Straw poll - does anyone actually agree with WEBF and the ridiculous theories and proposals he comes up with?




Didn't think so.

Now please WEBF - close the thread and stop posting ill-informed rubbish on the internet.

Many thanks WE Branch Fanatic for highlighting the “A tale of two Harriers: How Italy held on to carrier strike” that was recently published in www.DefenceManagement.com

That type of excellent article usually brings out the typical Pro-RAF - Get rid of the Fleet Air Arm fixed-wing’ gang who do not want the public and press to read such things due to the embarrassing truths contained within it.

As for those who keep on demanding that the thread be killed, if you do not like it then simply do yourself and everyone else a favour and do not visit it anymore.

But we did get rid of the FAA fixed wing thing. Didn't you read it here. Apparently it's been a conspiracy for decades. We finally won!

Yes, Congratulations to the RAF leadership for helping to damage the RN/FAA capability far more effectively than any enemy could have done. They must be very proud of themselves. :ok:

However what a pity that it was also at such a detriment to our island nations worldwide maritime defence capability. With both the Sea Harriers and Nimrods now gone, thank goodness there are not likely to be any long range conflicts/wars anymore and our Navy will no longer need to depend on its own aircraft for quick reaction Fighter/Strike/Reconnaissance operations (particularly when a long way from any meaningful land based airfield support).

Churchill must be turning in his grave as to how the MoD could have allowed such rediculous decisions to be made!!:ugh:

Sorry, got to ask, why as an island nation do we need a worldwide maritime defence capability.

BTW, in case you were unsure Gullwings, the Nimrod was definitely RAF.....:oh:

Er, because we are an island.

"Sorry, got to ask, why as an island nation do we need a worldwide maritime defence capability"

Because we are utterly dependent on seaborne trade with the entire world. Cut off the trade links across the Channel and that would be a minorr inonveniencs, the bulk of our supplies (ie food fuel and everything you buy) comes from farther afield, all the way out to the Pacific. Go to Southampton or Felixstowe docks (the two largest container terminals in the UK) and take in the scale of goods being imported. Churchill was only afraid of one battle in WW2, the Battle of the Atlantic, because he knew if our supply lines were cut we would have to capitulate in a few months at best. The situation hasn't changed, indeed it is much worse now. Every now and then I hear people bady about the phrase 'Fortress UK' as an allternative defence posture. Madness. If you don't secure our Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC) then you have already surrendered. Fortresses. Great idea. Why did we stop building them? Because they were easy to defeat. Lay siege. Defenders run out of food. Surrender.

In addition to the points well made by others, since World War 2 the Fleet Air Arm have had to continually operate a long way from the UK (worldwide) on many occasions and more countries are appreciating the value of carriers to support such things. Importantly they can even help to prevent wars merely by their existence. For example, how much has this country had to spend defending the Falklands since Argentina invaded them in 1982? If we still had two proper catapult equipped aircraft carriers back then in 1982 the Falklands War would almost certainly not have even taken place! Prevention can be more effective than cure in terms of both money and lives!

As some wise people say - "If you think that Safety is too expensive to invest in, then try having an accident and see just how much that eventually ends up costing!

With regards to your Nimrod comment, of course I realise the Nimrod was RAF and I am sure that even the RAF realise what an unbelievable and incredible loss it is to this nation that it no longer has such a long range maritime anti-submarine capability. Particularly when also considering just how much money was also wasted rebuilding a limited quantity of ancient Comet based airframes rather than investing in building a new patrol aircraft type that could have actually also had a potential worldwide export market!

However, the point that I was originally trying to make was that again it is Navy lives (and those who they help defend abroad) who will be most at risk as a result of the lack of such long range maritime support for the foreseeable future. Whoever within the RAF/MoD wasted so much tax payer’s money on the wrong Harrier and Nimrod related decisions should hang their heads in shame! :ugh:

It has ALL been said, it has even been suggested that the Harrier has departed these shores and will never be an operational aircraft again. It is over but as a bit of light relief, first shown in 2007.

Many a true word but this script was wrote when we still had the harrier.:oh::oh:

Excellent, glojo. Someone should do a comedy spoof of that interview for television; it would be a riot.:}

See, with the tiniest bit of bait, there's life in the old thread yet!

:ok:

It would appear that at times the hook does not even need any bait??:8

Obi, I have edited your post to the bare bones. You may be right but recall that in 1939 we needed 3 cruisers to bottle up one pocket battleship in a relatively small part of the world's oceans.

We had countless escort vessels to escort, not entirely successfully, convoys of merships.

We shall have exactly how many ships now or in the foreseeable future? By your reckoning we have indeed surrendered, we just don't admit it.

Indeed, PN.

A pig headed refusal to looks facts in the face will see us through every time!

Harriers?
 

Many, many years ago one was detached wid' the Feelthy French.
A Harrier came noisely past, trying to look fast and harmful.
A Gallic Mirage hero turned to his compatriots and said something.
They then, pissed themselves laughing.

On further enquiry, the literal translation was "Only time I've seen a turkey with drop tanks".

Near bust me gusset so I did.

Mirages shot down/damaged by Harriers
 

Interesting. I wonder how many live engagements there have been between Harriers and Mirages.

These are the only two I know of:

Really?
 

Look Guv' - the Argentinian drivers were working on zero return fuel.
They didn't have the luxury of avoiding Sharky (hero) Ward's snaffle missiles.
Could not even rush it through the gate. Bit cold in the 'oggin down them parts with no-one to pick you up.

I actually like the Feelthy French ability to take the piss.

Say something funny 'round 'ere, Mate, and you'll always touch a raw nerve somewhere!

As the thread has thankfully taken a more light hearted approach, dare I say that it comes as little surprise that the RAF enjoy the same types of other jokes as their French Air Force colleagues. Have either of them actually shot down many meaningful aircraft types using their own aircraft since the end of World War 2? Particularly the RAF who may have only achieved one kill and that was against one of their own Jaguars! (Oopps!!)

By the way, what other aircraft types have some RAF crews at least been able shoot down any other aircraft down with since World War 2? :ok:

Tin helmet and flak jacket now going on as I prepare for incoming!!

I seem to remember that in the late fifties and early sixties a considerable part of the Royal Air Force's effort was to ensure that they did not have to shoot down anybody else in anger.

We do, we do! Can't wait to get in there and give those frenchies a good licking.

Re Jag. A kill's a kill, fella! Even if he was on recovery to base.

You're conveniently forgetting about all the UFOs we shot down. I know it's highly classified, but it's high time they were acknowledged.

The only reason we didn't shoot down any actual aircraft was because, well, you know. It was all abit awkward at the time. The hotel staff were meant to wake us up at 5 in time for the dawn patrol, but old Stiffy was in bed with the receptionist and she rather fogot. And we couldn't be there the following day because we were busing moving into a better hotel. Can't remember much after that.

Far more important to spend our time dismantling the Fleet Air Arm, you know. It was us that did that. Not just a PPRuNe rumour. It used to be in Officers' Confidential Orders, you know.

Just do not mention brylcreem :=;)

Gullwing... Why???

I love banter

I love inter service rivalry but why go looking for arguments.

What Gull and Fod have forgotten, glojo, is that this thread is about Harrier, not RAF/RN. I think both service operated them? It's quite possible that the French chappies were talking about an RAF Harrier.

Tee-Hee...
 

Phnarr, phnarr. Them with thin skins should join the Army.

Oh dear, who took the bait this time?? Hook Line and Sinker! Cheers guys!! :):)

My one regret about the Jag incident was that it wasn't a Harrier. I have to confess to being eternally disappointed about that. Would have been so much funnier for us. But them's the roll of the dice.

Plus RAF pilots flew the SHAR in combat...
PLUS he whose name must not be mentioned http://www.arttalk.com/iwata/shark/shark.gif had highly qualified RAF pilots in his squadron and entrusted one such pilot with the ongoing training and development of his operational pilots, both Fleet Air Arm and RAF..

I thought the old Harrier was quite a fun idea, though. Living in hides, flying off of bits of old B road. Scrambling from the beach in just a pair of shrts. Very flexible. Then it all got a bit serious.:(

What other aircraft came with its own ski run!! The slalom was a challenge but once mastered, it was some ride!

The thing for me is that the Harrier was pretty much the aviation 'Great Britain'.

Reasonable at a few things but not great at anything.
A little too small.
Had a great 'heydey' which it traded on forever after.

What a perfect jet for the tiny windswept rock that talked a great game and every so often backed it up with a great feat of arms.

The irony is of course that the SDSR required money to concentrate on COIN and in providing it we got rid of our COIN aircraft. We got rid of our carrier which would have made sense had we kept the perky little jet that didn't need Johnny Foreigner's runways...which would now be really handy in the absence of carriers.

But then we have a government that no-one voted for (don't remember there being a 'coalition' box to tick) and we're happy bailing out a bank for £30 billion but not happy spending a sixth of that on the defence that guarantees its existence.

So maybe the decision to bin the jet that reflected us so perfectly actually reflects us perfectly!

As ever, Orca, very well put. But I fear you forget just how great the aircraft was, and would still be. The answer to all our problems.

Actually, that was a bit harsh even for me. Strike that one. Been out for curry and beers. Don't know what I'm saying. Soz.

I recently heard a couple of interesting rumours from people in the know, but to avoid another circular argument (and to protect my anonymity) I will not repeat them. Neither mentioned Harrier per se, but one was carrier related, and the other WAFU (maintaining skills/training a fixed wing cadre for the future/UK based stuff) related.

Perhaps we do live in interesting times?

Great, they are going to fit cats and traps to the carriers after all. No need for leased Harriers or Dave B now.

No, not that...... In any case that would still leave the problem of lack of capability now, and the issue of preparing for the future.

Would the same decisions have been taken if, at the time of SDSR, F35B was still the chosen aircraft for CVF, we had a STOVL future to prepare for, and the Prime Minister had demonstrated his propensity for belligerence and tough talking with respect to Syria and Iran?

Likewise, if the three Service chiefs had been in charge of their own budgets, and had the freedom to make choices based on their priorities, would things have been different?

I forgot that sometime during July or August, I had a quick look at a defence/aviation magazine (cannot remember which one) whilst passing through a newsagents. I gather that the USMC is intending to operate the AV8B until 2025-2030, and that of the 72 Harriers the UK sold to the US, 16 are still intact and meant to be flown as such, as noted here.

Perhaps MOD can think outside the box? This not completely sensible suggestion of building extra patrol vessels suggests that the Government might want to be seen to be doing something to reduce the effects of the SDSR cuts, although it would be of very limited utility - building cheap and only lightly armed vessels with limited range (so no counter piracy or counter narcotics operations far from the UK), that cannot do a frigate's job. Better to address the gap in carrier strike capability (the firepower of carrier aircraft would partly make up for having less frigates with Harpoon, Sea Wolf, 4.5" gun etc) - and the issues associated with preparing for a STOVL future....

Also, having a fixed wing capability would help make up for the loss from 2016 of the ASaCs Sea King. This has recently demonstrated its utility in working with surface ships - see here.

“The complementary capabilities of Type 45 and Sea King Mk 7 mean that we can assess air and surface activity over a wide area of the ocean,” said Diamond’s Commanding Officer Cdr Ian Clarke.

An armed fixed wing aircraft can not only assess, but also get a visual ID, and engage...

We really need to consider getting some sort of V/STOL jet on the deck of Illustrious/Queen Elizabeth this decade - something which could be easily achieved, if only the politicians could act with imagination and courage.

Unfortunately, according to recent press reports, the 16 which are not at Davis-Monthan are at Cherry Point undergoing the USMC equivalent of 'Return to Produce'.

The USMC do not intend to fly any of the acquired Harriers

That's not to say that Illustrious couldn't embark a USMC squadron, in the same way that Ark Royal did one her last deployment.

Judging by this

Demobbed - Out of Service British Military Aircraft

the ones at Cherry Point were transferred as the ink was drying on the decision. They probably no longer exist as airframes now.

Webf, harrier is dead and isnt coming back. You were probably either the victim of a wah, or someones 'and another thing' speech.
If you want to chat via pm then i will try to explain why you've been had

.....good grief is this thread still going? :ugh:

Yes, because:

a. WEBF keeps posting every now and then (and will only rest when GR9s are once again flying from the deck of a CVS or even CVF); and

b. People keep replying asking 'Good God, will this thread never die?'

:)

Whenever I post something a bit off thread, the thread often dies. So...

WEBFoot,

The Harriers we sold the Americans are being broken up for spares. They won't lease us any of theirs because that would demonstrate to their bean counters that they have more than they need. Our Govenrment won't try to lease any because it would be yet another embarrasing U-turn and it would mean admitting that they shouldn't have sold them in the first place. We don't have the support structure for them and no one is going to pay for such a thing; they might be saving up for Dave B or whatever we get (if anything) once it's cancelled.

Whether the decission was bonkers or not, they are not coming back.

So, get over it and spend the next few years repeatedly watching this.


Sorry. That's how it is, fella.

Cherry Point GR-9's
 

I'm afraid to say the GR-9s at Cherry Point are in bits, I was there a few months ago. Such a shame that the inept MOD made the decision to bin them.However life moves on. Maybe we should as well.