Shock and awe as fighter jet rolls down Sukhumvit Road

[Rimmer]

One troll post removed also an off topic post about British Aircraft carriers.

[Rorri]

Naam, on 01 Aug 2014 - 20:04, said:

Rorri, on 01 Aug 2014 - 19:52, said:

Naam, on 01 Aug 2014 - 18:46, said:Naam, on 01 Aug 2014 - 18:46, said:

iReason, on 01 Aug 2014 - 17:25, said:iReason, on 01 Aug 2014 - 17:25, said:

"...on Thailand’s only aircraft carrier, which now has just a handful of working planes due to lack of maintenance, age and a scarcity of spare parts."

what is so funny about it?

The Thai media have nicknamed it the Thai-tanic.

how is the cost overrun of GBP 2.55 billion =110 billion Baht (and counting) of the two unfinished British carriers called? Brit-Tanic?

That sir, has nothing to do with this article, please stick to the posted story, not what happens in other countries.

[Rorri]

TallGuyJohninBKK, on 01 Aug 2014 - 20:31, said:

Rorri, on 01 Aug 2014 - 19:48, said:

Just1Voice, on 01 Aug 2014 - 16:19, said:Just1Voice, on 01 Aug 2014 - 16:19, said:

Ahh, yes, buy the world's smallest aircraft carried, with 9 planes you can't get parts for. That's why it's now a floating museum. Amazing Thailand!

Two years after purchasing them eight were unserviceable, I do not know how much longer the remaining one flew for, but with the inability to maintain them, I would not have liked to have been the pilot.

Is there any particular reason they CANNOT get the parts needed for maintenance, or, just can't be bothered and wouldn't know what to do with them if they had them???

All I know is that they were fully refurbished by Spain, why Thailand could not maintain them, well, I suggest you contact the Thai navy. If I was to take a punt, I would think they were incapable of maintaining them, same as they are incapable of maintaining the aircraft carrier.

[Rorri]

Varangkul, on 01 Aug 2014 - 22:17, said:

TallGuyJohninBKK, on 01 Aug 2014 - 20:31, said:

Rorri, on 01 Aug 2014 - 19:48, said:

Just1Voice, on 01 Aug 2014 - 16:19, said:

Just1Voice, on 01 Aug 2014 - 16:19, said:

Ahh, yes, buy the world's smallest aircraft carried, with 9 planes you can't get parts for. That's why it's now a floating museum. Amazing Thailand!

Two years after purchasing them eight were unserviceable, I do not know how much longer the remaining one flew for, but with the inability to maintain them, I would not have liked to have been the pilot.

Is there any particular reason they CANNOT get the parts needed for maintenance, or, just can't be bothered and wouldn't know what to do with them if they had them???

Because no one makes the 'planes - nor the parts, anymore They have all been replaced - a long time ag

These aircraft were purchased in 1997, when parts were available. In fact they were fully refurbished by Spain.

[billd766]

Is that the pilot in the pic ready to eject and flee the scene in the event of an accident?

He is steering the plane

The driver of the tug in front is hitched to the nosewheel and HE is steering it. There is no need for anybody in the cockpit at all as the aircraft had been "mothballed" and it will have no hydraulic power nor air, oxygen, nitrogen or fuel on board anyway.

The aircraft is a Hawker Siddley Harrier built in the UK and not a McDonnell Douglas AV8 even though the AV8 is licence built. The Harriers were retired in 2006 some 8 years ago.

'mothballed' or not that's not to say the accumulator couldn't be charged by a hydraulic rig (as is common) to provide a couple of brake applications for emergency

Would that be before or after you had fixed all the pipes and connections. It has been mothballed for 8 years and when I was in the RAF working with Harriers they were an evil bitch to keep working.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

These aircraft were purchased in 1997, when parts were available. In fact they were fully refurbished by Spain.

Well, the reason for the non-maintenance and operation given in the Wiki post I copied above was that the Asian Financial Meltdown hit in 1997, and thereafter, no funds were available for maintaining/operating either the carrier or its complement of Harriers... Thus, both slowly died...in a manner of speaking.

The carrier was built by Spain, and it sounds like the second-hand Spanish planes came along with it as kind of a package deal, since the carrier's desk is small and apparently not suited for traditional fixed wing operations.

Edited August 2, 2014 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Ohio]

George DubiYa would have loved the 'Shock & Awe' part of the headline

I guess He is about as redundant as the Thai Aircraft carrier

[iReason]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"...on Thailand’s only aircraft carrier, which now has just a handful of working planes due to lack of maintenance, age and a scarcity of spare parts."
alt=cheesy.gif width=32 height=20> alt=cheesy.gif width=32 height=20> alt=cheesy.gif width=32 height=20>

Oh, but

Revealed: Plane at heart of £3bn aircraft carrier launch is a fake as real models are years behind schedule
DEFENCE chiefs used a fake plane made of plastic to give the appearance of the £3bn HMS Queen Elizabeth being put to use.


An aircraft carrier without planes is the perfect metaphor for Britain's diminished global status

Oh man...

"At no event do we pretend it is a real aircraft.”

[Rorri]

TallGuyJohninBKK, on 02 Aug 2014 - 13:59, said:

Rorri, on 02 Aug 2014 - 11:38, said:

These aircraft were purchased in 1997, when parts were available. In fact they were fully refurbished by Spain.

Well, the reason for the non-maintenance and operation given in the Wiki post I copied above was that the Asian Financial Meltdown hit in 1997, and thereafter, no funds were available for maintaining/operating either the carrier or its complement of Harriers... Thus, both slowly died...in a manner of speaking.

The carrier was built by Spain, and it sounds like the second-hand Spanish planes came along with it as kind of a package deal, since the carrier's desk is small and apparently not suited for traditional fixed wing operations.

A "meltdown" caused by Thailand, which lasted a little over 2 years, so why the ongoing lack of maintenance. When a country orders aircraft they also, usually order parts, it's not as if you simply jump online and place an order...the main reason for the failure is incompetence, heaven forbid if Thailand gets subs.... I would NOT want to be a Thai submariner. But then, looking at the navies track record, these subs would be un-seaworthy within a short period of time. They can then accompany the aircraft carrier as fancy tourist attractions. Few, if any, nations allow their aircraft to deteriorate, even in extreme economic times.

[chubby]

"fightteer jet part, mai mee"

Edited August 2, 2014 by chubby

[Wombat6]

Pity it cannot also make a tour of other parts of the country, en-route to the museum, I'd love to see it !

I suggest you get off your Bar Stool and go to the Museum. Sounds like you might be a person who likes things delivered to you.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

TallGuyJohninBKK, on 02 Aug 2014 - 13:59, said:

Rorri, on 02 Aug 2014 - 11:38, said:

These aircraft were purchased in 1997, when parts were available. In fact they were fully refurbished by Spain.

Well, the reason for the non-maintenance and operation given in the Wiki post I copied above was that the Asian Financial Meltdown hit in 1997, and thereafter, no funds were available for maintaining/operating either the carrier or its complement of Harriers... Thus, both slowly died...in a manner of speaking.

The carrier was built by Spain, and it sounds like the second-hand Spanish planes came along with it as kind of a package deal, since the carrier's desk is small and apparently not suited for traditional fixed wing operations.

A "meltdown" caused by Thailand, which lasted a little over 2 years, so why the ongoing lack of maintenance. When a country orders aircraft they also, usually order parts, it's not as if you simply jump online and place an order...the main reason for the failure is incompetence, heaven forbid if Thailand gets subs.... I would NOT want to be a Thai submariner. But then, looking at the navies track record, these subs would be un-seaworthy within a short period of time. They can then accompany the aircraft carrier as fancy tourist attractions. Few, if any, nations allow their aircraft to deteriorate, even in extreme economic times.

Let's just say whether it's military hardware or any variety of other kinds of infrastructure elements here, ongoing maintenance and upkeep doesn't seem to be particularly high on the local agenda.

[USNret]

I'm not sure exactly what to focus on in the photo. I don't see anyone pointing at anything.

[petercool]

defamatory post removed

[vagabondingshane]

Is that the pilot in the pic ready to eject and flee the scene in the event of an accident?

He is steering the plane

The driver of the tug in front is hitched to the nosewheel and HE is steering it. There is no need for anybody in the cockpit at all as the aircraft had been "mothballed" and it will have no hydraulic power nor air, oxygen, nitrogen or fuel on board anyway.

The aircraft is a Hawker Siddley Harrier built in the UK and not a McDonnell Douglas AV8 even though the AV8 is licence built. The Harriers were retired in 2006 some 8 years ago.

Well someone should tell the United States Marines Harriers are retired, 'cause I see them flying them everyday... Do your research.

The Marines Corps Harrier II fleet is to remain in service until 2030, owing to delays with the F-35B and the fact that the Harriers have more service life left than the USMC F/A-18 Hornets.^[60]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II}

[casualbiker]

Is that the pilot in the pic ready to eject and flee the scene in the event of an accident?

He is steering the plane

The driver of the tug in front is hitched to the nosewheel and HE is steering it. There is no need for anybody in the cockpit at all as the aircraft had been "mothballed" and it will have no hydraulic power nor air, oxygen, nitrogen or fuel on board anyway.

The aircraft is a Hawker Siddley Harrier built in the UK and not a McDonnell Douglas AV8 even though the AV8 is licence built. The Harriers were retired in 2006 some 8 years ago.

Well someone should tell the United States Marines Harriers are retired, 'cause I see them flying them everyday... Do your research.

The Marines Corps Harrier II fleet is to remain in service until 2030, owing to delays with the F-35B and the fact that the Harriers have more service life left than the USMC F/A-18 Hornets.^[60]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II}

They are second generation planes. The ones discussed in the article are first generation. All other countries have retired 1st Gen Harriers. I believe they are substantially different.

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[vagabondingshane]

"They are second generation planes. The ones discussed in the article are first generation. All other countries have retired 1st Gen Harriers. I believe they are substantially different."

ALL military aircraft are constantly being improved and upgraded. Second Gen Harriers is mainly an avionics, increased ordnance carrying ability, and propulsion upgrades; the airframe is essentially the same. They generally don't built more planes, existing jets go to depot level maintenance for upgrades and overhaul. I've 20+ years experience with Navy and USMC aircraft, you're splitting hairs for no reason.

[casualbiker]

"They are second generation planes. The ones discussed in the article are first generation. All other countries have retired 1st Gen Harriers. I believe they are substantially different."

ALL military aircraft are constantly being improved and upgraded. Second Gen Harriers is mainly an avionics, increased ordnance carrying ability, and propulsion upgrades; the airframe is essentially the same. They generally don't built more planes, existing jets go to depot level maintenance for upgrades and overhaul. I've 20+ years experience with Navy and USMC aircraft, you're splitting hairs for no reason.

Maybe you should have put all that in your original post.

Then we would know that your not a wiki warrior like me :-D

And Wikipedia implies that that 2nd generation are new aircraft.

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited August 3, 2014 by casualbiker

[vagabondingshane]

Maybe you should have put all that in your original post.
Then we would know that your not a wiki warrior like me :-D

And Wikipedia implies that that 2nd generation are new aircraft.

Look, I was dumbing it down with Wiki. I could wax on about aircraft (USN/USMC fighters) in particular for hours but Wiki is enough for most. They are different aircraft, but at their core and to the layman, the same. Truce?

[casualbiker]

Maybe you should have put all that in your original post.

Then we would know that your not a wiki warrior like me :-D

And Wikipedia implies that that 2nd generation are new aircraft.

Look, I was dumbing it down with Wiki. I could wax on about aircraft (USN/USMC fighters) in particular for hours but Wiki is enough for most. They are different aircraft, but at their core and to the layman, the same. Truce?

So same parts or different? I'm just trying to understand!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[planemad]

In the evolution of a military jet, systems are constantly being upgraded. The differences between the first generation Harriers (GR mk1, GR Mk 2, T2 and T4), and the subsequent GR5, GR7 and GR9 plus the 2 seaters is quite extensive. The avionics were totaly upgraded and the GR7 and upwards gained a night vision capability. Structurally, the fuselage is similar, but the mainplane is now almost totally carbon fibre composite material. Flying controls are still pushrod but depending upon the leading edge root extensions ((LERX), the "D" shaped device between the wing root and fuselage), different flight characteristic software must be installed, so it is almost impossibe to change between the earlier 65% LERX and the later 100% LERX, and why would you want to? The Engine is upgraded, but no real different from the original Pegasus unit, the main difference is that the Fuel Control Unit (FCU) has been replaced with much smaller and far more efficient Digital Control Units. Apart from that, very many of the early components are still the same and maybe interchageable, although that is unlikely as critical components are lifed items.

I Hope that helps a little.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

This is just an interesting topic for me. I have no special background in aviation, other than as an observer.

But to clarify things a bit, it certainly sounds from the aviation guys' posts above like the Harrier II planes were built as Harrier IIs... They didn't just get a new name/model number by taking the original Harrier jets and performing an overhaul/upgrade of them.

It does kind of beg the question however. Since there were these various countries that had the original Harriers, if they could have been overhauled/upgraded with various of the Harrier II systems, why weren't they and then kept in service? But instead, all the various countries including Thailand decided to simply retire their original Harrier units.

I seem to remember, back in a former life in the USA long ago, the Marine Corp having a lot of maintenance and ultimately crash problems with their original first-gen Harriers, which I believe was ultimately part of what led to their being phased out at least by the U.S.

And sure enough, I find that my old memories are somewhat on-target:

It’s Not Surprising Two Harrier Jets Have Crashed in a Month

• By Alex Davies
• 06.06.14
• Wired.com |

An AV-8B Harrier jet crashed into a strip of residential homes in Imperial, California this week, destroying three houses. Last month, another Harrier crashed in the desert south of Phoenix. Both pilots ejected safely and no one was injured in either crash.

-------------------------------------------

The first Harrier, the AV-8A, had a horrific safety record; more than half of the planes crashed. The second generation AV-8B, produced by Boeing, entered service in 1985. It’s much safer, but still compares poorly to other jets. According to an 2002 LA Times report, the AV-8B Harrier suffered 11.44 accidents per 100,000 flight hours, compared to just 3 for the F/A-18 Hornet. Between 1971 and 2002, 45 Marine pilots were killed in 143 noncombat accidents in Harriers.

The 131 Harriers currently operated by the Marines haven’t been as useful as their promoters hoped. Taking off vertically limits how much weight the jet can carry, so the crew needs to skimp either on fuel or on weapons payload. Less fuel means less range, which limits usefulness. “It’s not a very good airplane when you consider everything about it,” said Pete Field, an aviation consultant who served as a Marine officer and Navy test pilot.

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/why-harrier-jets-crash/

And, there's even a dedicated Wiki page just for listing all the various Harrier crashes... It's a long list, divided up by decades and then country within that. [Of note, it appears Thailand has no entries on the list, perhaps because its planes never had that much flight time.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family_losses

The recent U.S. entries include the following, which I didn't remember from news reports at the time. Perhaps because I was here in Thailand... A different kind of non-flight loss, but still pretty bad.

14 September 2012 Militants breached the perimeter of the sprawling Camp Bastion base in Helmand province of southern Afghanistan in the September 2012 Camp Bastion raid, destroying six US Harrier AV8B aircraft and damaging a further 2. Three aircraft refuelling stations and a number of aircraft hangars were also badly damaged. The offensive took place near an airfield on the northeast side of the base, which houses US forces in Camp Leatherneck. The attack also claimed the lives of two US marines.^[45][46][47]

Edited August 3, 2014 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[planemad]

TallGuy, interesting comments regarding the "birth"of the second generation Harrier. Whilst many of the problems we had in the early 70's were solved, the Harrier II re-introduced them to us. We all agreed that naming the reincarnat Harrier was a mistake and a new name would have differenciated it from it's predecessor.

As for the attrition rate of the early aircraft, it was a difficult aircraft to fly. Transition from vertial to conventional flight was a difficult lesson to learn and some fell (sadly) by the wayside. Coupled with that, the twin flight control systems and the vectored power nozzle system required to operate the aircraft in both flight modes were revolutionary and mistakes were made at the design stage by the technicians and of course by the aircrew who paid the ultimate price for their errors.

As to the operational needs of the aircraft, as a weapon of war, vertical take-off was never an option for the reasons stated above. VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing), should never have been used, STOVL (Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing) is more appropriate. Vertical take-off is strictly for the amusement of air display spectators.

Over the years, the Aircraft developed into a highly efficient machine and the American Marines were instrumental in its initial developement. The government who threw out the TSR2 came so close to abandoning the P1127 (subsequently Kestrel and lated Harrier), but the Marines were interested and in part, funded the developement.

Whatever you think about it, it was an incredible aircraft and I for one am proud to have been associated with it, but you might have guessed that!

PS, for an aircraft that was "not very good", maybe a chat to the Falkland Islanders or the Royal Navy personnel who were protected by it, or the soldier on the ground who, coming under fire sees a Harrier arrive moments after calling for support to eliminate the threat, they might have a differenty opinion!

Edited August 3, 2014 by planemad

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

PS, for an aircraft that was "not very good", maybe a chat to the Falkland Islanders or the Royal Navy personnel who were protected by it, or the soldier on the ground who, coming under fire sees a Harrier arrive moments after calling for support to eliminate the threat, they might have a differenty opinion!

Appreciate the comments and elaboration.

Just to note, the "not very good" comment was not mine or necessarily a view I personally endorse. It was simply the opinion of one aviation guy in an article that I quoted from above for other reasons.

Via this thread and its links, I have indeed read of the role the Harriers played for the Brits in the Falklands war, and wouldn't diminish that. Unfortunately, that kind of performance ends up getting balanced against the aircraft's pretty poor flight safety/crash record. Good and bad, pluses and minuses.

Edited August 3, 2014 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[planemad]

No problem, just my response and recognising that other comments are equally valid. Of course it had its weaknesses.

Sent from my IQ 5.5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Anon999]

Is that the pilot in the pic ready to eject and flee the scene in the event of an accident?

He is steering the plane

The driver of the tug in front is hitched to the nosewheel and HE is steering it. There is no need for anybody in the cockpit at all as the aircraft had been "mothballed" and it will have no hydraulic power nor air, oxygen, nitrogen or fuel on board anyway.

The aircraft is a Hawker Siddley Harrier built in the UK and not a McDonnell Douglas AV8 even though the AV8 is licence built. The Harriers were retired in 2006 some 8 years ago.

The Harrier GR9 entered RAF service in 2006! The final flight by a Harrier was on 15th December 2010 from RAF Cottesmore. Where did you get your duff information from?

[casualbiker]

Is that the pilot in the pic ready to eject and flee the scene in the event of an accident?

He is steering the plane

The driver of the tug in front is hitched to the nosewheel and HE is steering it. There is no need for anybody in the cockpit at all as the aircraft had been "mothballed" and it will have no hydraulic power nor air, oxygen, nitrogen or fuel on board anyway.

The aircraft is a Hawker Siddley Harrier built in the UK and not a McDonnell Douglas AV8 even though the AV8 is licence built. The Harriers were retired in 2006 some 8 years ago.

The Harrier GR9 entered RAF service in 2006! The final flight by a Harrier was on 15th December 2010 from RAF Cottesmore. Where did you get your duff information from?

This being Thailand .. he meant .. Thailand!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_operators

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[vulcan903]

In short then, are there any of these Harriers on display that the public can see?

[Clutch]

Next weeks headline;

'Shock and awe as a taxi rolls down Sukhumvit Road with meter turned on'

[CarlTyson]

Is that the pilot in the pic ready to eject and flee the scene in the event of an accident?

He is steering the plane

No no. He's the Iceman, sits up there and goes the vrooom vrooom.