Is this how they got their name?

[Matzos]

I found this photo about three weeks ago, it was given to me just after the Falklands War had finished, by Navy photographers for some work I had carried out for them.

Is this why they are named Sea Harriers (Royal Navy Sea Harriers on their way south at the start of the War)

 

[Bombardier]

That cant be doing them any good at all :shock:

 

[snapper]

On their way South to show the world and the MOD their worth
As they did so brilliantly
Great pic buddy

 

[Matzos]

The new idea is now for RAF Harriers to serve on the Navy's carriers.
That can cause many problems.

1. RAF Harriers were not made to be covered in sea salt
2. If the RAF groundcrews wanted to go to sea, they would have joined the Navyand not the RAF. (We have our way of doing things and the Navy have their's)

Its all another way to cut the number of manpower required in todays British Armed Forces.

 

[Zofo]

I re-read Sandy Woodward's book, 100 Days and came across a reference to the RAF harriers who had horrendous problems with radar and stuff because the aircraft were flown out quickly (weren't some initially despatched with another country's markings as they were due to be sold?) they had no way of being waterproofed? I presume this is true or is it fishhead talk to wind up the RAF?

 

[Matzos]

Hi Zofo

The Sea Harrier was produced as a fighter, to protect the fleet, where as the RAF Harriers were designed for close support to the Army and has such they both have totally different radar’s and other systems.
Also when the Falklands War first started, there were only 20 Sea Harriers facing over 200 aircraft from the other side.
When the first 6 RAF Harriers arrived from 1 Sqn RAF Wittering, this let the Sea Harriers get back to being fighters and the RAF Harriers undertaking close support (i.e. bombing). That said the first bombing of Stanley airfield was carried out by Sea Harriers.
Not one Harrier from either Service was shoot down by emery aircraft.

The Argentinian aircrews were instruction to attack the fleet and not the Sea Harriers, if they had attack the Harriers and lost 4 aircraft to every Harrier shot down we would have LOST air cover and as we all know, no air cover you loose the battle. We could not re-supply the Navy with new Harriers the way the Argentinian’s could their own aircraft.

Going back to my last post, after two visits to the two RAF Harrier Stations, I have now seen Navy ground crew working a long side RAF crews, so it looks like 'what goes around, comes around'

tom;