Forum home Road cycling forum The bottom bracket

Goodbye Harriers

SteveR_100MilersSteveR_100Milers Posts: 5,987
edited November 2010 in The bottom bracket
Sad day indeed to see the Harrier finally leaving Ark Royal for the last time, not that war or its hardware is glamorous, it's still a subliminal sight. Let's hope we don't need any air support off a boat for the next 10 years.

Posts

  • I'm not sad at all. They're the same planes that helped kill 100s of Argentine conscripts which in turn helped keep Mrs Thatcher in power. Good riddance.
  • AndyRubio wrote:
    I'm not sad at all. They're the same planes that helped kill 100s of Argentine conscripts which in turn helped keep Mrs Thatcher in power. Good riddance.

    The cynic in me is saying that scrapping the Harrier will cost a few more lives once the Argentinians see we've gotten rid.... :roll:
    "A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"

    PTP Runner Up 2015
  • davieseedaviesee Posts: 6,473
    AndyRubio wrote:
    I'm not sad at all. They're the same planes that helped kill 100s of Argentine conscripts which in turn helped keep Mrs Thatcher in power. Good riddance.

    So, are you saying that we should have let them go?

    What about the population that considers itself to be British?

    Any excuse for a Maggie rant?
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • I'm sad to see it go. I visited the Ark royal in 1985 and just saw it return to the Tyne on Friday in South Shields. But that's a personal statement.

    On a military statement, I think it's a bad move. A small carrier is hugely influential, much more so then a brigade of troops IMO. Having a small island able to float around the world is influential and very cost effective.

    Most of the men who built the Ark on the Tyne have now moved away, retired or changed jobs. These skills have been lost and probably never to return.

    The main problem is why we bought Eurofighter for a huge amount of money, when the Swedish military was able to build a very good cheapish 4.5 fighter in the Saab Gripen that involved training their own people in the manufacture of the most of the plane.
    CAAD9
    Kona Jake the Snake
    Merlin Malt 4
  • The main problem is why we bought Eurofighter for a huge amount of money, when the Swedish military was able to build a very good cheapish 4.5 fighter in the Saab Gripen that involved training their own people in the manufacture of the most of the plane.

    I enjoy the fact the Swedes like their planes to be able to take off and land on public roads.
    "A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"

    PTP Runner Up 2015
  • softladsoftlad Posts: 3,587
    AndyRubio wrote:
    I'm not sad at all. They're the same planes that helped kill 100s of Argentine conscripts which in turn helped keep Mrs Thatcher in power. Good riddance.

    Possibly one of the dumbest things I have ever read on here. Your proposition is jaw-droppingly stupid. Would you say the same thing to a Falklands veteran..?? By your reckoning, they would be equally responsible....

    Presumably you regard the Super Etendard and the Skyhawk with equal disdain, seeing as those were the planes that caused most of the British casualties..??
  • inkyfingersinkyfingers Posts: 4,400
    Maggie did a lot of regrettable things, liberating the Falklands was not one of them. As many have said, imagine someone invaded the Isle of Wight, would you just let them have it? I know we may have gained the islands in an unfashionable colonial style but it's the people than matter, not the rock underneath them, and they overwhelmingly consider themselves to be British.

    (Rant Over)

    It was really sad to see the Harriers going, not that i'm a warmonger but having a useful carrier force puts you in a fairly elite club, able to project authority worldwide. The rot really started with the retirement of the sea harrier, which gave us both air to air and air to ground capability. Without air cover, our whole navy seems a bit of a waste, especially those new amphibious ships we've built, which will now no longer be able to operate without support from the USA or another country with naval air power. As everyone knows, you can't put troops on the ground unless you control the air. Before anyone screams that we shouldn't be invading anyone, our carriers have done a lot more work than just bombing the Falklands, they've supported peacekeeping missions in the former yugoslavia, humanitarian missions in Africa and played a major role in Afghanistan, where there are not many friendly airfields nearby!
    "I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)
  • softladsoftlad Posts: 3,587
    edited November 2010
    our carriers have done a lot more work than just bombing the Falklands.......and played a major role in Afghanistan, where there are not many friendly airfields nearby!

    Harriers operate from Kandahar. Providing close air support from carriers might be tricky in Afghanistan, seeing as they would have to over-fly either Iran or Pakistan first, which is not ideal for a short range aircraft.....and I can't see the Iranians or the Pakistanis being too chuffed with seeing RN Harriers going overhead. The whole idea behind close air support is that you don't have to fly for three hours to get to your target.....by which time it would probably be too late...
  • GazzaputtGazzaputt Posts: 3,227
    AndyRubio wrote:
    I'm not sad at all. They're the same planes that helped kill 100s of Argentine conscripts which in turn helped keep Mrs Thatcher in power. Good riddance.

    Eh?
  • Sad day indeed to see the Harrier finally leaving Ark Royal for the last time, not that war or its hardware is glamorous, it's still a subliminal sight. Let's hope we don't need any air support off a boat for the next 10 years.
    agreed and I'm not a warmonger or imperialist. I marvel at the skill required to fly one. You can see one at the Imperial War Museum at Duxford. I guess they'll all end up at museums soon.
    If suffer we must, let's suffer on the heights. (Victor Hugo).
  • ProssPross Posts: 24,269
    AndyRubio wrote:
    I'm not sad at all. They're the same planes that helped kill 100s of Argentine conscripts which in turn helped keep Mrs Thatcher in power. Good riddance.

    What rubbish, you should be blaming the Argentine junta that saw what they perceived to be an easy task over-running a lightly garrisoned island. They were the ones that put inexperienced conscripts into the firing line and left them to pay the consequences for their attempted show of nationalistic strength (to try to cover up internal failings). I would direct your anger more at the Argentine leaders, the French and their exocets that killed hundreds of defenceless sailors and soldiers but particularly the Argentine leaders who started the hostilities.
  • DCowlingDCowling Posts: 769
    AndyRubio wrote:
    I'm not sad at all. They're the same planes that helped kill 100s of Argentine conscripts which in turn helped keep Mrs Thatcher in power. Good riddance.

    How can you make that comment then follow it with a link showing some sad geezer riding an exercise bike on the plinth in London, wouldn't have been so bad if he had the guts to use rollers

    In assume you don't wear a help the heros badge or buy a poppy
  • softlad wrote:
    AndyRubio wrote:
    I'm not sad at all. They're the same planes that helped kill 100s of Argentine conscripts which in turn helped keep Mrs Thatcher in power. Good riddance.

    Possibly one of the dumbest things I have ever read on here. Your proposition is jaw-droppingly stupid. Would you say the same thing to a Falklands veteran..?? By your reckoning, they would be equally responsible....

    Presumably you regard the Super Etendard and the Skyhawk with equal disdain, seeing as those were the planes that caused most of the British casualties..??
    You can disagree with him, but you can't call him stupid! IMO it's a healthier and more insightful POV than those gun-polishers w*nking over what is, after all, a weapon of destruction.

    The rights and wrongs of the Falklands is a whole separate debate.
  • softladsoftlad Posts: 3,587
    You can disagree with him, but you can't call him stupid!

    I didn't call him 'stupid' - although it's quite possible that he is...
  • softlad wrote:
    You can disagree with him, but you can't call him stupid!

    I didn't call him 'stupid' - although it's quite possible that he is...
    it's also quite possible that you're a complete censored but name calling on the internet is futile and undignified.
  • softladsoftlad Posts: 3,587
    edited November 2010
    softlad wrote:
    You can disagree with him, but you can't call him stupid!

    I didn't call him 'stupid' - although it's quite possible that he is...
    it's also quite possible that you're a complete ars* but name calling on the internet is futile and undignified.

    so it is (as you have just proved) - but like I said, I didn't call him any names.
  • plowmarplowmar Posts: 1,032
    Apparently the 'blame' for the Falklands war was the removal of a 'research' vessel on cost grounds that the Argentinians interpreted as the U K not being interested in the Falklands.

    Which led to the greater cost in money and lives - both sides - and the sickening 'Gung Ho!' attitude of the red tops.
  • inkyfingersinkyfingers Posts: 4,400
    softlad wrote:
    our carriers have done a lot more work than just bombing the Falklands.......and played a major role in Afghanistan, where there are not many friendly airfields nearby!

    Harriers operate from Kandahar. Providing close air support from carriers might be tricky in Afghanistan, seeing as they would have to over-fly either Iran or Pakistan first, which is not ideal for a short range aircraft.....and I can't see the Iranians or the Pakistanis being too chuffed with seeing RN Harriers going overhead. The whole idea behind close air support is that you don't have to fly for three hours to get to your target.....by which time it would probably be too late...

    OK, I wrote that in a hurry. mixing up the role of the aircraft vs the carriers, though the fortunes of both are clearly intertwined. It doesn't alter my point though, both the ships and the aircraft have proved pretty useful over the years, and that capability will be a big loss to our military strength.

    The bigger question is really over what kind of military we need or can afford, but history tells us that when we start to scale back our armed forces we usually regret it. I'd rather we spent the billions on education, the NHS and fixing potholes but at the same time I know enough about history to know that we can't afford to just ignor the rest of the world and hope that nobody decides to play bully.
    "I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)
  • softlad wrote:
    AndyRubio wrote:
    I'm not sad at all. They're the same planes that helped kill 100s of Argentine conscripts which in turn helped keep Mrs Thatcher in power. Good riddance.

    Possibly one of the dumbest things I have ever read on here. Your proposition is jaw-droppingly stupid. Would you say the same thing to a Falklands veteran..?? By your reckoning, they would be equally responsible....

    Presumably you regard the Super Etendard and the Skyhawk with equal disdain, seeing as those were the planes that caused most of the British casualties..??
    You can disagree with him, but you can't call him stupid! IMO it's a healthier and more insightful POV than those gun-polishers w*nking over what is, after all, a weapon of destruction.

    The rights and wrongs of the Falklands is a whole separate debate.

    So that's how you see engineering genius? Read the posts again so that you understand the eaning before making equally thoughtless comments, then again perhaps your avatar tells the world all it needs to know about you....
  • softlad wrote:
    AndyRubio wrote:
    I'm not sad at all. They're the same planes that helped kill 100s of Argentine conscripts which in turn helped keep Mrs Thatcher in power. Good riddance.

    Possibly one of the dumbest things I have ever read on here. Your proposition is jaw-droppingly stupid. Would you say the same thing to a Falklands veteran..?? By your reckoning, they would be equally responsible....

    Presumably you regard the Super Etendard and the Skyhawk with equal disdain, seeing as those were the planes that caused most of the British casualties..??
    You can disagree with him, but you can't call him stupid! IMO it's a healthier and more insightful POV than those gun-polishers w*nking over what is, after all, a weapon of destruction.

    The rights and wrongs of the Falklands is a whole separate debate.

    So that's how you see engineering genius? Read the posts again so that you understand the eaning before making equally thoughtless comments, then again perhaps your avatar tells the world all it needs to know about you....
    whooah there. Hold your horses, I was taking issue with softlad for crucifying the other lad on here, but I can see how it came across - it wasn't aimed at any other poster. I appreciate you made the distinction between admiring the design and not glamourising its intended use. I can do likewise for sure.
  • softladsoftlad Posts: 3,587
    I appreciate you made the distinction between admiring the design and not glamourising its intended use. I can do likewise for sure.

    it's a pity that your impressive powers of interpretation are a bit selective though, eh..?
  • softlad wrote:
    I appreciate you made the distinction between admiring the design and not glamourising its intended use. I can do likewise for sure.

    it's a pity that your impressive powers of interpretation are a bit selective though, eh..?
    I just think the guy didn't deserve to have everyone jumping down his throat for voicing a (valid, if somewhat blunt) opinion. For the avoidance of doubt - I like nicely engineered stuff like planes and trains and stuff.

    No offence intended to any posters. Honest guv. Outbreak of peace?
  • andy162andy162 Posts: 656
    John Fozard was one of the designers of Harrier. When defining what an "expert" was he said, "ex" is a has been & a "spurt" is a drip under pressure.

    A few of them on this forum methinks.
  • softlad wrote:
    I appreciate you made the distinction between admiring the design and not glamourising its intended use. I can do likewise for sure.

    it's a pity that your impressive powers of interpretation are a bit selective though, eh..?
    I just think the guy didn't deserve to have everyone jumping down his throat for voicing a (valid, if somewhat blunt) opinion. For the avoidance of doubt - I like nicely engineered stuff like planes and trains and stuff.

    No offence intended to any posters. Honest guv. Outbreak of peace?

    My fleet of F22s have been recalled.....
  • ProssPross Posts: 24,269
    Do you have fleets of planes? :wink:
Sign In or Register to comment.