Sea Jet
Suspicion breeds confidence
That's a great shame. Another great icon of British aviation history bites the dust in 5 months. Maybe John Farley would like one in his back garden 
Suspicion breeds confidence
More encouraging noises about CVF here.
Main gate is now scheduled for the end of Q1 next year. What else happens at the end of Q1 next year? The Shar gets binned. The sceptic in me suggests that the CVF main gate story will be used to hide the final demise of the Shar from the public at large.
Main gate is now scheduled for the end of Q1 next year. What else happens at the end of Q1 next year? The Shar gets binned. The sceptic in me suggests that the CVF main gate story will be used to hide the final demise of the Shar from the public at large.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sarf
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A homage
There I am listening to all this negativity and I thought it was about time something was on here to show of the positive side of the military.
It has been a while since this was at the top. So I thought I would give the "Sea Jet" a good sending off by posting my personal homage, to the high calibre of dedicated people we have in our Armed Services, particularly :
A fine ship now decommisioned.
A fine Ship's Company and TAG that I served with.
A fine aircraft, that is STILL one of the best BVR fighters in the world. (SHAR)
An old lady, flying some 21st century kit. (SK Mk7).
The mighty junglies and the booties.
A fine squadron at risk of civilianisation (Ace of Spades)
and a glimpse of today (Merlin)
This one is about 25Mb. Will take some minutes to download.
This one is smaller at only a paltry 19mb
Both these files run in Quicktime. Don't know about Windows Movie Player.
Edited due to atrocious case of dyslexic spillong!
It has been a while since this was at the top. So I thought I would give the "Sea Jet" a good sending off by posting my personal homage, to the high calibre of dedicated people we have in our Armed Services, particularly :
A fine ship now decommisioned.
A fine Ship's Company and TAG that I served with.
A fine aircraft, that is STILL one of the best BVR fighters in the world. (SHAR)
An old lady, flying some 21st century kit. (SK Mk7).
The mighty junglies and the booties.
A fine squadron at risk of civilianisation (Ace of Spades)
and a glimpse of today (Merlin)
This one is about 25Mb. Will take some minutes to download.
This one is smaller at only a paltry 19mb
Both these files run in Quicktime. Don't know about Windows Movie Player.
Edited due to atrocious case of dyslexic spillong!
Just been away for a couple of weeks. Whilst away I read (properly - at last) No Escape Zone by (Lt Cdr) Nick Richardson. He describes not only his shootdown and subsequent escape, but also other aspects of the 1994 deployment to the Adriatic of 801 NAS. Bearing in mind the book was written in 2000, when the future for the Sea Harrier and Fleet Air Defence looked good, and he had no real political axe to grind, I couldn't help noticing the following:
1. Mention of the swing role, fighter, recce and attack. Both flavours of Sea Harrier were given swing role missions by the NATO CAOC, which they were able to perform.
2. Mention of using radar to find the carrier in poor conditions - how will a radarless GR7/9 pilot get on?
3. Mention of the concerns that the FRS1 (limited radar, no BVR missiles) might meet and be outfought by the MiG 29. Surely a GR7/9 would be in an even worse position?
4. He talks about the FA2 upgrade, both in the context of the limitations of the FRS1 and towards the end of the book. With the FA2, the Royal Navy can at last compete with the best of the best, including the latest versions of the MiG 29. Then along came some politicians.......
5. He also mentions that the Russians are openly marketing anti ship missiles with speeds up to Mach 4. Many of these, of course, are air launched.
Elsewhere, 801 have been busy again, exercising in Poland against Mig 29s.
The combination of the Sea Harrier Blue Vixen radar and AMRAAM missiles were dominant over the Polish equivalents, though the MiG-29 did excel when engaged in visual ‘dogfights’. .
Nick Richardson mentions in his book that the Harrier is not a natural dogfighter, so surely a BVR capability makes so much sense?
1. Mention of the swing role, fighter, recce and attack. Both flavours of Sea Harrier were given swing role missions by the NATO CAOC, which they were able to perform.
2. Mention of using radar to find the carrier in poor conditions - how will a radarless GR7/9 pilot get on?
3. Mention of the concerns that the FRS1 (limited radar, no BVR missiles) might meet and be outfought by the MiG 29. Surely a GR7/9 would be in an even worse position?
4. He talks about the FA2 upgrade, both in the context of the limitations of the FRS1 and towards the end of the book. With the FA2, the Royal Navy can at last compete with the best of the best, including the latest versions of the MiG 29. Then along came some politicians.......
5. He also mentions that the Russians are openly marketing anti ship missiles with speeds up to Mach 4. Many of these, of course, are air launched.
Elsewhere, 801 have been busy again, exercising in Poland against Mig 29s.
The combination of the Sea Harrier Blue Vixen radar and AMRAAM missiles were dominant over the Polish equivalents, though the MiG-29 did excel when engaged in visual ‘dogfights’. .
Nick Richardson mentions in his book that the Harrier is not a natural dogfighter, so surely a BVR capability makes so much sense?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Welcome back Webf! You have to ask the question that if 801 is disbanding in 5 months why bother with this excercise? Answer: Because its important and without the Shar the fleet is wide open to attack to even the the most primative air force. Still no time to be mournful I'm off for dinner with a 22yr old Indian model 
Last edited by Navaleye; 10th Oct 2005 at 17:00.
Navaleye,
"I'm off for dinner with a 22yr old Indian model "
Cheapskate! Why not buy a new one? Airfix do a full range...........
"I'm off for dinner with a 22yr old Indian model "
Cheapskate! Why not buy a new one? Airfix do a full range...........
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF at it again
WEBF,
Lets just re-iterate just one more time:
1. The SHAR (shiny grey fanny magnet) is a fighter.
2. It is very expensive to maintain.
3. The RN - to avoid Labour nicking the possibility of ever having a FJ capability - foolishly got into bed with the RAF with JFH.
4. The RAF wouldn't or couldn't afford both GR7/9 and FA2.
5. The GR7 is a good bomber (bar those pesky bombing competions which the Sea Jet wins) but has no radar because the crabs were silly and didn't buy the Ghia X model with leather and aircon.
6. Dropping Paveway on blokes who live in the sand is very popular with Mr B Liar.
7. Shooting down Mig 29/Su27 BVR is great fun to practise but even the Septics will baulk at BVR engagements unless they have water-tight RoE.
8. Fortunately, all the blokes who own MiG 29/Su27 are our friends - or haven't you heard - so no need to shoot them down.
9. The GR7/9, sadly, has no radar and, again sadly, will never get the laser death ray weapon (ASRAAM) and would still not be able to do BVR because it has no radar (see point 5).
10. We were done.
Ten good reasons why AGAIN you should think twice about posting on threads about the SHAR. Oh, and Nick Richardson was a miserable sod. And did you know that everything in Andy McGrabs book is true - yes all of it!
Sorry but I have had a **** day so you can have some too.
Lets just re-iterate just one more time:
1. The SHAR (shiny grey fanny magnet) is a fighter.
2. It is very expensive to maintain.
3. The RN - to avoid Labour nicking the possibility of ever having a FJ capability - foolishly got into bed with the RAF with JFH.
4. The RAF wouldn't or couldn't afford both GR7/9 and FA2.
5. The GR7 is a good bomber (bar those pesky bombing competions which the Sea Jet wins) but has no radar because the crabs were silly and didn't buy the Ghia X model with leather and aircon.
6. Dropping Paveway on blokes who live in the sand is very popular with Mr B Liar.
7. Shooting down Mig 29/Su27 BVR is great fun to practise but even the Septics will baulk at BVR engagements unless they have water-tight RoE.
8. Fortunately, all the blokes who own MiG 29/Su27 are our friends - or haven't you heard - so no need to shoot them down.
9. The GR7/9, sadly, has no radar and, again sadly, will never get the laser death ray weapon (ASRAAM) and would still not be able to do BVR because it has no radar (see point 5).
10. We were done.
Ten good reasons why AGAIN you should think twice about posting on threads about the SHAR. Oh, and Nick Richardson was a miserable sod. And did you know that everything in Andy McGrabs book is true - yes all of it!
Sorry but I have had a **** day so you can have some too.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Pr00ne
I'll have you know that dinner in Cafe Rouge cost me £60, however this stunning little thing walked in wearing a skirt so short it hardly qualified as one and the place went quiet. I'd have gladly added an extra zero for that!
I'll have you know that dinner in Cafe Rouge cost me £60, however this stunning little thing walked in wearing a skirt so short it hardly qualified as one and the place went quiet. I'd have gladly added an extra zero for that!
849A having also been doing air defence type stuff lately, according to this link.
Heard some jets flying over North Devon early this afternoon, they may have been Sea Harriers.
Heard some jets flying over North Devon early this afternoon, they may have been Sea Harriers.
In the Daily Express today there is a story of the Government being criticised by the Conservatives for promising to commit to both NATO and the EU military force ships that we no longer have. It mentions the three carriers, but also SSN numbers (allegedly Adam Ingram has promised NATO/EU leaders twelve (we have eleven right now, the number post Hoon's cuts will be eight) and frigate/destroyer numbers (we will soon be down to 25, yet Adam Ingram promised 29 to NATO/EU forces).
What other things has the Government promised that we no longer have? They have promised three carriers "in principle" with one always ready. What about air defence? We know that the decision to retire the Sea Harrier years before the F35/JSF is ready was not discussed with the US or other allies, and reportedly alarmed senior US Navy Officers. Since Mr Blair's ego writes big cheques that others have to try to cash, how do we know that he won't agree to put a UK task group in harm's way - and neglect to mention that we cannot provide it with proper air defence, thanks to his Government?
What other things has the Government promised that we no longer have? They have promised three carriers "in principle" with one always ready. What about air defence? We know that the decision to retire the Sea Harrier years before the F35/JSF is ready was not discussed with the US or other allies, and reportedly alarmed senior US Navy Officers. Since Mr Blair's ego writes big cheques that others have to try to cash, how do we know that he won't agree to put a UK task group in harm's way - and neglect to mention that we cannot provide it with proper air defence, thanks to his Government?
This Friday will be the 200th Anniversary of Nelson's victory at Trafalgar. Will 801 be doing a fly past anywhere?
Saving 801 with their Sea Jets and getting CVF to main gate would be, in my opinion, a very good way to mark the anniversary, and of preserving the legacy of Nelson and those who served under him.
Sadly this Government cares little for our history, and little more for our future.
Saving 801 with their Sea Jets and getting CVF to main gate would be, in my opinion, a very good way to mark the anniversary, and of preserving the legacy of Nelson and those who served under him.
Sadly this Government cares little for our history, and little more for our future.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok..... a bite
WEBF,
I've watched this thread for what seems like an age and I've not jumped in. But finally, my willpower (or lack of won't power) has failed.
For heaven's sake, give it up!
Now that I have your attention, the question that has been posed to you time and again by those far closer to the pointy end than me - and may I suggest, either of us - is what would you scrap instead?
Rather than bemoaning the sadness of the impending retirement and castigating the Govt for lack of feeling about the history of Nelson's Navy (and yes, were they avaliable, some SHars would doubtless have been very useful in 1805), come up with some sensible trade offs.
For example, would you:
Trade the TA infantry regiments for SHar? How many could you fund? What would the impact be on the Army?
Trade the RAF Regiment for SHar? How many would that fund?
Close and sell off some more land establishments - maybe Yeovilton, Culdrose or Wittering, and turn them into housing developments or whatever - to fund the rework to put Pegasus 107 into Shar and fly on to CVF in 2015(ish)?
And when you've done this and found the money, where and when are you going to use the capability? Are you going to send CVS out in pairs (or with Ocean or even Argus) so that you can have GR7s and SHars?
Or would you run for parliament on increased taxation for defence, and in particular a penny on income tax for the FAA - should raise £2-3bn a year - at which point you could have some real fun!
So I agree that SHar's retirement is sad. It is sad. It's not the decision I'd have made. IMHO worse decisions are being made (notably PR9's retirement). But until you can draft a credible plan (and no, not just "finally wring those savings out of DLO, DERA and Abbey Wood", real, credible plans) that will fund SHar's uprades to have a useful mutli-role fit (incl self-designation of PGMs, for ROE) and sustain it until 2015, there's not a lot more to say - other than helping Navaleye get one of the late build ones into the historic flight.
Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh, but evidence and assessment will go much further than "Tony and Gordon are taking away SHar and it's not fair and they're all stupid."
S41
I've watched this thread for what seems like an age and I've not jumped in. But finally, my willpower (or lack of won't power) has failed.
For heaven's sake, give it up!
Now that I have your attention, the question that has been posed to you time and again by those far closer to the pointy end than me - and may I suggest, either of us - is what would you scrap instead?
Rather than bemoaning the sadness of the impending retirement and castigating the Govt for lack of feeling about the history of Nelson's Navy (and yes, were they avaliable, some SHars would doubtless have been very useful in 1805), come up with some sensible trade offs.
For example, would you:
Trade the TA infantry regiments for SHar? How many could you fund? What would the impact be on the Army?
Trade the RAF Regiment for SHar? How many would that fund?
Close and sell off some more land establishments - maybe Yeovilton, Culdrose or Wittering, and turn them into housing developments or whatever - to fund the rework to put Pegasus 107 into Shar and fly on to CVF in 2015(ish)?
And when you've done this and found the money, where and when are you going to use the capability? Are you going to send CVS out in pairs (or with Ocean or even Argus) so that you can have GR7s and SHars?
Or would you run for parliament on increased taxation for defence, and in particular a penny on income tax for the FAA - should raise £2-3bn a year - at which point you could have some real fun!
So I agree that SHar's retirement is sad. It is sad. It's not the decision I'd have made. IMHO worse decisions are being made (notably PR9's retirement). But until you can draft a credible plan (and no, not just "finally wring those savings out of DLO, DERA and Abbey Wood", real, credible plans) that will fund SHar's uprades to have a useful mutli-role fit (incl self-designation of PGMs, for ROE) and sustain it until 2015, there's not a lot more to say - other than helping Navaleye get one of the late build ones into the historic flight.
Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh, but evidence and assessment will go much further than "Tony and Gordon are taking away SHar and it's not fair and they're all stupid."
S41
Great News
Great News,
I see that the MoD have solved the SHAR issue. I was just watching Blue Peter and I saw an FA2 rolling along the deck. It got half way and then; and I don't know how the boffins at Abbey Wood have managed this; quite brilliantly, it suddenly sprouts a big wing and a more powerful engine. Looked just like a GR7A going up the ramp. I am so very impressed and chuffed to bits that we have saved the puff jet.
Oh.........oh sorry........have i ressurected this thread.....oh dear.......WEBF will be so happy!
I see that the MoD have solved the SHAR issue. I was just watching Blue Peter and I saw an FA2 rolling along the deck. It got half way and then; and I don't know how the boffins at Abbey Wood have managed this; quite brilliantly, it suddenly sprouts a big wing and a more powerful engine. Looked just like a GR7A going up the ramp. I am so very impressed and chuffed to bits that we have saved the puff jet.
Oh.........oh sorry........have i ressurected this thread.....oh dear.......WEBF will be so happy!
200 years today since Nelson's great victory. Victory at Trafalgar removed the threat of invasion, not only that but it set the place of the Royal Navy as Europe's most capable fleet. Some would say the RN no longer is, as it will soon lose organic air defence, unlike the Navies of France, Spain and Italy.
If Nelson were alive today I am sure he would be a keen advocate of naval aviation. Amongst his well known sayings was "Engage the enemy more closely", which was part of the RN's doctrine for over 100 years. Before you say that engaging the enemy closely is old fashioned and goes against the trend of long range weapons, data networks and the like, you might like to consider that future operations will most likely be in the littoral, where threat levels, including air threats, are higher. Thus the Sea Harrier might be a lifesaver.
S41 - Cannot answer your questions as I cannot predict the future. But if operating as a Joint Force, why can't the GR7/9 designate for the SHAR?
If Nelson were alive today I am sure he would be a keen advocate of naval aviation. Amongst his well known sayings was "Engage the enemy more closely", which was part of the RN's doctrine for over 100 years. Before you say that engaging the enemy closely is old fashioned and goes against the trend of long range weapons, data networks and the like, you might like to consider that future operations will most likely be in the littoral, where threat levels, including air threats, are higher. Thus the Sea Harrier might be a lifesaver.
S41 - Cannot answer your questions as I cannot predict the future. But if operating as a Joint Force, why can't the GR7/9 designate for the SHAR?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S41
I know, it happened to me as well. After a while, WEBF is so single track that it's just impossible to resist trying to see if there is any possibility that he can be swayed by cold logic. Or fact. Or reality. Or up-to-date operator input. Alas, I think not. Groundhog day for WEBF.
There is a delicious irony in suggesting that Nelson would be a keen advocate of Naval aviation; I have no doubt he would. But Nelson also had other attributes that some don't share. He was progressive; he didn't live in the past; he didn't whine about things he didn't have or was about to lose.
He took those around him into close quarters and told them to go out with what they had and win a great battle. I think he'd be quite bored of listening to stuck records, hopefully they weren't around then. (Or if they were, they didn't play any part in distracting him from the task at hand.)
WEBF
But back into the weeds with the GR7/FA2 laser spiking debate. The FA2 can't go very far with LGBs on board and would be mismatched to a GR7 spiker in flight profile. It doesn't have a way of knowing if the laser energy is being received, which is important (but not essential). Self designation is the preferred option for current/modern/today's weapon delivery profiles. An FA2 with LGB on board couldn't land on a ship if the weapons weren't dropped.
But you already knew that.
Anyway, I'm off to help be a positive part of the next few decades of fixed wing naval aviation; utilising the airframe I have at my disposal.
And just in case there's any doubt about what date it is. T200 + 1805 = 2005
I know, it happened to me as well. After a while, WEBF is so single track that it's just impossible to resist trying to see if there is any possibility that he can be swayed by cold logic. Or fact. Or reality. Or up-to-date operator input. Alas, I think not. Groundhog day for WEBF.
There is a delicious irony in suggesting that Nelson would be a keen advocate of Naval aviation; I have no doubt he would. But Nelson also had other attributes that some don't share. He was progressive; he didn't live in the past; he didn't whine about things he didn't have or was about to lose.
He took those around him into close quarters and told them to go out with what they had and win a great battle. I think he'd be quite bored of listening to stuck records, hopefully they weren't around then. (Or if they were, they didn't play any part in distracting him from the task at hand.)
WEBF
But back into the weeds with the GR7/FA2 laser spiking debate. The FA2 can't go very far with LGBs on board and would be mismatched to a GR7 spiker in flight profile. It doesn't have a way of knowing if the laser energy is being received, which is important (but not essential). Self designation is the preferred option for current/modern/today's weapon delivery profiles. An FA2 with LGB on board couldn't land on a ship if the weapons weren't dropped.
But you already knew that.
Anyway, I'm off to help be a positive part of the next few decades of fixed wing naval aviation; utilising the airframe I have at my disposal.
And just in case there's any doubt about what date it is. T200 + 1805 = 2005
S41/FB11
You guys have been asking leading questions!
As I say, I cannot fully answer your questions. But does the Sea Jet really need the new engine, as it has operated over Iraq before? See the archives of Navy News. And would it really break the bank to keep 801 going?
Other naval aviators have contributed to thread, and to others. Nozzles, for instance. They have had a major influence on my thinking - and PPRuNing.
I write from the perspective of someone who has a war role is likely to involve serving aboard RFAs, the new "rapid reaction" Ro-Ros or Chartered merchant ships, as part of a naval party made up of Reservists. None of these ships have SAM systems. Apart from a few RFAs, they do not have Phalanx or another CIWS system. Due to cuts there might not be enough frigates and destroyers to escort them (see this from Navy News for more depressing stuff).
The Ro Ros and Chartered Vessels do not have decoys either, and their ability to survive action damage is open to doubt. Therefore without the Sea Harrier, these vessels will be at the mercy of enemy aircraft/missiles. The SA80 is not a good weapon for use against MiGs and Mach 4 missiles - the Sea Harrier is!
We will have to be lucky every time, the enemy only needs to be lucky once. We do seem to be planning on relying on luck......
You guys have been asking leading questions!
As I say, I cannot fully answer your questions. But does the Sea Jet really need the new engine, as it has operated over Iraq before? See the archives of Navy News. And would it really break the bank to keep 801 going?
Other naval aviators have contributed to thread, and to others. Nozzles, for instance. They have had a major influence on my thinking - and PPRuNing.
I write from the perspective of someone who has a war role is likely to involve serving aboard RFAs, the new "rapid reaction" Ro-Ros or Chartered merchant ships, as part of a naval party made up of Reservists. None of these ships have SAM systems. Apart from a few RFAs, they do not have Phalanx or another CIWS system. Due to cuts there might not be enough frigates and destroyers to escort them (see this from Navy News for more depressing stuff).
The Ro Ros and Chartered Vessels do not have decoys either, and their ability to survive action damage is open to doubt. Therefore without the Sea Harrier, these vessels will be at the mercy of enemy aircraft/missiles. The SA80 is not a good weapon for use against MiGs and Mach 4 missiles - the Sea Harrier is!
We will have to be lucky every time, the enemy only needs to be lucky once. We do seem to be planning on relying on luck......
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB11
Good to hear from you. Yes, this thread is a bit like watching a train crash again and again; surreal, bizzare and yet ultimately oddly captivating.....
Anyway, back to the matter at hand.
WEBF
Good, we agree that we both require input from the full time sharp end for a fully formed view. And I agree that the posts of Nozzles / JF / FB11 et al have been very interesting.
But...
The retirement of the SHar is about money vs capability. You suggest that there are scenarios where a UK Task Force (nb, pls, a purple organisation, even in 1982 - albeit very dk purple) would be unable to defend itself against air attacks without SHars, and that the GR9/9As would be hard pressed to stop a credible red air threat.
Well, I'm sure you're right.
Moreover, as the T42s are both increasingly rare and obsolete, the capability gap is probably greater than the planners would have expected had T45 / Aster been on time, and had CVF / JSF been in for 2012.
Yep, that's all probably true as well.
But these two statements only answers part of the question: is this capaibility something that we need if the cost of keeping SHar in service is met by cutting something else, (where that something else is more useful).
So, it is a realistic question to ask MoD what else they chose to keep to make chopping SHar an attractive option (and though I don't defintively know, I suspect that there's probably slightly more to it than light blue anti-SHar "not invented here syndrome" if indeed such a syndrome exists). Has this questioned been asked (probably?); does anyone remember the answer (no idea) and has it been put on PPrune (haven't trawled through nearly 70 pages to look for it).
But these are the questions that have to be answered; and when they have, we accept it and move on. As FB11 points out:
-----------------
Anyway, I'm off to help be a positive part of the next few decades of fixed wing naval aviation; utilising the airframe I have at my disposal.
-----------------
Which certainly looks like the right answer!
(And look on the bright side - after 800 stands up at Cottesmore, Harrier Force can look forward to lots of funny Navy mess nights, (more) weird salutes and "different" ways of working!!
)
S41
(PS, where's the "Save the Canberra" thread?!!)
Good to hear from you. Yes, this thread is a bit like watching a train crash again and again; surreal, bizzare and yet ultimately oddly captivating.....
Anyway, back to the matter at hand.
WEBF
Good, we agree that we both require input from the full time sharp end for a fully formed view. And I agree that the posts of Nozzles / JF / FB11 et al have been very interesting.
But...
The retirement of the SHar is about money vs capability. You suggest that there are scenarios where a UK Task Force (nb, pls, a purple organisation, even in 1982 - albeit very dk purple) would be unable to defend itself against air attacks without SHars, and that the GR9/9As would be hard pressed to stop a credible red air threat.
Well, I'm sure you're right.
Moreover, as the T42s are both increasingly rare and obsolete, the capability gap is probably greater than the planners would have expected had T45 / Aster been on time, and had CVF / JSF been in for 2012.
Yep, that's all probably true as well.
But these two statements only answers part of the question: is this capaibility something that we need if the cost of keeping SHar in service is met by cutting something else, (where that something else is more useful).
So, it is a realistic question to ask MoD what else they chose to keep to make chopping SHar an attractive option (and though I don't defintively know, I suspect that there's probably slightly more to it than light blue anti-SHar "not invented here syndrome" if indeed such a syndrome exists). Has this questioned been asked (probably?); does anyone remember the answer (no idea) and has it been put on PPrune (haven't trawled through nearly 70 pages to look for it).
But these are the questions that have to be answered; and when they have, we accept it and move on. As FB11 points out:
-----------------
Anyway, I'm off to help be a positive part of the next few decades of fixed wing naval aviation; utilising the airframe I have at my disposal.
-----------------
Which certainly looks like the right answer!
(And look on the bright side - after 800 stands up at Cottesmore, Harrier Force can look forward to lots of funny Navy mess nights, (more) weird salutes and "different" ways of working!!
)S41
(PS, where's the "Save the Canberra" thread?!!)