Jump to content

"..... but I counted them out, and I counted them in"

alpine_saint

By alpine_saint,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

alpine_saint

alpine_saint

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Ark Royal?

 

Well, Ark Royal and the Harriers (that is a sh*t hot name for a band, come to think of it...).

 

The quote was from Brian Hanrahan during the Falklands War, reporting on the Sea Harrier's first mission after entering the Exclusion Zone. I remember it well, sitting in bed feeling very depressed because Argentina was claiming they had shot down 10 on that night, and the Harrier was so unproven in combat that it could have been true, until Brian put us straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted

It is a sad day. I'm all for having the F-35 replace the harriers, but that day is years, possibly decades away. Removing our carrier born fleet completely is military suicide. Now we are totally reliant on only fighting countries who's neighbours like us... might be a good thing come to think of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
St Chalet

St Chalet

Posted
Posted
i hate censorship

 

It is not censorship, just removing posts that in no way relate to the original thread. The OP was making a genuine point, that subsequently got hijacked.

 

Please feel free to start a sensible thread on NZ miners and the H&S policies adopted in the Natural Resources Industry in this Forum, or a ****take one in TMS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alpine_saint

alpine_saint

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Agree that he could / should have been clearer.

 

It was an attempt at black humour in response to one of the worst days in British military history (a toothless Royal Navy, ffs...), mixed with a curiosity to see if anyone else remembered what for me was the most vividly memorable night of the Falklands War

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alpine_saint

alpine_saint

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I think my Nan used to work on the these at British Aerospace in Hamble doing the riveting. Could be another type of aircraft though. Not entirely sure. Anyone know if parts for the Harrier were manufactured there?

 

Anyhow, it's a shame to see them go. They're iconic.

 

Yes, I think some parts were made in Hamble. Cant remember what though. I thought it was something to do with the ejector seats.

 

Some of the avionics were done at Zambra/Negretti at Eastleigh airport too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
franny

franny

Posted
Posted
Crap decision to scrap Ark Roayl ahead of schedule. It will save very little money for the taxpayer in comparison to the billions that are spent elsewhere.

 

Agreed, the money and time wasted by Blair/Brown in delaying the order for the new carriers (circa £1bn) would have kept the Ark going longer. Bit of a double edged sword it going, on the one hand it limits our capability to defend ourselves/interests against threat but on the other limits DC and his successors the capability to wage war ala the Blair way with interventions where it suited him and the yanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
I think my Nan used to work on the these at British Aerospace in Hamble doing the riveting. Could be another type of aircraft though. Not entirely sure. Anyone know if parts for the Harrier were manufactured there?

 

Anyhow, it's a shame to see them go. They're iconic.

 

The pub opposite is called the Harrier so you're probably right.

 

Dumb decision to get rid of the Ark Royal, the whole excuse for spending billions on these two new super carriers is that "we don't know what's round the corner", now we have no carrier capability.

 

I would think if anything a smaller sized carrier is more appropriate to todays warfare then a super carrier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
I think my Nan used to work on the these at British Aerospace in Hamble doing the riveting. Could be another type of aircraft though. Not entirely sure. Anyone know if parts for the Harrier were manufactured there?

 

Anyhow, it's a shame to see them go. They're iconic.

 

They were originally Folland, then Aerostructures and are now part of GE Aviation. They made a lot of subcontract parts for Harriers and Hawks and there is a former Red-Arrow gnat outside on a pedestal at the corner of Hamble Lane. The original seaplane slipway is still there at the bottom of Ensign Way.

 

I was in my Mirror dinghy in Portsmouth Harbour the day that the Invincible came back from the Falklands. Once she was safely tied up alongside her Harriers took off, circled and then headed west - to Yeovilton, I believe. What a day that was!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folland_Aircraft

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Micky

Micky

Posted
Posted (edited)

Personally I like Alpines opening gambit on this one - it was an iconic commentary about an iconic aircraft at a very important time in recent history.

 

Whose to say that another 'Falklands conflict' will not happen again? I don't know, but if it did we would be very stretched to respond in the way we did back in the 80's.

 

As for the 'old bird' herself - absolutely stunning aircraft, VTOL capability also afforded it combat manouvres (VIFFing) that gave it the edge in dog fights too. Probably too old and too dated now - but in it's time, a real force to be reckoned with.

 

I'm with Alpine on this one - sad to see them retired.

 

Edit: the commentary and more information here:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/correspondents/newsid_2626000/2626477.stm

Edited by Micky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
EastleighSoulBoy

EastleighSoulBoy

Posted
Posted
i was surprised to hear dave cam at pms questions saying that more people who fought in the falklands had killed themselves afterwards then had actually died fighting!

 

Hardly a surprise when considering the horrors that many of these guys endured. A totally non political comment, because I believe all governments have failed them, why are servicemen not given more support on their return from such encounters?

 

RIP Brian. You gave me one of my strongest memories of my childhood.

 

How bizarre that his life ended the same week as the Harrier retired...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12037973

 

Sad indeed to lose him, and others, as they were our links to what was happening. A personal face to something we were so divorced from back at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted
RIP Brian. You gave me one of my strongest memories of my childhood.

 

How bizarre that his life ended the same week as the Harrier retired...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12037973

 

Heard the news this morning while trying to get out of UK. That report was one of those moments that one will never forget and which the youngsters will never quite understand how he got around the strict reporting restrictions of those days by saying what he did

 

Very sad, and as you say, how strangely symbolic in the timing

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
Heard the news this morning while trying to get out of UK. That report was one of those moments that one will never forget and which the youngsters will never quite understand how he got around the strict reporting restrictions of those days by saying what he did

 

Very sad, and as you say, how strangely symbolic in the timing

 

As they say in the film 'Lawrence of Arabia', "it is written".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted (edited)
Personally I like Alpines opening gambit on this one - it was an iconic commentary about an iconic aircraft at a very important time in recent history.

 

Whose to say that another 'Falklands conflict' will not happen again? I don't know, but if it did we would be very stretched to respond in the way we did back in the 80's.

 

As for the 'old bird' herself - absolutely stunning aircraft, VTOL capability also afforded it combat manouvres (VIFFing) that gave it the edge in dog fights too. Probably too old and too dated now - but in it's time, a real force to be reckoned with.

 

I'm with Alpine on this one - sad to see them retired.

 

Edit: the commentary and more information here:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/correspondents/newsid_2626000/2626477.stm

 

Well luckily for us it's unlikely. The Argentina military has one of the lowest budgets in South America they've cut down a lot since the military Junta of the early eighties helped by several attempted uprisings by right wing elements in the 90s. Unlike the first time the island is much better guarded too including the airbase at mount pleasant which has euro fighters, a larger naval presence and a larger garrison drawn from the Grenadier Guards add to that Falkland has its own regiment (FIDF) which is far better equiped and trainned than last time. Altogether makes Falklands 2 unlikely.

Edited by doddisalegend
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alpine_saint

alpine_saint

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Well luckily for us it's unlikely. The Argentina military has one of the lowest budgets in South America they've cut down a lot since the military Junta of the early eighties helped ny several attempted uprisings by right wing elements in the 90s. Unlike the first time the island is much better guarded too including the airbase at mount pleasant which has euro fighters, a larger naval presence and a larger garrison drawn from the Grenadier Guards add to that Falkland has its own regiment (FIDF) which is far better equiped and trainned than last time. Altogether makes Falklands 2 unlikely.

 

My main hope against a Falklands 2 is actually more to do with intelligence coverage, than forces in-situ, which imo are inadequate.

 

I am 1000% certain our signal intelligence, political intelligence and recon sat inteliigence is much, much better than last time, which should have been good enough then as well if the Government had paid attention.

 

If we got intelligence of an Argie build-up, and the government paid no attention, Cameron, Osborne and Fox's political careers would be over in a matter of weeks.

 

We can easily triple the number of Typhoons within 6-10hrs, and we can probably have a second hunter-killer on station within a week to ten days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted
My main hope against a Falklands 2 is actually more to do with intelligence coverage, than forces in-situ, which imo are inadequate.

 

I am 1000% certain our signal intelligence, political intelligence and recon sat inteliigence is much, much better than last time, which should have been good enough then as well if the Government had paid attention.

 

If we got intelligence of an Argie build-up, and the government paid no attention, Cameron, Osborne and Fox's political careers would be over in a matter of weeks.

 

We can easily triple the number of Typhoons within 6-10hrs, and we can probably have a second hunter-killer on station within a week to ten days.

 

Just one more reason Argentina has gone down the political route in recent years in particular strengthening ties with the US and getting other south American countries to recongise their claim to the Malvinas. In a shooting war it's unlikely to go any better than last time for them.

 

This extract from a article of the Argentinian armed forces tells yo all you need to know about they're chances of taking the Falklands by force

 

In a May 2007 op-ed to the conservative Argentine daily La Nacion, former Defense Minister Horacio Jaunarena declared that the average age of the country’s military hardware is 30 years. He reported that the army was operating at 30 percent of its supposed strength, due to its limited ability to house and feed its troops, as well as to maintain its equipment and weaponry. The former official gave other examples, such as that out of 31 military transport aircraft in inventory, only four were currently operational. Although the Argentine navy is considered new in comparison to those found in other countries across the continent, it remains one of the less potent in terms of its inherent military capacity.

 

 

http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_14/issue_23/opinion_09.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thedelldays

Thedelldays

Posted
Posted
My main hope against a Falklands 2 is actually more to do with intelligence coverage, than forces in-situ, which imo are inadequate.

 

I am 1000% certain our signal intelligence, political intelligence and recon sat inteliigence is much, much better than last time, which should have been good enough then as well if the Government had paid attention.

 

If we got intelligence of an Argie build-up, and the government paid no attention, Cameron, Osborne and Fox's political careers would be over in a matter of weeks.

 

We can easily triple the number of Typhoons within 6-10hrs, and we can probably have a second hunter-killer on station within a week to ten days.

 

you could now launch Tomahawk from over a 1000 miles away and choose which window to send it through

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Micky

Micky

Posted
Posted
Well luckily for us it's unlikely. The Argentina military has one of the lowest budgets in South America they've cut down a lot since the military Junta of the early eighties helped ny several attempted uprisings by right wing elements in the 90s. Unlike the first time the island is much better guarded too including the airbase at mount pleasant which has euro fighters, a larger naval presence and a larger garrison drawn from the Grenadier Guards add to that Falkland has its own regiment (FIDF) which is far better equiped and trainned than last time. Altogether makes Falklands 2 unlikely.

 

Yeah - I appreciate all that. I didn't actually mean more trouble in the FI, I meant our ability to be able to react to a similar scenario anywhere in the world. When the FI conflict began I believe it was the first time that we deployed JTFHQ afloat for, eerrr donkeys years. The Harriers gave us a very versitile strike aircraft which lends itself to working from carriers - today, we have no Harriers and not sure that the boys in blue actually have any carriers left either. Massive capability gap as far as I can see.

 

And just for the old boys amongst us, why it's named so, I do not know because there is absolutely eff all Pleasant about Mount Pleasant. Or there wasn't when I was last there...! Damn good memories though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted
Yeah - I appreciate all that. I didn't actually mean more trouble in the FI, I meant our ability to be able to react to a similar scenario anywhere in the world. When the FI conflict began I believe it was the first time that we deployed JTFHQ afloat for, eerrr donkeys years. The Harriers gave us a very versitile strike aircraft which lends itself to working from carriers - today, we have no Harriers and not sure that the boys in blue actually have any carriers left either. Massive capability gap as far as I can see.

And just for the old boys amongst us, why it's named so, I do not know because there is absolutely eff all Pleasant about Mount Pleasant. Or there wasn't when I was last there...! Damn good memories though.

 

Can't argue with that. Mind you we have no long range bomber aircraft either unlike the early 80s no black buck style air raids this time round. Britains long range strike capability these days seems to down to our subs as far as I can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...