The Supermarine Scimitar; Not too Sharp 

As a MOD (RN) employee I went on a "Sea Day" in the Channel in 2003 on Cumberland. The parties on board were composed of journalists, contractors/suppliers, minor foreign dignatories and MOD personnel, including civvies. Other ships were in a flottilla, including a fleet auxillary oiler. So we witnessed flotilla manoeuvres, a quick and dirty replenishment at sea and later an interception of the flotilla by an RN Hawk - impressive sight watching the gatekeeper gun on the ship track the aircraft at low level - didn't miss a beat. I also got invited to an RAF day flight, but couldn't attend due to flu - Just as well, 'cause at start-up of the VC10, and engine fire occurred, there was no reserve that could be readied and, consequently, all the parties had to disembark and go home. The highlight of the RN day was me tripping over a deck mounted lug which I was later advised was the mount fitting for the ceremonial gun that's used to signal important state events (It was stowed below decks when not in use). But all that was before the 2008 crash and the financial cutbacks that followed, so it might be a slightly different story today.

Ive said it before and ill say again. I was born ij the wrong era

That sounds spectacular.

These days the MOD would hold rainbow face painting and twerking demonstrations

@@peterk2455 so take your country back. Fight the corrupt tyranny in Britain while we will continue to fight here in America. Reject the fake news media

It looks right as the saying goes

Phantom already left the building. Appreciate it though.

Indeed. When making this video I wanted to come up with the USN aircraft that was equivalent. But the closest, in terms of requirement and timing, was the F4, IMO. Because you are correct, the USN could go for a broader approach and not just try to shoehorn the fighter-attack-nuclear strike role into a single aircraft. And those few years of advances between the Scim and the Phantom made a big difference.

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Yeah, the F4 was a slight generation later than planes like the Scimitar and Cutlass so it benefitted from advancements in engine and weapons systems development, but it still suffered a bit from the multi-role curse. People love to put the F4 head to head with the Mig-21 and talk up the Mig's superiority, but I always reply "The Mig-21 never had the number of missions the F4 did, plus it never had to operate from a carrier!"

@@yes_head Almost completely ignored is the fact the F-4 flew with five different wing configurations. Each model improved maneuverablity. By the end of Vietnam, the latest models were quite good. Comparisons of the F-4 to other planes really must include a specific year and F-4 model. cheers.

You are leaving out two of the best jets from this period, the F-8 (F8U) Crusader and the F-3 (F3J) Fury. The latter flew in USN service until the 1970s and with the French until the 1990s. The F3J was the best of the "Sabre" jets (close is the F-86H) and had it not been for the excellent F8U and later A4 Skyhawk the F3J and F4J would have seen a long and happy USN service.

@@Easy-Eight Correction: FJ3 and FJ4.

Horse

Merlin as a testbed ?

@@Farweasel not anymore, the only thing ludicrous about the new Queen Elizabeth Class? We went to the huge effort and expense of not only building them, and not just one of them but two, but also getting the tremendously pricey F35B Lightning II to fly from them; aaaand then chose to use straight decks and ski-ramps rather than angled decks and catapults, for whatever pennies that would save, and ON a massive full-size fleet carrier that then goes on a round-the-world voyage, so the whole bloody world sees it and how penny-pinching we are. Oh yeah and we then get the planes for them piecemeal and agonisingly slowly (and those we do get are operated by the RAF not the FAA and so spend most of their time operating from land-bases); so these new carriers, the pride of the Royal Navy mind you, basically become a pair of huge 70,000-ton helicopter-carriers that occasionally are visited by F35's, THAT'S the truly ludicrous thing

@@Farweasel I guess we should just be grateful Britain actually HAS any aircraft carriers at all though; knowing the British government's love of sweeping military budget-cuts whenever things are looking remotely tight in other areas, it's actually kinda amazing our Navy's still as large and capable as it IS

Me too!

I think Eric could have landed an airship on a carrier

@@copferthat Eric Brown could have landed a carrier on an airship

How would they clear the deck for the next landing? How did they marshal the planes below deck - on dollies?

I was going to mention the nice footage of Winkle Brown doing his stuff as well. That was him landing the Vampire earlier on too. All in his fascinating autobiography. :-)

Well the Spitfire Designer died before he was able to see it fly and go into production, so take of that what you will...

@@imadrifter Well, he did see it fly, he just never saw it enter production, furthermore, all further and future developments of the Spitfire through "all marks" were lead by a different designer which was Joseph Smith, it was Smith who designed all those supposed failures so if we take of that what we will does that mean that he was a bad aircraft designer? Afterall is said and done it was his design work that not only continued to keep the Spitfire at the forefront of the war effort right through the war but actually improved upon R. J. Mitchell's initial designs that started it all.

@@wirralnomad yes you are correct, I've known that but my memory was a bit fuzzy so I oversimplified for the comment, I meant he (Joseph Smith) never got to see it become the legendary fighter it now is and its pivotal role in the defense of Britain and how much the original spitfire contributed to the war as a whole as well. Thank you for the correction.

In this regard one has to look at what else was available and compare with that. Such early days of jet aviation meant that often power wasn't quite what was hoped for and this has a large impact on designs. Weight growth as the design progresses is of course a huge problem aswell. Early types didn't stay in service long, particularly on carriers until high speed flight and power were more fully addressed.

@@stewartgrant9832 The 1957 Defence White Paper had effectively killed off any alternatives to the Scimitar, that belief by Duncan Sandys that missiles could take the place of manned fighters effectively crippled the British aircraft industry for years and gave the U.S. a basically unassailable lead in military aircraft exports.

The tail looks Harrier-ish. I was thinking it reminded me of the Hunter.

1944 the Gloster Meteor entered service then in 1961 the F-4 Phantom that's massive advancement in just 16 years. The F-11 was hardly a great jet either only being in combat service for 5 years that's just the speed of jet aircraft development until the F-4 was introduced and held the position of jet to beat from 1961 till the F-14 in 1974.

@@Ushio01 The F-4 was an absolute beast, wasn't it? Then in quick succession after the introduction of the F-14, the F-15, F-16, and F-18 were developed. I think it was a Golden Age for US military aviation.

@@andrewstrongman305 The F-14 and F-15 were both basically F-4's on steroids with lessons learned in Vietnam and intel on what the Soviets were doing. The F-14 added swing wings for safer carrier landings and the AIM-54 to allow it to shoot Soviet anti-ship missile carrying aircraft at much further ranges while keeping the excellent option of 4+4 Sidewinder and Sparrow of the F-4 as well as twin seats and twin engines for that power and workload reduction. The F-15 used improved less workload intensive radar and improved agility compared to the F-4 after the USAF performed so poorly using 50's and 60's era doctrine in Vietnam. Raw performance was little different overall between the 3 and was more based on payload and altitude.

Thanks! Glad you like the videos :)

yeah this is that ONE Navy jet I will give the benefit of the doubt to. The cutlass, demon, sea vixen and many others were also really horrid for accident rates too the scimitar was still a beautiful plane though

"Cracking show, I'm still alive. But I still have to render my A25." Jeez, the Admiralty must have been ordering 'em by the boxload...

American had innovation idea of pitching its main wing angle to slow down the jet when landing. The Brit went conventional put heavy plane to land and stop,so cable can't handle too far.

Wrong comparison, it gets worse... the Scimitar was more an analogue of the A-4.

And stupid! What were they going to do when jets came back to land on the carriers with under fuselage stores still onboard?? Especially with the advent of British nuclear weapons not far off.

yeah the US and Russians also had high crash rates at this time as well. Things just had to be tried and most of the problems lay with Jet technology just not being fully matured. All things considered it only took 7 or 8 years to fix most issues around the world. Get that engine power rates up and a lot of deadly designs would have been much better.

Personally, I'm partial to the Sea Vixen. If not already done, how about a video?

"a historical fulcrum point" - what does this mean? Do you know what a fulcrum is? a "British looking aircraft" - again, what does this mean? Try thinking before writing.

@@shauny2285 yes I agree , Sea Vixen must be one of the most graceful looking planes of all time... such a beauty.

@@Tinker1950 why so confrontation and rude? I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t say a thing if he said that but was standing right in front of you. Talk to people like you would if they were right in front of you. Everyone has a smart "mouth" ( keyboard) on the internet... actually you are the one who needs to think before typing.. show a little respect.

Butter knife sharp.

Likely you'd have to dump ordnance too

The video goes on to show the whole event. I decided against showing it. Tragic.

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Good call, Ed! Poor fella, what a horrible way to go!

Scimitar was a nuclear strike aircraft, the F8 wasn’t.

Great minds think a like.

And the Canberra bomber

Only superficially. The cockpit on the Kestrel / Harrier was distinctly further forward, and the horizontal stabilizers are canted downward vs flat horizontal on the Scimitar.

Kestrel - Harrier was built as a technology demonstrator and borrowed heavily from existing designs if not in actual parts but in the lines, systems and various features.

the shapes and curves are Hawker , particularly tail-fin see also Hawk trainer .

Case in point: F-104 Starfighter. And to some degree I guess the F-5 too.

@@Phoenix-xn3sf F-104, the widow maker, speaking of losses ... Though it was not altogether the aircraft's fault. You can't put a high altitude interceptor in a ground attack role.

@@ottovonbismarck2443 Amen, Spain used their 104's exclusively for the role they were designed for, indecently they are also the only 104 operator never to lose an airframe or pilot.

Yes. There is a great book on it, name of which eludes me at the moment.

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Sounds like a good read. The British did make some good aircraft in spite of restrictions, such as the V bombers. But why 3 of them. I'm sure the book has at least a chapter of this.

@@brianspendelow840 Insurance and WW2 lessons, if one design was found not to be up to scratch, there was a backup. Also, though it was last to be ordered, the Vickers Valiant entered service first, also becoming the only V-Bomber to drop nukes (the Grapple tests at Christmas Island), first to go to conventional war, the 1956 Suez fiasco. Though the Valiant was a good competent aircraft, it was not as advanced as the Vulcan and Victor, in terms of performance and development potential.

F-8 Crusader: Hold my beer while I take off with my wings folded up.

@@aaronsanborn4291 A-1 Skyraider, hold my two beers, I take off with folded wings without a catapult.

All things considered you may have to add some sort of designation to distinguish between the various aircraft given that sobriquet.

Sorry, but the name "widow maker" had already been reserved for the Lockheed F104.

That caught my eye too! Looks very modern.

Sorry for the late reply, but Sea Fury and Sea Harrier aside the UK never really produced a world class carrier aircraft. And probably not because it couldn't, but inter-service rivalry saw the FAA lose out to the RAF for limited resources and British politicians never seemed to realize what to do with aircraft carriers, and what was needed for them. And probably quite some admirals too.

BE: Arresting wires still break today. It's always possible for the unpredictable to happen.

@@KB4QAA That's why arrester wires should be much stronger than strictly necessary and replaced at regular intervals.

@@bernardedwards8461 And you know better than 100 years of naval aviation engineers? Huh.

@@nickdanger3802 the internet lol I think he's referring to the Cutlass. and yes they were sent off carrier at the Admirals request. Sorry i forgot where i read that too but it was just last week. So yeah I think his post is correct

British Leland must have supplied parts.

Cheers. Hope you enjoy it :)

Better see Eds Blackburn Blackburn vid as far as British Aircraft all being good looking ha ha. Terrible so many good men lost just doing their job

Very very sad. Your last moments captured on video. Having someone frantically trying to break the canopy just feet away and not making it. If only the oxygen mask could have helped. Frightening way to go over something so preventable.

I probably should have included the Buccaneer as a great plane.

Look up the Me163 - and that was on grass/asphalt. Oh, and if you forgot to "unlock" the skid, then the "suspension" didn't work. The splatting worked quite well, until someone happened to mention "Umm, what happens if you have a whole squadron who want to land on short fuel..." and the time it took to get the planes shifted was an issue.

Quite right! Apologies.

"not ever" not "not never"

The Royal Navy were supposed to get a carrier around the size of the Forrestal class in the ‘60s, the CVA-01 but it was cancelled.

As a lot of other projects....

Apparently the head of the CVA-01 project said that the day they cancelled the project was one of the best days of his life, apparently the entire project was a disaster due to constant government interference and changing parameters.

You can have a good military and socialism. Choose one. The USA is doing both and will be insolvent in 5 years.

@@Easy-Eight No it won't. With the looming threat from China, Biden has no option but to continue Trumps military and foreign policy. I don't think the US economy will prosper under Biden, but it won't collapse either. In the 1930s, rearmament boosted many countries economies more than it damaged them, because it created lots of jobs. USA emerged from the war stronger in all respects than when it started.

Technology progressed so quickly back in the 50's, before tapering off in the 60's.

Lol yes, a fair comment. A mistake I have made before.

Well the RN should change things for OUR benefit after all this is the internet right And we're the most important 😉

I was surprised to see it there when I visited the museum many years ago

The US Navy operated similar sized aircraft off of Essex class carriers.

You don't sound like you know much about the subject.

@@JohnyG29 i do actually you sound like you don't know much about the subject

Unlikely to be a zero-zero seat in that era.

As they said in The Right Stuff. "You know what makes this bird go up? Funding son, funding."

@@mpetersen6 Not enough apparently.

Sadly the RN was underfunded, and UK's economical situation of early'60s give the coup de grace to a lot of projects, add some dubious political choices and... well, we know how it ended

We managed the same trick with the Sea Vixen and Javelin too!

Well Bill they kept it in 1st gear. 🥸