Flying Failures - Supermarine Scimitar
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 เม.ย. 2023
- Hello again! :D
In this week's look at Flying Failures, we'll be casting our eye over the Supermarine Scimitar, the last fighter aircraft to be built by the same manufacturer who had given the world the legendary Spitfire, and while this jet looked purposeful, and could operate superbly in the air, the matter of actually taking the plane off and landing it was one that resulted in multiple fatal consequences, though not entirely to blame on the Scimitar itself, as a change in priorities mid way through its development, together with defence cuts and a lack of suitable aircraft carrier provision, meant more of these aircraft were lost in accidents than survived to the end of its short and inauspicious 12 year service life, creating what is often considered one of the worst naval fighters ever to fly.
All video content and images in this production have been provided with permission wherever possible. While I endeavour to ensure that all accreditations properly name the original creator, some of my sources do not list them as they are usually provided by other, unrelated TH-camrs. Therefore, if I have mistakenly put the accreditation of 'Unknown', and you are aware of the original creator, please send me a personal message at my Gmail (this is more effective than comments as I am often unable to read all of them): rorymacveigh@gmail.com
The views and opinions expressed in this video are my personal appraisal and are not the views and opinions of any of these individuals or bodies who have kindly supplied me with footage and images.
If you enjoyed this video, why not leave a like, and consider subscribing for more great content coming soon.
Press the Join button to get access to new videos a week ahead of schedule by becoming a channel member for just £2.99 a month!
Paypal: paypal.me/rorymacve?country.x...
Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/rorymacve
Thanks again, everyone, and enjoy! :D
References:
- Imperial War Musuem (and their respective references)
- Key Aero (and their respective references)
- Wikipedia (and its respective references) - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
It never ceases to amaze me how well the British government and military are so good at mucking up good plans and designs!
The late, great Frank Whittle would agree with you on that one Iver. Those we entrust to this Nation's well being over the decades have failed us far too many times. Ongoing to this very day and will continue after the next General Election no matter what the result.
We're now a Nation excelling at wasting talent, selling National Assets cheap to alien asset strippers and excelling and perfecting getting far too many important things wrong.
I can of course go tomorrow and buy a nice new MG as I have done several times in the past. Just like five neighbours down my street have done. BIG difference though. All those new MGs were not built in the UK but, the PRC. Peoples' Republic of China. d'OH. 🙃
Indeed!! We have a long and excellent record in mismanagement!!🙄🙄🇬🇧
As much as it might have been a failure of an aircraft due to its accident rate and performance, its absolutely beautiful!
Yes, a very good looking aircraft
Good as art not a plane
I think it might well be the best looking British built jet fighter of all time, it is absolutely stunning and lets be frank the FAA had some dogs over the years!!!!
I thought the Sea Vixen and Vulcan were bad but a 51% loss rate! Close to murder.
@@mjc8281 bah-hahahahahahahaha! Are you blind?
That flexible landing deck was crazy and brilliant at the same time ! 🇬🇧
Eric "Winkle" Brown carried out that landing and describes the story of it in his book. "Wings on my sleeve".
A MUST read if you like aviation history.
One of the greatest aviators to have ever lived. Flew more individual types of aircraft than anybody in history had done and ever will do.
A true pioneer of MANY hair brained ideas/developments.
@@richardwillson101 I should have guessed that there could only have been one man flying that aircraft !
How would you get the aircraft off the deck if a cable snapped ?
Why couldn’t they make a giant sand pit on the deck? Sand will absorb the energy well and Fill it up when near the beach.
Crash mats for aeroplanes, who'd have thought?
Sadly, the Scimitar was neither the first nor the last British aircraft (or, AFV, or ship) damned to mediocrity by brass suddenly demanding something completely different to what they originally asked for.
Like theVC-10
Like the TSR2 - anyone remember that?
@@flyingphobiahelp
Loved that aircraft - my late father was a Flight Engineer on that fleet with BOAC
@@Man_from_UNCLE I remember it well, I was a young lad who was mad on aircraft when the TSR2 made it's first flight. I now have a model of the TSR2 in my display cabinet. Still looks impressive, in the early 1960's it looked amazing.
I think that casting the Scimitar as a failure is somewhat unfair to the aircraft itself. I mean what do you expect when you change the aircrafts role from fighter to bomber and then fly it from vessels that were not designed to cope with it? Even that "fix" they managed by making it take off on its tail - it was never designed for that sort of antic, of course there are going to be accidents. More so when your arrestor wires are designed for much lighter aircraft. I mean come on, what did anyone expect?
I completely agree with you ; also, the Scimitar's accident record is no worse than several other naval aircraft operating off much larger carriers. Why the UK persisted in operating such small, inadequate carriers well into the jet age is beyond belief. Britain pioneered the development of carrier landing aids but fell behind the Americans-ridiculous!
No aircraft if that era were 'failures' as every type expanded the knowledge base of design, wing shape and engine tech. Technology was racing ahead at that time too.
Operationally it may be classed as a failure but again you don't learn if you do not innovate and try.
@@muzmason3064 You make a good point; I couldn't agree more. Several years ago I was a meteorologist working in support of RAF aircrew flying in aircraft that were not entirely successful, for example the Gloster Javelin, but despite the limitations of some of those aircraft back in the 1960s, the crews did their best, often under very difficult circumstances. If they were above average or just plain lucky they survived and looked back with fond memories but a lot of guys bought it because as you say, it was a steep learning curve with technology advancing very rapidly. It's a pity that some of the TH-cam armchair experts don't understand any of these plain truths about 'failed aircraft'.
Honestly?,they expected a knighthood or peerage at the end of their active careers, membership of a nice club and a large house in the country. The English establishment were and are unimaginative:)
It goes against the adage that if a Plane looks right, then it will fly right. Beautifully proportioned Jet.
Ah-hahahahaha! Gopping looking thing. Almost a crap,looking as the Supermarine Swift.
In reality, that adage just means if a plane looks like an existing plane that flies right, then it'll probably fly right too.
Such a beautiful looking aircraft!
Supermarine designers certainly had some great ideas and a strong affinity for aesthetics.
I have always been fascinated by the Swift, Scimitar and the Attacker.
Also, who doesn't love hearing about aircraft designed and built for the world's greatest air force at the time, the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm.
And Sea Vixen from DeHavilland.... god, how I love that plane!
The Swift was built by Supermarine at South Marston, near Swindon, and regularly flew over where I grew up (on the runway line) as a small tot.
Certain variants of Spitfire had also been built there too in the 40's and my late Grandfather who worked there at that time also told me they assembled bombers -- I think the Short Stirling .............. can anyone confirm that?
Princess Anne had one of those.
Very funny 😁 but you do have to be British
Supermarine Scimitar GTE
And she overtook me sharpish on the A46 in one between Cheltenham and Stroud one time back in the day. Fact.
Yep, she didn’t hang around, that young Princess. A competent driver, like her mother.
I'm pretty certain seafires were heavier than their equivalent spitfire variants
You are correct they were beefed up due to the stresses in landing on carriers. They still had problems of visibility, float and the fragile undercarriage and the need to crop the propellers to minimise damage.
I believe the only one on display in the UK currently is at the Fleet Air Arm Museum. Well worth a visit regardless but especially to see such a rare aircraft, and in much better condition than the other survivors.
Boscombe Down Aviation collection have a Scimitar cockpit that the public have access to sit in.
Sadly it is only the cockpit though.
Not quite the same as the FAAM aircraft of course!
Doesn't Solent Sky have one?
Went there last year to see it, only to find it's at Cobham Hall currently. Saw the Swift though
I saw a Scimitar at the Intrepid Sea Air and Space Museum in New York.
@@roberste
I believe it's since moved upstate to Glenville
The Scimitar was so much bigger than its carrier-based predecessors. Expecting it to perform flawlessly is ridiculous. Plenty of contemporary jets were also deathtraps - the Boeing B47, for example.
Thank you MacVeigh for a balanced and factual narration. Only the British of the 1950s could build a fighter powered by two 10,000 lbs Avons and keep it firmly subsonic! Several of the comments below making excuses for what was undoubtedly a weak design are nothing but nostalgia for days of Empire. If the French or the Russians had designed the Scimitar the English speaking TH-cam fraternity would have torn it apart with their comments.
Similarly, the US Navy had similar problems with its fighters in the 1950's, too. The Vought F7U Cutlass and McDonnell F3H Demon weren't much better than the Scimitar, and the US Navy finally addressed its issues with the Vought F8U Crusader and McDonnell F4H Phantom II, both technologically far superior aircraft.
I completely agree. The US Navy as you point out addressed it's issues with procurement and introduced such excellent aircraft as the A6 Intruder/Prowler series, A7 Corsair, and of course the legendary F14 Tomcat, although that one was a difficult gestation.
Even USN carrier operations with the A-7 had issues they were reduced when it got the Spey engine but was still not ideal.
@@andrewwmacfadyen6958 The original A-7A was a bit underpowered but later models were a bit safer from mor poweful engines.
No carriers capable of handling the aircraft , but built it anyway . Another Darwin Award winner !
Nothing has changed then build two carriers that only one type of fixed wing aircraft can use outstanding
Good looking plane, just too big for the WW2 carriers.
This sat as a model in one of my friends houses, built by his dad, and I never thought much of it although he had a great 50s/60s FAA collection back in the 70s. Another comment asked if we saw the F4 in it, funny your video juxtaposed so many views of the Scimitar and I thought, yes if I had designed it and it needed a supersonic planform, an extra seat, large diameter radar, ramped intakes, the large exhausts of the J-79s, area rule configuration along it's fuselage, I could see some continuity of thought and configuration, not so extreme as say Vought F7 Cutlass to Grumman F14 Tomcat. Thanks another interesting video, well worth a view.
Unfortunately this aircraft looks like it may have become a victim of its surroundings and changing requirements due to lack of investment in the infrastructure (old short carriers etc). A story not just limited to aviation unfortunately. Wonderfully narrated and presented as usual.
TBF, it's surprising how badly Supermarine adapted to the jet age, having been at the apotheosis of the propellor fighter age. The Swift was also a poor aircraft with a short service life.
Perhaps they should have done something about that hard to open canopy though, that killed at least two pilots.
A minor correction, the navalised Spitfire, the Seafire, wasn't lighter than the land based variant of the equivalent mark, as with most navalised versions of landplanes and naval aircraft in general, it was heavier. Naval aircraft require sturdier undercarriages, local strengthening to absorb the stresses of arrested landings and catapult launching, folding wings and arrestor hooks, all of these requirements add significant weight to the aircraft. As an example, the first truly navalised Seafire, the F.Mk.III, weighed 5,317lbs empty and 7,232lbs fully loaded. The equivalent Spitfire, the Mk.V, weighed 4,963lbs empty and 6,525lbs loaded.
Lovely looking aeroplane. If its been area ruled, it'd would've been quite something
Supermarine were pretty well finished after the Spitfire. The Spiteful, Attacker, Swift and Scimitar were all problematic. Getting back to the subject of the video operating swept wing jets from the relatively small RN carriers was never going to be low risk even the Buccaneer was not a great success until the Spey powered S2.
Looking back it seems like the entire 1950's was smoking crack 🙄
It’s a shame an improved Hawker Sea Hawk, ie effectively a Sea Hunter, didn’t see service. An air wing of Sea Hunters and Buccaneers would have been very impressive.
Hm, adapting the Hunter to naval use might have been a bit tricky, but possibly do-able. Add in the "left on the drawing board" Hawker Siddley Sea Violent (RIP before it even had a chance to exist) which was supposed to be a Sea Vixen with lots of dimensional changes to fit two Spey's, instead of the Avon's, then you would have had something scarily good!
@@robertwilloughby8050 I think a sort of Sea Hunter, with a proper navalised airframe (aka a souped up Sea Hawk!) would have been viable as a day fighter/light attack aircraft. The other option would be to go the same way as the French - a domestic strike aircraft (in the UK’s case Buccaneer) and an American fighter (F-8 Crusader), on the basis that developing a competitive naval fighter on the UK’s budget wasn’t really viable. A Royal Navy air wing for the 60s & 70s of Crusaders and Buccaneers would have been a pretty potent mix. Heck, with suitable upgrades (and of course carriers to operate from) they would have been ‘good enough’ clean through to the 80s!
Considering the aesthetics, I can see elements of both Harrier and Hunter in those lines. The planform view of the original design looks distinctly like a shortened F-104 with an outdated wing shape.
Excellent video. Superb narration untroubled by a music track. Good show!
Those war planes that reached 145mph (233km/h) were so fast and very powerful. Still there are legendary or iconic planes around that can go bit faster. Might of seen them at Duxford going back 10 years ago I think.
It is, to me, one of the most beautiful carrier jets ever made.
‘Took off with the parking brake still applied’, yes, of course it did 🤦♂️.
As some one who has spent mist of my life in aviation reseach i take my hat off to you fantastic stuff
Congrats on 100000 Subs. Well deserved.
Fascinating story. Thank you very much.
As a child I lived within cycling distance of Wisley, where Scimitars sometimes appeared, in striking contrast to the usual aircraft being tested there, Valiants and Viscounts, and later VC-10s and Vanguards.
It was a beautiful looking aircraft, I remember building a kit model of it.
or you can play it in War Thunder
Brits and Aussies in Borneo, a difficult theatre of operations in the jungle, with only the rivers available for movement by the enemy. Which created the choke points, leading to Commonwealth victory, As I have heard it. SAS of both nations served admirably in this specialised role; where a traditional regimental detachment would have more than likely failed, no matter how well dispersed. I like this aircraft, and it was treated very unfairly, except for the poor design of the canopy ejection system, which should have been incorporated in the ejection sequence, I feel. Where even the finest of tools fail, ignoring the circumstances of their deployment. It almost became a delta wing in plan form, and how interesting that would have been as an exclusive RAF interceptor we shall never know.
Fantastic narrative work as usual Ruaridh. Thank you. 😎👍
There are a lot of falsehoods in this, such as the Seafires being lighter than the equivalent Spitfires. Even Wikipedia gets this right.
You had better cover the Swift, I suppose. I faintly remember building a solid model of the 504 with a vee-tail. The early fifties were sketchy.
XV202 Worked and flown on that aircraft, while it was on 242 OCU at Thorney Island
Always enjoy your videos, excellent production quality. Thank you very much!
Shame he publishes material with errors.
Well narrated
Same inflection - tones - and pace without variation. Probably a 🤖
"You're a failure" -Steven He
Almost looks like it could have been an early version of the Phantom.
It's definitely got similar looks to the Harrier...
0.54: Suddenly those planes on Catch the Pigeon don't seem so wacky.
Why Does Your Microphone Sound Old?
It Kinda Fits Your Channel Tho
it does adds to the atmosphere, feels like i'm listening to a historic documentary
it definitely adds to the videos
@@helenac588 Yeah It Does
@@happysmileyface It Really Does
Been this way for the last 5ish videos.
The problem with the Scimitar was it was a "starlet" of a plane, if everything went fine, it was a great plane, but if just one thing went wrong, it just wouldn't work, or was even downright dangerous.
Excellent. Many many thanks!!!
The number of losses in operations sounds terrible...and with modern sensibilities it would have been grounded earlier. But all 1950s airforces seemed to take incredibly high routine losses with a shrug! The USN had carrier aircraft with terrible air safety records. Even in the 1970s the RAF ordered enough Jaguar's to cope with a loss rate of 30% over it's service life.
The Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm was a dangerous place!
All of its aircraft killed many good men.
The loss rate of this aircraft was down to its lack of survivability when something DID go wrong.
Other aircraft could be more forgiving however.
The Sea Vixen was another massive killer, but its flaws lead to MASSIVE advancements in naval ejection seats.
With underwater ejection capabilities being developed for it. No doubt also backed by the losses encountered in its supermarine predecessors.
its a nice looking plane, unlike the star fighter which also had a high loss ratio and was hideous.
So, in every single take off this triangular wire that pulls the aircraft is lost at sea. That makes a nice cost point in the defense budget.
If it was such a failure, why do we always see the same mishap film? I always wonder why we never see the jet actually go over, its on the deck, then in the water. A very sad film to see the pilot trying push his canopy open. RIP, what a way to go.
7:26 - I bet he was written up for that!
0:45 - Supermarine P31 knighthawk bomber. And you thought the Barling Bomber was bad. Wow.
I think the aircraft deserves far more credit. The accident rate is high in percentage terms but there were not that many built, There are many other aircraft with far worse statistics. The Scimitar was a heavy beast for its day and there was a heavy workload for the single pilot. Much was learned from operating this bad-boy and the 2 seat Buccaneer and US F4 Phantom were later operated from British carriers with great success. Take a look at the accident statts' for the Scimitar's stablemate, the Sea Vixen. These are not too great either.
Lack of investment and cut backs - you can't have a modern fighting force run like this ever.
It´s Saturday! 😃
Requirements for this programme remind me of Monty Python - And Now for Something Completely Different. Though, the horrendous loss rate and fatal accidents were tragic.
Kind of glad they didn't fit live nuclear weapons to the Scimitar!
Similar profile to the Buccaneer?
Would have been much better off purchasing the Douglas A4D Skyhawk, AKA the Scooter. Australia and New Zealand did.
525 looks great
@ 12:45, those were Hawker Hunters.
The UK's problem back in the 1950's was an inability to face facts. Constantly trying to maintain large forces on an ever decreasing budget. We still had some empire back then so we thought we could flog military equipment to what was left. Trouble was they were getting their independence and started buying yank. Our captive market was withering away. It's caught up with us now and we buy yank as well. Although we still like to delude we're some kind of military juggernaut. Just look at the Tempest fighter nonsense and the two cheapo carriers we can't afford to run, can't defend and can't equip with a proper air wing.
These 1950's/1960's jets are interesting to see but in reality the UK's declining economy just couldn't compete with the massive spending power of the USA. Everyone was buying their jets and nobody was buying ours.
Also attempting to spread military aircraft expenditure over too many manufacturers, rather than let poor ones go to the wall - to protect jobs. UK version of pork barrel politics. The result was quite a lot of less than satisfactory models, with long development times ensuring they were near-obsolete by the time they were released to service. So much wasted money and lost opportunity.
@@thedukeofbork3147 It wasn't about protecting jobs: in the postwar period Britain was importing labour from the West Indies as there were more jobs than people to fill them. It was a relic of the interwar period, when it was Air Ministry policy to keep as many manufacturers in business as possible by sharing orders and sub-contracts around. In the event that was a brilliant strategy since it enabled the UK aircraft industry to rapidly expand in WW2, even if many of those companies built to other manufacturers designs. In the context of the Cold War, it probably seemed logical to continue that policy, and it was a while before it dawned on anyone that the increasing complexity and sophistication of aircraft meant that was no longer a viable strategy.
Australia had a tiny Aircraft Carrier, HMAS Melbourne, with a tiny deck that was managed in such a way that it could operate twin-engined Grumman Trackers and jet-powered A4 Skyhawks, as well as Westland helicopters. It remained in service until 1982
There is a marvelous story about how HMAS Melbourne's Grumman Tracker squadron invited similar aircraft from a US carrier to visit for a boozy evening in the mess. On the fifth attempt to land the squadron leader of the US squadron managed to land and was given a set of Australian wings for the achievement. The tracker had about two metres clearance between the island on one side and the edge of the flight deck on the other :)
It used blown flaps to reduce minimum control speed- that simplified catapult launch and carrier landing. If the right size carrier had been available it would have been a reasonably successful aircraft but that wasn't to be.
Wasn’t it the most powerful subsonic fighter, too?
I think the javelin faw.9 was because it had reheat, but could be wrong.
The biggest fail by far was the canopy.
Buying the Avon again, are we?
Looks a bit like a phantom from the front
the rubber deck can still be used as a last resort for aircrafts coming in to land with malfunctioning landing gear . . . a belly landing on the flexible rubber deck . . . this won't work with civilian airliners in distress due to their under wing engine . . .
Oh dear. It wasn't just the Scimitars facing off against Iraq in 1961 but a squadron of Hunters and elements from 42 and 45 Commandos, Royal Marines, plus elements from the Army including 2nd Coldstream Guards, tanks from 3rd Carabiniers (Prince of Wales Dragoon Guards), 24th Infantry, 33rd Parachute Field Regiment, 11thvHussars, 2nd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment, 1st Battaluon Royal Iniskilling Fusiliers and the 1st Battalion The King's Regiment (Manchester and Liverpool). The latter 2 units relieved the Royal Marine Commandoes you even show footage of the soldiers and tanks deployed as part if Op Vantage while talking only of the naval deployments. The land forces were what really detered the Iraqi invasion.
its Bussin in warthunder tho
Next, the Hawker Hunter please
But that wasn't a failure, it was a great success though.
@@citizenerased1992 Hm, agreed, but it was an absolute SOD until they got it right. But, yes, it did become a truly excellent plane.
But that was an absolute success, with huge export numbers, real world combat experience and examples still flying today.
The Hunter's reputation would have been different if the FAA had tried to operate it from carriers!
...what an awful end for Supermarine.
Who the hell thought the rubber decks were a good idea.
These first powerful jets no wonder crashed a lot new technology had to be learnt ,like the star fighter
Very many aircraft of the 1950's were not as good as hoped because the rules were changing. Much was expected but the designers were experimenting with all of the new technology and learning on the job. That was never going to produce an immediate winner and 60-odd years on it is unfair to shame those designers and their products with the advantage of hindsight.
You asked Ed McNash about these? 😉
Ed's video is very very similar and uses a lot of the same stock footage.
@@SteamboatWilley I hear you and only joking, both of them wonderfully gifted creators. 👍
Watch out Rory, you are slipping back into your old habits. Some of the footage was no related to the text. Otherwise, quite informative. Thanks.
I can see a lots of Buccaneer in that...
Although it wasn't a great aircraft I really felt sorry for the pilot when been filmed lost his life off a carrier & drowned in one of these ! Also a few of our pilots lost their lives due to the ran& bureaucrats not puting ejection seats in the sea venoms !!!! My cousin was a fatality due to this incompitance!!
It looks a lot like a chubbier dassault etendard.
Looks like a f4 prototype
she may have failed but is still a beautiful chubby boi
Somehow I felt the Scimitar is somewhere between an F-8 and an A-4 but unfortunately it’s nowhere as good as it’s American contemporaries.
No wonder they made it into VTOL and called it harrier 😂
Seafire? Pacific?Zero? Reliable?
Really you cannot really call the Supermarine Scimitar a failure and calling it a failure is judging it far too harshly when the Scimitar was bring new technology in carrier aviation and the British had carriers that arguably were never designed for it
Plus the British did not have the resources in terms of carrier bulls but the Scimitar did gave the Royal Navy a lot of experience which would benefit when the Buccaneer and the Phantom came along
If the British had bigger carriers like the Malta Class which in hindsight would have been the better option and the Scimitar could have been a better aircraft with the more powerful Rolls-Royce RB.106 Thames engines
Or Spey's, of course.
The Spey wo would likely not have fitted
@@Knight6831 Point taken.
@@astafford8865 Yeah give them the carriers they wanted then you have a carrier that might be suitable
I don't know what othet errors our presenter has put into this script as I've only got to the Seafire. The Seafire I was heavier than the Spitfire V it was based on. The same is true for all the ither versions of the Seafire..
Supermarine were never again able to create a decent aircraft, be it The Attacker, The Swift, or indeed The Scimitar. They were given plenty of resources and encouragement but couldn't give us another Spitfire. Joe Smith and his team were out of their depth in the jet age.
It's 'aitch'.
Better to have a failure than nothing at all, which is what we have now!
Just me or does it look a bit F4 Phantom?
Just you!
The Phantom was angular, this is very much curved.
The wings are completely different and so is the tail.
Where did you see a similarity?
Kind of agree
I thought it looks like an early Hawker Harrier
From below it reminds me of a Gloster Javelin or a CF-100
Supermarine put tail wheels on jets....hahahahahahahahahahahahahah
:0
:D
It's a premature F4 spin-off.
So it's a brilliant plane.
The Supermarine Babyfighter was highly successful only because babies are easy to fight.
Sorry - you have done it again - seven hundred squadron not seven zero zero.
Somehow I felt the Scimitar is somewhere between an F-8 and an A-4 but unfortunately it’s nowhere as good as it’s American contemporaries. Even the Sea Vixen fared slightly better and the Buccaneer was a vastly superior bomber.
An absolute disgrace that a second pilot died, due to a rubbish canopy design. Wasn't one death enough ? If in doubt, all service personnel should refuse to carry out such operational matters. A court martial is better than a coffin. In any event, men and women serve to keep the elite safe in their beds.
The tortured development of this mediocre aircraft should have been stopped and the Royal Navy allowed to buy the North American FJ-4 Fury. This would be in the right time period and suitable for the size of carriers in use.
p
p
Sounds like a real joke era for the RN.