Royal Marines Gucci Rebrand

There were no big Air Battles over the Falklands, the Shar Pilots achieved their Victories in one's and two's.

My point is that the Aerial Free-For-Alls of WW-ll have long long gone, yet many people seem to think that because the F-22 Raptor and Typhoon are now in service a new wave of Sky Battles are imminent.
By again looking at history and not learning from it you are doomed to repeat it, the purpose for air superiority fighters it to dominate and gain air superiority, both of which the F22, Typhoon are exceptional at, once you dominate the air, you then can begin to dominate the ground. Have you been playing Air Combat 7?

A mixed force of Typhoon and F35b will make the enemy emotional, coupled by the fact that a mixed force of F22 and F35 will help destroy there day.
How old are you btw?
 

Mölders 1

Old-Salt
The only thing that was going to come off a see-through carrier through-deck cruiser was STOVL in nature.

The Invincible-class was the only way of keeping the RN in the aviation game at the time, and the SHAR was a very good solution.

Later, the FA.2, with Blue Vixen and AMRAAM, was for a while the best combination in NATO.
The Harrier FA.2 and ultimately the Tornado F-3 did indeed have a world class Missile/Radar Interface.

It was their respective Airframes that left much to be desired.
 
I don't think they quite had it all their own way in Korea with Russian piloted MIG15's in MIG alley.
Timewatch covered the unique genetics that meant blond haired North Koreans with a penchance for screaming Das Rodina….. and other soviet catchphrases…..confused the cia cic nsa oni etc etc etc into thinking advisors were tearing into allied aircraft…..
 
If the Argies had waited a little longer there wouldn't have been a Falklands War, as Hermes was to be sold and the R.M. were going to be disbanded amongst other planned Defence Cuts.

The Sea Harrier FRS 1 was little more than a modified Harrier GR 1 rather than a purpose-built Carrier Aircraft.
Hermes was going to be sold when Illustrious and Ark Royal came into operational service. At the same time the Australians were going to buy Invincible as Notts plan was to have only two Invincible class carriers in operation. Hermes had been in service since 1959 and was only a stop gap Harrier/Commando carrier until the Invincible class came online.

There was never any plan to disband the Royal Marines as they had a reinforcement role in Norway as Artic and Mountain warfare trained troops.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The Harrier FA.2 and ultimately the Tornado F-3 did indeed have a world class Missile/Radar Interface.

It was their respective Airframes that left much to be desired.
The unique ability to get off a short deck in poor weather.

A Mach2 performance and very long loiter time.

The airframes did what they were asked to do.
 
That's because you don't do airfields.
Gutersloh and Abingdon had airfields, still had crappy little bins around the camp.
 
Pretty sure that’s the A3 version of the c8 but the A2 version of the L119. If that makes sense.
Take a look at the link below the photo in my post, you'll see the various countries upgrades. The Canadian's rifle is the C8A3, it has OD plastic furniture, and ambi safety/selector.

The L119A2 is a variant of the C8 IUR (which is used by Denmark as the M/10).
 
BAE did a similar thing to the Harrier GR 1 as it did to the Tornado GR 1.....add a new/different Radar, make a few changes here and there and et voilá Britain has a new Fighter suitable for it's needs.
What radar did the GR 1 have?
 

Mölders 1

Old-Salt
The unique ability to get off a short deck in poor weather.

A Mach2 performance and very long loiter time.

The airframes did what they were asked to do.
The Tornado F-3 had a poor Turning Circle which is a prequisite for a Fighter the Harrier FRS 1 was too short ranged and could only carry a light weapons load......
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
The Sea Harrier FRS 1 was little more than a modified Harrier GR 1 rather than a purpose-built Carrier Aircraft.
You actually have no idea at all what you're talking about, do you?

Hardly surprising, but do you want to keep publicly humiliating yourself so thoroughly?
 
Gutersloh and Abingdon had airfields, still had crappy little bins around the camp.
Domestic site maybe and Abingdon hardly operational, crash and smash plus storage but not airfield side, unless stored in a walled enclosure or in a hanger. It's almost as if the RAF thought of this isn't it?
 
The Tornado F-3 had a poor Turning Circle which is a prequisite for a Fighter the Harrier FRS 1 was too short ranged and could only carry a light weapons load......
You're definitely a SoI sock aren't you? The F3 ADV has a clue in its name.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
The Tornado F-3 had a poor Turning Circle which is a prequisite for a Fighter
Because those Bears and Backfires are so dangerous in a WVR turning fight... and the Tornado could out-turn the Phantom that the Western world and their dog had made very effective use of.

(Small hint - over half the pilots who get into a horizontal scissors are going to die there... it's fun in training and suicide in action)

the Harrier FRS 1 was too short ranged and could only carry a light weapons load......
Indeed, we should have bought some of those better, longer-legged STOVL aircraft that everyone else was using.

Oh, wait...
 
Overall the F-86 Sabre was superior to the Mig-15. The U.S. and it's Allies did have Air Superiority over Korea.
It's not often you're right....and this is no exception. F-86 had better pilots and tactics, Mig 15 better performance and guns.
 
The only thing that was going to come off a see-through carrier through-deck cruiser was STOVL in nature.

The Invincible-class was the only way of keeping the RN in the aviation game at the time, and the SHAR was a very good solution.

Later, the FA.2, with Blue Vixen and AMRAAM, was for a while the best combination in NATO.
The RN only got them approved by the Labour Govt in the seventies by calling them through-deck-cruisers designed to carry ASW helicopters to protect US reinforcement convoys to Europe against Soviet Submarines.

The RN then managed to sneak in the requirement for the Sea Harriers to take out the Soviet Bear Recce aircraft. Wasn't the mix something like 15 ASW Sea King and 6 Sea Harriers.

This was because in 1966 the Labour Government had scrapped any replacement for HMS Eagle/Ark Royal - large Strike carriers because after the withdrawel from Suez we will never need large strike carriers again.

I think they were still officially called Through Deck Cruisers until after the Falklands when Maggies government said that they can be called Aircraft Carriers.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
If
Aye, because bunging in a Blue Fox and associated gubbins can be done in a weekend....remember what happened when we fitted AIM-9 to the GR 1? For the FI as it happens, rush job.
The sad thing is, he'll neither know what you're referring to, nor bother to find out.

It sort-of-fits on the pylon, so it's a fully operational capability, innit guv?
 
Domestic site maybe and Abingdon hardly operational, crash and smash plus storage but not airfield side, unless stored in a walled enclosure or in a hanger. It's almost as if the RAF thought of this isn't it?
Good for them, but Im not gay so I never joined them. They fucked off and literally hundreds more people moved into the camp. Unsurprisingly there were all sorts of bins.
 

Latest Threads

Top