airship is aware of various "expressions of general interest" from individuals and companies in the acquisition of ex. RN Harrier jets and the continued employment of former pilots and/or ground-support personnel with a view to civilian (GA) operations.
The individuals and/or companies concerned are basically those described in this Economist article of 20/01/2011 consisting of the world's richest individuals and income distribution in Pharoahanic terms:
Quote:
At the apex of the pyramid there are 81,000 people with assets of more than $50m. Of these, some 30,000 have more than $100m and 2,800 have more than $500m. Nestled into the sharp tip at the top, Credit Suisse reckons there are about 1,000 dollar billionaires.
airship is pretty sure that the 30,000 individuals with assets of more than $100m together with the other 2,800 individuals with more than $500m represent a viable market. Many of these individuals already possess at least access to, if not their own executive jet. A small yet significant minority might also consider the acquisition of a Harrier VTOL aircraft, able to fly from Moscow and landing on a roof-top in London worth the cost compared to having to transfer from a Gulfstream IV to helicopter at both ends. And how else to join your guests aboard your 100m+ superyacht at sea in the Med...?
So possibly, a very feasable solution to a very sad situation for HM forces and Royal Navy. But which involves rapid certification, delivery and entry into service together with full ground-based support of existing 2-seat variants, able to conform with all current legislation for T/O and landings from city-centre airports in Europe and VTOL operations at existing helipads on high-rise buildings (subject to max. weights etc.) Depending on demand, there may be future possibilities for conversion of remaining single-seat aircraft.
If you're a prospective vendor of Harrier jets and/or support services, please feel free to PM or email airship with your bids, accompanied by a non-refundable €2,500 to cover documentation costs.
Following on from blue up's post, here's a photo of SAC's B-52s "swarming" outside the Russkies' airspace, ready to deliver the mutually-destructive 2nd strike:
More seriously, has the Harrier ever really proved itself in actual combat? The Falklands War springs to mind. But I'm pretty sure that the UK would have been better-off having "proper" aircraft-carriers equipped with "proper aircraft" (fighters / bombers) etc.
Always surprised me that the Swiss air force never acquired Harriers too. You might have thought that VTOL aircraft would have been a bonus in that nation's defence of their mountanious state. But they nevertheless decided to have "top-of-the-line" Dassault Mirage aircraft using discreet straight sections of existing roads instead.
Unfortunetly, my own personal belief is that any "true advantages" of Harriers were the figment of the imagination of some BAE design department, submitted to some UK MOD department, later acquiring MOD approval. And it would not surprise me in the least if any former MOD personnel (or cabinet minister, other elected / merely appointed government official etc.) were later on (after retirement or demission etc.) to be found working for BAE in some form or other afterwards.
The French today have a "proper aircraft-carrier" Charles de Gaulle, operating "proper aircraft". The 2 new UK carriers in new-building (1 of which will never actually enter into RN service apparently but is destined to be sold or otherwise disposed of...) are based on the French carrier. Once again, the UK MOD decides on the mediocre acquisition of 2 x "Charles de Gaulle carriers" (sans nuclear propulsion (relying on diesel fuel and all that that entails). Together with US-built VTOL aircraft (BAE must be involved at some stage) which have yet to leave the drawing-board, let alone currently ready to operate from the now (much-diminished) future UK aircraft-carrier/s.
Re-use of existing Harriers in a GA role (which were probably of little or limited military use) over the past few decades might make a refreshing change...?!
they were also deployed in both Gulf wars and in the Balkans.
But as G-CPTN suggests, just how really "useful" were they?
[Disclaimer: it's not my intention to attack or otherwise bring into disrepute the actions or inactions of serving or former service personnel...]
At most, all I'm attempting to do is to suggest economically-viable and perhaps useful solutions to mostly wholly-inefficient, and/or corrupt governmental military-spending.
The Spitfire first flew in 1938. Over 72 years ago. Now, that was a useful aircraft.
The Spitfire first flew in 1938. Over 72 years ago. Now, that was a useful aircraft.
However the last Spit off the line was a completely different creature to the first. Who knows how the Harrier might have turned out if more developement energy had been put into it.
Considerably more useful than anything that didn't exist, we didn't have or wasn't there.
With 20/20 hindsight and excepting ship-based sorties, we would have probably been better off with A-10s for time on station and firepower in the conflicts in which the Harrier has been used. Having said that, who will ever know how many Eastern Bloc battle planners had to include scenarios in which they had destroyed every runway and long straight piece of road, but still had to allow for Harriers hitting back?
It would be interesting to see figures comparing take off and landing losses for ship launched Harriers compared to catapult/arrested aircraft. My guess is that proportionally a lot more of the latter have been lost.
who will ever know how many Eastern Bloc battle planners had to include scenarios in which they had destroyed every runway and long straight piece of road, but still had to allow for Harriers hitting back?
One torpedo or mine strike on the 'Charles de Gaulle' and you've lost your Mirages, but, you could (in theory) still run your Harrier from the deck of a ferryboat or cargo ship.
I know someone parked a Harrier on a cargo ship before, but has one ever been tried on a smaller tub like a Frigate?
Not a lot of options in mid-ocean once the floating carpark has gone down or been mislaid.
you could (in theory) still run your Harrier from the deck of a ferryboat or cargo ship
You wouldn't be able to haul much usable fuel or weapons if it were restricted to vertical take-off. Sandy Woodward stated that it would have been game over if one of his carriers had been hit (that is until Maggie nuked Buenos Aires).
The Tornado hasn't really proven itself in combat either. It didn't exactly come out of GW1 with flying colours, in GW2 it was just making up the numbers, and in Afghanistan its just a bomb truck like anything else.
I take Airship's point, ultimately the Harrier was a bit of a dead end not really as useful as other fighter/attack aircraft we could mention. But that is to ignore the context of it's development which was in the height of the Cold War when it was expected that conventional airfields would be knocked out early in any Soviet controntation. That was when the Harrier would come into it's own with it's ability to operate from dispersed sites.
But of course that role never materialised so it became a bit of a fish out of water. Add that to the fact that VTOL aircraft never really developed in the way people thought they would be, with the exception of the F35B, which of course the RAF/RN lost faith in recently. The F35 is a good example of how a VTOL aircraft is always comprised compared to it's more conventional cousins.
So the Harrier, classic aircraft that it is never really fulfilled it's potential. Apart from in the Falklands of course. But I think everyone agrees that a conventional carrier would have done more good even to the point where the Argentians wouldn't even have considered the invasion in the first place.
[/IMG]
