Відео

@@flightcommax it was quite quiet actually

@@Transport272 wierd

@@swiftnicknevison4848 because the carriers the raf use don’t have catapults so the aircraft need vtol capabilities like the harrier did

@Transport272 except they're completely capable of being CATOBAR, but the government thought they'd "save" money by making it a ski jump. The maintenance and running costs of the B will probably be way higher than if they'd just gone with CATOBAR and got the C. It seems like the government left the decision of which one to pick up to some 16 year old boy who said let's get the B because it's the coolest.

@Transport272 I think UA-cam hates me. Can't seem to post a reply. Let me try again. I know the QE and PW have ski ramps, but they were designed to be able to have CATOBAR. The government decided it would "save" money by going with the ski jump and the B. I think the operating costs for the B are way more expensive than if they'd gone for Cs and got a CATOBAR. Even with the extra maintenance on the ships. The B is the slowest and has the lowest fuel and payload. It feels like the MOD got some 16 year old kid to pick the plane, and he picked the B because it was the coolest.

@@swiftnicknevison4848 According to GAO report 106217 on weapons systems sustainment, the C is the most expensive of the three to operate per hour, just a bit over the B. The C does have extra fuel and bigger internals but the space is somewhat wasted as certain 2,000lb weaponry is either too large to fit (think AIM-174) or, for the standard GPS guided bombs, there are smarter and more effective weapons like SPEAR 3, GBU-53s, that can be carried in the same amount by all three. There's a massive element of flexibility that comes with the B over the A and C however, as it doesn't rely on prepared surfaces. Aircraft are inherently tied to runways which can make things fairly restrictive with regards to where and how you plan to use them that can be exploited by adversaries. With the B, the Navy can maintain the Harrier's ability to launch from basically the jungle cover if necessary, with an aircraft giving much superior payload and sensing over it. Granted, for the British Navy I'd imagine the F-35C's range and carriage of anti-shipping weapons would be preferable but it seems the Marines have an answer for that stuff so the other B operators will likely follow suit. Sidenote: Going with the ski jump likely made things less cost efficient given the nature of political cost cutting instead of healthily funding certain things (though in this case, the original plan was ski jump and the planned costs of CATOBAR ballooned), but overall it's fair to say it's quite a bit less expensive than the CATOBAR equivalent. For reference: the Ford class costs twice as much, requires nearly 3x more personnel, and carries up to 90 aircraft vs the QE's 70-ish (probably in ferry config, expect ops to be less for each). The only other CATOBAR non-supercarrier more comparable is the Charles De Gaulle, but it's tonnage and air wing size is near equal to the Wasp/America class and even then the only real difference is how the aircraft launch and recover (side-sidenote: cat length tends to decide ship size, which decides ship cost. CDG's cat is shorter than normal which means launches are harder and more stressful on the airframes and can limit launch payload; they also can't simultaneous launch and recover like QE/LHA(D) can). Whether or not it's worth is a different argument, but in terms of straight up cost it's generally more within the pocketbook to do it this way. Now the _real_ question is, why haven't y'all taken any -As?! Also greetings from across the pond and sorry for the wall of text

​@@swiftnicknevison4848It was the closest thing to a Harrier, which the UK is used to.

yeah it flew in form Midenhall and did a display which was over six minutes

Why wouldn't they

Agree. I remember being impressed by V/STOL displays in the '70's by Harriers, 50 years later, it's lost its 'wow' factor.

I miss the Harrier too but nostalgia doesn't win wars. The F35B is a better fighter aircraft in almost every way. Better avionics, stealth, supersonic, and greatly improved handling, range and payload. It's a worthy successor.

@@dan79600 ....and who exactly are we fighting that the harrier isnt good enough to win? What near peer are we in combat with? When was the last time we were in combat with a near peer? Korea? Or the Argentines? Im all for innovation and pushing the boundaries, but the cost !!! F35b 135 million and 300,000 per hour to run. Harrier 7b 25 million and 30,000 per hour to run. I wonder which one the aircraft companies want to make.....

@@catlee8064 The Government regularly asks the RAF to carry out operations all over the world. Air policing and surveillance over the Baltic region and the Russian NATO border, air to ground operations in Yemen against the Huthis, in Syria against ISIS, etc. All of these people have access to sophisticated air to surface weapons via Iran and Russia. The real question is how much are we willing to pay to protect the lives of service personnel who carry out these operations. I know what plane I’d rather fly on one of these missions .. and it isn’t the Harrier.

@@dan79600 "The real question is how much are we willing to pay to protect the lives of service personnel...." No one said anything when i was banging round Iraq in a snatch in 03/04.....or Afghan in a stripped down Land rover 06/08....or had my body armour taken off me to give to the infantry '03....or ran out of water and ammo so we had to beg the yanks to drop us some....or had to use black tape to repair our boots because they had none in our sizes....but god forbid we dont get the sexy new plane that the yanks say we need. Oh and the harrier was designed to be prepared for those soviet manpads....because sure as shit stinks the soviets arent giving out the best gear to some rebels in shithole countries.

Thanks thankfully the weather held that afternoon

Thanks

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thank you

yes that aircraft has passed through a lot of operators it even operated for cargolux at one point

nice

Thanks 🙂

thanks!

yeah used to be so many now its rare to even get two in a day

Thank you

thank you so much

It's surprising of how many miles these trains clock up.

thank you

je t'en prie!

Sadly no

@@Transport272 and it never will be

@@oParkLikesStuff i know waste of time

GWR cancelled the class 769 last Friday so for the foreseeable future we will still have 165s and 166

@@oParkLikesStuffRIP 769

i prefer the new d line such a amazing lift my favouite ever the reason why saix was replaced was because it was inpossible for wheel chair users to get up to the top of 1600 and it was falling apart it was my local lift and in its final season it felt like it was just hanging on to life the cabins wouldn't even close properly plus the pylons where rusty and looked unsafe plus it was bumpy all the time and it got to a point where it got painfull when entering the stations but it still looked amazing i did like that it was a rare lift nut it was reaching the end of its life time plus i was very happy it was doppelmayr beacause there lifts are great to ride unlike pomas which feel cheap like the horrible mutlix which sadly sarion the falcon was replaced by so yeah the new lift is better than the old one and its nice to right a properly built gondola

@@Transport272 "properly built gondola". Pfft... That's what the 1973 Saix was. Not the modern Devilmayr piece of scrap. While Demon-Lines do look slightly less cheap than modern Leitner/Poma lifts, they're not any better. They're almost more complicated than modern Leitner/Poma lifts due to all of the excessive digital technology that they have, it makes Uni-G's look like old lifts in comparison even though they are nearly just as bad. Modern ropeways aren't going to last anywhere near as long as the old Poma Type S/Giovanola/Von Roll etc gondola lifts and chairlifts ever have. If the Saix was in dire need of a full-on restoration(I seriously doubt it was, some of it's oldest sister lifts have surpassed 55 years, namely the Frejus gondola in Serre Chevalier and the old Chalmazel gondola, now the "Pooladkapf Telekabin" in Iran, the oldest Poma Type S in existence after the La Daille gondola lift was murdered in 2018), and if it was totally restored it would've gone on happily for another half-century or so. Doppelmayr D-Lines won't go on even remotely 20 years until all of their electronic digital technology burns out and the entire lift starts malfunctioning and going into a complete mess. In fact, the oldest detachable chairlift in the world, a Von Roll built by Transporta Chrudim in CZ, is 71 years old and there are no plans to replace or scrap it at all. Also the whole "barrier-free" nonsense is just nothing more than another opportunity for the ropeway manufacturers to force more and more old lifts to be destroyed. If they want to get disabled wheelchair people up the mountain then they should make a special gondola for wheelchairs, that would be the much simpler solution... Apparently this has happened with a few gondola lifts. Lift-world.info says that this happened with the Kanzelwandbahn in Oberstdorf-Fellhorn, on the border between Austria and Germany. I respect your opinion on Doppelmayr D-Lines, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if I saw lifts such as the Modern Flying Mozart/Modern Valiserabahn/Modern Mannlichenbahn and other Demon-Lines going all wah-wah because they are so complicated.

I have you know uni gs like solarise are amazing lifts but mutlixs are burnable waste

@@Transport272 I don't agree. All modern ropeways in my opinion except for modern Garaventas are quote unqoute "burnable waste". The only things that are good about Uni-G's are that they aren't raided with digital technology unlike how the Devilmayr Demon-Lines are. Otherwise, they are bland, soulless and appalling ropeways to be completely honest.

@@CBF1 I agree. All three of those modernization projects are bullshit. All they did was detract greatly from the quality of the ski resort. Big L to the STVI

@@aristhomas3983 And they cost more materials to make than the old ones do too. The manufacturers say the modern lifts are more quote unquote "environmental", but their complicated design, resource consumption(and energy consumption to MANUFACTURE) and width say otherwise. Old ski lifts always have been mechanical works of art. Different manufacturers, different stations, different pylons, different chairs and cabins, different grips, pulleywheels, everything. Simpler mechanical design too which is far less material consumptive to manufacture. If only they were built in more places than JUST mountain ranges and ski resorts I think people would understand that. Ski resorts are expensive, and mountain ranges are elusive. It all the more gets expensive when one lives far away from a mountain range and has to fly there and rent a car, and then the hotels and restaurants and practically everything about a ski resort is expensive. I don't think any transport machine has ever been abused more worse than how ski lifts have. There's a lot more to it than what I've stated in this comment and I'll be making a commentary about it soon, albeit I am years late to do so, when I knew 4 years ago that I had to do something about the old ski lift destruction. But I just got distracted by other crap, and I will forever hate myself for it. It's not just the Espace Killy either that's been fucked over by modern 10-MGD(10-seater Monocable Gondola Detachable)'s. Modern 10-MGD's are destroying ALL old lifts, and they are appearing EVERYWHERE. Something MUST be done to relocate the old ski lifts to places that ARE NOT MOUNTAINOUS and ARE NOT for-profit institutions who want to make money such as ski resorts. Otherwise all lifts will just be the same, stupid Doppelmayr, Leitner, Poma, and Bartholet FREAKING CRAP over and over again. No mechanical difference, no variety, no elusiveness, nothing valuable at all other than something as PATHETIC and UTTERLY CHILDISH as speed, capacity and comfort.