Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2018 11:13:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Apr 7, 2018 21:33:05 GMT
Does seem wasteful. Incidentally we had a trip out to Portsmouth on Thursday and the view of HMS Queen Liz was quite spectacular from the stern of Victory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 8, 2018 8:28:31 GMT
HMS Queen Elizabeth supercedes HMS Ocean. They don't have the sailors to crew both.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2018 10:37:25 GMT
Bad enough that they will never be proper aircraft carriers, hamstrung because the labour partly, made sure the current carriers would have no catapults and made sure it was impossible to retrofit them. One of the reasons the F-35's will cost more than they need do. Add the fact that Harrier is still in front line service around the world including the US Marines. Ours were scrapped or sold for pennies. Saving money?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 8, 2018 17:38:22 GMT
Bad enough that they will never be proper aircraft carriers, hamstrung because the labour partly, made sure the current carriers would have no catapults and made sure it was impossible to retrofit them. One of the reasons the F-35's will cost more than they need do. Add the fact that Harrier is still in front line service around the world including the US Marines. Ours were scrapped or sold for pennies. Saving money? The entire Harrier fleet was sold to the US for spares. Not one of the 40+ year old airframes was deemed suitable to continue flying without millions of pounds ( I think it was about £16 million per plane) of upgrades to bring them up to some sort of modern warfare capability. The US spent the money on their Harriers but it was a bone of contention and they are now being replaced by the F35B. The US Marines realised they needed an aircraft capable of VSTOL, hence their choice of the F35B and luckily enough something we will have with our fleet, and wouldn't have had with the catapult launched and recovered version. The F35B is 3 generations ahead of even an upgraded Harrier. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Apr 9, 2018 13:24:55 GMT
Bad enough that they will never be proper aircraft carriers, hamstrung because the labour partly, made sure the current carriers would have no catapults and made sure it was impossible to retrofit them. One of the reasons the F-35's will cost more than they need do. Add the fact that Harrier is still in front line service around the world including the US Marines. Ours were scrapped or sold for pennies. Saving money?
Isn't it possible that the Labour Party took some advice from the senior plonkers in the Navy before deciding what to do about catapults? After all there is previous for inter-service rivalry and not wanting to share between the RAF and Fleet Air Arm, Buccaneer, Phantom to mention 2.
It was the Tories wot sold the Harriers, specifically Dr Liam Fox in the 2010 Strategic Defence Review. 
However, I blame the services themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 9, 2018 14:05:40 GMT
Bad enough that they will never be proper aircraft carriers, hamstrung because the labour partly, made sure the current carriers would have no catapults and made sure it was impossible to retrofit them. One of the reasons the F-35's will cost more than they need do. Add the fact that Harrier is still in front line service around the world including the US Marines. Ours were scrapped or sold for pennies. Saving money?
Isn't it possible that the Labour Party took some advice from the senior plonkers in the Navy before deciding what to do about catapults? After all there is previous for inter-service rivalry and not wanting to share between the RAF and Fleet Air Arm, Buccaneer, Phantom to mention 2.
It was the Tories wot sold the Harriers, specifically Dr Liam Fox in the 2010 Strategic Defence Review.
However, I blame the services themselves.
And to be fair they were probably right as we haven't needed them in the intervening years. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Apr 9, 2018 14:07:36 GMT
Yup, they're of limited use without a carrier.
I thought that the Libya crisis in 2011 would've been a perfect setup for a carrier and Harrier combo. Sadly we had neither.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 9, 2018 14:29:14 GMT
Yup, they're of limited use without a carrier. I thought that the Libya crisis in 2011 would've been a perfect setup for a carrier and Harrier combo. Sadly we had neither. We did - it was called HMS Cyprus.  Libya - now that was a waste of a £billion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2018 14:48:39 GMT
Harrier did not need a carrier to be useful, they were perfect for forward air support, direct to point of service. Ask the US Marines.......
|
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Apr 12, 2018 14:26:31 GMT
Ask any of the troop in contact in Afghanistan. By all accounts their preferred aircraft whn screaming for help were the British Harriers or the American's A-10. The Harrier was fitted with what was called a 'Sniper Pod' which meant it could loiter at medium altitude and accurately drop munitions without the Taliban knowing it was coming. The A-10s could just roll in at low level, their distinctive shape sending the talibs running before they got to fire the gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Apr 12, 2018 14:46:33 GMT
I've never understood why the US military have been so keen to get rid of the A-10.
They seem entirely fit for purpose and yet somehow their replacement will be the F35, I just don't understand that as to my mind its a completely different type of plane.
In addition the A-10 can take a lot of punishment and still keep flying whereas I expect the F35s will be more fragile as well as costing many multiples of the A-10 when they inevitably get downed by ground fire.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2018 15:48:52 GMT
They have done a 180 on the A-10 and are now sifting through submissions to fit new wings. The Warthog will be around for a long while yet. all the while the Harriers are still in service despite the US aircraft having more hours on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Apr 12, 2018 15:54:46 GMT
I think the last I read was that the A-10 had a reprieve until about 2025.
The only reason it's survived the last 10 years or so is because several ex-pilots are now in Congress/The Senate and have forced through (minor) budget changes to keep it in service.
I think you could keep the whole current fleet going for several years for the cost of a single F35 which is crazy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2018 16:56:37 GMT
Something of a bonus for the A-10 is the confidence inspired in ground troops, rather like the Harrier. You cannot cost the benefits that brings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boxer6 on Apr 12, 2018 18:20:12 GMT
Something of a bonus for the A-10 is the confidence inspired in ground troops, rather like the Harrier. You cannot cost the benefits that brings.Too right, if you're one of those being supported by them. If you're a politician, though, none of that even flutters the closed curtains of your existence; they simply don't, won't and can't ever understand. IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 12, 2018 18:45:02 GMT
Something of a bonus for the A-10 is the confidence inspired in ground troops, rather like the Harrier. You cannot cost the benefits that brings.Too right, if you're one of those being supported by them. If you're a politician, though, none of that even flutters the closed curtains of your existence; they simply don't, won't and can't ever understand. IMHO. Give me an Apache gunship all day long. Far more effective at close air support. |
|
|
|
Post by Boxer6 on Apr 12, 2018 18:54:02 GMT
Too right, if you're one of those being supported by them. If you're a politician, though, none of that even flutters the closed curtains of your existence; they simply don't, won't and can't ever understand. IMHO. Give me an Apache gunship all day long. Far more effective at close air support. Much prefer Brit pilots though!!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2018 19:08:20 GMT
How long before this is how the RAF really refuel?  |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 13, 2018 7:11:55 GMT
Give me an Apache gunship all day long. Far more effective at close air support. Much prefer Brit pilots though!! Given their friendly fire history, yes you'd want the British Army Apaches supporting you, not the US ones. That said, when you're in the shit... I read a great book a few years ago about a Para from Middlesbrough who was training for Special Forces selection but was run over on a training run, rendering him medically unfit. Luckily, the army lost his records so he volunteered to train to fly the Apache gunships that were just being delivered to the British Army at that time. The training was arduous, particularly learning to fly with one eye while the other was looking at a targeting screen mounted on his helmet - it gave him headaches for weeks but culminated in him being able to read two books at once, one in his left hand/left eye, one in his right/right eye. In one particular attempt to recover a Marine from a Taliban fort he and another female pilot fired off over a million pounds worth of ordinance each, before just making it back to base on vapours. |
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Apr 13, 2018 8:24:07 GMT
Something of a bonus for the A-10 is the confidence inspired in ground troops, rather like the Harrier. You cannot cost the benefits that brings.Too right, if you're one of those being supported by them. If you're a politician, though, none of that even flutters the closed curtains of your existence; they simply don't, won't and can't ever understand. IMHO. Politicians should perhaps have to spend an hour or two right at the sharp end of whatever conflict is going on at the time, as part of their initiation to Parliament. It might make them far less likely to start a fight and much more willing to support the guys on the ground if their ineptitude fails to prevent a fight in the first place. I say this as someone who has a son in the Marines. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Apr 13, 2018 8:49:56 GMT
Politicians should spend a lot of time getting to understand the department they are responsible for.
Didn't Labour have a transport minister who had no driving licence for a while?
In fact, I'd suggest that in the case of transport the minister should be required to make their own travel arrangements and clock up an agreed quantity of miles by the various methods of transport, if travelling by car then drive themselves in something normal so they can experience our roads in the in full glory, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 13, 2018 8:58:38 GMT
Politicians should spend a lot of time getting to understand the department they are responsible for. Didn't Labour have a transport minister who had no driving licence for a while? In fact, I'd suggest that in the case of transport the minister should be required to make their own travel arrangements and clock up an agreed quantity of miles by the various methods of transport, if travelling by car then drive themselves in something normal so they can experience our roads in the in full glory, etc. The trouble is that it takes over a year to bring a new minister up to speed on his department and if you look at the average time they spend in that role it's only about 3 months longer. I don't like Jeremy Hunt but he was right in wanting to stay in position as Health Minister, rather than a new one coming in and going through the same learning process all over again. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2018 12:21:40 GMT
Politicians should spend a lot of time getting to understand the department they are responsible for. Didn't Labour have a transport minister who had no driving licence for a while? In fact, I'd suggest that in the case of transport the minister should be required to make their own travel arrangements and clock up an agreed quantity of miles by the various methods of transport, if travelling by car then drive themselves in something normal so they can experience our roads in the in full glory, etc. The trouble is that it takes over a year to bring a new minister up to speed on his department and if you look at the average time they spend in that role it's only about 3 months longer. I don't like Jeremy Hunt but he was right in wanting to stay in position as Health Minister, rather than a new one coming in and going through the same learning process all over again. Agreed, about the most intelligent comment in politics imho. |
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Apr 13, 2018 12:39:07 GMT
Much prefer Brit pilots though!! Given their friendly fire history, yes you'd want the British Army Apaches supporting you, not the US ones. That said, when you're in the shit... I read a great book a few years ago about a Para from Middlesbrough who was training for Special Forces selection but was run over on a training run, rendering him medically unfit. Luckily, the army lost his records so he volunteered to train to fly the Apache gunships that were just being delivered to the British Army at that time. The training was arduous, particularly learning to fly with one eye while the other was looking at a targeting screen mounted on his helmet - it gave him headaches for weeks but culminated in him being able to read two books at once, one in his left hand/left eye, one in his right/right eye. In one particular attempt to recover a Marine from a Taliban fort he and another female pilot fired off over a million pounds worth of ordinance each, before just making it back to base on vapours. by Ed Macy. The Jugroom Fort rescue. They flew four Marines on the wings into the fort under heavy fire. Unfortunately Marine Ford was already dead, although Macey is certain he was still glowing on the Apache's Infra Red camera. Not only did they expend almost every piece of ammo on their Apache's, so did the other two Apache crews on the mission. The female pilot was the only one to use every single piece of ammunition - something that was a big no-no. |
|
