Sea Jet
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Double Zero
I filmed the first European release of AMRAAM, ( much later falsely claimed by the Gripen ) and was very impressed
The first shot after the bug was fixed resulted in a drone (QF-4, or was it a QF-106?) with a hole in it. So did the second. They got worried after that, they'd budgeted for less drones than missiles...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
So how does the F-35B fare in comparison to the SHAR anyway? Seems like its a much more capable and modern aircraft and the natural successor to the current STOVL capability of the Harrier, but last I heard you guys were considering opting for the catapult-launched F-35C instead?
Of course some of the success of the SHAR was because it was considered inferior. Because of this inferiority complex, certain methods were used to overcome those deficiencies. One of those methods (unclassified) was the close co-operation between Pilot and Freddie. It is sad to note that the only person not named in the sqn photograph in Sharky Ward's book was the Freddie, noted just as "Squadron D". The beauty of the deployed RN SHAR force was that it took it's Freddies with it. They knew the voices, the tactics etc. and this was one ace up the sleeve that was not trumpeted as much as it should have been. The combination of the jet, the radar, the pilot, the missiles and also the Freddies and the Baggers, often ensured a victory against sometimes overwhelming odds.
DIRIGEAMUS
DIRIGEAMUS
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed! Poor old 'Squadron D' was dealt a bad hand in that picture.
Interesting points though. The Mirage III airframe was a classic and certainly not a pushover having performed brilliantly in the hands of the Israelis, and the Dagger clearly had the advantage of superior speed and numbers. On the other side of the line, the SHAR had better support and was able to play to its advantages and force the Argentinians into their preferred flight regime. This 'inferiority complex' and particular battlefield condition aside though, how does the Mirage stack up against the Sea Harrier?
Interesting points though. The Mirage III airframe was a classic and certainly not a pushover having performed brilliantly in the hands of the Israelis, and the Dagger clearly had the advantage of superior speed and numbers. On the other side of the line, the SHAR had better support and was able to play to its advantages and force the Argentinians into their preferred flight regime. This 'inferiority complex' and particular battlefield condition aside though, how does the Mirage stack up against the Sea Harrier?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger, "Of course some of the success of the SHAR was because it was considered inferior"
not the only example of an allegedly "inferior" airframe having to get the operators thinking sideways either..........
not the only example of an allegedly "inferior" airframe having to get the operators thinking sideways either..........
Suspicion breeds confidence
I'm sure it hadn't escaped the Argentine's notice that they were fighting the elite of British military aviation, with every post WW2 air to air kill to its credit. A quick look at any history book would dampen their morale. I suspect our sideways walking friends would not have had the same impact. 
Please lets not let this descend into a Light Blue/Bark Blue slagging match again. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since 1982 and we all know the real enemy is Khaki! 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please lets not let this descend into a Light Blue/Bark Blue slagging match again. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since 1982 and we all know the real enemy is Khaki!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First European AMRAAM
Gravelbelly,
In a way we are both right, though I admit you're more right than me !
The first flight release ( an important milestone as I'm sure you know not least in getting the customer to stump up* ) was in UK waters ( can't remember now if Aberporth or W.Freugh, probably the latter ).
The first live firing was indeed at Eglin.
Either way not a Gripen, though with all that's involved in purchasing blocks of fighters, I wonder why any manufacturer bothers with mazine adverisements as if flogging a new car !
* You might, if you could stand it, have enjoyed seeing the first ' pit-drop ' release, ( as the name implies, a drop using the aircraft's proper systems, into a pit with much filming & instrumentation ).
This had reached an absolutely critical date, we HAD to carry out the exercise - at Dunsfold - by midnight for a ' stage payment ' to happen.
There were the usual snags, and the absorbing material for the missile was - literally - someone's old donated mattress, kept well out of shot.
By the time the aircraft & kit were ready we photographers were looking very unhappily at our light meters; in the end we supplemented the not so wonderful studio floodlights with the uprated 100 watt headlights of my car ! ( The results worked, just ).
A while later I was chatting with a Boscombe guy, who commented " did you see the film of the pit drop ? In one view you can see some PXXXK in a TR7 lighting it up ! "
I smiled, " I was that PXXXXK ! "
In a way we are both right, though I admit you're more right than me !
The first flight release ( an important milestone as I'm sure you know not least in getting the customer to stump up* ) was in UK waters ( can't remember now if Aberporth or W.Freugh, probably the latter ).
The first live firing was indeed at Eglin.
Either way not a Gripen, though with all that's involved in purchasing blocks of fighters, I wonder why any manufacturer bothers with mazine adverisements as if flogging a new car !
* You might, if you could stand it, have enjoyed seeing the first ' pit-drop ' release, ( as the name implies, a drop using the aircraft's proper systems, into a pit with much filming & instrumentation ).
This had reached an absolutely critical date, we HAD to carry out the exercise - at Dunsfold - by midnight for a ' stage payment ' to happen.
There were the usual snags, and the absorbing material for the missile was - literally - someone's old donated mattress, kept well out of shot.
By the time the aircraft & kit were ready we photographers were looking very unhappily at our light meters; in the end we supplemented the not so wonderful studio floodlights with the uprated 100 watt headlights of my car ! ( The results worked, just ).
A while later I was chatting with a Boscombe guy, who commented " did you see the film of the pit drop ? In one view you can see some PXXXK in a TR7 lighting it up ! "
I smiled, " I was that PXXXXK ! "
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Currently flying FA2
Art Nalls, with the ex-development FA2 XZ439, is doing very well on the airshow circuit in the U.S, I recommend a look at his website ( easily googled, if any problems I hope it would be OK to PM me ).
There is also an excellent trailer for a forthcoming documentary, on youtube, featuring external and on board photography - I always wanted to use the forward RWR position for a camera !
There is also an excellent trailer for a forthcoming documentary, on youtube, featuring external and on board photography - I always wanted to use the forward RWR position for a camera !
Last edited by Double Zero; 5th Sep 2009 at 00:06.
He could actually sell the documentary on DVD, and other items. I don't think Nalls Aviation has a shop but they could do....
Anyway, It really is amazing how many views this thread has received in the last couple of weeks, and how much interest has been taken. We rarely achieved the same levels of interest and activity whilst the thread was still fully alive and active - that is when the Sea Harrier was still in frontline serve.
Double Zero
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.
What an odd comment! Surely you're not suggesting that a naval aviator should be prevented from doing non flying jobs in the Navy? Does this apply to rotary wing aircrew or just jet jocks? What about non aviators who move beyond their specialist roles as they progress in their careers? How else do you get aviators in senior positions?
If you go to the first Chapter of Find, Fix and Strike: The Fleet Air Arm At War by John Winton he comments that as the RAF had been in charge of shipborne flying until a few years before the war, there were no Senior Officers with an in depth understanding of aviation, and nobody to bat for the FAA at high levels. This is still true, no naval aviators will mean no Admirals with an understanding of aviation, and nobody of their staff to give advice. I don't think everyone understands this.
The Board of Inquiry reports into the ship losses in 1982 can be found on the MOD website. The report into the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor (the second part) comments that the Senior Naval Officer in a Ship Taken Up From Trade (STUFT) that was acting as an aircraft ferry would ideally be an aviator with sea command experience, and if he was not, then he would need an experienced aviator for advice. This of course applies to carriers and other ships designed for flying operations, like a LPH.
I think I am correct in saying at least a couple of ex Sea Jet drivers became Commodores, but I don't know if any achieved Flag rank. A few did to jobs as PWOs, First Lieutenant, etc., and some later commanded ships (I don't know if any commanded a CVS?). Were they wrong to do so? Were they "not the type we need"?
Incidentally since when has a real Sea Harrier been able to take passengers, our Aussie chum ?
It would have done if it had got an EXINT pod attached!
Navaleye, Gainesy at al
Let's not go back to inter service urinating competitions.
Anyway, it is always interesting discussing things like radar. Some would dispute my suggestion that losing the Sea Harrier's Blue Vixen radar was as big an issue as the loss of AMRAAM capability, but I'll stand by it. What other radar does they Navy have that can travel at several hundred knots and several tens of thousands of feet above sea level. Also in air to air engagements an aircraft like the Harrier GR9 which has no radar will often have problems. In On Yankee Station, Nichols (ex USN F8 Crusader driver with a MiG kill) and Tillman comment that in air warfare, seeing your enemy first is half the battle. I believe that is why fighters got radar. The disadvantage is lessened by things like Link 16, of course. Did or will the GR9 get that?
The RWR may detect hostile radar, but what if a pair of incoming aircraft is approaching a task group in radar silence, following a bearing given by a surveillance aircraft that couldn't be intercepted or engaged by shipborne weapons, flying very low over the sea, armed with anti ship missiles? The Argentines took measures to keep their Super Etendards away from the Sea Harrier in 1982, would a radarless aircraft have had the same effect? When the SKW was developed hastily post 1982 it was reckoned to be able to direct Sea Harriers on incoming low flyers (see the link to the documentary In The Wake Of HMS Sheffield several pages back). But could this sort of interception be achieved with a fighter without radar?
Which brings us to the radar designed with the lessons of 1982 in mind: Blue Vixen. It was assumed that aircraft directed by shipborne fighters controllers or by the Sea King AEW/ASaCs still needed a good radar. A bit like it being all very well to know which darkened building the intruder is in, or which room even, but can you find him fast without a torch?
CAPTOR, the Typhoon radar, supposedly has much in common with Blue Vixen, although I understand this is more in concept than in terms of compatible components. When the Sea Harrier was binned from (front line) service, I assume MOD disposed of the spares. In some previous posts I have commented on the possibility of regenerating the Sea Harriers stored or sent to the dummy deck at Culdrose (assuming ample intelligence warnings and politicians willing to act on them), and the ability of industry to supply parts on a build to print basis. With radar, or any other avionics, things are more complex. The mechanical parts and control system for steering the antenna can probably be build from the drawings/CAD files, and to some extent the microwave components can as well, although as ever integration, testing and calibration are hot topics. Chelton could probably knock out some more radomes if needed. But the elephant in the room may well be the signal processing and computing side. Computers have obviously advanced quite a lot in the last decade, and Blue Vixen, like much defence hardware, uses microprocessors and other computing ICs that are now no longer produced. As an aside, I bet some private firms (like this one) have bought Sea Harrier spares (not sure why they would want to though). On the subject of obsolete components, I also remember reading a newspaper article about NASA Engineers looking on e-bay for some spares for the Space Shuttle.
Obsolescence management and technology insertion are hot topics in supporting defence equipment at the moment, and I know of one company that recently upgraded an RN shipboard system by using COTS technology and reduced the number of cards contained by the cabinet from 18 to just six. Old processors and associated devices may be replaced in many cases by using FPGAs as well as more modern processors, which is how this company achieved this.
I am not suggesting that Blue Vixen could be restored to fully functionality with AMRAAM compatibility in a hurry, what I am saying is that if an impending crisis meant that regenerating Sea Harrier became desirable and feasible (it really is amazing what does become possible in a crisis) then obsolescence management and technology insertion could achieve at least a basic level of capability in air to air modes.
In any case I think I'm correct in saying that much of the processing power is for looking down, and having the ability to deal with spurious reflections from either the sea or land, which makes me wonder how much difference would better signal processing have made in the Falklands - and not just regarding the Sea Harrier but also ships' radars, ESM and so on?
If nothing else the Culdrose Sea Harriers were at least presentable enough for a static display role at this year's air show, as the pictures here prove.
Anyway, It really is amazing how many views this thread has received in the last couple of weeks, and how much interest has been taken. We rarely achieved the same levels of interest and activity whilst the thread was still fully alive and active - that is when the Sea Harrier was still in frontline serve.
Double Zero
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.
What an odd comment! Surely you're not suggesting that a naval aviator should be prevented from doing non flying jobs in the Navy? Does this apply to rotary wing aircrew or just jet jocks? What about non aviators who move beyond their specialist roles as they progress in their careers? How else do you get aviators in senior positions?
If you go to the first Chapter of Find, Fix and Strike: The Fleet Air Arm At War by John Winton he comments that as the RAF had been in charge of shipborne flying until a few years before the war, there were no Senior Officers with an in depth understanding of aviation, and nobody to bat for the FAA at high levels. This is still true, no naval aviators will mean no Admirals with an understanding of aviation, and nobody of their staff to give advice. I don't think everyone understands this.
The Board of Inquiry reports into the ship losses in 1982 can be found on the MOD website. The report into the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor (the second part) comments that the Senior Naval Officer in a Ship Taken Up From Trade (STUFT) that was acting as an aircraft ferry would ideally be an aviator with sea command experience, and if he was not, then he would need an experienced aviator for advice. This of course applies to carriers and other ships designed for flying operations, like a LPH.
I think I am correct in saying at least a couple of ex Sea Jet drivers became Commodores, but I don't know if any achieved Flag rank. A few did to jobs as PWOs, First Lieutenant, etc., and some later commanded ships (I don't know if any commanded a CVS?). Were they wrong to do so? Were they "not the type we need"?
Incidentally since when has a real Sea Harrier been able to take passengers, our Aussie chum ?
It would have done if it had got an EXINT pod attached!
Navaleye, Gainesy at al
Let's not go back to inter service urinating competitions.
Anyway, it is always interesting discussing things like radar. Some would dispute my suggestion that losing the Sea Harrier's Blue Vixen radar was as big an issue as the loss of AMRAAM capability, but I'll stand by it. What other radar does they Navy have that can travel at several hundred knots and several tens of thousands of feet above sea level. Also in air to air engagements an aircraft like the Harrier GR9 which has no radar will often have problems. In On Yankee Station, Nichols (ex USN F8 Crusader driver with a MiG kill) and Tillman comment that in air warfare, seeing your enemy first is half the battle. I believe that is why fighters got radar. The disadvantage is lessened by things like Link 16, of course. Did or will the GR9 get that?
The RWR may detect hostile radar, but what if a pair of incoming aircraft is approaching a task group in radar silence, following a bearing given by a surveillance aircraft that couldn't be intercepted or engaged by shipborne weapons, flying very low over the sea, armed with anti ship missiles? The Argentines took measures to keep their Super Etendards away from the Sea Harrier in 1982, would a radarless aircraft have had the same effect? When the SKW was developed hastily post 1982 it was reckoned to be able to direct Sea Harriers on incoming low flyers (see the link to the documentary In The Wake Of HMS Sheffield several pages back). But could this sort of interception be achieved with a fighter without radar?
Which brings us to the radar designed with the lessons of 1982 in mind: Blue Vixen. It was assumed that aircraft directed by shipborne fighters controllers or by the Sea King AEW/ASaCs still needed a good radar. A bit like it being all very well to know which darkened building the intruder is in, or which room even, but can you find him fast without a torch?
CAPTOR, the Typhoon radar, supposedly has much in common with Blue Vixen, although I understand this is more in concept than in terms of compatible components. When the Sea Harrier was binned from (front line) service, I assume MOD disposed of the spares. In some previous posts I have commented on the possibility of regenerating the Sea Harriers stored or sent to the dummy deck at Culdrose (assuming ample intelligence warnings and politicians willing to act on them), and the ability of industry to supply parts on a build to print basis. With radar, or any other avionics, things are more complex. The mechanical parts and control system for steering the antenna can probably be build from the drawings/CAD files, and to some extent the microwave components can as well, although as ever integration, testing and calibration are hot topics. Chelton could probably knock out some more radomes if needed. But the elephant in the room may well be the signal processing and computing side. Computers have obviously advanced quite a lot in the last decade, and Blue Vixen, like much defence hardware, uses microprocessors and other computing ICs that are now no longer produced. As an aside, I bet some private firms (like this one) have bought Sea Harrier spares (not sure why they would want to though). On the subject of obsolete components, I also remember reading a newspaper article about NASA Engineers looking on e-bay for some spares for the Space Shuttle.
Obsolescence management and technology insertion are hot topics in supporting defence equipment at the moment, and I know of one company that recently upgraded an RN shipboard system by using COTS technology and reduced the number of cards contained by the cabinet from 18 to just six. Old processors and associated devices may be replaced in many cases by using FPGAs as well as more modern processors, which is how this company achieved this.
I am not suggesting that Blue Vixen could be restored to fully functionality with AMRAAM compatibility in a hurry, what I am saying is that if an impending crisis meant that regenerating Sea Harrier became desirable and feasible (it really is amazing what does become possible in a crisis) then obsolescence management and technology insertion could achieve at least a basic level of capability in air to air modes.
In any case I think I'm correct in saying that much of the processing power is for looking down, and having the ability to deal with spurious reflections from either the sea or land, which makes me wonder how much difference would better signal processing have made in the Falklands - and not just regarding the Sea Harrier but also ships' radars, ESM and so on?
If nothing else the Culdrose Sea Harriers were at least presentable enough for a static display role at this year's air show, as the pictures here prove.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 1st Dec 2009 at 17:24.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W E Branch,
I take your point, and should have made myself more clear in that the Admiral I was referring to made it quite plain ( pardon the semi-pun ) that he couldn't get out of Sea Vixens & flying, and on with his career, fast enough and when I mentioned - for about 5 seconds - the subject of Naval Aviation, he seemed almost revolted !
I don't think I was being my usual crass self, he just really didn't like aeroplanes...( what use is a Sea Harrier, it couldn't act as a guard during a cocktail party as the noise would be terrible ).
As the review you mention hints, and I think I'm right in saying, the U.S.Navy have it the other way round, at least for aircraft carriers, in that the ship driver must have first been a naval aviator; now that does make sense.
I'm not totally sure a special aviation advisor would have helped Atlantic Conveyor, as she had plenty of pilots and very good groundcrew to chat with Captain North & his crew on the way down, and I'd expect would have dealt as well as possible if the guard Sea Jet had had to be launched.
As it is, the only hiccup I have read about is one Harrier having a spot of finger trouble while cross-decking, but that was nothing to do with the operation of the ship.
Granted, by all accounts Captain North sounds a very good guy and I get the impression he would have listened to all the on-board pilots could tell him; if in a similar ship faced with a ' my ship, my way ' Captain, then I suppose an officially placed Naval Advisor might become necessary.
Re. resurrecting the FA2 in a crisis, this no doubt sounds laughable to ' experts ' right now...let them read ' Vulcan 607 ' !
I work at a museum which has an FA2, and I know from personal experience with that, and from mailing Art Nalls' Chief Engineer Rich, that Harrier spares have long since disappeared from E-Bay etc ( they were, briefly, plentiful ).
There is also the fact that BAe did the ' T4I ' project for the Indian Navy a few years ago, updating / maintaining their two-seaters; with full knowledge of the Indians, every possible source was used, including gate guardians and even G-VTOL in Brooklands Museum ! ( It doesn't show ).
Art has found himself bidding for servicable kit against someone rather keen to have it - it can only have been the Indians - and proceeded to outbid them !
BTW, I see that the Nalls Aviation site is currently showing report 26; that's fine, but we on the mailing list have seen no. 27, which is very impressive & heartening - amusing too ( when having his credit card queried, " you wanna refuel a WHAT ?! "). So it's worth keeping an eye on his site, or better, joining the list.
That above BTW is with no disrespect to the Indian Navy Harrier operators, I met the team at Dunsfold, they were great people, and very professional ( though chums who've been to Goa were less impressed with ground support practices ).
We both agree that the Type 45 will be a remarkable ship to do well over 400 knots over a wide area, carrying 100M range weapons...( and all - gosh - SIX ! Servicable at any one time).
I take your point, and should have made myself more clear in that the Admiral I was referring to made it quite plain ( pardon the semi-pun ) that he couldn't get out of Sea Vixens & flying, and on with his career, fast enough and when I mentioned - for about 5 seconds - the subject of Naval Aviation, he seemed almost revolted !
I don't think I was being my usual crass self, he just really didn't like aeroplanes...( what use is a Sea Harrier, it couldn't act as a guard during a cocktail party as the noise would be terrible ).
As the review you mention hints, and I think I'm right in saying, the U.S.Navy have it the other way round, at least for aircraft carriers, in that the ship driver must have first been a naval aviator; now that does make sense.
I'm not totally sure a special aviation advisor would have helped Atlantic Conveyor, as she had plenty of pilots and very good groundcrew to chat with Captain North & his crew on the way down, and I'd expect would have dealt as well as possible if the guard Sea Jet had had to be launched.
As it is, the only hiccup I have read about is one Harrier having a spot of finger trouble while cross-decking, but that was nothing to do with the operation of the ship.
Granted, by all accounts Captain North sounds a very good guy and I get the impression he would have listened to all the on-board pilots could tell him; if in a similar ship faced with a ' my ship, my way ' Captain, then I suppose an officially placed Naval Advisor might become necessary.
Re. resurrecting the FA2 in a crisis, this no doubt sounds laughable to ' experts ' right now...let them read ' Vulcan 607 ' !
I work at a museum which has an FA2, and I know from personal experience with that, and from mailing Art Nalls' Chief Engineer Rich, that Harrier spares have long since disappeared from E-Bay etc ( they were, briefly, plentiful ).
There is also the fact that BAe did the ' T4I ' project for the Indian Navy a few years ago, updating / maintaining their two-seaters; with full knowledge of the Indians, every possible source was used, including gate guardians and even G-VTOL in Brooklands Museum ! ( It doesn't show ).
Art has found himself bidding for servicable kit against someone rather keen to have it - it can only have been the Indians - and proceeded to outbid them !
BTW, I see that the Nalls Aviation site is currently showing report 26; that's fine, but we on the mailing list have seen no. 27, which is very impressive & heartening - amusing too ( when having his credit card queried, " you wanna refuel a WHAT ?! "). So it's worth keeping an eye on his site, or better, joining the list.
That above BTW is with no disrespect to the Indian Navy Harrier operators, I met the team at Dunsfold, they were great people, and very professional ( though chums who've been to Goa were less impressed with ground support practices ).
We both agree that the Type 45 will be a remarkable ship to do well over 400 knots over a wide area, carrying 100M range weapons...( and all - gosh - SIX ! Servicable at any one time).
Last edited by Double Zero; 5th Sep 2009 at 17:35.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XZ439 Videos
I take it Capt. Layard was in an advisory role as prescibed, rather than flying, don't recall any Captains flying Harriers ?
As for the Art Nalls FA2 videos, which will gladden the heart of any Naval Aviation fan, try;
Youtube, ' Sea Harrier at Langley 2009 ' ( Art Nalls )
and also on youtube,
' Aerotv profiles A Show Stopper Art Nalls '
these are both good, but not as snappy as the trailer the team sent to all on the mailing list, which also showed the onboard camera footage; I can't find it even when slowly dialling in the address, but if anyone is interested, PM me with an e-mail address & I'll forward it to youalong with the latest most interesting report.
As for the Art Nalls FA2 videos, which will gladden the heart of any Naval Aviation fan, try;
Youtube, ' Sea Harrier at Langley 2009 ' ( Art Nalls )
and also on youtube,
' Aerotv profiles A Show Stopper Art Nalls '
these are both good, but not as snappy as the trailer the team sent to all on the mailing list, which also showed the onboard camera footage; I can't find it even when slowly dialling in the address, but if anyone is interested, PM me with an e-mail address & I'll forward it to youalong with the latest most interesting report.
Last edited by Double Zero; 7th Sep 2009 at 14:35.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know if any achieved Flag rank
Scott Lidbetter was also CO of a 2 FFs (a Type 22 B3 & a Leander) and HMS Ocean. Hugh Slade also Commanded a Leander. Not sure of any other SHAR Pilots that went on to Sea Command.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Challenging the STOVL Myth
A lot of well cogitated thought in this article. 
Challenging the STOVL Myth
by Dr. Ezio Bonsignore, Editor-in-Chief of Military Technology (MILTECH)
Challenging the STOVL Myth
by Dr. Ezio Bonsignore, Editor-in-Chief of Military Technology (MILTECH)
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
ORAC
An interesting academic article although it could benefit from a little précising and less repetition in places.
The trouble with such academic articles is that they tend to ignore the day to day practical aspects of their topics - often (even usually) because of a lack of first hand experience and sometimes because of the writer’s agenda.
I wrote regarding the piloting advantages of landing from a hover (not necessarily vertically) a quarter of a century ago. Having just read it again I would not change much today. Mind you only those with first hand experience had any time for what I wrote then and I don’t imagine much has happened to change that in the last 25 years.
It runs to 3000 words so not (I suspect) suitable for a PM. However if you care to PM me with an email address I will send it to you.
An interesting academic article although it could benefit from a little précising and less repetition in places.
The trouble with such academic articles is that they tend to ignore the day to day practical aspects of their topics - often (even usually) because of a lack of first hand experience and sometimes because of the writer’s agenda.
I wrote regarding the piloting advantages of landing from a hover (not necessarily vertically) a quarter of a century ago. Having just read it again I would not change much today. Mind you only those with first hand experience had any time for what I wrote then and I don’t imagine much has happened to change that in the last 25 years.
It runs to 3000 words so not (I suspect) suitable for a PM. However if you care to PM me with an email address I will send it to you.