Last Sea Harrier Flight March 06 - SHAR_Last_ Flight_1.JPG (0/1)

[RichW]

Last flight of Sea Harrier (sorry, dont have tail number) in March
from RNAS Yeovilton to RNAS Culdrose dummy deck.

[Netko]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:50:34 +0000, RichW wrote
(in message >):

> Last flight of Sea Harrier (sorry, dont have tail number) in March
> from RNAS Yeovilton to RNAS Culdrose dummy deck.

Of course, the type is still operationally alive and well with
India's Naval Air Arm and flying from the INS Viraat (ex-Hermes).

Picture comes from the very commendable India's Defenders (Bharat
Rakshak) web site.

--

[Netko]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:50:34 +0000, RichW wrote
(in message >):

> Last flight of Sea Harrier (sorry, dont have tail number) in March
> from RNAS Yeovilton to RNAS Culdrose dummy deck.

Of course, the type is still operationally alive and well with
India's Naval Air Arm and flying from the INS Viraat (ex-Hermes).

Picture comes from the very commendable India's Defenders (Bharat
Rakshak) web site.

--

[NoJags Neil]

I'd be grateful for opinions on an argument I was having in a completely
different place. The argument goes that the GR9s that are a stop-gap
replacement do not have air-to-air radar, and so are not as capable of
defending the fleet, despite probably having a greater offensive capability.
Does this argument hold water?


"RichW" > wrote in message
...
> Last flight of Sea Harrier (sorry, dont have tail number) in March
> from RNAS Yeovilton to RNAS Culdrose dummy deck.

[NoJags Neil]

I'd be grateful for opinions on an argument I was having in a completely
different place. The argument goes that the GR9s that are a stop-gap
replacement do not have air-to-air radar, and so are not as capable of
defending the fleet, despite probably having a greater offensive capability.
Does this argument hold water?


"RichW" > wrote in message
...
> Last flight of Sea Harrier (sorry, dont have tail number) in March
> from RNAS Yeovilton to RNAS Culdrose dummy deck.

[RustY©]

RichW > wrote in
:

> Last flight of Sea Harrier (sorry, dont have tail number) in March
> from RNAS Yeovilton to RNAS Culdrose dummy deck.


Here are a few pics of the rest of them - they ended up in RAF Shawbury
destined for the chop no doubt or on a pole somewhere. If you are
interested the photos show
ZH796/L/001, ZH803/L/004, ZH804/L/003, ZH811/L/002,
ZH812/L/005, ZH813/L/010, ZH798, ZD579/N


--
________________________________________

..

[RustY©]

RichW > wrote in
:

> Last flight of Sea Harrier (sorry, dont have tail number) in March
> from RNAS Yeovilton to RNAS Culdrose dummy deck.


Here are a few pics of the rest of them - they ended up in RAF Shawbury
destined for the chop no doubt or on a pole somewhere. If you are
interested the photos show
ZH796/L/001, ZH803/L/004, ZH804/L/003, ZH811/L/002,
ZH812/L/005, ZH813/L/010, ZH798, ZD579/N


--
________________________________________

..

[RustY©]

[RustY©]

[RustY©]

[RustY©]

[RustY©]

[RustY©]

[RustY©]

[RustY©]

[RustY©]

[RustY©]

[RustY©]

[RustY©]

[RustY©]

[RustY©]

[Alan Erskine]

"NoJags Neil" > wrote in message
...
> I'd be grateful for opinions on an argument I was having in a completely
> different place. The argument goes that the GR9s that are a stop-gap
> replacement do not have air-to-air radar, and so are not as capable of
> defending the fleet, despite probably having a greater offensive
capability.
> Does this argument hold water?

Certainly does. See my response to Alf's post.


--
Alan Erskine

[Alan Erskine]

"NoJags Neil" > wrote in message
...
> I'd be grateful for opinions on an argument I was having in a completely
> different place. The argument goes that the GR9s that are a stop-gap
> replacement do not have air-to-air radar, and so are not as capable of
> defending the fleet, despite probably having a greater offensive
capability.
> Does this argument hold water?

Certainly does. See my response to Alf's post.


--
Alan Erskine

[alf blume]

"Alan Erskine" > skrev i en meddelelse
...
> "NoJags Neil" > wrote in
> message
> ...
>> I'd be grateful for opinions on an argument I was having in a completely
>> different place. The argument goes that the GR9s that are a stop-gap
>> replacement do not have air-to-air radar, and so are not as capable of
>> defending the fleet, despite probably having a greater offensive
> capability.
>> Does this argument hold water?
>
> Certainly does.

Rightly so - but of no consequense for the Falklands situation.

The UK can strike any part of Argentina at any moment from the subs, and the
Argie's know it.

So they'll keep the peace at all cost. The population in Argentina would
never accept another war - to many widows and war-cribled people from the
last one . . .
The last war was an attemt by the Junta to divert attention from their abuse
of human rights - no such problems now.

But if you wanna play "what if" - be my guest.

[alf blume]

"Alan Erskine" > skrev i en meddelelse
...
> "NoJags Neil" > wrote in
> message
> ...
>> I'd be grateful for opinions on an argument I was having in a completely
>> different place. The argument goes that the GR9s that are a stop-gap
>> replacement do not have air-to-air radar, and so are not as capable of
>> defending the fleet, despite probably having a greater offensive
> capability.
>> Does this argument hold water?
>
> Certainly does.

Rightly so - but of no consequense for the Falklands situation.

The UK can strike any part of Argentina at any moment from the subs, and the
Argie's know it.

So they'll keep the peace at all cost. The population in Argentina would
never accept another war - to many widows and war-cribled people from the
last one . . .
The last war was an attemt by the Junta to divert attention from their abuse
of human rights - no such problems now.

But if you wanna play "what if" - be my guest.