It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK F-35s land on HMS Queen Elizabeth

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2019 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yeah, it's pretty much just an airshow maneuver. Even WVR you'll never get that close.




posted on Oct, 13 2019 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

They just underwent a 1 billion plus refit then they sold/gave them away



The aircraft had been extremely successful in Afghanistan particularly the GR9 version which had powerful Rolls Royce engines, new weapon installations, targeting pods and helmet mounted displays

after more than £1 billion has been spent on them in the last decade.

The chopped up 2 Billion £ of Nimrods on live television

www.warshipsifr.com...

They sure know how to blow money our gov



posted on Oct, 13 2019 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaphod i remember laughing at this advert not that many years ago when it turned out that the car in the ad was the only thing not sold for scrap



The carrier sold for 88k and the harrier fleet for 7 Mil after going through a Billion refit airframes were good for 30 years



www.youtube.com...


The carrier in that advert is the HTMS Chakri Naruebet.The flagship of the Royal Thai Navy. The Harriers are also Royal Thai Navy and are ex-Spanish Navy. Thailand retired their Harriers during 2006 without replacement.

Thailand Aircraft Carrier

If you look at the description of the advert it states where the advert was filmed.


Directed by Outsider's Pedro Romhany, the shoot was based entirely in Thailand



posted on Oct, 13 2019 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: stonerwilliam

And they were looking at another massive upgrade. Retirement saved another billion, and possibly more. The only thing the Harrier could do that the Typhoon and Tornado couldn't do was fly off a deck. Since there were no decks left in the RN for them to fly off of, it didn't really make sense to not keep the more capable platforms around and get rid of the Harrier.

As for the Nimrod, safety concerns made getting rid of them a priority.



posted on Oct, 13 2019 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: Zaphod58

The carrier in that advert landed up on some foreign beach getting ripped up by locals on a rope and we sold America all the harriers and spares for 7 mill so they cannot be all that bad



You had better inform the Royal Thai Navy that! lol. It is still in service although the Harriers that you see in the video from the Royal Thai Navy were retired in 2006. They were ex-Spanish Navy first generation Harriers which the Spanish replaced with the AV-8B Harrier II.

Thai Aircraft Carrier - Wiki Link

The Thai's retired their Harriers in 2006. Some footage of them operating from HTMS Chakri Naruebet. Thai carrier footage from 0:12. The first part is Spanish Navy AV-8B Harrier II.




edit on 13/10/2019 by tommyjo because: Additional info added



posted on Oct, 13 2019 @ 11:02 PM
link   
The Pentagon will continue to spend billions on U.S. military aircraft.

Why?

Because it's indispensable to nation defense?

What do the authors of papers from think tanks, lobbyist, and
pandering politicians have in common?

Wait, are you implying these people receive huge dividend checks
from Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General
Dynamics, and Ratheon?

My apologies, back to being captivated by war machines.



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: MrBlaq

Because it would be awesome if our pilots could actually fly without worrying about their aircraft automatically ejecting them as they break apart around them. If we stop spending, the world isn't going to suddenly start getting along, and peace break out. The rest of the world is spending billions of dollars on their own upgrades to their militaries, and will continue to.

Contrary to what you seem to think, the US military is in piss poor shape, because we haven't bought new aircraft in decades, besides the F-22, and now the F-35. Our pilots are flying aircraft that are as old as, or older than they are, and in many cases their use is far beyond flying from Point A to Point B, putting a lot of strain on the airframe. So we can either spend billions of dollars on aircraft that are 30+ year old designs, at the youngest, and get left behind, or we can buy new aircraft and develop new technologies.
edit on 10/14/2019 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 03:10 AM
link   
A few more pics:






edit on 14/10/2019 by RexKramerPRT because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




The F-35 is light years ahead of the Harrier in terms of capabilities. Everything from their landing CEP to their sensor capability is so far ahead it's not funny


Considering The Harrier has been in service for FIFTY YEARS would you really expect anything else ?



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

Yes, I know it has, but sensor wise it's not the same platform. The sensors and systems evolved with time, and it became quite capable. They added FLIR, Sniper, APG-65, Link 16, etc. The F-35 is even pretty far ahead of the F-22 though, and they're a lot closer in age.



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: RexKramerPRT

I wonder what HMS Dragon's radar makes of these aircraft and how they compare with a conventional jet.

As a side note, I actually like the F35. It's had a lot of bad press, but it looks the part and the UK is benefitting from being a level 1 partner in the programme.



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

In your understanding continued spending is essential
to repair and maintain current military hardware
and to keep up with the global arms race.

The real issue is not spending, but the mindset
that assumes preparation for war is the best
defensive policy. A mindset that fails to
understand every context for conflict is
contrived and manipulated by leadership
that make millions from war.

Leaders who have the most to gain, who
never give a rat's arse about those sent
to die for their misguided policies. Leaders
who avoid sending their own sons to the
next conflict. How convenient.

They simply rely on the misplaced
enthusiasm of the misinformed. Knowing
they will send their sons instead.

Still hard to understand?

Try reading the 58,000+ names on the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial Wall in Washington DC if you
assume preparation for war a necessary expedient.

Not one of these young men died for glory.
What complete and utter foolishness.













edit on 10/14/2019 by MrBlaq because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MrBlaq

I have read the names. And I spent more years watching people I know put their lives on the line day in and day out, and some not come home than most people. And I've seen what happens to the troops after they fight and come home. So don't talk to me about how bad war is.

So, according to your logic, if we just stop thinking that a strong defense is our best option, the world will suddenly see the error of its ways, and get along, right? All of a sudden everyone will start singing Khumbaya, sharing resources, and all our problems will go away. We'll be on Mars in 10 years! Why didn't anyone else think of that? Oh wait.... they did, and got hammered by a stronger country for it.

Contrary to your belief in humanities better nature, as long as resources are needed, people will fight. If we get rid of the military, they'll go back to beating the crap out of each other with poles and sticks if they have to. People aren't going to magically get along while we all need resources, and everyone wants them. So yes, we need a military. So, it's one of those things you're just going to have to deal with, unless you can come up with a magic way to cause resources to no longer be needed.


GD

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: stonerwilliam Well, we didn't all love the Harriers. I kind of look at it as it was a decent implementation to fill the need. The F-35, that's a whole different story. It going to do amazing things as the Corps transforms itself.



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: GD

For a plane that was 50 years old it did ok imho and was only got rid off due to bureaucracy and cost cutting , which ended up costing them a fortune because of a lack of forward thinking by Hm .Gov , that seems to be entrenched in the government of Britain



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: stonerwilliam

All aircraft reach a point where cost upkeep doesn't make sense anymore. The F-35s were a few years away from service entry, and they were looking at another huge investment for less than 20 years of continued service.


GD

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58 It's interesting that 311 is getting the C model- I would have expected those to go to the legacy Hornet squadrons. Guess they don't want to waste the money spent on the AN/APG-65.



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: GD

They were supposed to go Bs in 2018, but were swapped for -122, because of how bad the Hornets were at the time. Then -122 will go to Yuma. I believe -122 was scheduled for the 2022 C slot originally, which left that open.


GD

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks! I remember MCAS Yuma. They are going to wish they were at Miramar...


GD

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: stonerwilliam

It was a significant aircraft for its time, but, my days overlapped with the AV-8A. It had a well earned reputation as a widow maker. You Brits did great things with it in the Falklands. You were using it differently than the Corps, though.




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join