http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20101215/tuk-harrier-jump-jets-fly-into-retiremen-dba1618.html
A great bit of kit.
Chat Forum
[closed]
Good bye the harrier jump jet.
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
its going to be awfully quiet round the vale of evesham now
I was brought up round the Harrier (and all the others). Stoner Sr worked in avionics. My childhood aircraft are slowly getting pensioned off. First the Bucaneer...now the harrier...soon theyll come for the last of the tornadoes...
Posted 1 year ago # -
Truly sad news. Another example of an amazing and unique aircraft retiring with no real replacement. Just what are Navy pilots going to fly for the next 10 years??
Posted 1 year ago # -
I had quite a twinge of emotion yesterday reading about their final flight on the BBC yesterday. I grew up just outside Yeovilton and so had SHAR's flying around most days. It was strange enough when they decomissioned the SHAR, but the thought of not seeing a Harrier in RAF livery is really quite sad. Easily the highlight of most airshows is a GR7/9 coming from a flypast to a complete stop, spinning around on the spot, reversing a bit and then accelerating off into normal flight again.
R.I.P. The Harrier
Posted 1 year ago # -
I was amazed to see that the Harrier entered service in 1968 or 69. There cannot be that many bits of equipment with such an old design still being used any more. Can you imagine if we were all driving round in cars that were designed in 1969, but with some better electronics?
Shows how good the original design was (or how prohibitively expensive designing new planes is)
Posted 1 year ago # -
actually most of the electronics is pretty old hat. I t takes so long to go through Electromagnetic protection testing that by the time it's in the plane it's decades old.
Werent they flying the Typhoon on Amiga chips or something
Posted 1 year ago # -
What I don't understand is that If we have no harriers, we have nothing to fly off our carriers.. therefore Have we just made the carriers redundant ? whats the plan to replace them ?
The Aircraft carrier is the centre of our overseas ops isnt it ? does that mean our overseas ops presence is going to be vastly reduced ?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Easily the highlight of most airshows is a GR7/9 coming from a flypast to a complete stop, spinning around on the spot, reversing a bit and then accelerating off into normal flight again.
which rather unfortunately for the Harrier was the only time it really got to show off this rather remarkable bit of aeronautics. Thing is in 'real life' the ability to hover dramatically on one spot rather does limit a pilot's lifespan...
Interesting plane, slightly hampered by it's own design in many ways.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Th one bit nobody explain/costed was where the pilots/sailors etc would be going for the next 10 years while they built the replacements...
And whatever dates that are published for the boat and aircraft, add on a few years... and then a few more before they are operational.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The plan is to replace the carriers we have now with different carriers that will probably use a variant of the F35 (both made by BAE systems, how jolly convenient, eh?)
Sometimes carriers are the centre of overseas ops, but in places like...oh, i dunno... land locked mountainous countries like Afghanistan, not so very much...
Posted 1 year ago # -
Regarding old bits of kit still in service, the B52 bomber went into service in 1955 and isn't due to retire until 2040!
Posted 1 year ago # -
I dont see the AK47 (1947) hanging up its magazines anytime soon either
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think the RAF seakings used for SAR have been in place since '63
Posted 1 year ago # -
nickc - 'vectoring in forward flight' is somethign that Harriers have been used at with varying degrees of success (they'll decelarate at 2G apparently).
The only time the British may have used it 'in anger' was the Falklands but they didn't need to as the Argentinians never put them to the test in air to air combat.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thing is in 'real life' the ability to hover dramatically on one spot rather does limit a pilot's lifespan...
yes, I think the point is to be able to land / take off without a runway rather than hovering over the heads of the enemy.
Posted 1 year ago # -
nickc - 'vectoring in forward flight' is somethign that Harriers have been used at with varying degrees of success (they'll decelarate at 2G apparently).
Indeed.
I guy in my office reckons its only the RAF harriers being retired and the navy ones still going? Anyone confirm if there are any variants of the harrier left flying with UK forces?
Posted 1 year ago # -
There cannot be that many bits of equipment with such an old design still being used any more.
You've probably travelled on one recently - 737 first flight '67, 747 '69. It seems the late 60s was a good time for new planes.Posted 1 year ago # -
Concorde. '69.
Bit of a dud.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Both FAA and RAF Harriers forces where merged in to Jonit Force Harrier flying the GR7/9 version. All of these have now been grounded so no Harriers flying in the uk anymore.
Spain and USMC still fly them and there is one airworthy Sea Harrier in the US.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Why/How isnt the Typhoon Aircraft carrier suitable?
From what Ive read we are going with F35 JSF for our carriers - is that right?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Viffing is pretty hard to do in reality, and the use against the Argentinians was only really successful because the Argentinian in pilots weren't ( as a general rule) very aggressive fighter pilots. If you get it wrong, viffing can lead to a dramatic loss of airspeed, and control. and up against a modern unstable jet (Rafle griffon, F22 Typhoon etc etc) it's not that much of an advantage any way as all of those aircraft have much higher airspeed capabilities...
remember folks the Falklands was 20 years ago...technology moves on.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Can you imagine if we were all driving round in cars that were designed in 1969, but with some better electronics?
that would suit me fine
Posted 1 year ago # -
Why/How isnt the Typhoon Aircraft carrier suitable?
If you've not got the ability to take off from a very short runway, the aircraft needs to be catapulted off and into the air. Typhoon wasn't designed to be taken by the wheels and chucked at the sky.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Rafale is though...But is French, so the Mail, Express Torygraph reading fraternity would have a collected heart attack if we bought it...
F35 B/C? variant is supposed to have a VTOL capability but given budget cuts to even the US forces, they're looking at this airplane and asking themselves what does it do that the F22 doesn't (The US Navy doesn't need a VTOL aircraft after all) We appear to be heading up a slightly shitty creek...
Posted 1 year ago # -
Typhoon wasn't designed to be taken by the wheels and chucked at the sky.
Or dragged to a halt by a massive cable whilst developing full power. Or suitably corrosion resistant. The undercarriage won't be anywhere beefy enough for carrier life either, as will other elements of the airframe. Probably has undesirable approach characteristics too, with not being designed for carrier operations from the outset.
Rafale is though..
This basic list of modifications to the Rafale C (chasse) to produce an M (marine) illustrate why you can't just fly any aircraft on to and off a carrier.
Strengthened to withstand the rigors of carrier-based aviation
Stronger landing gear
Longer nose gear leg to provide a more nose-up attitude for catapult launches
Deleted front centre pylon (to give space for the longer gear)
Arresting tailhook between the engines
Built-in power operated boarding ladder
Carrier microwave landing system
"Telemir" inertial reference platform that can receive updates from the carrier systems.I imagine that is not exhaustive!
Posted 1 year ago # -
nickc - Member
remember folks the Falklands was 20 years ago...technology moves on.
Actually 30 years ago!
Posted 1 year ago # -
the Argentinian in pilots weren't ( as a general rule) very aggressive fighter pilots.
I'm surprised to hear you say that nickc, as not only were most of British casualties the result of Argentine airforce attacks, but during the midst of the conflict Francis Pym, the British foreign secretary, remarked on the bravery of Argentine pilots. This is something which other British commentators of the Falklands war have mentioned : " There is no doubt that Argentina's pilots were incredibly brave - they can truly be said to have had "the right stuff". To have continued to press home attacks whilst flying through hails of AA fire to deliver plain old iron bombs (again mostly British made!) is testimony to that."
It's worth remembering too that by the time they reached the Falklands, they had to return almost immediately because of lack of fuel. Quite a few, I believe, simply ran out and never made it back. I also believe that quite a few Argentine pilots were British trained. Up until the Falklands war, the British government was happy to train the Argentine military, despite the fact that they were engaged in a war against their own people. Although to be fair, the Argentine airforce came out of the Junta era not looking too bad. The army and navy were the ones which carried out the brutality and repression - the navy in particular, proved exceptionally gifted in torture and murder. The Falklands war further enhanced the Argentines airforce public image.
Posted 1 year ago # -
There's a difference between bravery and being an aggresive fighter pilot. Badly phrased maybe - implying that it was something they personally lacked rather than that they had good reasons (lack of fuel) for not being aggresive, but the point is that same that the Harrier pilots didn't have to face aggresive opposition.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ernie, I was referring very specifically to their air to air dog fighting aggressiveness rather than their undoubted success in the air ground role, as we were discussing vectoring in Forward Flight an air-to air tactic developed by Harrier pilots to over come some of the disadvantages that the Harrier suffered in that role. It is a matter of record that had the AAF pilots engaged the SHARS with their numerical superiority the outcome of the conflict may have been different.
I also believe that quite a few Argentine pilots were British trained.
Most were US trained, a few of the Navy pilots who flew Super Etendard were French (obviously) trained.
I know the AAF bought some old B2 canberras (MK62) in the 70's so it's possible those pilots were trained here.
It's not uncommon for 'allies' to become 'enemies'. The only overseas operator of the F14 was Iran!!
Posted 1 year ago # -
So now we have no carrier and no Harriers ,and long ago ran out of Vulcans to bomb them with ,will the Argies attack the Falklands again.If they do will the Frogs lend us a carrier for a few months so our boy scouts(as the army is all in Afghanistan)can go and fight
Posted 1 year ago # -
There is a pretty formidable air presence on the Falklands now, (Typhoons and A2A refueling capability) we wouldn't necessarily have to fight the same war again. Neither do I think the civilian govt of Argentina have any plans to do such a thing.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Very sad One of the best jets ever made
Posted 1 year ago # -
Neither do I think the civilian govt of Argentina have any plans to do such a thing.
I'm sure they haven't. But don't underestimate the threat......it's hard to overstate just how passionate Argentines feel about the Falklands, it is something which is drummed into them from a very early age. It is seen as the final liberation/independence struggle against a European colonial power. So whilst there might not be any existing plans, the threat is still real. Specially if they feel their natural resources and wealth are being plundered by a European power. You're right though, it wouldn't be the "same war again". If it were to happen, the next time they would actually expect a war - not something which they really expected last time. It's likely to involve a lot of very careful planning. If they have any sense they will keep military engagement to a minimum but enough to force Britain to maintain a huge military presence. Britain simply couldn't afford to keep a task force in the South Atlantic indefinitely, eventually, however long it took, it would bleed the British economy dry. All Argentina would have to do is sit back and occasionally prod, with very little cost to themselves. Britain would negotiate a settlement long before it was bankrupt.
Posted 1 year ago # -
ernie - you really do think far too much about the wrong stuff some times.
So whilst there might not be any existing plans, the threat is still real.
Yes - of course it is dear.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TooTall you are not really in a position to know how much time I spend thinking about anything. Although issues concerning Argentina interest me for obvious reasons.
You might well be totally dismissive of any threat existing at all from Argentina, but it is not an opinion which is shared by the MoD. It would appear that earlier this year the navy sent the nuclear submarine HMS Sceptre armed with Spearfish anti-ship torpedoes to the waters surrounding British oil exploration rigs in response to a perceived threat from Argentina.
The threat is clearly low-level, but that does not mean it does not exist, nor that the situation cannot change. The question of natural resources in the South Atlantic is a particularly sensitive one to Argentina, they can, and have, made threats to shipping in the region.
This is two years old, but it shows that the situation with regards to British presence in the South Atlantic is far from being resolved 30 years on, nor is it guaranteed to remain stable :
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
