A-4 vs Sea Harrier | Mark Vizcarra

Here is a preview clip for you Fox 1/2/3 Patrons as Mark Vizcarra describes simulating an attack on Ark Royal in his A-4 Skyhawk and being engaged by Sea Harriers!
Watch part 1 of Mark's interview - www.aircrewinterview.tv/#/a4-...
Enjoy
Visit our online store: www.redbubble.com/people/acin...
Help keep the channel going:
/ aircrewinterview
or donate
www.aircrewinterview.tv/donate/
Follow us:
www.aircrewinterview.tv/
/ aircrew_interview
/ aircrewinterview
/ aircrewtv
Speed & Angels Production Website
www.speedandangelsproductions...
Facebook
/ speedangelsproductions
Twitter
/ speed_angles
Instagram
/ speedangelsproductions
Amazon Landing Page for all Speed & Angels Films
www.amazon.com/v/vizcarrafilms
Vimeo On Demand Streaming of Speed & Angels Films
vimeo.com/speedangelsproducti...
IMDb
www.imdb.com/name/nm8071233
Silent Vice (Band’s website whose music is featured in Tomcat Tales)
silentvicemusic.com
Mark Vizcarra (Filmmaker) Website
www.markvizcarra.com/

[@soupfork2105]

A4: We're low! I can see them below us... Sea Harrier: We're below you. Buccaneer: You guys can see over the wave tops?

[@jakobole]

Yeah. We see the water spray :)

[@stumpywest1652]

Lol 😂

[@drinksnapple8997]

Warship: We're at sea level. Got great pics of those Buccaneers on our FCS FLIR. It was too easy.

[@soupfork2105]

@@drinksnapple8997 Submarine: That's a nice and clear noise print you're leaving, warship...

[@stevehilton4052]

Ohhhh you have hit another blast from the past.I served on the old ark royal in the 70's till she paid off in 78/79 .I have seen the buccaneer take off and land on a flat top I've seen them fly so low we had to look down from the flight deck . Truly the best surface strike aircraft ever built.But...the greatest moment for me was on a fishing trip out of Hartlepool ( early 80's as a civy ..BTW on converted minesweeper that was never commissioned and sold as a hull with engine and generator and bridge " Georgeham" class) On a beautiful mill pond sunny day happy with the silence and deep in thought....an almighty roar and flash of hot air sent all twelve fishermen to the deck....I jumped up and instantly recognised the shape of the intruder.... Buccaneer Buccaneer, Buccaneer is all I could say .. everyone' thought I'd gone buckin mad. The pilot had fun lining us up as a target and just left us shaking with excitement and that made my whole year. Fantastic ... Thanks for the reminder

[@troyledbetter6597]

Mark was fun to listen to, very animated. I hope he comes back for a longer interview!

[@Aircrewinterview]

This was just a preview clip from his upcoming interview :)

[@georgemorley1029]

Sea Harrier was a tough proposition for adversaries. AMRAAM and Blue Vixen radar meant they could engage side on to the enemy and maintain separation whilst the enemy tried their hardest to close to effective range, all the while coming onto the closing missiles. This was coming from the Freddies onboard ARK and INVINCIBLE, my old ships, and they’d seen it work first hand at Red Flag and elsewhere. I was on INVINCIBLE 2005 and ARK ROYAL 2007-09 and Sea Harriers always punched above their weight. When we went to only GR7 and GR9 Harrier strike variants, it was a sad day.

[@drinksnapple8997]

Only the Brits think that the British Armed Forces, "punches above their weight". Stop drinking the Kool-Aid......Junior Welterweight.

[@FallenPhoenix86]

@@drinksnapple8997 Really... how about you check the score with the Argentine airforce... 300+ vs 20 odd Sea Harriers... Wind your neck in kid.

[@stevehilton4052]

My thoughts exactly...in the south Atlantic the blue fox radar was used to it's full potential ( by Sharky wards guys but due to inter- squadron rivalry the offer to teach the other tiffs how to tweak it fell on deaf ears) It was not uncommon to report a submarine on the surface only to find it was a whale popping up. There is a very interesting point made by Lt Cdr Ward that because Sandy Woodward didn't trust it he ordered limited use of radar so as not to give away position.However after the conflict the Argentine pilots where ordered not to engage the harriers in a dog fight and must break off when detecting radar means that ( if I understand his thoughts correctly) not using radar meant that unaware that harriers were in the air pushed on with an attack .So in essence because of orders from above there were more attacks as the threat from the CAP COVER was not detected. Hope I'm doing Sharky justice

[@stevehilton4052]

@@drinksnapple8997 it's the story of our nation..we don't have the manpower machines or money ...so we always have to punch above our weight.We have to be tough and take on the challenge . Tell me honestly how many other nations ( other than America Russia or China) could have travelled 12000 km taking everything with us and fight a foe that is dug in and supplied constantly from its mother land only a few hundred km away... Oh I say " we" because I was there

[@FallenPhoenix86]

@@stevehilton4052 At the time, aside from those you mentioned, maybe France and thats about it. Seriously doubt China could have back then.

[@leifvejby8023]

Royal Navy takes all the pilots with a fear of heights!

[@stumpywest1652]

Lol 😂

[@TheophilusPWildbeest]

My son said the same thing when they were teaching him to fly helicopters at Shawbury, they had to go between the trees and around the horses.

[@leifvejby8023]

@@TheophilusPWildbeest :-D

[@drinksnapple8997]

That's why they got their rear ends handed to them in the early stages Desert Storm until.....they went up above FL180.

[@FallenPhoenix86]

@@drinksnapple8997 More like the tactics were developed for the rugged terrain of central/eastern Europe... terrain masking doesn't work on flat open dessert plains with nothing to hide behind.

[@thefrecklepuny]

When I saw "A-4 vs Sea Harrier" I instantly thought it would be a British or Argentinian Falklands vet! Still a quality interview though!

[@Aircrewinterview]

It’s a cracking interview and looking forward to putting it out in a few weeks.

[@desertroad4378]

We had A4 Skyhawks vs Sea Harriers in the skies of New Zealand back in the 80's. HMS Invincible visited Auckland back then and the local lads of the RNZAF in their Skyhawks got to blast about our skies with the Royal Navy Harrier pilots for a short time. Just before the HMS Invincible left the Harrier pilots did a formation flyover of Auckland, was awesome to see.

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

USN/USAF: What's the hard deck for today's exercise? FAA/RAF: How big is the surf today?

[@richardthomas6890]

What a great story. Thanks for interviewing 👍🏻

[@Shadowfax-1980]

When he talks about how Brits say “right” on the radio, I was reminded of the radio comms from the movie Battle of Britain.

[@robertwoodroffe123]

Tally ho

[@wwclay86]

Can't wait to hear the rest of the story

[@2ZZGE100]

Amazing interview! Looking forward to the full thing. Oh, and the very first time I have seen a Tomcat shaped guitar LOL

[@allgood6760]

We flew A4 Skyhawks with our RNZAF.... a friend of mine was Tactical Radar Operator on HMS Invincible during the Falklands War he didn't know if he was going to live or die!... thanks from NZ 👍🇳🇿

[@plantfeeder6677]

Ya because he knew how good the A-4 is.

[@stevehilton4052]

He had good reason to be afraid, anyone who wasn't was either crazy or a Gurkha ( so the saying goes) The thing civilian people had no idea of is that we had to travel 12000 kms ( 8000 miles in old money) and take everything we needed and fight a foe that was only a few hundred km from home, supply and support continued all during the fighting because we just couldn't cover the whole area and had limited radar warning ( the old ark royal had prop driven gannets that flew around for long range warning intelligence) so we had to be ready for any kind of attack including submarine.The big ships must have been a high priority for the Argentine pilots.Look what happened to the Atlantic conveyor . This is the big debate on the sinking of the Belgrano ( outside the exclusion zone) she had survived the pearl harbor attack and had serious firepower and heavy armament. The skipper explained to us that the smaller fighting ships had to stand guard and attract the Argentine pilots to have a go at us instead of the soft targets unloading the troops and materials needed to fight a land war.As I said once we heard Harriers in the area we would grab a cuppa ( or at least get one from the guys ready to" stand to" ) So I understand the feeling very well.please pass on my respects if you have contact

[@EndTimeDreams]

The HMS Invincible came to New Zealand after the Falklands War. We gave them a warm Kiwi welcome and sent out a war party of low flying A-4 Skyhawks in a mock air raid when they were off our coast. They didn't pick us up on radar and couldn't scramble the Sea Harriers in time. A few Sea Harriers stayed on shore at Ohakea air base and did ACM with our A-4's. We had radars and sidewinders and they soon found out an A-4 can beat a Sea Harrier if you have the right training and equipment.

[@notlikely4468]

There's a story of a RAF GR3 crash caused by a bird strike during low level training Pilot had some explaining to do when the bird was found to be a chicken Some discrepancy between the minimum height above ground the exercise allowed and the maximum height a chicken could fly

[@FallenPhoenix86]

I seem to recall a tale of a Tornado coming home following a fish strike.

[@nige-g]

Great interview, really enjoyable, I loved his enthusiasm. 🇬🇧🇺🇸

[@Touay.]

looking forward to the full interview.

[@pilgrim....]

I would love to hear more about that. He tells a good story.

[@TheBillzilla]

Great interview! And the triangular guitar behind his head looks like it's got swept wings.

[@matthayward7889]

What a great story!

[@stevehilton4052]

Very interesting and fun interview, I'm a ex royal navy and served in the south Atlantic in'82 .One of the squadron leaders Lt/ Cdr " sharky" Ward ( incidentally I served with him on Ark Royal when he flew F4 phantoms) had taken on the American top gun squadron in Germany , they teach fighter tactics, usually by shooting down the guest squadrons and analysing why you lost.However the harriers beat them.The debrief showed how difficult it is to get a " tone" on a heat signiture as the exhaust is channeled to the underside.This information about it's capability fell upon the ears of the Argentine military junta and the fear of high losses caused the Argentine airforce top brass to adopt " turn and run" tactics when detecting radar lock.Sharky Ward later wrote that he believes it was the wrong thing to do as the Argentine had far more aircraft and could eventually gain air superiority ( effectively winning the war). The original design was a response to NASA' s open competition for the best moon landing craft design,it got the nickname of the" flying bedstead" as that is what it looked like hovering without wings.We almost lost one trying to land in peasoup fog and couldn't see the ship ,a blast of the blue fox radar would have been too dangerous for the crew on deck ready to recover the aircraft, someone had the bright idea to shine the bridge powerful search light directly up into the sky.The harrier followed it down with fumes left in the tank.This little weird aircraft flew none stop and didn't skip a beat and without it we could not have traveled 12000 km's and beaten an enemy dug in and only 400 km's from home ( supplied every day as our CAP cover didn't have the range of the whole area). This post brought back lots of memories...

[@Foxtrop13]

argentine planes did not have RWR, the canons on the a4 were unreliable, the mirage5 nesher had fuel but no radar, the mirage3EA had radar but only 3 hardpoints carrying 1 M530 and 2 fuel tanks or one fuel tank and two R550, and for the only combat between M3EA and harriers, the harrier wins after the mirage firing the R530 out of range, after that mirage3EA only operated as decoy

[@paulhetherington8927]

I'm currently reading Sharky Ward's book. I have so much respect and admiration for what you guys did in '82 and the capabilities of the Harrier, especially how the the Sea Harrier was deployed in 801 NAS. I'm not even half way through the book yet and not even in the war zone but the story so far is immense. I barely remember the Falklands as I was only 6 and it's only through subsequent TV and general reading that I learnt about it. I loved aeroplanes as a young boy but decided to not to join the RAF/navy but to pursue a civilian career in chemical engineering instead. My fascination for harriers came about from my late dad who bought me a print of 2 sea harriers flying over Portsmouth back in about '84/'85 and it hung on my bedroom wall for years before being hidden away in the late 90's I think he really appreciated their (and everyone involved's) effort in achieving victory from the stories on the TV and in the papers during and after the conflict. I rediscovered the print a couple of years back hiding behind a wardrobe and it now hangs in my office. I decided I wanted to learn more about the aircraft so just getting into it. My cousin's son is currently serving on the PoW so I see the next generation picking up the mantle where my generation didn't.

[@Mors_Inimicis]

I think ‘Sharkeys’ squadron were training with the 527th TFTAS an Aggressor squadron with F5E’s based back in the 80’s at RAF Alconbury. I’m sure a Bitburg F15 Eagle squadron was TDY there at the same time . Will have to dig my SHAR over the Falklands book out !

[@fidelismiles7439]

I disagree, there was no possible way that the Argentine Air Force could have achieved Air Superiority, Argentina was not like Japan that could send hundreds of planes in one go as if it was some Battle of Midway, it was not like that at all, the Harrier could stay in the area of operations longer than the A-4 or the Mirage, the state of the Argentine Air Force by 1982 was a mess, infact it is a miracle that so many planes were able to carry out their sorties and return. All they could do was hit and run and regroup with the flight leader (unless he had been shot down) as they were the ones who had radars. The Argentine Air Force did not have neither the resources nor the logistics to supply either an "Air superiority" offensive or achieve tactical superiority. The harrier on the other hand had the latest Sidewinder variant at it's disposal that was enough to deny air superiority. In the era of missiles, while the Harrier had to be careful once, the Mirages and the A-4 Skyhawks had to be lucky every single time.

[@paulhetherington8927]

@@Mors_Inimicis You're right. The book talks about the training dogfights with the F5 and F15. The SHAR was such a remarkable little jet.

[@alanwareham7391]

If you thought that Harrier was low try sneaking up on a Buccaneer that was high altitude flying for them, but I agree with you in that it’s not always the aircraft the makes the difference but as history has so often proved it’s the men that fly them ,take care,respects ………Alan…..

[@georgesheffield1580]

Always the pilot and his team .

[@Aeronaut1975]

Saw "Sea Harrier", clicked in under 0.1 milliseconds ;D

[@sammoore9689]

I saw uk air force f4s so low, they had a monster rooster tail, with afterburner on.

[@sichere]

The Sea Harrier is a mystical machine. Part Aircraft, part Helicopter, part Submarine.

[@AM-ux3yx]

Great story

[@smexyskelator3209]

The guitar in the backround is an F14 and not enough people are talking about it

[@jaxastro3072]

Came here looking for this. What a sweet fucking guitar. I gotta find me one of those if it is not a one off custom

[@Mike-gt1cs]

Tell me please, about the F-14 guitar behind you . . . . . ? Custom made, or production model?

[@MarkVizcarraCDR]

The F-14 bass guitar is a custom design I made back in 1999.

[@slammerf16]

@@MarkVizcarraCDR Too cool!

[@Mike-gt1cs]

@@MarkVizcarraCDR That is SWEET! Thank you!

[@johnf991]

As a guitar player, I was interested to see the guitars in the background and the album covers for Sgt Peter and Abbey Road, plus the photos from the Let it Be album (or was it the cover?).......I think......

[@malcolmeunson5543]

When NZ had an Airforce, they routinely flew below100’.... Heard on a Red Flag, 50’

[@nnoddy8161]

These A4 were another defence gift from Australia, formally being the RAN's aircraft on HMAS Melbourne.

[@rednaughtstudios]

@@nnoddy8161 Some of the RNZAF A4's were ex RAN. The price was a bargain and both the originals and ex RAN A4's were upgraded in the late 80's with F-16 radar and electronics.

[@alfnoakes392]

As the NZRAF no longer has jet fighters/bombers the NZ Navy , when it needs to practice tracking fast-attack aircraft (and the Ozzies are not to hand) gets a couple of local guys who fly old Warbird jets to simulate low attacks.

[@fidelismiles7439]

A subject that tends to appear when talking about the Falklands war is that "Argentina could have achieved Air Superiority if they had just made use of all their 100+ aircraft". Here I disagree, there was no possible way that the Argentine Air Force could have achieved air superiority, Argentina was not like Japan that could send hundreds of planes in one go as if it was some Battle of Midway, it was not like that at all, the Harrier could stay in the area of operations longer than the A-4 or the Mirage, the state of the Argentine Air Force by 1982 was a mess, infact it is a miracle that so many planes were able to carry out their sorties and return. All they could do was hit and run and regroup with the flight leader (unless he had been shot down) as they were the ones who had radars. The Argentine Air Force did not have neither the resources nor the logistics to supply either an "air superiority" offensive or achieve tactical superiority. The harrier on the other hand had the latest Sidewinder variant at it's disposal that was enough to deny air superiority. In the era of missiles, while the Harrier had to be careful once, the Mirages and the A-4 Skyhawks had to be lucky every single time.

[@sanignacio1999]

Argentina Air Force had no chance. There are 500kms between the islands and the continent, this means 1000kms to go and return. Only the Skyhawks had in-flight refueling capacity (they had to be refuelled twice), the M-III´s not. The Mirage´s could only fly over the islands for a couple of minutes, the dog fights maneuvers consume fuel and consuming more of what was calculated meant that the aircraft wouldnt be able to return to the continent. This happened in the 1st of may, in the first dogfight of the war, one Mirage is shotdown with a Sidewinder, and another one manages to break contact from the Harriers, but after the dogfight the pilot realized he had no fuel to return to the continent so he had two choices: Eject or try to land in Stanley and save the aircraft, he chose the last one. Only the Air Force AAA was informed of this and when he tried to land he was shot down by the army and the navy AAA. The Harriers didn´t had to take off from England and fly all the way to the Falklands and return. The carriers were their base and a CAP could last for hours. In conclusion, Argentina never had a chance to establish air superiority. But i agree with "Sharkey" Ward, that the argentinians still had a chance of shooting down two or three Harriers only if they had attacked like a swarm and focusing on the harriers instead of the ships.

[@Rob-vv5yn]

300 feet low LOL 😂 that’s high altitude for the NZ A4s when they flew

[@johnallen7807]

Are you from NZ? Is it true they no longer have any fixed wing air force?

[@rednaughtstudios]

@@johnallen7807 No combat jets since 2003. Transport, maritime patrol and trainers is all they do at the moment.

[@jfcustomguitars9276]

High what is the guitar shaped like a small diamond behind your head

[@charlesbarbour2331]

Isn't he engaging? Looking forward to the full interview....

[@diceman199]

A-4....We have Harriers at 4 o'clock low....meanwhile... Harriers....we have buccaneers at 6 o'clock low

[@asifkhan1363]

Gr8 story

[@slammerf16]

I see what you did there :)

[@dustinmccrindle343]

Clever 😉

[@Lee0568]

300ft,that's HI ALTITUDE to the RAF and FAA

[@PedroConejo1939]

I knew a fellow who flew in the FAA who had a bird strike one day. A chicken.

[@Lee0568]

@@PedroConejo1939 😂😂😂😂,sounds about right,but when you have the likes of Eric WINKLE Brown as an example of FAA pilots,you realise the chicken strike MAY BE TRUE,😲😂😂😂😂

[@arielalvarez2766]

It seems that Mr Mark has not read enough about the Malvinas/Falklands war...the Argentine Air Force and Navy aircrafts attacked the British fleet at altitudes much, much lower the 300 ft...even lower of 100 ft. There are a lot of images and videos of those attacks.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

@anglovirtual well it did, it avoided more pilots being shot down, was extremely psychologically effective, showed that their airforce was extremely well trained and they sunk a ton of British shipping Including 1 destroyer, 2 frigates, 1 landing craft and 1 landing ship.

[@HO-bndk]

They flew so low some of their bomb fuses failed to activate in time. Otherwise they'd have sunk even more ships. The Argentinian pilots were brave guys.

[@bepolite6961]

@@Alex-cw3rz Yep they did and they ignored the Logistic and Landing ships! Big mistake.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

@@bepolite6961 that's just factually inaccurate, mutiple landing craft and Landing ship logistics were damaged and sunk.

[@salmanmajeed6420]

Hi!

[@tonyhaynes9080]

Harriers don't play nicely. They use viffing in a close dogfight. The amount of times they caught other types out in mock combat with that trick.

[@EndTimeDreams]

300ft? You need to be down at 60ft when attacking ships. Watch these Kiwi Skyhawks take out 3 Navy ships kzbin.info/www/bejne/gZK6ha13pKamf6s

[@noorazihirnoorazik5142]

I only able to watched the harrier in tv since kids, but in 1993 i had saw the real harrires but not in airshow but in its mock fighting exercise and its definetly was the raf sea harriers, its flying low and roaring in its full speed above me at my school , its flying from west heading east chasing a malaysian f5 also in low flying but the f5 is flying in different directions the f5 was flying from north heading south and about over 1km in front of the harrier, the f5 is approaching and crossing in front of the harrier and when the harrier is getting close to the f5 , its making tight rights turns to tailing the f5, then in less one minutes i was unable to saw them as they are flying far away to the south, i still feel exciting until now bcoz watching the real harrier flying in front of me but not for an airshow but in its real aggressive low level flying for a mock dogfight, its also excitement for me bcoz i watching this harrier and the f5 in aggresive low level action not near the airbase but i watching them in bright afternoon from my corridor classroom , the harrier is flying above my school rooftop, i able to smell the harrier kerosene, u guess how low is that, my school was surounded with a crowded residence house and building which are about 12or13km from their airbase.

[@AA-xo9uw]

"was the raf sea harriers"(sic) Royal Navy not RAF.

[@pgr3290]

Argentine pilots called the Sea Harrier as the black death. As soon as they saw them, they got the hell out of there fast because they knew they were in big trouble.

[@andrewwebb5170]

Sea Harrier armed with air to air ordinance operating is defensive role from a carrier.......... Skyhawk operating as a bomber with no air to air armament and due to being at such a long range from its base no fuel to dogfight anyway. If the roles were reversed the Sea Harriers would be the ones getting the hell out of there.

[@pgr3290]

@@andrewwebb5170 You mean modern single seat fighters like the IAI Daggers, which had limited air to air fuelling support and air to air armament all because Argentina had prepared badly for the war it had initiated in the first place. 9 were shot down by Harriers to go along with the Skyhawks also downed. The Harriers themselves on combat air patrols typically had limited flight times but had also discovered the attack vectors the IAIs had to use. The Harrier was just a very small ground attack aircraft, it should have had little chance against an air superiority fighter like the Daggers but the tactics and intelligence employed by the Fleet Air Arm was near perfect. This is despite the British turning up after announcing to the world what they were going to do, spent weeks sailing there with full press coverage, were told by the Americans and specifically the CIA that retaking the islands was basically impossible for them and not to bother. Zero surprise factor. Happened all the same.

[@andrewwebb5170]

@@pgr3290 no I do mean A-4 Skyhawks as per the video discussion. One on one the A-4 although designed as an attack aircraft is superior to the Harrier in manoeuvrability. That has been proved since the Falklands when our RAN Skyhawks gave RN Harriers a 'touch up' during exercises that occurred here in Australia prior to our A-4's being sold off to NZ ........ The Argentine A-4's were set up to do what they were designed for and they did the job well, unfortunately for them the old bombs they were carrying didn't do the job. Drop and run, no fuel and no ordinance to deal with pursuing Harriers, quite simple really.

[@pgr3290]

@@andrewwebb5170 The Harrier is not an air superiority fighter, it is not designed to dogfight with anything like the A4 Skyhawk. It still scared the Argentines shitless. The only tactic they had was to dump and go as fast as possible because anything else risked being intercepted by one of the Sea Harriers and being shot down. Which is exactly what happened to several of them. They were incredibly ineffective for the most part. The Sea Harriers also happened to better more agile air superiority fighters, supersonic IAI Daggers. The Harrier went 23-0 air kills during the war. It was a massacre of the Argentine air force that to this day they never recovered from. Evidence that pilot skill, smart tactics and careful preparation can overcome on paper advantages an enemy aircraft may have.

[@garymcalea3815]

@@pgr3290 there where actually 2 versions of the Harrier in the Falklands. The Sea Harrier, designed for fleet defence primarily with air to air radar and a secondary fleet attack role operated by the Royal Navy. Also the RAF Harrier GR3 designed from the outset as a ground attack and reconnaissance aircraft. The Harriers done what they where trained for RN air to air and CAP, RAF as mud movers. That’s why all the Harrier kills went to RN squadrons even though there was RAF pilots with the RN Harriers and RN pilots with the RAF Harriers on exchange

[@cigscwb]

Veteran Argentine pilots from the Falklands. These guys flew low, very low.

[@boggy8557]

Is he related to Vic Vizcarra?

[@Aircrewinterview]

It’s his son :)

[@boggy8557]

@@Aircrewinterview awesome!!

[@Nghilifa]

Nice! Is Mark the son of Vic?

[@MarkVizcarraCDR]

Yes...I owe everything to my father. It was his forewarning letter he wrote me when I reported to my first operational squadron that kept me alive throughout my flying career.

[@nachoangeloni6062]

'We were flying low 300ft and high speed' ... the Argentinian pilots on their A4 flew top speed at less than 30ft. There are testimonies saying 'we had to go up to 90ft to reach the bomb throwing minimum altitude' hahaha

[@SNATCHYDBS]

The Buccs at Red flag did the same. ... lower than low ... We built some very battle proven aircraft . Sad that we now dont fly our own of our new Careiers.

[@hoilst]

Wait, he's not Argentinian?

[@JoJo-vm8vk]

That guy thinking he was low at 300ft...Navy pilots are trained to fly at 100ft !!! :-b

[@20mmGamer]

Kiwi A4 drivers flew @ 50!

[@raypurchase801]

I recall a TV documentary about the RAF training its Lancaster pilots in low level attacks. A Lancaster was flying at 50 feet. It was overtaken by another Lancaster flying below it.

[@plantfeeder6677]

That's what I was thinking. This was a staged/pre-planned exercise. No way U.S. Navy planes are attacking at 300'. More like 50' and twisting to a degree no Harrier is gonna hang with them. The Harriers would be better hovering near their boat and firing at the approaching planes than to try and hang with possibly the greatest carrier based aircraft(certainly jet)ever produced in the Douglas A-4 'Skyhawk'

[@tonyhaynes9080]

100 feet? That is outer space for Buccaneer pilots.

[@FallenPhoenix86]

@@plantfeeder6677 Theres a good few A-4 wrecks around the Falklands that disagree with that assessment.

[@Swaggerlot]

When a conflict requires quantity they look to the US, when it requires quality they look to the UK and Commonwealth.

[@laurencethornblade8357]

Flattering yourself

[@Swaggerlot]

@@laurencethornblade8357 Truth hurts

[@laurencethornblade8357]

No one buys English crap

[@laurencethornblade8357]

The "commonwealth" fly American aircraft.

[@Swaggerlot]

@@laurencethornblade8357 So who bought the Harrier and renamed it the AV-8B? Who bought the Canberra and renamed it the B-57? I guess that a 14 year old doesn't know that much history. Oh and I almost forgot the Hawk that somebody bought and renamed too...

[@kennethmckay6391]

There is no "the" in front of HMS. Think about it: "the Her Majesty's Ship Arm Royal" doesn't make sense See also: Concorde No the either

[@georgebarnes8163]

"armless"

[@johngreen-sk4yk]

Great story, but worst English accent since Dick Vandyke, 😆 lol

[@bugler75]

😊😂😂

[@oslo6661]

Worst accent ever, INCLUDING DvD ;)

[@plantfeeder6677]

So the Brits wanted to know from the Americans how a little subsonic Argentinian A-4 could sink a RN ship? The Douglas A-4 was pound for pound the greatest military jet aircraft ever made. If it had modern avionics and radar, it would still be in service to this day. This would've been a better story if those little A-4s had put that flattop on the bottom....figuratively speaking of coarse😆.

[@mayvillefinestdancer]

We have A-4AR in service, with upgrades.

[@FallenPhoenix86]

It does and it is, in Brazil.

[@concise707]

300ft = Flight Level nose bleed!

[@CharlieNoodles]

The funniest thing is that Americans think 300 feet is low level. RNZAF A4Ks routinely flew at 50 feet.

[@sarkybugger5009]

When up against the Brits, expect the unexpected. We are famous for it. The RAF are the best trained pilots in the world, especially at low level.

[@rednaughtstudios]

Indeed, but this interview is about the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy, not the RAF.

[@sarkybugger5009]

@@rednaughtstudios Indeed. All the skills of the RAF flyboys, but can also land on moving airstrips. ;o)

[@searchtron7601]

Hey ,NO argentine pilots interview?🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷

[@petervharris]

At 300 feet, you would need oxygen. That is not low. I flew ACT in the A-4M against an AV-8C, and in an AV-8C against an A-4M at Yuma ACMI. I flip-flopped with the same USMC pilot. He was much better at ACM than I was. Pilot ability and not making mistakes is what won the fight, every time.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

You're 13,700 feet off there to require oxygen. Just think if you needed oxygen at 300 feet, everyone in a Cessna and even helicopters would need one, I'd need extra oxygen in my house, if it was 300 feet.

[@sylvesterstewart868]

Nobody flew lower than Argentine A-4's

[@richf6111]

A4 fucked up a lot of ships at very low level in Falklands....Sadly.

[@Jabber-ig3iw]

With the help of a missile sold to the Argies by our ‘allies’ the French🙄🙄

[@Alex-cw3rz]

@@Jabber-ig3iw they had a Tyep 42 destroyer bought from the UK and an Aircraft carrier of British origin and the rest was all American. I know it's jokes to rag on the French but don't do it as silly as this, what did you want them to have Fortune tellers so they can know when Britain's going to war.

[@martindione386]

@@Jabber-ig3iw nope, the A-4s attacked with dumb bombs at point blank, you're confused with the Super Etendards and the Exocet.

[@mookie2637]

Many fewer than they meant to though. Not least due to the bombs we'd sold them that had fuses that they didn't know how to set.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

@@mookie2637 What you said isn't true, what you've got confused with is that the Argentinan Pilots flew so incredibly low to avoid British Air Defense, it meant some of the bombs didn't arm in time, the Argentines then modified them to detonate at such low levels (so yeah they definitely knew how to use the fuses).

[@SuperEdge67]

300 feet isn’t that low.

[@plantfeeder6677]

Not for the U.S. Navy. They routinely fly at 100'. But if this was real, would've been more like 50' off the water

[@SuperEdge67]

@@plantfeeder6677 Maybe so, the RAF fly even lower.

[@andypandy9013]

It is not "the" HMS, it is just HMS. Otherwise you are saying "the Her (now His) Majesty's Ship". Which is just plain wrong. BTW, none of us Brits sound like Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins. Gor blimey! 🤣

[@mstevens113]

The good old sea harrier. There's a bunch of argie pilots no longer capable of testifying to just how capable it was...

[@Alex-cw3rz]

Bit morbid and very weird, sure you wouldn't like it if I said the same about the Oerlikon 35mm and the Harrier or a serial killer and his victims....

[@HO-bndk]

Ask 2 PARA at Goose Green how useless the Harriers were. First pass; failed to spot the enemy, second pass; completely missed, third pass; got shot down.

[@loyalist5736]

@@HO-bndk Harriers dropped cluster bombs on argie artillery and wiped them out ...

[@iatsd]

Yes, the Harriers shot down 20 aircraft. But be fair: the Argentine pilots were at maximum range and at max weight loaded for strike missions, with no fuel ability to stick around a dogfight. The Harriers were loaded for air to air and had anywhere up to 45+ minutes of available flight time over the target areas - and they seldom shot them down until *after* their attack runs. It's hardly a fair comparison or implication you're trying to make there. It's also fvcking distasteful, but that's by the by.

[@mayvillefinestdancer]

@@loyalist5736 They UK was never able to supress Arg artillery.

[@gerald4133]

A childhood older friend grew up to later fly Marine sea harriers.

[@AA-xo9uw]

Marine Corps didn't operate the Sea Harrier/SHAR: AV-8As, AV-8Bs and AV-8Cs.

[@gerald4133]

@@AA-xo9uw that wrong they was purchased after the Brits retired the Harrier.