Originally Posted by
The B Word
Yes, spot on. Many don’t realise that Sea Harrier crumbled from within. The lack of support for it, the dwindling numbers of airframes and people (pilots and techies) all led to its demise. Also, within, the FAA failed to keep the churn of its pilots going and their demographic turned into another factor where they simply hadn’t refreshed their cadre with younger bods. The move to Joint Force Harrier was inevitable in the end.
Then the big affordability questions of SDSR10 sealed the fates of the GR9 and the “through deck cruisers”. Neither of the Services could afford either and so made the decision to scrap both to maintain other capabilities, knowing that QE/POW and F35 was coming and was going to need that money.
Of course there were howls of anguish by the VSTOL bearded aviator community. Blaming so-called “Crab Air”, but actually in reality the fleet had rotted from the inside out and the final chop was a purely financial decision to protect the new boats and the Gen 5 fighters that would fly from them. Even then, the vertical take off and landing loons had their way by insisting on the most inferior of the 3 variants in the F35B - so yet again, they committed one last act of self-frag that we live with today. Everyone knows that the C model with cats and traps was the choice of champions, but that decision too hangs around the necks of the SHar/Har gang.
PS. Also, to add, that the more capable C is “buy 15 and get one free”, compared to the B too…
So true. The decision to buy the B model (and not enough of them) was a flawed decision. Personally, I would have gone for the most capable A model for the RAF, and let the RN fight over whether they wanted B or C. Sure, two C model carriers would have been more expensive, but cat and traps affords so much more capability as a fighting force than a pair of boats that can't embark any meaningful integrated capability. But, at the end of the day, it came down to money, in-fighting and politics.