Sea Jet
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Help! Nurse! Somehow I'm getting an email everytime someone posts something to this thread, I'm not sure if my ISP's mail server will be able to cope, is there a tick box or something I've missed?
Ahh found the option when I just replied!
Ahh found the option when I just replied!
Onan,
OK OK it's not a Falcon 50 but, there are 4 hard points on this Falcon!
http://www.fraviation.com/
Sorry everyone for dragging this thread out even more! I'll go and flaggelate myself!
OK OK it's not a Falcon 50 but, there are 4 hard points on this Falcon!
http://www.fraviation.com/
Sorry everyone for dragging this thread out even more! I'll go and flaggelate myself!
According to FlyPast mag (March 2006) a former USMC Harrier pilot has bought FA.2 XZ439! They suggest that it will possibly be flown privately on the US airshow circuit. I wonder if the buyer will attempt to put an AV-8A nose on it? FlyPast says that XZ439 was due to be shipped to the US at the end of January. How feasable is the prospect of flying a Harrier in private hands?
Has anyone thought about keeping a few Sea Harriers in reserve post March? It would maintain an element of deterence until the JSF comes along, without reducing the number of GR9s?
Could ground runs etc be used to prevent seals etc from perishing from non use?
Some other news: LIFT-OFF AS PRODUCTION STARTS ON FIRST STOVL F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
Sorry but I won't be around to reply this week, will be away for a few days. Its not a snub.
Could ground runs etc be used to prevent seals etc from perishing from non use?
Some other news: LIFT-OFF AS PRODUCTION STARTS ON FIRST STOVL F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
Sorry but I won't be around to reply this week, will be away for a few days. Its not a snub.
"Keeping a few Sea Harriers in reserve" is pretty much what we've been doing for about a year now. I'm not sure if you're talking about 3 or 4 jets? You would need to keep on the pilots, engineers and all the other support staff that go with it. If you're talking about 3 or 4 serviceable jets, you're looking at keeping on a whole Squadron. It won't happen.
FFP
It's all about one member of the RNR (who failed to get into the regular RN), rank uncertain, but does that matter, personal crusade to keep a dead aeroplane (killed to save money) alive, on the basis of a possible, but unlikely, future scenario, while people are dieing for real in Basrah on a regular basis for the want of money being spent on armoured landrovers!
At least that is my summary!!!
It's all about one member of the RNR (who failed to get into the regular RN), rank uncertain, but does that matter, personal crusade to keep a dead aeroplane (killed to save money) alive, on the basis of a possible, but unlikely, future scenario, while people are dieing for real in Basrah on a regular basis for the want of money being spent on armoured landrovers!
At least that is my summary!!!
Last edited by Biggus; 5th Feb 2006 at 21:17.
It's not JUST Webf whining about the SHar's long overdue demise, to be fair.
It's a group of people who either don't accept that changed circumstances mean that we can no longer do everything autonomously, without relying on allies and partners for some key capabilities (as we rely on the USA for much ISTAR, SEAD, etc.), or who believe that while it's acceptable for UK Land Forces and the RAF to rely on such allies, the Royal Navy should not have to do so.
And there may be a smaller number of people who recognise that while the RN can no longer operate entirely autonomously, that even in an era of coalition warfare, and with a very limited enemy air threat, the AD capability offered by an obsolescant jet, with very modest payload/range capabilities is a core capability that cannot be relinquished, despite the effect that it has on other, more useful, more frequently used capabilities (either by restricting the number of more useful GR7s/9s deployed on the boat, or by diverting scarce funds from more useful assets).
It's a group of people who either don't accept that changed circumstances mean that we can no longer do everything autonomously, without relying on allies and partners for some key capabilities (as we rely on the USA for much ISTAR, SEAD, etc.), or who believe that while it's acceptable for UK Land Forces and the RAF to rely on such allies, the Royal Navy should not have to do so.
And there may be a smaller number of people who recognise that while the RN can no longer operate entirely autonomously, that even in an era of coalition warfare, and with a very limited enemy air threat, the AD capability offered by an obsolescant jet, with very modest payload/range capabilities is a core capability that cannot be relinquished, despite the effect that it has on other, more useful, more frequently used capabilities (either by restricting the number of more useful GR7s/9s deployed on the boat, or by diverting scarce funds from more useful assets).
It is about a bunch of RN, or pseudo RN, people, who have the luxury of ranting on about gold plated solutions to possible future conflicts, from the comfort of their homes, while people in the military are dying every day, 3 in the last week, through circumstances that might, just might, have been prevented by money being spent on better protective kit now!!!
That is worth ranting over!!!
That is worth ranting over!!!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
It's not JUST Webf whining about the SHar's long overdue demise, to be fair.
It's a group of people who either don't accept that changed circumstances mean that we can no longer do everything autonomously, without relying on allies and partners for some key capabilities (as we rely on the USA for much ISTAR, SEAD, etc.), or who believe that while it's acceptable for UK Land Forces and the RAF to rely on such allies, the Royal Navy should not have to do so.
It's a group of people who either don't accept that changed circumstances mean that we can no longer do everything autonomously, without relying on allies and partners for some key capabilities (as we rely on the USA for much ISTAR, SEAD, etc.), or who believe that while it's acceptable for UK Land Forces and the RAF to rely on such allies, the Royal Navy should not have to do so.
A few GR.9s won't make any significant contribution to any operation that includes a US CBG.
BTW, I'm not RN, pseudo RN or anything, really.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
If you take that argument to it's logical conclusion then the RN doesn't need any fixed wing assets at all . . .
Suspicion breeds confidence
FFP,
This about the MoD imposing a major "capability holiday" on the RN. Limiting its capability to project power by eliminating its organic air defence capability, whilst hoping that our "allies" will help. Which of course they rarely do.
It's also about vested interests looking after their own jobs and careers.
This about the MoD imposing a major "capability holiday" on the RN. Limiting its capability to project power by eliminating its organic air defence capability, whilst hoping that our "allies" will help. Which of course they rarely do.
It's also about vested interests looking after their own jobs and careers.