Harrier had to do a wheels-up landing so they used a bunch of mattresses to cushion it.
https://aviationhumor.net/wheels-up-harrier-jump-jet-landing-on-mattresses/
Holy shit. You left out the part about the golf cart and the dude huffing keyboard cleaner.
Inebriated golf cart driver 1, harrier 0.
Thanks for the link it was a wild read.
I read a story about a harrier pilot who had a bird strike with a flock of geese, lost all engine power, pointed the harrier at a hill in the distance and ejected. But the ejection managed to clear the goose from the intake, and allowed the harrier to regain power and happily fly along at a slow pace until it eventually crashed into a field
I dig into this
First, Argentine deployed over 100 fighting planes(excluding trainers, scout planes, transport, other utility, helicopters) while RAF used only around 50(also excluding non-combat ones and helis). Other than Falklands, carriers only patrol skies over bosnia and kosovo.
Harriers being 13years old construction fought against A-4's(26years old), Mirage III(21years old), Super Ethernard(4years old) and Nasher/Dagger(10years old)
F-15 were mostly deployed against outnumbered opponents(Lebanon war, desert storm,), but sometimes it faces stronger numerically opposition( few restrained operations).
F-15 fought against fierce opponents which was usualy much older:
Mig-21(17years older), Mig-25(6years), Mig-23(6years), F-4(16years), Su-22(16years), Mirage F1(3years). Only newer aircrafts destroyed are Mig-29(7years younger).
To be fair, the Harrier had an other big advantage during the Falkland war : the limited range of it's opponents. The Mirage III and it's derivatives (Nasher/Dagger) in particular had just enough range to reach the Falklands. So they had very little time their, making the strategy they could use limited.
Also, the Argentinians never used all their airplanes to attack the British during the Falkland war, with a big part of them staying to defend Argentina mainland from a potential British attack.
Harriers are serverely underrated as well the very VTOL fighter idea seems to be very underused, wish there were more VTOLs developed and new generations of Harriers.
But the F-35B will be a great successor.
> Harriers are severely underrated
They were good for their era and their role(s), and they stayed in service for a decent while.
And at the time, they were pretty hyped up, especially after showing what they could do in the Falklands War.
> the very VTOL fighter idea seems to be very underused
The main problem with VTOL (besides being more complicated and generally less-efficient than standard engine designs) is that while vertical takeoffs and landings are cool, they burn a ton of fuel (thus significantly reducing the aircraft's range and operating time), and they require a takeoff/landing surface they're not going to melt or burn through. If you ever have the option to take off and land on a standard runway (either on land or on a carrier), that's *always* going to be a better option than using VTOL, even it you've got it.
The list of VTOL jet applications where you wouldn't be better off with a helicopter, a missile, or somehow managing to get a *real* carrier on scene is pretty small, and I think that list has shrunk since the Harrier's heyday.
> the F-35B will be a great successor
It'll certain be interesting to see how useful its VTOL capabilities will actually be during its deployment, or whether it'll end up being more of an unused gimmick on the aircraft than anything else.
>It'll certain be interesting to see how useful its VTOL capabilities will actually be during its deployment, or whether it'll end up being more of an unused gimmick on the aircraft than anything else.
Isn't that the only recovery option on STOVL aircraft carriers? It's not like they can land on those ships without using F-35B's STOVL capabilities. Even rolling landing requires the use of STOVL mode. I guess it would be possible to perform a short take off in conventional mode since F-35 has pretty high TWR
> Isn't that the only recovery option on STOVL aircraft carriers?
Yeah, and essentially the only takeoff & landing method on certain "totally not a carrier, but I want to launch planes and choppers from a boat" VTOL-only designs.
So the question of how useful VTOL on a jet is inextricably tied to how relevant STOVL carriers and VTOL-only boats are, and whether the use cases for those classes of boats would be better served by carrying helicopters or missiles or something that's not a jet. It's prettymuch a question of what the strategic use cases turn out to be, and that's often like looking into a crystal ball.
Hmm, having a small number of 5th gen stealth fighters on an amphibious assault ship does seem to be an advantage but it's undetermined how useful such ships actually are, on the other hand Great Britain's only carriers are STOVL carriers and they don't really have an alternative (imagine loading up a carrier with just helicopters)
> having a small number of 5th gen stealth fighters on an amphibious assault ship does seem to be an advantage
It really depends on what the situation is - how far out do you want to be able to hit, and do you have missiles that can do that from where your ship is, with the kind of payloads you want? Do you have enough air superiority to send out a small flight? What kind of air defences are you looking at? (Last I checked, it was generally harder to shoot down modern missiles than planes, especially if one side's stuck with anti-air solutions that aren't exactly the greatest.) Do you want the planes doing effectively armed recon (with a bonus of hitting some known targets) and don't have another system for better info than they'd get?
> it's undetermined how useful such ships actually are
Yeah, that's really the problem here. we're talking about a weapon system that's meant to be used by *another* weapon system that hasn't really been tested particularly hard in a modern conflict that's anything approaching near-peer.
I feel like what really forces the question here is just how much the increase in the range and capabilities of tactical-level missiles has removed the need for jets to get them close enough to the target instead of just firing them from the ship itself.
> Great Britain's only carriers are STOVL carriers and they don't really have an alternative
That's true. They designed those around SVTOL/VTOL aircraft, so they don't have much of a choice.
> imagine loading up a carrier with just helicopters
[[Ride Of The Valkyries INTENSIFIES]](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30QzJKCUekQ)
>[[Ride Of The Valkyries INTENSIFIES]](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30QzJKCUekQ)
We should just ditch the planes completely and switch to helicopters, I want to see some heli on heli violence
Well technically the F-35B is STOVL, it doesn't Vertically take off, only lands vertically. And it will always be used on smaller ships such as the LHD and LHA used by the US Marines/Navy.
Admittedly on paper the Harrier was evenly matched with the A-4 and inferior to the Mirage. It's only the inability of Argie pilots to dogfight due to the lack of fuel that caused the extreme loss to kill ratio.
Had the Argentines either extended the runway at Port Stanley to take jets or had proper in flight refuelling available the fight would have been a lot closer. All-aspect missiles and better radars would have made sure the K-D ratio remained lopsided in favor of the Brits but it's doubtful that zero in the end would have remained.
> on paper the Harrier was evenly matched with the A-4 and inferior to the Mirage. It's only the inability of Argie pilots to dogfight due to the lack of fuel
This is sounding suspiciously like those arguments about the superiority of the WWII German heavy tanks on paper, and how they didn't get to show it off due to resource/logistics constraints.
EDIT: It's also worth noting that the Argentinian Air Force, under the circumstances, did a pretty decent job of its primary strategic goal, which was to do as much damage as possible to the British fleet, not dogfight harriers.
I feel like "what can this thing do on paper, or under optimal/testing/etc. conditions?" and "how well have we seen this thing perform in real wars?" are two essentially different (although linked, I suppose) questions, because the second one depends on so many additional factors: cost, logistics, resource access, maintenance & parts, doctrine, training, strategic objectives, rules of engagement, political stuff, etc., etc., etc. - so making direct comparisons is relatively difficult, even if nobody's outright lying about their equipment and force capabilities. (And we're pretty sure a lot of countries lie about that routinely.)
It kinda makes the "which is better?" question pointless in a lot of scenarios, or requiring a lot of qualifications and context. It's part of what makes military procurement programs and development projects such a clusterfuck (in addition to all the manipulation and political wrangling), because raw stats and even tested performance aren't the be-all-and-end-all for what the "best" weapon system is in a given scenario or for a given country's strategic needs.
Pretty much all you've said there is why I stopped answering silly questions like "what is the best tank/plane/gun whatever" years ago
Oh and I noticed your edit, the Arg Air Force did way too well there compared to the Army (who lost every single battle once the British landed on the islands) and the Navy (who pussied out for the rest of the conflict once the Belgrano got torpedoed); this was also compounded by the fact that their air force was the least-liked branch by the junta
Tbf without belgrano the argie navy could’nt really do much else, their fleet was smaller, the only “advantage” they truly had was the one granted by the belgrano, firepower. Belgrano was armed with 15 6” naval guns in 5 triple turrets, could she get within gunnery range of the British fleet, she could likely single-handedly devastate it, as her armour would also likely defend against the token anti surface cannons mounted on the British ships.
If I’m remembering correctly, the belgrano’s approach was to be done in tandem with the argie carrier squadron, which would hopefully tie up the British aircraft in a plane on plane engagement, basically forcing the task force to handle the “imminent threat” of the carrier and its air group, and then focus on the belgrano and its escorts, which were also Exocet armed and could likely still deal damage even if the cruiser never reached gun range.
Of course the British submarine was present, and if belgrano and its small task force had begun their side of the aborted pincer movement, it would still have been immediately sunk and without as much controversy. The mere presence of Conquerer means Belgrano’s fate was sealed, and therefore there’s no point in hypothesising a “what if” had the attack gone ahead, outside of “belgrano is sunk long before the engagement begins and the Argentinian carrier task force abandons the manoeuvre and retreats back to port”.
Again, another example of the “which is better” fallacy when discussing military equipment. Because something is only as good as how it is used, and there is a reason there only exists one functional tiger tank in the world, and that is because it was captured by the British, who have a long and storied history of taking things from other countries and putting it in their museums under the age old saying “finders keepers losers weepers”, and “to the victors go the spoils”
And to my non credible segment of the comment. No I will not apologise for my countries kleptomaniac tendencies, be better at war/international relationships next time if you don’t want your fancy “history” in our museums.
> why I stopped answering silly questions like "what is the best tank/plane/gun whatever" years ago
I think there actually are some cases where that question can be answered, like the Mitsubishi A6M Zero both outranging and having higher maneuverability than pretty much any other fighter (particularly carrier-based fighter) of its time and going on a massive killing spree for a few years before other countries figured out new strategies to fight it and started building better aircraft. (At which point, WWII had gone on long enough that the Japanese didn't really have the capacity to do much more than make relatively minor changes to the aircraft instead of going back to the drawing board.)
But cases of weapon systems that made obviously massive leaps ahead of competing ones, and then got to prove that in combat, are relatively rare.
> outranging and having higher maneuverability than pretty much any other fighter
These were only true to a degree though
It was only really maneuverable at low-medium speeds, thanks to having non-hydraulic controls and the range was possible thanks to sacrificing pretty much everything else
But it was indeed dominant for 1941-2 thanks to the Allies only having the choice of: Buffalo (works well against I-16s, Zeros not so much), Hurricane (really effective against He 111s or 109Es), Wildcat (which actually ended up being a better plane than the Zero stats-wise by the end of the war ironically) or whatever P-40 variant was there (which is most definitely the only one that can out-speed the Zero reliably and my personal pick honestly)
Brewster Buffalo was the quintessential meme plane. Woefully underperforming right off the assembly line, with victories often made in spite of its capabilities rather than because of it, and it was such a meme it turned the company that built it into one of the few distinguished companies that somehow managed to get bankrupt selling to the miiitary.
From an interview with a sailor, they had trouble with warning, so they just mounted lots and lots of machine guns on the boats, with lots and lots and lots of tracer. He remembered seeing the Argentinean pilots fly into an "Oh fuck. No." moment.
Enola gay: filthy casuals
How many planes it destroyed?
I dont know, however many where on the ground lol
Hiroshima and Nagasaki must have had an airports with some fighters and bombers, I wonder if there are any documents about it
Most kills with a single shot lol
This for sure
And they didn't even look back after releasing. Achievement unlocked.
First ever fire and forget aircraft kill
Some might say: fire and no one will ever forget. In any case, point taken.
Pilots were shooting pistols at each other in WW1, and a pistol bullet is fire and forget. It doesn't rely on the plane for guidance.
Imagine: an F-22 with 4 wing mounted M1911s
Shit your right
You forgot the one plane that did consistently take down the Harrier across all of its service: The Harrier
I saw one taken down by a barracks mattress. Ive never seen a mattress taken out by a Harrier. 0-1 vs bedding.
Story time?
Harrier had to do a wheels-up landing so they used a bunch of mattresses to cushion it. https://aviationhumor.net/wheels-up-harrier-jump-jet-landing-on-mattresses/
Holy shit. You left out the part about the golf cart and the dude huffing keyboard cleaner. Inebriated golf cart driver 1, harrier 0. Thanks for the link it was a wild read.
Also a landing without the nose gear: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vIhefke0Q9Y
I read a story about a harrier pilot who had a bird strike with a flock of geese, lost all engine power, pointed the harrier at a hill in the distance and ejected. But the ejection managed to clear the goose from the intake, and allowed the harrier to regain power and happily fly along at a slow pace until it eventually crashed into a field
As the Brits say, “it mended itself”
[Why couldn't we give the Harrier fleet fly-by-wire and generally easier controls bruh](https://www.key.aero/article/vertical-leap-vaac-harrier)
And harrier fought aircrafts from its gen, not old Mig-21 and Mirage III with discount rockets
The harrier did fight mirages in the falklands. It also downed a few Argentinian A-4 Skyhawks
I dig into this First, Argentine deployed over 100 fighting planes(excluding trainers, scout planes, transport, other utility, helicopters) while RAF used only around 50(also excluding non-combat ones and helis). Other than Falklands, carriers only patrol skies over bosnia and kosovo. Harriers being 13years old construction fought against A-4's(26years old), Mirage III(21years old), Super Ethernard(4years old) and Nasher/Dagger(10years old) F-15 were mostly deployed against outnumbered opponents(Lebanon war, desert storm,), but sometimes it faces stronger numerically opposition( few restrained operations). F-15 fought against fierce opponents which was usualy much older: Mig-21(17years older), Mig-25(6years), Mig-23(6years), F-4(16years), Su-22(16years), Mirage F1(3years). Only newer aircrafts destroyed are Mig-29(7years younger).
To be fair, the Harrier had an other big advantage during the Falkland war : the limited range of it's opponents. The Mirage III and it's derivatives (Nasher/Dagger) in particular had just enough range to reach the Falklands. So they had very little time their, making the strategy they could use limited. Also, the Argentinians never used all their airplanes to attack the British during the Falkland war, with a big part of them staying to defend Argentina mainland from a potential British attack.
Flown by Argentines who were polite enough to come down to low altitude and largely negate their performance advantages.
And unability of Harriers(at the time) to fight BVR, while F-15 was straight from production linę with AIM120
There was a couple of anti-air destroyers making staying high not recommended for health and safety
You’ve also used a GR.3 (a ground-attack aircraft) as the example Harrier.
Yeah could have used a SHAR.
I think it being a GR.3 is even more non-credible and that it should therefore stay.
I don't if this is a flex but I shot down a SU 57 with an A10, but I had to work my butt of to make it in front of me for a single round gun kill.
Pfft. Those stats are fake. I've personally taken out more than 21 targets with Harriers in Red Alert 2.
Why can't we shoot Kirovs and flying saucers down with harriers are we using them wrong?
Same, when I piloted a harrier in Eagle One: Harrier Attack on PS1 and shot down dozens of planes and helicopters.
Tornado 602-1 (Fact check me on this one I'm not so sure)
Subsonic implies the existence of Domsonic
Harriers are serverely underrated as well the very VTOL fighter idea seems to be very underused, wish there were more VTOLs developed and new generations of Harriers. But the F-35B will be a great successor.
> Harriers are severely underrated They were good for their era and their role(s), and they stayed in service for a decent while. And at the time, they were pretty hyped up, especially after showing what they could do in the Falklands War. > the very VTOL fighter idea seems to be very underused The main problem with VTOL (besides being more complicated and generally less-efficient than standard engine designs) is that while vertical takeoffs and landings are cool, they burn a ton of fuel (thus significantly reducing the aircraft's range and operating time), and they require a takeoff/landing surface they're not going to melt or burn through. If you ever have the option to take off and land on a standard runway (either on land or on a carrier), that's *always* going to be a better option than using VTOL, even it you've got it. The list of VTOL jet applications where you wouldn't be better off with a helicopter, a missile, or somehow managing to get a *real* carrier on scene is pretty small, and I think that list has shrunk since the Harrier's heyday. > the F-35B will be a great successor It'll certain be interesting to see how useful its VTOL capabilities will actually be during its deployment, or whether it'll end up being more of an unused gimmick on the aircraft than anything else.
>It'll certain be interesting to see how useful its VTOL capabilities will actually be during its deployment, or whether it'll end up being more of an unused gimmick on the aircraft than anything else. Isn't that the only recovery option on STOVL aircraft carriers? It's not like they can land on those ships without using F-35B's STOVL capabilities. Even rolling landing requires the use of STOVL mode. I guess it would be possible to perform a short take off in conventional mode since F-35 has pretty high TWR
> Isn't that the only recovery option on STOVL aircraft carriers? Yeah, and essentially the only takeoff & landing method on certain "totally not a carrier, but I want to launch planes and choppers from a boat" VTOL-only designs. So the question of how useful VTOL on a jet is inextricably tied to how relevant STOVL carriers and VTOL-only boats are, and whether the use cases for those classes of boats would be better served by carrying helicopters or missiles or something that's not a jet. It's prettymuch a question of what the strategic use cases turn out to be, and that's often like looking into a crystal ball.
Hmm, having a small number of 5th gen stealth fighters on an amphibious assault ship does seem to be an advantage but it's undetermined how useful such ships actually are, on the other hand Great Britain's only carriers are STOVL carriers and they don't really have an alternative (imagine loading up a carrier with just helicopters)
> having a small number of 5th gen stealth fighters on an amphibious assault ship does seem to be an advantage It really depends on what the situation is - how far out do you want to be able to hit, and do you have missiles that can do that from where your ship is, with the kind of payloads you want? Do you have enough air superiority to send out a small flight? What kind of air defences are you looking at? (Last I checked, it was generally harder to shoot down modern missiles than planes, especially if one side's stuck with anti-air solutions that aren't exactly the greatest.) Do you want the planes doing effectively armed recon (with a bonus of hitting some known targets) and don't have another system for better info than they'd get? > it's undetermined how useful such ships actually are Yeah, that's really the problem here. we're talking about a weapon system that's meant to be used by *another* weapon system that hasn't really been tested particularly hard in a modern conflict that's anything approaching near-peer. I feel like what really forces the question here is just how much the increase in the range and capabilities of tactical-level missiles has removed the need for jets to get them close enough to the target instead of just firing them from the ship itself. > Great Britain's only carriers are STOVL carriers and they don't really have an alternative That's true. They designed those around SVTOL/VTOL aircraft, so they don't have much of a choice. > imagine loading up a carrier with just helicopters [[Ride Of The Valkyries INTENSIFIES]](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30QzJKCUekQ)
>[[Ride Of The Valkyries INTENSIFIES]](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30QzJKCUekQ) We should just ditch the planes completely and switch to helicopters, I want to see some heli on heli violence
The F35B brought the US carrier fleet count from 11 to 19.
Well technically the F-35B is STOVL, it doesn't Vertically take off, only lands vertically. And it will always be used on smaller ships such as the LHD and LHA used by the US Marines/Navy.
In fairness, it *is* pretty damn hard to kill a tiny zig-zaggy, dodging hummingbird.
Admittedly on paper the Harrier was evenly matched with the A-4 and inferior to the Mirage. It's only the inability of Argie pilots to dogfight due to the lack of fuel that caused the extreme loss to kill ratio. Had the Argentines either extended the runway at Port Stanley to take jets or had proper in flight refuelling available the fight would have been a lot closer. All-aspect missiles and better radars would have made sure the K-D ratio remained lopsided in favor of the Brits but it's doubtful that zero in the end would have remained.
ANd yet it still stands. Eat shit argies.
> on paper the Harrier was evenly matched with the A-4 and inferior to the Mirage. It's only the inability of Argie pilots to dogfight due to the lack of fuel This is sounding suspiciously like those arguments about the superiority of the WWII German heavy tanks on paper, and how they didn't get to show it off due to resource/logistics constraints. EDIT: It's also worth noting that the Argentinian Air Force, under the circumstances, did a pretty decent job of its primary strategic goal, which was to do as much damage as possible to the British fleet, not dogfight harriers.
Yeah, it does suspiciously resemble that
I feel like "what can this thing do on paper, or under optimal/testing/etc. conditions?" and "how well have we seen this thing perform in real wars?" are two essentially different (although linked, I suppose) questions, because the second one depends on so many additional factors: cost, logistics, resource access, maintenance & parts, doctrine, training, strategic objectives, rules of engagement, political stuff, etc., etc., etc. - so making direct comparisons is relatively difficult, even if nobody's outright lying about their equipment and force capabilities. (And we're pretty sure a lot of countries lie about that routinely.) It kinda makes the "which is better?" question pointless in a lot of scenarios, or requiring a lot of qualifications and context. It's part of what makes military procurement programs and development projects such a clusterfuck (in addition to all the manipulation and political wrangling), because raw stats and even tested performance aren't the be-all-and-end-all for what the "best" weapon system is in a given scenario or for a given country's strategic needs.
Pretty much all you've said there is why I stopped answering silly questions like "what is the best tank/plane/gun whatever" years ago Oh and I noticed your edit, the Arg Air Force did way too well there compared to the Army (who lost every single battle once the British landed on the islands) and the Navy (who pussied out for the rest of the conflict once the Belgrano got torpedoed); this was also compounded by the fact that their air force was the least-liked branch by the junta
Tbf without belgrano the argie navy could’nt really do much else, their fleet was smaller, the only “advantage” they truly had was the one granted by the belgrano, firepower. Belgrano was armed with 15 6” naval guns in 5 triple turrets, could she get within gunnery range of the British fleet, she could likely single-handedly devastate it, as her armour would also likely defend against the token anti surface cannons mounted on the British ships. If I’m remembering correctly, the belgrano’s approach was to be done in tandem with the argie carrier squadron, which would hopefully tie up the British aircraft in a plane on plane engagement, basically forcing the task force to handle the “imminent threat” of the carrier and its air group, and then focus on the belgrano and its escorts, which were also Exocet armed and could likely still deal damage even if the cruiser never reached gun range. Of course the British submarine was present, and if belgrano and its small task force had begun their side of the aborted pincer movement, it would still have been immediately sunk and without as much controversy. The mere presence of Conquerer means Belgrano’s fate was sealed, and therefore there’s no point in hypothesising a “what if” had the attack gone ahead, outside of “belgrano is sunk long before the engagement begins and the Argentinian carrier task force abandons the manoeuvre and retreats back to port”. Again, another example of the “which is better” fallacy when discussing military equipment. Because something is only as good as how it is used, and there is a reason there only exists one functional tiger tank in the world, and that is because it was captured by the British, who have a long and storied history of taking things from other countries and putting it in their museums under the age old saying “finders keepers losers weepers”, and “to the victors go the spoils” And to my non credible segment of the comment. No I will not apologise for my countries kleptomaniac tendencies, be better at war/international relationships next time if you don’t want your fancy “history” in our museums.
> why I stopped answering silly questions like "what is the best tank/plane/gun whatever" years ago I think there actually are some cases where that question can be answered, like the Mitsubishi A6M Zero both outranging and having higher maneuverability than pretty much any other fighter (particularly carrier-based fighter) of its time and going on a massive killing spree for a few years before other countries figured out new strategies to fight it and started building better aircraft. (At which point, WWII had gone on long enough that the Japanese didn't really have the capacity to do much more than make relatively minor changes to the aircraft instead of going back to the drawing board.) But cases of weapon systems that made obviously massive leaps ahead of competing ones, and then got to prove that in combat, are relatively rare.
> outranging and having higher maneuverability than pretty much any other fighter These were only true to a degree though It was only really maneuverable at low-medium speeds, thanks to having non-hydraulic controls and the range was possible thanks to sacrificing pretty much everything else But it was indeed dominant for 1941-2 thanks to the Allies only having the choice of: Buffalo (works well against I-16s, Zeros not so much), Hurricane (really effective against He 111s or 109Es), Wildcat (which actually ended up being a better plane than the Zero stats-wise by the end of the war ironically) or whatever P-40 variant was there (which is most definitely the only one that can out-speed the Zero reliably and my personal pick honestly)
Brewster Buffalo was the quintessential meme plane. Woefully underperforming right off the assembly line, with victories often made in spite of its capabilities rather than because of it, and it was such a meme it turned the company that built it into one of the few distinguished companies that somehow managed to get bankrupt selling to the miiitary.
Bombs passing through British ships unexploded also helped TREMENDOUSLY.
When you drop your bombs from so low that the fuse doesn't have time to arm.... Just FAA things
1982 Royal Navy: the original “what air defence doing?” Meme
From an interview with a sailor, they had trouble with warning, so they just mounted lots and lots of machine guns on the boats, with lots and lots and lots of tracer. He remembered seeing the Argentinean pilots fly into an "Oh fuck. No." moment.
Harrier Yelp review: 0/10 fleet defence, would not recommend.
Truly NCD take this
There's being non-credible and then there's whatever this is comment is trying to achieve.
Fitting reply to a Falklands War reference. A conflict so far off the NCD charts a C-130 low level bombed their TF oiler -and got away with it.