USMC Harrier GR9A Squadron

[John Farley]

Does anybody have any reliable information on the rumour that the USMC are about to stand up a GR9A squadron?

[Pontius Navigator]

John,

Did you mean to substantiate the Daily Mail story?

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/480888-uk-mod-gives-30bn-discount-usmc.html

MoD tried to cover up selling Harrier jets to Americans for knock-down price of £112m after £600m refit | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2119894/MoD-tried-cover-selling-Harrier-jets-Americans-knock-price-112m-600m-refit.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

[Finnpog]

The Wiki page about the Harrier cites a reference for their comment as being the March edition of Air Forces Monthly magazine, page 5.

I have found a reference on BritModeller forum (? :ugh:) that 9s & 9As might be used to replace a couple of D Hornet squadrons, whilst the 7s & 7As would be cannabilised.

I haven't found anything on the USMC news sites.

I wonder if GreenKnight has heard anything?

[glojo]

This is an alleged quote from way back in November 2011:

Marine Corps Harriers are to be phased out by 2025, when replacement by new F-35B Joint Strike Fighters should be complete.
Nordeen, however, said he expects the British Harriers to be used initially to replace two-seat Marine F-18D Hornet fighters now operated in the night attack role.
"The F-18Ds are more worn out than the Harriers," Nordeen said. "Most of the conversions [of ex-British aircraft] early on will be to replace 18Ds and not Harriers." He noted the first Marine F-35B squadron already is slated to replace an F-18D unit.
Nordeen applauded the move.
"I would see this as a good bargain to extend the operational utility of the Harrier II fleet, no matter what," he said.
If they are doing this then would it not be prudent to put the worn out F-18s into one squadron and then simply replace them with the Harrier?

[Riskman]

"The F-18Ds are more worn out than the Harriers," Nordeen said

Really? Why, I wonder?

Now that's what I call a fly-past: US Navy F18 streaks past apartment block (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2291500/posts)

[NutLoose]

All I saw online was this

U.S. To Buy Decommissioned British Harrier Jets | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20111113/DEFSECT01/111130302/U-S-To-Buy-Decommissioned-British-Harrier-Jets)

[GreenKnight121]

I haven't been able to confirm anything either way.

I have seen reports citing "unidentified sources" from both the USN and USMC saying that the ex-RAF Harriers "are for parts only and will never fly" and others saying "2 squadrons will be transitioned to Harrier GR.9As"... also from both the USN and USMC, and also refusing to be named. More have used the vague "no current plans to fly them" evasion.

Both the USN and the USMC have yet to officially say anything either way... they have been asked by the news media, but would not comment.


I suspect that they are taking a hard look at what it would take (and cost) to bring a squadron or two's worth of GR.9As into service, and are comparing that to the cost of keeping the F/A-18s operating (and for how long they can be continued).

I believe the final decision will combine those assessments as well as any further IOC slippages of F-35B.


So we can't say for sure yet yes or no.

[Justanopinion]

Much talk of GR7 and GR9 but the only difference between them is the software and 1760 wiring to all pylons (GR7 to 9 upgrade involved some excellent software improvements, part of the reason the USMC were impressed with them in the last Red Flag they took part in).

Genuine question; will the US use the same software IF they decide to fly the aircraft? My understanding is that they would not be able to.

[downsizer]

What was the breakdown of 7s to 9s in the end?

[NigelOnDraft]

What was the breakdown of 7s to 9s in the end?AFAIK the GR7(A) was withdrawn from service prior to the SDSR announcement i.e. all flying GRs were converted.

NoD

[John Farley]

Thanks chaps.

Perhaps the failure to talk to the press suggests more than them being just used for spares. I am reasonably certain that the past Red Flag performance of their kit did impress some locals.

We shall have to wait and see.

JF

[Not_a_boffin]

Given that there are no AV8B at AMARC, I'd be astonished if they weren't looking at using some of the frames. The hours on some of the USMC ones must be terrifying.

[FB11]

All,

It may be romantic to think that GR9 could be getting airborne again in USMC colors but it is worth considering the significant numbers of physical differences between a GR9 and AV8.

There is a logic to seeing what would be required - and it would be significant - to convert the UK to US version and see if that would cost less than the $30 million a copy to extend the life of the FA-18 a few years.

Doctrinally, if the conversion of GR9 to AV8 standard was cost effective it would blend nicely with the transition to F-35B.

[A2QFI]

Mark 9 had engine improvements too.

[Milo Minderbinder]

what will they be named under US serivce?
AV-8D?
AV-9A?

[Justanopinion]

A2QFI Mark 9 had engine improvements too.


Only in that it had the improved engines as seen in the 7, making 9A as the 7 had 7A.

[John Farley]

I don't think it has anything to do with romance. Neither has anyone suggested converting UK aircraft to AV-8B standards. That would as you suggest be expensive and largely pointless.

The issue has arisen because of the very up do date equipment fit of the GR9 aircraft which aroused some envy among Red Flag teams. As the title of the thread indicates I was asking about a GR9 standup.

[FB11]

Thanks John,

In order for the USMC to operate the GR9A they would need BAE to become the Release To Service Authority and continue to support the CAP E software wouldn't they?

If so, BAE would need to re-hire the entire Harrier team they've redistributed wouldn't they?

I'm not quite sure why you reacted to the word romantic as you did; my post came after yours but that doesn't mean it was about your post.

[FB11]

Now that I'm away from my tiny smart phone, I have a keyboard to speed things up.

Here's why I believe the USMC will not operate GR9A as a GR9A:

1. The aircraft has diverged so much from AV-8B standard It would need to be operated under a UK RTSA (or take years to transfer across at significant $$$)
2. It has a UK EW system that would need to be supported and Pre Flight Messages produced. Releasability and technical transfer issues abound.
3. It has a different cockpit layout.
4. It has a mission planning system that is unique to the UK and would need to be fired up and supported.
5. The aircraft only has 2 buckets for expendables as opposed to 6 in the AV-8B; does this mean the US is now committed to the TERMA pod weighing 600lbs - unlikely as this pretty much precludes the carriage of anything else (such as a weapon) at sea.
6. There's no gun and no piping for it.

What was is exactly that impressed the US at Red Flag? Was it the aircraft or the capability (HMCS; Sniper; PW4)

If the latter, it would be much cheaper to cut up the GR9s into parts to support a higher AV-8B FE@R or assure a better AV-8B FE@R for a longer period of time and pay the much smaller cost (than items 1-6 above) of integrating better capability.

[John Farley]

You may be right with all your comments. I simply don't know how the USN/USMC do things today

In my time they grabbed Russian aircraft from places various, picked a few good personnel (who knew what they were doing on the ground and in the air) and operated them - for a long time.

[Lonewolf_50]

I don't think NAVAIR, nor the USMC, have any interest in increasing the number of TMS under management, nor any interest in adding to their costs and problems with the management of another configuration of the Harrier.

The "birds as parts bins" is the most likely outcome, based on both management and economic perspectives. Glad to see the airworthiness issue, and cost, raised up there. Another reason NOT to do other than use them as parts bins.

How worn out the F-18D is compared to the AV-8B is a red herring.

[John Farley]

Interesting how life for some people is a list of problems and reasons not to do things while for others it is a whole world of opportunities.

[ex-fast-jets]

John

You were always so chilled out!!

Welcome to the fraternity of grumpy old men!!

But, of course, as always, you are right!!

[JFZ90]

Interesting how life for some people is a list of problems and reasons not to do things while for others it is a whole world of opportunities.

I was thinking just the same. Too many people find it too easy to say no these days - those trying to actually deliver something are seemingly in a depressing minority.

[LowObservable]

Hmmm... I would remind everyone that while the Marines may be pighea... obstrefe... fanat.... I mean, dedicated and single-minded when it comes to what the Commandant of the day defines as True Religion, they can be quite flexible and innovative when it comes to execution.

Add to this the fact that the Marines would rather go to war in Fairey Battles than Super Hornets, which He Who Abides At Eighth & Eye has deemed anathema.

Then if someone could come up with a way that the GR9 could be used in CAS/FAC-A and become a bridge between the clapped-out Classics and the WondaJet, people might be interested.

There is no mention of it here (http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=8ff52357-c5ab-4ae4-8694-ffe3645c4eb9). Rather, it looks as if the Navy will transfer some more F/A-18Cs to the Marines. But then, that was before the three-year slip to IOC.

[ex-fast-jets]

Several decades ago, I was on exchange with the USN involved with the AV-8A, AV-8C and AV-8B programs - note the spelling of programmes!!

Many of the USMC folk at NAVAIR were focussed (blinkered??) by financial considerations, and were not receptive to suggestions of the right way to bring modern - as it was then - technology to the cockpit. By then, I had also flown the Jaguar and the A-7 which were very different from our old GR1/3, and I was astonished at their resistance.

But as with most Marines, their heart - and soul - was with the Corps, and although subordinate in many ways to the USN, they wanted and needed their own air arm, and would do nothing to jeopardise that essential operational need.

So it was a real game of politics, even then. Inter-service politics. We all know how that plays. And probably little has changed.

The F-18 is clearly a great machine. But if they can engineer a way to use our regrettably unwanted GR9/9As to supplement their AV-8B fleet, then I am sure they will do so - as long as they meet the need to support the marines on the ground.

Politics will be at play here - as will financial considerations.

But with delays to the F-35, the need to provide effective organic air support for the grunts on the ground will be the driving force.

I hope they do stand up a couple of squadrons of AV-9As - or whatever they call them.

As to supporting them - we are still allies - aren't we??

[APG63]

Whenever you sell a car to someone, do you take this much interest in what they do with it?

[NutLoose]

One wonders if there was anything written into the sales contract preventing further use... Knowing UK plc though, it probably says we would fund it.

[John Farley]

Thanks chaps.

All I asked was whether anybody had any reliable information on the topic.

The answer seems to be a simple no.

JF

[Lonewolf_50]

Bomber, the designation would more likely be AV-8D, if that option were chosen.

Note: In the next 3 years, you won't see an increase in the number of pilots, nor aircraft, in the USMC inventory. Why adding two squadrons to current authorized force levels is envisioned by any of you puzzles me.

America may not be gutting our forces at the rate the UK has been of late, but the next five years of retraction in size will proceed apace, because the political will to maintain the current size of the force quite simply isn't there. The Marines will be winners if they are able to maintain force levels at current size, since the other three services are programmed to shrink a bit. The question is: how much?

[glojo]

If there are a number of worn out F-18 aircraft then why not move them all into one squadron, scrap them and then replace the scrapped aircraft with the Harrier? No new squadron, no additional aircraft numbers, just replacing worn out aircraft, with low mileage, refurbished fighters.

I am certainly NOT suggesting this will happen, but is it a possibility?

[John Farley]

Not sure anybody is suggesting adding aircraft or pilots only replacing existing aircraft with younger ones that have more modern kit.

[Finnpog]

Here is a recent link suggesting that with the GR9s broken into spares, that the Corps' Harriers can serve until 2030. Oh, the obselesence of the Harrier.

http://defensetech.org/2012/04/16/usmcs-harriers-could-fly-until-2030/

[GreenKnight121]

Yep... F-35B (and a handful of F-35C) will replace all the USMC Hornets first, and then replace the AV-8B/B+.

It would be nice if the USN would buy enough F/A-18E/F/G and F-35C to be able to fully stock its carriers without borrowing USMC squadrons (and thus preventing those aircraft, bought, maintained, and flown by Marines from filling USMC tasking needs).

[LowObservable]

Bought by the Marines?

They will be bought (designed, manufactured, upgraded, depot-maintained and supplied with spares and crew training through-life) by the US taxpayer, via the same Department of the Navy budget as every other DoN aviation asset, including the AV-8 and MV-22.

The DoN and the command chain above it therefore has the duty and right to decide where the aircraft go, and what they do. If that involves putting Marine-crewed/badged CV aircraft on CV decks, so be it.

[GreenKnight121]

The USN and USMC have separate sub-budgets within NavAir, and the issue of training, support, and maintenance means that the USMC having a 2-type fleet burns more of that taxpayer money than if those F-35C squadrons were on Navy bases using Navy personnel, maintenance facilities, etc.

This is because the USN and USMC for the most part don't "live" on the same bases, so you are having to duplicate any F-35C-specific support, maintenance, and training on a USMC base... instead of just parking those squadrons on a couple of Navy F-35C bases.

You also have to have extra intermediate-level Marine maintainers trained for any F-35C-specific things, as USMC and USN maintenance are separate at both the squadron and intermediate levels.

Marine aircraft maintainers all go through USMC basic & primary infantry training before going to their MOS-specific schools... this adds more cost to their training compared to USN maintainers who don't get that combat training.

Therefore, keeping a few USMC squadrons permanently assigned to USN taskings and uses does spend more money (all from the allocated USMC share) than if those squadrons were moved to the USN in fact.

Also, those F-35C-tasked Marines count towards the manpower cap numbers Congress places on the USMC.

[Lonewolf_50]

Not sure anybody is suggesting adding aircraft or pilots only replacing existing aircraft with younger ones that have more modern kit.
John:

More modern kit.

I appreciate that fatigue life on "younger aircraft" is an attractive feature. No question.

The remainder of the kit, be it "more modern" or not, if it isn't in current configuration represents a cost (of non trivial scope) to ingest into the system.

We shall see.

I'd need to do a side by side, system by system analysis to see what "kit" (considering the usual Airframes and Avionics changes/upgrades that the Harrier fleet undergoes during its service life) represents an upgrade, or simply a change.

[TBM-Legend]

USMC :ok:

RAF:mad:

Uncle Sam knows a deal when he sees one, poor old John Bull got lost in the fog it seems....

[Finnpog]

I know that it must be a library photo...but the one in thsi article did make my eyes pop initially.

Yuma hosts first flight for new aerial electronic warfare system | StratRisks (http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/5281)

[Davef68]

Bomber, the designation would more likely be AV-8D, if that option were chosen.



Already used, albeit briefly, as the designation for the Night Attack AV-8B

[TBM-Legend]

Why whinge it was your pollies getting their fishnet stockings in a twist that caused this debacle. Looks to me like the RN/RAF still need a bridging capability [which you had] to move into the next round of CV ops. Bit like the "let's have no MPA aircraft" for a while because we don't need them!

For a maritime [once] nation it looks like the Lordships have dropped the port bottle once to often.

[Lonewolf_50]

Davef:

Are you suggesting that the AV-8B was not able to attack at night? :confused:

Could you elaborate on your post a bit?

EDIT: never mind, went back and looked at program history, I see what you were getting at.

[Davef68]

For everyone else, AV-8D was originally the designation given to those AV-8Bs equippped with FLIR (Usually referred to as B(NA)), there is documentation referring to this. I think they reverted to B for political reasons.(i.e. not a new type)