Not just the the lack of “EMGY Cabin Lighting” but a host of other avionic upgrades, to make them fit into modern PAX airways, that were “not adopted” by those that pay. TCAS/TAWS, RVSM, FM Immunity (I think), and finally – Noise! VC10s are not compatible with new civil airport noise levels (introduced in the early 2000’s?)

Not entirely correct. The VC10 has TCAS, is mainly RVSM compliant (a few temporarily aren’t, but aren’t pax carriers anyway). As for TAWS, it has a radio altimeter, and, unlike almost all airliners, a Navigator. It uses the same airways as everyone else.:) As for noise, it varies from airport to airport, and it can still use all but the strictest civil airports.

1) Your armed forces are professional and being a country with high wages, you spend a lot for your wages.

Possibly the biggest factor in relation to other nations armed forces.:)

Hi Mark 12
My link from post 60 gives a lowish res aerial view 1940-47

http://www2.getmapping.com/WebShop/Web/CommonPages/Main/Start.aspx
Having said all that – Bill did say it was in the top field but I will try and speak to him later

rgds baz

Just for completeness, taken from GE, to save people having to search via the link:

🙂

I would have thought that three to five of these airframes would have made an excellent replacement for the two (soon to be retired) Nimrod R1 of 51 Squadron, but it seems that a new British aircraft isn’t as good as a second-hand one from somewhere else.

New? You mean part second hand… A description that could also be applied to the Rivet Joint, which of course is being bought off the shelf (being converted from a safely stored airframe), proven, and able to do the job it’s being bought to do.

Look at the mess that MRA4’s been – from all sides. Now imagine letting industry loose with a (probably abysmally written) contract for the Nimrod R1 replacment. It might arrive by 2030. If we’re lucky. That’s about 19 years too late!:)

This thread had got me trying to pinpoint it again having briefly looked a few years ago.

There’s an article on the web which describes the OXO sports ground being in Ravensbourne (geographically Ravensbourne is between Bromley and the clutch of remaining coporate sports grounds in the north of Beckenham – HSBC, Lloyds TSB – now the County Cricket Ground etc), and having been the location of an AA battery during WW2. This also states that The Times sports club was opposite.

I suspect it’s probably in the vicinity of the HSBC and the County Cricket Ground (formerly Lloyds TSB).

Yes, the Harrier is going next year.

As for 617, I suspect they are one of the “very safe” numberplates. I’m not sufficiently genned up on the seniority of the other Tonka sqns to offer which may be the first to go.

As for bases, there’s been a lot of hysteria in the press regarding the closure Kinloss and possibly Lossie. Hopefully that will be ignored (coincidentally, the RAF bases in Scotland have been very lucky in the last 30 years up until now), and the best basing solutions for the service(s) will be found (IMHO, I suspect Lossie will be safe long term, although maybe have a period of a year or two without aircraft with the preparation for JCA(F-35)).

The Harrier didn’t serve the British at all during Desert Storm.

That the Ministry of Defence and the RAF refused to test its Harriers in such a high threat environment speaks volumes about the perceived effectiveness of the jump jet as a CAS platform. They did not have as much confidence in the equipment as you do.

To be fair, at the time of desert storm, the RAF Harrier fleet was very much in a period of transition from the old GR3 to the next generation GR5.

I wouldn’t have expected the Indian Air Force to have an interest in them as much as the Indian Navy. I’m not surprised the Indian Air Force isn’t interested.

I can’t see why we (the corporate, UK, we) would want to sell them to the Indian Air Force or Navy, when we are actively pushing the far more lucrative sale of Typhoon at the same time.:)