Didn't a single swedish submarine similatedly sink a US aircraft carrier and several other ships of the carrierfleet wihtout getting caught? (The US then even tried to purchase a model of the submraine to study it) Comming from a landlocked country i won't judge "who has the best Navy" but from the things i have read, watched and listened to, it seems the biggest Flaw of the US Navy is that they at times drastically underestimate everybody else or overestimate themselves. (And i haven't encountered much info about other Navys doing that)

Yep! They completely underestimated the sub force because they "just" had small diesel boats. Completely forgetting that in a short range environment like the baltic, a diesel electric sub is even more deadly than a nuclear boat due to being smaller and quieter.

My father in law served on "O Boats" diesel/electric submarines in the Royal Navy years ago and on a few occasions "sunk" American carriers a few times in practice while not being spotted or caught by the American task force. He told me his sub hid underneath a carrier for hours without detection and when the time was right they made themselves visible by coming to periscope depth and raising everything they had so the Americans could "find" them. To say the American navy wasn't very good at finding diesel/electric subs was and still is an understatement.

keep dreamin dude - pc a carrier has 4 cats and harrier is vertical take off

It was not a dream it was an exercise.

That was in a movie, reality is a little different

@@douglasabbott9488 whoosh

@Derek well spill it then, don’t keep us all in suspense!

Might I suggest that you check out the interview with a Buccaneer pilot doing Red Flag at Vegas? I think it will tickle your sense of humour.

Took you delinquent dead beats 60 years to pay off your debt. Fricken dead beats.

@@laurencethornblade8357 At least we honoured our debt by paying it.

@Mark Hepworth Christ, there's always some miserable ding-dong talking politics.

@Mark Hepworth yeah why what the fuck is it to you?

And it's the double l in marvellous that makes marvellous marvellous.

Cheers Des.

Woof woof!

Crack on, lofty!

Cheers :)

(Stares in Black Watch)

Glad you enjoyed it, Chris.

I agree.

Yes I've heard that post-2008 recession the British Government made a choice to either axe the Tornado early or the Harriers. They chose the latter

I'm surprised the UK has got an F35 fleet and not some BAE Hawks with a catobar.

@@Joker-yw9hl given the Tornado was warm out in 2008 the decision to retire the Sea Harrier and later the GR9 was doubly criminal and made absolutely no sense.

"but it turns out after trillions in development the f35b performance is about the same as the Sea Harrier, "(sic) Only in the mind of a neophyte. "but the Sea Harrier FRS2 with the Mk 107 engine would probably out perform the f35b."(sic) Nope. You'd need to start with a clean sheet of paper. Even the never built P.1154 wouldn't have been able to compete with the F-35B.

@@AA-xo9uw For various reasons the f35b rarely goes supersonic and if it does it is limited to Mach 1.3 and cannot sustain it for long, particularly with the external stores it needs to be operationally useful (and hence looses the tiny stealth advantage it is supposed to have). So essentially similar to the Sea Harrier in terms of speed then (minus the vertical take off and agility). As for the P1154, that was a Mach two plus interceptor and hence would have been a real hot ship. I think the f35 has been grounded again due to its latest crash and the fact they can't work out what happened. It's obvious, the undercarriage architecture means in a hard bounce landing it pitches and rolls beyond the control authority possible in the hover and lost control. Once again when you look at the Harrier the very wide undercarriage (wheels on the wing tips) makes the Harrier passively stable in such circumstances. The f35b is just an utter failure. The UK should cancel it and even consider pursuing the US for compensation.

@@pgs1796 I agree that he has given good accounts elsewhere, still would like to see him on the channel because of how the videos on this channel are structured and it would be interesting to hear what he has to say.

You do know that the original Tornado Fighter Variants more often than not flew with concrete ballast in the nose, because the radar was so bad it wasn't worth installing. In fact they were called the Blue Circle Fighters (after the company that made the cement powder).

@@bobdylan7120 I believe that was the Tornado F Mk 2 which in most respects was ready pending the development of the Foxhunter radar system later fitted on the F Mk 3. Once Foxhunter was ready to be deployed it was a very good radar system. However your are correct about the Blue Circle story. They needed some way to simulate the weight of the radar being in place to keep the plane balanced correctly. I don't believe the F.2 ever saw active service and was more a prototype and testing aircraft. An interceptor with no radar would be next to useless.

Blue vixen for the basis for the typhoons captor it was certainly newer and better than fox hunter

Blue Vixen was one of the best radars of its time in managing multiple contacts, combined with the AMRAAM was a potent platform.

@@bobdylan7120 The "Blue circle radar" was only fitted due to the rapid and continual development of the Foxhunter Radar, it enabled the pilots to familiarise themselves with the Tornado airframe characteristics first prior to full deployment. The early Foxhunter radars when tested were found to be lacking in engaging multiple targets that could rapidly change height, such as the F6 EEL's.

Tornado F3

@@Aircrewinterview - Ah ha! Thanks! I try to keep up with aircraft identifiers, but that one was new to me. More study needed! And that version of the Tornado seems to be one sharp airplane!

F3 tornado I would imagine

Tornado ads

It is the 5 squadron marking and symbolises the close ties with the Canadians during WW1.

@@philup4947 nice one, thanks!

In 1982 there were many RAF pilots in SHARS attached to the relevant 800 and 801 NAS and even more in the scratch formed 809 NAS. For example 4 were ex Lightning pilots from RAF Harrier squadrons and deployed because of their combat experience.

Then your tanks are full of vapour.....so no.

The freedom and ingenuity to wing things is what would be required in war so it makes perfect sense to practice that approach in training. It really is so tiresome when red tape and procedure get their filthy mitts on things.

@@hawker1262 It's proper training and experience that allows you to 'wing it' and succeed in unforeseen circumstances. This was a totally foreseeable circumstance with no operational necessity. He was lucky. If he'd screwed up would you want to be the one to tell his family?

The Royal Navy ignored the US Navy liaison officers on munitions consumption in modern war. Vietnam taught us how much ammo would be consumed. US had to rearm the Royal Navy at sea shortly after hostilities started.

@@darbyheavey406 Only after the Atlantic Conveyor was lost and the Brits had things covered, as her sister ship the Atlantic Causeway arrived a few days later but the sinking caused great difficulties for them.

I’m glad your an Ally.

I think they did it more then once.

And in 1974 the EEL that "Bounced" the SR71 in mid Atlantic that was setting a crossing speed record

Ask the Argentines what they think of "la muertra negra". Now go home!