Harrier Woe

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Its official, the RAF Harriers have been sold to the USMC for £116Million, to be used as a source of spare parts.

www.bbc.co.uk...




posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
What else annoyed me about that report was the flippant comment about operating F-35 by the end of the Decade...its only 2011, i was hoping in 2020 we would be flying something better,



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Off topic but i recon the guys on here will know, anyone work at Scotstoun and know how well the new Carrier programme is going? I wondered if anyone at BAE knew if they government were dicking around still.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by FastJetPilot
What else annoyed me about that report was the flippant comment about operating F-35 by the end of the Decade...its only 2011, i was hoping in 2020 we would be flying something better,


I'm really interested in what you hoped we would be flying in 2020 - since modern aircraft take 15 - 20 years to develop, there is no other choice in the matter, its the F-35 or nothing.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by FastJetPilot
What else annoyed me about that report was the flippant comment about operating F-35 by the end of the Decade...its only 2011, i was hoping in 2020 we would be flying something better,


I'm really interested in what you hoped we would be flying in 2020 - since modern aircraft take 15 - 20 years to develop, there is no other choice in the matter, its the F-35 or nothing.


Without being rude, you are not 'really' interested in what I imagined we would be flying in 2020.

But, to say what I meant, it was a flippant comment about 'towards the end of the decade' and that being a 9 year gap between then and now. So i was trying to say, we retired the Harriers,which IMO are not vastly un superior to JSF, not at least what a upgrade couldnt sort, so the technology gap between JSF and Harrier is what, and the added operational capability betwen harrier and JSF is what?

So im not trying to say in the next 9 years I expected robot wars, what i am saying is, the harrier can take off and land VTOL, with GR upgrades it has FLIR, LGB blah blah blah, what the hell is JSF in 9 years time bringing to the party that a 40 year old Harrier that couldnt be bolted to its airframe?

Stealth....

Thats all I am saying, what are the advances from a 1970's aircraft with bolt on updates, does JSF offer and does it seem like a 40 year technology gap. And I only want the discussion, not to be rude or think I know it all.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by FastJetPilot

Without being rude, you are not 'really' interested in what I imagined we would be flying in 2020.


I am actually - I am interested to know what you thought we could be flying by the end of this decade.



But, to say what I meant, it was a flippant comment about 'towards the end of the decade' and that being a 9 year gap between then and now. So i was trying to say, we retired the Harriers,which IMO are not vastly un superior to JSF, not at least what a upgrade couldnt sort, so the technology gap between JSF and Harrier is what, and the added operational capability betwen harrier and JSF is what?


Well, the difference is quite acute actually (sticking to the F-35B for this comparison, as comparing an F-35C just isnt fair to the Harrier) - a 50% increase in operational mission range, an increase of several thousand pounds of payload on a typical mission, a newer airframe with better construction techniques allowing for a longer service life, better ability to carry heavier electronics allowing for bulkier systems to be installed...

Looking between a Harrier II and an F-35B, the obvious choice is the F-35B based on capabilities alone.



So im not trying to say in the next 9 years I expected robot wars, what i am saying is, the harrier can take off and land VTOL, with GR upgrades it has FLIR, LGB blah blah blah, what the hell is JSF in 9 years time bringing to the party that a 40 year old Harrier that couldnt be bolted to its airframe?

Stealth....


Plus more of the above - the Harrier struggles to carry its maximum payload and return with it to the ship, so in the event of an aborted mission you literally have to throw away wasted ordnance. The F-35B doesn't have this problem (and neither does the F-35C, but again not fair to the Harrier).

An F-35B can strike further in theatre, carry more payload to do that strike, and carry out other roles at the same time (due to stupidity, our Harriers do not carry an onboard radar capable of controlling the AMRAAM nor do they carry a cannon, so they can only carry AIM-9s as a last resort self defence weapon).



Thats all I am saying, what are the advances from a 1970's aircraft with bolt on updates, does JSF offer and does it seem like a 40 year technology gap. And I only want the discussion, not to be rude or think I know it all.


You can always say that, and thats the problem - why buy new when an upgrade will do. Well, the problem with that is you dont know an upgrade will do until you've actually done the preliminary investigations into it - upgrading the Nimrod MR.2s to MRA.4 standard was an excellent idea... until BAE discovered that every Nimrod really was hand built, and no two really were anything alike other than in a general sense. Airbus was building brand new, modern wings for them, and none of them would fit - it turned from a fairly simple upgrade to a massive issue.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Fair enough, I didnt realise it was such an improvement or know that the Harrier was at the limit of its airframe & weight etc.

And come to think of it, I dont really know what I imagined flying off out carriers in 10 years, I would like twin engine for added realiability range and payload, unmanned flying Air Dominance and a multi role to give precision munitions and self defence and anti armour / cas.

Actually reading wht the JSF can carry, looks like it will be bloody awesome, I do like the Small Diameter Bomb upto 2000lb and Brimstone and Meteor and the Naval Strike Cruise Missile www.smartplanet.com...

Perhaps I will stop drinking and ranting crap and do a bit of research into this bird, anyone know any good sources or is it Wikipedia starting and Google?

Just found on www.jsf.mil

Some nice footage of it landing and the USS Wasp - and check out that 8"x 20"display www.ghs.com...
edit on 25-11-2011 by FastJetPilot because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-11-2011 by FastJetPilot because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-11-2011 by FastJetPilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Reports in this months UK aviation press state that the USMC has decided to actually fly two squadrons worth of the UK Harriers bought for "spare parts" last year. The US bought all 72 Harriers for the price of a single F-35 and is reported to be impressed by the condition of the aircraft they acquired, this combined with delays to the F-35 and operational demands means, so it is reported, that a large number of these aircraft WILL fly again, in US service.

Comments/thoughts?
edit on 3-2-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


makes you feel slightly sick doesnt it

I wonder if they'd sell them back for £50mil seeing as they're 3rd hand

or at least lend us a few to stick on Illustrious and send south

just compounds the image that politicians and decision makers can't tell their arse from their elbow



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I suppose all I can say is at least the Harrier is still flying.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Hmmm where to start?

Well firstly its nice to think that someone has seen fit to put a portion of these excellent machines in the air again. However it sadly vindicates what I was arguing when this thread was started. Namely that another operator could be found and would see the worth of taking over the force and even integrating it within their own Harrier force, despite the RAF/RN specific mod status. I always thought that given the differences between the UK's GR fleet and the USMC AV-8B that buying them for spares wouldn't yield all that much benefit for extending the AV-8B in Marine service. However operating them certainly does, which makes me wonder if the US secretly intended to do this all along.

Which brings me to two other related points. It was my understanding these aircraft were purchased specifically for spares only use. Hasn't the US therefore just broken the contract and are liable to pay the UK much more for an operative force? And secondly whoever in the MoD approved this deal and the transfer of the aircraft may have broken multiple laws on security of disposed military equipment and protection of crown property from foreign powers. They just handed over an operative fighter jet force to another country with UK specific equipment. Were precautions if any to ensure British intelligence and security are safeguarded? Yes it may be the US but a foreign power is still a foreign power, they certainly wouldn't be happy if the situation were reversed and quite rightly. What if this had been for arguments sake Pakistan and they then used them on civilians or a neighboring country?

So in summary Britain gave up and mothballed an effective Naval fighter fleet, so that it could afford to build new Aircraft Carriers that wont have said fleet to operate off them. Then sold these originally as spares for a song to the very country that has promised to build there successor (but so far its not looking good). Said country then changes it's mind realizing how worthwhile and effective they still are, says they will operate them and then post UK Govt mothballing them announces that the replacement will be effectively late. It is suffering development and performance issues, will be vastly more expensive to purchase than originally claimed, more complex to operate than originally claimed and due to all these issues the UK will end up with a different model and maybe (if lucky,.. if at all) a quarter of the original number. What a fantastic outcome for the British taxpayer.

LEE.
edit on 6-2-2012 by thebozeian because: because I can..



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jensy
Why not do like the French and keep them air launched so that they can be tactically deployed if needed, other wise stored happily in a shed on the outskirts of Yorkshire
Jensy


The french have SSBN's....
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by thebozeian
Hmmm where to start?

Well firstly its nice to think that someone has seen fit to put a portion of these excellent machines in the air again. However it sadly vindicates what I was arguing when this thread was started. Namely that another operator could be found and would see the worth of taking over the force and even integrating it within their own Harrier force, despite the RAF/RN specific mod status. I always thought that given the differences between the UK's GR fleet and the USMC AV-8B that buying them for spares wouldn't yield all that much benefit for extending the AV-8B in Marine service. However operating them certainly does, which makes me wonder if the US secretly intended to do this all along.


I do stand by my previous comments on this subject, and view the "announcements" very dubiously - the Marines would have to operate the type as a separate aircraft in their inventory, they cannot mix it in with the AV-8B as its too different operationally, so this means you will have to train AV-8B pilots on the GR.7 and .9 before they can fly them.

On the spares front, there is plenty of items on the technical side which can be used for spares on the AV-8Bs, its when you start considering avionics etc that the issues break down. The engines and other airframe items such as hydraulics, air systems etc are completely compatible across all Harrier II variants.



Which brings me to two other related points. It was my understanding these aircraft were purchased specifically for spares only use. Hasn't the US therefore just broken the contract and are liable to pay the UK much more for an operative force?


Uhm, no. Its their property, they paid for it, they can do what they like with it. I've seen the sales contract and it has no limitations on use - but even if it did, they would be unenforceable due to "first sale doctrine" laws in the US, and you wouldn't get anywhere suing the US government in a UK court of law.


And secondly whoever in the MoD approved this deal and the transfer of the aircraft may have broken multiple laws on security of disposed military equipment and protection of crown property from foreign powers. They just handed over an operative fighter jet force to another country with UK specific equipment. Were precautions if any to ensure British intelligence and security are safeguarded? Yes it may be the US but a foreign power is still a foreign power, they certainly wouldn't be happy if the situation were reversed and quite rightly.


There is no law which makes it outright illegal to sell UK technology to foreign nations, its highly unlikely that transfer of technology broke any laws here.


What if this had been for arguments sake Pakistan and they then used them on civilians or a neighboring country?


Why use such an example? Its highly likely that one of these Harriers will kill people in the near future when used by the US, but it doesnt change anything.



So in summary Britain gave up and mothballed an effective Naval fighter fleet, so that it could afford to build new Aircraft Carriers that wont have said fleet to operate off them.


The Harriers were never going to operate off the new CVFs, they were always going to be retired before the CVFs reached initial operational capability - the CVFs were always going to enter service with the JSF.

Also, the GR.7 and GR.9s are not "fighters" in most sense of the word - they are strike aircraft, and have operated in that role ever since the Sea Harrier was retired. The GR variants of the Harrier have no radar capable of controlling active air-to-air weapons, and as such cannot carry the AIM-120, so they are limited to carrying the AIM-9 as a self-defence system only. They are never deployed in the air superiority role by the RAF.


Then sold these originally as spares for a song to the very country that has promised to build there successor (but so far its not looking good). Said country then changes it's mind realizing how worthwhile and effective they still are, says they will operate them and then post UK Govt mothballing them announces that the replacement will be effectively late. It is suffering development and performance issues, will be vastly more expensive to purchase than originally claimed, more complex to operate than originally claimed and due to all these issues the UK will end up with a different model and maybe (if lucky,.. if at all) a quarter of the original number. What a fantastic outcome for the British taxpayer.


The JSF buy has been going steadily downhill ever since it was announced, it has nothing to do with the Harriers fate at all - it is a decent topic for another discussion, but its not linked at all.

Quite frankly, the incoming government was stuck between a rock and a hard place - a defence budget vastly over spent, no money to cover the overspend...



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I see that the USMC is buying up the UK's Harrier GR.7 and GR.9 fleet in order to provide spares for their own AV-8B's

This simple little story stirs up a whole range of emotions from me, several of which are remarkably close to anger.

A reason that has been cited is in order to maintain the AV-8B fleet for longer, at reduced cost, due to delays to the F-35 programme. Is this the same F-35 that we claim is a Harrier replacement for us?


The aircraft involved recently went through a £1.5bn+ upgrade programme and we are selling the lot, for spares, for a reported £55m.


It brings to the

surface, once more, memories of how we were told that the withdrawal and scrapping of the Sea Harrier FA.2 in 2007 (some of which were only built in 2004) was in order to allow us to operate a more affordable, common, though less able, Harrier fleet until the F-35 arrived.


My head hurts, and my heart is heavy.
edit on 30-6-2011 by waynos because: (no reason given)


The MOD is staffed by unaccountable committees.

no single person is responsible.

they are building 2 AIRCRAFT carriers with no Aircraft.

lol.

and guess what the F-35 VSTOL is going to get axed as as the f-35 is running way over budget...each plane was

designed to cost £35 million but now is going to cost £180 million each !!!

THE VSTOL VERSION IS GOING TO BE SCRAPED BY ALL ACCOUNTS.

THE F-35 IS A CRAP VERY EXPENSIVE PLANE.

everyone is reducing their ordered numbers.

some say it should be axed altogether...

poor range.poor weapons load.small wings.

they should have stuck to the f-16 or the f-16 XL upgrade.

Even the F-14 and f-15 planes were much better than this turkey.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


yes.. It takes one back to the nasty world of a credible second-strike deterrence against a first-strike. Everyone with nukes wants it, and those who have nukes without it, sweat over when they can get down to getting it.

I guess the UK is still wary of foes that it feels can cripple its land based nuclear assets in a sweeping first strike.
Russia? China? That is about it I think. It feels this danger more than that of its weakening interim conventional capabilities.

Germany does not have that fear perhaps? Plus Germany seems to be shying away from anything and everything 'nuclear'. France on the other hand is quite the opposite.

Ok enough off topic discussion
edit on 25-3-2012 by Daedalus3 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join