It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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,
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.
Originally posted by FastJetPilot
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.
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
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.
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.
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)