-air combat unmatched by any other aircraft type since the second world war
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that the Sea-Jet ( not SHAR as the media including ' Navy News ' would have it ) scored so heavily against mostly RETREATING Mirages etc should say it all; a combination of superior training & aircraft at the medium level they dragged the Mirages down to, not to mention the effectiveness of low level attacks, be it anti-shipping or general ground attacks...
The U.S. did their part well in supplying the AIM9L, but it seems just the knowledge of the U.K. having it was enough to deter the Argentinians.
I could go into more detail, such as the Argentinian chap who came up with the truck launched Exocet deserved a medal/recognition from his side, however sad it is for families of the victims...
The U.S. did their part well in supplying the AIM9L, but it seems just the knowledge of the U.K. having it was enough to deter the Argentinians.
I could go into more detail, such as the Argentinian chap who came up with the truck launched Exocet deserved a medal/recognition from his side, however sad it is for families of the victims...
OA
Crumbs. I didn't know the argentinians had that many aircraft - according to Meilinger, the F-16 and F-15 are something like 180 to nothing in air-to-air kills worldwide.......
How many F-15s and F-16s have been built? If you look it in terms of enemy aircraft splashed for the total number of aircraft produced then the Sea Harrier comes out rather well.
Crumbs. I didn't know the argentinians had that many aircraft - according to Meilinger, the F-16 and F-15 are something like 180 to nothing in air-to-air kills worldwide.......
How many F-15s and F-16s have been built? If you look it in terms of enemy aircraft splashed for the total number of aircraft produced then the Sea Harrier comes out rather well.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough, if you put it that way.... but it seems a fairly arbitrary way of working out combat effectiveness.
I suppose I just bit because there still seem to be people around who think that the Sea Jet was some sort of miracle aircraft. IMHO it was a mediocre airframe modified from a CAS platform because it was the only thing we could still have flown from a through-deck cruiser after the real carriers went. It succeeded because of the sheer quality of the crews, good training and tactics, and SOME good kit.
However, if we'd still had the carriers when the Falklands broke out and could have used Phantoms, I bet they would have kicked seven bells out of the Mirages and Super Etendards - but of course that wouldn't make them any better, cos they built thousands of Phantoms.......
I suppose I just bit because there still seem to be people around who think that the Sea Jet was some sort of miracle aircraft. IMHO it was a mediocre airframe modified from a CAS platform because it was the only thing we could still have flown from a through-deck cruiser after the real carriers went. It succeeded because of the sheer quality of the crews, good training and tactics, and SOME good kit.
However, if we'd still had the carriers when the Falklands broke out and could have used Phantoms, I bet they would have kicked seven bells out of the Mirages and Super Etendards - but of course that wouldn't make them any better, cos they built thousands of Phantoms.......
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the Phantom was good in it's time, when it was sorted out...
The Sea Harrier, like every aircraft yet built, was not a universal answer to any problems arising, but it can operate from short decks - or even helipads if pushed - and can operate from FOB tin strips to support the Marines and has at least one powerful gun in U.S.mode ( you can't target an indivdual and/ or chums with a Maverick, and a CRV might get him, or at least require a change of underpants, that is if the taliban bother ) I wouldn't want to see a Phantom try short decks or FOB's !
The Sea Harrier, like every aircraft yet built, was not a universal answer to any problems arising, but it can operate from short decks - or even helipads if pushed - and can operate from FOB tin strips to support the Marines and has at least one powerful gun in U.S.mode ( you can't target an indivdual and/ or chums with a Maverick, and a CRV might get him, or at least require a change of underpants, that is if the taliban bother ) I wouldn't want to see a Phantom try short decks or FOB's !
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OA, Double zero and others,
The SHAR (and that was a very common name for it in the FAA - certainly in most signals) was a TREMENDOUS airframe. Here's why.
Only the Uk had the raw talent to design an aircraft that could achieve STOVL and carry a useful military load. Only the Uk (with US financial assistance) had the raw talent to design an engine with the power, surge margin and rapid response needed - that was the Pegasus.
It was basically a modified prototype and never had the investment it deserved to advance (P1150, 1154 et al were all shelved under various governments) and it didn't get the benefit of advanced materials until the USMC got the AV-8B. Despite that, it worked - and worked very well.
Yes, it was never a world class fighter as far as basic aerodynamic performance went - but with outstanding pilots, great ground crews and not least the ability to operate off a small carrier, it played a huge role in an important conflict.
Oh, and the FA2's radar/missile integration was another triumph of raw Brit talent. Great aircraft are often seen so because of timing and circumstances as much as technical details - the SHAR had both going for it. And many of the people who developed that aircraft are now in Fort Worth and Pax River putting their expertise into the F-35B.
Let's occasionally celebrate our people and achievements - they deserve it.
The SHAR (and that was a very common name for it in the FAA - certainly in most signals) was a TREMENDOUS airframe. Here's why.
Only the Uk had the raw talent to design an aircraft that could achieve STOVL and carry a useful military load. Only the Uk (with US financial assistance) had the raw talent to design an engine with the power, surge margin and rapid response needed - that was the Pegasus.
It was basically a modified prototype and never had the investment it deserved to advance (P1150, 1154 et al were all shelved under various governments) and it didn't get the benefit of advanced materials until the USMC got the AV-8B. Despite that, it worked - and worked very well.
Yes, it was never a world class fighter as far as basic aerodynamic performance went - but with outstanding pilots, great ground crews and not least the ability to operate off a small carrier, it played a huge role in an important conflict.
Oh, and the FA2's radar/missile integration was another triumph of raw Brit talent. Great aircraft are often seen so because of timing and circumstances as much as technical details - the SHAR had both going for it. And many of the people who developed that aircraft are now in Fort Worth and Pax River putting their expertise into the F-35B.
Let's occasionally celebrate our people and achievements - they deserve it.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines,
I think we're violently in agreement. The SHAR force did incredibly well in the Falklands and always held their end up well in exercises - which is what I meant when I said
(which is similar to your statement [QUOTE]...it was never a world class fighter as far as basic aerodynamic performance went - but with outstanding pilots, great ground crews ...the FA2's radar/missile integration was another triumph [QUOTE])
So yes, credit to the SHAR and those that flew/maintained/developed it - it achieved fantastic results for what it was. However, think what those same people could have done with F-18s or similar, always assuming we had the carriers to fly them off and the capacity to support them....
The SHAR force were a fantastic outfit and punched well above their wieght - but I still don't think that made the aircraft itself "the best BVR fighter in the world".
I think we're violently in agreement. The SHAR force did incredibly well in the Falklands and always held their end up well in exercises - which is what I meant when I said
it was a mediocre airframe ... it succeeded because of the sheer quality of the crews, good training and tactics, and SOME good kit.
(which is similar to your statement [QUOTE]...it was never a world class fighter as far as basic aerodynamic performance went - but with outstanding pilots, great ground crews ...the FA2's radar/missile integration was another triumph [QUOTE])
So yes, credit to the SHAR and those that flew/maintained/developed it - it achieved fantastic results for what it was. However, think what those same people could have done with F-18s or similar, always assuming we had the carriers to fly them off and the capacity to support them....
The SHAR force were a fantastic outfit and punched well above their wieght - but I still don't think that made the aircraft itself "the best BVR fighter in the world".
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OA,
I agree that the SHAR as we operators knew it wasn't the best BVR fighter in the world, but it had clear and distinct advantages. All fighters have their good and bad points and you could argue until you're blue in the face the merits of each. Far too many people value brute force and ignorance (eg SEP or instantaneous/sustained turn performance) in the top trumps of fighters. If you truly wish to argue the case for BVR, the SHAR often came off better than many of the worlds best fighters for very simple reasons. For starters he had a very small radar cross section. Yes I know that radars are better these days and link capabilities have come on in leaps and bounds but if you cant see what you are firing at then it's pointless firing. They will eventually see you of course but you may have (critically) seen them a few miles before that and traded shots with yours slightly ahead of theirs. In BVR this could be crucial, especially if their big stick is slightly faster than yours as you will lose if yours doesn't get to a critical point before theirs. Also, the Blue Vixen radar was quite low power output, again very useful if their RWR is none too sensitive. I remember a Mig 29 QWI equivalent saying during a debrief that he didn't even pick up any warning on his RWR during an engagement, even right up to the final merge (and no it wasnt u/s before you ask). The Blue Vixen is a very good (for a mechanically scanning) radar and if you get the chance to ask any other operator who has used it, they would say the same. Yes she had her limitations as does any fighter, but to be fair and considering she wasn't a fifth or even fourth generation fighter she could hold her own quite admirably. Even once into the merge, there's an old adage that if you cant see what you're fighting then you will lose. Being small and with the paint scheme we used, often even the best fighters would lose by not seeing us until too late. If we could dictate the fight which often we could by being the first to spot the other, there weren't many fighters that would take a harrier in a slow speed fight. Anyway, IMHO I rated the SHAR in BVR and in a close fight....
Standing by for attempted ridicule!
ABTE
I agree that the SHAR as we operators knew it wasn't the best BVR fighter in the world, but it had clear and distinct advantages. All fighters have their good and bad points and you could argue until you're blue in the face the merits of each. Far too many people value brute force and ignorance (eg SEP or instantaneous/sustained turn performance) in the top trumps of fighters. If you truly wish to argue the case for BVR, the SHAR often came off better than many of the worlds best fighters for very simple reasons. For starters he had a very small radar cross section. Yes I know that radars are better these days and link capabilities have come on in leaps and bounds but if you cant see what you are firing at then it's pointless firing. They will eventually see you of course but you may have (critically) seen them a few miles before that and traded shots with yours slightly ahead of theirs. In BVR this could be crucial, especially if their big stick is slightly faster than yours as you will lose if yours doesn't get to a critical point before theirs. Also, the Blue Vixen radar was quite low power output, again very useful if their RWR is none too sensitive. I remember a Mig 29 QWI equivalent saying during a debrief that he didn't even pick up any warning on his RWR during an engagement, even right up to the final merge (and no it wasnt u/s before you ask). The Blue Vixen is a very good (for a mechanically scanning) radar and if you get the chance to ask any other operator who has used it, they would say the same. Yes she had her limitations as does any fighter, but to be fair and considering she wasn't a fifth or even fourth generation fighter she could hold her own quite admirably. Even once into the merge, there's an old adage that if you cant see what you're fighting then you will lose. Being small and with the paint scheme we used, often even the best fighters would lose by not seeing us until too late. If we could dictate the fight which often we could by being the first to spot the other, there weren't many fighters that would take a harrier in a slow speed fight. Anyway, IMHO I rated the SHAR in BVR and in a close fight....
Standing by for attempted ridicule!
ABTE
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My goodness ABTE! I'd love to ridicule you if possible, but that wall of text is just too intimidating for me to think about picking it apart! 
Sorry if this has been said in the previous 100 pages, but I was reading a certain book written by 'mr sea harrier' himself, who claims impressive kill ratios within visual range on F-15's and F-5's. Seems like a fair call to me, given the unpredictable nature of its flightpath when tooling about with this thrust vectoring nozzles during bfm. Keeping that in mind, how does the F-35 stack up against the SHAR? It would seem to me (please correct me if otherwise) that its method of vertical flight isn't conductive to changes in high speed flight. Can't argue with some new avionics, though!
The argument in this thread seems to be the British counterpart of our ongoing debate concerning the retirement of our F-111's
Sorry if this has been said in the previous 100 pages, but I was reading a certain book written by 'mr sea harrier' himself, who claims impressive kill ratios within visual range on F-15's and F-5's. Seems like a fair call to me, given the unpredictable nature of its flightpath when tooling about with this thrust vectoring nozzles during bfm. Keeping that in mind, how does the F-35 stack up against the SHAR? It would seem to me (please correct me if otherwise) that its method of vertical flight isn't conductive to changes in high speed flight. Can't argue with some new avionics, though!
The argument in this thread seems to be the British counterpart of our ongoing debate concerning the retirement of our F-111's
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good comments ABTE and OA!
No ridicule please MudRat_2. Sounds like ABTE has much relevant and relatively recent experience. After all, you are the one calling a bloke who hasn't flown a Sea Harrier (other than as a passenger) for 27 years "mr sea harrier himself." If the book you are referring to is the one I think, it is certainly entertaining, but its contents do not justify such an accolade in that you only get one side of a sensationalised story, and that story did not represent the views of anyone other than the author. NB: There were over 170 Sea Harrier pilots, most of whom flew the Sea Harrier much more than the book's author!
Not sure how you get an RAAF F111 comparison with the RN Sea Harrier? The former was bought decades ago, was never used for anything and will pay off 19 years after every other operator deemed it outdated, while the latter was used extensively over a 25 year period, upgraded often and paid off 6 years earlier than planned to make way for new equipment.
No ridicule please MudRat_2. Sounds like ABTE has much relevant and relatively recent experience. After all, you are the one calling a bloke who hasn't flown a Sea Harrier (other than as a passenger) for 27 years "mr sea harrier himself." If the book you are referring to is the one I think, it is certainly entertaining, but its contents do not justify such an accolade in that you only get one side of a sensationalised story, and that story did not represent the views of anyone other than the author. NB: There were over 170 Sea Harrier pilots, most of whom flew the Sea Harrier much more than the book's author!
Not sure how you get an RAAF F111 comparison with the RN Sea Harrier? The former was bought decades ago, was never used for anything and will pay off 19 years after every other operator deemed it outdated, while the latter was used extensively over a 25 year period, upgraded often and paid off 6 years earlier than planned to make way for new equipment.
Last edited by DBTW; 26th Aug 2009 at 07:08.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Sea Harrier was known as the ' Sea Jet ' by the Dunsfold development team, ' SHAR ' by the Navy & Navy News.
I'd agree with all the above comments re. the BVR & ' stealth ' qualities of the Blue Vixen / Amraam / airframe mix, even before the FA2 the late Test Pilot Taylor Scott scored embarassing ' kills ' in exercises against F-14's.
Having been attached to the said development team, FRS1, FRS2/ FA2 & GR5/7, I'm still not at all convinced advanced materials - i.e. carbon fibre - are warlike, and the gun/s are another story !
Taylor was in favour of a larger ( roughly AV-8B size ), Lithium alloy wing which seems sound reasoning to me.
My father, a Harrier chargehand, took delivery of the first GR5 wing, and being of Scottish ancestry was somewhat perturbed by the enclosed invoice for over $7 million, which was very quickly passed on !
Naturally the Lithium wing for the FRS2 - as then - along with a bubble canopy, JTIDS, IRST, wingtip rails & other goodies all got binned once the aircraft had done its' bit in 1982.
I'd agree with all the above comments re. the BVR & ' stealth ' qualities of the Blue Vixen / Amraam / airframe mix, even before the FA2 the late Test Pilot Taylor Scott scored embarassing ' kills ' in exercises against F-14's.
Having been attached to the said development team, FRS1, FRS2/ FA2 & GR5/7, I'm still not at all convinced advanced materials - i.e. carbon fibre - are warlike, and the gun/s are another story !
Taylor was in favour of a larger ( roughly AV-8B size ), Lithium alloy wing which seems sound reasoning to me.
My father, a Harrier chargehand, took delivery of the first GR5 wing, and being of Scottish ancestry was somewhat perturbed by the enclosed invoice for over $7 million, which was very quickly passed on !
Naturally the Lithium wing for the FRS2 - as then - along with a bubble canopy, JTIDS, IRST, wingtip rails & other goodies all got binned once the aircraft had done its' bit in 1982.
Last edited by Double Zero; 26th Aug 2009 at 15:09.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good comments ABTE and OA!
No ridicule please MudRat_2. Sounds like ABTE has much relevant and relatively recent experience. After all, you are the one calling a bloke who hasn't flown a Sea Harrier (other than as a passenger) for 27 years "mr sea harrier himself." If the book you are referring to is the one I think, it is certainly entertaining, but its contents do not justify such an accolade in that you only get one side of a sensationalised story, and that story did not represent the views of anyone other than the author. NB: There were over 170 Sea Harrier pilots, most of whom flew the Sea Harrier much more than the book's author!
Not sure how you get an RAAF F111 comparison with the RN Sea Harrier? The former was bought decades ago, was never used for anything and will pay off 19 years after every other operator deemed it outdated, while the latter was used extensively over a 25 year period, upgraded often and paid off 6 years earlier than planned to make way for new equipment.
No ridicule please MudRat_2. Sounds like ABTE has much relevant and relatively recent experience. After all, you are the one calling a bloke who hasn't flown a Sea Harrier (other than as a passenger) for 27 years "mr sea harrier himself." If the book you are referring to is the one I think, it is certainly entertaining, but its contents do not justify such an accolade in that you only get one side of a sensationalised story, and that story did not represent the views of anyone other than the author. NB: There were over 170 Sea Harrier pilots, most of whom flew the Sea Harrier much more than the book's author!
Not sure how you get an RAAF F111 comparison with the RN Sea Harrier? The former was bought decades ago, was never used for anything and will pay off 19 years after every other operator deemed it outdated, while the latter was used extensively over a 25 year period, upgraded often and paid off 6 years earlier than planned to make way for new equipment.
I would never have ridiculed ABTE (I read his post, and found it quite informative aside from the fact I have no great knowledge of the SHAR, which would make the target such a 'ridicule' rather counter subjective), but was just joking about it. I didn't at all mean to sound obnoxious or offensive in any way in my original post, but rather was just musing about a few points I had found, and wanted to know if anyone perhaps had some experience in the matter?
I don't pretend to be a SHAR expert (we don't see them fly in Aus very often), and certainly didn't intend to imply that after reading a certain book which, as you mentioned is the views of one man, to be the historical companion to the Harrier and its accomplishments. The 'mr sea harrier' title wasn't my term, rather, apparently that was what some said about him back in the day or so this book would suggest. I'd still like to point out that if his claims of within visual range kills on these aircraft are true, it would be still a relevant point whether or not that man hadn't flow harriers for almost 30 years; the F-15, F-5 and SHAR airframes themselfes haven't changed enough (if at all, within the realms of visual range combat) to alter this sort of contrast in the least.
Finally, my mention of the F-111 was not an attempt to draw operational or functional parallels between the two, because as you say, they don't exist. Its worth mentioning though, that the F-111 was used operationally a number of times, though not often by the RAAF. The only comparison I wished to make was the argument of their current effectiveness as older aircraft still serving, in which case the proponents and opposers arguments seemed quite familiar.
No harm done, I hope.
Whether or not conventional fighter Aircraft launched from a 'normal carrier' could have performed even better in the Falklands is debatable.
What is not are the comments of several Sea Harrier Pilots (some of which had flown F4's of Ark Royal) that, occasionaly conditions would simply not have allowed other than VSTOL Aircraft to operate.
What is not are the comments of several Sea Harrier Pilots (some of which had flown F4's of Ark Royal) that, occasionaly conditions would simply not have allowed other than VSTOL Aircraft to operate.
Oh how true!
Whilst we would have LOVED to have the BVR capablilities of the F4 "dine sithe", the SHAR was able to operate with TWICE the deck movement of a conventional aircraft, use half the fuel (with a HUGE supply line) and I personally landed in a 50' cloudbase/400m vis, when the deck was 70' ASL - but that is another story!
Whilst we would have LOVED to have the BVR capablilities of the F4 "dine sithe", the SHAR was able to operate with TWICE the deck movement of a conventional aircraft, use half the fuel (with a HUGE supply line) and I personally landed in a 50' cloudbase/400m vis, when the deck was 70' ASL - but that is another story!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Engines
Oh, and the FA2's radar/missile integration was another triumph of raw Brit talent.
The same engineers in Edinburgh went straight on to design the ECR90 (now CAPTOR) radar. The software for Tranche 1 CAPTOR was all written in Edinburgh.
I should say that the PS/05 in the front of the Gripen has a corresponding number of parts "designed and built in Edinburgh". In the mid-1980s, Ericsson had digital skills, Ferranti had analogue and mechanical skills. Between them, they could build the hardware for a multimode pulse-doppler radar.
Last edited by Gravelbelly; 27th Aug 2009 at 08:13. Reason: Clarity
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mogri,
Well said as always - I suspect ' Mr. Sea Harrier ' was a good aggresive pilot, but could have learned a bit from John Farley & Taylor Scott !
As I live next door to an admiral who gave up flying Sea Vixens to further his R.N. career, I don't imagine that chap ( the admiral ) is the type we need.
Incidentally since when has a real Sea Harrier been able to take passengers, our Aussie chum ?
I filmed the first Euoropean release of Amraam, ( much later falsely claimed by the Gripen ) and was very impressed - a virtually unjammable ' hittile ' rather than missile !
Well said as always - I suspect ' Mr. Sea Harrier ' was a good aggresive pilot, but could have learned a bit from John Farley & Taylor Scott !
As I live next door to an admiral who gave up flying Sea Vixens to further his R.N. career, I don't imagine that chap ( the admiral ) is the type we need.
Incidentally since when has a real Sea Harrier been able to take passengers, our Aussie chum ?
I filmed the first Euoropean release of Amraam, ( much later falsely claimed by the Gripen ) and was very impressed - a virtually unjammable ' hittile ' rather than missile !
Last edited by Double Zero; 27th Aug 2009 at 09:53.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incidentally since when has a real Sea Harrier been able to take passengers, our Aussie chum ?
Navy News - News Desk - News - Harrier pilot follows in father's footsteps
Real Harrier? Well, I don't have the experience to comment but I'll take your word for it
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aussie chum
I didn't mean any offence, rather was referring to the 2-seaters being nothing much like a Sea Harrier, though often mentioned as one !
On a similar subject, I can't be the only one wishing the Invincible was sold for peanuts or given to Australia, rather than rusting away...
Mind, from what I've heard she has a lot of expensive refitting to do, though that would bring her up to modern standard.
Choice of aircraft would be another matter, but the R.N, U.S - Harrier 2+, or possibly even the Indians might be willing to sell - the R.N. still have a few, used for ground training.
There's an FA2 at the museum I'm a volunteer for, although it's a development aircraft I spent a lot of time on, it's in need of skin repairs and an engine now.
Art Nalls might not turn out to be the only BVR Sea Harrier operator after all apart from the Indians ( alright, I know Arts' operational kit - the aircraft, not the pilot !!! - was removed ) if common sense should prevail for a universal change...
On a similar subject, I can't be the only one wishing the Invincible was sold for peanuts or given to Australia, rather than rusting away...
Mind, from what I've heard she has a lot of expensive refitting to do, though that would bring her up to modern standard.
Choice of aircraft would be another matter, but the R.N, U.S - Harrier 2+, or possibly even the Indians might be willing to sell - the R.N. still have a few, used for ground training.
There's an FA2 at the museum I'm a volunteer for, although it's a development aircraft I spent a lot of time on, it's in need of skin repairs and an engine now.
Art Nalls might not turn out to be the only BVR Sea Harrier operator after all apart from the Indians ( alright, I know Arts' operational kit - the aircraft, not the pilot !!! - was removed ) if common sense should prevail for a universal change...