MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK buys 14 new Chinooks taking the total force of heavy lift helicopters to 60
The Royal Air Force is getting 14 new Chinook, one of the most versatile heavy duty helicopters that have seen service for many years in the most demanding environments from the Falklands to Iraq and Afghanistan. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesShhh ... don't mention the Falklands, someone will whinge about the 'miliarization' of the suth Atlantic.
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 05:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
I didn't think there were any Chinooks left on the Falklands? I understood that the last ones went north in 2006.
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hey Marcos, Think etc. Thought you said we were broke!
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0£1 billion, just petty cash.
The HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft carrier is coming along nicely too at a nice little £5 billion (pocket change)
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 12:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12308437
She'll be built by 2016 so that gives your argies just 5 years if you want to go another round with us. Yeah she won't enter service till 2020 but thats 4 years of sea trials and training, but am sure we could rap that up quickly and deploy her by early 2017, with a few currently mothballed harriers and by recalling their pilots to active service she'd be ready to take on the non flying argentine ground based airforce in no time. :)
@4 Do you have any fighting experience T- Moron or XBOX Modern Warfare qualifies you to do that?
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@1 Red, question to my pals Zethee, Beef, Justin and you. Why is the Chinook assigned to the Air Force? Instead of Army, Marines, etc . Just a military question
Why does the RAF get the Chinooks? Well because the RAF is the force which usually operates aircraft and that's probably what makes operational sense. Just because they are operated by the RAF doesn't mean that Royal Marines and Army don't fly in them...
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Because part of the RAF's role is to provide heavy lift support and troop movements both to the Army and Marines
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think the logic is:
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If it's held to operate from ships (or to train pilots to operate from ships) it's Fleet Air Arm
If it's to support specific Army units (or it's an attack helecopter) then it's Army Air Corps
If it's being used to train test pilots or flight test engineers then it's ETPS
Otherwise if flies and it's military then it's RAF.
@Artiller0601 #5 - Oh So stating a matter of fact that yes we can recall our trained harrier pilots to active service and demothball the harriers and deploy the HMS Queen Elizabeth in time of Emergency once she is built prior to her scheduled deployment on active service of 2020 as soon as early 2017, when she will be built and ready for sea by 2016, makes me a T-Moron or Xbox Modern Warfare player does it.
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry but you off all people should know what use british are capable of doing when it needs to be done, the 1982 task for one, which dispite all thinking it would be impossible, we still did it and the argenines got a bloody nose. Or perhaps how we transformsed a merchant ship in 1914 into an aircraft carrier called HMS Ark Royal which was renamed HMS Pegasus in 1934.
So if we can Transform a merchant ship into an aircraft carrier in 1913 and completed in 1914 - Then am pretty certain in 2017 we can recall some harrier pilots into active service and deploy HMS Queen Elizabeth as eary as 2017 3 years earlier then the schedule completion of her sea trails. And it wouldn't matter if the runways on deck where not 100% fitted out as the harrier can take off (without a full load out) and land (with full load out) vetrically and can take off with a full load out with a short runway which the runway on the HMS Queen Elizabeth is more than long enough for.
So am sorry but i do not see how my comments make me a moron, when we did what did in 1914 and did what many thought impossible in 1982 and thats without mentioning the vulcon bomber missions that were also thought to be impossible.
WW2 look at what we achieved there, a single wellington bomber built in 48hrs, the production capacity of figther planes, how we turned normal factorys into war factories to produce ammunition, weapons, tanks etc at a production level not since matched.
So message of the day, Never underesitmate what the engish can do and can and will achieve.
Am i an MOD WAR player no am a realist, u?
@9
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0T, you are missing the point. In your statement @ 4 you are provoking a fight when you know deep inside that right now we don't even have a catapult. You want to flex your muscles to a Nation that can even defense themselves from regular thieves. Do you follow? what is the purpose of the comment if everybody knows the truth ?
@6 @ 7 @8 thank you for your response
Although the Chinook is an aircraft that directly supports the troops it's no attack craft and heavy lift helicopter, The RAF's role is all heavy lift while the air corps only has multipurpose/attack copters.
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 04:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are ofcourse exepections to the rules like Chinooks and Apache's takingh off from RN vessels.
Is the Chinook exclusive to the Air Force or other branches of the Armed Forces can own some? that's what I was trying to say ....
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Exclusive to the RAF, but I'm sure if operational reasons warranted it they would be used by the Fleet Air Arm and Army Air Corps...
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We don't have a catapult? On the contrary, we have several of different types. It's Argentina which doesn't have a catapult, well perhaps it does have a few but all made with wood and tyre inner tubes circa 1975...
JA, In terms of the catapult, I said We not you all .... for the record
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I just hope those Chinooks comes with manual guide and instructions, Please don´t cut and shut them !!!
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“a soldier killed in Afghanistan, the MoD admitted that one of the Chinooks it uses for operations was ”cut and shut.“ The front of the aircraft is from a British Chinook that crashed in Oman in 1999. The back of the aircraft is from an Argentinean Chinook that British troops captured during the Falklands War in 1982”
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=10157
How it works, i believe is that they are RAF owned and staffed, but attached to a particualr unit/base. Mostly used by the army ofcourse.
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is called “Cannibalization” .... Although a tragedy but please don't blame the accident on the back part of said Chinook. :-))
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unfortunately,Britain is broke and bemused who shows it's ineptness
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0by buying junk technologied vehicles from the company which never
knows to make helicopter once started with erased McDonnell Douglas
even though were just the copy of Russian technology.
Also are evacuation helicopters not combat ,I suppose that they demand
them for any evacuations from Iraq,Afghanistan,Libya maybe likely
contra using of loots,riots in homeland.
Thanks Artillero, for correcting me. I should read more carefully!
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No problem, it was not a correction anyways. I have a “ballista” in the garage , does it count?
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Artiller0601 #10
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ohh i was provoking a fight was i? I suppose you missed the :) at the end of my post (#4) which makes my comments a tongue in cheek poke at the argentines on here.
But since you stated i am provoking a fight, may i asks whos government it is thats coming out with all the rhetoric here? Ohh yeah thats Argentina, yet here you are wondering why some us are annoyed with argentina and are getting a bit fed up with them and there rhetoric along with some of the nonesense the deluded argentine posters on here post, though am not saying all argentine posters are deluded just certain individuals.
Sorry Artillero but if you can't accept a tongue in cheek poke at argentine forces, then thats your problem, but don't repond to my post with insults like you did, as that makes you no better than the deluded argentine brainwashed cry babies. After all you cried by calling me a moron and a modern warfare player, just because i had a tongue in cheek poke at your armed forces.
So if anyone missed the point Artiller it was you not i, after all my original post was ment as a bit of a harmless fun at the argentine military capabilitys when compared to ours and not ment to offend anyone, hence why i put :) at the end. And if you found the bit where i said they had just 5 years if they wanted to go another round with us - Then all i can say is, its not my fault the argentines can't accept the fact they lost the first time round!
@21
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Would you accept my apology? I did not see the smiley face at the end of you comment and let me add the following. I don't like the existing government, in a matter of fact I hate them. They are turning my country into a “Banana Republic”
Why does the RAF operate Chinooks?
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Stupidity thats why.
The logical thing is for them to be operated by the Army Air Corps, however, for no other reason than inter-service rivalry the RAF got the job. Problem is they're very much the Cinderella force of the RAF and usually get the least resources.
@23 that's what I thought. if something goes wrong, the blame games takes over and makes the mission twice as hard?
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0catapult
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0as we know the ELIZABETH does not, but the prince of wales [will]
the latest information is that the royal navy may well keep both carriers, the elizabeth will, besides being used as and for helicopters,be used to train pilots in take off and landing, so all will be ready for when the other carrier is ready, but the MOD is still concidering planes for the first carrier, v.stol variant or the [f18] i belive, but no desision will be made untill at least 2014/5. [this is only what has been read]
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
as for the Chinooks
as im not a military man,
i assume that as the RAF does most of the heavy duyt lifting and transportating of equipment and men, is the main reason that have them, and are used to the wantedge of all 3 services,
but the army does i belive have there own helicopters, in cluding the apatchee, just an opinion
@Ariller0601 #22
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes i accept your apology.
I did find it a bit of surprise to see you make such insults, and i do know you do not like your current goverment. Hope your still enjoying those Texas barbecues.
@26
Aug 23rd, 2011 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you ! I jumped the gun. :-)
@27
Aug 24th, 2011 - 08:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0No Problem - all sorted now.
J.R ( not A.) was a British secret service (a branch of MI5)
Aug 24th, 2011 - 08:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0member who related into Monteneros operation,
served in Argentina 1974-1979 , served in Falkland 1979- 1982
G.S.A was a DIA member ,an air officer (not artillery) ,tall, bronde
who related into Moneneros operation.served in Argentina 1975-1977.
he allegedly embarked from US Army in 1979 when phony court.
They met at a car night trip on July 19-1975, time BA 09.32 pm.
(not in a cafe to drink tea).presumably they spoke interesting things.
@29 ed,
Aug 24th, 2011 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0What did they talk about, ed? Do tell. We are all ears.
but it is true that J.R met with G.D (Argentine militaryman who
Aug 24th, 2011 - 09:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0was artillery officer) frequently to drink mate tea.
G.D was one of the military coup planners and related into
the Monteneros operation.he refuged to US-Texas in the following
years of 1980s.
@31
Aug 24th, 2011 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't understand ... who is JR and GD?
JR was shot a few years ago, the people of Southfork were dead upset.
Aug 24th, 2011 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For the love of God, who is JR?
Aug 24th, 2011 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JR is in on the conspiracy apparently.
Aug 24th, 2011 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I just assumed that ed's on drugs.
Aug 24th, 2011 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0lol!!! wtf !!!
Aug 24th, 2011 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I`m pretty sure JR was shot by US Army Major M. J. Hoolihan from El Paso, Tejas.
Aug 24th, 2011 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://jaydeanhcr.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/annex20-20kellerman20sally20m_a_s_h__01.jpg
@31 ed,
Aug 24th, 2011 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You've started something now, ed! Please continue. We are all dying to know!
Or was it Sammy Jo ?
Aug 24th, 2011 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://iwritealot.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Heather-Locklear-10.jpg
@39 lol!!!
Aug 24th, 2011 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The RAF will receive the first aircraft for initial trials and testing in 2013 and it will enter service in May 2014. Three helicopters will be ready for operational deployment in early 2015 and all fourteen will be fully operational by early 2017.”................ lolololol
Aug 24th, 2011 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0By the way, the government doesnt have the money - they are waiting for their present cuts to take affect and the real reason the military is getting them is simple - the british were forced to beg the americans and european partners in afghanistan to let the british use their chinooks....lol
@42
Aug 25th, 2011 - 02:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Errr Right, whatever Fantazum, go back to fantasy land will. After all you just made a correction facvtual statement about argentina, not the UK.
On that basis, what are your airforce pilots doing now, wheres you 14 new helicopters, your new F35 Lighting II Jets and Two new State of the art aircraft carriers? I geuss you missed the fact that the money has already been put aside to cover our military purchase where contracts have already been signed.
And as for “By the way, the government doesnt have the money - they are waiting for their present cuts to take affect and the real reason the military is getting them is simple - the british were forced to beg the americans and european partners in afghanistan to let the british use their chinooks....lol”
I suggest you get your facts right before posting such rubbish, yeah we were short on helicopters but we made do with what we had and only used american ones when ours were not available, and like wise the americans used ours when theirs were not available, its call a multinational force, which means multinational militarys cooperation and pooling their resources together. Or perhaps you forgot that part too. Love to know where argentinas troops are when it comes to the rest of the world fighting terrorist and dictators that support the terrorist or committed atrocisties against their own people just because they were holding peaceful protests - Though we all know where CFK was don't we. Yeah she was making backhand deals with chavez.
your government has already cancelled one of the queen elizabeth class carriers and it will be a miracle if the other one is ever finished and then you have to find the money for the US made planes to fly off it...yes the euro fighter cant be converted to fly off it ......lol.
Aug 25th, 2011 - 03:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0never mind teaboy...when Iran gives you back the rubber boats they confiscated you might be able to protect the malvinas oil fields... By the way...are british troops in afganistan still buying their own boots?
hahaha
is this what passes for ignorence where you come from.
Aug 25th, 2011 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0work has already started on the 2nd carrier,
and the first carrier is being assembled now,
[next]
It seems he doesn't read the news;
Aug 25th, 2011 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/media/press-releases/2011/press-releases.aspx
In fairness to the fantazum, there was some discussion in the last defence review about not building the second carrier.
Aug 25th, 2011 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However either through deliberate planning or plain bad negotiation, the penalty clauses that the (then) government let slip in the contracts, it would probably have cost more to get out of it than to build the carrier.
As things stand now there wouldn't be much point having the carriers completed much ahead of schedule, as the total number of all variants of the F35 fighter that have been produced to date (irrespective of whether or not they were carrier capable (i.e. STOVL or CATOBAR)) wouldn't be enough to fill a single carrier, let alone two.
“your government has already cancelled one of the queen elizabeth class carriers and it will be a miracle if the other one is ever finished and then you have to find the money for the US made planes to fly off it...yes the euro fighter cant be converted to fly off it ......lol.”
Aug 25th, 2011 - 03:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Neither of them are cancelled. Both are being built.
And the Eurofighter CAN be converted to fly off them. BAE systems has already made a mock up of a eurofighter that can be used if the UK wants to do such a thing.
BAE estimate (and they should know) that a navalised Typhoon designed for STOBAR (so ski-jump and arrestor wires) would work fine, weighing only 500kg more than a land-based Typhoon.
Aug 25th, 2011 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They don't reckon it'd be practical on a CATOBAR system though, they'd have to add so much to it, it'd be unworkable.
What we need is an aircraft carrier that has been designed to be swappable between a flat deck with catapults and a ski jump, kinda like the Queen Elizabeth class.
Tea boy you are a complete retard keep playing your xbox games
Aug 25th, 2011 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you bum, If tha'ts the case The Argy jet fighter's will use British naval ships as fodder you don't want that do you?
@Tigre
Aug 25th, 2011 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Excuse me, what the hell gives you the right to call me a retard. I have not said anything to offend anyone here least of all you, and going by the crap you posted on other articles, the only retard here is you.
As for the argy jet fighters using the british naval ships as fodder - lol Don't make me laugh, because you will have to get your argy jets of the ground first feather brain and given the current state of your airforce thats not going to happen in a hurry is it!!
And i do not play the xbox, when i play computer games i play PC based military simulations, my current favourite being Arma 2 with the british armed forces expansion (much better than stupid arcade shoot em up full of kids like you). Its funny though, you don't see many argentine forces in the game, but then thats probably because its so rare for anyone to actually see them in real life and has been that way since 1982. Mind you i saw you once, but only from behind as you were running away from me.
Oh and tigre, i suggest you reread my original post at see the :) at the end (making it a tongue in cheek comment not ment to offend anyone). Or even better, read the entire thread, before making yourself look like a retarded, delusional cry baby from fantasy land after all its only in fantasy land where your argy jets are currently flying.
in hindsight
Aug 25th, 2011 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0when these two are finnished,
there is a chance that the british goverment may well order another 3 aircraft carriers, around the 50,000ton mark
plus a futher 12 type 45s, and may well get the full 25, type 26 combat ship,
of course all this depends on future capability and resourses,
and of course money,
but hey, at least we have that ability to consider that option,
what will argentina end up with ??
Really?
Aug 25th, 2011 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Both carriers could be scrapped
20 August 2010. “A Ministry of Defence source has said that one or both of the UK's Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers could be cancelled.
According to Reuters, the source also said that Trident would not be scaled back and that UK's 106 Tornado aircraft will come out of service five years early.
The Eurofighter cannot be converted for use on the new carriers as they have a range of design problems which most importantly include the simple fact that neither carrier will have CATOBAR or STOBAR which is what the Eurofighter would need.”
Note the words “could be”. This news is before the defence review even happened.
Aug 25th, 2011 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Both carriers are being built and the NAVAL typhoon(the ones that fly off carriers) are currently being offered for india to buy.
You are wrong on both accounts.
and also remember that the delay to the 2nd carrier is to fit what it requires to fly what it needs,
Aug 25th, 2011 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0may i remind you that a carrier with a deck of over 3 acres,
can fly off any plane ,,,
after all can you imagine , a survalence plane using a catobar,
it would bloody fast, lol.
55 briton.
Aug 25th, 2011 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0really?
neither of the new British carriers have catapults. LOL
Zethe:
both indian carriers have catapults. double LOL.
this is pathetic...the british really are so ill informed.
UK 'may keep both aircraft carriers'
Aug 25th, 2011 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 023 August 2011
The government is looking at the possibility of reversing plans to mothball one Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier, and could keep both of the new ships for the Royal Navy, it has been reported.
.
“The SDSR concluded we needed one carrier but clearly that has its own limitations in availability and clearly the 2015 defence review gives us an opportunity to look again in the prevailing economic conditions and see where we go from there,” he said.
“Clearly, all of us would like two aircraft carriers because that gives us the continuous at-sea capability.
”We've had to take some pretty tough decisions but we're hoping to be in a position to recover that one in 2015.“
Howarth, speaking at the Govan shipyard where carrier sections are currently being assembled, described the carrier programme as ”stunning engineering“.
”It's about time the UK woke up to the fact that we do have immense engineering skills in Britain and that the companies with those skills are world class – indeed they operate across the globe – and Britain's future prosperity will not be found simply on the back of financial services.“
Former First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band told the newspaper that decisions regarding the carrier programme had been ”untidy at best“ but that keeping and converting both carriers made sense.
”This will allow the Queen Elizabeth to be commissioned, do all the deck trials and platform trials and make sure the design is fine,“ he said.
”Then when HMS Prince of Wales is built we can go straight in with flying trials.”
///////////////////////////////////
but then again what do we know, your the expert mmmm
@52 briton,
Aug 25th, 2011 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“what will Argentina end up with?”
steam powered aircraft? or rubber bands? better hedge your bet, boys & lay in a supply of coal as well as rubber bands.
a wind up sub, borrowed from the bath
Aug 25th, 2011 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and the future new guns, fitting for a peacefull nation
itdrops a little flag with [bang]on it when fired
@58 and 59 you guys have got me thinking of toy soldiers now, no doubt when you look at CFK's face they have enough plastic to make a few of them ;-)
Aug 26th, 2011 - 06:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0ha ha //lol
Aug 26th, 2011 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“both indian carriers”
Aug 26th, 2011 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“the british really are so ill informed.”
India has one carrier.
IF the MOD really wanted to use typhoons on the carriers they could have typhoons on the carriers. All they would need to do is refit the carriers.
The MOD however want the f-35. The only ill informed person in this thread is you.
Boy
Aug 26th, 2011 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are so jealous and the envy, shows so much .
We offered to sell you an [airfix kit] what more do you want ??
.
Ha ha Tigre thinks Argentina has an airforce! Yes it has a few planes and helicopters but there the similarity to an airforce ends!
Aug 27th, 2011 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0THEY HAVE HELICOPTERS BUT WE BUY FIGHTER JETS AND ANTI AIR. FIGHTER JETS AND ANTI AIR SHOOT DOWN HELICOPTERS!!!!!
Aug 27th, 2011 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0PLEASE BUY MORE HELICOPTERS!!!!! THIS IS LIKE ARABS TANKS V ISRAELI AIR FORCE IN SIX DAY WAR. MORE HELICOPTERS BRITISH BUY, FEWER FIGHTER JETS THEY CAN AFFORD!!!! LOL.
GO HOME PIRATES, BEFORE WE DISPATCH YOU!!!
anti air, so you dont want them to fly,
Aug 27th, 2011 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0arab tanks in argentina, to fight yourselves, because you are pirates,
once again you shame yourself and argentina,
silly boy
Zethe - I take it you are unaware that India is building new Carriers?
Aug 27th, 2011 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They will have catapults fitted so can launch just about any aircraft that has been adapted for carrier landing and take-off.
The euro-fighter was never designed for carrier operations and thus would require extensive and extremely costly re-fitting to make it suitable and the idea has already been rejected.
Only the british would scrap the Harrier then build carriers designed for the Harrier....your country really has lost the plot (as you say in britain)
“Zethe - I take it you are unaware that India is building new Carriers?”
Aug 27th, 2011 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am totally aware. You quite clearly stated that they have two, when they don't. The one they are building is replacing the old one and they have a russian(or will have in a few years).
“extensive and extremely costly re-fitting to make it suitable and the idea has already been rejected.”
I know this. I said if the UK wanted to fit typhoons on it's carriers, we could. This would require a refit. The plan is to use the f-35. You just repeated what i said.
“Only the british would scrap the Harrier then build carriers designed for the Harrier”
They were not designed for the Harrier. They were designed for the f-35, they will be flying the f-35.
Everything you said is incorrect.
One carrier was not cancelled.
The first carrier is on it's way.
The Typhoon CAN be used on the carriers if the government wanted to use them on carriers.
some people JUST wont listen will they,
Aug 27th, 2011 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But hang on a sec, hasn''t the one Indian carrier that is currently active (INS Vikramaditya (ex Admiral Goroshkov) won't finish being refitted for at least another year, and the first of the carriers that they are building from scratch (the Vikrant class), so that only leaves INS Viraat), sunk several times already? Before it was sold to them?
Aug 27th, 2011 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0zethe - your getting desperate now. tsk tsk.
Aug 27th, 2011 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I repeat:
The Indian carriers have catapults and when all three are in service by 2014 they will be able to utilize a variety of carrier adapted aircraft.
The british though, in their peculiar fashion - decide to build massive carriers that can only launch one type of aircraft lol.
Zethe - what happens in conflict if those aircraft are lost? what will the british use then? - balloons? hahahaha
like i said zethe
Aug 27th, 2011 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0he just never listends.
yes its embarassing isnt it briton - you have just woken up to the bizarre fact that your new carriers can only use one type of aircraft - nobody thought that those planes may get shot down leaving the carriers without a purpose.
Aug 28th, 2011 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0double LOL
@73 you clearly are stupid aren't you, do you really think all the f35's will be shot down at the same time? yeah if one gets shot down so what, theres still a lot more left on the carrier to cover for it, and a replacement will be ordered. Also the harriers can if need be be demothballed (they have not be scrapped), and the harriers can take off and land on the new british aircraft carriers no problem. Also, the current indian aircarft carrier is to be scrapped when the new one is built leaving them with just one if the russian one is not ready for service, plus F35's are far more advance and better planes then anything the Indian carriers will carry. So India currently have 1 aircraft carrier that is due to be scrapped and replaced with the new one it is building, so when the russian one is finally ready they will only have 2 aircraft carriers and not 3 like you seem to think.
Aug 28th, 2011 - 01:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0You seem so fascinated with the catapolt system yet fail to realise the aircraft carriers are for VTOL or STOL Aircarft. And you find out first hand what such aircraft could do to your airforce in 1982. Just because one plane may get shot down doesn't mean the aircraft carrier is disabled or that it will be out of the battle, does it numb nuts! No theres still plenty more aircraft on it that can take off and win any battle.
teaboy - your Harriers are subsonic - I take it you didnt know that.
Aug 28th, 2011 - 02:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0You brits are so dumb you turned down a plan to redesign the harrier to make it supersonic and instead went for a massively more expensive american alternative which is one of the most complex and expensive aircraft ever to be built and can only be produced in small numbers so any losses will be difficult to replace - and at enormous cost.
Like I said - you brits have become a laughing stock and even the USA considers you a joke after your failure in Iraq and Afghanistan - you couldnt even hold Basra and had to retreat lol. Maybe thats why Hillary Clinton wont support your claim to the malvinas...
@75 - “your Harriers are subsonic - I take it you didnt know that”
Aug 28th, 2011 - 04:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Errr yes i do know that, though i also know that a fighter jet travelling at more than the speed of sound is pretty much useless in combat or in releasing bombs. Why would a seaboard harrier need to travel supersonic, there is no where for them to refuel in hostile zones, so what would be the point in travelling such speeds and equally huge distance if they not going to beable to land and refuel somewhere safe? Their is none.
As for the F35 its a brand new plane that has only jyst started production, by the time we have ours they will be in full production, the production timeline and scale of production has been the same for just about all brand new fighter jets when they first beging production, with production then rapidly expanded. So your point it being only being produced in small numbers is irrelevent and shows your lack of military and production of fighter plane knowlege.
And as for basra, well we did not retreat we were there right to the very end, and did not pull out until the set agreed dates, Plus was it not the brits in basra that wore their berets instead of combat hemlets, if it was so hostile as you think then why was it safe for us to wear our berets? Again your lacking in knowlegde and simply basis your post on wild assumptions. You clearly do not understand the tactical implications as to why the harrier was not a supersonic aircraft as it simply did not need to be.
Ohh and as for plans to make a supersonic aircaft to replace the current version of the harrier, well thats a load of made up bullshit, as the last supersonic harrier design was P.1231 - Supersonic Harrier II development in 1985. So gte your facts right before sprouting crap. And anyway if you think we are a laughing stock that couldn't even hold basra, then all i can say is why do you not come get the islands, Ohh i forgot you tried that once but couldnt hold em, from a single task force came from 8000 miles away
He's quite the troll. fantazum2011, as you've stated we “couldnt” hold basra....like 3000 miles from home?
Aug 28th, 2011 - 04:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina couldnt hold stanley...200 miles from home.
Insult our forces all you like. They'll still give Argentina a good kicking any day of the week.
TEABOY - you ask “why would a carrier borne plane need to be supersonic”?
Aug 28th, 2011 - 06:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Then why are you buying supersonic capable VSTOL aircraft for your carriers?
Then you say: “the F35 will be in full production when we get our carriers”
The F35 now costs over £40 million EACH and they still have technical problems so the US government is considering scrapping the contract with Lockheed - so you may never get ANY.
Then you say: “ the last attempt to produce a supersonic harrier was the P.1231 in 1085”
Wrong again old chap - it was actually the P.1154 which was scrapped in defence cut costs in 1965.
ZETHE - the british abandoned Basra because they had been threatened by the leader of the local militias, Al Sadre. Your military was accused of cowardice by the americans...and not for the first time.
Maybe you guys should find a new forum as you are obviously out-classed in this one and by the way - the americans seem to like the harrier as they have just bought every one of the harriers that your government just scrapped - they have not been “mothballed” as you claim - all 70 of them have been sold to the US marine corps for the amazing price of just....wait for it !...$50 million HAHAHAHAH
.
Aug 28th, 2011 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0@78fantacola,
Aug 28th, 2011 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe we could buy some 2nd hand steam powered Skyhawks from you lot? Well , you must have forgotten how to fly them by now, they've been grounded for so long!
@79geo,
Thats very profound, geo. Do you really mean that? oj.
@78
Aug 28th, 2011 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why are we buying supersonic jets for the new carriers you ask? Well probably because they is no other plane available on the market that is as new, as sophisticated, has stealh ability and vtol ability. Tactical wise it was picked because 1 stealth, and 2 Stol and Vtol capability and 3 it has a greater fuel efficently that would actually allow it to make short supersonic filights and still beable to get back to the carrier i.e. its combat radius is 1,090 km whilst the harriers was just 556km approx. So effectily double the combat range, double the time in the air, meaning supersonic flight can be used but it is unlikely they will use it unless over friendly held land and can refuel.
“Wrong again old chap - it was actually the P.1154 which was scrapped in defence cut costs in 1965.” Sorry but the P1231 was the last supersonic design for the harrier in 1985, - here a list of harrier project that proves am right and you are so far behing the times it embarressing - http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/projects.htm
Lol your comments on basra are rediculus, ohhh he threatened me quick lets run, yeah reall the army fled cos one man made a threat to them. YEAH RIGHT. Sorry but we didn't run, and please show us any evidence we retreated or ran, as you will not find any, as the truth is the british intelligence made a mistake by making a deal with al sadr to encourage the shia population into the political process and in turn maginalise extramist fractions, in return no british soldier was to set foot in basra without permission of the defense secretary. Yes the deal was a big mistake but it was not a retreat nor cowardice, but simply us honouring a promise, if the Iraqi prime minister hadn't ordered the attack then the deal would have probably achieved what it was ment to achieve. If the Yanks and Iraqis had not gone in then Al sadr may have kept to his side of the deal and enter political process instead of taking up arms, but the Iraq prime minister wanted a fight.
@78 as for “Maybe you guys should find a new forum as you are obviously out-classed in this one and by the way - the americans seem to like the harrier as they have just bought every one of the harriers that your government just scrapped - they have not been “mothballed” as you claim - all 70 of them have been sold to the US marine corps for the amazing price of just....wait for it !...$50 million HAHAHAHAH”
Aug 28th, 2011 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes SOME (only 40) have been sold to the americans, the rest are still mothballed - Plus there is still 76 harriers based at cottesmore still going through anti det engine runs to keep them servicable.
“zethe - your getting desperate now. tsk tsk.”
Aug 28th, 2011 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hardly.
“The Indian carriers have catapults and when all three are in service by 2014 they will be able to utilize a variety of carrier adapted aircraft.”
Again, incorrect...along with everything else you've said. In 2014 India will have two carriers.
81 Teaboy2: Theres also a lot of other reasons they've picked the f-35. When it does come into production it'll be an amazing jet. The reason it's taking so long is because the americans are trying to use one jet for all purposes. Where as now the US airforce has many types of planes. In 20 years it'll mostly consist of just the f-35. About 2,500 of them. It's stealthy, can take off like a harrier, it can take out missiles, it has high powered cameras all over the plane to assist in intellegence gathering, it can jam radars and other systems, internal weapons bays, doesn't even need to be pointed at the jet it's attacking.
The harrier was a great plane, revolutionary. But it's lived it's life and it's time is over. What fantaz fails to note is that while some of the harriers have been sold to the Americans it's not for them to fly, They're just for spare parts.
I ave been censored on here!!!!
Aug 28th, 2011 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0[] - 80 isol
Aug 28th, 2011 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0not very profoundly...
i remembered abruptly that a sample from disastrous British
experience in 1819 when the cavaliers were mobilised to disperse
protesters demanding parliamentary reform...11 death hundreds
injured resulted.....
1819? when was this? when you were young?
Aug 28th, 2011 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0any date prior to 1982 is of insignificance!
“any date prior to 1982 is of insignificance!”
Aug 28th, 2011 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Spoken like a true British person pretending to be Argentinian.
Give it up.
Why are you going on about India, Russia or the USA , we aren’t at war with them
Aug 28th, 2011 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And very unlike, every to be, so it does not matter does it, the point and fact of the matter is this,
1,the carriers can and will destroy anything Argentina can throw at it, including stones,
2, the planes are the most advanced in the world, and cost a lot of money,
Now even the most stupid of people will never except that us and the USA will spend billions on these just to have them shot down by the argentine air force, so laughable,
3, as this is about brits and argie, you have lost, again,
4, carriers can and will fly any plane that can fly of its decks,
5, most importantly if you are going to compare,
The difference would be [F35] us----and you would still be
Using the Wright brothers contraption,,
6, so in hindsight it does not matter if the R/N carriers have wires or not
Whatever flies of its decks, will be to advanced, than ANYTHING Argentina or brazil or you mate [Hugo]
Will ever have,
7, and no matter what you have, without EXPEIRIANCE you have nothing
The R/N and the RAF are very experienced,
8, we may yet build another 3 carriers, as ,,as expected we grow into a maritime nation again
We will need them, more ships, more subs, [it only take courage and money]
We have the money, but a government with no balls, [shit you have an advantage]
Shhhhh don’t tell anyone,
9, and last of all, anytime Argentineans, want to become British , just fill in a form, and we will consider, it lololol
,
briton: He claims that our “one” carrier wont be built. Last i read it was over a month ahead of schedule.
Aug 28th, 2011 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well Teaboy, what can I say?
Aug 29th, 2011 - 03:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0I really do not have the time to answer your ever lengthening posts so I will keep it short
It doesnt look good for the F35:
http://ipolitics.ca/2011/08/17/f-35-under-budget-scrutiny-in-u-s-australia-sets-date-for-decision/
http://ipolitics.ca/2011/08/17/f-35-under-budget-scrutiny-in-u-s-australia-sets-date-for-decision/
India's THREE carriers:
http://ipolitics.ca/2011/08/17/f-35-under-budget-scrutiny-in-u-s-australia-sets-date-for-decision/
It doesnt look good for your carriers chay:
http://ipolitics.ca/2011/08/17/f-35-under-budget-scrutiny-in-u-s-australia-sets-date-for-decision/
Here is the link to the FIRST supersonic Harrier
http://ipolitics.ca/2011/08/17/f-35-under-budget-scrutiny-in-u-s-australia-sets-date-for-decision/
This what your own Colonel Tim Collins said about the british retreat from Basra;
http://ipolitics.ca/2011/08/17/f-35-under-budget-scrutiny-in-u-s-australia-sets-date-for-decision/
Sorry old boy...lol
@85geo,
Aug 29th, 2011 - 08:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0That is true,geo. But what has that to do with the fact that the RAF is getting more helicopters?
[] - 86 -87
Aug 29th, 2011 - 09:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0i didn't live in 19 th century
BUT
i remember the Brixton Riots 1981 (UK) !!
-----------
[] - 91
becouse likely that it does not matter in/out country for the RAF !!
@90 response to first 2 links - So what, nothing to stop us demothballing the 76 harriers whilst we purchase another jet fighter instead of the F35. Plus the contracts are in place anyway so they have a legal commitment to produce the jets.
Aug 29th, 2011 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Link 3 - So, your source of information is different from mine, but one persons blog doesn't mean india will have 3 carriers, after all they are currently only building one and refitting an old russian one, and when they come into active service the current operational carrier will be scrapped. And even if they did have a thrid it will be mothbolled and used only as a replacement or in emergency's.
Link 4 - out of date old boy, since that article we have had the defence review and the carriers were not scrapped.
Link 5 - The P1154 never went into production, it was never built, and the last supersonic harrier designs were for the P-1231 in 1985 but again it was never built. So how can we have scrapped a jet that we never actually had?
Link 6 - the article is reference the preplanned withdrawal of British troops from iraq, the handing over to iqaq security forces and or pulling out of basra was always intended to happen, it was not a retreat in any sense. Or did you expect us to remain there forever.
Conculsion: Your infomation is out of date, inaccurate and your simply basis your posts on your conculsions and believe that something was scrapped when it was nothing but a drawing on paper and that a preplanned handover and withdrawal is a military retreat when it is not. Plus the withdrawal was much later then the incident to what you referred to in previous posts when US and Irqai troops went into get rid of al sadr. Plus you think the F35 bing scrapped will be a problem for us when it will not i.e. demothball remaining harriers and purchase the F/A18 - F's instead.
@83 - Zethe it totally agree with you, but limited posting space means i could not list all the reasons why the F35 was choosen otherwise i would have done.
Aug 29th, 2011 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@88 Well said britain lol.
Teaboy: Note how he said in 2014 India would have three carriers, then read his own source...That states that the second carrier will not even be in service untill 2015 and then they might start building another.
Aug 29th, 2011 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0indoctrinated people only know what they are told to say, [
Aug 29th, 2011 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And I quote ,, fantazum2011 , malen think and the rest,
.........................................................................................
As for the two carriers,
The first carrier, is being assembled as we speak, the building blocks are their, while this is being done, the out fitting will slowly take place,
The deck was finished, in part, when the other two parts are finished they will go to the yard,, i reckon that by the summer of 2012, ,,
We will see for the first time, what it will look like,, rather than computer images,
...................................
The steel for the 2nd carrier has been cut; the 2nd carrier sits about one year behind the first,
Both will be made, both will be operated , and both will fly planes of its decks,,, but then again as we have no ships left according to the expert-
fantazum2011 ,, then that just leaves Argentina with all the ships then lol.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14597094
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14597094
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14597094
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14597094
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14597094
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14597094
they should work
enjoy
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!