Sea Jet
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Wonderful Midlands
Age: 53
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Sea Jet
WEBF,
Seriously,
you were having a conversation with a "female friend", the other day, and she really honestly came out with
The senior service is having its wings well and truly clipped
SHE REALLY HONESTLY SAID,
THE SENIOR SERVICE IS HAVING ITS WINGS WELL AND TRULY CLIPPED
Jesus Christ man!!!
You really do need to get yourself a whole new set of "Female Friends" or you need to stop deluding yourself, and spouting quite so much $hite on the Sea Jet thread
Did you have an imaginary girlfriend during those difficult years also?
Seriously,
you were having a conversation with a "female friend", the other day, and she really honestly came out withThe senior service is having its wings well and truly clipped
SHE REALLY HONESTLY SAID,
THE SENIOR SERVICE IS HAVING ITS WINGS WELL AND TRULY CLIPPED
Jesus Christ man!!!
You really do need to get yourself a whole new set of "Female Friends" or you need to stop deluding yourself, and spouting quite so much $hite on the Sea Jet threadDid you have an imaginary girlfriend during those difficult years also?
Re: Sea Jet
Yes I did, we weren't discussing the Sea Harrier, but other cuts that may have an effect on me as a Reservist, also civvy employment related stuff.
Your post made me chuckle.
Your post made me chuckle.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Wonderful Midlands
Age: 53
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Sea Jet
Come on though WEBF,
You've got to see the funny side of that little belter
(I'll not mention the blatant admission of your imaginary girlfriend!! )
You've got to see the funny side of that little belter
(I'll not mention the blatant admission of your imaginary girlfriend!!
)
Re: Sea Jet
WEBF, unfortunately every Service is having their wings clipped, although if you want to nit pick:
1. The RN is not losing any frontline Harrier Sqns.
2. They are losing an old jet and gaining a newer more capable jet.
As has been said before by Pierre and others, most of us here would rather see the SHAR stay on in service for the reasons you and others have written about before but I ask you one thing:
How many current Sea Jet pilots have written here complaining about the demise of the SHAR?
There is at least one regular poster on this thread that has crossed over to the GR7/9 and is now "a believer", and there are more on every front line Sqn that are flying the GR each day.
What I am trying to say is that it's not all bad for the RN and the Harrier force!
1. The RN is not losing any frontline Harrier Sqns.
2. They are losing an old jet and gaining a newer more capable jet.
As has been said before by Pierre and others, most of us here would rather see the SHAR stay on in service for the reasons you and others have written about before but I ask you one thing:
How many current Sea Jet pilots have written here complaining about the demise of the SHAR?
There is at least one regular poster on this thread that has crossed over to the GR7/9 and is now "a believer", and there are more on every front line Sqn that are flying the GR each day.
What I am trying to say is that it's not all bad for the RN and the Harrier force!
Suspicion breeds confidence
Re: Sea Jet
"What I am trying to say is that it's not all bad for the RN and the Harrier force"
Re: Sea Jet
Growbag
You have no idea how much I agree with you on that one! I'm tightening the noose and beating myself with the birch as I speak!
Navaleye
There are bad guys everywhere in the world unfortunately, but to see the worst take a trip to the Harrier OCU
You have no idea how much I agree with you on that one! I'm tightening the noose and beating myself with the birch as I speak!
Navaleye
There are bad guys everywhere in the world unfortunately, but to see the worst take a trip to the Harrier OCU
Suspicion breeds confidence
Re: Sea Jet
Since 801 has made its last carrier deployment - Will light blue be taking over reponsibility for Illustrious air group until 800 reforms in April?
Why bother if the capability is being withdrawn in less than 3 months?
801 NAS are presently detached to RAF Lakenheath for Air Defence training with US Air Force F15s and will continue flying operations at Yeovilton until de-commissioning on 31 Mar 06.
Last edited by Navaleye; 7th Jan 2006 at 17:27.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Article in Sunday telegraph - 8 Jan 06
Britain's defence policy left high and dry - By George Trefgarne, Sunday City Editor
Over in Washington, almost unnoticed, our allies in the Pentagon have suddenly delivered a terrible blow to Britain.
Our future defence policy is premised on the acquisition of two aircraft carriers, which will allow power to be projected rapidly around the world in order to defend our interests. But the entire project - the biggest defence order for years - is now in jeopardy.
Leaving aside the not inconsiderable matter of there being no money in the defence budget to pay for these carriers, they obviously require aircraft. That is why Britain has committed £2bn to the development of the Joint Strike Fighter in America.
But budget papers before Congress show that, in order to save costs, the Pentagon is on the verge of cancelling the variant Britain needs for its carriers. This - the F-35B - would be a Harrier with knobs on and have a special engine developed by Rolls-Royce.
Tony Blair has written to President Bush, begging him to reconsider. But I doubt he will get much further than poor old Harold Macmillan asking John F Kennedy not to axe the Skybolt missile in the 1960s.
The scrapping of the F-35B could mean the end of the carriers, unless they are used as enormous ferries, or another aircraft is found, such as the French Rafale. But if the carriers are cancelled, it will mean the end of Britain's aspirations as a serious global power, and the end too of the Blairite foreign policy of armed intervention.
As for the military bigwigs here, who have accepted all manner of cuts (including the decommissioning of the existing Sea Harriers and merger of the regiments) in return for the promise of super carriers, their toadying to a government that has always refused to fund the armed forces properly now looks like a very dangerous gamble indeed.
Over in Washington, almost unnoticed, our allies in the Pentagon have suddenly delivered a terrible blow to Britain.
Our future defence policy is premised on the acquisition of two aircraft carriers, which will allow power to be projected rapidly around the world in order to defend our interests. But the entire project - the biggest defence order for years - is now in jeopardy.
Leaving aside the not inconsiderable matter of there being no money in the defence budget to pay for these carriers, they obviously require aircraft. That is why Britain has committed £2bn to the development of the Joint Strike Fighter in America.
But budget papers before Congress show that, in order to save costs, the Pentagon is on the verge of cancelling the variant Britain needs for its carriers. This - the F-35B - would be a Harrier with knobs on and have a special engine developed by Rolls-Royce.
Tony Blair has written to President Bush, begging him to reconsider. But I doubt he will get much further than poor old Harold Macmillan asking John F Kennedy not to axe the Skybolt missile in the 1960s.
The scrapping of the F-35B could mean the end of the carriers, unless they are used as enormous ferries, or another aircraft is found, such as the French Rafale. But if the carriers are cancelled, it will mean the end of Britain's aspirations as a serious global power, and the end too of the Blairite foreign policy of armed intervention.
As for the military bigwigs here, who have accepted all manner of cuts (including the decommissioning of the existing Sea Harriers and merger of the regiments) in return for the promise of super carriers, their toadying to a government that has always refused to fund the armed forces properly now looks like a very dangerous gamble indeed.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Re: Sea Jet
I would like to think this is just posturing by the US administration, but these stories seem to be popping up with alarming regularity. If the F35B goes then there are following options:
1. Build some more Harriers
2. F/A-18
3. F-35C
4. Rafale
5. Russian kit
The last won't happen, The Rafale production line is so slow they could never deliver the a/c we need in time. The UK will want to get payback for the $2b it has invested in the F-35, so the F-35C looks the most likely IMHO.
If they do bin the B, waht does the USMC get to fly off its expensive new class of Amphibious Assault ships? Kites?
1. Build some more Harriers
2. F/A-18
3. F-35C
4. Rafale
5. Russian kit
The last won't happen, The Rafale production line is so slow they could never deliver the a/c we need in time. The UK will want to get payback for the $2b it has invested in the F-35, so the F-35C looks the most likely IMHO.
If they do bin the B, waht does the USMC get to fly off its expensive new class of Amphibious Assault ships? Kites?
Re: Article in Sunday telegraph - 8 Jan 06
What I head heard most recently was that the STOVL F-35B is safe. The current row is over the GE-RR F136 engine, which is an alternate engine for any F-35 - A, B or C. That's what is on the chopping block right now. Reference to "the special engine developed by RR" suggests that the Torygraph has got the story wrapped around its neck.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Sea Jet
The best thing that could happen is the B variant gets cut and we get the C instead. Putting a huge fan in the middle of the B compromises it in virtually every way. The only problem is we will need catapults, and they dont come cheap.........
Re: Sea Jet
Oh dear - a near non story from the Torygraph. As has been said hundreds of times on this site (not just this thread), if the F-35B disappears, then the CV(F) design can be tweaked to take the F-35C, as was specifically intended from the outset: the 'future proofing' of the design.
And as for
.... Vanguard class submarines, Mr Trefgarne?
The Pentagon examined cancelling each of the variants, and appears to have concluded that it wouldn't. Even so, the story is only about six weeks late, since ISTR the possibility of one of the variants being cancelled being discussed well before Christmas.
So - apart from the fact that Trefgarne is weeks late with his instight; has failed to do the necessary background research into the CV(F) project; doesn't understand the JSF programme and clearly doesn't understand the strategic implications of being a P5 state with nuclear weapons, it's a cracking piece of investigative journalism. I look forward to eating some chips out of it in due course, since that's all it's good for.
And as for
...it will mean the end of Britain's aspirations as a serious global power...
The Pentagon examined cancelling each of the variants, and appears to have concluded that it wouldn't. Even so, the story is only about six weeks late, since ISTR the possibility of one of the variants being cancelled being discussed well before Christmas.
So - apart from the fact that Trefgarne is weeks late with his instight; has failed to do the necessary background research into the CV(F) project; doesn't understand the JSF programme and clearly doesn't understand the strategic implications of being a P5 state with nuclear weapons, it's a cracking piece of investigative journalism. I look forward to eating some chips out of it in due course, since that's all it's good for.
Re: Sea Jet
The MOD website states that on this date in 1912 Lieutenant Samson launched a Shorts Seaplane from the bows of the battleship HMS Africa. This was the first launch of an aircraft from and RN ship. Over the next few years naval aviation would continue to develop. The need to launch multiple aircraft to deal with Zeppelins would lead to experiments with major ships losing first the forward guns to provide a deck space for aircraft to take off and land, then the aft guns went as well to provide as dedicated landing space, then most of the superstructure to provide a flush deck. Thus the carrier was born! For air defence.......
The need to defend the fleet from air attack has been repeatedly forgotten or ignored ever since.
The need to defend the fleet from air attack has been repeatedly forgotten or ignored ever since.
Re: Sea Jet
I keep trying to envisage some poor Unterleutnant at the helm while a berserk monocled, bearded Kapitan screams commands in an attempt to hit a moving battle-cruiser from a Zeppelin...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 43
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Sea Jet
Hi chaps, may not be the place to ask but here goes. if the new carriers continue to slip further towards 2020, at what point do they need to look at Invincible being returned to commision as cover for refits on the others?
Or " bugger me we can't afford that let's hope we don't need them in the interim."
Or " bugger me we can't afford that let's hope we don't need them in the interim."
Suspicion breeds confidence
Re: Sea Jet
Hi John, yes got your PM thanks and yes they have come a long way. I remember in the 60s they used to sail an old destroyer past Gibraltar every day we just used to laugh at them and nicknamed it "Smoky Joe". The boot is on the other foot now. They have a small but very modern navy and balanced and capable naval air arm.