Sea Jet
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not quite sure how pointing-out well-established facts renders someone as being eithear "myopic" or "loyal", and whether or not he's flown the aircraft in question is of course completely irrelevant!
You'd be hard-pressed to find any aerospace commentator that could offer any plausible defence for the withdrawal of either the Jaguar or the Sea Harrier, but at the same time it would be rather optimistic to assume that we could substitute either fleet for a suitable number of Typhoons. By all accounts, we're probably financially obliged to buy all of the Typhoons we've asked-for, and that has no doubt had more than a little influence on the decision to dump the Sea Harrier and Jaguar. But anyone can see what folly it is to withdraw the very aircraft that are so ideally suited to the kind of theatres into which our beloved government seems to keen to send our forces. Anyone with a grasp on operational needs (rather than an obsession with book-balancing) would probably be more inclined to hang-on to both the Jaguar and Sea Harrier, and get ourselves out of the endless (and hideously expensive) JSF saga, and "navalise" Typhoons for carrier operations in 2012-15, if and when we get our new carriers. But then, that would make sense, whereas we're talking about politics here!
You'd be hard-pressed to find any aerospace commentator that could offer any plausible defence for the withdrawal of either the Jaguar or the Sea Harrier, but at the same time it would be rather optimistic to assume that we could substitute either fleet for a suitable number of Typhoons. By all accounts, we're probably financially obliged to buy all of the Typhoons we've asked-for, and that has no doubt had more than a little influence on the decision to dump the Sea Harrier and Jaguar. But anyone can see what folly it is to withdraw the very aircraft that are so ideally suited to the kind of theatres into which our beloved government seems to keen to send our forces. Anyone with a grasp on operational needs (rather than an obsession with book-balancing) would probably be more inclined to hang-on to both the Jaguar and Sea Harrier, and get ourselves out of the endless (and hideously expensive) JSF saga, and "navalise" Typhoons for carrier operations in 2012-15, if and when we get our new carriers. But then, that would make sense, whereas we're talking about politics here!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim
Nice use of exclamation marks and smiley faces.
"whether or not he's flown the aircraft in question is of course completely irrelevant!" Not when an individual overstates capabilities of a platform to try and influence or bolster a point of view. It weakens the case and makes the author look desperate. Or myopic. Or loyal. If you require examples from either of the two authors I mention, I can supply about 10 for each of them without blinking.
"You'd be hard-pressed to find any aerospace commentator that could offer any plausible defence for the withdrawal of either the Jaguar or the Sea Harrier" I and almost all the other exhausted (addicted?) readers of this thread 100% agree with you. A browse back over the hundreds of replies you haven't read recently will refresh you.
"whereas we're talking about politics here! (smiley omitted)" Well Tim, anyone with a grasp on operational needs would replace the word 'politics' with 'reality.'
War fighters don't balance books, they take what they actually have, not that which they would like to have, and optimise the people and equipment to the best of their ability to achieve a result.
They don't rake over the past and make empty and nugatory statements about how the Jaguar would have been great in Sierra Leone flying from the Azores or how the Sea Harrier would be great now to fend off the threat of the Iranians. Note: I am not disagreeing with either of these repeated claims but the reality (aka politics) is that neither was or is going to be the case.
The point of my light hearted thread, so skillfully misinterpreted (I must improve my communication skills) was that all of the expended effort on lost causes may have a negative effect on the causes that remain.
Or are you a part of the cup half empty brigade too?
I'll drink an orange juice for you on the 31st. Ice?
Nice use of exclamation marks and smiley faces.
"whether or not he's flown the aircraft in question is of course completely irrelevant!" Not when an individual overstates capabilities of a platform to try and influence or bolster a point of view. It weakens the case and makes the author look desperate. Or myopic. Or loyal. If you require examples from either of the two authors I mention, I can supply about 10 for each of them without blinking.
"You'd be hard-pressed to find any aerospace commentator that could offer any plausible defence for the withdrawal of either the Jaguar or the Sea Harrier" I and almost all the other exhausted (addicted?) readers of this thread 100% agree with you. A browse back over the hundreds of replies you haven't read recently will refresh you.
"whereas we're talking about politics here! (smiley omitted)" Well Tim, anyone with a grasp on operational needs would replace the word 'politics' with 'reality.'
War fighters don't balance books, they take what they actually have, not that which they would like to have, and optimise the people and equipment to the best of their ability to achieve a result.
They don't rake over the past and make empty and nugatory statements about how the Jaguar would have been great in Sierra Leone flying from the Azores or how the Sea Harrier would be great now to fend off the threat of the Iranians. Note: I am not disagreeing with either of these repeated claims but the reality (aka politics) is that neither was or is going to be the case.
The point of my light hearted thread, so skillfully misinterpreted (I must improve my communication skills) was that all of the expended effort on lost causes may have a negative effect on the causes that remain.
Or are you a part of the cup half empty brigade too?
I'll drink an orange juice for you on the 31st. Ice?
FB11,
As a point of information (and though I wouldn't claim any great expertise on the basis), I have flown the Jag, several times, though (alas) never solo. I've also had a good play with the JMP, and with the PC-based TIALD sim. I've sat in a cockpit and been shown how to call up EFRCs and ETAPs. It will surprise no-one who has seen my shaky arrivals at Booker and Elstree to learn that I was ****e at all of the above.
More importantly, I have spoken often and in depth to large numbers of Jag operators, and I do feel that (platform loyalty aside) they do have some claim to be capable of judging capabilities without an unacceptable degree of over-statement. As an outsider, I merely make some attempt to evaluate what I'm told (usually by discussing it with others who are more qualified to do so) and then parrot the end result.
As to over-stating a platform's capabilities, then it's you who is being myopic if you've managed to avoid my frequent and repeated acknowledgment of Jaguar's payload/range and hot/high shortcomings, and if you've managed to avoid the facts (confirmed by current operators, whose views should be taken far more seriously than those of this interested onlooker) that Jag has some useful 'niche' capabilities and that the jet can perform sufficient tasks to make it a potentially useful means of keeping hours off the limited pool of GR4s and GR7/9s, which will struggle to meet their planned OSDs.
If the latter types had sufficient fatigue index and airframe hours remaining to make it to 2025 and 2017 without mid life fatigue programmes or rear end replacements, then retaining Jag simply for the marginal advantage it offers in using EO GP1 (JRP) and TIALD might not be worth the candle, though I'd say that anything that maintains extra squadrons would be useful in fighting overstretch. I'd also say that using it to maintain a cadre of s/s OS blokes pending the wider availability of Typhoon might be justifiable.
When, however, there are Jag airframes available with plenty of hours remaining, that could be used in order to ensure that the Harrier and Tornado do 'last the course' it seems irresponsible to scrap them prematurely.
Your uninformed hostility to the Jaguar (an aircraft you've never flown) is as commendable as mine is to the JSF (an aircraft I've never flown.)
I see a trend.
Maybe we should get a room?
I think I can wait until you've finished the love-in with the other PPRuNers who resort to personal abuse and assumption when they've run out of argument.
As a point of information (and though I wouldn't claim any great expertise on the basis), I have flown the Jag, several times, though (alas) never solo. I've also had a good play with the JMP, and with the PC-based TIALD sim. I've sat in a cockpit and been shown how to call up EFRCs and ETAPs. It will surprise no-one who has seen my shaky arrivals at Booker and Elstree to learn that I was ****e at all of the above.
More importantly, I have spoken often and in depth to large numbers of Jag operators, and I do feel that (platform loyalty aside) they do have some claim to be capable of judging capabilities without an unacceptable degree of over-statement. As an outsider, I merely make some attempt to evaluate what I'm told (usually by discussing it with others who are more qualified to do so) and then parrot the end result.
As to over-stating a platform's capabilities, then it's you who is being myopic if you've managed to avoid my frequent and repeated acknowledgment of Jaguar's payload/range and hot/high shortcomings, and if you've managed to avoid the facts (confirmed by current operators, whose views should be taken far more seriously than those of this interested onlooker) that Jag has some useful 'niche' capabilities and that the jet can perform sufficient tasks to make it a potentially useful means of keeping hours off the limited pool of GR4s and GR7/9s, which will struggle to meet their planned OSDs.
If the latter types had sufficient fatigue index and airframe hours remaining to make it to 2025 and 2017 without mid life fatigue programmes or rear end replacements, then retaining Jag simply for the marginal advantage it offers in using EO GP1 (JRP) and TIALD might not be worth the candle, though I'd say that anything that maintains extra squadrons would be useful in fighting overstretch. I'd also say that using it to maintain a cadre of s/s OS blokes pending the wider availability of Typhoon might be justifiable.
When, however, there are Jag airframes available with plenty of hours remaining, that could be used in order to ensure that the Harrier and Tornado do 'last the course' it seems irresponsible to scrap them prematurely.
Your uninformed hostility to the Jaguar (an aircraft you've never flown) is as commendable as mine is to the JSF (an aircraft I've never flown.)
I see a trend.
Maybe we should get a room?
I think I can wait until you've finished the love-in with the other PPRuNers who resort to personal abuse and assumption when they've run out of argument.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
I think I can wait until you've finished the love-in with the other PPRuNers who resort to personal abuse and assumption when they've run out of argument.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim,
Yeah, right on, Journos together to the end. Or was that last post you running out of an argument?
Jacko,
Take a breath for a moment. You won't find anything I've posted that denegrates the Jag; you will also find plenty that tries to bring a sense of perspective to the overstated capabilities of the Sea Harrier comments.
You will replies that comment on one liners that overstate the case for a platform without backing up with some of the facts that you presented in your last post. All of which are valid, more so if they actually come from the mouth of an operator being interviewed by a journalist.
But you know what, I already know how capable the Jag is. I acknowledge the niche capabilities it has, in particular the TIALD integration. It's a competent machine in certain roles and, like Sea Harrier, UK Plc will lose out in the short term as a result or each platforms respective demise.
But go they will as of the 31st and raking over the coals of each will do nothing to those of us that have to manage our people and the platforms that remain.
But maybe a little personal relection is required. Read a few of your posts and you will see a trend that plays down the Sea Harrier posts and ups the anti on the Jaguar posts. In fact only a few posts ago in the early hours you new sparring partner Tim pointed this out to you.
How dare I try to suggest to both Jaguar and Sea Harrier advocates alike that there might just be a time to move on.
As for personal insults, are you really a Journo?
I think someone needs a hug.
Yeah, right on, Journos together to the end. Or was that last post you running out of an argument?
Jacko,
Take a breath for a moment. You won't find anything I've posted that denegrates the Jag; you will also find plenty that tries to bring a sense of perspective to the overstated capabilities of the Sea Harrier comments.
You will replies that comment on one liners that overstate the case for a platform without backing up with some of the facts that you presented in your last post. All of which are valid, more so if they actually come from the mouth of an operator being interviewed by a journalist.
But you know what, I already know how capable the Jag is. I acknowledge the niche capabilities it has, in particular the TIALD integration. It's a competent machine in certain roles and, like Sea Harrier, UK Plc will lose out in the short term as a result or each platforms respective demise.
But go they will as of the 31st and raking over the coals of each will do nothing to those of us that have to manage our people and the platforms that remain.
But maybe a little personal relection is required. Read a few of your posts and you will see a trend that plays down the Sea Harrier posts and ups the anti on the Jaguar posts. In fact only a few posts ago in the early hours you new sparring partner Tim pointed this out to you.
How dare I try to suggest to both Jaguar and Sea Harrier advocates alike that there might just be a time to move on.
As for personal insults, are you really a Journo?
I think someone needs a hug.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB11,
I to share you thoughts on that one, it is a shame however, the Jag (I've never flown it) is going! Not a fan of the SHAR mind you, we don't need it at the moment so lets spend the money elsewhere...
Please don't associate Jackonicko with Tim, that is a tad harsh as many of jackonicko's posts are very well thought out, are not in any way pretentious and normally contain some modern content, relative to the subject.
Tim, it would appear just likes the look of his own text...
I to share you thoughts on that one, it is a shame however, the Jag (I've never flown it) is going! Not a fan of the SHAR mind you, we don't need it at the moment so lets spend the money elsewhere...
Please don't associate Jackonicko with Tim, that is a tad harsh as many of jackonicko's posts are very well thought out, are not in any way pretentious and normally contain some modern content, relative to the subject.
Tim, it would appear just likes the look of his own text...
FB11,
I'm just correcting your misapprehensions and trying to accurately reflect what I know about the implications of getting rid of the Jag.
I am a journo, but not the sort who can't tell the difference between 'gen' and one liners.
Finally, it seems as though you need to do your research a bit more thoroughly, as only one of the two platforms "go they will as of the 31st" - the Jags are just going to Coningsby, where it will have another 12-18 months with ****ty Six.
Are you aware of when the GR4s and GR7/GR9s will run out of life, and how far ahead of their planned OSD this is?
But I'll take that hug, even from a hairy matelot.
JN
I'm just correcting your misapprehensions and trying to accurately reflect what I know about the implications of getting rid of the Jag.
I am a journo, but not the sort who can't tell the difference between 'gen' and one liners.
Finally, it seems as though you need to do your research a bit more thoroughly, as only one of the two platforms "go they will as of the 31st" - the Jags are just going to Coningsby, where it will have another 12-18 months with ****ty Six.
Are you aware of when the GR4s and GR7/GR9s will run out of life, and how far ahead of their planned OSD this is?
But I'll take that hug, even from a hairy matelot.
JN
And the thread goes on. If only the Sea Harrier itself had such longevity. I am reading this current debate between FB11 and Jacko with much interest. Whilst I acknowledge the position in Pprune Lore that Jacko may have, including his extensive posting record...I know very well who will win this debate in the end and it isn't a journo!Regards everyone and have a nice weekend..be nice to have some snow in the south!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack, I really wouldn't bother arguing with these people. These threads start-off as intelligent discussion and descend into childish arguments almost every time, and I find that at that stage it's best to leave them to it!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
Well corrected, I forgot how little operational effect shutting down the MOB has on the remaining squadron as it moves up the road for 12 months while the aircrew mark time for Typhoon slots.
Just in case you have a misapprehension about your perception of my perceived misapprehension (do you like what I did there?) I am:
Completely. 100%. Absolutely. Totally. In violent agreement about the effect removing the Sea Harrier and Jaguar from the UK inventory has to our ability to do our job.
My original post commented upon:
1. Overstated capabilities thrown in to embellish a point.
2. The potential damage done when the focus is back not forward.
As for OSD of GR9/9A as they will all be by then and GR4, I have no idea of the exact date not being an engineer in the IPT.
Are you suggesting that the only people that know about this are the wise posters on Pprune? Do you think we are all blind to the amount of T-birds on the line? To jets that are flying significantly more hours than planned with an enduring commitment in an environment that only one jet in the UK is currently able to operate in?
I know, assuming another few thousand feet was added/recalimed on the runway, Jaguar would be perfectly capable of getting airborne from an airfield 3500' AMSL with a remarkable fuel and weapon load. Quite remarkable.
Anyway, I'm going to get told off by Navaleye for talking about the jet that shall not be named instead of the other jet that shall not be named.
I would like to correct one item of a previous post though. I think "personal abuse" should be replaced with the word "banter." When you next chat to the Jag guys, ask them what it is.
How did you know I was hairy?
Well corrected, I forgot how little operational effect shutting down the MOB has on the remaining squadron as it moves up the road for 12 months while the aircrew mark time for Typhoon slots.
Just in case you have a misapprehension about your perception of my perceived misapprehension (do you like what I did there?) I am:
Completely. 100%. Absolutely. Totally. In violent agreement about the effect removing the Sea Harrier and Jaguar from the UK inventory has to our ability to do our job.
My original post commented upon:
1. Overstated capabilities thrown in to embellish a point.
2. The potential damage done when the focus is back not forward.
As for OSD of GR9/9A as they will all be by then and GR4, I have no idea of the exact date not being an engineer in the IPT.
Are you suggesting that the only people that know about this are the wise posters on Pprune? Do you think we are all blind to the amount of T-birds on the line? To jets that are flying significantly more hours than planned with an enduring commitment in an environment that only one jet in the UK is currently able to operate in?
I know, assuming another few thousand feet was added/recalimed on the runway, Jaguar would be perfectly capable of getting airborne from an airfield 3500' AMSL with a remarkable fuel and weapon load. Quite remarkable.
Anyway, I'm going to get told off by Navaleye for talking about the jet that shall not be named instead of the other jet that shall not be named.
I would like to correct one item of a previous post though. I think "personal abuse" should be replaced with the word "banter." When you next chat to the Jag guys, ask them what it is.
How did you know I was hairy?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Tim, you funny man, I kill you last! FB11 is not being childish but realistic. If you don't like what is being said.....then STOP POSTING on this damn thread!smiley, smiley, does not work on this computer, smiley smiley, thumbs up!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
I'm with FB11 on this one and I fear Tim (the wannabee) has outstayed his welcome on this MILITARY forum.
I believe he writes books that nobody buys.
I'm with FB11 on this one and I fear Tim (the wannabee) has outstayed his welcome on this MILITARY forum.
I believe he writes books that nobody buys.
